Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumThirty one countries adopt working definition of antisemitism
The Jew haters & members of the Hamas fan club won't like being reminded that they're spewing antisemitic hate speech....
Sir Eric Pickles, UK Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues and Head of the UK delegation to the IHRA said: "I am delighted that IHRA has adopted, by consensus, this working definition of antisemitism, and I particularly congratulate our chairman Mihnea Constantinescu from Romania for his leadership on this issue. With this definition agreed by 31 countries, we can step up our efforts in the fight against antisemitism internationally."
IHRA Chair, Ambassador Mihnea Constantinescu said: “By adopting this working definition, the IHRA is setting an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and hopes to inspire them also to take action on a legally binding working definition.”
The decision was made at the IHRA’s first bi-annual plenary meeting in Bucharest this May, where around 200 experts and policymakers from all over the world met to discuss the Holocaust as a contemporary political issue. The committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial, chaired by Mark Weitzman, proposed the adoption of a definition. Mr Weitzman said: “In order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism actually is. This is not a simple question. The adopted working definition helps provide guidance in answer to this challenging question.”
http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/158782/thirty-one-countries-adopt-working-definition-antisemitism
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)Link can be found with this article:
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/media-room/stories/working-definition-antisemitism
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish
collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be
regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it
is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms
and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the
religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology
or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such
or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a
world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other
societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a
single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the
Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices
during World War II (the Holocaust).
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred
toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed
toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish
community institutions and religious facilities.”
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews
worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence
of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other
democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing
Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
msongs
(67,394 posts)anti-palestinian as well.
shira
(30,109 posts)Every dictionary states the same thing.
Has nothing to do with non-Jewish semites.
When you can find one DICTIONARY definition of antisemitism as YOU are defining it, let me know.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)we can just call HAJ for Hatefully Anti-Jewish. Would that be better?
shira
(30,109 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)The haters invented the term anti-Semitism because they didn't like being called Jew haters.
shira
(30,109 posts)Includes USA, UK, Australia, Canada....
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/member-countries
shira
(30,109 posts)Permanent International Partners are international organizations with the status of observers to the IHRA. Permanent International Partners actively participate in the meetings of the Working Groups.
The IHRA has seven Permanent International Partners: United Nations, UNESCO, OSCE/ODIHR, International Tracing Service (ITS), European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Council of Europe, and the Claims Conference.
Tony_FLADEM
(3,023 posts)Is there a definition of what makes someone a Jew in an ethnic sense to apply this definition of antisemitism to?
aranthus
(3,385 posts)If your mother was Jewish, or if you convert to Judaism, then you are a Jew. In Reform Judaism, descent can also be patrilineal.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Interestingly, every instance of my "anti-Semitism" has to do with me criticizing Israeli policies or persons supporting those policies. I've never expressed Jew-hatred or dislike, which I thought (and still think) was the definition of anti-Semitism.
I really hope that IHRA rescinds its bogus definition of anti-Semitism and adopts a new one that only defines Jew-hatred as anti-Semitism.
In the meantime, I'll just continue to post my "anti-Semitic" arguments here on DU...
shira
(30,109 posts)And Jews get to define what's hateful against them.
Just like all other ethnicities, nationalities, or races.
No double standards.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)would adopt another definition that is just as bad.
EU drops its ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism
Source: Times of Israel, December 5, 2013
http://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-drops-its-working-definition-of-anti-semitism/
I have a definite suspicion that pro-Israel trolls have been working overtime to float this obviously bogus definition of "anti-Semitism".
shira
(30,109 posts)This is fact, not about "feelings" as to whether some Jewish trolls are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. Talk about bigoted.
The US State Dept. adopted the EU working definition 6 years ago and never dropped it. President Obama already called anti-Zionism and BDS antisemitic. So did Bernie Sanders. All trolls, right?
This working definition is just stating the obvious.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)For me it seems a bit strange that anti-Zionism and BDS would be defined as anti-Semitism.
shira
(30,109 posts)1. The US State Dept. under Obama in 2010 adopted the EU working definition which you despise.
2.
Obama: You know, I think a good baseline is: Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire? And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/obama-interview-iran-isis-israel/393782/#Israel
3.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)From notorious Israel hater Richard Silverstein:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/obama-administration-anti-semitism-czar-defines-anti-zionism-jew-hatred/215258/
shira
(30,109 posts)The US encouraged governments to adopt a working definition of antisemitism while condemning the conflation of Diaspora Jewry with the State of Israel, during an international forum in Berlin this week.
Speaking at the third Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism in Berlin on Tuesday, State Department Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Ira Forman welcomed the European Commission’s recent move to appoint its first coordinator on combating Antisemitism and called upon individual member states to follow the continental body’s example.
Explaining that Antisemitism is “evolving into new, contemporary forms of hatred, racism, and political, social, and cultural discrimination against Jews,” Forman lamented that “one virulent aspect is... conflating Jewish communities with Israel, using criticism of Israel as a pretext for Antisemitism.”
Citing several occasions in which apparently Antisemitic incidents were downplayed as being merely anti-Israel, including the scrawling of swastikas in Sweden and the firebombing of a synagogue in Germany, Forman said that it is vital to “define Antisemitism clearly to more effectively combat it.”
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)But perhaps a definition of anti-Semitism is needed, there are a lot of people conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
I can help them with a definition:
Anti-Semitism is racism against Jews
or
Anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:29 AM - Edit history (1)
That you think it could be only anti-Israel, without it being ridiculously antisemitic in a neo-nazi way (which it is) shows you have no idea what you're writing about.
or
Anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews
Sure, sure. You know it when you see it. I've asked before but you're incapable of providing clear examples of this racism and antipathy towards Jews. I asked for examples. Where are they? What does this racism and antipathy against Jews look like? There should be plenty of examples and yet you provide none.
Besides firebombing synagogues, you've also defended Hamas' terror against Jews - stating that it's possible Hamas attacks on Jews is not antisemitic, despite what's written in their vile charter about wanting all Jews dead.
You don't know racism and antipathy against Jews even when it's right in front of your face. And that's the problem with your definition. Who's to say what is racist or what is anti-Jewish antipathy? You?
Your narrow view of antisemitism allows for actual Nazis of the WW2 era going about their business doing what they did so long as they claimed that what they were doing was anti-Israel, a rational act due to Zionism. How am I wrong?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)No doubt about that.
However, the article you provided includes an accusation that "someone" doesn't consider it to be an anti-Semitic act, but doesn't mention who. I just objected to the accusation being too vague.
shira
(30,109 posts)Why?
How is it you now see firebombing synagogues as antisemitic but not last year?
What changed?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It's absolutely impossible that I would say that bombing a synagogue was not anti-Semitic - it's one of those things that display anti-Semitic intent by default unless proven otherwise. I do remember though that the bombing of the Swedish Synagogue didn't really involve a bomb, but rather firecrackers. It's possible that you interpreted my pointing out the minute scale of destruction as some kind of belittling of the event.
shira
(30,109 posts)....in which you concluded nothing from that thread - nothing from Atzmon - led you to believe he was antisemitic.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134109148#post43
There it is.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)It is surprising though that you're no longer even trying to deny it. Every time I think that DU can't sink any lower...
shira
(30,109 posts)Some kind of voodoo (or is that joodoo) mind control over 31 liberal democratic nations, proving the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true!
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)the haters just can't help themselves
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel.
But I do, because I have nothing in common with actual anti-Semites (people who don't like Jews, if you even know what that means) and by including legitimate forms of criticism in the definition, there will be by definition legitimate forms of anti-Semitism. I don't want that - no form of anti-Semitism should be legitimate, because if some forms of anti-Semitism are legitimate, then the rest could be too...
This new definition promotes anti-Semitism, IMHO.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)You're wrong.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Snark.
shira
(30,109 posts)I provided you many clear examples of Atzmon's blatantly obvious antisemitism...all of which you denied.
I posted this previously to you and you were unfazed.
Anti-Semitism
Many of Atzmon's writings are infected with blatant anti-Semitism. He legitimizes anti-Semitic rhetoric (and even crimes) as rational responses to Zionism
In an August 2009 article about an attack on a gay center in Tel Aviv, Atzmon alleged that democracy and tolerance are "foreign to the spirit of Jewishness." He also explained the attack as emblematic of the Israelis' "murderous lethal tactics" and charged that "the Jewish state…is one of the least tolerant places on this planet. It is fuelled by hatred towards others and Otherness."
During an address at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London in 2005, Atzmon went so far as to legitimize hate crimes against Jews, saying, "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act."
Atzmon authored an article titled "On Anti-Semitism" in 2003 that remains his most virulently anti-Semitic piece to date. In the article, Atzmon alleged that "Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus" and that Jewish outrage in response to the deicide charge only served to further prove their accountability. He also argued that anti-Semitic acts and attitudes are "political responses" to Zionism and cannot be interpreted as racially motivated or irrational incidents of anti-Semitism.
In the article, he posits that Israel benefits from anti-Semitism because it engenders global support for Israel and that Israel therefore engages in behavior toward Palestinians that will spur anti-Semitic reactions, a phenomenon he calls "the Zionist perpetuum mobile."
Your absurd definition of Jew hatred even blinds you into thinking that it's possible for BDS'ers to support Hamas terror against Jews, even when BDS'ers know Hamas' goal is to kill Jews worldwide. That's neo-nazi style hate and you're blind to it.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)not because of his own statements about Jews, but rather his active support of the anti-Semitic beliefs of other people.
Atzmon is a self-appointed iconoclast and his argumentation is really tricky, so it's easy to mistake his criticism of what he sees as Jewish beliefs for attacks on Jews. I can't say that I agree with him, and there's no real point in his explorations.
What do you think he actually means when he claims that burning down a Synagogue could be seen as a rational act?
Anyway, you're making it difficult for me by bringing up Atzmon, because in order to explain my own view on him, I have to practically defend him - and I don't even like him...
shira
(30,109 posts)I think neo-nazi. What the hell do you think? Inconclusive? Maybe anti-Israel? That's pure insanity.
Now I ask you, what do you think about the claim that burning down a Mosque can be seen as a rational act?
You are defending his hate incitement (burning down a synagogue) right now.
You're defending that. I'm a Jew and so are many of my friends and family. That's an attack on all of us, as surely as stating that democracy and tolerance is foreign to the spirit of Islam (referring to all Muslims). That's the type of incitement and filth you defend.
IOW, antisemitism is the Jews fault and we are deliberately inciting others to attack us. Same attack on Jews as Mahmoud Abbas who claims Zionist Jews allied with Hitler and were therefore responsible for the Holocaust. This is really vile, gutter antisemitism that you refuse to see.
You cannot even see the antisemitic incitement in this. That claim is as bad as stating Muslims are responsible for 911 and terrorism and any Muslim outrage in response to that charge serves as further proof of their accountability. You're deliberately blind to "antipathy and racism against Jews", your very own definition. You have a clear double-standard that allows you to see that very same hate against all other peoples - except Jews. It's THAT double standard - that pinpoint demonization of Jews only that is antisemitic.
QED.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)a rational act by the person doing it. It doesn't mean that Atzmon promotes or defends the act. However, he does attribute what he considers to be bad Jewish attitudes as at least a partial cause for this rationalization. This is problematic, but not anti-Semitic in itself. Discussing causation doesn't always infer appointing blame, but it's always a very thin line between the two. If Atzmon was assigning blame to the Jews, it would be anti-Semitic, but he doesn't.
I disagree with Atzmon, and I find his support for anti-Semites and their anti-Semitic arguments unacceptable. But at least I understand his argumentation, and I know why I disagree with him.
shira
(30,109 posts)Atzmon is rationalizing it. He cannot even say whether it's right or not. That has nothing to do with some other person doing it.
That's indefensible. Without any question, you'd attack that as Islamophobia if directed toward a Mosque. You have a clear double-standard when it comes to racism & antipathy.
You also just "rationalized" all those other examples by Atzmon. I imagine it's so embarrassing that you're not even attempting to defend it. You're conceding the points.
I think I know what's happening here. You feel that if you acknowledge all these examples of Atzmon's antisemitism, then you're attacking the Palestinian anti-Israel cause, since that movement is saturated with these vile claims. Understand that puts you in the ridiculous position of defending everything - every vile claim - and that's why BDS will never become mainstream.
shira
(30,109 posts)Here's Atzmon denying the holocaust, as well as praising and distributing the work of holocaust deniers:
http://ukmediawatch.org/2015/03/10/a-brief-intro-to-gilad-atzmons-holocaust-denial-aka-george-galloways-pillow-talk/
At the end of that article, you'll see Atzmon arguing that the holocaust was a response to the Jews' declaration of war against Germany.
===============
Here's the ADL on Atzmon:
Gilad Atzmon engages in Holocaust diminution. He uses language and references that are appealing to, and have been cited by, some of the world's best known Holocaust deniers, including David Duke and Ernst Zundel, who claimed that Atzmon had described the Holocaust as a "forgery."
He defends the right of Holocaust deniers to challenge historical narratives and offer revisionist theories and has circulated and quoted from the works of Paul Eisen, a British Holocaust denier who claims that the "Holocaust narrative and its enforcement are major arms of Jewish or Zionist power."
In his most recent book, The Wandering Who, Atzmon envisions a scenario where Israel pre-emptively strikes Iran and the result is an all-out war. He then writes, "I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that [font color = "red"]'Hitler might have been right after all[/font].'"
shira
(30,109 posts)....and his Holocaust Denial. Here's a whole thread on it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134115834#post33
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)that Abbas considers the Jews guilty for their own genocide doesn't hold water."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134115834#post32
'nuff said...
shira
(30,109 posts)He still blames Jews for it and downplays the number of Jews killed. Never once has he renounced that.
WTF are you defending?
Interestingly enough, Gilad Atzmon also denies the Holocaust in his own words - and you couldn't see the clear antisemitism in that either.
You're defending Holocaust Deniers.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: New York Times, APRIL 26, 2014
The statement, which grew out of a meeting a week ago between Mr. Abbas and an American rabbi who promotes understanding between Muslims and Jews, is the first such offering of condolences by the Palestinian leader.
Mr. Abbas has been vilified as a Holocaust denier because in his doctoral dissertation, published as a book in 1983, he challenged the number of Jewish victims and argued that Zionists had collaborated with Nazis to propel more people to what would become Israel. A senior Israeli minister, incensed at quotations from Hitler highlighted on Facebook pages affiliated with the Palestinian Authority, denounced Mr. Abbas earlier this year as “the most anti-Semitic leader in the world” at a conference in Tel Aviv.
Mr. Abbas had already backtracked from the book, saying in a 2011 interview that he did “not deny the Holocaust” and that he had “heard from the Israelis that there were six million” victims, adding, “I can accept that.”
But the statement published in English and Arabic on Sunday morning by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency, goes further, describing the Holocaust as “a reflection of the concept of ethnic discrimination and racism, which the Palestinians strongly reject and act against.”
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-shifts-on-holocaust.html?_r=0
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:26 AM - Edit history (2)
....for the Holocaust. That's gross and it's anti-semitic, even if one wants to argue that it's not exactly Holocaust Denial.
David Irving and Ernst Zundel say the same things. Everyone agrees they're antisemites, but Abbas gets away with it because you support his anti-Israel views.
===================
ETA:
I wrote in detail about the Holocaust and said I did not want to discuss numbers. I quoted an argument between historians in which various numbers of casualties were mentioned. One wrote there were twelve million victims and another wrote there were 800,000. I have no desire to argue with the figures. The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it.[11]
That was 2003, saying the same thing as the NYT reported in 2014. But did his views on the Holocaust moderate? Here he is in November 2014, peddling his Holocaust Denial Books....
But more thorough research, conducted in the past six months by Dr. Edy Cohen, a research fellow at the center for international media at Bar-Ilan University, found that there is a wide gap between the more or less clear-cut statements Abbas makes, declares and publishes in English, and the things he writes in Arabic and that are published by the Palestinian Authority and appear on his personal website.
The fact the books were recently reprinted with funding from the Palestinian Authority and are recommended on the PA president's official website, negates the claims made by Abbas and his associates several times that this is just a thesis paper released over 30 years ago.
So perhaps it is true that Abbas, as he testifies about himself, does indeed believe the Holocaust was a heinous crime against humanity, but his writing, that are still being printed, twist and distort the historical reality, as experts note.
You're bending over backwards to defend Holocaust Deniers with these mental gymnastics you're displaying here. A little self-reflection is needed.
shira
(30,109 posts)Abbas is a dictator who controls the PA and W.Bank media, schools, government institutions, etc.
There's constant media incitement to attack Jews, praise martyrs, reward/pay families of terrorists.
I'd say that's worse than Holocaust Denial.
How about you?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Your own method of determining doesn't work.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)If it's not racist, it can't be anti-Semitic, IMHO. This is where we differ - you want to include things that aren't racist in the definition of anti-Semitism. There's a very clear distinction between our arguments and how they differ, which is good. You haven't convinced me that the traditional definition of anti-Semitism needs to be widened.
shira
(30,109 posts)What do you mean....do you have examples?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Accusing Israel of being a racist endeavour is legitimate criticism of Israel, but it's included as an example of anti-Semitism.
Accusing Netanyahu of exagerating the Holocaust is legitimate criticism of Netanyahu, but it's included as an example of anti-Semitism.
Accusing Israel of targeting civilians in Gaza is legitimate criticism of Israel, but it's included as an example of anti-Semitism (blood libel).
Accusing the IHRA of being pro-Israel trolls is legitimate criticism of a pro-Israel group, but you call it "joodoo", and it's included as an example of anti-Semitism.
The IHRA definition is idiotic and should be removed.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's accusing Zionism of being a racist endeavor. When only the Jews are being singled out for their allegedly racist nationalism (equal rights for Jews as a nation) and when only the Jewish state needs to go due to being like all other nations....you know damned well that's antisemitic. Used against any other people or ethnicity, I challenge you to argue with a straight face nothing is wrong with that.
Huh? Who said that? Show me.
Lies are not legitimate criticism of Israel. Lies that incite - and that's one you know incites hatred towards Jews - is antisemitic.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has a definition of antisemitism that probably 9/10 Jews would agree with, and which 31 western liberal democracies all agree with, but the IHRA are the trolls? They represent mainstream Jewish and Liberal views WRT antisemitism that nearly all Jews would agree with. In effect (not necessarily intent) you think the vast majority of Jews are all wrong about antisemitism & that Jews should not be able to define it. That we're so pro-Israel, we make up shit for political purposes. That's one helluva conspiracy theory.
Which other organizations committed to fighting racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia - other than IHRA and every other Jewish group like the ADL or SWC - have you ever accused of being trolls? It's just the Jews who cannot be trusted to define antisemitism, correct? That's how I'm reading you. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: Haaretz, Oct 21, 2015
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Tuesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler's mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.
In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: "Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If you expel them, they'll all come here (to Palestine).' According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: "What should I do with them?" and the mufti replied: "Burn them."
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525
The Prime Minister of Israel is a Holocaust revisionist and a Hitler apologist, and I would classify that accusation as being included under the item: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust."
shira
(30,109 posts)You made that up.
That's a reach.
I want you to find just one example of any mainstream Jewish organization committed to fighting antisemitism that equates legit criticism of Netanyahu (not lies/demonization) with antisemitism.
shira
(30,109 posts)....as an attack (incitement) against all Palestinians.
Notice anything? You did exactly that which you are accusing the "Trolls" of the IHRA of doing.
Oh, the irony.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)smear against the people represented by that anecdote. As a counter-example, Livingstone, a (former) English Labour MP recently brought up Jewish collaboration with the Nazis when defending criticism of Israel - which would be a clear example of an anti-Semitic argument. The way I understand your argumentation, you seem to think that what Netanyahu did nothing wrong, but what Livingstone did was wrong. I think both were wrong, and that's where we seem to differ.
MP Naz Shah suspended from Labour (Apr 27, 2016)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134127592
Labour anti-Semitism scandal deepens: Ken Livingstone now claims Hitler was a Zionist (Apr 28, 2016)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141430901
In spiraling anti-Semitism row, Labour suspends Livingstone for saying Hitler backed Zionism
Source: Times of Israel, April 28, 2016
(snip)
Defending Shah, Livingstone said: “She’s a deep critic of Israel and its policies. Her remarks were over the top but she’s not anti-Semitic. I’ve been in the Labour Party for 47 years; I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the State of Israel and its abuse of Palestinians but I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic.It’s completely over the top but it’s not anti-Semitic.”
Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-spiraling-anti-semitism-row-labour-suspends-livingstone-for-saying-hitler-backed-zionism/
Note: My linking to the DU threads above is intended to show the equivalency between the argumentation of Netanyahu and Livingstone, that is, these historical anecdotes are used to smear people in a contemporary context.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)
...is an attack on all Palestinians. That's how you view criticism of Hamas and Fatah as well, as if that's also criticism of all Palestinians. You conflate all Palestinians with their leaders when those leaders have been their main oppressors (in Gaza & the W.Bank, gays, women, child militants). Not even "pro-Zionist trolls" do what you're attempting here with critics of Netanyahu. Legit criticism of Bibi is legit, period. You agree with that, but don't believe in legit criticism of Palestinian leadership.
As to Jewish collaboration with Nazis, that's a complete distortion & it's deliberate. Jews desperate to make a deal with Hitler in order to SAVE thousands of Jewish lives (a deal that would transfer them from Europe to Palestine) is not collaboration with Nazis anymore than the parents of a kidnapped child striking a deal with the bad guys in order to secure the child's release. The Mufti collaborated with the Nazis & worked to accelerate the killing of Jews. Jews trying to save 10's of thousands of other Jews were not collaborators & those who can't see the difference between a real Nazi collaborator (like the Mufti) and those trying to save Jews are pure antisemites.
Livingstone deliberately lied about Hitler being a Zionist (he was the opposite) in order to smear all Zionists & that couldn't be more obvious.
As to Bibi, he clarified his statements days later:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/world/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/
The SWC said Bibi went too far, but that he was right about the Mufti's collaboration with Hitler:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/the_truth_about_jerusalems_grand_mufti_hitler_and_the_holocaust
ETA:
Here's a link to Eichmann's trial. You'll see how the Mufti was against Jewish immigration to Palestine.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-063-06.html
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Revisionism is the lie that the Holocaust either didn't happen or was vastly overstated. Bibi obviously is no Revisionist. As for him being a Hitler apologist, that is one with your other "opinions". False, unsubstantiated, and hateful.
Yes, Bibi stretched the truth in order to target the Mufti (who is totally deserving of attack). But using that to further your own untenable position is just pathetic.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)else is a form of Holocaust revisionism.
I think it has been historically established beyond any doubt that the Nazis were responsible for killing over 6 million Jews. Neither Zundel nor Netanyahu can make me believe otherwise.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Your claim is specious.
shira
(30,109 posts)November 28, 1941 was the date the Mufti met with Hitler:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mufti2.html
November 29, 1941 invites to Wannsee (where the Final Solution was discussed):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference#Planning_the_conference
Combined with Dieter Wiscleny's Nuremberg testimony (which is contested)....
In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann's best friends and has constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber in Auschwitz."
LINK TO NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
...it's easy to see where Netanyahu got his information.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)unsubstantiated sources...
If Netanyahu thinks Hitler deserves so much sympathy that he's prepared to make things up, that's really up to him...
shira
(30,109 posts)It's a fact that 1 day after the Mufti met with Hitler, invites were sent out for the Wannsee Conference where the Final Solution was presented.
Dieter Wisliceny's Nuremberg testimony is also fact. It's called into question, but it's on record.
I just provided several links to Netanyahu's clarification and you're still rolling with that utter bullshit.
Why?
shira
(30,109 posts)But don't let this stop you from continuing with the false claims....
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/world/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/
"Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution. The Nazis decided on that by themselves," the post on Netanyahu's Facebook page reads.
In no way did I intend to absolve Hitler of his responsibility for the Holocaust," Netanyahu said. "The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence. The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941."
Netanyahu said Husseini supported "the Nazi goal of destroying the Jews."
"He conducted his activities from Berlin during the war, disseminated virulent anti-Semitic propaganda on behalf the Nazis, recruited Muslims to the SS, demanded that after conquering the Middle East the Nazis destroy the Jewish national home and vigorously opposed the emigration of Jews -- even children -- from the Nazi inferno, knowing full well that this would seal their fate," Netanyahu said.
"My remarks were intended to illustrate the murderous approach of the Mufti to the Jews in his lengthy contacts with the Nazi leadership. Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution. The Nazis decided on that by themselves.
"The interpretation of my remarks as though I absolved the Nazis of even one ounce of responsibility for the Holocaust is absurd," Netanyahu said.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Netanyahu had to insist that his historical "facts" were right anyway - just like Livingstone did.
Netanyahu's retraction is no better than Livingstone's.
shira
(30,109 posts)....even though his retraction has proven to be false & he's still a denier.
shira
(30,109 posts)http://socialistworker.org/2010/07/15/no-place-for-atzmon-at-sw
Electronic Intifada
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/palestinian-writers-activists-disavow-racism-anti-semitism-gilad-atzmon
Tony Greenstein
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2016/04/gilad-atzmon-comes-out-now-open-anti.html
http://www.marxists.de/racism/antisemitism/counterpunch.htm
Study these.
You'll find arguments within the articles that hue to the EUMC definition, which you reject. The 3 authors above are not "Zionist Trolls" or shills. They are big BDS advocates. They're giant assholes (and without question Jew haters) but even they have red lines.
shira
(30,109 posts)Ali Abunimah, Socialist Worker, Tony Greenstein.
Look at the reasons why they accuse him of antisemitism.
Do you disagree with them too? I'm curious.
