Let’s see the 'criticism' of Israel for what it really is

[Mosby]

I was once in Melbourne when bush fires were raging 20 or 30 miles north of the city. Even from that distance you could smell the burning. Fine fragments of ash, like slivers of charcoal confetti, covered the pavements. The very air was charred. It has been the same here these past couple of months with the fighting in Gaza. Only the air has been charred not with devastation but with hatred. And I don’t mean the hatred of the warring parties for each other. I mean the hatred of Israel expressed in our streets, on our campuses, in our newspapers, on our radios and televisions, and now in our theatres.

A discriminatory, over-and-above hatred, inexplicable in its hysteria and virulence whatever justification is adduced for it; an unreasoning, deranged and as far as I can see irreversible revulsion that is poisoning everything we are supposed to believe in here – the free exchange of opinions, the clear-headedness of thinkers and teachers, the fine tracery of social interdependence we call community relations, modernity of outlook, tolerance, truth. You can taste the toxins on your tongue.

But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism. It is, I am assured, “criticism” of Israel, pure and simple. In the matter of Israel and the Palestinians this country has been heading towards a dictatorship of the one-minded for a long time; we seem now to have attained it. Deviate a fraction of a moral millimetre from the prevailing othodoxy and you are either not listened to or you are jeered at and abused, your reading of history trashed, your humanity itself called into question. I don’t say that self-pityingly. As always with dictatorships of the mind, the worst harmed are not the ones not listened to, but the ones not listening. So leave them to it, has essentially been my philosophy. A life spent singing anti-Zionist carols in the company of Ken Livingstone and George Galloway is its own punishment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-letrsquos-see-the-criticism-of-israel-for-what-it-really-is-1624827.html

[lxlxlxl]

1. A country founded on principles of race, homeland, and inheritance will elevate race

How are you supposed to eradicate race and the poisonous anti-rational rhetoric of race from a state created on those principles? You can't. That is the consequence. What point is there in relishing in the epiphenomena of something poorly executed.

[Mosby]

3. Zionism is a type of nationalism

Race has nothing to do with it.

[wtmusic]

6. Specifically, an exclusionary religious nationalism

and a recipe for failure.

[henank]

10. They haven't failed yet.

In fact Israel is extaordinarily successful so far.

[wtmusic]

21. Define "success". nt

[henank]

23. A thriving democracy

with 7 million inhabitants, a flourishing economy, a highly developed hi-tec sector, a world leader in the sciences, a rich cultural life in several languages, thousands of books published every year, a strong army, a strong society that hasn't cracked under several wars and constant terrorism.

[wtmusic]

24. Typical ethnocentric attitude

Me and mine.

Thanks, but no thanks - not my idea of success, unless you consider the last 8 years in the US "successful". :eyes:

[oberliner]

80. What is your idea of a success?

And which countries would you identify as successful?

[GoesTo11]

33. That's nothing

compared to Syria

[Chulanowa]

66. Of course...

The thriving democracy excludes a fifth of the state's population based on race and revolves around parties promising new ways to degrade that race, the flourishing economy is based in part on land stolen against international law, the highly-developed technology sector depends mostly on expansion rather than innovation, the rich cultural life again excludes a fifth of the population based on race, books critical of the state never see press and their authors are hounded nonstop, the strong army would not exist without the loyal and complete support of another nation, and, well, they live in a constant state of near or active war and perpetual threat of terrorism.

All this based on a claim that a magical cloud-person gave a dude all this land three thousand years ago, in exchange for that dude cutting off his own foreskin.

[Mosby]

68. Since race keeps coming up

Perhaps you could share with me what race are Israelis and what race are the Palestinians?

[Chulanowa]

69. Palestinians are arabs.

As is a fifth of Israel's population.

The Israelis are all sorts. But the ones running the show are, for the most part, white Europeans.

[Mosby]

71. Yeah, and arabs are caucasian.

the whole notion of race is questionable, which is why it's used less and less in science.


Authors Warn of Inaccuracies and Explore Thorny Issues Concerning the Use and Measurement of Race in Health and Social Science Research As More Is Learned about the Human Genome

http://www.apa.org/releases/race.html

[Chulanowa]

74. Oh, I know that scientifically it's pretty invalid

Especially in "melting pot" areas like the Levant.

But, unfortunately we're talking politics here. And just as unfortunately, "race" has meaning in politics, just like several other scientifically questionable concepts.

if you want to talk the science of human ethnicity, we can do that, sure. Anthropology and its attendant studies such as linguistics, ethnography, and ethnology fascinate me, 'cause I like seeing who went where, did what, developed from where, so on and so forth, and goddamn if Southwest Asia isn't prime grounds for such study.

However, for the moment, we're talking about a situation based in politics where these scientifically specious terms still have a defined meaning. If, in the context of discussing Israel-Palestine, you get confused by the term "Arab", you might want to sit that one out. Just saying.

[oberliner]

72. The Speaker of Knesset is Iraqi and the Deputy Speaker is Druze

They are the two highest ranking individuals in the Israeli parliament.

The Minister of Transportation was born in Iran and the Minister of the Interior was born in Morocco as was the Minister of Immigrant Absorption.

The backgrounds of the members of the cabinet and the Knesset in Israel are quite varied.

[Chulanowa]

75. There goes my American political thinking again

Keeps biting my ass when it coems to Israeli politics. Sorry.

[Shaktimaan]

62. what sort of "exclusionary religious nationalism" are you referring to?

and how exactly is it a recipe for failure?

[iconicgnom]

41. wow, you deny the most fundamental tenets of your own ideology.

Now, that's tells a lot.

[Mosby]

44. What "fundamental tenets" are you referring to?

[iconicgnom]

47. these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist

[oberliner]

51. Nothing about race in that Wikipedia entry

There are people of different races living in Israel, including Jews of different races.

[iconicgnom]

55. Your games are tiresome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew

added on edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

The point of leverage for your little game:
"A Jew ... is a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites or Hebrews of the ancient Middle East. The Jewish people and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, and converts to Judaism have been absorbed into the Jewish community throughout the millennia."

Dicts will give a general synonymous reading for "an Israelite", "a Hebrew", "a Jew" - partial descriptions by language, politics, ethnicity, religion -- indicating e.g. the same "chosen" people (of a quite certain lineage) who entered the land of Israel behind Joshua's armies, the land promised them by God as told in their Holy books written in their language.

from the entry "ethnoreligious":
"The term ethnoreligious (or ethno-religious) refers to an ethnic group of people whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Ethnoreligious communities define their ethnic identity neither exclusively by ancestral heritage nor simply by religious affiliation, but often through a combination of both."

But go on, continue to deny that lineage is a factor.
A refugee in Gaza has no right to return, whereas a Jew in the US does, to the same location in Zionist controlled ME. Even tho' the refugee and her family have lived there for centuries and the Jew in the US has no connection whatsoever, except that assigned by Israel's Zionist authorities.

Go on, continue to deny it.

[oberliner]

59. It's not a game

Firstly, anyone of any race can convert and become Jewish.

Furthermore, there are Jews in Israel who immigrated from Ethiopia, and Jews in Israel who immigrated from Poland, and Jews in Israel who immigrated from Yemen.

It cannot be realistically claimed that they are all members of the same race even though they are all Jewish.

If you want to claim that the right of return policy is unfair then that is one thing, but that is different from your claims about race and racism.

[iconicgnom]

63. "unfair"....

First, from wiki "who is a Jew"

{begin quote} "In traditional Judaism, a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother or who is a convert to Judaism. No other way to recognition is allowed for. As a result, the mere acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not by themselves make a person a Jew. But, conversely, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.

In Jewish law (Halakha), to determine a person's Jewish status (Hebrew: yuhasin) one needs to consider the status of both parents. If both parents are Jewish then their child will also be considered Jewish, and the child takes the status of the father (e.g. as a kohen). If either parent is subject to a disability (eg is a mamzer) then the child is also subject to that disability. If one of the parents is not Jewish, the rule is that the child takes the status of the mother (Kodashim 66b, Shulchan Aruch, EH 4:19). Accordingly, if the mother is Jewish, so is her child; and if she is not Jewish, neither is her child considered Jewish, regardless of the will of the parents, because the test is an objective one. The child can be considered Jewish only by a process of conversion to Judaism, and the child is also freed from any disabilities and special status to which the father may have been subject (eg being a mamzer or kohen) under Jewish law." {end quote}

So yes, Jewishness is a more complex thing than simple race or pedigree can define. But pedigree is certainly an element, and those who play off this complexity to deny that Zionism has a racial element are liars. The right of return policy, coupled with a denial of that right to native Palestinians driven from their land by the new immigrants, isn't just "unfair", it's criminally unjust. It's a racist, apartheid-like politics.

I'm more than happy to discuss these matters, esp. with those of opposing points of view - since that's how I grow and learn. But I can't abide when someone brazenly lies to my face - and it most certainly is a lie to assert that pedigree plays no part in definition, common or legal, of Jewishness for the purpose of Zionist policy e.g. the right to return and related policy.

[Mosby]

64. your kinda all over the place

The wiki quote you excerpted does not sufficiently explain what "traditional judaism" is. It basically consists of two denominations, orthodox and conservative. These two groups make up about 30-35% of world jewry. The other denominations have broader views of who is a jew and the Israel right of return law uses even broader criteria. Regardless, conversion in conservative judaism (say of a child) is a minor formality, consisting of a few prayers. So in traditional judaism who your parents are does matter, but not to the extent that you suggest, especially given the fact that anyone can convert to judaism.

A Palestinian right of return can only be addressed if the Palestinian and Israeli leadership decide to resume negotiations. Given the the two-state scenario is the most likely outcome, the Palestinians will eventually have their own country, I'm not confident that the Israelis would be willing to give Palestinians a right of return to both Palestine and Israel. Seems like that notion somehow misses the point of creating a Palestinian state for the Palestinians.

[iconicgnom]

65. no

[oberliner]

73. Respectfully disagree with your assertions

I don't see where I "brazenly lied to your face" - what I claimed was that Jewish people are of various different races. This is not a lie.

Since you seem to be fond of Wikipedia, take a look at the Law of Return section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return#cite_note-Camera_Convention-16

It has some arguments that respond to your issues about that policy.

[iconicgnom]

78. I'll put it this way

To my mind, these terms "Jew", "Zionist", etc., aren't matters of pure semantics or wordplay - the context of discussion references a legal context within Israeli civil law. Likewise re. matters of Palestinian law, terms are well defined. This terminology shouldn't be source of problems in communicating in this narrow context, in spite of major differences of opinion - because we are talking about state action, state law, and so on.

Whatever someone's private definition of "Jew", or "Zionist", what matters in this context is how Israeli civil law defines "Jew" for purposes of, e.g., aliyah. In that strict sense, matrilineal descent (lineage/pedigree) is sufficient condition, and also some (obscure to me) forms of conversion are sufficient condition. So certainly I grant you your argument, there are subtleties beyond simple racial lineage governing the concept of "Jewish people" - and in fact to be unaware of them is a bit rude.

Now, aliyah is the quintessential state-Zionist policy. I say "state-Zionist" because I want to distinguish from just anyone who might use the term "Zionist" whether well or badly. Your argument isn't Mosby's, which I initially responded to. Mosby's argument was simply this: "Zionism is a type of nationalism. Race has nothing to do with it." Mosby is wrong.

To argue my case I'm going to shift the focus to "nationalism".

There seems to be nationalism and then again, nationalism, and even tho' called the same, they aren't the same. E.g. my Canadian nationality. I was born to it. Anyone born in Canada is a Canadian national. In this sense Canadian national and Canadian citizen are synonyms. This can't be the nationalism that Mosby is indicating. It isn't the case that everyone born in Israel is a Jew, legally according as Israeli law. I understand that 'nationalism' is commonly used in an extended sense such that an "X nationalist" is one devoted to the cause of a tribe or culture X. E.g. Kurdish nationalism may encompass Kurdish people who live in many bordering countries of a region, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey. In this sense, Kurdish nationalism manifests as an aspiration to form a Kurdish nation. But this, too, can't be the nationalism that Mosby is indicating, because Israel already exists. Mosby's "nationalism" seems to be a strange thing.

Suppose a Kurdish nation, "Kurdistan", were created. What if it were the case that not all people born in Kurdistan to citizens of Kurdistan, were considered "Kurds" under Kurdistan law. What if only "Kurds", defined according as some religious law or secular-pedigree, were allowed e.g. a right to return, should they have had to flee a battlezone during the formation of the country. Call this kind of policy "Kurdism". So, as a result of "Kurdist" policy there were some Kurdistan citizens sitting pretty on land that these refugees left vacant. What if as a result of "Kurdist" policy non-Kurds got herded around a bit, e.g. like the Negev Bedouin population. In that case, would it be correct to say that "Kurdism is a form of nationalism. Race has nothing to do with it."? Or would it be more correct to say that such "Kurdism" was nationalism gone wrong, was nationalism devolved to racism.

[Chulanowa]

67. How are those Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews doing, anyway?

Last I heard htey had a pretty rough time in Israel.

[Mosby]

70. No they have a "rough time" in Ethiopia

GONDER, ETHIOPIA // Andebet Yimnu lives in a scruffy and depressing part of this city in north-western Ethiopia.

The buildings are made from corrugated iron and the roads that link them are dusty and unpaved. Unemployed men stand about idly in groups, eyeing strangers warily.

A 23-year-old man with a goatee, Mr Yimnu is an Ethiopian Jew, wearing a skullcap and a small, silver-coloured Star of David around his neck.

He is one of an estimated 10,000 people in Ethiopia who claim Jewish descent and want to move to Israel.

“My family, all of them are living in Israel. My sister, father, mother, grandmother, grandfather are living in Israel, but the government says we are not Jewish Ethiopians here,” he said.

“Here we don’t have a house and we haven’t enough money. In this country we don’t
have enough because of who we are.”

About 85,000 Ethiopian Jews or Beta Israel live in Israel, just one-quarter of whom were born there. The ones who remain in Ethiopia are known as Falasha, or “outsiders”. It is considered a derogatory term.

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090128/FOREIGN/660499166/1002

[Chulanowa]

76. Yes, but how are they doing in Israel?

http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?061110+ethopians

Sadly, reports of racism in Israeli society are increasing. There have been attacks on Ethiopian students in high schools and at a Tel Aviv dance club. The High Court of Justice ordered the government to prepare an affidavit detailing the behavior of an Ashdod school principal accused of abusing and discriminating against Ethiopian students.

Children in Arad were removed from municipal kindergartens because of complaints that there were "too many Ethiopians in the kindergartens." And just seven months after Or Yehuda's mayor refused to allow 40 students from the Ethiopian community to enroll in the city's schools, the same situation is recurring.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2008/10/081013_ethiopian_jews_wt_dm.shtml

The Falash Mura are Ethiopians who claim a deep Jewish lineage.

Over the last three decades, they have gone to Israel in their tens of thousands.

But the Israeli government has announced that the door will soon close with maybe a further 3,000 to be the last accepted. Thousands will miss out.

Nevermind. Found some answers myself.

[oberliner]

79. Your links seem to illustrate the point that "Jewish" is not a race

The first one talks about "racism" in relation to incidents regarding Ethiopian Jews.

This would indicate that the Ethiopian Jews are not of the same race as the non-Ethiopian Jews.

[Shaktimaan]

61. Wow!

You don't seem to realize the difference between ethnicity and race. The fact is that most nations are based on a specific ethnic nationalism and the concept has been consistently upheld and reinforced countless times throughout treaties and laws since the modern system of nation-states began. Plenty of states offer preferential paths to citizenship for members of their nation's own specific ethnicity. There is not anything wrong with that.

That said, Israel has equal rights for all members of its society, Jew or no. You do not need to be Jewish to be a citizen of Israel. You do not need to be Jewish to immigrate to Israel.

As far as race goes, if you honestly believe that race is a fundamental tenet of either Zionism or Judaism then you really don't have enough of a grasp on the subjects to hold a rational conversation on either. The way you seem to be using the term "Zionist" here implies an understanding that better resembles reflexive Israel-bashers than sober realists. For example, your use of the word in strange terminology like "Zionist controlled ME" and "Israel's Zionist authorities" is reminiscent of how Iran's president uses it.

A willingness to condemn Zionism without also condemning all other forms of ethnic nationalism does an excellent job of provong the point made in the OP.

[leveymg]

2. The fire and ash are fallout from IAF bombing raids.

If the fundamentalist zealots weren't in charge of Israel, and they hadn't been bombing cities, there would be no bitter taste of death in the air.

Remove the zealots from power, the air will clear and the bad smell will go away. Eventually.

[henank]

11. Right. And all was peace and love

when the West Bank was in Jordanian and Gaza was in Egyptian hands. And 5 Arab armies did not invade the newborn Israel. And Egypt did not close down the Straits of Tiran and expel the UN prior to the 6 Day War. Lots of peace and love.

:sarcasm:

And the Arabs aren't ruled by fundamentalist zealots.

More :sarcasm:

[Sinistrous]

4. Mr. Jacobson certainly builds a strong box for anyone

with the temerity to criticize the Israeli butchery in Gaza. I guess the world must now blindly give Israel a pass for whatever it does with whatever justification or lack thereof.

All in all, I have to say that Mr. Jacobson's screed is quite disgusting.

[henank]

12. No, he does not say this.

He does not demand that Israel be given a blind pass to do whatever he wants. He is pointing out the disproportionate and hysterical response of the anti-Zionists to Israel's actions. He points out the ease with which people will believe the absolute worst of Israel. War crimes, Holocaust, Warsaw Ghetto - the words are flung about with abandon. THAT is what he is protesting.

[Sinistrous]

19. OK, Polyanna, believe what you want. n/t

[mike_c]

5. dupe....

I believe IG already posted this article.

[bemildred]

7. And yet here he is, ascribing "any of this" to anti-semitism.

In fact ascribing all of it to anti-semitism. Which he says he is not allowed to do. So his premise is false, a giant straw man, which he successfully pummels to death before our very eyes.

[henank]

13. His premise is entirely correct

and you are the one constructing a giant straw man.

By accusing Jews who complain of anti-Semitism of constructing a straw man or using anti-Semitism as a weapon against critics of Israel, the Israel-haters and fervid anti-Zionists remove the ability of Jews to complain of anti-Semitism when it happens. Anti-Semitism is when people shout at an anti-Israel rally "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas". Or when they paint graffiti "Die filthy Jews", etc.

When you complain against Jews protesting this anti-Semitism you are silencing them and using anti-Semitism as a double-edged sword against the Jews.

[shira]

16. they refuse to see that their anti-"zionism" is as or more hateful as anyone else's

Islamophobia or racism against blacks.

Islamophobics and white racists get their jollies the same way as anti-semiteszionists. Same gleam in their eye, as if it's erotic. All share an irrational hatred of the "other". Many white racists and Islamophobics also deny they are haters.

As Tom Friedman once wrote, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." And this is exactly what has been and still is happening. Add to Friedman's definition the Israel = Nazi comparisons (warsaw ghetto, genocide, etc..), comparisons not used in any other conflict, and it's even worse. Israel's misdeeds (errors made in self-defense) do not even compare to 1st world countries like France and the UK, much less China or Russia (all whose citizens have not been threatened like Israel's) however Israel is singled out and hated far, far more. There's only one reason why.

It's a no-brainer.

[Tartiflette]

17. Some validity to this

You're correct of course in that the misdeeds of the UK and France have been worse than those of Israel, but that is a misleading argument, as I think it is true for all countries that people tend not to look at themselves in the same critical light as they judge others (witness the US, whose actions and misdeeds outdo almost all other countries in the latter half of the 20th century and early years of the 21st). I've just finished reading Web of Deceit, about the UK's role in the world, and it's both eye-opening and shocking, especially as much of the information is from public records, hidden in plain sight.

However, there is a focus on the media on this conflict that keeps this in the public mind, far more so than say, the Congo, or Tibet, or the internal actions of Saudi Arabia, Iran or other ME countries, and hence more people are likely to have an opinion on it. The question of how much is true anti-semitism is really unanswerable. Anti-semitism exists, and is a genuine problem in Europe, and your first para is a reasonable stab to explaining at least part of this.

However, the Nazi comparison is used all the time, and erroneously, in other contexts (Islamofascists was a euphemism for that), even on this board in referral to the previous administration (and was commonly used to describe the US actions in Iraq world-wide), and it's not unique to this conflict. It is, however, heinous to use such language with regard to Israel, for obvious reasons.

[bemildred]

18. But he obviously is allowed to do that, he is doing it.

So his premise that he is in any way prevented from doing it is false. People that disagree with him have exactly the same rights as he claims to state their views. That's what free speech is all about. His argument is a straw man, he wishes to silence his opponents, and attributes to them his own desires.

[shira]

22. aw geez, bemildred........it's called sarcasm

All those examples Jacobson brought up are supposed to be called legit "criticisms" of Israel, and certainly never, ever "anti-semitism", oh no, never!

:sarcasm:

Maybe Jacobson needed that icon?

:eyes:

Do you believe the examples he brought up are valid criticisms of Israel, and not over-the-top, obsessive, wild-eyed hysteria that would be labeled such against any other group of people?

[bemildred]

25. No, it's called a straw man.

And in your case, a failure to read. I'm not criticizing his examples, I'm criticizing his argument that he is not allowed to say what he thinks, he most certainly is saying what he thinks, and nobody is trying to shut him up, it is he that wants to shut other people up, and say that they ought not be allowed to say what they think.

The very forum rules here say that one should not equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.

[shira]

45. he's not trying to shut up anyone

do you try to shut up Islamophobics? What do you do with those freepers?

[azurnoir]

26. Well theres some wild eyed hysteria going on

but please I have no desire to silence it believe whatever gives comfort, but how in the world can antiIsraeli be purely antisemitism because as some are so fond of pointing out of late there are Israeli Arabs and Druze and Christians some of whom serve in IDF

[bemildred]

27. Well, it's this:

But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism. It is, I am assured, “criticism” of Israel, pure and simple. In the matter of Israel and the Palestinians this country has been heading towards a dictatorship of the one-minded for a long time; we seem now to have attained it. Deviate a fraction of a moral millimetre from the prevailing othodoxy and you are either not listened to or you are jeered at and abused, your reading of history trashed, your humanity itself called into question. I don’t say that self-pityingly. As always with dictatorships of the mind, the worst harmed are not the ones not listened to, but the ones not listening. So leave them to it, has essentially been my philosophy. A life spent singing anti-Zionist carols in the company of Ken Livingstone and George Galloway is its own punishment.

"I don’t say that self-pityingly", "dictatorships of the mind". What a tool.

[azurnoir]

28. I know trust me

One did not need to be prescient to know what the article was going to say after reading the title and this one was not surprised but rather appalled at the ghosts of the past once again being called into play, not self pitying a tool is almost too nice

[bemildred]

29. Sorry.

Sometimes the volume of emotional slop thrown around here gets to me. The "pro-Palestinian" side does it too. I suppose it shows my "bias" that this sort of dishonest drivel annoys me more than direct and blatant stuff, pictures of dead people and rubble. I won't do it again.

[azurnoir]

30. Oh no don't be sorry

in the post to which you replied I was being a b*tch, actually thought about making that my username for a moment but well could be misread and most likely not allowed

[shira]

43. wow, you really don't get it

legit criticism of Israel is fine....it's the over-the-top, irrational hyperbole and hysteria that is anti-semitic, just like irrational criticism of Muslims is Islamophobic. What's difficult about this?

Yes, Howard Jacobson and I can call this irrational hatred of Israel "anti-semitism" all we'd like. The reaction we get in return is similar to what we see here from you and Azurnoir, as though we don't know what the hell we're talking about and are just blindly covering up for a racist, apartheid state that attempts to carry out genocide and ethnic cleansing. Instead of the Anti-semites or Islamophobics taking the heat for their irrational hatred, it's turned back on the accuser, our left-leaning credentials are questioned, and we're now outside the loop. Calling out anti-semitism is unlike calling out Islamophobia. It has a price these days.

[bemildred]

46. I get it.

I'm pointing out that he indulges in what he condemns, i.e "irrational hyperbole".

[LeftishBrit]

57. Actually, calling out antisemitism is very like calling out Islamophobia

Both have a price. Not always from the same people (though sometimes they do); but they definitely have a price.

People tend to get offended when accused, either justly or unjustly, of any sort of racism. I suppose that's at least an improvement on the days when racism was simply taken for granted.

[Idealism]

82. Can you clarifty what type of legal criticism of Israel you are fine with?

Considering when we have conversed in the past, you have denied the illegality of extrajudicial killings, I would like to hear what level of 'legal criticism' you deem appropriate. Despite condemnation from much of the world on the matter of extrajudicial assassination, and the UN's own reprimand of the criminal nature of this policy, you repeatedly told me that they were justified and the UN was too biased to be taken seriously on matters of international law. Does that mean when the UN also condemns rocket attacks on Israeli citizens that they too should be brushed aside?

Do you consider the collective punishment being imposed on the citizens of Gaza to be hyperbole?

When people decry the Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, do you believe they are hysterical, or just anti-Semitic?

Do you approve of Israel's policy of administrative detention, whereby the State can hold anyone they wish to in prison without a trial, access to an attorney, or any other basic legal rights? It is being used by the United States as well, so lets not single out Israel for this violation though!

Just looking for some clarification on what criticism of Israel is permissible, any response is appreciated.

[bemildred]

20. He's standing there with a giant bullhorn in his hand yelling that he's beiing silenced.

It's bullshit.

[oberliner]

37. Like the people who complain that you can't critcize Israel

While doing so continuously.

[bemildred]

38. Indeed.

Always a pleasure when we can agree.

[LeftishBrit]

49. Absolutely

I agree with both of you here. It's very irritating when people scream "We can't criticize/ defend Israel; everyone is suppressing us!" - when they are clearly doing so, and no one is suppressing them. Disagreement isn't suppression. These moans get really frustrating, especially to someone who knows REAL political refugees from more than one part of the world. And those are the lucky ones that got away. Someone arguing with you on a message-board isn't the same thing.

[ixion]

8. "over-and-above hatred, inexplicable in its hysteria"

This is pure vitriol, IMO.

My complete disgust with Israel has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Jewish religion.

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. 400 dead kids at the hands of the Israeli Military

.
.
.

'nuff said

[henank]

14. Prove those numbers

Give us some reliable sources. And I don't mean Hamas, or the UN's numbers which were derived from Hamas.

[Tartiflette]

15. A man see what he wants to see....

The author conveniently forgets the feelings toward South Africa during the latter apartheid years, the loathing directed at Bush, or the "hysteria and virulence" directed at Mugabe now. Further, there is no "prevailing orthodoxy" other than in the author's head - look at most UK newspapers and you will see opinion both for and against Israel's action; on the sites I frequent that allow comments, those comments reflect, as with DU, divided opinion. To ascribe it simply to anti-semitism is in my opinion an attempt to shut down criticism. Religion in the UK is not a driving force like it once was, so the idea that is somehow jewishness that drives the bulk of the antipathy is frankly laughable. Both sides in this conflict have been dehumanised, and that prevents rational dialogue and real steps towards understanding.

[Union Yes]

31. No constitution in Israel should =US embargo of Israel

Israel has become one of the most anti-progressive forces on planet earth.

Israel refuses to adopt or ratify a constitution granting human rights to its population.

Why?

Because then Israel would have to treat its palestinian population like human beings instead of like animals.

America needs to enact a full embargo of Israel until they end this human rights nightmare.

[oberliner]

32. Does the UK have a constitution? nt

[Union Yes]

34. Does granting human rights to Palestinians scare you?

Hey I can obfuscate too.

[oberliner]

36. You wrote that Israel having no constitution should equal US embargo

I was asking if the UK had a constitution. I don't believe that they do. If that is the case, should the US impose an embargo on them as well?

I support human rights for all people everywhere in the world.

[Union Yes]

39. I'll say this as clearly as I possibly can.

Every trading partner/ally of the US should/must have a constitution or charter of human rights. If not, America should threaten embargo. If that doesn't prod our trading partners to enact human rights and abide by those laws then YES. The US should enact an embargo.

In fact, I belive it's time to amend our constituion to ensure that America only trades with nations that honor human rights.

First, America needs to learn to abide by and honor it's own constitution. Hopefully Nov 4th and the election of Barack as prez will lead us back to honoring that wonderful document.

Now please, can we stick to the topic of Israel? Does every online debate have to go off on these tangents that have little to do with the original topic.

[oberliner]

40. Well I don't agree with your initial assertions

I don't think that Israeli "become one of the most anti-progressive forces on planet earth". When it comes to progressive values, I would say that Israel is probably somewhere towards the middle of the pack - right around the US itself.

I think there are many complex reasons why Israel has not ratified a constitution - I would not attribute it to the single reason you've suggested.

I also dispute your claim that Israel treats its Palestinian population "like animals" rather than human beings - were you are referring to Arab-Israelis (Palestinians who live in Israel) with this comment or those living in the Occupied Territories? In either case, I do not think that is a fair statement, although there are certainly issues of discrimination that Israel could do a much better job addressing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. So you're opposed to the US trading with the UK?

We have pretty good laws protecting human rights - not perfect, but probably in many ways better than the US - but no constitution of any kind.

[Shaktimaan]

60. Your reasoning makes little sense.

Israel does not have a constitution, true, but instead it has a series of "basic laws" designed to fulfill essentially the same role. One of these Basic Laws, "Human Dignity and Liberty" enshrines Human Rights for all people in Israel. Besides this, equal rights under the law for all Israeli citizens has been consistently upheld by the Israeli court system; Palestinian citizens of Israel benefit from exactly the same laws protecting their civil and human rights as Jewish Israelis do.

The idea that Israel doesn't have a constitution because it allows Israeli Jews to treat Arab citizens like animals is a profoundly ignorant statement and untrue on just about every level. You are doing a good job of proving the OP's point by demonstrating how easily many people will accept egregiously untrue facts about Israel without question, even going so far as to insist on foreign policy changes in America based on them.

Aside from that, your idea that America should condition its trade on specific conditions, even ones as fundamental as human rights, is just naive. You would probably have a difficult time showing us that Israel demonstrates less of a commitment to human rights than most other countries, many of whom are critical trading partners of ours such as China, or are indispensable for political reasons such as Pakistan and Russia. You really have to decide how far you would be willing to go to uphold this standard you are suggesting... the price for imposing an embargo on a country that we are currently in debt to for 700 billion dollars would be unimaginably steep, for example.

Now please, can we stick to the topic of Israel? Does every online debate have to go off on these tangents that have little to do with the original topic.

Actually, asking you if you would insist on imposing the same restrictions on England as Israel is very much in keeping with the topic of this thread. It is the whole point of the OP in fact.

[LeftishBrit]

56. No. However, it is a signatory to the Europaean Convention of Human Rights...

as is a requirement for all EU member states. Therefore in theory the UK has to practice/subscribe to certain human rights principles. But it's unclear how binding this is, and it's a very recent development.

In any case, it seems odd to me that 'not having a constitution' should be a reason for an embargo. It sounds very America-centric (frankly, almost neo-con-ish: 'we should punish countries for not being sufficiently like America'); and also doesn't allow for differences in different types of consitution. Also, what's untimately important is a country's *actions*. Having a constitution did not prevent many American states from having the Jim Crow laws for many years, for instance.

[GoesTo11]

35. Here's my way of telling

If someone makes a statement about Israel, and it would sound natural to add the phrase "G.D. J**s" at the end of it, then it's probably as much anti-Semitism as simple criticism of Israeli policy. If that same added phrase would sound totally out of place, then it's probably just criticism.

Example of the first: Israel has been stealing the Palestinian's land for 60 years (G.D. J**s) - sounds right.
Example of the second: Israel's problems with Hamas don't justify the number of civilian casualties they inflicted in this operation (G.D. J**s) - sounds bizarre.

[Mosby]

42. lol--I think you might be onto something

It does seem to work.

[Tartiflette]

48. Serious question

So, I'd like to check this with you, so I understand your definition. What happens if one thinks that Israel has been taking land unlawfully (Or at least under dubious legal justifcation) for the past 60 years? The amount of territory that the Palestinaians have some semblance of control over has certianly diminished during that time, so one might consider this to be a reasonable conclusion. Were you using that as an example of a criticism that must necessarily be anti-semitic in nature, or were you specifically referring to the way the language was used in your example? (I think it was the latter, but I'm not certain).

[GoesTo11]

50. Serious answer.

You understand my point. Plenty of Israeli Jews (though I doubt a majority) would agree with the statement you offer. The G.D. J**s test would indicate this is not anti-Semitic. Usually the anti-Semitic statements give Israel human qualities or focus on individuals and in either case ascribe some stereotype or libel involving greed, pushiness, argumentativeness, conniving behavior, sophistry, control of the world (Elders of Zion), disloyalty, demanding Shylock's pound of flesh, bloodthirst, un-Christianness, etc.

[Tartiflette]

52. Thanks

That was exactly the clarification I was seeking, and would be consistent with my understanding, as a non-Jew of what anti-semitism is (and again, as a non-Jew, I wouldn't presume to define it). There is so much dehumanisation that has gone on in this conflict, on both sides - Israels as Nazis, Palestinians as people who don't love their children or who only understand violence, both sides as subhuman, etc ad nauseum) it would be nice if the debate could focus on the real causes of the problem and genuine ways forward.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. I don't think that works.

Because while "Israel has been stealing the Palestinians' land for 60 years (GDJ)" sounds right, so does "Israel has been stealing the Palestinians' land for 60 years" coming from a completely unbiased and non-antisemitic source - it really has been.

If you want that test to work, you'd have to ask "Does this sound wrong without GDJ", not "does it sound right with it".

(And, for reference, I am a) not anti-semitic, and b) Jewish).

[azurnoir]

58. Perhaps but depending on the ear

both comments could sound bizarre or both could sound right

[Violet_Crumble]

77. That was a few minutes wasted I'll never regain...

I should have taken notice of the warning signs in the first moronic and slightly offensive sentence that this article was going to be a pile of whiny and self-indulgent crap and skipped it. Though to its credit (and the only good thing about it) was that it did lead me to a great Robert Fisk article I'd missed reading before. So, thanks for posting it Mosby!

[LeftishBrit]

81. Well, the author overstates his case like many on the other side...

'poisoning everything we are supposed to believe in here – the free exchange of opinions, the clear-headedness of thinkers and teachers, the fine tracery of social interdependence we call community relations, modernity of outlook, tolerance, truth. You can taste the toxins on your tongue'

This is startlingly reminiscent of an extreme comment on the other side that I challenged in another thread: that Zionism is 'perverting our discourse'. No, neither Zionism nor anti-Zionism, right or wrong, is in itself 'perverting our discourse' or 'posoning the free exchange of opinions'. Not everything is about Israel; and Brits and Americans need to take responsibility for our own attitudes and actions. Attitudes to Israel may reflect these, but don't cause them.

For the rest: criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, any more than, for example, criticism of the current Pope is anti-Catholic, or criticism of Iran anti-Muslim. However, antisemites are likely to use real and imagined misdeeds of Israel to justify their views; just as anti-Catholics are likely to use real and imagined misdeeds by the Pope, or anti-Muslims to use real and imagined misdeeds by Iran.

I criticize all of these myself, and don't consider myself as anti-semitic, anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim.

Where would I begin to suspect a criticism of Israel to be influenced by antisemitism? The most obvious case is where the antisemitisn is expressed directly: i.e. where Jews outside Israel are blamed for the actions of Israel, or attacks on them are justified on the grounds of Israel's actions. Apart from that, it is basically when Israel is blamed for the actions of other people and countries: "Israel runs the world"; " A Jewish cabal is dominating Britain"; "Israel profited from and probably carried out 9-11"; "Israel got America into the war in Iraq"; "No More War for Israel!" Ascribing disproportionate power to Israel in American-Israel relations is a related phenomenon. Thus, "America is biased toward Israel" is not antisemitic; "Israel controls American media" probably is. "America gives too much financial aid to Israel" is not antisemitic; "Israel is plundering America's treasury" probably is. A related phenomenon is the exaggerated ascription of many of the world's evils to the existence of Israel. "The creation of Israel was a mistake" is not in my view antisemitic; "The creation of Israel was the worst mistake of the 20th century" or "Israel is the world's biggest obstacle to peace" probably does have an antisemitic source. In all these case, the people who make these remarks are *not* necessarily personally antisemitic, but they are probably influenced directly or indirectly by antisemitic arguments.

It's exactly the same for the other groups: "Iran has an oppressive government and persecutes women and gays" is not anti-Muslim; "Iran is the world's biggest obstacle to peace" or "Islamofascists are controlling the world" or "Iran/Iraq had something to do with 9-11" probably is. "The Pope is a reactionary who tolerates fascists around him" is not anti-Catholic; "The Pope controls America through Catholic politicians" or "The Catholic religion has done more harm to the world than anything else" is.

ETA: Interesting that the author mentions Richard Ingrams, an elderly British journalist and humourist, who has represented the somewhat upper-class version of the right-wing for decades. He is, I suppose, what Americans would call a 'paleoconservative'. I admit to having always had him slightly mixed up in my mind with his friend and colleague, the late Auberon Waugh - their views and styles were pretty similar. At any rate, he has most of the traditional upper-class English prejudices, against feminism, gays, 'do-gooders', and all forms of 'political correctness', etc.. etc. - and of course Jews. He once said that if he receives a letter from someone with an obviously Jewish name, it automatically goes in the rubbish-bin. I remember his writings from my student days in the early-to-mid 80s: among much else, VERY anti-Israel and at least borderline anti-semitic. This is one example of why I'm sceptical of such phrases as 'The New Antisemitism' (there is nothing new about antisemitism!) and about attempts to identify it with 'the left'.

[iconicgnom]

84. Thanks for explaining your view!

[bemildred]

85. Well put.

Propagandists and bigots will use any tool that comes to hand to "support" their position, they do not discriminate when it comes to that. And they do not let mere matters of consistency interfere with their "thinking" either. They much prefer sweeping generalities to individuals and small groups who do good or bad things at particular times.

And with all bigots one has to ask whether they have the means and intention to do something about it, or not. There are far too many to take on all at once.

The more I think about this piece, the more it reminds me of a Monty Python skit: "Help, I'm being suppressed. Help Help."

[PerfectSage]

83. a nation run by socially adept sociopaths who hijacked zionist ideology.

Take your sociopathic guilt trip and shove it.