How much anti-Semitism is too much?

[shira]

How much anti-Semitism is too much?
By ANNE BAYEFSKY
01/15/2011 21:28

Recent incidents at the United Nations indicate that most UN diplomats do not know where to draw the line, letting hate speeches drag on without walking out.




Recent WikiLeaks cables reveal that diplomats at the UN are haunted by a thorny question: How much UN-driven anti-Semitism is too much? The original UN was built on the ashes of the Jewish people and owes its human rights foundations to the victims of the Holocaust. At today’s UN, we have now learned, diplomats hunker down near the General Assembly hall “listening outside with headphones on” trying to figure out the extent of the hate-speech that those on the inside should endure before walking out.

The particular subject of the WikiLeaks cable from US officials in Stockholm was a September 2009 assembly speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sweden held the EU’s rotating presidency, and it fell upon Swedish diplomats to decide when Ahmadinejad had crossed pre-arranged “red lines.” As it turned out, some EU members walked out of the speech, while Sweden stayed put. According to the cable, the Swedes were upset by the “embarrassing lack of EU coordination” – not by the bigotry broadcast over the UN global megaphone.

<snip>

PLAYING MUSICAL chairs is not the only response to UN-based anti- Semitism. The vast majority listen attentively and many applaud. Sometimes no one moves at all. On June 8, 2010, the Syrian representative lectured the UN Human Rights Council: “Israel... is a state that is built on hatred... Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school and I quote ‘With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood.’”

The Obama administration, which chose to join this council, had a representative present, and neither he nor any other council member budged. UN officials, who routinely interrupt anything they deem insulting to Muslim states, said nothing.

much more...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=203738

[ixion]

1. calling anything critical of Israel anti-semetic is what is too much

and it is a label that is applied far, far too often. Israel is a political entity, not a religion.

[shira]

2. Blatant antisemitism and bigotry goes well beyond legit criticism. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. You've repeatedly proven unable to tell the difference. N.T.

[shira]

6. See #5 below and try arguing that's legit criticism of Israel, okay?

Then there's this...

By the end of a year of double-standards, discrimination and hate-mongering 80 percent of all 2010 General Assembly resolutions criticizing specific countries for human rights violations were directed at the Jewish state. Only six of the remaining 191 UN member states faced human rights criticism at all, one of which was the US. And now half of the country-specific condemnatory resolutions and decisions ever adopted by the UN Human Rights Council target Israel.

That's not only pathetic, it shows how antisemitic the UN has become.

After all, most of the 191 UN states voted Libya into the UNHRC....

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Why would I want to argue that?

Unlike much of what you label as antisemitic, the quotes you refer to there genuinely are.

[shira]

19. What do I falsely label as antisemitism? Here's the EU working definition WRT demonizing Israel...

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

1.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.

2.Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

3.Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

4.Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

5.Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Do you disagree with any of that?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Well, passage 1 from this, for starters...

In another thread you've just falsely claimed that example 1 here is inherently antisemitic (which it clearly isn't) as opposed to a possible manifestation of antisemitism (as the larger version you quote here says).

I disagree with 2*-5 of that, but agree with 1 - I think that any state for an ethnic group is a racist endeavour, and that Israel should become an Israeli state. I have no right to live there; Palestinians driven out in the Nakba do.




*It should be noted here that part of the standard I think should be applied is "how much good can be done" - I'm more in favour of putting pressure on Israel than Iran, and more in favour of putting pressure on Iran than China, because while all three countries commit crimes (Israel less than the other two) Israel may be possible to stop by outside pressure; Iran probably won't be; China certainly won't be. I think that spending time criticising Israel is more worthwhile than spending time criticising Burma, but I think it's important not to be more *harshly* critical of Israel than Burma. But, since 2 refers to "any other democratic state", and no other western democratic state is currently doing anything along the lines of ethnocracy, there is no real comparison point and so this isn't terribly relevant.

[houstonintc]

25. indeed

Focusing on Jews is an easy target?

Nothing whips a crowd up like hating those people. Right or Left, It's an easy and culturally historical cord to pick.

[LeftishBrit]

7. True, but what Ahmadinejad says is not just critical of Israel politically

Is it not antisemitic to describe Jews as “a small minority dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery... to attain its racist ambitions.” ?

Or to suggest that “segments within the US government orchestrated the attack” (9-11) for the sake of “the Zionist regime.”?

I am not a mad fan of Anne Bayevsky especially when she talks about Obama's policies; but Ahmadinejad is condemned out of his own mouth.

[DCKit]

14. +1 Apples and Oranges

Another false equivalency, but very useful in muzzling critics of the occupation.

The Tea Baggers and other Republicans have used these same tactics to great advantage and, like the RW leaders of Israel, they are always victims of anyone who would criticize their repressive policies.

We need to fight back every single time this type of argument is used to justify or excuse unacceptable behavior.

[shira]

15. You seriously don't see the antisemitism of the UN after reading that article?

Unfortunately, many "Leftists" today are megaphones for the 3rd world far Right and that's what needs to be countered by genuine liberals....

It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against just as the ‘Muslim community’ here is one and the same with reactionary Islamic organisations, Sharia councils, and parasitical imams. Which is why at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.

This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class.

In this type of politics, the oppressor is victim and any criticism racist…

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/10/pathetic-excuse-of-much-of-european.html

[USA_1]

3. The Comments Quoted Above Criticize Israeli Politics, Not Religion

I do not see any words in it from the Syrians or Iranians that attack Judaism or any other religion.

[henank]

5. Then you didn't read properly

Here are a selection of antisemitic sayings from the article:

Ahmadinejad had used his UN platform to describe Jews as “a small minority dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery... to attain its racist ambitions.”

Ahmadinejad had mounted another UN-provided stage in Geneva and began by denying the Holocaust, claiming that the “Zionist regime” had been created “under the pretext of Jewish sufferings.”

the Syrian representative lectured the UN Human Rights Council: “Israel... is a state that is built on hatred... Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school and I quote ‘With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood.’”

Hmm. I wonder which Israeli policy that is referring to. You don't think the Syrian representative might be making such a thing up. Do you? Nah. It must be true. The Jews, sorry, the Israelis, regularly rip out children's flesh with their teeth and celebrate this in their kindergarten's nursery rhymes. :sarcasm:

[USA_1]

8. I was referring to Shira's quotes

... not those in the article - she should be very specific as to what is/isn't antisemitism

I should add that the jerusalem post doesn't have much of a record when it comes to credibility. In fact, its credibility matches that of the Fox network and that ain't saying much for it.

[LeftishBrit]

9. The quotes were in the article!

There can be disagreements about what counts as antisemitism in borderline cases, but surely there is NO doubt that Ahmadinejad is an antisemite (or perhaps panders to antisemites for political purposes - but it comes to the same thing).

[USA_1]

10. I saw that

but I'm referring to her quotes - as for the JP, you have to wonder if there is any truth to it as they often make up their own stories and often quote out of context

[USA_1]

11. one thing more

Ahmadinejad appears to attack 'Jewish' politics . But he isn't calling for the 'perfection of Jews through Jesus' like Ann Coulter which clearly established who the real Jew hater is.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Unfortunately...

being 'the real Jew hater' is not a post that only one person can hold at any one time.

I would say that both Ahmadinejad and Ann Coulter are real Jew haters - as well as being vicious right wingers in lots of other ways.

Fortunately Coulter is not in charge of a government; long may it remain so,

[aranthus]

13. Wrong.

Not that I agree with Anne Coulter, but as a Jew, I don't think that her wanting Jews to convert to Christianity is antisemitic. Ahmadinejad's statements, though, are obviously hateful of Jews. That you can't seem to tell the difference is troubling.

[USA_1]

17. Coulter isn't antisemitic ?

Quoting Hitler like she did is hardly a sign of affection.

[aranthus]

24. I didn't say that.

What I said is that wanting Jews to convert to Christianity isn't antisemitic, any more than a Jew wanting more Jews is anti-Christian. I was not aware that Hitler said the line about "perfecting Jews." It doesn't seem like something he'd have said. Unless you meant some other quote.

[Mosby]

16. in case DUers don't understand what a Blood Libel is

The statements from the Syrian un rep is a good example of how the Blood Libel against Jews manifests itself in 2010.

[oberliner]

20. I wonder what song that is

And how does the Syrian UN representative know what Israeli schoolchildren sing on the bus?

I wonder what the source was for that comment.

[LeftishBrit]

21. The Protocols?

[oberliner]

22. It was just so specific, and she insisted it was a direct quote

That suggests to me that she picked it up from somewhere in particular.

Clearly it was a source that this diplomat trusted enough to cite at a UN meeting.

I genuinely wonder what that source was.