Jonathan Kay, on “the building next door”*;
Ironically, the censorship regime that well-meaning Jewish intellectuals helped put in place to fight anti-Semitism a generation ago is now being applied to prosecute the pundits blowing the whistle on the one truly genuine existential threat that Jews are facing worldwide: militant Islam.
[…]
The ongoing sniping match between Levant and the Jewish establishment, petty as it may seem to some, is essentially a proxy battle in a larger struggle for the political soul of the Jewish community. It is a fight between those Jews who support free speech, and those who support censorship; between those focused on the new threat of militant Islam, and those still worried about neo-Nazi kooks; between those who want Jews to take a vocal leadership role in the defining ideological battle of our time, and those who see themselves as passive victims who require protection from a nanny state.
Great article. As a Jew, I know which side I’m on!
… the happy fact that anti-Semitism is completely extinct in our society’s respectable mainstream…
About 5 years ago, Lowell Green broached the topic on his Ottawa talk show. The lines opened up and the vile hate calls poured in. Lowell was stunned but kept it going and even replayed the tape the next day. The callers were by no means all immigrants. It opened my eyes to the latency of this old hatred and we should be aware of it.
Kay is nonetheless correct on his main point.
and free speech includes mocking any religion I care to make fun of . . . even if the Catholics don’t like it.
Excellent analysis by Kay.
A problem with identifying ‘anti-semitism’ as bias against either the Jewish religion or people who follow that religion, is that Israel and in particular the N. American Jewish community has merged the definition with ‘opposition to the political policies of Israel’.
This means that IF you dissent from the political policies of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. This effectively makes it almost impossible to critique Israel because your criticism is immediately rejected as psychologically perverted.
But Israel is a political entity and as such, must be open to analysis and criticism of its political actions. If there is an increase in anti-semitism in Europe and elsewhere, my view is that this is due to the deliberate merging, by Israel and the N.American Jewish community, of ‘Jewish religion’ with ‘Israel’.
This goes further. By defining ‘Jewishness’ as a state of perpetual victimhood, this also sets up Israel as in a state of perpetual victimhood. This obscures what I consider valid criticism of Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. And, it actually inhibits and prevents any emergence of a peace, of a Palestinian state (for they are always the bad guys, and Israel is always the victim).
For any group, religious or ideological, to control what others think of that group’s beliefs and behaviour – is not merely an affront to freedom of speech, but its authoritarian censorship sets up the group as ideologically and behaviourally closed. They can’t interact with others; they can’t change; they are frozen.
This is valid whether the group attempting to control what others think are: homosexuals/lesbians, Muslims, Jews, etc.
Remember, the HRAct Section 13.1 is focused around Group Identity – and only specific groups. The Commission is utterly indifferent if someone’s speech ‘offends you’ if you are a member of a group not defined by the Commission as ‘discriminated against’. So, if you are white and Christian, an article, no matter how foul, against both attributes, will be ignored by the HRC. If you are brownskinned and Muslim or Jewish, they’ll grab it with glee. This violates our legal rights of being equal before the law, doesn’t it?
So, what Ezra is doing is vitally important. The HRAct Section 13.1 has to go. And so does multiculturalism, which is intimately linked to this Section.
ET: good to see we can agree on something.
ET, multiculturalism isn’t the mainstay of our Canadian society because it is right, but because it is a conduit to power.
If we are talking about true multiculturalism, and equality before law, and rights, then Quebec’s Bill 101 would not exist. But Quebec is given a pass. Because of its status in Confederation. Which is unbalanced.
This unbalance has been exploited magnificently by the LPC. A pass to Quebec, for Quebec is the ticket to majority government. Multiculturalism to the stack the population outside of Quebec with vote machines. And One Ring of AntiAmerican Dogma to Bind Them All.
I don’t buy the LPC multiculturalism hogwash for one second. I might buy it the day I see Bill 101 set aside.
excellent article by Mr. Kay. Amongst the Jews that I know and in my family, it divides along the lines of recognizing the existential threat of militant Islam and thinking that the “threat” is just created by war-mongering right-wingers. Then there are many Jews who keep quiet to not “draw attention”.
ET, I think that you have it completely backwards. It is the enemies of Israel (and civilization) who have merged Jews world wide with Israel. They often talk of “killing Jews wherever they are”. They do not distinguish between liberal and conservative Jews or those that do not think Israel should exist and those who identify as Zionists.
Criticism of Israel is one thing and you will find many Jews/Israelis that criticize their government – but telling lies about the Jewish people or Israel (“Jews stole the land of the ancient Palestinians”) is, in my books, pure anti-Jewism.
Let the record show that ET dragged Israel into this conversation
ET can you demonstrate your point about Israel and N.A. Jews with any actual data? Is the occurrence any worse than Nelson Mandela suggesting Bush and Blair were racists for going into Iraq? And just try any condemnation of anything Islamic and watch the Islamophobia claims, maybe with lawsuits.
What I see mostly nowadays, is people like you trying to make this an issue and dying to be called an antisemite to make your silly point.
ET:
Excellent comment. As someone who supports Israel unconditionally, I indeed say that grudgingly.
I am not Jewish myself, but I have always felt a deep identification with the Jewish people. I see the Jewish-Palestinian struggle as a zero-sum game in which someone must lose, and I do not want it to be the Jews. When your own survival is at stake, you fight with every technique at your disposal, and sometimes it isn’t pretty. The Jews anguish about this much more than the Palestinians, who seem untroubled by brutality.
I’ll stand by my points. The merging of Israel, as a political entity and ‘Jewishness’ as a religious identity, means that criticism of the one becomes defined as anti-semitism.
I’m hardly going to list all the evidence; just google ‘anti-semitism and israel’ and you’ll see a plethora of argument on the topic.
greenmamba, I think it is correct to bring Israel into the discussion because the theme is anti-semitism. Your analogies are invalid. Mandela’s argument against Bush is part of the old Said’s Orientalism (western imperialist power) and as invalid as Said’s.
Your Islamic example isn’t explaining anything, for, just as Muslims are rejecting criticism (both external and internal) and accuse such criticism as ‘phobia’ and threaten lawsuits, so too the CJC and B’nai Brith do the same, accusing others of anti-semitism and filing lawsuits.
ex-liberal. I disagree; I don’t think I ‘have it backwards’. The enemies of Israel, by which I presume you mean the local Arab States, isn’t the focus of all anti-semitism. Furthermore, I don’t think it is valid to bond ‘Israel’ with ‘civilization’. You are suggesting, it seems, that to critique Israel is to critique civilization. That seems a bit far-fetched.
Consider a 2003 opinion poll conducted by the European Commission asking which countries in the world posed the greatest threat to world peace. Israel was ranked by Europeans as the foremost threat; the Israeli media and Jewish organizations angrily dismissed the results as anti-Semitic.
google in: can we criticize israel without being labelled anti-semitic
You’ll find quite a few articles.
ET you cite discussion on the subject, not fact. Truly it would be hard to prove because as I said (& you seem to have agreed), everyone does it. People are only criticised for calling antisemitism however.
The UN spends more time on Israel than anything else. Why? Given their mandate and the many far worse conflicts, it speaks of bias. Western media is hopelessly biased against Israel and the EU generally votes with the Arab League. Things are hugely distorted in the world. No wonder one gets the survey results one does in Europe. Pinning it on Jews crying antisemitism is ridiculous and your brain is better than that for crying out loud.
“Consider a 2003 opinion poll conducted by the European Commission asking which countries in the world posed the greatest threat to world peace. Israel was ranked by Europeans as the foremost threat”
Thereby confirming that much of what poses as “criticism of Israel” is just anti-semitism by proxy.
I would add that essentially the dividing line between the Jewish people on this issue is much the same as for everyone else. Those who are ignorant of Jewish values (Torah values) and reject them, gravitate to the secular left (communism, socialism, etc.). Those who have a good understanding of Jewish values and teachings understand what the real issues are and stand for them with conviction.
ET as usual obsessed with Israel. The topic has nothing to do with Israel and your never ending distortion of history and facts concerning Israel is tiring to say the least.
No, kate, I don’t think that criticism of Israel is anti-semitism by proxy, because you are thereby assuming that the basic and first cause of criticism of Israel – has NOTHING to do with Israel as a political entity, and is completely due to its religious base – and to the psyche of the person who is criticizing.
I don’t think that you can remove a political entity, ever, from evaluation, which includes both accolades and criticism. Therefore, criticism of Israel has to be accepted and evaluated for its political validity, and not rejected as due merely to ‘anti-semitism’.
No, alain, I’m not obsessed with Israel; you are, with these words, trying to denigrate my critique of Israel as merely my own neurosis. I don’t think it’s quite that easy to dismiss a criticism of Israeli political actions by calling them due only to psychological causes(ie, anti-semitic).
Agreed.
“foremost threat” is nauseatingly ignorant, given the fact that almost every Muslim state and terrorist organisation has been threatening to push Israel into the sea since it became a nation. When Hezbollah has declared open season, not just on Israel, but Jews everywhere. When Elmasry, here in Canada, publicly declares every Israeli over 18 is a legitimate target for murder (I’m sure he wanted to say every Jew).
Anti-Semitism is always adapting. ‘Anti-Zionism’ is the new word spin to cloak outright racism.
Furthermore, it’s not just “the local Arab states.” It’s the Persians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Chechens, Malaysians, etc., etc., pretty much wherever there are Muslims there is anti-Semitic racism and anti-Christian bigotry.
But then it’s an important tenet of their ideology. So important that Mohammad declared that the last hour would not come until Muslims had killed the Jews.
So ET, what are you saying? Israel IS the greatest threat to world peace?
As far as I can see, Israel just sits there and the Arabs shoot at it. My only criticism of Israel is they put up with too much crap from those guys.
Imagine if some two-bit Arab oil state drove a ship up to the twelve mile international limit and started lobbing missiles into Vancouver. Would we have a “restrained” response like Israel? I think not.
CAPITULATION:
ET: This means that IF you dissent from the political policies of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. This effectively makes it almost impossible to critique Israel because your criticism is immediately rejected as psychologically perverted.
I’ve re-read this and am forced to agree with ET. The case is proven by the total lack of criticism of Israel. It doesn’t exist, shut down, silenced by fear of being labelled with the dreaded ‘A’ word.
Silent the U.N., the Arab League, The Guardian, MPAC/UK, British intellectuals of all stripes, Ha’aretz, ISM, UNRWA, CUPE, EU, Juan Cole, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, rabble.ca, the NDP, bigcitylib, Noam, Louise Arbor, Ronnie Kasrils, John Dugard, Allister Sparks, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Jimmy Carter, Canadian Dimension, Malt & Wearsheimer, David Duke and SturmFrunt.
Sorry I doubted you ET.
Score for GreenMamba.
Which reminds me: didn’t hezbollocks specifically go after Jews in South America some time back? I don’t think they were Zionists…
Go after? They blew up a Jewish community centre in Argentina. The Argentines are still going after them in the world court for crimes against humanity.
ET,
Is Elmasry’s remark criticism of Israel, or anti-Semitism? Afterall, Israel requires all citizens to undergo military training, if I’m not mistaken.
For those who wish to actually do something about Free Speech in Canada: http://freespeechers.blogspot.com/
This is what many, like ET, don’t seem to get:
Palestinian TV:
“Extermination of Jews and subjugation of Christian
is goal of history”
By Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, Palestinian Media Watch
The final stage of history will be the subjugation of all Christian countries under Islam and the extermination of every single Jew – this according to the Palestinian Authority (PA) religious leader during Friday’s Sermon.
(Isn’t that a nice sermon for their ‘holy’ day)
The Jews are so evil, Ibrahim Mudayris teaches, that they cannot be subjugated like the Christian countries, and therefore the only solution awaiting them is death – literally the extermination of every Jew. In his words: “The day will come and we shall rule America, Britain, we shall rule the entire world, except the Jews.”
In the sermon Ibrahim Mudayris reiterated many of the often-repeated PA justifications for the anticipated genocide, including the following hate messages:
The Jews have inherently evil character traits that Muhammad warned Muslims about in the Koran.
The Jews have been the source of conflict throughout all of history: “The Jews are a virus similar to AIDS, from which the entire world is suffering.”
The persecution of Jews throughout history is presented as natural responses of self-defense by numerous countries against the evil of the Jews. Britain, France, Portugal, Czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, all persecuted and/or expelled Jews – as acts of self-defense and revenge.
Zionism was created by Britain in order solve its Jewish problem by sending them to Israel.
God has predetermined that the Jewish problem will be solved with the extermination of the Jews.
God has predetermined that the Christian -Islam interactions will end with today’s Christian countries under Islam.
Israel has no right to exist and will be destroyed.
PMW’s report: Kill a Jew – go to Heaven – a full report outlining the PA systematic justification of genocide, can be found on the PMW web site http://www.pmw.org.il.
———————–
As far as I’m concerned, you don’t negotiate with creatures this evil, let alone give them a state.
ET:
It’s one thing to say, “I disagree with when Israel did so-and-so because of such-and-such,” or “I don’t like the minister of whatever because of…,” and I don’t think any intelligent person would call you an anti-semite for that – even if they wildly disagreed with it, assuming you were using somewhat rational arguments.
It’s totally another thing when you come on and make grand generalizations regarding the fact that no one can say ‘anything’ critical of Israel.
Something stinks here, and it’s not just the liver and onions I had for lunch.
No, phantom, I’m not saying that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace.
I’m saying that anti-semitism is on the rise in the world because it is linked to criticism of Israel. So, if you criticize Israel, then, you are also viewed by many Jewish groups as anti-semitic.
And no, I don’t think that Israel is a passive victim in the ME; its occupation and settlement of the Palestinian lands is hardly ‘just sitting there’.
greenmamba – your post entirely misses my point. I didn’t say that there wasn’t any criticism of Israel. That’s ridiculous. I said that IF you criticize Israel, you are then viewed by many Jewish groups as anti-semitic. Get it? No?
To assume that there is a burgeoning growth of post WWII anti-semitism in the world -an anti-semitism totally unrelated to anything – doesn’t make sense. Anti-semitism in historic periods has been linked to economic depressions and ethnic sectarianism.
The growing anti-semitism, I suggest, is in reality criticism of Israel – and both Israel’s political authorities and N. American Jewish lobbies have been behind this merger of anti-semitism with criticism of Israel. This then flips back into anti-semitism..and continues on.
irwin daisy – with regard to Elmasry, I’d suggest it’s both religious and political. All Jewish youth are required in Israel to go into military service except, I think, members of orthodox groups.
And, to flip back to the thread, Ezra is criticizing both Islamic and Jewish groups for behaving in a similar manner – trying to stop debate and questions by defining a group identity as outside of debate and questions.
for a people who have such intellectual brilliance the jews seem to have a self- destructive gene.
ET: This means that IF you dissent from the political policies of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. This effectively makes it almost impossible to critique Israel because your criticism is immediately rejected as psychologically perverted.
Of course. This is the same ET who called me a “liberal” for daring to critque the Conservatives for being silent on the Section 13(1) issue, the other day. ET is a Liberal “mole”.
I said that IF you criticize Israel, you are then viewed by many Jewish groups as anti-semitic. Get it? No?
No. So what? Same applies to other groups and no-one withholds from criticising Israel because of it. You’re unlikely to get death-threats unlike …….. I’m scared to say ….
There is plenty of criticism of Israel. A DISPROPORTIONATE amount even. The criticism often includes the bait-phrase, “I’m going to be called an antisemite for this …” thus appealing to emotions one would think were left behind in lower grade school.
It’s an issue on which your usual erudition and logic seem to desert you.
ET, Ma’am, I must respectfully disagree with yer learn-ed opinion.
“…its occupation and settlement of the Palestinian lands is hardly ‘just sitting there’.”
It is compared to the world-class ass kicking the Americans just handed out to Ash-canistan and Eye-rack. Two regimes are out, one is pushing up daisies from their caves, the other one’s dictator got dragged out of a hole in the desert, now he’s in another one.
Had the Israelis done that in Egypt and Syria during any one of the numerous wars there wouldn’t be any “unrest” in the Middle East. There’d be a great big lack of unrest in fact, because two of the most baggy assed, backward dictatorships in the world would be replaced with… wait for it… civilization!
An idea whose time has come, perhaps?
jt – could you explain the relation between your two paragraphs? My criticism of you – and my criticism of Israel?
Sorry – no, I’m not a Liberal. Nor Mole. Ahh well, another conspiracy theory goes awry.
phantom – I don’t think that the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has any comparison to the US attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these were nation-states; Palestine never was.
I also think that attacking Egypt and Syria would have no effect on the Palestinian situation. Such an attack wouldn’t have nullified the million plus Palestinians living in Gaza/West Bank.
And I don’t think that the tribal governments of Egypt and Syria ..and you ought to include Saudi Arabia, Iran and Saddam’s Iraq – have much to do with the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The ME tribal govts of Egypt, Iran..etc..are dysfunctional in themselves; not because of Israel-Palestine. They are dysfunctional because they are tribal rather than civic – and their tribalism and their dysfunctionality has NOTHING to do with Israel or Palestine.
As for whether ‘taking out Egypt and Syria’ would have moved the entire ME into a civic mode – I don’t know. Back in 1948-50 might have been too early. It’s happening now and I think it’s easier now because of the electronic information network which has forced open those ME states to the outside world and disabled the ability of their govts to control information.
“So, what Ezra is doing is vitally important. The HRAct Section 13.1 has to go. And so does multiculturalism, which is intimately linked to this Section.”
I AGREE, HOW ABOUT ONE STEP FARTHER?
I BELIEVE THAT IF HARPER WANTED TO GO TO THE POLLS HE RUN ON ENDING MULTICULTURISM. HE WOULD KEEP IS BASE IN WESTERN CANADA; AND, THE QUEBECERS WOULD FALL IN LINE. THIS ISSUE UNITES THE RIGHT AND QUEBEC, AND LEAVES THE LIBERALS AND THE NDP FIGHTING OVER THE SCRAPS LEFT OVER IN ONTARIO AND THE MARITIMES.
“and their tribalism and their dysfunctionality has NOTHING to do with Israel or Palestine.”
That’s a ludicrous statement. Listen to what they say once in a while. Listen to them quote the Quran. Listen to them Quote Mohammad. They all do it.
It’s called Islam.
“and disabled the ability of their govts to control information.”
LGF: “Pakistan decided to block access to YouTube from Pakistani IP addresses, to protect the ummah from exposure to Dutch MP Geert Wilders’ heinous film of blasphemy, criticizing the Koran.”
“But they ended up blocking access to YouTube for a large part of the world. Oops.”
Oops, is right.
Since my last comments on this post concerning ET’s obsession with Israel, I note he/she/whatever has confirmed what I noted. Oh, and if one has observed ET’s postings elsewhere on other topics one will clearly note the pattern to which I referred.
I rest my case.
I agree with many of ET’s posts, but not on this subject. After a generation of being terrorized by their neighbors, Israel has shown great patience. I doubt any of the countries critical of Israel would tolerate missiles being fired at them. If they did they would have long ago ceased to exist.
irwin daisy – we’ve been through this before. I reject your singular focus on the Islamic texts. You see, what you don’t deal with, is any examination of WHY these texts emerged and were accepted. That’s what is important.
After all, anyone can dream up a New Ideology About the World; happens all the time. But, no-one, apart from a few family members and demented, will follow it. But, why did Islam emerge and become a dominant ideology in a particular area? That’s what you don’t examine; I think it vitally important.
By the way – your example of Pakistan has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, which is about political authority and land/water control. Not any religion.
And, oops, that’s right; it’s not that easy to control the movement of information in today’s world. Somehow, somewhere, the links are opened, and authoritarian centralist control just doesn’t have the same power it had two decades ago.
Alain – what pattern?
Gus – you are quite right. No country would tolerate missiles being fired at them. Neither does Israel. That’s why it bulldozes homes and built The Wall. But, what are the reasons for those missiles and attacks? There’s such a thing as a generation long occupation and settlements of the lands allotted to the Palestinians. You know, I think that action by Israel just might have the result of missiles and attacks….
“As someone old enough to remember Ulysses Grant’s mass-expulsion of the Jews from conquered Union territories during the Civil War, Brandeis had…”
Gross factual inaccuracy. And the people at the “National” Post wonder why it bleeds red ink.
Actually, CanWest net a quarter billion profit each year and I suppose thy don’t even notice the $50 million or whatever their flagship propaganda organ loses. In this context, and in a wholly unaccountable society such as Canada. Kay’s fabricated historical claims are “logical”, if at the extreme limits of reason.
“irwin daisy – we’ve been through this before. I reject your singular focus on the Islamic texts. You see, what you don’t deal with, is any examination of WHY these texts emerged and were accepted. That’s what is important.”
ET, do you really think I care what you “reject?” Islam is an ideology that is based on and includes the texts, alright? There would be no ideology without them, is this clear? Furthermore, your unfounded and utterly ridiculous comment, “and their tribalism and their dysfunctionality has NOTHING to do with Israel or Palestine” is about the height of ignorance, IMO.
You sound like the very “cloud dwellers” you constantly ridicule.
Why Islam emerged, right. You’d like people to believe your bogus, completely ahistorical assertion that it is because the Byzantines invaded Arabia. Besides the obvious question of why the Byzantines would want to invade useless desert land in the first place – it’s not in any historical account I’ve ever read. And more importantly, from the Islamic point of view, it is not in their texts. Got that? Nowhere. Not to be found.
So therefore Islamic history disagrees with you.
Your theory that the Islamic problem has nothing to do with the Islamic ideology is for lack of better words – unbelievably irrational. Astonishing, might be a better word.
PILE ON ET!!!!! ~:D Kidding!
One thing re. the Palestinian situation, it wouldn’t exist without Egypt and Syria keeping it that way. I would add at this point that as ham fisted as the Israelis may have been, (and you’re right, they have been for sure) their worst pales in comparison to what goes down in Lebanon with the “refugee” camps.
I see the argument between you and Irwin Daisy as two people running around the same mulberry bush. Irwin thinks the Koran causes the malfunctioning tribal society, you think the malfunctioning tribal society causes the Koran.
Irwin, sorry dude. I lead to her side on this one. Christianity is different since Feudalism got crushed by the steam engine. Islam is a deer in the headlights to modern technology. Wait until cell phones become a server-less wide area network, with no choke points. Censorship? HA!
‘Course that deer is going to make a mess of that bumper…
Legally speaking they are NOT “occupied territories”. To use this phrase is to swallow virtuosic Arab propaganda, whole.
ET I believe has a very serious animus against Israel; perhaps it’s a family thing. I consider ET a anti-Semite, tho perhaps a unwitting one. Her policy choices lead inexorably to the destruction of Israel; she simply doesn’t get the vile Jew-hatred of Arabs, and actually believes the conflict is a border dispute — a national liberation movement rather than jihad. In short, the KGB got her, and got her good. As mentioned, Arafat was taught by the KGB to frame the conflict in this way for western consumption and the “Palestinian people” (with reference to the area Arabs) is a propagandistic invention designed to make Israel Goliath and the area Arabs David. If you read newspaper reports of the Six-Day war, you will find NO mention of “Palestinians”.
Elsewhere she opined that Israel’s right to exist is “debatable” while appearing to respect Noam Chomsky’s vile acolyte Norman Finkelstein who is a truly sick man. If I were a psychiatrist I would do pro bono work for that sick jew-hating son of Holocaust survivors, just for the professional development. And oh, btw, he just finished a little tete a tete with Hizbollah in S. Lebanon.
99.9999% of anti-Zionism I encounter I take as anti-Semitism. Period.
The key thing is the double standard: one for Israel one for the rest of the planet.
From anti-Semites, I can never get a honest answer to the question: Does Pakistan have a right to exist. If it does, and Israel doesn’t, you’re a anti-Semite.
ET, I don’t want to engage in a “chicken and egg” argument regarding who started the “Israel and their Neighbors” conflict….what the hell, they occupied those lands after being attacked by all of their neighbors, so they could provide a buffer zone to protect their citizens. No Islamic attack…no Israeli occupation. The smart neighbors like Jordan knew when to stop the attacks and now have peace. The others, that continue to engage Israel in warfare and terrorism, suffer the just consequences.
What*s all this focus on Jews?
This has to do with freedom of speech / debate as it applies to any one or any group.
It is simply an important change in fairness of freedom of debate.
There is nothing specific to any one group or nationality. = TG
ET, your attitude about Jews is a lot more evident than you intend it to be.
I’m curious — based on my life experiences — I’m wondering, are you by any chance of slavic/eastern European descent?
I am always curious at the twisting ways of our language. The Nazis were anti-semetic because they sought to eliminate the Jews. Yet most semites are not Jews and some Jews are not semites. Had Hitler aimed his troops at the elimination of Arabs and many Ethiopians I would tend to say that Hitler was anti-semetic but because he made allies with the Arabs I would say that Hitler was anti-Jewish not anti-semetic. In other words Hitler was xenophobic regarding Jews and philosophically opposed to Judeaism.
Anecdotal though it be I have also noticed similar feelings in those who most oppose Yahweh. The most virialent anti-Jews are atheist secular humanists (including genetic Jews). The most ardent in their support of Israel are those who attempt to follow the leadings of Yahweh. Of course on the end of the spectrum reside the nutbars that hold either Israel can do no right or Israel can do no wrong and I must add that certain cultures tend to accept or reject Jews more than others.
As for certain Jewish groups like the CJC I think they grasp the adder a little too close to their breast. Can anyone think of a way to make yourself more unpopular than to be seen trying to control peoples thoughts and attitudes? Which is why I personally support Ezra and his public discourse approach.
The USA supported his Royal Pompous Ass, the Shaw of Iran. Then later supported Saddam so to further poke at Iran.
Iran*s mullahs hated the USA and funded Hizbalah to snipe back at the USA indirectly by stabbing Israel from Lebanon and Gaza.
Iran also funded Muqtada al-Sadr to hit both the Americans and the Sunni in Iraq.
Iran and Syria may both be paying Hamas to train their youth to hate and attack Jews, fostering the hate against both Jews and the USA.
One suspects the Saudies, Quatar and others are backing Osama Taliban gangs in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let*s hope Osama*s boys don*t find their way into Musharif nuclear positions similar to Homer Simpson*s.
Point being, the true tension is between Iran and the USA. Why does everyone focus on Israel? = TG
old white guy, “for a people who have such intellectual brilliance the jews seem to have a self- destructive gene”
history shows the Jewish don’t “self destruct”, it’s mostly outside forces that are destructive.
“Point being, the true tension is between Iran and the USA. Why does everyone focus on Israel? = TG”
Wrong Tony!
This ALL goes to the Arabs around Israel and their perpetual embarrassment over the humiliation they faced at the hands of the Zionist State.
Whatever dynamics are most predominant today all stem from the root cause. The Arabs HATE the fact that the UN backed the creation of Israel. They HATE the fact that Israel is successful and prosperous. Egypt Jordan and Syria conspired to wipe them out in 1967 and got their asses handed to them. The rancor over that fact is THE driving force behind ALL of the so called terrorist agendas of today.
They HATE the fact that the USA stands resolutely behind Israel and by extension that means they HATE the entire Western European world.
That HATRED is the tool that is the prime motivation of the Islamist provocateurs who are exploiting the inbred culture of violence and encouraging and feeding the desperation and ignorance of third world shitholes that breed their followers.
The Issues are simple and brutal and they ALL revolve around HATRED of Jews.
BTW – someone tried to make a link between the supposedly Jewish controlled Media industry and the apparent failure of Jews to realize the threat of Islamist ideology!
Jewish control of media or anything else in our society is an apocryphal myth.
The Jews who fail to realize their predicament are LIBERAL / SOCIALIST tools too far gone to act rationally and the media for the most part just happens to be infected with that same disease.
It’s a confluence of social and psychological disorder that paralyzes those inflicted in a manner that prevents them from seeing beyond their delusions.
I reiterate … The Issues are simple and brutal and they ALL revolve around HATRED of Jews.
Ommag,
* * They HATE the fact that the USA stands resolutely behind Israel and by extension that means they HATE the entire Western European world. * *
= Western American and European world. =
Same thing. We agree. = TG
Why does anyone in the west care anyway? Not to sound insensitive, but let the lot of them fight it out and get it over with. Presumably the Israelis would win because of their military might and we could rush to beat the Chinese to make a claim in the oil fields. Problems solved…No more debating and wasting time on an issue that involves anyone else but them, and we’d save a ton of money in support to either side.
As long as the Israelis don’t nuke anyone we’d have a ton of viable beach front properties at our disposal at very reasonable cost.
The point at which allowable criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism is when Israel is held to impossible standards of perfection by a world community that is only too eager to excuse vile regimes with much worse records on human rights.
The United Nations censures Israel countless times with nary a word of criticism for China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. What are we to make of that?
Israel alone is expected to return land captured during a defensive war to her attackers.
Israel alone must not retaliate against daily aggression.
Egypt’s wall against the Palestinians gets no comment. Israel’s wall against Palestinian suicide bombers is treated like a humanitarian catastrophe.
Surrounding Muslim states busily cleanse themselves of Jews and Christians by making it impossible to practise their faith safely and receive not a word of criticism. Israel allows Muslim Arabs to stay and receive rights they would not get even in Muslim countries and gets called an apartheid state for its pains.
Putin ground Muslim Chechnya into rubble simply because he could, not because Russia was being attacked, but in breathtaking hypocrisy Israel is excoriated by the UN (including Russia!) for targeted reprisals at her attackers.
British universities and Canadian unions tried to organize a boycott of Israeli professors alone in the world.
The stench of anti-semitism is pretty noticeable, but I agree with a commenter above that Jews are at the very least conflicted since the vast majority in North America identify with, vote and financially support the leftist parties who spearhead the anti-Israel initiatives above.
“Furthermore, I don’t think it is valid to bond ‘Israel’ with ‘civilization’.” thus spoke ET
Israel’s enemies have always been the enemies of civilization – check Islamists, communists, Nazis. The ancient Romans (great builders) were barbarians who fought 4 years to put down the Jewish rebellion – in the end Israel won with the spread, by Christianity, of biblical ideas and morality.
As Joe said “The most virialent anti-Jews are atheist secular humanists (including genetic Jews).” Communists, Nazis, atheists, Islamists, are all anti-Jews (and I would add anti-Christian) because they are anti the idea that there is a single Judge to which all are accountable.
Phantom,
To be clear, I’ve never stated that tribalism wasn’t a cause of Islam. If you look at their early history it was all about tribalism. Mohammad, however, created the super tribe, or Ummah, under the banner of Islam. I argue against ET’s foundational assertion, that Mohammad and the creation of his cult was in direct response to Byzantine incursions into Arabia, which is as patently false as anything Edward Said ever said.
I also argue against her inane position that the ideology has nothing to do with what’s going on with Islam today.
I don’t know if it’s much use to continue this debate; we’re all pretty entrenched in our views.
No, I’m not an anti-semite; again, you are slipping into the perspective to to criticize Israel is to be an anti-semite. I reject such a merger. I haven’t said a word against ‘being Jewish’ or the Jewish religion. Since I’m an atheist, then, the religion doesn’t interest me; I’m neither for nor against it.
No country has a ‘right to exist’, understanding this phrase as implyin an innate or essential necessity. Countries are political structures and therefore, are created by human beings for social reasons. I don’t think one can say more than that.
Israel doesn’t have a ‘right to exist’. Neither does Canada. But, both exist as internationally legally accepted creations of man. I consider that Palestine should also be established as such a human political construct.
I don’t accept that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank/Gaza are ‘spoils of war’. I don’t see the validity of such and point to the fact that the US/UK never considered Germany etc as ‘theirs’.
I don’t define Israel as ‘civilized’ or ‘uncivilized’. That’s why I don’t bond the term to it. I think you’d have to define what you mean by that term. Do you mean operating by rule of law, by a democratic method etc? I hope you don’t mean something as trivial as ‘civilized’ vs’ barbaric’.
As I’ve said before, I think that Israel wants the land base (of the West Bank); that is, Israel’s agenda is the land. I think that the Arab States have been against the creation of both Israel AND Palestine because they didn’t want a civic governmental model, a non-tribal democracy in their midst. They’ve been strongly against Palestine because they didn’t want an Arab civic democracy in their midst.
Your focus ignores the Arab State’s rejection and focuses only on ‘anti-semitic’ arguments against Israel, ignoring their rejection both of a Palestinian state, and of the civic model.
No, I don’t advocate the destruction of Israel. Just as I don’t advocate the destruction of the US or Canada or the UK. These countries exist; they are political constructs. If someone criticizes the policies of the US, does that mean that they want the destruction of the US? Are they anti-whatever, because they do so? Is Israel or any country beyond criticism?
And don’t try to submerge my criticism of Israel’s political policies into a personal psychological aberration. I think my critique can stand on its being rational and factual. Not personal.
My critique is basic: I think that there should be a Palestinian state, following the map of the UN’s 1948 outline; I think that Israel should not be settling the West Bank. Period. I think that Israel’s occuption and rejection of a Palestinian state are wrong.
Now- is that anti-semitic? How could it possibly be?
irwin daisy, if you don’t care about my rejection of the texts as ‘basic’, then why do you so consistently get upset about that? I repeat, you have to explain why those texts developed, why the ideology developed and was accepted and remains accepted. When that analysis is done, then, you can examine what needs to be done to change the ideology.
I don’t think that the Egyptian and Israeli walls are identical; the Israeli one cuts into Palestinian farms and settlements.
So- this argument goes nowhere; we have two opposite positions.
irwin daisy – I don’t think you understand tribalism. It isn’t their ‘early history’ that was about tribalism. It’s their ENTIRE history, and Islam is not a tribe but an ideology that rests within tribal behaviour; there are quite a few tribes within Islam. There is no ‘super tribe’. Islam is not a tribe but an ideology supporting tribalism. You still haven’t explained WHY Islam emerged and WHY it was accepted by so many.
No, the Byzantine excursion into the Arabian lands was not a myth. It happened. No, the area is not completely empty desert; the arab tribes were there – using a migratory pastoral nomadism. How do you explain that?