What is anti-Semitism?

William I. Robinson, a professor of sociology at UC Santa Barbara, probably shouldn't have been surprised when he found himself in the news earlier this month. He had, after all, forwarded an e-mail to his students that juxtaposed images of Palestinians caught up in Israel's recent Gaza Strip offensive with Jewish victims of the Nazis. The e-mail included graphic photographs of dead Jewish children from the 1940s alongside similar photos from Gaza. In a cover note, Robinson called the images "parallel" and compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto.

The outcry built slowly. First, a few students complained; then, organized groups became involved. Two national Jewish leaders accused Robinson (who is himself Jewish) of anti-Semitism, and the university's Academic Senate opened an investigation and is considering disciplinary proceedings. Articles about the controversy have been published all over the world and have given rise to fundamental questions:

Is it ever acceptable to compare Israelis to Nazis? When does criticism of Israel become anti-Semitism? And who should make these calls? Below, The Times asks and answers a few questions to help frame the debate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg12-2009may12,0,1363776.story

nt

:P

it is a term used to mean prejudice or hostility against jewish people

I"m saying the term is misapplied.

Words do not always mean the same thing as their linguistic roots. Antisemitic is an English word meaning "prejudiced against jews", not "prejudiced against semitic people".

reflect hostility toward Jews. And lots of words seemingly contradict their roots, etymologically speaking.

as I said, "technically" antisemitic should also include people that are anti-muslim, which would include a lot of jews, so the term itself is, in my opinion, the wrong term to use.

but whatever.

And is generally understood in this way.

Many terms are not used quite appropriately - technically calling the USA 'America' is wrong, as the American continent contains a number of other countries.

But if you prefer to say 'anti-Jewish' - that is fine and the same points apply.

I think that - for example - claiming that God as depicted in Judaism is a wicked and flawed entity is arguably anti-Jewish but certainly not anti-semitic.

"Jew/Jewish" is a stupid word. It refers simultaneously to a religion, a race, a culture, and halachic law, so that I, for example, am Jewish, but not Jewish, and half Jewish, although only slightly Jewish...

Broadly speaking, hostility to the race is always anti-semitism; hostilty to any of the others is often but not always anti-semitism.

The term was created to mean what it means now, and has always meant what it means now.

Do we all assume that all things vicious have fallen for a vice? That all slaves are Slavs? When we say somebody is a vandal we mean that they're looting and pillaging or even actual Vandals? Do we really believe that Semites are all the descendents of Shem?

As for the term even possibly being equivalent to "anti-Muslim", that assumes that all Muslims are Semites. Now, the way the term "Semite" was originally used in Western thought is at odds with that--it covered those ethnicities that traditionally spoke a Semitic language. In this context it pays to remember that Ethiopians and Somalis would also be considered Semitic (that was the usage for a while). Ethiopians, of course, have famously traditionally not been majority Muslim. Only a bit later did "Semitic" come to be applied to a subset of Semitic speakers, specifically those Semitic speakers who live in the Middle East (as opposed to E Africa), only really speakers of a West Semitic language.

So if you want to play etymological games, "Semitic" doesn't entail "Muslim", and if we really want to say that "anti-Semitic" must be based on the etymology and original meaning of "semite" then we have to conclude that if you don't like Ethiopians you're anti-Semitic. Seems a bit of a stretch, of course, but there you are. It reduces nicely to an absurdity. Now where have I heard that phrase, "reduce to an absurdity"? "Reduce?" No, "reductio," perhaps. More beer is in order.

And, lest I escape Godwin, I'd note that "Aryan" was also a perfectly good term--and is still used in some circles in its earlier usage--until Hitler got a hold of it and decided to twist it to mean what he wanted it to mean. Some refuse to grant Hitler the authority to redefine the term; most, of course, have no problem with ceding such authority.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just because there is real anti-semitism, doesn't mean that term hasn't been badly misused and abused. I further don't appreciate you nasty tone. I am not going to be intimidated by you or anyone else for that matter. People need to resist your intidation and nastiness and stand up for what is right.

that anti-semitism doesn't really count. And that shoe fits your foot to perfection.

And thought the writer did a decent job with it.

Q&A with Op-Ed Editor Nicholas Goldberg

http://www.jewishjournal.com/community_briefs/article/keeping_it_fair_and_balanced_at_the_los_angeles_times_20080201/

the last year or two, in that there is a much more diverse set of viewpoints presented. Mr. Goldberg looks and sounds like my sort of person.

among the first to shout the canard that it's a way to silence "critics," of Jews and Israel. For them, that's as far as it goes unless someone is actually caught stuffing them into ovens.

occurs where Jews are directly attacked or blamed as a group, or where collective responsibility is attributed to all Jews for the behaviour of any: e.g. attacking Europaean Jews for the actions of Israel, or using the behaviour of a criminal who happens to be Jewish to argue that 'Jews are thieves'.

It also IMO includes blaming Jews for the actions of other countries (e.g. 'Jews got America into the Iraq war' or 'Britain's government is controlled by a Jewish cabal') or for world misfortunes ('Jews own the banks and caused the present recession'). And in this context, changing the word 'Jews' to a particular subset of Jews (e.g. 'Israel' or 'Zionists') does not change the basic meaning.

However, there is nothing intrinsically antisemitic about criticizing or condemning the Israeli government. Comparing them to Nazis is silly, but not necessarily antisemitic: many people will 'Godwinize' everything from America to Iran to the bad-tempered neighbour who told them not to smoke in her presence. It does become antisemitic if it is said with an implication that Jews partly deserved Nazism and the Holocaust, as they themselves are just as bad as the Nazis when given the chance.

A general principle, I'd say, is to substitute another group for 'Jews' or country for 'Israel' and see how it sounds. 'Iran has an oppressive government' is not Islamophobic; 'Islamofascists are overrunning the West' is. 'Mugabe is a tyrant' is not racist; 'Zimbabwe just shows how those Africans can't govern themselves' is.

to blame "the Jews" for everything (not so much of that here) and for "don't really have a good term for" anti-anti-Semites to cry "Nazi" at any criticism of anything remotely connected to Israel/Jewish people/whatever (much more of that here).

Please stop thinking. You'll be happier just going along with the mob(s).

view of Iran on US lawmakers? Does anyone argue that is NOT the case? If they are successful, would it be anti-semitic to say, "pro-Israel lobbying groups led us into ____ with Iran?"

they are lobbying for tough sanctions, not war. I don't think it would be antisemitic to say "AIPAC helped to persuade Congress to increase sanctions on Iran" - though it would be incorrect to say that AIPAC is the cause of American hostility to Iran, which has been going on for decades.

To perhaps bring up a parallel: do you think it is appropriate or accurate when certan Brits say, "America got us into war with Iraq."? It is certainly true that *if* the American government had not wanted war with Iraq, we would not have gone in. However, we still had a choice; France chose not to go in, despite the fact that the American government wanted them to do so. Therefore, I would regard it as to some degree anti-American, and certainly an unjustified whitewashing of our own government, to say "America got us in", and more apppropriate to say, "Our government got us in, in collaboration with America."

"make us," do something we are disinclined to do. Since Israel has no gun to the heads of Congress it's probable that Congress will, by a majority, come to its own conclusion about what to do and certainly any pro-Israeli group may have some impact on their decision making but one has to wear a HUGE tin foil hat to say they led the US into something.

The canard that Jewish funds/donations cause congress critters to obey the Jews/Israel could only be believable if all receivuing funding voted for their views and those receiving none voted against their views. This is obviously NOT the case.

and dishonest and in violation of forum rules. Or in this case "Jews" or "the Jews" when one is referring to the right-wing pro-Israeli lobby.

It is obvious that the practice of equating all Jews or Jewish people in general with certain actions of the Israeli state or certain opinions coming from the right-wing pro-Israeli lobby is practically the very definition of anti-Semitism.

"Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli"."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970

unlike 'careful' westerners, the people in the middle east are a bit more straightforward. They don't use 'zionists' or 'israelis'. They say what they mean, and that's 'jews'.

just saying.

That's why the whole "land sale to Jews vs. land sale to Israelis" was a waste of breath.

When Palestinians say "The Jews" it is to refer to Jewish Israelis. There is no "evil intention" behind it, no disrespect. They are using the term to distinguish the ethnic group. Since there are Muslim and Christian Israelis, who are Arab and not, by and large, in the IDF, or living in settlements, or humiliating them at checkpoints, "Israeli" doesn't really cut it.

Similarly, don't many Hebrew speakers call indigenous Palestinians "Arabs" as a blanket term of reference?

I would argue that standard for what constitutes bigoted language, shaped by our English semantic differences, can't be held as the standard for discourse (especially internal discourse) over there -- for either side.

If an American is intentionally equating "the Jews" with the Israeli state or the Israeli lobby whether to smear Jewish people as a people or to put words in someone else's mouth to imply something that the other person obviously does not believe - that sounds, if not anti-Semitism, something dangerously close to anti-Semitism or at least a form of soliciting for anti-Semitism.

If it is wrongheaded and bigoted, which I am certain both you and I agree, to blame ordinary Jewish people in America and around the world for all the actions of the Israeli state or their policies supported by reactionary elements of the American pro-Israeli lobby - it is equally wrongheaded and bigoted to equate for purposes of political language manipulation ordinary Jewish people in America and around the world with all the actions of the Israeli state or their policies supported by reactionary elements of the American pro-Israeli lobby. Doing so, perhaps unwittingly, uses language that appears to legitimize anti-Semitism. They seem to be saying, even if they are unaware of the implication, that ordinary Jewish people in America and around the world are responsible for all the actions of the Israeli state and the pro-American Israeli lobby.

Frankly, I find that just as wrongheaded and bigoted as someone saying, "the Arabs attacked America on 9/11". And frankly I find it quite similar to those misguided souls who reflexively defend any actions by any Arab group or Muslim group the world over on the grounds that they are defending Arab and/or Muslim against smears and slander. This kind of deeply misguided defense is an open invitation to unjustifiable bigotry. It in effect says, "yes we are all responsible for everything done in our name. We are to blame too."

If one is distinguishing Jewish people, or Palestinian peole for that matter, living in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories as opposed to other peoples living in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories that is a very different matter.

that there are many people who couch their anti-semitism in anti-Israel screeds.

They claim not to like Israeli policy, but they actually really don't like Jews, and believe they are secretly running the banks, media, publishing, foreign policy etc.

There are also people who demonize Arab people or Muslim people under the pretense of defending liberal values or women's rights or fighting terrorism.

Much of the media attention about Saudi Arabia has strong hints of bigotry and racism even when at least some of the reports are somewhat true.

But the fact that bigots and racist or anti-Semites might jump into an otherwise legitimate debate is in a sense besides the point.

There is nothing bigoted or racist about saying that protecting the security of the oil-rich Arab Gulf states is a high priority of the U.S. government and that there are powerful interest in Washington defending and promoting that policy. It is simply a fact. It becomes racist when when people cast desperations against Arabs as a people.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about pointing out the obvious that the pro-Israeli lobby has a great deal of influence, to such an extent that in my opinion that it not only undermines America's broad national interest it in the long run - harmful to the long-term security of the Israeli people.

Of course claims about "the Jews" secretly running the banks, media, publishing, foreign policy etc are both anti-Semitic and simply ludicrous.

Claiming the pro-Israeli lobby has excessive influence is still a far cry from claiming "the Jews" secretly run the banks, media, publishing, foreign policy.

The fact that some racist and bigots hide behind legitimate criticism of Arabs and Muslims governments - does not make all charges untrue. It just confuses the issue. Similarly the fact that some anti-Semites jump on legitimate criticism of Israeli policy does not make all criticism of Israeli policy and their treatment of the Palestinians untrue.

certainly not the non-Jewish inhabitants. I wish more people were honest and didn't just use "zionists" or "israelis" in their criticism.

Youtube interview with Eric Alterman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch43wy8Zb8

full 14 minute interview with Eric Alterman, "Wesley Clark and the Anti-Semitism charge":

http://bloggingheads.tv/index.php/diavlogs/155?in=00:22:26&out=00:37:08



.

straight forward, well reasoned article on the subject I have seen in a long time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A refreshing intelligent look at the issue. I agree with its content

Oh it starts with a few jokes and some slurs..... "Hey Denty!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyPAXEZS-s