Last night I posted an LA Times piece called "What Is Anti-Semitism?" that accepts a Daniel Jonah Goldhagen test of anti-Semitism: Does the speaker harp on Israel's faults and not consider other countries' faults? (I wonder if Goldhagen even thinks Israel has faults!) A smart friend has this extremely-helpful response:
To the question on which the leveling or lifting of a charge of anti-Semitism is said to depend--namely, Does the critic of Israel pay equal attention to the faults of other countries or does he seem to single out Israel?--the question is falsely put, and is calculated to sow confusion.
The truth is, Israel has already been singled out for positive treatment and a unique connection with the United States--singled out by its own will, and by the entirely unique terms of our recent and extraordinary ties. Every year the U.S. gives $2.5 billion to Israel. If Obama gets his request, this will rise to $3 billion a year for the coming decade. The contribution is overwhelmingly for military purposes and given with no strings attached. Since Arab and absentee Jewish citizens derive no benefits from such a donation, it comes to roughly $700 a year for every Jewish citizen at present residing in Israel.
No other country in the world receives anything approaching such a subsidy from the United States with no strings attached. And since the attacks of 2001, and earlier and later terrorist attacks on U.S. possessions, are widely understood to have been "blowback" from Arab resentment of Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, any refusal by an American to criticize Israel with particular force and singular consideration (since Israel's actions may have caused singular harm to our own country), can have as its cause only ignorance or intimidation in the face of predictable censure.
Does China have a worse record on human rights than Israel? Very likely. Does China receive U.S. aid, with no strings attached, comparable to what the U.S. gives to Israel? It does not. It is unimaginable that it ever would. Nor is the U.S. held to account for the faults or crimes of the government of China in the way it is held to account for those of Israel.
So long as one's mind is fixed on the United States and its security, and so long as Israel's policy is as enmeshed as it has become with American power--enjoying open American support in the form of tax dollars as well as moral and political backing at the U.N. and elsewhere--close attention to all that Israel does with our support would seem to be a civic duty of Americans. The form of the required attention is "special" because the relationship is special. The time for Israel to be subjected to no closer scrutiny than any other country will have come when Israel and the U.S. agree on the mutual benefit of giving up an often apparently dangerous "special relationship."
Nicholas Goldberg's LA Times article does not accept the Goldhagen definition, it merely cites it, among others. It's really a very fair minded piece. It's true that it asks whether Robinson "meets the Goldhagen test," but it does not adopt this as its own decisive judgment, and in fact it does not arrive at a judgment at all, it ends, " you be the judge." However, more fundamentally, the question of whether Israel's critics are motivated by "anti-Semitism" or not is a red herring. It is purely ad hominem, and has no bearing on the correctness or otherwise of their arguments. It may be claimed that it has a bearing on the persuasiveness of their arguments, if one says that the anti-Semitism of the critics risks inflaming the latent anti-Semitism of their audiences, but even this in itself does not decide the correctness of what the critics are saying. The persuasiveness consideration is often presented as if it were a substantive argument for zionism, thus: "We need a state of our own because everybody hates us," but this is a hypocritical pseudo-argument, because what it really means is: "everybody hates us except you, our intended audience, who are therefore obliged to favor us against the rest of the world."
in absolute terms or per capita/percentages (jews love this) , israel beats china. anti semitism is used whenever jewish violence, lies, deceptions, crimes are pointed out. anti semitism should be applied against jews. jews are the real anti semites. alway have been. truth as lie. lie as truth. two jewish "lights" upon the world.
Everyday I condemn the US for its occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and want its leaders responsible for crimes committed during those invasions and occupations to be tried under the Nuremberg protocols, and if found guilty given similar sentences the Nazis received. Rebuild Spandau Prison so W. Bush can spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement there. Now that I have condemned the US for its faults, it should stop subsidizing Israel's crimes against Palestinians and Lebanese, and soon perhaps against Iranians, so that its leaders will not have to be tried as accomplices to Israel's crimes.
I agree with Robinson. People in the united states are under no obligation to be balanced in their criticism of something. we can go off on tangents all day and all night. thank you bill of rights
Good for Robinson for standing his ground, despite various conflationary land mines being placed around him – if you single out Israel for criticism, if you criticize Zionism, if you mention potential conspiracies, then you cross the line into Anti-Semitism. Merriam Webster's online dictionary defines Anti-Semitism thus: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." That works for me. I believe it is possible to single out Israel, because of the special relationship and the blowback, to criticize Zionism to the extent it bleeds into racism, and to point out coordinated actions among cabal-like groups, like the Neocons, while staying clear of Anti-Semitism. I believe Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu provide examples. Much of the rest is an effort to change the subject from criticism of Israeli, Zionist, and Neocon policies into personal attacks against the critics, and thereby to silence debate. On balance, I think it is a good thing that the LA Times publishes such a column.
The simple point is, a lauded "special relationship" works both ways, unless you are talking about a moronic or mentally ill mom who feels her job in life is to simply give her endlessly spoiled brat free reign forever no matter the cost to others (or even herself) who might actually run into the spoiled brat on the street or in the hall. Nanny Sami is the latter, unfortunately. Given the relative economic and civil rights freedom all Americans enjoy, along with their access to so many POVs available at their fingertips, and buttressed by the First Amendment, Goldhagen should write a sequel to his book on the collective guilt of all Germans–about how Americans, given their freedoms and history, are much more innately evil than the Germans ever were, and they are proving it every day.
True. The Americans lost 3,000 in 9/11. Is that comparable to what the Germans lost in WW1 & the French-English revenge afterward (at the expense of Wilson's doughboys)? Americans have no excuse, given all they have, to ever think they are any longer morally better than the average German between the world wars. They are worse. Less understandable. What is more banal than American evil? Israel is akin to Nqzi Germany in many ways. Minus the aesthetics.
*RE: "The drumbeat: Netanyahu adviser fears 'the West is in trouble' under Obama" *TAKE ACTION TO END THE OCCUPATION Send a personalized letter (E-mail) to the Members of Congress on the Appropriations Subcommittee. Let these Members of Congress know that you oppose the President's FY2010 budget request for $2.775 billion in military aid to Israel. *TO SEND YOUR LETTER (E-mail): – http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/641/t/2439/c...
RE: "LA Times piece called "What Is Anti-Semitism?" A RELATED ARTICLE – "Unintended Consequences" – By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS, 05/12/09 (EXCERPT)…Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act in 2004, the US Department of State is required to monitor anti-semitism world wide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act created a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by the US Department of State of negative sentiments expressed against Jews. In order to monitor anti-semitism, the term must be defined. The definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly, interpreted. The State Department has come up with its attempt. The State Department’s approach could include any truthful statements about Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli government or AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or contest. Anti-semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred. Inciting hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. “Excessive” criticism of Israel is a subjective, undefinable concept that can be used to determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate “excessive” with “strong.” Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable for war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere become acts of the hate crime of anti-semitism. (Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.) ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05122009.html
Phil's friend's response is absolutely correct. Moreover, those who cry 'antisemitism!' at legitimate criticism of Israel show themselves to be racist by that very act. Also, we pay a hell of a lot more than $3 billion per year to Israel. There are numerous other appropriations in addition to this 'base' funding. We must also include lost trade due to poorer relations with other countries that we might otherwise have. Does anyone remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973? America and Americans have sacrificed enormously for Israel, and what do we get in return? Note that these effects are cumulative: for example money spent in 1975 to fund Israeli colonies was money that could have been spent on US education, healthcare, and infrastructure, therefore the taxation and borrowing (with interest) damaged America every year after by hindering our own economic growth and the well-being of our people. Israel companies subsidized by US taxpayers in joint ventures with our companies turn right around and sell our technology to China, India, and whoever else will pay. Israeli espionage damages American commercial and defense interests, and is facilitated and supported by AIPAC and other pro-colonization organizations. Colonial Zionists at the very least disrespect us and use us shamelessly. Are there any non-Zionists who feel that Israelis respect us? I think they feel we owe them, and that they hold us in contempt. Israelis show absolutely no deference to our interests in spite of the sacrifices we make for them. They are stunning ingrates. We ask them to freeze construction of new colonies. They lie and say they will, and do it anyway, and Americans pay the price. These people are not our friends and not our allies, and the sooner we end our political and financial subsidization of their ethnic cleansing and colonization, the better. We should support, protect, and cherish for their contributions to America, American Jews who see America as their homeland, their promised land. But we must confront and defeat those who sell us out to foreign ethnic cleansers and colonists, and this means exposing turncoats in Congress like Jane Harman.
Zionists can't cry foul when they're "singled out" because they have assigned to themselves singular status and not just on the level of DNA (viz Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh: "[There is] something is special about Jewish DNA” ). They also single themselves out by virtue of the massive US dole as the writer has pointed out. Furthermore Israel has been granted it singular status vis-a-vis receipt of their yearly handout by the US Congress. The 3-4 billion annual foreign aid is paid in one lump sum the first month of each fiscal year instead of the quarterly disbursement plan to which all other nations are subject. Richard Curtiss of WRMEA explains: "That means that the U.S….has to borrow the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money". A sweet and singular deal.
I'll listen just as soon as you condemn the rest of the world for their sins. The leaders of almost every nation on earth will need to spend serious prison time.
I need to check the site again. I did awhile ago, and the definition was clearly indicated as advisory, rather than statutory. I recognize that law holds the potential for "unintended consequences" also. I have some confidence in the right of judicial appeal. That said: no one wants to be a poster child. Guess I'll check USDS again.
I guess I'll find out – I seem to have entered an inflammatory period. May 15 Blog Palestine Day
"And since the attacks of 2001, and earlier and later terrorist attacks on U.S. possessions, are widely understood to have been "blowback" from Arab resentment of Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, any refusal by an American to criticize Israel with particular force and singular consideration (since Israel's actions may have caused singular harm to our own country), can have as its cause only ignorance or intimidation in the face of predictable censure." You'd have thought the Zionists who planned and executed the September 11 attacks in New York would've estimated that possible response from the American people. But then it's only a stone's throw from arrogance to ignorance, I guess…
My relationship with my friends is special. I disagree with my friends often, but we continue to justly regard our relationship as special. And, I don't consider "freezing" on them, when they say things that I object to or even condemn. I speak up and move on to other elements of our relationship.
No matter whether it comes to the cry of "racism" or "anti-semitism" it's always seemed to me that the vagueness behind those charges was something that was going to rob them of what should be their rightful sting sooner or later. After all unless you posit that the members of this or that race or tribe or group or etc. are somehow *inherently* inferior in intellect or morals—such as via genetics—what are you doing other than merely saying you don't like what you perceive as some *cultural* attribute that many of those members share? And if that's off limits well then you are a racist too if you merely say that you despise the culture of Germany under Hitler, or the ante-bellum slave-holding Southern U.S. culture. Isn't the real evil saying that someone has some nasty characteristic that they can't change? The evil of true racism is that it says that what it sees is *immutable*; nothing the looked-down upon person can do can change what his or her race has been diagnosed with.
We USED to have the best writers, now we have the WORST writers, and no matter how many times they are laughed out of existence, they rise, lazarus-like to live another day and write yet more drivel, Goldhagen being something of a master of the idiom of Jewish crap writing. I was thinking this morning of the movie version of Gunter Grass' The Tin Drum. There's a very poignant scene, at the ecstatic apex of Nazi popularity in Europe, when a German family ceremoniously takes the large framed portrait of Beethoven off the wall and giddily replaces it with a portrait of the Fuhrer. It reminded me SO much of present-say Jews, many of whom have pulled the portrait of Albert Einstein off the wall and replaced it with one of Ariel Sharon.
Colin Nice post, but you imply that the U.S. is serious in its demands to stop settlement building, whereas I see these demands as utterly cynical and fake. How can we supply the very weapons used to expand the settlements, the D9 bulldozers used to uproot olive groves and smash Arab homes to pieces and claim we stand against Israel's colonial expansion? I think it's fairer to say the United States is in every way, the willing co-conspirator in the settlement project and the dispossession of the Palestinians.
Perhaps, Dickerson, you can help me figure out exactly what Paul Craig Roberts is going on about, because frankly, I don't understand. The exceprt you cite here starts with the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, which requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-Semitism worldwide (not within the United States) and to produce a report. That's it. The next paragraph is pure speculation on the part of Roberts. It could include criticism of Israel; it could exclude criticism of Israel. In the third paragraph, Roberts begins by stating that anti-Semitic speech could be interpreted as inciting hate, and that, in turn hate could be interpreted as "a violent act". Therefore, we are told by Roberts, that criticism of Isael "become acts of the hate crimek of anti-semitism". Get the logic? Well I certainly don't. Now I went back in Counterpunch (which is almost as fine a publication as this blog) five days and found a more explicit (and convoluted) laying out of the logic by Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html
(Continued) In this article, what Roberts does is to link the Gobal Anti-Semitism Act of 2004 with the soon to be passed (if Rahm Israel Emanuel – yes, Roberts does go out of his way to let us know that "Israel" is Emanuel's middle name, but I guess that's standard where Paul Craig Roberts comes from) Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The latter has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, anti-Semitism or global crime. It simply defines a hate crime as incitement to violence and then gives grants to local authorities within the U.S. to prevent and prosecute. That's it. Or is it? Frankly, I don't see the connection. Perhaps you do?
After all is said and done it seems to me that Goldhagen does have a point in that you know there are indeed some people who do seem to focus pretty solely and obsessively on Israel's faults and sins and are indeed anti-semites. Of course his point goes somewhat further however in seeming to say that *any* time a person has so narrowed their focus the *presumption* ought to be that they are indeed anti-semitic. That latter point seems somewhat dicey to me but its interesting in that if you accept it the same logic can put Goldhagen and some others in some danger too: After all what then are we to think when a person such as himself and at least a few others seem to focus pretty solely and obsessively on jewish suffering? By Goldhagen's own logic haven't they presumptively established themselves as anti-Gentile?
It's the slippery slope towards what happened in Germany and lands under Bolshevik rule. Never say anything against the regime or you will disappear in the night. The hate crime concept itself is heavy-handed muzzling in the most subjective manner possible while maintaining a veneer of allegiance to the First Amendment and to the core principles articulated in the US Declaration Of Independence. Hate crimes carve out immunity for special groups, elevating them above the masses, hence is de facto violation of our constitutional equal rights amendment.
Colin Murray, you write well and are very astute. Thank you.
Do you give them money you don't have to support them? No matter how many times they do things you object to?
Yes, there is a symmetry. Each far side excludes evidence as not relevant. The judge clips his toe nails beneath the bench. The jury is texting messages about NASCAR and American Idol, Next Top Model, etc.
Can you imagine the defense in a murder case arguing, "Yes, well, the crime allegedly committed by my client was indeed heinous, but have you taken a look at all these other heinous crimes my client didn't perpetrate? Your Honor, the prosecutor is biased against my client because he has failed to even mention these other cases!" What other point can there be to this argument than to distract the jury with irrelevancies? The subject is Israel. Talking about atrocities committed by others is a red herring. Goldhagen's argument is furthermore hypocritical. For years, Goldhagen was singularly driven to expose an alleged anti-Semitism inherent in German national culture. Every German was a “willing executioner.” Did he “balance” this obsession with numerous random atrocities and injustices perpetrated by other state actors? Has he spent anything like the same amount of time applying the same method he used in Hitler's Willing Executioners to a study of Zionist behavior in Palestine? I don't expect him to criticize Israel. But if I accept his argument, then I shall damn well expect him to criticize Israel.
Citizen, Joachim, Thors or what ever your name is, I was asking where's the connection and the logic between the two acts. I know that you are a person full of hate (probably due to some dibilitating trauma in childhood), but you should go back and look at my post. I was asking what's the logic behind Paul Craig Roberts' argument, which is, on its face, quite illogical.
Sometimes.
Apparently he is saying that by virtue of the Gobal Anti-Semitism Act of 2004, speech deemed "anti-Semitism" might be prosecutable as a 'hate crime'. I very much respect Paul Craig Roberts and I find his argument quite logical. I am E-mailing this thread to him and some prominent 'legal authorities' in the hope that these doubts can be resolved. Stay tuned.
I just want to be clear about one thing. You find this argument logical or generally you find his thinking logical?
A RELATED ARTICLE: "Senior U.K. diplomat said arrested over anti-Semitic tirade", By Haaretz Service, April 11, 2009 A senior diplomat in the British Foreign Office has been arrested for inciting religious hatred after he launched into an anti-Semitic tirade at a London gym, the Daily Mail reported on Monday. Witnesses told the British newspaper they heard diplomat Rowan Laxton shouting "f**king Israelis, f**king Jews" while watching a TV report of Israel Defense Forces operations in Gaza from the seat of an exercise bike. He also reportedly shouted that IDF soldiers should be "wiped off the face of the Earth."… ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062752.html
Both, I think. Over the weekend I intend to take a closer look at his articles and some other materials.
RE: "Unintended Consequences" – By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS" FROM THE "JERUSALEM POST": "US may label satellite providers terrorists" – May 14, 2009 (EXCERPT) Members of the United States Congress are submitting a bill that will label carriers of incitive satellite stations as terrorist organizations. The proposed bill, part of US efforts to stem the demonization of Americans in the Arab media, was prompted by what its authors say is incitement to kill Americans on satellite stations…. …Al-Manar ("The Beacon") is known for its diatribes against Israel, the US and Muslim secularists. It is well-funded and remains one of the most popular stations in the Middle East. Meanwhile, there are reports that Qatar is considering launching a satellite company of its own to compete with ArabSat and NileSat. The new satellite operator, according to reports, will constitute a safety net for the popular Qatar-based Al-Jazeera channel, in case NileSat decides to stop carrying the channel. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=J...
RE: ""Unintended Consequences" – By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS A RELATED ARTICLE: "Criminalizing the Blogosphere", by David Sirota, Fri May 15, 2009 (EXCERPT) ….the Internet is a terrifically democratizing force, and while most of us can't stand the haters who try to hijack this medium for their own sad agendas, any effort to criminalize speech in this medium is really unacceptable. Unfortunately, such an effort is underway, headed by Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA). As Wired magazine notes, her bill, HR 1966, is called the "Cyberbullying Prevention Act" and includes this section: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Look, I'm all for putting people in jail for violating the law, whether they violated it on the Internet or somewhere else. However, this bill is so broadly written as to be an affront to the First Amendment. Really, who is going to determine what "intent to coerce, intimidate or harass"? ENTIRE POST AND COMMENTS – http://www.openleft.com/diary/13277/criminalizing...
RE: "Unintended Consequences" – By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS A RELATED ARTICLE: " Americans Divided by Hate Crimes Bill" – by Karin Friedemann, 16 May 2009 (EXCERPT)….Anisa Abd el Fattah, President of National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW) points out: “Before our Congress passes such a law there are many questions to be answered, the most important of which is ‘who’ will decide that a given act is a ‘hate crime’?” The Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) originally wrote this bill. Arab, Latino and African-American organisations support it because they hope that prosecuting “hate” will decrease racist attacks on their communities. Serious fears exist, however, about the government surveillance centre, given the highly politicised nature of hate crimes labeling. The ADL, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), is already heavily involved in Homeland Security’s locally based “fusion centres,” which collect personal data for intelligence databases that synchronise national intelligence collection with local police. ADL and SPLC have a record of illegally spying on American citizens and providing false information to law enforcement officials. A fusion centre in Missouri recently distributed an “intelligence” document on “hate groups” to local police, which was written by the ADL and the SPLC…. (Karin Friedemann is a Boston-based writer on Middle East affairs and US politics. She is Director of the Division on Muslim Civil Rights and Liberties for the National Association of Muslim American Women) ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xf...
Thank you Dickerson for posting all those excerpts which, in my opion, do not do anything to clarify the logic of Paul Craig. I think that perhaps we could set Paul Craig's – and everyone else's minds – at ease by actually looking at what H.R. 1913 defines as a "hate crime": `(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person I don't think that this reperents any erosion of the freedom of speech, nor does it make it "a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus", or, generally to make anti-Semitic utterances or have anti-Semitic thoughts, unless that person attempts to take violent action.
RE: "Unintended Consequences" – By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS A RELATED ARTICLE: "Americans Divided by Hate Crimes Bill", by Karin Friedemann – 16 May 2009 (EXCERPT) Although the bill “declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of Constitutionally-protected free speech,” it sets a dangerous precedent of punishing motivations rather than actions because the actions — stalking, assault, etc. — are already illegal. Anisa Abd el Fattah, President of National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW) points out: “Before our Congress passes such a law there are many questions to be answered, the most important of which is ‘who’ will decide that a given act is a ‘hate crime’?” The Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) originally wrote this bill. Arab, Latino and African-American organisations support it because they hope that prosecuting “hate” will decrease racist attacks on their communities. Serious fears exist, however, about the government surveillance centre, given the highly politicised nature of hate crimes labeling. The ADL, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), is already heavily involved in Homeland Security’s locally based “fusion centres,” which collect personal data for intelligence databases that synchronise national intelligence collection with local police. ADL …[has]… a record of illegally spying on American citizens and providing false information to law enforcement officials. ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xf...