In recent years, right-wing Israeli political leaders and their supporters have warned of the rise of a “new anti-Semitism”, rife across Europe and in left-wing political circles. The new anti-Semites are critics of Israel. They don’t target Jews; they target the Jewish state. (I say “they” but of course I should say “we” because I too would surely be branded as being among the ranks of this hateful group.)
Still, this term “new anti-Semitism” hasn’t really caught on. Instead, something much more significant has happened: the term “anti-Semitic” has taken on new meaning not because it actually has a new meaning but because what it signals has become more important than what it targets.
Glenn Greenwald warns that those who so freely scream “anti-Semite” are “cheapening and trivializing ‘anti-semitism’ to the point of irrelevance.”
Joe Klein has called on his friend Leon Wieseltier to apologize to Andrew Sullivan for suggesting that the latter had shown “venomous hostility toward Israel and Jews.” Wieseltier didn’t use the word anti-Semite, but the insinuation was transparent.
A shift has indeed taken place and it is not merely that the charge of anti-Semitism has become so overused that it is losing its meaning, it is this:
The new anti-Semitism does not identify expanding ranks of Jew-haters; it signals a new class of hysterical and hateful Jews.
Anti-Semitism no longer points at its intended target; it points at itself.
“Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews…nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by [extremist] Jews,” Hajo Meyer, Auschwitz survivor
Wow, yeah, that about covers it.
RE: “The transformation of ‘anti-Semitism’”- Woodward
SEE: Wieseltier vs Sullivan, by Matt Yglesias, THINK PROGRESS, 02/09/10
(EXCERPT) …this bizarre Wieseltier hit-piece on Sullivan.
Like most of TNR’s very worst work, it suffers deeply from schizophrenia about the idea of flinging around baseless charges of anti-semitism. On the one hand, the charges are baseless so the writer hesitates to fling them around. On the other hand, flinging baseless charges of anti-semitism is the essence of the magazine’s commentary on Israel. For the purposes of intimidation, after all, baseless charges work better than well-grounded ones. Nikolai Krylenko, Bolshevik Minister of Justice, said “we must execute not only the guilty, execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more.” And it’s much the same here. If you call anti-semites anti-semites, then people who aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism will figure “hey, since my political opinions aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism, then I’m safe.” The idea is to put everyone on notice that mere innocence will be no defense. But relatively few people are actually goonish enough to execute the strategy properly, so instead Wieseltier’s piece beats around the bush and doesn’t really come out and say what it’s saying….
ENTIRETY – link to yglesias.thinkprogress.org
P.S. Why doesn’t our Phil rate a high-profile smear like the one on Andrew Sullivan? It’s so unfair!
ALSO, DON’T MISS: Leon Wieseltier, Anti-Semitism, and Israel ~ By Daniel Luban, LobeLog.com, 02/10/10
(EXCERPT)…Wieseltier’s attack on Sullivan appears motivated not by any actual belief that the latter is an anti-Semite, but by rage that he has violated these tacit rules — that a gentile dares offer unapologetic criticism of Israeli policies. More than that, we can detect in Wieseltier’s piece a deep sense of panic that this framework of “responsible” criticism is breaking down. The attack is quite obviously an attempt to intimidate Sullivan into ceasing all criticism; I join many others in hoping that Sullivan sticks to his guns…
ENTIRETY – link to lobelog.com
So, this is another case of a moral and ethical thinker applying the same principles across the board to the facts he or she thinks applicable “getting uppity?” Nobody feared an escaped slave returning to the plantation in the old USA South more than the plantation owners and their beneficiaries.
“Anti-Semitism”, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of Semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But, here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell-game of Jewish identity: “Look! We are a religion!” No! a race! No! a cultural identity! Sorry a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism!” quickly, alternates with: “Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you anti-semite!” – Professor Michael Neumann (Trent University, Ontario) in What is Antisemitism?
“Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel then we bring up the holocaust. When in this country US) people are criticizing Israel then they are antisemitic. And the organization (Israel Lobby) is very strong and has lot of money. And the ties between Israel and american estab- Jewish establishment are very strong – and they are strong in this country as you know. And they have power which is ok.” – Former Israeli cabinet minister, Shulamit Aloni (born 1928), during her August 14, 2002 interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!
Israel’s deadliest weapon
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
That’s some mighty fancy footwork Rehmet :-)
In a nutshell:
Look to the rich Zionist political campaign donors, both by agency and privately. Both Jewish and Gentile American Zionists.
Look to the controlling ownership and chief executive and delegated staff of the USA
MSM–also Zionist in mentality.
If you are tops in campaign financing and tops in MSM control, you get your way. The only thing presently that interferes with this is the internet, where information is less filtered, at least presently here in the USA. Hate crime legislation is the current vehicle trying to strangle the internet’s free political speech, and a back
vehicle is the mask of the legitimate concern of stopping child preying and pornography–mostly geared for non-Jewish consumption.
The tea parties have yet to wake up this fact; they’ve mainly been focusing on
bailout of Wall St at public expense, and public health care–who knows, they
might actually eventually get a leader (Not Palin) who will drum the facts home, see the dots to connect. All the status quo factions fear sophisticated Populism. Historically they should be afraid, but so too should the Populist masses, the pawns.
“legitimate concern of stopping child preying and pornography–mostly geared for non-Jewish consumption”
Everything I like is either illegal or fattening! Don’t worry Citizen, I’m trying to make up for all that non-Jewish consumption!
The point is well made. Those who describe opponents of Israeli aggression as anti-Semitic have become what they fear most.
It’s very good that we are discussing ‘anti-Semitism in detail here, now.
From Rehmat
Couldn’t think of a better definition.
Yeah. Some of the stuff Rehmat puts out is, quite frankly, wrong. But this is absolutely spot on in my opinion. And its a shame because not only is it cheapening the term “anti-Semitism,” it’s cheapening the entirety of Jewish faith. I think the unfortunate consequence of the increasing militarism of Judaism is going to be, ultimately, that more and more young Jewish people leave it entirely.
I would almost certainly be classed as an anti-Semite.
1) I have a virulent ‘anti’ attitude towards Zionist politicians, to their actions, their aggressiveness, and to how they are making Israeli people (especially conscripts in the IDF) behave.
This is due to my own experiences of living in the region, and seeing for myself.
2) I haven’t much time for the ‘Holocaust Industry’ either. I think much of it is based on phony premises. When some ‘Holocaust’ icon, like Elie Wiesel (as phony as they come) is attacked for some egregious hypocrisy, I rush to join the mob, if I have the opportunity.
3) I have no animus against Jews in general, and do not subscribe to the ‘Protocols’. I don’t believe Jews run the world, but it’s very obvious that Jews dominate the media, banking, and political industries in the US, currently the world’s greatest power, and use this power to influence US attitudes to Israel. AIPAC is not a figment of the imagination.
Holocaust deniers are usually classified as anti-semites. You’ve not quite come out with your beliefs about how many Jews died in the Holocaust, but evidently you think the number is significantly below 6 million and since you also dissed Raul Hilberg, you seem to think it’s also well below 5 million. Just how low do you go? Hilberg was friendly with Finkelstein and his Holocaust Industry thesis, but of course neither of them are (or were) Holocaust deniers and it is an injustice to Finkelstein to see his phrase in the mouth of someone who cites the IHR as a respectable authority.
And normal people don’t find it necessary to say they have no animus against Jews in general.
Coincidentally, though, I find it necessary to say I have no animus against Richards in general.
I don’t you, Donald, are being entirely fair to RP. I personally think he is being very honest. And you ignored his response on an earlier thread to his referring to a IHR url to support what he said in that earlier comment. Nobody knows how many people died in the Shoah. You ignore again a lot of comments on that earlier thread, for example, those that point to the official lowering of the number initially claimed to have died
at the prime killing center, Auschwitz-B. RP, in my opinion from what he has said, is not denying the horror of the Shoah at all. When you are talking about millions dying,
by state murder of civilians, obviously nobody should nickpick it was only 10 or 20, for example–however proportion of systematic state murder is relevant, must as it is now when you compare the Turkey Shoot in Gaza. Proportional response has always been an element in criminal law, whether applied to a state or individual scenario. If I give you the finger, you really are not entitled to shoot me–just a way of making the point; if I enter your property with the intent to commit burglary, are you entitled to set spring traps in advance? It’s really not so simple. One thing about the Holocaust that is undeniable is that, although there have been many massacres in history, the German use of industrial know-how to it to a new level.
The Vandals of old, or Genghis Khan, did not have I G Farben and Company multiplication attributes. Israel has all that and then some–courtesy of the USA. I G Farben and Company were tried after 1945 for their contributions to Hitler’s racist agenda. Presently the USA and Israel have not been held to account.
I find it obtuse for you say to RP: “And normal people don’t find it necessary to say they have no animus against Jews in general.”
Where do you live? If you live in the USA and have a career, or want one, your comment is inexplicable to me. “Some of my best friends are _____” has been a ticket for entrance for how many years? More cutting-edge Stand up comedians in the USA have been joking about what you are ignoring for at least 25 years.
To say there were never any lampshades made of Jewish skin, or any soap bars, and to study the actual process of the Nuremberg Trials–very much like a Stalin show trial, and to note for example, that the official death figure at Auschwits-B
had come down considerably, and that this is a significant part of the total
usual 6 million set in stone for so many years–and with great benefit to Israel
but not necessarily to actual Shoah survivors, as explained by Finklestein in his analysis of the Holocaust Industry, is, in my mind not a flag of hating jews because they were born jews, but more a flag of somebody seeking the truth, so the worst in History is not repeated. As you know, there’s a sucker born every minute, and the circus goes on; Bernays, Goebbels, Weisel…. caveat emptore (sic), let the buyer beware. Would you got to Hagee for wisdom? Than why to Lieberman, either the USA version or Israel’s? Oops, I forgot, they are joined at the hip.
Citizen, you remind me of Barbra Streisand- you never know when to stop .
“More cutting-edge Stand up comedians in the USA have been joking about what you are ignoring for at least 25 years.”
If that’s your substantiation for the absurd things you say, why shouldn’t they be treated as a joke?
My understanding is that the soap story doesn’t stand up, but there is evidence for the lampshade skin story. But that doesn’t matter much. There’s no shortage of evidence that the Nazis were among the most sadistic killers in all history and that they tried to exterminate the Jews and succeeded in killing roughly 5 million, perhaps more.
As for the Auschwitz numbers, that’s apparently a standard theme among the Holocaust denier types, but from what I’ve read Raul Hilberg never thought 4 million died there in the first place. That was the Soviet government and I don’t think they claimed the dead were all Jews. Are there any reputable historians who think the Jewish death toll was not somewhere in the 4-6 million range? Shirer’s old book quotes one historian putting it in the 4 million range, Hilberg says 5 million and my impression is that most historians nowadays think it’s between 5 and 6 million.
I don’t count Robert Faurisson, Bishop Williamson and other circus freaks as serious historians. And I’ve got no interest in the great historical research of genuine antisemites on the net, except to the extent that they could help discredit the credibility of this blog if their thinking receives a warm welcome in the comments section. A lot of us are here because we are angry at the way false charges of anti-semitism are used to suppress criticism of Israel or Zionism. But we have no interest in forming an alliance with the Holocaust denial creeps. I assume that’s the view of the vast majority around here. If it isn’t, I’d suggest to Phil that he eliminate the comments section because it’s attracting the sort of people who he (quite rightly) doesn’t want to be associated with.
Actually, it wasn’t the sadism which distinguishes the Holocaust. The sadism of occupiers toward the occupied in all wars in legendary. Japanese in “Manchuko” anyone?
The distinguishing, and most horrible thing about the Holocaust (apart from the high numbers killed, which is bad enough, of course) was that the mass killings (or, in many cases, enslavement resulting in death) were bureaucratised, were the product of a written order and conventional administrative process, and were administrated like any other facet of life or the war under the Nazi regime. That aspect of it; mechanised slaughter organised and executed as a state project, catapults the Holocaust into the front ranks of human evil, no matter what the numbers, or who the victims.
“But we have no interest in forming an alliance with the Holocaust denial creeps.”
But lots of other people might. In fact, that the Holocaust was not as bad as reported can be the first excuse for not supporting Israel they ever found creditable.
So anyway Donald, which is more important, that Israel be forced to change, or that you approve of the alliances in the anti-Zionist co-alition?
Donald, second your sentiments. We had some real good old fashioned anti-Semites here last year but they were purged. RP tends to dance around the edges but for the most part avoids stepping over the line.
I completely agree with you, Mooser. And I would add that the concept of the Jew, or a Jew, anywhere, anytime, was grounds for elimination.
My 7:46 pm entry was in response to Mooser’s 6:29 pm post.
Donald,
but there is evidence for the lampshade skin story. But that doesn’t matter much.
No there isn’t. Yehuda Bauer (Yad Vashem, Israel) debunked it.
There’s no shortage of evidence that the Nazis were among the most sadistic killers in all history
Far from it. They may have been more efficient, but they were hardly the most sadistic. In WWII, the Japanese take the cake. They made the Nazis look like schoolboys with a system for eliminating hampsters. What the Japanese did to the Chinese was so horrific, the truth of it has been banned in Japan ever since; not allowed in history books, not allowed to be taught in schools. Ask elderly Chinese in Singapore what they went through. There is one book with a title like the Massacre of Nanking, something like that, which describes what the Japanese did in one day in Nanking. Idle soldiers in Singapore would slice fetuses off pregnant women in the street with their swords for fun, then use the blobs to play football.
As for the rest of the 20th C, nothing can top the Bey brothers torture of the Armenians. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau I complained to Prez Wilson in 1916 that he had never seen anything like it. They studied and perfected the worse torture and death techniques from the Spanish Inquisition and administered it to the 3 million Armenians. The Bey brothers from Salonica (part of Ottoman Empire then) were crypto- or Doenmeh Jews, which I believe is the reason why the ADL does not want their horrible crimes against them recognized as genocide. The word ‘genocide’ was not invented then, so Morgenthau in his 1916 (London Times Archives) letter referred to it as the “extermination of a people.”
I didn’t know that.
Mooser, do you mind educating me on this aspect/topic?
Israel is unlikely to be forced to change by a grand alliance with Holocaust deniers. That is exactly the sort of alliance AIPAC would love to see As far as they are concerned, nothing would make them happier than to be able to point out that anti-Zionists are happy to fraternize with Holocaust deniers. At other blogs people take pains to point out that being anti-Zionist doesn’t mean being an anti-semite, but with a few here it seems to be a point of macho pride either not to care or to take the label on as a badge of honor. At any other blog, Holocaust deniers are regarded as the lowest of the low. Here, not so much. Keep that up and Phil would be crazy not to shut the comments down.
As for sadism vs. bureaucratization, I yield to you on that point.
Smart piece, Paul Woodward. Excellent. This is a ball rolling down from the top of the mountain, and you described it so concisely.
I saw Daniel Pipes on Shuster’s show today all but screaming for military action against Iran. Agitated. Telling the guy who disagreed with him, “What if I’m right and you’re wrong?” (bis) The other guy was saying Look Mao Tze-Dong threatened nuclear war in 1965, but we negotiated out of it, we did the same with Russia in the Cold War, we have experience handling this, we dont have to answer threats with war. Pipes was beside himself. I thought he was going to explode when the other guy said that the Mullahs are very reasonable and described how when Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons in the 80s, the Irans were willing to overlook it if the the attacks ‘ended now’.
I looked at his fossil self and thought You get us mixed up in war with Iran now, a third war, and the backlash against Israel will be so severe, because it is its paranoia that we would be acting preemptively for, that Israel wouldn’t survive. Pipes really is insane; why he is given a platform is disturbing. Does he even understand what century we’re in?
“Pipes really is insane; why he is given a platform is disturbing.”
Big time. When I was a kid, Nightline had a story about the KKK –they were in their cloaks, chanting, crosses burning, the whole bit. It scared the shit out of me; I was shaking when I asked my dad if they were going to come to New York. Now, when I try to understand that fear, I think it was really the idea that this evil had the authority to march in public, that grown ups could showcase this crazy spectacle. That’s pretty much how I feel today when I catch Pipes ranting.
Those satirizing Hitler use to call him the Pied Piper. And now we have Pipes. It never ends. The masses look for an opera, good v bad; in sequential scenarios of the world stage, the PTB give it to us. Buyer Beware. The only thing you can be sure of is that
those without money or network influence will always be the losers.
Citizen, make up your mind! Are we (I mean “they”, the American non-Jews) all just “masses” with no brains, or is the true moderate Christian, down home country music, Ma ‘n Pa ‘n apple pie, lard’s prayer, ethical but not secular genius being suppressed by Jewish masters?
If Americans are as stupid as you say they are, why shouldn’t we Jews lead them? Hell, they want us to! Or did the 2% take over by magic?
The era of using “anti-Semitic” accusations to silence Israel’s critics is over. That modus operandi has run its course.
What needs to happen now is for informed and fact-based debate to go mainstream.
Alas, the fact that a University of California professor can threaten students in an academic forum with failing grades for daring to speak out against a representative of a government accused of war crimes, and do so with impunity, is a clear indication that this has just started. It’s going to be a long time before the average American – never mind the average American Jew – realizes what he or she is supporting.
This is an important observation. And it’s subject is available on YouTube. Naturally, that California professor would be amazed that you think he is employing Nazi or Stalinist methods to suppress Free Speech on what’s been happening.
“It’s going to be a long time before the average American – never mind the average American Jew – realizes what he or she is supporting”
The struggle to either modify Israel’s behavior, or dismantle the colony is a political struggle. And an unequal one.
If convincing people that the Holocaust was not as advertised, and therefore no special accommodations should be made for a Jewish State, turns out to be the most effective weapon, should it be barred cause “it isn’t true”? If convincing people that “Jewish control” goes much further than it does, and using this anger to reduce Israel’s standing, by way of reducing the standing of American Jews, turns out to be useful (and it very well might, since it can serve several purposes, Citizen could finally get that career the Jews are keeping him from), is it “beyond the Pale”?
And if a method used to discredit or adversely impact Israel has a negative impact on American Jews (by way of increased anti-Semitism, or suspicion of Jews) who are completely dis-associated with Zionism, is it therefore to be eschewed?
Sorry, but I don’t think it’s gonna work out that way. And what you feel is appropriate for you or I to do in terms of changing Israel might markedly differ from someone who has been in contact with it, or felt its violence.
If the idea is to be an anti-Zionist until somebody says something nasty about Jews, it only makes me wonder if that anti-Zionist really knows that Zionism is “bad for the Jews”
Mooser,
Your point is apt and just. My comment comes from the same place where Phil’s articles about Jewish identity often originate. My eloquence is crappy, I know. But, what I’m trying to get at is that if one grows up in a household where one’s religion, identity and ethnicity are all intertwined, blurry and sharing the same characteristics then it becomes almost inevitable not to view Israel with veneration and admiration, given the fact that Israel is supposed to be a refuge for persecuted Jews, the land of milk and honey, surrounded by enemies.
Am I wrong in seeing it that way? Help me out here.
Avi, my point is that we are the last people who are qualified to decide which tactics or strategies are within the pale in trying to change Israel.
For some people, changing Israel is well worth dieing for. For others, it’s not worth it if exposing the truth about Israel is going to reflect badly on Jews, or make people dislike Jews. In fact, they would argue and believe that (resentment towards all Jews cause of Israel’s actions) is a worse evil than any Israel could commit.
Thanks for responding, Avi, but I’m not sure I understand your question.
Avi, my point is that we are the last people who are qualified to decide which tactics or strategies are within the pale in trying to change Israel.
Who is then? If those who live in the US are major contributors and supporters of Israel’s policies, then shouldn’t that be the “target audience”?
And if not them, not Israelis in Israel, then who?
I think it is immoral for us to countenance false arguments to further the moral goal of helping Palestinians, even though I am not too judgmental when I hear Palestinians saying things that I find unacceptable when uttered by Americans.
I had this problem in another issue 30 back or so. It had to do with banning DDT. I supported the ban because of the adverse affect this toxin had on our avian friends. At the same time the completely false argument was advanced that DDT caused cancer in humans. I didn’t agree, but that latter argument is what won over congress to ban DDT.
“I think it is immoral for us to countenance false arguments to further the moral goal of helping Palestinians, even though I am not too judgmental when I hear Palestinians saying things that I find unacceptable when uttered by Americans.”
Yeah, exactly.
I think the problem with the culture in the comment section here is that people focus so much on the false charges of anti-semitism (we’ve probably all experienced that to some degree, or else suppressed our thinking for fear of being accused of it) that some have gotten a little hardened about the real thing or make this false dichotomy about having to sacrifice one moral value in order to fight for another. That’s not any different from what the fanatic Israel defenders do.
The charge of antisemitism in the arena of criticism of Israeli policy is nothing but a tool for silencing and repression. There certainly is a valid antisemitism, with this no one reasonable would disagree, it is a historical fact. However it has waned dramatically in the last couple of decades, and many of these groups, one of them being the ADL has tried to transfer its meaning, for the purposes of supporting anything which Israel has done and attempting to give it complete impunity.
So now they try to use it as a form of wreckage on anyone who criticizes and condemns Israeli policy when it is clearly criminal, or when someone points out the obvious influence of the Lobby in the halls of power (which is not omnipotent, but a strong Lobby fitting the loosely knit structure along with the more formal structure that M&W talk about in their volume). It has crept from clandestine assaults in professions (media and academia as examples), to trying to codify it into a penal structure (as on campus) through quasi-governmental agencies, and now sucked up into the executive branch itself.
That this type of discourse/argument can take place with Mr. Sullivan without dire consequences is a great step forward. As Avi mentioned it must now be formalized, this ability to criticize and even condemn criminal activities. When it starts to take place in the rarefied air of national media, it is a signal that it is being allowed from very high up. All that is left from this point (after the enactment of the previous provisos), is the catching up of the general population to the game that has been played. When reality and truth strikes in the public realm it is too far away from a remedy.
Rather – When reality and truth strikes in the public realm it is NOT too far away from a remedy.
Ah, VR, I wish I was as hopeful as you. When I look around at the PTB, I don
‘t see a remedy, only more of the same–so long as campaign finance law is not a subject paid for by US taxppayers, excluding special interests, and so long as the USA MSM is held in control by Zionists. The only sign of hope is the internet, but there’s movement afoot to censor in the name of “hate speech” and (indirectly) via anti-porn
and anti child predator legislation–the only way to corral the Christians fundies.
“the only way to corral the Christians fundies.”
Who normally, of course are in favor of the widest free-speech latitude interpretation possible?
Citizen, you are painting yourself into a corner, methinks. If the American people are such dumb sheeples, some body’s got to herd their dumb ass, and it might as well be the Jews.
If, the American people are the font of morality and intelligence, how did such a small number of people finagle them into supporting Israel, in spite of it’s cost and evil?
I mean, which one is it?
the threat of the charge of antisemitism is sufficient to shape discourse.
Consider Michael Scheuer — he spoke out forthrightly against Israel, and lost his job.
Consider Robin Wright — she appeared on C Span this morning to discuss Iran. Wright is no Daniel Pipes, far from it. But in a way, her statements about Iran are even more destructive than Pipes’ rants, because Wright has the aura of acceptability, or rationality, of objectivity. But to listen closely to what Wright has to say is to recognize that she toes the Israel lobby line almost without deviation. Further, were Robin Wright to stray from the Israel lobby line, she would find herself in the same, marginalized status as Michael Scheuer. The genius of ‘reporters’ like Wright is to maintain the facade of objectivity without triggering the alarm bells of media gatekeepers and minders from and for the Israel lobby.
C Span is free of commercial pressure points but that does not mean C Span is not just as carefully observed and “minded” for Israel-correctness as any and every other media outlet.
The casual use and overuse of the term antisemitism should be avoided. (I prefer to avoid the term totally because of its confusing meaning. Coined by European Jewhaters to delineate hatred of Jews on racial grounds rather than religious grounds, its use of the term “semitism” confuses its original hateful purpose.) Yet there are times when the hatred of Israel crosses into hatred of Jews. One need only read the comments on this blog to find blatant and subtle examples of this.
There is nothing blatantly Jewhating about advocacy of a one state solution to the I/P conflict.
But I find the callous espousal of the nonpeoplehood of the Jewish people to come dangerously close to crossing the line. Certainly reasonable people can disagree about this. Reform Jews in the 19th century sought to jettison the concept of Jewish nationhood along with concepts of kosher and other laws not to their liking. And certainly Shlomo Sand has more historical credentials than I do, even though his field is not Jewish history. But those who have read only his book on the issue and no other book on the issue and consider the case closed, certainly lack intellectual honesty on the issue and their callousness is evident of intellectual shallowness and ethnic insensitivity.
Is this a defense of the “which walnut shell does the Jew lie under” spiel?
Is there any other people on the face of the earth that claims “peoplehood” in all the arenas claimed by Jews? If espousal of the “nonpeoplehood” of the Jewish people crosses the line, then what are we to make of the espousal of Jewish peoplehood?
I am ready to engage in intellectual honesty on the issue, but what do you mean when you say that those who don’t are callous because they are “shallow” or “ethnically insensitive?” Where do you go for your “ethnic” credentials beyond matso balls and chicken soup? Is that the problem? Are we left with comfort foods?
Why not watch the Food Channel? Why watch USA foreign policy in the Middle East? There’s another food that might spell out the bias, it’s called Baloney–an old white bread (and despised by the elite) sandwich. We use it to feed as cheaply as possible our jailed inmates here in the USA.
WJ – regarding Shlomo sand: it is probably BECAUSE his field is not jewish history that he has been able to get the viewpoint he did and do so without fear of recrimination. When you are in a particular field, it is very difficult to escape the paradigms dominating your field. Thomas Kuhn has already pointed that out in his famous book on scientific revolutions. Atlas must be depicted as an outsider to lift the earth. And revolutions are difficult to stage from within because the barriers are both external (advancement) and internal (paradigms get internalized in the process of acquiring expertise).
As for the jewish “peoplehood”, many critics are driven to deny it because it was in the name of that peoplehood, that crimes against other humans were and are being committed. Palestinians may or may not be from jewish ancestry, but the jews who claim the power that goes with that ancestry (real or not, cf Sand), are the people whose boot is on the neck of the former. And they are the ones (Israelis who claim to be jewish, however they mean that) who assert the rights of power due to a “peoplehood” which they then conflate with “victimhood” to deflect criticism.
It is therefore to be expected that questions of “peoplehood” are raised in trying to push back against persecution by a people who claim their persecution cannot be so described because they once were victims too. Had the so-called jewish people of Israel (call them israelites, for argument’s sake) not been so keen on depriving other people of their own ‘hoods, issues of people-hoods would be moot.
But they are not because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander – whether it’s ducks or people we are talking about.
Wondering Jew, are you ever going to get it through your head? When “the Jews” decided they had to have a state, they entered the arena where “Jewhating” is completely permissible, and in fact, may be necessary for some people.
And if you think that telling someone their desire for justice is a form of racial hatred is a good technique, well, you just keep it up.
There is no law against Jewhating. As I remember, Zionists pretty much put paid to that possibility when they started calling every Jew who questioned Zionism “self-hating”
You got what you wanted, a state to expand on, and now you can’t deal with the consequences, so cry me a river.
Mooser,
Indeed it may be possible that Jewhating is the best path for the overthrowing of the Zionist rule of I/P. It may be possible that Jewhating plus lying about whether one is Jewhating is in fact the best path to overthrow the Zionist rule of I/P. It may be possible that Jewhating openly and unabashedly might be the best path to overthrow the Zionist rule of I/P.
Conversely it may be possible that hating Arabs might be the best path to avoid the dangers of a two state or a one state solution.
I admit the possibility of the utility of hatred.
But simply put the author of this post was positing that hatred of Israel does not necessarily equal hatred of Jews and I was trying to assert that sometimes it does.
(Another point: Just because the Jews are a people, as I assert, does not necessarily imply that their peoplehood has a right to trump Palestinian rights to the land.)
(A point that you never deal with is the fact that many Jews, as in a few hundred thousand found refuge in I/P during the years 1939-1945. Many of those Jews, if not most would have been in the path of the Nazis during those years and would have been murdered. It was the foresight of that event that led Herzl to propose the state that you hate so much. Maybe you could address this issue for once.)
“I admit the possibility of the utility of hatred.” Wondering Jew
Wow, wondering Jew, you are gonna need surgical help, to get that tassled loafer out of your oral cavity, especially considering where your cranuim resides. I’ll pray you don’t get peritonitis.
I was talking about hatred as a result of Israel’s actions, and you immediately bring up invoking hatred as a political tool. My oh my, look at the brave new Jew! Not only unafraid of anti-Semitism, but willing to use invoking race-hatred as a threat. Good going.
“Maybe you could address this issue for once.”
It’s been addressed many, many times and by much bigger experts than I. And their opinion is that the fate of the Jews in Europe was used as blackmail by the Zionists for increased Jewish colonisation.
Thousands more would have been saved if not for them, and they condemn themselves out of their own mouths in this affair. Remember the “cow in Palestine” of (IIRC) Herzl.
And what makes you think I “hate” Israel? Maybe I just think we in the US can get a better deal elsewhere, and make better relations with a big part of the world’s peoples who have lot’s of oil and other resources. Isn’t that awful, I want to throw Israel under the bus! Get used to it, pal, that how countries work.
Now, don’t panic, nobody is proposing throwing Jews into gas chambers, just a simple re-alignment of global alliances, see? “But, but, but then the Arabs will kill us all!! How can you be so anto-Semitic?” Don’t worry Wondering, I don’t propose hurting a jewish hair on a Jewish peyas! As far as Israel getting itself into a position where, without huge defense subsidies (and lots of other stuff) from the US, well, tough titties. You shoulda known better if you wanted to play on that stage, chump.
WJ, get this into your head: the so-called jews of israel may be hated because of what they do – you know, the nasty, nasty stuff, not because of what they are (which is neither here not there, and is far from clear, in any case). And that nasty is, in fact, so nasty at times that it’s hard for even once-lovers of israel to continue loving them.
You keep using the emotional language of love/hate as if that had anything to do with what’s going on. When people do hateful things, they elicit hatred. That’s perfectly normal. Just because there is also irrational hatred in the world (eg, misogyny, fratricide, homophobia, etc) does not mean that all hatred is irrational. Most of it, is perfectly rational – simple cause and effect for the majority of humans. The wife beater is hated for beating, the rapist for raping and the wall street thief for stealing and getting to laugh about it all the way to the bank.
It is SOME jewish people – like the TNR crowd and the nasties of israel – that engage in name calling. To most people, israel is not something to love or hate and neither are jews. Either or both may be derided for bad behavior and using pernicious accusations/excuse making, and derision has no more to do with hate than a jury’s decision to render a guilty verdict against a defendant found holding the smoking gun over the victim’s body (at least in most cases).
I suggest you stop resorting to the love/hate false dychotomy to make your points. it would also help to take lessons on what sarcasm is – especially Mooser style.
And another thing, Wondering, could you please tell me why I should sacrifice one groats-worth of what Jews have accomplished in the US to prop up that shitty little country? Not gonna happen.
I know you are the rich kind of Jew who can just up and fly to Israel if somebody draws on your notebook.
But I’m a working-class Jew, I have no property in Israel, only here in the US, I have no future in Israel, just here in the US. My Dad fought for the US, not Israel in WW2
So tell me, why on earth should I do anything for Israel when Israel won’t do anything for me.
When Israel does something that makes me proud it’s a Jewish State, give me a call. Until then, I see no reason to throw away my life on what I know to be a stupid, outmoded idea, a racial settlement colony, with a heapin’ side order of Jewish supremacy.
I notice that you decided you would be a whole lot better off somewhere other than Israel, so you can stuff all that “hate Israel right back where it came from. Again, I’ll pray you don’t tear anything in doing so, peritonitis is nasty.
Mooser, I don’t know if you’ve watched ‘Mad Men’. Great series as TV series go. In one episode the gentile ad exec, who’s invited a pretty young Jewish client to lunch to pick her brain about an ad campaign for tourism to Israel, asks her about her attachment to that country. She responds that she would never live there, and doesn’t even know much about the country or the people there, but opines that Israel is an idea ‘that just has to be.’ (I think I go the quote right.) That is the sort of intellectual fruitiness that is so divorced from the reality of facts on the ground. All these thoughtful Zionists staring out windows, pulling on their chins, and in the end ‘Israel’ is just some fuzzy theory that came about because bad things were done to Jews in the past.
But marc, there’s always that proviso: “She responds that she would never live there, and doesn’t even know much about the country or the people there, “ which makes that fruitiness possible.
But Phil Weiss, Adam Horowitz, and many others are going to make sure, if it’s within their powers, that she won’t have that excuse “don’t know much about Israel” (I feel a song parody coming on) any more, and then we will get to see what happens then.
The time of “not knowing much” may be ending, thanks to people like Phil and Adam and this website. Let’s hope so!
“‘Another point: Just because the Jews are a people, as I assert, does not necessarily imply that their peoplehood has a right to trump Palestinian rights to the land.”
And then you go on to assert that the needs of the Jews does trump Palestinian right to the land IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE!!!
And again, because of the Zionists using Jewish emigration (of the Jews they selected, of course) to Palestine as their only acceptable avenue cost the lives of many, many more Jews than it ever helped. And the Zionists have stated this was to them, an acceptable bargain.
Mooser and Danaa….wow.
Another quote from Michael Neumann:
and another
It is only with the rise of the blogosphere that ordinary Americans are beginning to realise the full extent of Israel’s crimes. The mainstream media has been ignoring them for years, and still does.
I think very few truly espouse the non-peoplehood of the Jewish people, although many, and not just Shlomo Sand, doubt that their ancestors had anything to do with Eretz Israel.
The Thirteenth Tribe – Arthur Koestler 1976
link to en.wikipedia.org
There is more about the true meaning of antisemitism at:
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
Money quote: Criticism of Israel’s policies, even very harsh criticism, is totally legitimate and has nothing to do with antisemitism (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, 8 February) . It is being done in Israel itself daily. But critics, Jewish or not, who deny the right of Israel to exist, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, while not opposing any other nation-state, exhibit a clear racist attitude and can be rightfully called antisemites.
No one is trying to say that Israel does not have the right to exist, but we are saying it does not have the right to exist in its current form and activity. Take for instance, those who like to take the “existence” tack, also like to attribute fascism and Nazi tendencies to those who criticize Israel. So lets reflect, no one would say that Germany does not have the right to exist, it just does not have the right to exist as the Third Reich. Likewise, Israel has the right to exist, it just does not have the right to exist as it slowly genocides the indigenous Palestinian population, wantonly and repeatedly attacks it neighbors, and as an apartheid entity.
States as mere states come and go. The people (provided they are not ethnically cleansed or expelled) stay the same.
Take for example, the Middle East. Borders were arbitrarily drawn by the imperial powers who controlled the region. Were any of the states that were born out of that arbitrary process legitimate, do they have the right to exist? Probably not. But, the inhabitants stay the same.
The “problem” arises when such nations and borders are born out of violent conflicts. That’s when the outcome comes at a much greater cost.
VR, during WW2 wasn’t a tremendous amount of propaganda about Germany, and Germans used? A lot of it, if it was applied to Jews would be called anti-Semetism.
Remember how Russians, Russian people were portrayed during the Cold War?
And of course, the job they are doing on Muslims and “Arabs” today? These techniques are felt to be valid and useful. All of that is far game in politics. After all, if Israel could be forced to change it’s policies as a result of the economic results of people not trusting Jews, why, almost no lives would be lost.
This is the stage, international politics, including the use of force, that Israel wishes to play on. Why should anti-Zionists be deprived of what may be an effective and non-violent method?
And you know what, even if that’s not a method I would use, I’m damn sure not going to police others for it. I tried that, and got nowhere.
It’s going to be fought out along the lines delineated by Witty, WJ, Julian and their ilk. We can use the same standards they use in talking about “Arabs” when we talk about Jews. After all, those are the lines they continuously go back to, they must like them.
What does “the right to exist” mean for any state?
If it means the Zionists were morally justified in pushing a quarter-million Palestinians off the land in order to take it for themselves, the only possible answer is NO.
Did Manson have a right to exist? Did Dahmer? Did Hiter? Nobody I know ever questioned their respective right to exist, just as nobody ever questioned the right
of England, or Spain, or Japan, for example to exist. The point is, as was made clear by the Nuremberg Trials in 1945, that no state has a right to exist with immunity for what it does. Goldstone.
Israel is a sovereign state, but it is not immune from criticism of its operations affecting the Palestinians or the world. In the long run, bothe USA and Israel
will be called to account for each respective successive regime’s walking all over the people of the Earth. Why should it be otherwise? Justice.
“No one is trying to say that Israel does not have the right to exist…”
Actually I don’t believe it should exist at the expense of the Palestinians or anyone else for that matter.
The very idea of euros coming to the mideast to set up a state on someone else land is utterly unacceptable to me – i don’t care what religion these euros are.
I don’t believe Israel has a ‘right to exist’.
Israel is a State.
States are political entities.
They have no inherent and arbitrary ‘right’ to exist.
Israel would not exist, without the expulsion and oppression of the indigenous Palestinian Arab population.
Israel cannot exist presently without constant war, propaganda, and fascism.
it’s really a joy seeing israel’s rabid zionist leadership lose one of their key instruments of power – strategic rhetoric
the term anti-semite has really been devalued to almost nothing in Western discourse … israel has tried so hard for so long (especially since 9/11) to tie zionism with judaism and it has failed utterly – no one is buying it … zionism has been around 1/60th the time judaism has and it is a made-up land-grabbing political philosophy
people who don’t like jews can be called people who don’t like jews and if they really don’t like them jew haters
those of us who have problems with and seek to protest the policies of the government of israel, zionism and radical violent behavior done in the name of judaism can say we are “anti-zionist” or “against jewish supremacism,” or “against the policies of the government of israel” … it is pretty straightforward and the more of us who ignore the the stale, manipulative interpretations the quicker its power fades to nothing
Nope. Israel has been telling people for so long that Israel is Judaism, how on earth is a person, (non-Jewish) supposed to know that Israel is not, indeed, representative of all Jews, and all Jews represetative of Israel?
Remember the cold war? Do you remember anyone telling us we should hate all Commies, except the American Communist Party, (once it broke with Stalin) and people should evaluate Communist theory with no regard for what happens in Russia? Of course not! Way too complicated.
I’m getting amazed by this! There seems to be a reluctance here, of all places, to admit that Zionism has been bad for the Jews! That’s what “bad for the Jews means” It means people may dislike all Jews, which might be a fair action to take given Israel’s actions.
“It means people may dislike all Jews,”
Wondering, take it easy, I said “dislike”, not ‘throw them all into gas chambers’ . I know you have a hard time delineating the difference, so I wanted to make it clear to you in your ziocaine haze.
Mooser, those were two good points. If NASA kept telling people that the moon is one big ripe piece of cheese, and that all it needs is a little more catchup and dough, we shouldn’t be surprised if eventually NASA and Pizza Hut become merged in people’s minds. Worse yet, everyone expects a bite too.
yes, i’m hungry now.
But I liked the “no pallin’ with stalin” analogy too. Theoretically, communism was great. So what if the it had something left to be desired in practice?
Actually, that sounds a bit like free market theory – as long as everyone can be treated as a ‘rational agent” greed will take care of itself in the aggregate. That may well be true – theoretically speaking – except that the cost of collapsing bubbles is too high for governments to allow “market nature” to take its course. Maybe that’s where the problem is with israel too – it’s zio supporters are treated as if they are rational agents, whereas in truth they are high on ziocain (the analogy works even better…..but me stop here. Dinner is ready – finally!)
The irony is that the Zionists, who see anti-semites behind every bush, accuse the anti-Zionists of clinging to conspiracy theories.
The IP issue is where anyone who has an irony-poor diet should be. You’ll get your MDR before you know it.
You’re on fire today, Mooser. Loved your posts.
“You’re on fire today, Mooser”
I’m fairly new here, so I have to ask whether s/he is ever not. Every nail gets it smack on the head. Never a mis-hit up to now.
Mooser is a national treasure. The Mondo-Witty of Mondoweiss. Can’t imagine what the comment boards would be like without him — has a unique way of calming the fury, when things start to get out of hand.
I just read this in the Guardian online:
link to guardian.co.uk
Apparently even opening an investigation into possible IDF crimes, is antisemitic.
There must have been quite the zio-din going on Friday night to fire Jenny Tonge on Saturday morning…. usually nothing happens in politics over the weekend the world over – have you noticed how both politician and terrorist usually take time off at the weekend, along of course with media eggheads?
All of them usually lay low over the weekend.
:-)