Abraham Foxman
Recently we picked up Netanyahu's refusal to write an Op-Ed for the New York Times-- his aide Ron Dermer said the paper's columnists "cavalierly defame our country." Well, the Anti-Defamation League has said that Netanyahu has made the wrong call, the Times is too important to ignore, though Abraham Foxman of the ADL all but accuses the New York Times of anti-Semitism:
Dermer was on to something. There has been an increasingly troubling imbalance in the way that The Times presents stories and opinions on the Middle East conflict. And, contrary to [Nahum] Barnea, who argued that being critical of Mr. Netanyahu's policies does not make one anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic, some of The Times' commentary goes beyond mere criticism.
Oh my god. So the New York Times is anti-Semitic? The charge of anti-Semitism is a vital political tool in the American discourse over Israel/Palestine. It stops debate. It was used to slow down the advance of Walt and Mearsheimer's argument.
And note that this same smear has been the theme of the recent rightwing attacks on the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, two thinktanks associated with the Democratic Party. A former AIPAC official has accused writers at the thinktanks of being anti-Semites. He landed on, among other terms, MJ Rosenberg's use of the phrase "Israel firster."
Here is a brilliant response from Jerry Haber, "Hasn't the anti-Semitic charge been trivialized enough?" Read the whole post. This is the start, dealing with the Israel firster business.
Is calling somebody an “Israel Firster” anti-Semitic? Is accusing somebody of “dual loyalty” anti-Semitic? Does it smack of anti-Semitism.to refer to Israeli “apartheid”?
Of course not, unless you want to trivialize anti-Semitism beyond belief, or unless you want to put very reasonable and widely held beliefs beyond the pale of discussion. Heck, I know personally a lot of supporters of Israel who are “Israel first”-ers. I know them; I pray with them; I have them in my classes. In fact, I know a lot of “Israel only”-ers,” I certainly have had students who are US citizens, who would never consider volunteering for the US army, but who have served in the Israel army, even without being an Israeli citizen. (Full disclosure: I have dual loyalty to the US and to Israel because I have dual-citizenship.) I have prayed in modern orthodox synagogues where the prayer for the welfare of the State of Israel has been said, but not the prayer for the welfare of the United States; or where congregants stand for the former and sit for (or mumble) the latter. I don’t agree with this practice, and I criticize such synagogues, but pointing that out doesn’t make you an anti-Semite. And by the way, if you ask people why they are more concerned with Israel than with America, they often answer that Israel is more threatened than America. Or that they love Israel more because they are Jewish. Is it anti-Semitic to point that out?
If you think that using these terms make somebody an anti-Semite or a bigot – a charge that Zionist-leaning organizations like the ADL or the AJC or members of the Zionist rightwing blogosphere (for links, see here) have recently leveled against some bloggers at the Center for American Progress, then perhaps you yourself are an anti-Semite – or at least a bigot.
You see, when somebody says what a Jew can or cannot say, when somebody says that certain discourse is considered to be hateful or insensitive and, as a result, censors or chills that speech – and when that speech is not conceptually connected with anti-Semitism -- then the person who is making that discrimination is anti-Semitic, if a Jew is involved, and bigoted if a non-Jew is involved. Because the same terms said with the same intent cannot be considered anti-Semitic only when a non-Jew says them. I don’t deny that certain terms are more inappropriately said by outsider groups – the N-word comes to mind. But “inappropriately said” is a far cry from anti-Semitic.
Who decides what speech is anti-Semitic. Is there a Pope of anti-Semitism? Who are the experts? According to Commentary’s Alana Goodman, the Anti-Defamation League is “considered by many media outlets to be the final word in all things anti-Semitism” – which, by the way, is the sort of grandiose and unsubstantiated assertion that readers of Commentary may be used to, but I certainly am not. Who appointed the ADL? And do they consider Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, and a host of Israeli commentators anti-Semitic, when they refer to Israeli apartheid? Perhaps Israeli politicians are allowed to be bigoted? And even if the term is inaccurate, what does that have to do with anti-Semitism?
Wonderful. I keep meaning to do a post on Hannah Arendt's and Theodor Herzl's acknowledgment of the problem of dual loyalty, or accusations thereof. I'll get to that in a day or so.
Fckin jerry haber man, that was great…
“I certainly have had students who are US citizens, who would never consider volunteering for the US army, but who have served in the Israel army, even without being an Israeli citizen.”
———–
This seems to be somewhat important to note, especially when you take into account who many of the main national war mongers are….
““I certainly have had students who are US citizens, who would never consider volunteering for the US army, but who have served in the Israel army, even without being an Israeli citizen.”
I definitely call that being an Israel Firster.
Hey that my brother-in-law your’e talking about.
sorry toivo….. :)
Oh my god. So the New York Times is anti-Semitic?
the New York Times is self hating news
LOL!
;)
do you have a copyright on that? It’s Greeeeaat.
no i don’t teta..but i have witnesses!
HAHAHA!!
Sht, I missed that on my first pass
tooo funny
“the New York Times is self-hating news.”
That was a good one. Both funny and accurate.
My mother actually told me the new york times is too pro Palestinian. She then listed CNN, NPR, and the BBC as being too Pro Palestinian as well. For some Jews, acknowledging that there’s another side to the conflict is being biased towards Palestinians.
lol
the 7th. cosmic
Precedent-setting Canadian libel lawsuit: Is criticism of Israel or Zionism anti-Semitic?
Opening paras:
“London Immigration lawyer Ed Corrigan said his libel case against Will Hector for calling him “one of the worst anti-Semites in Canada and an idiotic spammer,” in an email to the Law Union of Ontario (LUO) List forum, will be a precedent setting legal decision on the question: “is criticism of Israel or Zionism anti-Semitic?”
Mr. Corrigan is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration and Immigration and Refugee Protection. He has had extensive experience representing Palestinian refugees, winning around 88 per cent of those refugee claims.
The Law Union of Ontario is an organization of lawyers and law students which is active on legal issues and human rights issues in the province of Ontario and across Canada. Mr. Corrigan participated in Israel-Palestinian debates through the LUO List forum.
Mr. Hector, who has practised law as a private lawyer, was a member of the LUO when he sent the email, as part of an ongoing debate about Israeli-Palestinian issues.
After reading Mr. Hector’s Statement of Defence, Mr. Corrigan said it is clear the defence intends to argue that anything other than trivial matters criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic.
“People throwing out the allegation of anti-Semitism to attack people critical of Israeli policies and defending Palestinian human rights is very damaging,” Mr. Corrigan said. “They don’t deal with the facts. They use ad hominem smear tactics to silence debate.”
He added that if this allegation of anti-Semitism is not refuted in a libel action it will stand against him in terms of his public and professional career and it will stifle debate.
“If not withdrawn by the defendant or deemed libelous and defamatory by the court the charge of anti-Semitism can be levelled at any person who criticizes Israel, or anyone who posts articles critical of Israel on a list serve, or who tries to publicly defend Palestinian human rights.”
link to thecanadiancharger.com
Recently, I raised the question of whether or not readers here knew of past defamation suits filed in the USA over the charge of anti-Semitism, that had been pursued successfully. The case above is Canadian.
Almost seven years ago, I considered a libel and slander suit after being called anti-Semitic on video tape at a public meeting (among the more kind words thrown at me), and then being denounced as an anti-Semite in a newspaper op-ed, and at a joint session of the Alaska Legislature. For having given this talk: On Writing the Skies are Weeping.
Before the events at or after the talk, I had been getting three or more jobs per month in the greater Anchorage area, with jazz big bands, and other small popular music groups, such as German polka and waltz bands, etc. After the accusations, the job offers went from three-point-something per month to one job offer in seven years, a marked change.
I passed on a lawsuit – attorneys offered to help pro bono – as I think of days when one wonders about what one’s attorney might be thinking as days erased from the book of life, and at the beginning of the Iraq War, potential jurors in Alaska were highly infected by war fever. Also, although the denunciation had negative effects on aspects of my career, my main employer, the University of Alaska Anchorage stood by me then, and continues to support all my activities as a composer and local musician involved in political utterances.
There are probably dozens of better cases out there than mine. Is there a progressive legal defense fund, possibly affiliated with Code Pink or Jewish Voice for Peace, ready to proceed with the ideal test case?
“Before the events at or after the talk, I had been getting three or more jobs per month in the greater Anchorage area, with jazz big bands, and other small popular music groups, such as German polka and waltz bands, etc. After the accusations, the job offers went from three-point-something per month to one job offer in seven years, a marked change.”
Switch to Gospel music. You’ll never regret it.
Philip thanks for sharing that. You have my sympathy. I think this is important work, to break down this wall….
Phil
Thanks, Phil W. Never asked for nor wanted sympathy. The reality has been more exemplified by this subsequent episode:
In March 2008, I was trying to live blog the Alaska GOP Convention in Anchorage. Each candidate who was presented on their opening morning was preceded by a clergyman, who was supposed to deliver a prayer. First up was US House GOP primary candidate, State Rep. Gabrielle LaDoux. The clergyman delivering her prayer was Rabbi Yosef Greenburg of Congregation Shomrei Ohr-Chabad and the Lubevitch Jewish Center of Alaska. He was the same rabbi who had asked for the public meeting in 2004 at which I was so vehemently denounced.
When Rabbi Greenburg began his invocation/prayer, I stood and bowed my head, along with about a dozen others from among the 400 people there. Most remained seated, and kept on scarfing down their ham or bacon-and-eggs, as the rabbi prayed. I could see that Yossi noticed the lack of attention, but he went on.
The next candidate to speak was introduced and prayed over by Rev. Jerry Prevo, the most politically powerful evangelical Christian in Alaska. All 400 attendees all but jumped to their feet to join him in prayer. Quite a difference.
Soon afterward I noticed Rabbi Greenburg walking toward me. We shook hands, and he thanked me for standing for his message. We had our first talk in almost four years.
He asked how I was doing. I told him I could never thank him enough for his role in helping create a succession of events that had allowed me to meet or communicate with so many amazing people: Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Harold Pinter (who I had worshipped since high school), the Hon. Clare Short (who bought me not one, but two beers), the Baronness Jenny Tonge; or to work with such a marvelously courageous woman as Deborah Fink. He overcame his perplexity, and gave me a wan smile, saying, “So, it hasn’t been so bad, then?”
I replied, “In a lot of ways – n0. I’ve made far more friends than enemies over that music.”
It was also one of the most important learning experiences of my life.
– it is. You certainly do your part.
Philip Munger,
Harold Pinter, I love.
Great story Phil — you made my day.
“the Alaska GOP Convention in Anchorage. Each candidate who was presented on their opening morning was preceded by a clergyman, who was supposed to deliver a prayer.”
This whole idea seems crazy.
If everyone who had a good libelous writing or slander case against a zio took them to court the courts would be clogged up for years.
But people should start doing just that….the zio are constantly inserting laws and definitions in behalf of Jews and then drumming up lawsuits to try and set them as precedents.
However the ZOA test case lawsuit , after working on including Jews in some protection law,…the one against the Calif Univ failed….the court ruled it wasn’t universities responsibility to protect Jews from other students political speech or protest.
But people should start doing just that…. American
I agree, it is mind-boggling to discover that no one has ever before filed a libel suit against an unfair charge of Judeophobia / anti-Semitism.
Canadian Ed Corrigan’s libel suit is apparently the first of its kind; one might say that the political grip of the worldwide Israel Lobby is weakening.
The pre-trial examinations for discovery (“depositions” in the US) will be fascinating to say the least.
Is a trial date set?
Is a trial date set? [For the precedent-setting Canadian libel lawsuit: "Is criticism of Israel or Zionism anti-Semitic?"]
Not that I know of, Chet. I’ll keep my ear to the ground and let you know when it goes to trial.
A great article. I hope that this is the beginning of the erosion of the ADL ilk:
…[A]nti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since 1948) have tended to converge, generally without undergoing a full merger. There have always been Bundists, Jewish communists, Reform Jews, and ultra-Orthodox Jews who strongly opposed Zionism without being Judeophobes. So, too, there are conservatives, liberals, and leftists in the West today who are pro-Palestinian, antagonistic toward Israel, and deeply distrustful of Zionism without crossing the line into anti- Semitism. There are also Israeli “post-Zionists” who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly “Jewish” state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews.
Cloak is quoting Wistrich from Haber’s article. I have two rather opposite problems with Wistrich here.
If anti-Z and anti-S ‘tend to converge’ they presumably have, under his definition unlike mine, ideas in common. What are these shared ideas?
On the other hand, if we use the term ‘anti-S’ only for opposition to ‘Jews as Jews’ we may be defining it in a way which is oddly narrow and would fit hardly anyone. Surely hardly anyone would say with full seriousness ‘I explain my dislike of people who are Jewish simply by referring to the fact that Jewish is what they are: that’s it’.
i made my point about the term israel firsters right here the other day in the kampeas thread.
more at the link. they want to own the (new) term, they are simply staking out the territory and claiming it verboten (not to be confused w/ verbatim ;)
Yes you did – and with good substance.
Give Haber a prize!
Honesty and common sense applied to the anti semitism tar pit.
There may be places in the world where making anti-Semitic statements is a criminal offense subjecting maker to fines or jail. In such a place — and let us thank God that the USA is not yet such a place — it would ACTUALLY MATTER whether criticizing Israeli actions (or criticizing Israel itself) is seen as anti-Semitic by courts.
Similarly, I suppose that calling for BDS could be construed as A-S.
So, although here and now these mistakes on the meaning of A-S are just linguistic silliness (and, of course and always, political pressuring) — in other circumstances, all this could matter.
really good point pabelmont. here, a hate crime entails taking action. well, usually. with this new legislation they can pick you up for thinking.
” in other circumstances, all this could matter.”
Actually the zio orgs have pushed for (and gotten) laws and definitions that tiptoe right up to almost making it illegal.
I’d like to see them really go for making it criminal to say anything they consider anti semitic about Jews…..I think that would bring on one hell of a free speech fight and put their sleezy motives in the public spotlight.
Canadian Hate Speech law, and attitudes toward hate speech, are different from the US. Here’s it’s not a trivial issue at all. Take a look at the webite of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism.
link to
(Don’t be impressed by the coat of arms; the committee is “Parliamentary” only in the sense that parliamentarians run it. It’s otherwise unofficial. But it’s a serious problem.)
You might also want to look at link to
Yeah, JohnAdamTurnbull, my sister lives in Canada. She says that Lou Dobbs would have been put in jail under those laws for his comments about immigrants, and she stopped watching CNN because of him. She’s extremely conservative, hates the hate speech laws or is at least dismissive of them, but she couldn’t take Dobbs and a few others on the US shows she watches.
You Progressives:
First you erect a Political Correctness that is so blind as to characterize mere cultural criticism or preference as being racist and verboten too.
And then you elevate it to a level smacking of near-totalitarian thoroughness and vehemence so as to near criminalize mere off-hand speech in the U.S. and indeed to actually criminalize same in lots of the rest of the West.
And now you’re shocked and writhing over same being used to utterly marginalize you and everybody else opposing a decades-old ethnic cleansing claiming million of victims.
If it wasn’t for being one of those “everybody else’s” it’d be funny…
That’s pretty sweeping, that “you progressives” crap. “Political correctness” is a phenomenon found on all parts of the political spectrum–it was originally coined by lefties making fun of other lefties for their silly attitudes about what should or should not be said, but practically all groups have taboo topics, or things You Are Not Supposed To Say Or Think. In the US the political mainstream does this to people on both the far left and the far right, for good reasons and bad. I happen to think that people who make racist remarks should be ridiculed and scorned, but of course there are also cases where someone says something that isn’t racist, but is portrayed that way, and then the ridicule and scorn are misplaced, often deliberately used to shut people up. There is no general rule on this–one has to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether someone really has made a racist remark.
Outlawing speech is where it definitely goes too far. I think Holocaust deniers and Nakba deniers should be scorned, but speech shouldn’t be outlawed.
Donald wrote: “Outlawing speech is where it definitely goes too far. I think Holocaust deniers and Nakba deniers should be scorned, but speech shouldn’t be outlawed.”
Do you think telling lies should be protected speech? For example, yesterday Michele Bachman made some “unequivocal” claims about Iran’s Constitution and about Iran’s “unequivocal” intentions to “get nukes and kill all Jews.” The statements are provable lies — and simply so. Moreover, such lies can have the effect of costing lives, many lives. Democracies depend on an informed polity, and when the demos is deliberately misinformed — lied to — the entire project is corrupted. So, in a democracy, should speech that acts to disseminate lies be sanctioned or tolerated?
Regarding holocaust and Nakba denial, what if truths — provable facts about holocaust or Nakba — that are contrary to the accepted narrative, are voiced; should those truths or their tellers be scorned?
I have only a how-to-get-along-in-business-without-trying-too-very-hard understanding of the law, but I always thought truth was an absolute defense, that is, if a thing is true, whether some might claim it to be holocaust denial or Nakba denial or denial that unicorns exist, if it is true, the right to speak it is absolute.
Curiously, our culture seems to protect liars, even liars like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice etc whose lies result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, but we sanction truth tellers whose speech might prevent unnecessary bloodshed.
“Regarding holocaust and Nakba denial, what if truths — provable facts about holocaust or Nakba — that are contrary to the accepted narrative, are voiced; should those truths or their tellers be scorned?”
A courageous statement.
Sadly, on this and so many other topics, most people are still of the “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts” school of thought.
Questioning anything about the Holocaust or even thinking about it, is far too threatening for almost everyone.
Even if some key pieces of that history were ever proven false, a house of cards would instantly reveal itself. And that would be psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, and in every other way, “life-threatening” to most people’s psyches.
I get it, I’ve been there.
.
“The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.” – LeftWright
.
“Do you think telling lies should be protected speech?”
Yes.
“Regarding holocaust and Nakba denial, what if truths — provable facts about holocaust or Nakba — that are contrary to the accepted narrative, are voiced; should those truths or their tellers be scorned?”
No.
That was easy.
Spot on SN.
Agree mostly SN but “You progressives” is a little too sweeping.
Hate crimes enhancement legislation has certainly criminalized thought and speech. Terrible precedent.
Guess who wrote this and who endorsed this?
Good old Newt condemning dual allegiance.
link to cis.org
Then for some prime examples the split personalities on split allegiances look no further than the conseratives and liberals….the liberals being all for it, the conseratives being all against it…for Mexicans and everyone but the big dual Israel elephant in the room. If youwant a good look at how f**** up and comically hypocritical both are, this is it.
link to commdocs.house.gov
2006
DUAL CITIZENSHIP, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, AND THE MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
The conflation of “Jew” with “Zionist” and with “anti-Zionist” (anti-Israeli actions and policies) and “anti-Semitic” is obviously at the heart of this controversy.
If a Jew supports the existence of a Jewish homeland, but deplores the actions and policies of the Israelis vis-a-vis the Palestinians, is that Jew an anti-Zionist and thereby an anti-Semite?
The logic (or illogic) of it makes my head swim.
Democracy Now (8/14/2002) video clip:
Israeli Minister “We always use the anti-Semitism trick or, in Europe, bring up the Holocaust”
There can be a lot of money in suing zios who accuse you of anti semitism…all you need is some balls . LOL
“On December 15, 2006, Judith Regan was fired from HarperCollins, over alleged “anti-Semitic” comments.[8] Regan sued News Corporation and News Corporation retracted the claim, apologized to Regan, and paid her an eight-figure settlement.” This charge was completely fabricated” according to Regan’s lawsuit. News Corporation then retracted the claim.
“After carefully considering the matter, we accept Ms. Regan’s position that she did not say anything that was anti-Semitic in nature, and further believe that Ms. Regan is not anti-Semitic,” News Corp. said. (AP Hillel Italie January 25 2007) It was reported that she had tapes that confirmed her position. The tapes of the conversation with a HarperCollins lawyer Mark Jackson have not been released. The staff at ReganBooks were reassigned within the HarperCollins General Book Group.[9] The New York Times reported that “a stunned Ms. Regan was confronted by security guards who arrived with boxes and ordered her to leave.”[8] A temporary assistant who worked for less than one week also heard the conversation and claimed that Regan never made any anti-Semitic statement.[10]
In November 2007, Regan filed a $100 million lawsuit against News Corporation protesting her dismissal.[11] Her allegations include that she was ordered to lie to federal investigators to protect Rudy Giuliani’s bid for president,[12] as his promotions of Bernard Kerik were likely to become a burden on the presumed future campaign. According to The New York Times, “The assertion that the News Corporation has sought to protect Mr. Giuliani appears in the opening page of the filing. The document later revisits aspects of the assertion.”[13]
In January 2008, the defamation lawsuit was settled on terms described as confidential and equitable. It was reported the News Corporation paid Regan a sum between 10 and 30 million dollars. In a joint statement, News Corp conceded that Regan had not uttered anti-Semitic statements and that Regan was not anti-Semitic.”
i’ll tell you what is anti-semitic.
the charge that honest criticism of israeli policies is anti-semitic.
if you make this BS claim, without additional actual substance (they never do), you are conforming to anti-semitic paradigms. you are conflating the “jews” with a nation-state, and its particular governing elite.
israeli policies simply represent the policies of israel’s right wing governing elite. they claim to represent israelis, which is already troublesome, but then portend to speak and act for “world jewry”, which is absurd. we need to start calling out the ADL, AIPAC, and even official israeli talking points for what they are actually doing: enabling and even utilizing anti-semitic paradigms in the interest of political censorship/political expediency.
Considering how many people have kissed Foxman’s, ahem, ring in order to obtain absolution for their alleged sins, he appears to be recognized as the Pope of “The New Anti-Semitism.”
Zionists like Foxman project their own antisemitic thought processes onto their whipping boys. Nothing new.
“I certainly have had students who are US citizens, who would never consider volunteering for the US army, but who have served in the Israel army, even without being an Israeli citizen. … I have prayed in modern orthodox synagogues where the prayer for the welfare of the State of Israel has been said, but not the prayer for the welfare of the United States; or where congregants stand for the former and sit for (or mumble) the latter. … they often answer … that they love Israel more because they are Jewish. Is it anti-Semitic to point that out?”
Probably. Apparently it is anti-Semitic to even hint at dual loyalty or suggest that lots of Jews only care about other Jews, and not about their fellow citizens.
.
Defamation
This 2009 video is just wild. How could something on this serious a topic be so entertaining, so funny, but it is! The message is critical, the way it’s been created and its result, are amazing. Gotta love the little be-bopping music playing in the background.
The film maker is a young Jewish Israeli guy. He goes around with his camcorder explaining to people (all sorts of people) that he’s doing a film on defamation and requests an interview.
Because the Zionists he interviews assume that his perspective matches their own, they trust him completely and speak more than freely. What they say is eye-opening.
Abe Foxman gave the guy the ok to follow him around filming for a few days – priceless. It’s more than revealing to see and hear what goes on behind closed doors at AIPAC and when they think they’re being asked by a card carrying member of “the tribe.”
I wasn’t ever clear whether the guy set out with an agenda or simply let things unfold as they would and let the story write itself.
Either way, it’s one of a kind.
This 2009 video is just wild. How could something on this serious a topic be so entertaining, so funny, but it is!
I thought the producer’s interview with his own Jewish grandmother was just priceless.
since zionism is not judaism it therefore follows that anti-zionism is not antisemitism
israel-firster is a proper and easily understood characterization
in its insistance that israel speaks for all jews, zionism endangers jews everywhere, because whether or not a jew is pro-israel, s/he may be put at risk by the settler entity’s crimes against the palestinian people.
and putting jews at risk just because they happen to be jewish? isn’t this the essence of antisemistism?
thus once agains the truth turns out to be the opposite of what the zionists claim, they’re the antisemites, not the anti-zionists. no surprise this, since zionists also claim that the jewish israelis are the victims, the palestinians the terrorists, whereas, vice versa is the way it really is.
It’s very simple. The core of antisemitism is a negative stereotyping of Jews. If this core is missing, it’s not antisemitism.
So if someone says that a (pro) Israel lobby controls or tries to control US foreign policy in the Middle East is a simplification, but it’s not antisemitism. But Foxman and other word twisters want to shift it towards antisemitism by claiming that what was actually said was that “the (stereotype) Jew controls or wants to control the world”. It’s Foxman et al. who disseminate antisemitism and pour oil into the fire.
I witnesses the same during a discussion about the Israel/Palestine conflict in which someone claimed the stronger party would be responsible for the conflict and a zionist twisted his words into “THE JEWS are responsible for everything (bad)”. It’s actually them thinking like antisemites. Maybe they hate themselves for being a Jew who has to support zionism, right or wrong. It wouldn’t surprise me.
yes, zionists, especially rabid israel-firsters, are the self-hating jews. it’s in their disdain not only for jewish anti-zionists but for jewish leftists and the history of social consciousness among many if not most jews.
Except that Foxman never said the Times was antisemitic or even intimated it (and I know for a fact he doesn’t think it is). He merely took issue with the paper’s coverage and argued some of its criticism was unfair.
It’s like you criticizing the NY Times coverage of the Palestinian issue and me claiming you called the Times Islamophobic.
You have a vested interest in claiming that Jewish organizations are calling something antisemitic when they are not, and it’s all so that you can hide from the actual antisemitism in the pro-Palestinian community, which you not only fail to confront, but seem to encourage here, and perhaps take part in. That is what really trivializes the charge of antisemitism.
except there’s no (or hardly any) antisemitism in the pro-Palestinian community. all you need do to verify this is attend any pro-Palestinian event. better, visit the west bank and spend time with palestinians.
“Except that Foxman never said the Times was antisemitic or even intimated it…”
This clearly intimates it:
“(and I know for a fact he doesn’t think it is). ”
Who cares what he thinks? By his actions and words during the “Ground Zero mosque” affair, Foxman has shown himself to be nothing but a gutter-dwelling Islamophobe. He’s not better than a David Duke.
“He’s not better than a David Duke.”
Another lunatic statement.
“This clearly intimates it:”
In no way does taking issue with the NY Times’ criticism of Israel intimate that it is antisemitic. Only in your lunatic mind.
“Another lunatic statement.”
Anyone who was a decent person would simply have stated: “the opposition to Park 51 is based on anti-Muslim bigotry and we will not support it in any way.” The fact that Foxman would not, means he is no better than a David Duke. If you don’t think so, that just shows your level of bigotry and your lack of character.
“In no way does taking issue with the NY Times’ criticism of Israel intimate that it is antisemitic.”
Can you actually read and understand English? This statement: “And, contrary to Barnea, who argued that being critical of Mr. Netanyahu’s policies does not make one anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic, some of The Times’ commentary goes beyond mere criticism” absolutely intimates that some of the Times’ commentary was, in fact anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.
Does he come right out and say it? No of course not, he’s a coward. But why do you think he wrote it in such a convoluted way? Because he is intimating that the Times was being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. To anyone with a brain, the ability to read, and who isn’t a Zionist brain-dead idologue, this is clear.
“Anyone who was a decent person would simply have stated: “the opposition to Park 51 is based on anti-Muslim bigotry and we will not support it in any way.” The fact that Foxman would not, means he is no better than a David Duke.”
As you know, I did not support the ADL’s position on Park 51. But if you think that all opposition was based on anti-Muslim bigotry, and you equate those who opposed it with David Duke followers, then you have no business talking about the trivialization of hatred.
” If you don’t think so, that just shows your level of bigotry and your lack of character.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Save your self-righteousness for your own community of yes men.
“Can you actually read and understand English?”
Can you? Where did Foxman intimate that the NY TImes was antisemitic? He didn’t.
““And, contrary to Barnea, who argued that being critical of Mr. Netanyahu’s policies does not make one anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic, some of The Times’ commentary goes beyond mere criticism””
Again, not an intimation that the NY Times is antisemitic. Perhaps an intimation that it can be anti-Israel, but not antisemitic.
I understand people like you have a vested interest in trying to accuse Jewish leaders of accusing others of antisemitism, so that you can feign outrage.
It’s transparent. You should find something else to do.