Anti-semitism and criticism of Israel

[livius drusus]

Anti-semitism is a common charge in discussions of Middle Eastern politics, and although I believe it tends to be used too liberally, there's also good reason for that.

I'm uncomfortable with repeated use of the word "zionist", for instance, not because it isn't a legitimate word both with both historical and current meanings, but because to me it is now hopelessly burdened by white supremacist, William Turneresque ZOG connotations. So even when I feel a given criticism of Israeli policy is entirely reasonable and well-argued, if "zionist" features more than once it gives me the willies.

I also have a big personal problem with crypto-Nazis, and I know very well there are people who pretend that racist fascism isn't at the root of whatever political comment they're making when it totally is. They use code, pretend to be pro-Palestinian human rights in order to get people who would normally spit on their Nazi crap to agree with them. I've seen this kind of shit on discussion boards more than a little and it seriously drives me nuts.

The other side of that coin is the to my mind spurious notion that any criticism of the Israeli government is grounded in hatred of Jews -- something I've seen a lot in the mainstream press and among the punditocracy. This serves more than anything to paint critics (often progressives/liberals/lefties) as anti-semites and therefore easily dismiss their criticisms.

I suppose my perspective hidden among all this blather is that it is essential in these kinds of discussions to eschew sloppy generalizations and conclusion-leaping as much as possible. Even saying something like Isreal is this or Israel is that can be a messy affair because Israel is not a monolith, but a democracy which has seen many governments from different points on the political spectrum. Assuming a positive, detailed discussion is what you're after, of course. That's not always the case and it's not necessarily a bad thing when it isn't.

Confused yet? Good. My work here is done. I'll leave the cogent argumentation to y'all then.

P.S. - Here's the best post I've ever read on the subject of Israel/Palestine. I know it's only tangential to this thread, but I love it so I can't help but post it again here.

[Clutch Munny]

Wow, great link. I'm sorry I missed that post when it happened. Good for galiel.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I'm uncomfortable with repeated use of the word "zionist", for instance, not because it isn't a legitimate word both with both historical and current meanings, but because to me it is now hopelessly burdened by white supremacist, William Turneresque ZOG connotations. So even when I feel a given criticism of Israeli policy is entirely reasonable and well-argued, if "zionist" features more than once it gives me the willies.

Agreed. When did the word "Zionist" come to mean apartheid loving neo-con Arab hating ZOG etc.? There isn't anything wrong with being a Zionist. It's taken on a whole new, and highly charged, negative meaning today, a short hand for all that is wrong with Israel. And I don't think anyone here would deny there is a lot wrong with the direction Israel is going. But to toss around Zionist as if it's a slur, and as you say, more than once, tends to raise some flags.

I also have a big personal problem with crypto-Nazis, and I know very well there are people who pretend that racist fascism isn't at the root of whatever political comment they're making when it totally is. They use code, pretend to be pro-Palestinian human rights in order to get people who would normally spit on their Nazi crap to agree with them. I've seen this kind of shit on discussion boards more than a little and it seriously drives me nuts.

Agreed.

The other side of that coin is the to my mind spurious notion that any criticism of the Israeli government is grounded in hatred of Jews -- something I've seen a lot in the mainstream press and among the punditocracy. This serves more than anything to paint critics (often progressives/liberals/lefties) as anti-semites and therefore easily dismiss their criticisms.

True. BUT, there often is a veiled anti-Semitism, and that's what I was trying to get at in the other thread. Before diving into long discussions about Israel, I like to know where the person is coming from. They may or may not be anti-Semitic, but sometimes are. BTW, being anti-Semitic, or any other form of bigotry, comes in many shades, just like anything else. It just seems that in the past 15 years or so the rush is to bash Israel like crazy, without once stopping to consider all of the factors.

I agree though, it most certainly is not, by itself, anti-Semitic to question policy.

I suppose my perspective hidden among all this blather is that it is essential in these kinds of discussions to eschew sloppy generalizations and conclusion-leaping as much as possible. Even saying something like Isreal is this or Israel is that can be a messy affair because Israel is not a monolith, but a democracy which has seen many governments from different points on the political spectrum.

Exactly.

Assuming a positive, detailed discussion is what you're after, of course. That's not always the case and it's not necessarily a bad thing when it isn't.

Confused yet? Good. My work here is done. I'll leave the cogent argumentation to y'all then.

Good start though, thanks!

P.S. - Here's the best post I've ever read on the subject of Israel/Palestine. I know it's only tangential to this thread, but I love it so I can't help but post it again here.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Wow, great link. I'm sorry I missed that post when it happened. Good for galiel.

Isn't it something? I've linked to it all over the web, I swear. Did you read ahead to galiel's exchange with Loren Pechtel? That's a thing of beauty too (not that it sank in, natch).

[Clutch Munny]

Well, a thing of beauty or utterly heartbreaking. It's hard to see someone as grimly, resolutely, determinedly stupid as Loren Pechtel with the Mod label beneath his name.

[Morroskye]

The word Zionism may cause some to cringe but it is racial/religious supremacy that has cast millions from their homes and land over the last 50 years. I use the word to describe the Jewish supremacist movement and the settlers, Kahanites. I'm a socialist so labeling me a neo-Nazi won't stick. I'm on the opposite end of the political scale. I don't need a degree in religious history or political science to recognize Nazism is wrong. Same goes for zionism: A worldwide Jewish movement dedicated to expanding the Jewish state into all areas Judaism declares is holy, pure and exclusively given to them by God/Abraham. How does this philosophy differ from Jihadist movements in the Muslim world?? I understand there are many that disagree with me here but zionism is the foundation of Israeli apartheid. Built on the seething hatred of all that aren't Jewish, specifically Arabs. I support the creation of a Palestinian state that is of course secular and open to all non-zionist Jews. I have noted in many other places any criticism of Israel gets you slapped with the label "Nazi." There is much Israel could do to brighten it's image in the world. I have not seen any evidence she has ever tried since her creation; On Palestinian soil.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

The word Zionism may cause some to cringe but it is racial/religious supremacy that has cast millions from their homes and land over the last 50 years. I use the word to describe the Jewish supremacist movement and the settlers, Kahanites. I'm a socialist so labeling me a neo-Nazi won't stick. I'm on the opposite end of the political scale. I don't need a degree in religious history or political science to recognize Nazism is wrong. Same goes for zionism: A worldwide Jewish movement dedicated to expanding the Jewish state into all areas Judaism declares is holy, pure and exclusively given to them by God/Abraham. How does this philosophy differ from Jihadist movements in the Muslim world?? I understand there are many that disagree with me here but zionism is the foundation of Israeli apartheid. Built on the seething hatred of all that aren't Jewish, specifically Arabs. I support the creation of a Palestinian state that is of course secular and open to all non-zionist Jews. I have noted in many other places any criticism of Israel gets you slapped with the label "Nazi." There is much Israel could do to brighten it's image in the world. I have not seen any evidence she has ever tried since her creation; On Palestinian soil.

Actually, there is the argument from true Zionists who are against expansion, and many Orthodox Jews are very much against this current idea of Zionism. Zionism doesn't mean, or didn't anyway, expansion into all of Judea, and not at the expense of others. As with all things, there are Jews who are in support of a Palestinain state, there are degrees in between, and there are the fundie right wing relgious Jews (and some Christians, who have their own agendas) who want all of it, at any expense.

One crucial, core thorn in all this is the opinon of Israel being created in the first place. . . the idea that land was stolen . . etc.

While I agree Israel certainly could do a hell of a lot right now to improve things, I disagree that Israel has never tried, or has always been as you seem to be saying, in the wrong. Some believe that Israel is in the wrong, by definition. If that is the opinion you share, then guess there's nothing more to say.

Some believe everything can be solved, I hope so. As I've said in the other thread, I don't think so, but one can hope. There may be Israel's withdrawals, and a secular Palestinian state, etc. We can only wait and see.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by natasha

Agreed. When did the word "Zionist" come to mean apartheid loving neo-con Arab hating ZOG etc.?

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, maybe? Turner's book was very influential in certain circles.

There isn't anything wrong with being a Zionist. It's taken on a whole new, and highly charged, negative meaning today, a short hand for all that is wrong with Israel. And I don't think anyone here would deny there is a lot wrong with the direction Israel is going. But to toss around Zionist as if it's a slur, and as you say, more than once, tends to raise some flags.

It doesn't actually raise flags for me; it just makes me uncomfortable. It's so commonly used that I don't think there's any kind of meaning you can draw from the use of the word alone.

I would personally eschew its use because it's a very vague term which adds nothing I can discern to the discussion and might very well raise hackles. Since I like adding things to discussions and dislike raising hackles, I avoid it and would like to see it avoided more than it is. Or at least see it defined when used so we know which meaning of the word the author intends.

True. BUT, there often is a veiled anti-Semitism, and that's what I was trying to get at in the other thread. Before diving into long discussions about Israel, I like to know where the person is coming from. They may or may not be anti-Semitic, but sometimes are.

And if they are? Seriously. Even the worst racist in the world might be right about any given issue. I prefer to look at the substance of the argument and see if there's something interesting to discuss than to try and divine someone's innermost feelings about Jews and then discuss the substance of their argument.

BTW, being anti-Semitic, or any other form of bigotry, comes in many shades, just like anything else. It just seems that in the past 15 years or so the rush is to bash Israel like crazy, without once stopping to consider all of the factors.

I haven't been talking about these issues for 15 years so I couldn't really say, but I certainly haven't seen any Israel bashing at all in the mainstream press, for instance. Perhaps you're thinking of online interactions on left-leaning boards?

If so, the sheer contrast of what gets posted with the media's generally non-critical stance might seem like there's more bashing going on than there actually is. Besides, who stops to consider all the factors in such discussions? Mediators are a rare personality type on the internet, believe you me.

I agree though, it most certainly is not, by itself, anti-Semitic to question policy.

Do you think it's anti-Semitic to focus on questioning Israeli policy? I got the impression on the other thread that the fact that Sauron has started multiple threads critical of Israel was intrinsically suspect to you. I myself tend to think of it as an area of interest or activist focus. When I went to the model UN in high school, all I did was talk about South African Apartheid because that's the committee I was on and I was on that committee because it was the subject which interested me the most.

That doesn't mean I'm an anti-Boerite. Some of my best friends are Afrikaners.

Good start though, thanks!

Thank you for posting.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

The word Zionism may cause some to cringe but it is racial/religious supremacy that has cast millions from their homes and land over the last 50 years.

The point, however, was that 'Zionism' does not, or need not, denote a doctrine of racial/religious supremacy. Someone might be a self-described Zionist simply on account of supporting a nation intended as a safe homeland for Jews. Consistent with such support are the ideas that Jews have no special political status within such a nation, and that the nation should be thoroughly secular. It's an important question whether, and to what extent, these descriptions fit current Israel, but Zionism per se hardly need reject them.

I use the word to describe the Jewish supremacist movement and the settlers, Kahanites.

Then it's best to make this explicit whenever you use the term, so that others can see that you have an idiosyncratic definition of it.

I'm a socialist so labeling me a neo-Nazi won't stick. I'm on the opposite end of the political scale.

I think livius was being a bit uncareful in flagging crypto-nazis specifically; socialism and communism have overseen as much virulent anti-semitism as fascism. Her critical remarks apply as much to crypto-communist anti-semites as to crypto-nazis. Presumably you meant to disown anti-semitism, not simply nazism.

A worldwide Jewish movement dedicated to expanding the Jewish state into all areas Judaism declares is holy, pure and exclusively given to them by God/Abraham.

The key terms here are sufficiently vague that your statement may be true without being informative. For example, a worldwide Quebecois movement may be dedicated to the separation of Quebec from Canada -- worldwide, in the sense that there are at least some Quebecois in many different countries who support that policy, speak in favour of it, maybe vote from overseas in referenda... A precise statement of your claim here would force you to give real reasoning to shore it up.

[Morroskye]

Great point on S. African apartheid and the Boers/Afrikkaners. I don't think I'll ever support any religious state, whether it's Tibet, Israel, Iran or the USA. Israel's Wall, tolerance of terrorist settlers and aggression toward it's neighbors will never be acceptable to me. Especially a country with WMD's. At the very least they should move off of US welfare roles. Perhaps that will tone down their hostility and inhumane treatment of those marginalized in Israeli society.

[koan]

thanks for the link, liv.

that post was probably the best I've ever read on a forum. I came close to having an epiphany while reading it. I didn't read on because, typically, a good post is followed up by narrow minded rejection and attack and it's too early in the morning (here) to stomach that yet. I might go back later and read more.

along the same lines as to why I haven't read further on the link...the use of all terms like Zionist, crypto-Nazis, neocon, liberal, etc is only appropriate if use to describe oneself. Labeling another poster, IMO, is presumptious and labeling a train of thought is far too simplistic. Someone can have similar beliefs to a known movement without having to subscribe to all of them. I think most often the terms are bandied about to try and get posters to back down from arguments lest they be branded with a name they don't like. As an intimidation tactic it is vile and counterproductive to free, intelligent thought.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Confused yet? Good. My work here is done. I'll leave the cogent argumentation to y'all then.

you bring cogent argumentation to threads by pointing things out here. Left to ourselves it seems many discussions devolve to name calling and subtle ad hominems that take from the legitimacy of the discussion. Though not so much on this board as on others.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

The word Zionism may cause some to cringe but it is racial/religious supremacy that has cast millions from their homes and land over the last 50 years. I use the word to describe the Jewish supremacist movement and the settlers, Kahanites.

But the word has meant and does mean many other things as well. Don't you think there's value in using a more specific, accurate term or even just explaining what you mean rather than shooting off the word when for sure people are going to read all kinds of ugly things into it?

I'm a socialist so labeling me a neo-Nazi won't stick. I'm on the opposite end of the political scale. I don't need a degree in religious history or political science to recognize Nazism is wrong.

It wouldn't even enter my head to label you a Nazi and I very much hope you didn't think my comments on my dealings with crypto-Nazis was directed to you or Sauron or anyone else just because they've used the word "zionist".

Hell, the main guy I'm thinking of didn't use the word at all. He was much stealthier than that.

Same goes for zionism: A worldwide Jewish movement dedicated to expanding the Jewish state into all areas Judaism declares is holy, pure and exclusively given to them by God/Abraham.

natasha pointed out that this movement doesn't even apply to many of the people who's political positions you disagree with, including Israeli government leaders and pretty much the entire Labour party.

How does this philosophy differ from Jihadist movements in the Muslim world??

It doesn't. It's just not as far as I know a philosophy actually espoused by the vast majority of Israeli parliament members, so when you use this definition to decry the actions of the Israeli goverment, you're really conflating terms.

I understand there are many that disagree with me here but zionism is the foundation of Israeli apartheid. Built on the seething hatred of all that aren't Jewish, specifically Arabs.

You're right, I don't agree with you. It's a blanket statement which just implicates way too many people, way too many diverse political parties, and way too many Israeli governments. As galiel noted in the post I linked to in my OP, the social democrats who built the country had no such interest.

Also, it's just a bald assertion. I'm not inclined to buy those without evidence or at least a fully developed argument. I would be very interested in seeing you make your case for it in a new thread.

I support the creation of a Palestinian state that is of course secular and open to all non-zionist Jews.

Are any of those non-zionist Jews in the Israeli government? If so, doesn't that give you pause when you paint Israel with one monolithic brush?

I have noted in many other places any criticism of Israel gets you slapped with the label "Nazi."

I haven't actually seen that, but the boards I post on tend to lean left. Anti-semite is more than bad enough as labels go.

There is much Israel could do to brighten it's image in the world. I have not seen any evidence she has ever tried since her creation; On Palestinian soil.

I couldn't say either way.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I think livius was being a bit uncareful in flagging crypto-nazis specifically; socialism and communism have overseen as much virulent anti-semitism as fascism. Her critical remarks apply as much to crypto-communist anti-semites as to crypto-nazis. Presumably you meant to disown anti-semitism, not simply nazism.

livius was indeed being a bit uncareful, and yes, you are absolutely correct. The crypto-Nazi is just one example, one near and dear to me because of past experience.

[maddog]

In practical terms in my own life, the main thing I run into is that if I criticize Israel at all, I'm labeled anti-Semitic. This is very disconcerting to me.

You would think that, of all people in the world, the Jews would understand what it means to be dispossessed, and to need a homeland.
#461

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by maddog

In practical terms in my own life, the main thing I run into is that if I criticize Israel at all, I'm labeled anti-Semitic. This is very disconcerting to me.

You would think that, of all people in the world, the Jews would understand what it means to be dispossessed, and to need a homeland.
#461

I've wondered the very same thing.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

Great point on S. African apartheid and the Boers/Afrikkaners. I don't think I'll ever support any religious state, whether it's Tibet, Israel, Iran or the USA.

Erm... How are you defining religious state here?

[Morroskye]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Erm... How are you defining religious state here?

I'm defining a religious state as a nation that is ruled by one supreme institutionalized faith, like Israel, Tibetan seperatists, Iran, Saudi Arabia and perhaps the USA one day if we keep electing Christian fundamentalists. A state with it's leadership beholden to a specific religious doctrine/beliefs and the laws that enforce them.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by Morroskye

I've wondered the very same thing.

I'm sorry that's happened if it wasn't called for. It's funny how, when you have such divisions like this, there are two sides (at least) to things. In my experience, frequently, though not all of the time of course, a person has seemingly legitimate concerns about Israel, but it quickly becomes far more than that.

One thing that bothers me to no end (and this might be getting off topic a bit) is the whole "chosen people" thing. So many are very quick to jump on this and fling it in your face with a kind of "Oh, so you think you're the Chosen People eh? Jews think they're entitled and special and better than everyone."

That is not at all what it means, and this is why many suspect someone has anti-Semitic feelings when they are so quick to use this erroneous stereotype, without bothering to find out what it means.

Sure, no doubt there are fundie zealots who misuse this; those exist everywhere, Judaism is no exception.

But for non-Jews to grab onto this and wield it as some kind of negative "proof" that Jews think they're superior, and therefore, have a right to rule, is sad, and absurd.

Sorry if I got off on a tangent.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by koan

thanks for the link, liv.

that post was probably the best I've ever read on a forum. I came close to having an epiphany while reading it. I didn't read on because, typically, a good post is followed up by narrow minded rejection and attack and it's too early in the morning (here) to stomach that yet. I might go back later and read more.

You're very welcome, of course. Not to give you a peak at the back of the book or anything, but the narrow minded rejection and attack pattern did not play out this time.

along the same lines as to why I haven't read further on the link...the use of all terms like Zionist, crypto-Nazis, neocon, liberal, etc is only appropriate if use to describe oneself. Labeling another poster, IMO, is presumptious and labeling a train of thought is far too simplistic.

Fair point, although difficult to put into practice, I think. Also -- and I know you haven't said otherwise -- there is a need to label groups or schools of thought.

Someone can have similar beliefs to a known movement without having to subscribe to all of them. I think most often the terms are bandied about to try and get posters to back down from arguments lest they be branded with a name they don't like. As an intimidation tactic it is vile and counterproductive to free, intelligent thought.

Aren't presuming a little yourself here, though, when you say these kinds of labels are most often used as an intimidation tactic? I think people tend use such terms because they're used to them and because their main sources use them.

you bring cogent argumentation to threads by pointing things out here. Left to ourselves it seems many discussions devolve to name calling and subtle ad hominems that take from the legitimacy of the discussion. Though not so much on this board as on others.

Thank you kindly.

[Adam]

How many people actually self-identify as Zionists, anyway?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Adam

How many people actually self-identify as Zionists, anyway?

Yeah, I thought that was more a 1950's sorta thing.

[livius drusus]

Good question, Adam. Google turned up a fair number of organizations using the label with pride -- Zionist Organization of America, World Zionist Organization, here's a list of affiliate links from the American Zionist Movement site -- but at a glance it looks like even among self-identified zionists there's a broad range of definitions for the term.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by Adam

How many people actually self-identify as Zionists, anyway?

Well, I and my family always did, and others I know. All we meant by it was "cool, finally a place for Jews to live in peace." Suddenly it became a horrilbe word, with all kinds of awful connotations.

[livius drusus]

I don't think it's a suddenly kind of deal, natasha. I think your family definition while far from unusual is also just one among many that have been out there since the 19th century. An argument could probably just as well be made that a term steeped in a combative religious primacy suddenly adopted a wishy-washy "finally a place for the Jews to live in peace" connation.

[natasha]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

An argument could probably just as well be made that a term steeped in a combative religious primacy suddenly adopted a wishy-washy "finally a place for the Jews to live in peace" connation.

I don't understand your comment here. Wanting to live in a place where everyone's left alone and in peace is "wishy-washy?"

Naive maybe. Certainly not the current reality. But "wishy-washy?"

what do you mean?