Anti Semitism

Mad Finn

Get into a discussion about the Middle East and very quickly, if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

But what's an anti-semite?

There are several definitions. My favourite comes from an Irish-American former senator and US ambassador to the UN (where he was a strong supporter of Israel) Daniel Patrick Moynihan. An anti-semite, he opined was 'Someone who dislikes Jews more than is absolutely necessary'.

What's yours?

Tchocky

Haven't exactly got a favourite definition of anti-semitism......:)

"What's that? Religion doesnt matter, you say? Verily, this is a breath of fresh air..."

Hobbes

Mad Finn wrote:

if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

Disagreeing with Israel doesn't make you anti-Semite. You should point that out to them, if they continue with this then you should also point out that Muslims are also semites and having a pro-israel stance would make them anti-semite by thier logic.*

* Do in a kirk voice, if they are a robot they should blow up at this point.

Defination of Anti-Semite: I can no longer debate the issue in a rational way so I will just call you anti-XXXX and it automatically null and voids anything you might say. A variation of the lalalalalaICan'tHearYou fingers in the ears defense.

exiztone

Yeah, I don't get it. For all those mental right wing nuts who go on about Islam and the Middle East being the Devil, are they anti-semitic or what? Definitely worth throwing in their face if they are.

You'll know it when you see it.

You didn't need a definition of what is racist or sectarian or whatever to realise that cartoons about Mohammed may be offensive to Muslims. If someone is at the stage whether they are wondering whether a statement is or is not technically anti-semite, I'm guessing they have gone long past the line where it could be deemed offensive anyway and as such did not need to be said.

The Saint

I read a good article which I can't find now unfortunately about what is ant-semitism by an Israeli Jewish journalist. He essentially said that anti-semitism is hating Jews for what they are rather than what 'they' do. He basically stated that trying to use criticism of Israeli actions to accuse of anti-semitism has no basis. I think it's a pretty good definition.

LostinBlanch

Deleted User wrote:

You'll know it when you see it.

You didn't need a definition of what is racist or sectarian or whatever to realise that cartoons about Mohammed may be offensive to Muslims. If someone is at the stage whether they are wondering whether a statement is or is not technically anti-semite, I'm guessing they have gone long past the line where it could be deemed offensive anyway and as such did not need to be said.

Not necessarily, read Hobbes post to see how labelling someone anti semitic is merely a tool used to censor arguments, and denigrate the poster, much the same as labelling someone a nazi is. So if someone modifies their statement(s) as a result they are engaging in self censorship rather than necessarily causing offence.

Ray777

I've found that the sheer number of supporters of Israel who trot out the 'anti-semite' line is indicative of the thinness of pro-Israeli arguments.

On the other hand, I find that the number of people who give out that they are censored by the anti-semite accusation far exceeds the number of times I actually see an accusation of anti-semitism.

Morlar

I remember reading a definition that went something like this


"An anti-semite used to be someone who didnt like the jews -
thesedays an anti-semite is someone the jews dont like"

My own version would be that an anti semite is someone who hates jewish people for being jewish.

Israel doesnt come into anti semitism - its a completely seperate thing - the army and state of israel is not the representative of 'jewishness'/judaica whatever you want to call it. Its more zionism than jewishness. There are plenty of jewish people who are critical of the actions of the IDF/Sharon/Olmert. Some of the most articulate, knowldegeable and prominent critics of israel & the IDF are jewish.

Diorraing

Norman Finkelstein has written a book on the subject: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". Well worth a read. Basically a criticism of Alan Dershowitz who wrote "Chutzpah". He (Dersh) also wrote The Case for Israel which is an extremely interesting work and one worth reading to fully understand the middle-east

Húrin

Mad Finn wrote:

Get into a discussion about the Middle East and very quickly, if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

Critics of Israel aren't anti-Semites (except for a few Nazis) but more often those who take the anti-Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran line are accused of desiring a holocaust of Muslims. :rolleyes:

Mad Finn

Deleted User wrote:

On the other hand, I find that the number of people who give out that they are censored by the anti-semite accusation far exceeds the number of times I actually see an accusation of anti-semitism.

That's a fair point, but it does happen.

Is there any record anywhere on the web of the famous spat between Dershovitz and Fisk on the Dunphy radio show the day after 9/11? I'm pretty sure Dershovitz called Fisk an anti-Semite on that one, for no other reason than Fisk pointing out incidents of Zionist terrorism like the bombing of the King David hotel.

Mad Finn

Mad Finn wrote:

Is there any record anywhere on the web of the famous spat between Dershovitz and Fisk on the Dunphy radio show the day after 9/11? I'm pretty sure Dershovitz called Fisk an anti-Semite on that one, for no other reason than Fisk pointing out incidents of Zionist terrorism like the bombing of the King David hotel.

That's terrible. After the whole '3,000 civilians killed' thing it must have been the second worst thing to happen that month...

If Fisk had spent the day after 9/11 recalling instances of Jewish attacks then he is not anti-semite, merely a completely and utterly inconsiderate ******.

The Saint

H&#250 wrote: »

Critics of Israel aren't anti-Semites (except for a few Nazis) but more often those who take the anti-Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran line are accused of desiring a holocaust of Muslims. :rolleyes:

I haven't heard that one before. Any examples?

I thought much Alan Dershowitz's Chutzpa was found to be a piss poor plagerism of Joan Peters book which as completely discredited by Finklestein.

Trode

Deleted User wrote:

On the other hand, I find that the number of people who give out that they are censored by the anti-semite accusation far exceeds the number of times I actually see an accusation of anti-semitism.

I completely agree with this, and add that I've seen a fair few people make the leap from (legitimately) criticising Israel to claiming you can't criticise Israel without being called an anti-semite(even when no such accusations were made) to actual anti-semitism. The amount of people in the last few weeks trotting out stuff like 'Jews control the world media','Jews are secretly running the US government', 'Jews want to rule the world', 'The world would have been better off if Hitler had won' etc, is frankly depressing.

The Saint

I think it is true that some people cloak their anti-semitism as criticism of Israel. They see Israel as being a centre of the Jewish identity and therefore focus their hatred towards the state instead of individual people to avoid being fingered as an anti-semite. This however should not take away from any legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. Most critics are genuine, legitimate critics of the policies of the state of Israel.

I haven't seen the anti-semite card pulled out in much if any threads here thankfully but it is often the case especially in regards to America. Organisations like the ADF and AIPAIC pull this out too easily which I think is a shame. It detracts from any legitimate arguement that they have and devalues legitmate arguements against anti-semitism. It should only be used if there is truly anti-semitism.

Mad Finn

Deleted User wrote:

That's terrible. After the whole '3,000 civilians killed' thing it must have been the second worst thing to happen that month...

If Fisk had spent the day after 9/11 recalling instances of Jewish attacks then he is not anti-semite, merely a completely and utterly inconsiderate ******.

Well you need to listen to the context of the discussion (if such it could be called). Fisk was doing his thing of asking why the 9/11 attacks may have happened, a tack which usually enrages the pro-war right, and pointing out that terrorism is not unique to one side.

Nowhere did he try to justify 9/11.

And BTW the King David bombing happened in the 1940s.

Mad Finn

Mad Finn wrote:

And BTW the King David bombing happened in the 1940s.

Seems strange to drag it up on a day that really called for respect and mourning rather than a 'well Israel did this and did that'. Don't think Fisk is an anti-semite (to bring it back to the thread) but he clearly hates Israel.

Sleepy

I think largely the anti-semite card gets pulled out of an ignorance of the history of Israel and a lack of knowlege of the issues in the region tbh. The amount of people I know who can't tell the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semetism is staggering!

Frederico

Its a phrase just like "anti-american"..

Morlar

Frederico wrote:

Its a phrase just like "anti-american"..

I think anti-semite would be against someone on the basis of their religon, like anti-christian, anti-catholic, not anti-nationality, anti-country.

InFront

H&#250 wrote: »

those who take the anti-Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran line are accused of desiring a holocaust of Muslims. :rolleyes:

since when??
Thats a new one...

Frederico

Morlar wrote:

I think anti-semite would be against someone on the basis of their religon, like anti-christian, anti-catholic, not anti-nationality, anti-country.

Oh I just believe they are being used in the same way..

Phrases that are often used to back arguments for a rightwing agenda, e.g. war.

The Saint

Interesting info here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

It is a very imperfect term for a form of racism.

Húrin

The Saint wrote:

I haven't heard that one before. Any examples?

Check out this international politics forum. They talk about little else other than terrorism, and anyone who criticises Islamic fundamentalism or theocratic regimes is immediately accused by half of the left wing of desiring to kill Muslims, of racism, or of desiring a US invasion of the Middle East.

The Saint

H&#250 wrote: »

Check out this international politics forum. They talk about little else other than terrorism, and anyone who criticises Islamic fundamentalism or theocratic regimes is immediately accused by half of the left wing of desiring to kill Muslims, of racism, or of desiring a US invasion of the Middle East.

Linky no worky. Anyone who trys to stifle legitimate debate by shouting "racist" at any criticism of their side is as bad as the other side that does the same thing. I've no doubt it happens unfortunately. I don't know how anyone can defend Islamic terrorism and dictatorial regimes whoever they're supported by or whoever they are opposed by. I do think it is legitimate however to give context to why such fundamentalism has support and why such horrible regimes are in place.

Bateman

Sleepy wrote:

I think largely the anti-semite card gets pulled out of an ignorance of the history of Israel and a lack of knowlege of the issues in the region tbh. The amount of people I know who can't tell the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semetism is staggering!

Agreed; if someone was truly anti-semitic, it would be extremely difficult to hold down a conversation with them for any length of time, and telling them they're anti-semitic would be fairly pointless. The label is more often than not used as a justification for pro-Israel arguments, and the opposite is also true; anti-Israel arguments are usually partially justified by saying "sure you can't say anything against Israel now without being accused of being enti-semitic".

history_buff

Mad Finn wrote:

Get into a discussion about the Middle East and very quickly, if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

But what's an anti-semite?

Actually, the usage of the term "anti-Semite" by issue-dodging Jews is a display of Jewish racism and bigotry. Bear in mind that Arabs are Semites, so if you follow Jewish logic, the state of Israel's policy against Palestinians for the past 60 years constitutes "anti-Semitic genocide".

MiddleE

Diorraing wrote:

Norman Finkelstein has written a book on the subject: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". Well worth a read. Basically a criticism of Alan Dershowitz who wrote "Chutzpah". He (Dersh) also wrote The Case for Israel which is an extremely interesting work and one worth reading to fully understand the middle-east

Yes. Have you read "A Rock and a Hard Place: Origins of Arab-Western Conflict in the Middle East" by Gerald Butt. Half of it is excellent on the history of all the Arab countries.


'Le Monde' acquitted of 'racially' defaming Israel
The I R I S H T I M E S
Lara Marlowe in Paris ...Thursday, July 13, 2006

FRANCE: Citing the right to freedom of expression and the European Convention on Human Rights, the French Cour de Cassation or Supreme Court yesterday struck down an earlier appeals court judgment which convicted Le Monde newspaper and three prominent intellectuals of "defamation on racial grounds" for a 2002 article criticising Israel.

Sami Naïr, a professor of political science and former member of the European Parliament, said he and co-authors Edgar Morin and Danielle Sallenave would celebrate their definitive legal victory last night.

Morin, Naïr and Sallenave quoted Victor Hugo:

"The oppressed of yesterday are tomorrow's oppressors."

Then prime minister Ariel Sharon compromised Israel's chances of survival "by believing he can ensure Israeli security through terror," they wrote. The Holocaust was used to justify colonisation, apartheid and confining Palestinians to ghettos.

Though the text clearly referred to the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, the subsequent reduction of the phrase from "the Jews of Israel" to simply "the Jews" was seized upon as evidence of defamation in the lawsuit.

"Judges must analyse the incriminated text in its context," the Supreme Court verdict said. By isolating two paragraphs from a much longer article expressing the authors' opinions on a highly polemical subject, the Versailles court had violated article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as French law.

"The text in reality targeted the policy of the government of Israel against Palestinians, and not individuals or groups of individuals because of their national or ethnic origin, their race or religion . . ." the Supreme Court concluded.

Although this was published on 13th July 2006 by the Irish Times, I cannot find any other newspaper that carried the article. Every few days I do a search. Nothing. Not a mention. You can gauge how big a story it is by all the postings that there was in 2005 about the original case. You will learn that

in the first ruling of its kind in Europe, in May 2005 a French court found Le Monde guilty of anti-Semitism and slander against "Jews as a whole," for an article that was disguised as merely an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

J'accuse ...Anti-Semitism at Le Monde and beyond
By Tom Gross ...June 2, 2005

A French court last week found three writers for Le Monde, as well as the newspaper's publisher, guilty of "racist defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. In a groundbreaking decision, the Versailles court of appeal ruled that a comment piece published in Le Monde in 2002, "Israel-Palestine: The Cancer," had whipped up anti-Semitic opinion.

Now the latter is all redundant. So much hot air, but only if the Supreme Court ruling is publicised. So far the win seems as good as a loss. The origional article...

Israel-Palestine: The Cancer
By Edgar Morin, Sami Naïr and Danièle Sallenave ...Le Monde, 2002/06/03)

At the beginning of Zionism, the phrase "a landless people for a land without people" hid the prior Palestinian population. The Jews' right to a nation hid the Palestinians' right to their nation.

It is horrible to kill civilians according to a principle of collective guilt, as suicide attacks do, but this is a principle applied by Israel, from the time of Sabra and Shatila and of south Lebanon, until today

One is hard pressed to imagine that a nation of fugitives, descended of the people persecuted longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, should be able to transform itself in two generations into a "dominating and self-assured people" and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others.

rlogue

My own view is that criticism of the actions of the Israeli government and their defence forces is fair enough - however there are plenty who take it a step further and deny Israel the right to exist. Others think it's a state on wheels and think it can move lock stock and barrel to somewhere in the US mid west.

If Ireland has to be moved, can we shift it to somewhere between Greece and Italy in a nice warm spot on the Med? Can we shift the US and Canada around? It would be nice.

elivsvonchiaing

rlogue wrote:

My own view is that criticism of the actions of the Israeli government and their defence forces is fair enough - however there are plenty who take it a step further and deny Israel the right to exist. Others think it's a state on wheels and think it can move lock stock and barrel to somewhere in the US mid west.

If Ireland has to be moved, can we shift it to somewhere between Greece and Italy in a nice warm spot on the Med? Can we shift the US and Canada around? It would be nice.

Israel must stay where it is. It is keeping workers making armourments in the mid-west in gainful employment for now:eek:

If Ireland has to be moved - I'm for Slovenia - there are apparently loads of horny-mental women there (Paolo Coelho)

Mods - do the honours to these two posts! Ta

banaman

Morlar wrote:

I think anti-semite would be against someone on the basis of their religon, like anti-christian, anti-catholic, not anti-nationality, anti-country.

No Anti-Semite is racism against those of the Semitic racial group, which as I understand it incliudes the Palestinians, among others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

muesli_offire

True, the meaning of some words have to be taken from sources like wikipedia, but terms like 'anti-semitic' have already acquired through usage the right of citizenship in the realm of debate, and an affected purism would be most inappropriate where it was the distinctive meaning which was of decisive importance

For example, recently on Boards someone was complaining about the misuse of the word 'decimate'. Unless you are a Roman there is no reason why the use of this word outside of the context of the military practice of killing ten people should bother you. Unless you are a Roman.

Húrin

Sleepy wrote:

I think largely the anti-semite card gets pulled out of an ignorance of the history of Israel and a lack of knowlege of the issues in the region tbh. The amount of people I know who can't tell the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semetism is staggering!

I agree that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, but anti-Zionism is somewhat anti-Semitic, because it denys the Jewish people the right to self-determination.

InFront

Anti-Zionism in the Israel-Palestine context is not anti-semitic. People aren't saying 'you can't have a homeland anywhere and must remain dispersed', people are saying 'not here, it's taken', I think.

In that context, it's not anti semitic.

MiddleE

InFront wrote:

Anti-Zionism in the Israel-Palestine context is not anti-Semitic. People aren't saying 'you can't have a homeland anywhere and must remain dispersed', people are saying 'not here, it's taken', I think. In that context, it's not anti Semitic.

Yes.

If I believed that the Kurds should not have a homeland, does that make me anti-Kurd. Or pro-Kurd if I was in favour. Same for the Basques. So why not the same for the Jews. Why is it that it always has to be special or different for the Jews.

I neither like or dislike Kurds. How could I as I've never met one. Now if they were causing a lot of trouble in their neck of the woods and I could not get petrol let's say, then I might then dislike them. If they were fighting with their neighbours for 50 years then I might be rightly pissed off with them if it impacted on me.

The world does not owe the Kurds or the Basques anything. Similarly with the Jews, except in their mind set. Whether it's the 'chosen' people or what, they somehow expect different treatment. We should know from our own experience that when a society or part of gets used to the begging bowl mentality, then it's very hard to break the pattern. As they are not leeching off us here then I'm happy. America does itself no favour in being such a soft touch for no return and with no end in sight. Israel would not be bombing the Lebanon and its people to hell and back if it had to pay its way.

Anyway, I foresee more foreign business in Ireland as a sequel to Israel's loss to Hezbollah. Someone has to gain. Why not the peaceful Irish.:D

The Saint

There is one key difference between the Kurds, Basques and the Israeli Jews. The Basques and Kurds are the indigenous population of the land that they occupy whereas the majority of Israeli Jews are first or second generation immigrants from Europe and Russia who largely displaced the indegenous Arab Palestinian population.

Trode

MiddleE wrote:

Yes.

If I believed that the Kurds should not have a homeland, does that make me anti-Kurd. Or pro-Kurd if I was in favour. Same for the Basques. So why not the same for the Jews. Why is it that it always has to be special or different for the Jews.

I neither like or dislike Kurds. How could I as I've never met one. Now if they were causing a lot of trouble in their neck of the woods and I could not get petrol let's say, then I might then dislike them. If they were fighting with their neighbours for 50 years then I might be rightly pissed off with them if it impacted on me.

The world does not owe the Kurds or the Basques anything. Similarly with the Jews, except in their mind set. Whether it's the 'chosen' people or what, they somehow expect different treatment. We should know from our own experience that when a society or part of gets used to the begging bowl mentality, then it's very hard to break the pattern. As they are not leeching off us here then I'm happy. America does itself no favour in being such a soft touch for no return and with no end in sight. Israel would not be bombing the Lebanon and its people to hell and back if it had to pay its way.

Anyway, I foresee more foreign business in Ireland as a sequel to Israel's loss to Hezbollah. Someone has to gain. Why not the peaceful Irish.:D

See, this is a perfect example of what myself and others were saying earlier. Criticising Israel isn't in and of itself anti-semetic, but it is often a precusrsor to real anti-semetism, or a thin veil draped over it to make it seem acceptable or rational.

New_Departure06

Anti-semitism is hating Jews simply because they are Jews. It has nothing to do with criticism of Israel or individual Jews for their actions.

The Saint

New_Departure06 wrote:

Anti-semitism is hating Jews simply because they are Jews. It has nothing to do with criticism of Israel or individual Jews for their actions.

Yeah, I hate Woody Allen. Does that mean I'm anti-semitic? If it does then I'm an unashamed anti-semite. But I like Kiss. Then again I really really hate Barbara Streisand. This is getting awefully confusing.

Trode

New_Departure06 wrote:

Anti-semitism is hating Jews simply because they are Jews. It has nothing to do with criticism of Israel or individual Jews for their actions.

Nope, it's hating all Jews, period. If you hate them because of Israel or because they killed Jesus or because you think they're all thieves and liars, it's all the one.

New_Departure06

Trode wrote:

Nope, it's hating all Jews, period. If you hate them because of Israel or because they killed Jesus or because you think they're all thieves and liars, it's all the one.

Hating Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is not anti-semitic. To say otherwise is Political-Correctness (American style) gone mad.

MiddleE

The Saint wrote:

There is one key difference between the Kurds, Basques and the Israeli Jews. The Basques and Kurds are the indigenous population of the land that they occupy whereas the majority of Israeli Jews are first or second generation immigrants from Europe and Russia who largely displaced the indegenous Arab Palestinian population.

Dead right and only a Zionist could disagree with you.

Do you think they will even get to the point that I make about the Kurds and Basques before they would understand your totally valid point about being an indigenous population. New indigenous population definition - 20 years, 200 years, no 2,000 years. That's nearly half the life time of the earth!;) Another big lie!

Trode

New_Departure06 wrote:

Hating Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is not anti-semitic. To say otherwise is Political-Correctness (American style) gone mad.

No, but hating all Jews because of Israels treatment of the Palestinians is. See the difference?

New_Departure06

Trode wrote:

No, but hating all Jews because of Israels treatment of the Palestinians is. See the difference?

Right well I agree there.

The Corinthian

If one were to be a pedant, then anti-Semitism would include Arabs, as they too are a Semitic subgroup. Historically, however the term has always been exclusively relating to an ethnic or racial hatred or fear of Jews.

Where this comes from is a contentious issue. Much of it is as a result of the Pauline slant on the crucifixion that painted the Jews as culpable for the death of Jesus Christ so as to ingratiate Christianity with the Roman Empire. Martin Luther greatly added to this with his teachings during the reformation, which contributed greatly to the Germanic anti-Semitism.

Of course, this does not mean that anti-Semitism was a simply by-product of Christianity as they were already unpopular in ancient Rome, due to their rejection of Roman customs and generally rebellious nature. In the end, the Romans had enough of numerous rebellions in Judea and in 70 AD destroyed Jerusalem as well as introducing numerous Greco-roman colonies throughout Judea, which resulted in the semi-forceful emigration of the Jews from Judea known as the Jewish Diaspora - and yes, I know this is ironic in the modern context.

Another interesting contributions to anti-Semitism in Europe have been the level of assimilation. Were Jewish communities integrated better anti-Semitism tended to be marginal at best. The Jewish community in Italy was by the turn of the twentieth century very much integrated with Italian society, while in Russia this was far less so and the difference in anti-Semitism in these two societies reflect an indirect relationship between the two. It should be noted that Zionism has typically been strongest in countries with high levels of anti-Semitism, as a result Zionism made little impact in Italy before 1938 as most Italian Jews would have considered themselves Italian first (this is also still largely the case).

Also, it has been theorised that countries with higher levels of anti-Semitism were populated by more orthodox and conservative Jewish denominations that traditionally forbade any integration. If so, there’s probably a lesson there for modern Muslim immigration.

More recently, anti-Semitism is a catchall phrase - much like racism is in danger of becoming. It seems to have been debated to death in this thread so I won’t add to it further.

In conclusion, anti-Semitism is a chicken and egg conundrum that is difficult to solve. Gentile suspicion, racism and propaganda have been largely contributory to anti-Semitism, but so has Jewish rejection of integration within their host countries. Both factors have in turn fed each other and have left us with the legacy of anti-Semitism today.

New_Departure06

Of course, this does not mean that anti-Semitism was a simply by-product of Christianity as they were already unpopular in ancient Rome, due to their rejection of Roman customs and generally rebellious nature. In the end, the Romans had enough of numerous rebellions in Judea and in 70 AD destroyed Jerusalem as well as introducing numerous Greco-roman colonies throughout Judea, which resulted in the semi-forceful emigration of the Jews from Judea known as the Jewish Diaspora - and yes, I know this is ironic in the modern context.

Actually I think far more decisive factor in the departure of the Jews from Palestine was the suppression of the Bar Kokhba's Revolt in 132-5 by Hadrian, which sources claim resulted in 580,000 Jews being killed,540 fortified towns and 985 villages being destroyed. The majority of Jews supposedly were either killed, enslaved or left unlike the 70 AD revolt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba%27s_revolt

MiddleE

New_Departure06 wrote:

Anti-Semitism is hating Jews simply because they are Jews. It has nothing to do with criticism of Israel or individual Jews for their actions.

Absolutely true, but no matter how many times to repeat this you will not be heard by certain Zionist apologists.

Absolutely true, but no matter how many times to repeat this you will not be understood by certain Zionist apologists.

In July 2006 the French Cour de Cassation or Supreme Court, citing the right to freedom of expression and the European Convention on Human Rights overturned an appeals court judgment which had earlier convicted Le Monde newspaper for "defamation on racial grounds" for a 2002 article criticising Israel.

The authors condemned the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians as "state terrorism" and pointed out the disproportion in military might and casualties between Israelis and Palestinians. That wasn't questioned in the case and so collective punishment as practiced by Israel is "state terrorism" officially legally.

It was the subsequent reduction of the phrase from "the Jews of Israel" to simply "the Jews" that was seized upon as evidence of defamation in the lawsuit by the Jewish group attempting to brow beat Europe in the same fashion as they are screwing the USA. Three cheers for 'old' Europe.

Mr Naïr described Mr Goldnadel as belonging to the Israeli extreme right.

"That such people confiscate Jewish identity to use it as a weapon against everyone who criticises Israel seems scandalous to me," he said. "It's intimidation . . . They hurt the Jewish people more than they help Israel."

The lawsuit against Le Monde and the three intellectuals is part of a pattern. Mr Goldnadel is appealing the last of three failed lawsuits against Daniel Mermet, a popular radio journalist who has reported sympathetically on the fate of the Palestinians.

Award-winning television journalist Charles Enderlin, who is Jewish, has come under intense pressure from pro-Israeli groups since he reported the death of 12-year-old Mohamed Al-Dara in 2000. Pascal Boniface, a leading political scientist, resigned from his position as head of international relations at the French Socialist Party after his criticism of Israel led to an uproar.

Victor Hugo: "The oppressed of yesterday are tomorrow's oppressors."

Then prime minister Ariel Sharon compromised Israel's chances of survival

"by believing he can ensure Israeli security through terror,"

they wrote. The Holocaust was used to justify colonisation, apartheid and confining Palestinians to ghettos.

The IRISH TIMES article although written in July, still reads fresh after the recent spat with Hezbollah.

Le MONDE

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Actually I think far more decisive factor in the departure of the Jews from Palestine was the suppression of the Bar Kokhba's Revolt in 132-5 by Hadrian, which sources claim resulted in 580,000 Jews being killed,540 fortified towns and 985 villages being destroyed. The majority of Jews supposedly were either killed, enslaved or left unlike the 70 AD revolt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba%27s_revolt

Perhaps, either way if does indicate that there is more to the origins of anti-Semitism than the usual blame that is laid upon the door of Christianity.

MiddleE

The Jews of Iraq
by Naeim Giladi

In our previous Link, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe looked at the hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians whose lives were uprooted to make room for foreigners who would come to populate confiscated land. Most were Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe. But over half a million other Jews came from Islamic lands. Zionist propagandists claim that Israel "rescued" these Jews from their anti-Jewish, Muslim neighbors. One of those "rescued" Jews - Naeim Giladi - knows otherwise.

In his book, Ben Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews, Giladi discusses the crimes committed by Zionists in their frenzy to import raw Jewish labor.

Anti-Semitic Zionists?

Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called " cruel Zionism." I write about it because I was part of it.

It was 1947 and I wasn't quite 18 when the Iraqi authorities caught me for smuggling young Iraqi Jews like myself out of Iraq, into Iran, and then on to the Promised Land of the soon-to-be established Israel. I was an Iraqi Jew in the Zionist underground.

Under the late Ottoman rule, for example, Jewish social and religious institutions, schools, and medical facilities flourished without outside interference, and Jews were prominent in government and business.

About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs.

Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth. Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, and that Israelis, never the Arabs, were the pursuers of peace. The truth is far more discerning: bigger players on the world stage were pulling the strings.

Is this guy for real? It's all new to me. Where this came from, I don't know.

The Jews of Iraq
by Naeim Giladi