Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As has been posed in other threads, I have noted that semetic originally meant wanderer...Semites were wanderers...and as semites should still be associated as wanderers, that too would include gypsies ....it is unfortunate however, that semite = Jewish = anti-semite...talking about ethnic Jews such as German Jews or French Jews as talking about Italian Catholics should be fine...it is when any of these conversations are used as a veil to be discriminatory, bigoted and most of all biased and uninformed....
Because most of the time the people who want to talk about the Jewish people under the guise of "intellectualism" are really looking for an excuse to express racist views while not being thought of as racist.
I concur, the poll is too lopsided and I would have voted for that option if it had been in the poll.
Because most of the time the people who want to talk about the Jewish people under the guise of "intellectualism" are really looking for an excuse to express racist views while not being thought of as racist.
Interesting point, I guess that you can also look at it from the perspective of how many times have Jews been initially brought up in any thread in a manner intended to be positive? My guess would be "rarely".
Not true, and neither are the other similar comments here. I have been to Israel and Gaza (before they walled it off), and saw first-hand what the situation is like over there - and it sucks big time. So I have no problem condemning the actions on BOTH sides, and would never silence a civilized discussion on the issue. But like I said above, we can all tell (at least those of us with some intelligence) when it's just a cover-up for somebody's hate... talking about Israel negatively is not anti-Semitic, but using this against Jews is pure bigotry.
Bottom line - Israel is a country, Jews are people; not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. We also don't have any plans for world domination, and the Holocaust really did happen. If you didn't think "well DUH" to these comments, you just might be an anti-Semite.
My uncle and aunt were Zionist and left Europe in the fifties to go and live in Israel and start to help build the country and raise their family over there.
Now my aunt (my uncle died a few years ago) would have done things different and probable have stayed in Europe. Living in Israel wasn't easy and it was 6 days of hard working. They don't agree with the Palestian issue and how the Israeli's (specially the settlers) have treated them. You can't put a stamp on all of them , just as you can't with black people (we all know what Rev. Wright and his folowers stand for, but not all balck people agree with him), muslims (not all muslims agree with the crazey fanatics) or any other population.
I don't mind if people discuss Jewish people and I'm not immediatelly offended, but I'm offended if the make racist remarks.
I think it is a compliment when they say that Jewish people aren't wasting their money and make jokes about it....
If people make fair and balanced remarks that is okay even if you don't agree with it, but to make insulting remarks just because a person is Jewish, is wrong. You don't have to agree with all things Israel is doing as most Jewsih people won't agree all the time....
Why is the US State Department trying to define anti-semitism? As for the Nazi-thing at the end, while those kind of comparisons to Nazism aren't that helpful, it's just the State Dept's opinion that they're anti-semitic, not necessarily fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Rather than interpretation of what the State Dept defines as critism of Israel linked to antisemitism, here is the quote from the US State Dept:
The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies. While there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.
For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character. The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue.
Because most of the time the people who want to talk about the Jewish people under the guise of "intellectualism" are really looking for an excuse to express racist views while not being thought of as racist.
So "Most" of the time, even intellectual discussions are antisemitic? Could you maybe elaborate further on what examples you believe to be antisemitic in the above discussion if at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Interesting point, I guess that you can also look at it from the perspective of how many times have Jews been initially brought up in any thread in a manner intended to be positive? My guess would be "rarely".
Considering that part of our forum title is "controversy" it tends to lend itself to arguments that are critical and controversial. After all, how many discussions about any race, religion, culture, etc... here or any forum are "positive"?
I can't recall the last time I saw a discussion on race and crime where the participants gushed praise on the black community.
As much as it can be viewed as you suggest it, one can also look at the above statements and see a preemptive suggestion that even intellectual discussions that are critical can be seen as veiled antisemitism.
Why is the US State Department trying to define anti-semitism? As for the Nazi-thing at the end, while those kind of comparisons to Nazism aren't that helpful, it's just the State Dept's opinion that they're anti-semitic, not necessarily fact.
When I hear anti-semite I immediately think of nazis, and being 'anti-jewish'. Although I know the true and alternate definition, this is what I have been brought up, culturally, to think of when I hear anti-semite. I have a friend who has a swastika tattooed on her palm. People automatically assume she is a nazi, even though she is a devout buddhist and the swastika is a buddhist symbol of peace and tranquility. It's all cultural perception.
As much as it can be viewed as you suggest it, one can also look at the above statements and see a preemptive suggestion that even intellectual discussions that are critical can be seen as veiled antisemitism.
Actually, that can flip either way.
One can state that it could be a preemptive suggestion that critical intellectual discussions can be veiled antisemitism, or that core antisemitism can be veiled within the context of supposed intellectual discussions/topics. You can see many of those on some of the "White Nationalist" forums on the internet, it is quite extensive.
I believe both sentiments would have degrees of being accurate.
You mentioned a difference in views of American right wing Jews and I have pointed out a similar phenomenon. The level of discourse that takes place in Israeli newspapers and society is much more open and free than it appears to be here in the United States. Anyone can pick up a copy of Haaretz and read some quite harsh criticism of Israeli policy, a level of criticism that you would never see in the Washington Post. Heck, I have had several articles published in Israel and in the PC that were soundly turned down here. I just can't get my mind around why.
Basically true from my experience. It is difficult to criticize Israel's political policies from within the context of the basically liberal, diaspora Jewish community.
"Give us the money and shut up" is the attitude that seems to come from the pro-Israel crowd.
That doesn't stop me from criticizing Israel's policies, even if I consider myself a Zioninst and believe a core, 1968'ish Israel should be majority Jewish. I also vehemently disagree with the settlements.
Guess what? Jews are good, bad and indifferent just like any other group. Sometimes "critical intellectual discussions can be veiled antisemitism" and sometimes not.
His interesting article on a trip to Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/ma...sq=levy&st=cse
"I have spent my life fighting against the idea that there are good deaths and bad deaths, deserving victims and privileged bombs."
Last edited by planetsurf; 12-12-2008 at 11:20 AM..
Israel wants it both ways. It wants all the power of a country along with the international immunity of a religion. When it engages in offensive combat operations, it is a country defending its borders, but when other countries object, those countries are labeled as anti-Semitic and are attacking the poor Jews who have been so hard done by. I for one don't care what Jews do but I have plenty of criticism for the country of Israel. Unfortunately, I can't actually vocalize any of it without being labeled an anti-Semite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
