Antisemitism on the Rise

[Xenolar]

Recently it has come to my attention that antisemitism really is quite rampant these days, much of it coming from anti-Zionists.
I found this British documentary regarding it in England, which discusses how in current day, antisemitism seems to come from (1) radical right-wing neo-nazis, and (2) radical left-wing anti-Zionists:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What is your opinion of this?
Do you believe that antisemitism is on the rise?
What personal experiences have you had with antisemitism?

[OmegaPsi]

I watched the whole series absolutly disgusting.

[iamnotspock]

Totally agree. It's deeply infiltrated liberal politics in the U.S. You have campus professors calling for boycotts of Israel. Anti-war groups disallowing Jewish speakers and claiming that "neo-conservative" war hawks are mostly Jews. And "non-violence" preachers like Arun Ghandi who call "Israel and the Jews" the "biggest players" in global violence. U.S. Reps Jim Moran, D-Va, even said -- twice -- that the Iraq war was sponsored by the Jews, despite surveys showing that Jews are the single group most opposed to the war.

In my own experience, I have many college friends who believe Israel is an immoral nation, Jews exert undue influence in American finance and war policies, and there are "too many damn Jews" on Wall St. (I quote my ibanker friend who is Indian). And these people are the top graduates of the top Ivy League schools.

When I went to anti-war protests in D.C. I could not march with them b/c of the prevalence of groups such as Black Panthers, who slogan was "Death to Israel, Death to Jews", the frequency of signs saying "Israel out of Palestine", and the frequency with which the term "neoconservative" was used to imply "Jew".

I expect that as the U.S. slips into recession, its currency devalues, and it's global influence wanes, we'll see a similar effect to what happened in pre-Nazi Germany. Someone will be scapegoated. And it's easy to guess who that will be.

[Santana28]

there is a big difference between anti-semitists and anti-zionists.

part of the problem is, that anytime anything related to Israel is criticized - everything is suddenly labeled anti-semitic in nature.

there is nothing "racist" about criticizing valid political concerns and interests, yet if anyone bothers to question Israel's role in matters, they have suddenly become an "enemy" of Israel and seek to discriminate based on race. That is not right, either.

you have to look at both sides of the coin

[Pkz]

Zionism is imperialism, and a disgusting thing. Jews are nice people in general just like other people.

[yondyr]

Having read a great deal on WWII, it's beginnings, and the aftermath.. and surveying the boundaries of various countries, ethnic groups after the shouting stopped and borders were realigned...I have come to a conclusion that might be considered anti-Israel, but to me, very logical. Based on the principle that conquered territory is at the disposal of the victors, as much was after that war, and given that most of the settlers of Israel were from European stock, eastern or western, then giving the Jews the country of Germany to rule/resurrect might have prevented the present interminable and largely insoluble troubles in the middle east.

[Danisty]

there is a big difference between anti-semitists and anti-zionists.

part of the problem is, that anytime anything related to Israel is criticized - everything is suddenly labeled anti-semitic in nature.

there is nothing "racist" about criticizing valid political concerns and interests, yet if anyone bothers to question Israel's role in matters, they have suddenly become an "enemy" of Israel and seek to discriminate based on race. That is not right, either.

you have to look at both sides of the coinThere is a difference, but a lot of what I see are anti-semitics claiming to be anti-zionists because the label doesn't look as bad.

[thod]

There are some good points.

Israel is a theocracy and the US is opposed to this elsewhere prefering secularism. It doesnt allow state and church at home, doesnt support it any other place just this one instance.

Israel is not a democracy. When half your people dont get to vote. You cant say someone whose family has been there forever is not an Israeli and therefore gets not vote. This is akin to saying commoners should not vote only lords.

It abuses human rights push palestinians into ghettos and assasinating their leaders.

How is this consistant with any of the values the US promotes elsewhere? The answer is that isnt. So why does it do it? The obvious answer is that jewish community in the US is having undue influence. These attrocities are done in the name of the US even though the majority of the US citizens would be opposed to this happening in their name.

Its not even smart. If someone was anti semitic they would would want all the jews put together in Tel Aviv so you could take them all out with one nuke. If you were going to form such a state then forming it in a populated land surrounded by others like they are is a bad idea. That piece of land is the most faught over land down the centuries there is in the world. Its assured that it and its inhabitants will be destroyed. Had they been smart they would have picked an unpopulated and remote, yet still fertile, place like New Zealand.

The US is onto a losing policy. Israel is not sustainable, the palestinans are outbreeding them anyhow. In the end they will get the vote by negotiation or arms. It will become secular due to most of the people being muslims. The US is pragmatic it like to back winners not losers, usualy.

[Santana28]

There is a difference, but a lot of what I see are anti-semitics claiming to be anti-zionists because the label doesn't look as bad.

then it seems you are assuming most people to be racist first, and politically concerned second... and i'll just disagree with you on that.

from what i've seen it isnt that hard to distinguish genuine racially-motivated anti-semitism and politically-originated anti-zionism... although its easy to connect one to the other if you start out basing your opinions on racial ideals. At the same time, as someone else pointed out - Israel has linked their race and religion and their government inseparably - so you could just as easily hold Israel responsible for the lines being blurred.

but i will politely disagree with you that the negativity towards jewish people is based on basic racist ideals rather than rooted in political issues.

[Danisty]

then it seems you are assuming most people to be racist first, and politically concerned second... and i'll just disagree with you on that.

from what i've seen it isnt that hard to distinguish genuine racially-motivated anti-semitism and politically-originated anti-zionism... although its easy to connect one to the other if you start out basing your opinions on racial ideals. At the same time, as someone else pointed out - Israel has linked their race and religion and their government inseparably - so you could just as easily hold Israel responsible for the lines being blurred.

but i will politely disagree with you that the negativity towards jewish people is based on basic racist ideals rather than rooted in political issues.Or maybe it's just the people I'm surrounded by. :rolleyes:

[Santana28]

Or maybe it's just the people I'm surrounded by. :rolleyes:

who knows. i know a few genuinely anti-semitic people. i also know many many more people that could care less about the topic altogether :)

[bucolic_]

There is a difference, but a lot of what I see are anti-semitics claiming to be anti-zionists because the label doesn't look as bad.

I agree..I have a friend who is extremely anti-zionist, and at first it may seem to be simply political, but as you get to know him, you realize his hatred runs much deeper than Israel, and is actually a hatred for the Jews themselves.

[iamnotspock]

Look, I'm not anti-American, or anything, but don't you think we should give New York back to the Indians?

You know why nobody argues that case? Because the early Americans cleared out all the Indians for us from the start. The Jews made a big mistake in thinking half a loaf was better than none and agreeing to share their land with the Palestinians once the British left. The Arabs have used the plight of the Palestinains -- who they will not allow into their own countries -- to fan the flames of global anti-semitism ever since, all the better to distract their starving oppressed people from the exorbitant lives of their tyrants.

Now, should you doubt that anti-Israel is not anti-Jew, when Israel is in fact the Jewish state, and the only nation without a history of pogroms or oppression of Jews, let's recall that prior to the existince of Israel the Arabs were big fans of the Nazis. Zionism predated Israel by a long shot and they didn't like it. After all, they successfully destroyed the first Jewish kingdom, and kept Jews in captivity for much of the ensuing centuries. If Hitler could finish the job, they'd keep Israel forever.

Such a shame the Jews managed to survive, and since nobody wanted them -- least of all America, with it's lovely statue and moving poetry, whose General George S. Patton had this to say after the war: "[others may believe]... that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.") -- the Jews returned back to their homeland, resurrected their long-dead language, learned how to fight, and despite long odds, kicked Arab ass for the next sixty years.

Of course, so many bright folks who believe they are fond of Jews fail to see why the Jewish state should not give its little remaining land to its enemies, who have sworn repeatedly to drink Jewish blood. What is wrong with those over-sensitive Jews, they wonder to themselves, a bit miffed at their narrow-minded friends. A little thing like a Holocaust, in which an entire continent tries to polish you off, followed by a bloody battle for a scrap of land for your survivors in which nobody stands by your side, and these over-sensitive bagel eaters act like they simply don't trust us?

And the answer is, yeah, Jews simply don't trust you. For most of American history a Jew would not be allowed into Harvard, or a top corporate job, or a high government position. For most of world history a Jew would be kept in a ghetto, and hanged, beaten, or shot if he got out. And for most of my personal history, I've not had to look far to see the nasty remarks.

In any case, the point is moot, b/c pound for pound, Israel has one of the more lethal armies on earth. Plus, they have a distributed nuclear platform. And finally, they have the most successful single ethnic group the world has seen to stand behind them. To put it bluntly, the misinformed can say all they like about Israel. In the end, the Jews have no reason to listen, and they won't.

[yondyr]

There are interminable duscussions on whose homeland is it? How far back one should go to claim territory, and whether one has a present claim based on antecedents willing or unwillingly relocated elsewhere. Or just a religion in common.
It appears few of the countries in the area are capable of any sort of democracy, nor of settling disagreements amicably or by the voting box, so I prefer not to get mired in the rights of any.

[Provoker]

Antisemitism is a non-sense term. A semite pertains to a broader range of people than just Jews (it also pertains to Arabs for example). yet antisemitism refers specifically to one who is hostile toward Jews. This is fallacious. If a term includes 'XYZ', and one is against only 'Z', it is fallacious to infer that one is against XY as well. An antithesis is supposed to be diametrically opposed to the thesis, but here the antithesis refers to a different range of phenomena then the thesis. So is not one who is diametrically opposed to the thesis since one may be hostile toward Jews but have no problems with Arabs. The problem is that due to the sensitive nature of the subject people are afraid to go against the current and continue to embrace the status quo by endorsing a non-sense concept (hence the evolution of a non-sense concept). These scholars of trivia ought to accept the term anti-Jewish as it is much more accurate and precise in what it refers to.





Provoker added to this post, 62 minutes and 24 seconds later...

One basic building block of intelligence is categorizing and compartmentalizing by ascribing certain characteristics to things, people, places, movies, anything. For example, Americans are quite libertarian; when one walks down the street and sees a thug one should be extra alert and conscious of one's surroundings. In vain we often call these observations stereotypes or try to argue that they only hold true in some cases while not in others, but in real time we take them seriously. There are fundamental characteristics of Jewish culture that hold true in many cases. People have a tendency to call people opposed to this culture racists, but it is often not the color of jewish skin but the values that people reject. Based on a brief historical analysis and my own personal experiences (I dated 3 Jews) I define Jewish culture as follows:

-Intelligent. Through out history Jews have made many scientific contributions. They have come up with many cures making progress in medicine. Even today I find Jews to be much more cerebral then compared to other cultures. They tend to occupy more white collar jobs then other cultures. Many are lawyers, judges, doctors, engineers, CEOs, etc.

-Capitalist mindset. The Rothchilds (for example) are one of the richest families in the world. Today, Hollywood, media corporations, TV & Radio, etc are pretty much owned by Jews. All the Jews I dated were materialistic. The mindset is different then other cultures. They have a tendency to take more honor in delegating and directing then solving or doing things themselves. The Jewish boy of 5 years goes on an outing with his father to pick apples from an orchard. The father says with a smile "how are we going to pick all these apples?" The son replies "hire someone?". This is the capitalist mindset (Which brews from a young age) in a nutshell.

Individualistic and formal. Based on my experience many Jews maintain business-like relations with their own families. When I was younger I dated a Jew who couldn't tell her dad she was dating me because I was not Jewish. This is rediculous - the mother too who cheated on her father with a Rabbi was also cold and aloof with me because I was not Jewish. ANd I am an INTJ, it's a rarity that I could find someone colder then myself, but this Jewish mother had a heart of ice and a condescending demeanor. This was obviously exacerbated because I was young and looking for acceptance.

These are a few characteristics of Jewish culture. You can connect the dots as to why many are hostile toward this culture.

[thod]

Look, I'm not anti-American, or anything, but don't you think we should give New York back to the Indians?

You know why nobody argues that case? Because the early Americans cleared out all the Indians for us from the start.

But you dont have 50% of the population being indians in the US. If you did they would be treated as equals. There were atrocities on the indians, thats how things were back in history, although the biggest killer was disease. I still dont see it as something to be proud off.


The Jews made a big mistake in thinking half a loaf was better than none and agreeing to share their land with the Palestinians once the British left.

Where do you get this "their land" from. It wasnt Jewish land it was British land. The population was mostly palestinian. The zionists moved in like any religious cult and proceeded to say that everyone else who was not in thier cult had to leave. They would have slaughtered the palestinians if they had not recently undergone genicide themselves. The world would not have allowed it to happen again, they had no choice.


The Arabs have used the plight of the Palestinains -- who they will not allow into their own countries -- to fan the flames of global anti-semitism ever since, all the better to distract their starving oppressed people from the exorbitant lives of their tyrants
[/quote]

Pointing out injustice is not "fanning the flames of anti semitism". As niether a Jew nor a Palestinian I can stand back and see the oppression and suffering and to me it is ugly. I would oppose it anywhere else in the world too. Arab states being ruled by tyrants has no bearing on what others do. I dont live an Arab state, have no axe to grind with anyone. I would oppose equaly if Jews were being oppresed by Palestinians.

Now, should you doubt that anti-Israel is not anti-Jew, when Israel is in fact the Jewish state, and the only nation without a history of pogroms or oppression of Jews, let's recall that prior to the existince of Israel the Arabs were big fans of the Nazis. Zionism predated Israel by a long shot and they didn't like it. After all, they successfully destroyed the first Jewish kingdom, and kept Jews in captivity for much of the ensuing centuries. If Hitler could finish the job, they'd keep Israel forever.


Judaism is a relgion not a state. The mormons are very numerous in Utah. They are secular though. If they declared Utah a morman state and drove people off the land at gunpoint they would be opposed. Not because people are anti mormon, but because they are anti suffering. There is no more reason to have a jewish state than a mormon one (they are more munerous in the US too).

Many nations have no history of pogroms against jews. You are talking of actions far in the past when it was normal to put whole cities to the sword. You cannot apply modern morality to that off the middle ages.

I dont recall any Arabs being fans of the Nazis. There were so few jews in palestine at the time it was simply a non issue. The jews were a minority in palestine for most of history. Prior to Islam the largest majority there was christians.


Such a shame the Jews managed to survive, and since nobody wanted them -- least of all America, with it's lovely statue and moving poetry, whose General George S. Patton had this to say after the war: "[others may believe]... that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.") -- the Jews returned back to their homeland, resurrected their long-dead language, learned how to fight, and despite long odds, kicked Arab ass for the next sixty years.


The only reason they exist is the US. They obtain everything from the US. Without that military support they would have been finished. They were getting thier asses kicked in the yom kippur war until the US sent in new supplies of tanks etc. The egyptians can lose 50 soldiers for every israeli loss and still win. Thats population.


Of course, so many bright folks who believe they are fond of Jews fail to see why the Jewish state should not give its little remaining land to its enemies, who have sworn repeatedly to drink Jewish blood. What is wrong with those over-sensitive Jews, they wonder to themselves, a bit miffed at their narrow-minded friends. A little thing like a Holocaust, in which an entire continent tries to polish you off, followed by a bloody battle for a scrap of land for your survivors in which nobody stands by your side, and these over-sensitive bagel eaters act like they simply don't trust us?


I have liked most of the jews I have met. They were sensible and intellectual. I have lived in jewish areas where everything shuts on saturday. No problems at all. Why cant you see that its not anti jewish. If I see a jew beating his kid with a baseball bat, I will intervene. I am not being anti-jewish. I am being anti-thug. Jews are a religion no different to any other. Anyone can convert to Judaism. I am not going to support oppression in the name of Judaiam, Christianity, Hinduism or anything else. They have no rights to a homeland or to commit attrocity in that objective.

And the answer is, yeah, Jews simply don't trust you. For most of American history a Jew would not be allowed into Harvard, or a top corporate job, or a high government position. For most of world history a Jew would be kept in a ghetto, and hanged, beaten, or shot if he got out. And for most of my personal history, I've not had to look far to see the nasty remarks.


I can see why you would get nasty remarks, but nothing to do with Judaism.

In any case, the point is moot, b/c pound for pound, Israel has one of the more lethal armies on earth. Plus, they have a distributed nuclear platform. And finally, they have the most successful single ethnic group the world has seen to stand behind them. To put it bluntly, the misinformed can say all they like about Israel. In the end, the Jews have no reason to listen, and they won't.

Its army is US supplied. It has not got the resources to develop or manufacture weapons nor to sustain an armed conflict. It is entirely dependent on US supplies. It is easy to destroy since most of it population is in Tel Aviv. A single nuke would end Israel and they wouldnt know who has done it. Jews are not an ethnic group, they are religion. Thier genetic profiles are similar to the natives of the land they have been in for centuries. They will listen, because without US support their state ends. They cannot continue either miliarily or economicly without the US. Any other nation that acts like they do would already be under heavy sanctions.

1) Full democracy. Including votes for all the palestinians.
2) Seperation of state/religion. All citizens are free to persue whatever religion they wish.
3) Human rights. All citizend to be treated fairly and equaly.

What is so unreasonable?

[Xenolar]

-Capitalist mindset. The Rothchilds (for example) are one of the richest families in the world. Today, Hollywood, media corporations, TV & Radio, etc are pretty much owned by Jews. All the Jews I dated were materialistic. The mindset is different then other cultures. They have a tendency to take more honor in delegating and directing then solving or doing things themselves. The Jewish boy of 5 years goes on an outing with his father to pick apples from an orchard. The father says with a smile "how are we going to pick all these apples?" The son replies "hire someone?". This is the capitalist mindset (Which brews from a young age) in a nutshell.


It's amusing that you mention this, taking into consideration the fact that the one man in history responsible for ideological opposite of capitalism was a Jew.

[quentin]

Antisemitism is a non-sense term. A semite pertains to a broader range of people than just Jews (it also pertains to Arabs for example). yet antisemitism refers specifically to one who is hostile toward Jews. This is fallacious.

It's also fallacious for another reason: the "Jews" aren't one race, they are a collection of races. Sephardim and Ashkenazi Jews are very obviously of two very different ethnicities. Most American Jews would be classified, ethnically speaking, as East European white people, because that's who they look like because that's who they were descended from (google "Khazaria"). Just looking at one of them it's beyond obvious that an Ashkenazi Jew has much more Russian/Polish Slav blood in their genes than Middle Eastern Semite blood.

Since it's a religion, not a race, Jews tend to look just like the people in whatever country they live in. There's even a small community of Chinese Jews that have been practicing Judaism since the Yuan Dynasty (when Kublai Khan's Mongols ruled China). They don't look Jewish. They look like Chinese people.

[Capt57]

Ashkenazic Jews as an ethnic group have the highest IQs on the planet. For the privilege of that evolutionary anomaly they get a cornucopia of rare genetic diseases and health problems that go along with it.

For all the ethnic racism out there no group is hated more then smart, successful, wealthy people. They are the most likely group to be made fun of behind their back. I do it all the time. ;D

[iamnotspock]

Ashkenazic Jews as an ethnic group have the highest IQs on the planet. For the privilege of that evolutionary anomaly they get a cornucopia of rare genetic diseases and health problems that go along with it.

For all the ethnic racism out there no group is hated more then smart, successful, wealthy people. They are the most likely group to be made fun of behind their back. I do it all the time. ;D

This is totally true. The other comments are mostly drivel, esp. thod's.

For example, while "race" is not a scientific term, you will not find much genetic commonality between Jews and East Europeans, b/c Jews were kept in ghettos and did not intermix.

Judaism is a culture, not a merely a religion, and the term anti-semite was created by Jew haters to mean anti-Jew. Just as "pedophile" does not mean "lover of children" but rather "abuser of children".

The comment on capitalist mindset is nicely debunked by Xenolar, who notes that Karl Marx was a Jew. At the same time, most great tychoons were not, from Bill Gates to J.P. Morgan to Adam Smith himself. Protestants get more credit there.

As for the idea of Britain owning the land that's now Israel, how do you accept that, but reject Israel? Britain was there as a foreign occupier, much like Rome in the turn of the millennium. There is no ancient Anglo-Saxon presence in the region. Britain left, a battle erupted, and Israel won. Which is fitting, as Israel had existed there 2000 years earlier.

The Utah analogy is false. Utah is a non-secular state of the U.S. Israel is a Jewish nation. More accurate would be to compare Israel and The Vatican, a Catholic nation. Try saying The Vatican is a racist nation that should not exist, no offense to Italian Catholics.

This statement is terribly false:

"Many nations have no history of pogroms against jews. You are talking of actions far in the past when it was normal to put whole cities to the sword. You cannot apply modern morality to that off the middle ages."

Whole cities of Jews were put to the sword 60 years ago across the continent of Europe. Further, equally massive numbers were killed under Stalin in Russia. The middle ages mindset is alive and well in modern times. Your dismissal is supremely ignorant.

Further, the Arab nations sided with the Axis powers in WWII b/c of historical antagonism with Britain. The British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, explicitly made contact with the German consul to declare his support and offer his help in 1933. This to ward of Zionists who had started their movement in late 19th century. Of course you don't recall. You never knew...

Your history of Israel in modern times is also off. Jewish immigration began after 1917 and was driven but continental anti-semitism. Despite British efforts to stop it Jews continued to migrate -- they had nowhere else to go. The U.N. partitioned the area into two states, Jewish and Palestinian. The Arabs then attacked Israel. This included Egyp, Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and Yemen.

Now, did the U.S. help Israel win that war? No. Czechloslovakia did. They were the ones who supplied arms despite the U.N. embargo which favored the Arab nations that already had an army.

But the biggest help came from the Arabs. The Arabs expelled ALL of their Jews, who all went to Israel, massively increasing its population. The Arabs thus strengthened their own enemies, while suffering the largest brain drain in their modern history.

Btw, this is why Egypt could never defeat Israel. 50 soldiers with guns don't add up to one smart IDF general. This is proven by multiple wars that left the Egyptian army DOA. Population is not how modern wars are won. Israel is living proof.

Anyway, I could go on, but arguing with the ignorant on the internet is of questionable value. Suffice it to say that France was the main supplier of weapons to Israel including its nuclear capabilities, while much early money came from Germany in the form of reparations.

Finally, the comments about Jewish families are tragically stupid. I'm not even gonna bother with those.

[Capt57]

This is totally true. The other comments are mostly drivel, esp. thod's.


If I converted would I become a genius? :undecided:

[danalaina]

then it seems you are assuming most people to be racist first, and politically concerned second... and i'll just disagree with you on that.
as a jew, i tend to get flak right away because people assume i'm a zionist and agree with Israeli policy. it goes both ways.

but i will politely disagree with you that the negativity towards jewish people is based on basic racist ideals rather than rooted in political issues.
having been called all manner of names myself...hearing "jew" jokes being told when people aren't aware that i'm jewish...and having myself and my family being subject to the most ridiculous racially-motivated ignorance (my brother was once asked seriously to show someone his horns), i'm sorry, but i beg to differ.

while there are people who will automatically ascribe me a zionist agenda, it's been much less troublesome and certainly much easier to reverse.

and sadly, in my experience, much less common.





danalaina added to this post, 3 minutes and 4 seconds later...


Individualistic and formal. Based on my experience many Jews maintain business-like relations with their own families. When I was younger I dated a Jew who couldn't tell her dad she was dating me because I was not Jewish. This is rediculous - the mother too who cheated on her father with a Rabbi was also cold and aloof with me because I was not Jewish. ANd I am an INTJ, it's a rarity that I could find someone colder then myself, but this Jewish mother had a heart of ice and a condescending demeanor. This was obviously exacerbated because I was young and looking for acceptance.

These are a few characteristics of Jewish culture. You can connect the dots as to why many are hostile toward this culture.

wow. just...wow.

for any of you saying crap like this and fancying yourselves free of prejudice - i mean ascribing traits to an entire people based on such limited experience - think again.

EDIT:
y'know, i think i actually prefer the neonazis to stuff like this. at least they know they've got a problem with jews, and i'm not caught off guard when i see it.

[quentin]

For example, while "race" is not a scientific term, you will not find much genetic commonality between Jews and East Europeans, b/c Jews were kept in ghettos and did not intermix.



This is utter nonsense. Almost every famous "Jew" of European descent that I can think of, from Sigmund Freud to Karl Marx, was of mixed heritage. There was obviously tons of interbreeding. Ashkenazi Jews didn't grow blue eyes and pale skin from long Polish winters. They interbred with the native populations. It was obviously common enough....I mean, the entire plot of The Merchant of Venice, which like most Shakespeare plays was borrowed from earlier sources, centered around Jew/Gentile intermarriage.

Miscegnation was frowned upon and discouraged, of course, but love and hormones are more powerful - happens all over the world. They couldn't keep blacks & whites & native tribes from interbreeding all over the Americas, much as some people try to deny it - scratch any "white" family in the Deep South or Brazil and there's a few drops of Negro blood.

[Santana28]

having been called all manner of names myself...hearing "jew" jokes being told when people aren't aware that i'm jewish...and having myself and my family being subject to the most ridiculous racially-motivated ignorance (my brother was once asked seriously to show someone his horns), i'm sorry, but i beg to differ.

while there are people who will automatically ascribe me a zionist agenda, it's been much less troublesome and certainly much easier to reverse.

and sadly, in my experience, much less common.

do you genuinely believe they are judging you based on racist ideas, because they make jokes?

i dont consider myself racist at all because it is not a standard i value - but at the same time, i am human. we are all different - some races are better at certain things, or popularly known for certain things. i personally dont see anything wrong with pointing out the obvious, or joking (as long as it isnt truly mean-spirited). i've heard my fair share of white trash backwards hick jokes... do i assume the people making these jokes are racist? of course not. i think it is very important we understand and value our racial differences - and that doesnt mean holding hands and singing kumbaya... that means acknowledging that differences are there in the first place!

heck, my husband's boss is jewish. its his 50th birthday today and the company all went in on buying an outrageous 50' tall inflatable dinosaur to put on the front lawn of the company. i asked my husband if he contributed to that ridiculous waste of money, and he said "of course not. i'm appealing to his jewish sensibilities instead" ;) a racist geralization yes, but a negative connotation? depends on your interpretation.

but quite simply, i give people a LITTLE more credit... when it comes to issues and voting, i think race is less of an issue than policy is.

[stasis]

Antisemitism is a non-sense term. A semite pertains to a broader range of people than just Jews (it also pertains to Arabs for example). yet antisemitism refers specifically to one who is hostile toward Jews. This is fallacious.
I really have to question the value of making this observation. It's not "fallacious" simply because it isn't literal, much like an idiom (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in speech isn't fallacious. This 'the term makes no sense' argument seems to come up most often in an effort to destroy the ability to verbally assail antisemitic rhetoric or action by undercutting the cultural substance of the label used to describe it. A person purports to replace that useful label with some newspeak term that does not carry the current and immediately identifiable negative connotations. And what makes it absurd is that, ultimately, the argument from prescriptive validity is linguistically invalid (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) anyway.

[Jgib5328]

I don't know about the world in general, but a lot of people where I come from (a suburb of Boston) say bad things about jews all of the time. A lot of people hate jews, they may not be that open about it to jews obviously, but a lot of people hate them. I think it's kinda weird some people hate jews, but not blacks.

[Provoker]

I really have to question the value of making this observation. It's not "fallacious" simply because it isn't literal, much like an idiom (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in speech isn't fallacious. This 'the term makes no sense' argument seems to come up most often in an effort to destroy the ability to verbally assail antisemitic rhetoric or action by undercutting the cultural substance of the label used to describe it. A person purports to replace that useful label with some newspeak term that does not carry the current and immediately identifiable negative connotations. And what makes it absurd is that, ultimately, the argument from prescriptive validity is linguistically invalid (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) anyway.

Stasis, you are not opposing me, you are opposing reason. Your analogy between idioms and antisemitism isn't a very convincing one. Words tend to refer to things in the real world. In particular, semantic theories help gain meaning by analyzing the connection between words and the phenomena they depict. An antithesis is diametrically opposed to a thesis. For example, communism and anticommunism; globalization and antiglobalization; enlightenment and anti-enlightenment; imperialism and antiimperialism, etc. Are these also like idioms that are not meant to be taken literally?

[Gonzo]

I think it's kinda weird some people hate jews, but not blacks.

Jesus titty fucking Christ! Are you serious?! How on earth is it weird, under any circumstances, to not hate blacks :irked:? Should I hate them, is that what your saying? Please tell me I misunderstood that lol...

[Rick]

I will make a prediction. The US, being pragmatic in the matters of the world, will soon not see the value in supporting Israel as an ally.

Israel is surrounded by enemies who vociferously call for Israel's destruction. There will be an incredibly one sided war against Israel. Perhaps two wars. Somewhere in this, Damascus, Syria will be totally destroyed. To an extent, part of Israel will be decimated. In one war, Libya, Iran, and others less clear will be against Israel. Russia, Turkey, and/or Germany may also side with Libya and Iran. It is difficult to put the ancient bloodlines into current countries. In that war, Israel will be victorious. It appears that England, the US, and Australia will be bystanders. A peace treaty will happen and be confirmed - for 7 years, that will seem to bring peace.

All of this is my 2 cents. I am a Christian by faith, and this is my interpretation of the future. If you disagree, OK, but it will be interesting to see if I am right, no?

My expectation is that the whole world will turn against Israel. We'll see.

This is an unusual case for me, in that I do not have an intention of arguing on this matter. This is my view.

[Jgib5328]

Jesus titty fucking Christ! Are you serious?! How on earth is it weird, under any circumstances, to not hate blacks :irked:? Should I hate them, is that what your saying? Please tell me I misunderstood that lol...

ahaha I just think it's funny, because I remember seeing on a forum some skinhead wrote, "I fucking hate kykes, but blacks are cool" and I just thought it was the wackiest thing. You shouldn't hate blacks unless you really want to, I don't care whether you do or not, what I'm saying is that I didn't think people would be that selectively racist and usually the biggest targets of racism in America are blacks. And I meant that it was weird that someone would hate another race but not hate blacks, for pretty much the reasons I've just stated.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 5 minutes and 39 seconds later...

I will make a prediction. The US, being pragmatic in the matters of the world, will soon not see the value in supporting Israel as an ally.

Israel is surrounded by enemies who vociferously call for Israel's destruction. There will be an incredibly one sided war against Israel. Perhaps two wars. Somewhere in this, Damascus, Syria will be totally destroyed. To an extent, part of Israel will be decimated. In one war, Libya, Iran, and others less clear will be against Israel. Russia, Turkey, and/or Germany may also side with Libya and Iran. It is difficult to put the ancient bloodlines into current countries. In that war, Israel will be victorious. It appears that England, the US, and Australia will be bystanders. A peace treaty will happen and be confirmed - for 7 years, that will seem to bring peace.

All of this is my 2 cents. I am a Christian by faith, and this is my interpretation of the future. If you disagree, OK, but it will be interesting to see if I am right, no?

My expectation is that the whole world will turn against Israel. We'll see.

This is an unusual case for me, in that I do not have an intention of arguing on this matter. This is my view.

I've always secretly hoped for that war to erupt because I think it'd be really interesting to see what would happen. I know it's terrible for me to think this because people will die, but I'm not too big on feelings, oh well.

I do however hate supporting Israel, I wish we'd either take over the entire middle east so we can get their oil or just find another source of energy so we could make the middle east irrelevant again, I hate the idea of America being dependent.

[stasis]

Stasis, you are not opposing me, you are opposing reason. Your analogy between idioms and antisemitism isn't a very convincing one. Words tend to refer to things in the real world. In particular, semantic theories help gain meaning by analyzing the connection between words and the phenomena they depict.
According to the practice of descriptive linguistics, which is how the evolution and employ of language is studied academically, words tend to gain meaning through their popular usage. In other words, they predominately mean what they're said to mean by the majority of people saying them at the time. Your argument is prescriptive in that it attempts to deny the meaning of a word on the grounds that it is semantically 'contradictory'. The argument first fails on the grounds that English in being a living language is by definition unrestricted by rigorous semantics, as evidenced by idiom, metaphor, colloquialism and the likes of the near total change of the language itself over centuries of speech. The argument is furthermore rendered invalid on the grounds that linguistic prescriptivism does not primarily establish validity (usage) in such a way; instead, prescriptive linguistics applies a non-rigorous semantic structure to what is already being popularly used. It is for this reason you can find the word antisemitism in the dictionary. So again, not only does the argument you're making appear to be linguistically invalid, but I also have to wonder why you're attempting to inject it into the discussion in this thread. It's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it?

[Provoker]

Indeed, language is constantly evolving. Some of the buzz words in the literature now such as 'social capital' or 'Third World' lack a precise definition. Accordingly, there is a struggle of pushing and hauling among academics to come to terms with a universal definition. As far as the word 'antisemite' goes, either the definition of 'semite' needs to be changed to explicitly refer to Jews which would make antisemite the antithesis of semite. Or the word antisemite needs to be changed to refer to someone who is hostile toward a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

One of these ought to be changed, otherwise there is inconsistence in the dictionary.

[Santana28]

According to the practice of descriptive linguistics, which is how the evolution and employ of language is studied academically, words tend to gain meaning through their popular usage. In other words, they predominately mean what they're said to mean by the majority of people saying them at the time. Your argument is prescriptive in that it attempts to deny the meaning of a word on the grounds that it is semantically 'contradictory'. The argument first fails on the grounds that English in being a living language is by definition unrestricted by rigorous semantics, as evidenced by idiom, metaphor, colloquialism and the likes of the near total change of the language itself over centuries of speech. The argument is furthermore rendered invalid on the grounds that linguistic prescriptivism does not primarily establish validity (usage) in such a way; instead, prescriptive linguistics applies a non-rigorous semantic structure to what is already being popularly used. It is for this reason you can find the word antisemitism in the dictionary. So again, not only does the argument you're making appear to be linguistically invalid, but I also have to wonder why you're attempting to inject it into the discussion in this thread. It's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it?

stasis - ultimately words are defined by the end user's personal interpretation and use of these words.

i'm not exactly sure what you are saying about linguistics and what not (sorry, i didnt go to big schools), but i have enough common sense to know that you can't judge your definition of words solely on their "common" use 100% of the time. sometimes that is just clearly incorrect, regardless of your semantical point of view. i would suggest you step back and try looking at the bigger picture of your arguments a little better, because it is leading you to be one-dimensional and rather inflexible to other peoples' points of view.

[Danisty]

Maybe it's where I live, but I hear racist comments against Jews all the time and it's pretty easy for me to tell whether people are making a joke or being malicious. Of course, I also worked in a tattoo shop, and while our shop wasn't racist, a lot of racists do get tattoos, so I had more of an opportunity to see these people in an environment where they felt comfortable making such comments. It was assumed that we didn't have a problem with it, so they were more open with their thoughts. If you're never in a situation where people would be open, you might not see how common it is.

[iamnotspock]

I really have to question the value of making this observation. It's not "fallacious" simply because it isn't literal, much like an idiom (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in speech isn't fallacious. This 'the term makes no sense' argument seems to come up most often in an effort to destroy the ability to verbally assail antisemitic rhetoric or action by undercutting the cultural substance of the label used to describe it. A person purports to replace that useful label with some newspeak term that does not carry the current and immediately identifiable negative connotations. And what makes it absurd is that, ultimately, the argument from prescriptive validity is linguistically invalid (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) anyway.

I like this precise analysis. I like how it exposes the *motive* behind the fallacy. All current reference books define the term to apply exclusively to Jews. As it always has.

I've read that the term was first *used* by anti-semites themselves, in fact, who may have used it as a way to "mainstream" their beliefs. As in, "We don't have a problem with Jews, we are just anti-Semite."





iamnotspock added to this post, 7 minutes and 2 seconds later...

Also, if you are so concerned with words being rational, you'll find much of the English language makes no sense at all.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I could post extensively on this topic. But for now I'll just quote an editorial (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that dates back to 2003, just to spark some discussion:

Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism
Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews
Emanuele Ottolenghi
The Guardian, Saturday November 29 2003

Is there a link between the way Israel's case is presented and anti-semitism? Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism. Critics vehemently disagree. In their view, public attacks on Israel are neither misplaced nor the source of anti-Jewish sentiment: Israel's behaviour is reprehensible and so are those Jews who defend it. Jewish defenders of Israel are then depicted by their critics as seeking an excuse to justify Israel, projecting Jewish paranoia and displaying a "typical" Jewish trait of "sticking together", even in defending the morally indefensible. Israel's advocates deserve the hostility they get, the argument goes; it is they who should engage in soul-searching.

There is no doubt that recent anti-semitism is linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it is equally without doubt that Israeli policies sometimes deserve criticism. There is nothing wrong, or even remotely anti-semitic, in disapproving of Israeli policies. Nevertheless, this debate - with its insistence that there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism - misses the crucial point of contention. Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.

If Israel's critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes - the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?

The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are dismissed as paranoia, even when anti-semitic imagery is at work, is a subterfuge. Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?

Despite piqued disclaimers, some of Israel's critics use anti-semitic stereotypes. In fact, their disclaimers frequently offer a mask of respectability to otherwise socially unacceptable anti-semitism. Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis". This equation between victims and murderers denies the Holocaust. Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got. Others speak of Zionist conspiracies to dominate the media, manipulate American foreign policy, rule the world and oppress the Arabs. By describing Israel as the root of all evil, they provide the linguistic mandate and the moral justification to destroy it. And by using anti-semitic instruments to achieve this goal, they give away their true anti-semitic face.

There is of course the open question of whether this applies to anti-Zionism. It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.

It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which case one should oppose Palestinian nationalism as well. It could even be argued that though both claims are true and noble, it would have been better to pursue Jewish national rights elsewhere. But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes further and denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves - and consequently behave as - a nation. Anti-Zionists deny Jews a right that they all too readily bestow on others, first of all Palestinians.

Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights. Jews condemning Israel and rejecting Zionism earn their praise. Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.

The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.

Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced. By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.

Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.

· Emanuele Ottolenghi is the Leone Ginzburg Fellow in Israel Studies at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford

[ginandsour]

I will make a prediction. The US, being pragmatic in the matters of the world, will soon not see the value in supporting Israel as an ally.

As I understand it, Zionism is linked inexplicably to Judeo-Christian eschatology. While it's true Judeo-Christian eschatology has many varieties, the recent revival of pre-millennial dispensationalism emphasizes the belief that the second coming of Christ will be linked in some fashion to the establishment of a Jewish homeland and the return of the lost tribes to Israel. Since Zionism in American life can be found in the dubious bedfellows of evangelical Christians and Jewish Zionists, and given the particular electoral musculature those two groups can exude, I am not sure how likely it is the West will abandon Israel.

[sonofone]

If the central bank collapses at any point... I think this argument will take on a new and more consequentially weight.

[CardinalXiminez]

Indeed, language is constantly evolving. Some of the buzz words in the literature now such as 'social capital' or 'Third World' lack a precise definition. Accordingly, there is a struggle of pushing and hauling among academics to come to terms with a universal definition. As far as the word 'antisemite' goes, either the definition of 'semite' needs to be changed to explicitly refer to Jews which would make antisemite the antithesis of semite. Or the word antisemite needs to be changed to refer to someone who is hostile toward a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

One of these ought to be changed, otherwise there is inconsistence in the dictionary.


Stasis did answer very well.


You want to change the meaning of this word, and thus "antisemitism" as we perceive it would cease to exist. Big Brother (Cf Orwell) thought the same way.
Your complain about the etymology, and you should should know it, is very typical of anti-zionism antisemitism.

Here, we have a word that have a long history. It has been created solely to express the hatred of jews (Cf Wilhelm Marr, in 1879), and jews only. If you open ANY dictionary, it will tell the same. Why?
The meaning of a word is never the product of its close etymology, but as Stasis told you: "they gain meaning through their popular usage". And that includes their HISTORY. Again, are you like Big Brother, do you want to eradicate history so you could control minds?
Would you feel easier?

---

If you were right about etymology, then do you believe astrology is a science? Mmmmm? :laugh:
Besides, the term "Semites" never described a people, but a linguistic family. Unlike what you pretend, it doesn't refer to a precise ethnic group, since you forgot to mention amharic, which is spoken in Ethiopia (and thus, doesn't relate neither to Hebrews, neither to "Arabs").
So your argument is clearly a non-sense from the very beginning, and I should add, possibly of bad faith.

As the british historian Bernard Lewis pointed "The argument that "we cannot be anti-Semitic because we ourselves are Semites" may still occasionally be heard in Arab countries, though of course not in Turkey or Iran. But some of the more sophisticated spokesmen have become aware that to most outsiders this argument sounds silly or disingenuous".

[sonofone]

CardinalXiminez, after reading your lengthy post I'm still not sure if what you said was worth my time but, at last, I feel compelled to reply. I should, to be clear, state first that I am a "semitic" male and not jewish. I know you claim that the term semitic only refers to language and there is some truth behind that but it also describes descendants of Shem, culture, a shared history, etc. Maybe if people focused on the word as an issue of shared history the world would be a better place. :cheesy: ... probably not.

"Your complain about the etymology, and you should should know it, is very typical of anti-zionism antisemitism."

"Again, are you like Big Brother, do you want to eradicate history so you could control minds? Would you feel easier?"

"So your argument is clearly a non-sense from the very beginning, and I should add, possibly of bad faith."

I'm not sure how to take those preceding quotes from your post. I don't want to take them too serious because they come off as hyperbolic, and thus, kind of intended to be a joke. If you aren't joking, then you need to check your perspective on reality and remember that you are talking to a person and you should show them enough respect not to take your demons into this discussion. Also, if you're not joking, don't lump anti-zionism (which has real validity) and antisemitism into the same category. It's like saying, "one must hate Christians if they hate America." It's just silly and disingenuous, like your entire argument, which is ironic because you decided to close with that quote.

[CardinalXiminez]

CardinalXiminez, after reading your lengthy post I'm still not sure if what you said was worth my time but, at last, I feel compelled to reply. I should, to be clear, state first that I am a "semitic" male and not jewish.

I think it's time you open a real dictionary, for a change.

I know you claim that the term semitic only refers to language and there is some truth behind

It is the truth. I thought an INTJ like you pretend to be would understand FACTS rather than ideology. I was obviously wrong.

that but it also describes descendants of Shem, culture, a shared history, etc.

FALSE.

I'm not sure how to take those preceding quotes from your post. I don't want to take them too serious because they come off as hyperbolic, and thus, kind of intended to be a joke. If you aren't joking, then you need to check your perspective on reality and remember that you are talking to a person and you should show them enough respect not to take your demons into this discussion.

I am deeply serious. I know this kind of debate very well. Don't force me to humiliate you, because it's not a funny subject.

Also, if you're not joking, don't lump anti-zionism (which has real validity) and antisemitism into the same category. It's like saying, "one must hate Christians if they hate America." It's just silly and disingenuous, like your entire argument, which is ironic because you decided to close with that quote.

Again, I imagined that INTJs would not like to use sophisms. I was refering to a large portion of so-called anti-zionists who are, in fact, true antisemites. Would you deny it?

1) The discussion about etymology and the real meaning of the word "antisemitism" is a TYPICAL antisemite rant. I did not invented it, this is not my fault, so don't blame me. You can check any historian if you like.

2) As for the distinction between antisemitism and antizionism: In theory, there is one. In practice, the difference is rather weak, since, for instance, 99% of the jews are zionists. And you could also check Jürgen Habermas if you want more details about this. Let me quote him:

"In principle, I think that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are distinguishable; one is a political position, the other a prejudice. Yet the overlap between anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist discourses today is considerable, and it is especially striking at a time when many intellectuals, notably the post-modernist left and postcolonial theorists, base their work on the very notion of "discourse", contending that clusters of assumptions, embedded in our languages and cultures, pre-select how we think about the world, and mesh the production of knowledge with power."

[sonofone]

CardinalXiminez, I'm not going to get into a pointless argument... especially with you. I'll continue to use the word as I see fit, and you can use it however you like. Your comments on what I said don't really do much for me... what dictionary would you like me to check? Anyway... I hope anyone reading this pointless debate checks the definition. Based on the fact that I have checked the definition using several different dictionaries and it in no way devalues my point, I see no need to further comment on anything you said. I encourage you to humiliate me... so please do.

[CardinalXiminez]

CardinalXiminez, I'm not going to get into a pointless argument... especially with you. I'll continue to use the word as I see fit, and you can use it however you like. Your comments on what I said don't really do much for me... what dictionary would you like me to check? Anyway... I hope anyone reading this pointless debate checks the definition. Based on the fact that I have checked the definition using several different dictionaries and it in no way devalues my point, I see no need to further comment on anything you said. I encourage you to humiliate me... so please do.

Do you have the slightest fact, the slightest quote to support your claims?

So far, I see nothing but idle chatter.

[Haphazard]

I am Jewish and I would really like to see that part of the world kiss-kiss make up, but I see it's not realistic to see it happen anytime soon.

There's a lot of racism everywhere, and while around me I see it mostly against Blacks there is a lot against Jews and Arabs, too. There's a guy at a school around here named Saddam Hussein, and I can only imagine what he goes through.

That said, I'm really out on my opinion of Israel. I can see why it needs to be there and I can see why it shouldn't, it's really difficult to make up my mind. But I'd really like to see the hate and warfare stop.

[sonofone]

Merriam Webster
Semitic: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
Semites: a: a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b: a descendant of these peoples

Oxford Dictionary
noun: a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician.
adjective: relating to these languages or their speakers.

Cambridge Dictionary
relating to the race of people that includes Arabs and Jews, or to their languages:
Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages.

[Haphazard]

Merriam Webster
Semitic: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
Semites: a: a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b: a descendant of these peoples

Oxford Dictionary
noun: a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician.
adjective: relating to these languages or their speakers.

Cambridge Dictionary
relating to the race of people that includes Arabs and Jews, or to their languages:
Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages.

Antisemitism is an idiom. A clumsily created one at that, but it's become the term used to identify somebody who hates Jews.

The dictionary even accepts it:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
anti-Semitism [(an-tee-sem-uh-tiz-uhm, an-teye-sem-uh-tiz-uhm)]

Prejudice or hatred against Jews, a Semitic race. (See Arab-Israeli conflict and Nazis.)

Merriam Webster
an·ti–Sem·i·tism
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Cambridge Dictionary:
anti-Semitism
noun
the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people

[sonofone]

right... I was defining semitic.

[Haphazard]

right... I was defining semitic.

Semites are a group of people, and in all actuality anti-Semitism has little to do with most Semites and everything to do with Jews, one group of Semitic people.

[CardinalXiminez]

I have a very good link -very complete-, but alas you have to understand french.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---

The term "Semite" was first created in France (first use around 1845) by people like Ernest Renan, and solely from a linguistic perspective. It was decades after, in Germany, and under the influence of strong Jew-haters that the word began to refer to a very heterogenous group of people, as a "race" in fact...

And from then on, this mistake contaminated the english language as well.

But nonetheless, the definition of the word "antisemitism" remains quite clear in every language I know: it is a specific hatred of the JEWS, and only jews.

You can open ANY english dictionary.

---

Again, the only people or internet sites that would use the "etymological" distorsion are almost always associated with real antisemitism (even if they hide under a more "politically correct" anti-zionism). :rolleyes:

The battle of the words between Arabs and Jews doesn't end here, though. Look at the way the word "islamophobia" has been created, for instance... Again, it's sheer propaganda, but an effective one, alas...

[sonofone]

Whatever it takes to support your ideology.

[CardinalXiminez]

Anyway, before I go to sleep, another fact, to make you understand why I am so concerned.

During the last decade, antisemitic violence in France has more than quadrupled, according to the police statistics. Synagogues were burnt, many jews were assaulted (I could testimony for that, I saw it many times), tombstones were defiled with nazi crosses. And this new violence didn't emerge from the extreme right, but from the extreme left. I'm a bit of a leftist myself, so imagine how lost and ashamed I was when I realized the truth.

While the situation is not as bad as the Israeli government want us to believe, I find this trend rather worrying.

Again, these are FACTS. I trust the INTJs here to correctly interpret them, better than I could.

[Tenacious B]

Again, these are FACTS.
I've picked up on far left antijewishness (since "antisemitic" is being vetted;)) as well. The strange thing is that in the US most Jews tend to lean left/democratic. As a conservative/libertarian-ish Jew, I can say that I'm generally at political odds with other Jews. I have never understood why the political ideas of Jews here in the US tend to be so one sided.

I'm pretty sure that France has both the largest European Jewish population and the largest European Muslim population (not counting Turkey). With the 2 groups not getting along so well I could see why there would be an increase in violence. Not saying that that is the actual reason behind it since I don't have the info.



Provoker, basing your conclusion on the Jewish people on your experiences dating 3 Jewish girls laughable. Maybe her mom was just a bitch, or maybe you are just an ass, but either way your comments are the kind that fuel anti-Jewish sentiment and are totally unfounded. Hopefully the people who share your ethnicity are not branded in the minds of others with the comments you make.

[ginandsour]

Jews in America tend to fall into line politically with whoever will support Israel (which is political suicide here to NOT do so), since Jews also tend to vote. Since relatively few Americans vote, even though they do not represent a huge percentage of the population, Jews and Jewish lobby groups have influence.

Jews probably tend to lean left on the political spectrum because of demographics more than religion, per se. As a culture, there is an obvious emphasis on scholarship and higher education, which places people in higher income brackets, which then makes them more likely to support the so-called Starbucks candidates, like Obama, who appeals to members of the electorate in households making over 100k/year with graduate degrees or higher (I have a link to a transcript of NewsHour around here somewhere if anyone is interested).

That being said, there's evidence that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be conservative, which is why we see this odd pairing of pro-Israel lobby groups and the PNAC.

Sorry for rambling, my P is acting up. :)

[yondyr]

I'd like to make the dumbass/facetious comment.. "Some of my best friends are Jews"... but I don't have any friends...

[deepFlow]

Anyway, before I go to sleep, another fact, to make you understand why I am so concerned.

During the last decade, antisemitic violence in France has more than quadrupled, according to the police statistics. Synagogues were burnt, many jews were assaulted (I could testimony for that, I saw it many times), tombstones were defiled with nazi crosses. And this new violence didn't emerge from the extreme right, but from the extreme left. I'm a bit of a leftist myself, so imagine how lost and ashamed I was when I realized the truth.

While the situation is not as bad as the Israeli government want us to believe, I find this trend rather worrying.

Again, these are FACTS. I trust the INTJs here to correctly interpret them, better than I could.

I'm curious, what kind of extreme-leftists would do such things? I'm not saying I doubt what you're saying. I'm just curious what such people would call themselves, and how they would rationalize what they're doing.

...One thing that bothers me is how most people, when discussing evils perpetrated by humans on other humans, still seem to fall prey to some level of "taking sides", rooting for their "home team" or otherwise picking some favorite government/nation/group/whatever and then denying the latter's brutalities. Or like, defending their own evils by pointing out everyone else's.

It just makes the discussions so pointless and sickeningly selective, as you end up with heaps of bigots pointing fingers at each other, screeching about how justified their bigotries and ignorances are, basically.

[futureperfect5]

I'm curious, what kind of extreme-leftists would do such things? I'm not saying I doubt what you're saying. I'm just curious what such people would call themselves, and how they would rationalize what they're doing.

...One thing that bothers me is how most people, when discussing evils perpetrated by humans on other humans, still seem to fall prey to some level of "taking sides", rooting for their "home team" or otherwise picking some favorite government/nation/group/whatever and then denying the latter's brutalities. Or like, defending their own evils by pointing out everyone else's.

It just makes the discussions so pointless and sickeningly selective, as you end up with heaps of bigots pointing fingers at each other, screeching about how justified their bigotries and ignorances are, basically.
Believe me, I know ---from experience(s) the obnoxious behaviour and rudeness and unkindness that people dish out -- usually because they can get away with it since there is either some level of agreement or those that disagree are too intimidated and or fearful of recriminations to challenge under the circumstances.

I visited with a friend in Germany (about 10 years ago now), and she and her dad took me out for a bike ride through the countryside around their farm. As an obvious stranger, some of the men we rode by made some unfriendly comments and vulgar gestures towards me.

My friend was horrified and she moved toward her dad who was biking behind us and spoke with him for several minutes. Then, she came pedaling towards me really fast to report on his thoughts about what had happened.

"Dad says that there are weird people everywhere ..."
Hearing her desperate explanation to comfort me, I said, "Yes, this is what my parents told me, too."
... and we continued to enjoy our day, not letting them ruin our visit.

Still, I know, there are times when you have to confront or stand up for yourself ... there are no answers -- unfortunately, there is no end to it in sight.

I am not suggesting that you, or anyone, should bury their head in the sand: just don't take it into your head or heart as something about you (whatever it is), it is their measure of despair and alienation and poor image and low self-esteem that makes them need to cause someone else pain or suffering through their utter ignorance.

We know it is true ... and we have to be diligent in making sure that it is just the idiot on the corner and not anyone in leadership or authority positions.

I am so glad not to have children who would need and seek an explanation for the way some people behave. Just remember it is not "the world" or the surface group of people ... it is a group of individuals making an unfortunate choice which has some impact on you, the person who has to live through it, and ultimately for themselves, too.

[meanlittlechimp]

I'd like to make the dumbass/facetious comment.. "Some of my best friends are Jews"... but I don't have any friends...

This is actually true of me. Probably half of my friends and half the people I've dated are Jews. I live in New York City and 20% of the population is Jewish, so it's fairly normal considering.

Jews historically were the most liberal and left group in the country. This has shifted slightly over the last few decades because they've become more assimilated and there is LESS anti-semitism today, than there was 50 years ago. So they have less to be angry about. The Nazis actually held a rally in Madison Square Garden (times have indeed changed).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Still though, they are predominantly liberal/democratic relative to WASPs. BUT, in terms of Israel, many of them are hawks ONLY when it comes to Israel. I also have several Israeli friends. They claim the Israelis on the other hand are actually much more liberal than the American Jews typically (when it comes to US foreign policy). They tell me American Jews tend to be far more conservative than them, and that their theory is that they feel guilty for not fighting etc. One friend also thinks it's because most American Jews have never had Arab friends, while many Israeli's have - It's easier for them to dehumanize them in the conflict.

They tell me they are often shocked by the rabid militarism of American Jews, which is odd since most of my Israeli friends have actually shot at or killed Arabs since military service is compulsory there.

[Antares]

there is a big difference between anti-semitists and anti-zionists.

part of the problem is, that anytime anything related to Israel is criticized - everything is suddenly labeled anti-semitic in nature.

there is nothing "racist" about criticizing valid political concerns and interests, yet if anyone bothers to question Israel's role in matters, they have suddenly become an "enemy" of Israel and seek to discriminate based on race. That is not right, either.

you have to look at both sides of the coin

I know what you mean. I mean, racism has not died out and I think there's a reason that 90% of the blacks in America voted for Obama and of course, from a voter: "Every black should vote for Obama". I've been aware of criticism and data can be seen as 'racist' or discriminatory. I'm sure that I'd be called an anti-semitist soon if I engage in these kinds of debates enough (because I said earlier that I don't think there's a logical and objective reason behind the forming of Israel), but really though, I have nothing against Jews and I don't personally know them enough to be prejudiced.

I'm relatively new to this issue, in fact only having discovered it recently. I'm unfit to be labelled anything, really, but people need to realize that Jews don't necessarily have to support the Israelite government, an institutition, as we all know like any other institution, is not perfect. People are blaming Jews for what Israel does and sometimes assume that Jews must support those acts.

[Beery Swine]

Hell, nearly every top civilization has been hating Jews for thousands of years, the Catholics had it down to a science for a while, I think these are just death pangs bigotry in the western world.

[Ool]

Look, I'm not anti-American, or anything, but don't you think we should give New York back to the Indians?

You know why nobody argues that case? Because the early Americans cleared out all the Indians for us from the start. The Jews made a big mistake in thinking half a loaf was better than none and agreeing to share their land with the Palestinians once the British left.

Yup. That was the big mistake. Unfortunately it was a nearly unavoidable mistake. After all, the greatest leverage the Zionists had came from the Holocaust and from their own eviction and extermination. If they had come along only three years later and done a total purge of their new country along ethnic lines then they would have looked no better than their former oppressors and killers right away. They would have lost all justification for their cause in the eyes of their more moderate supporters all over the world, Jewish or Gentile. You think a man like Einstein would have still come out in support for them if they had started their state by ethnic cleansing—beyond the part they could justify as self-defense?

It just couldn’t have been done.

Come to think of it, why don’t they do it today? Throw out all the Palestinians that remain, that is. They don’t do it because it would still be a suicidal PR move. Unfortunately they can’t let them have normal citizen rights, either, because them Muslims are crazy and corrupt. (I’m not saying that Jews who took “Next year in Jerusalem” literally aren’t crazy. So are the Evangelical Christians across the pond, who support them. They all pray to an invisible totalitarian dictator of the Universe, after all.)

And so all they can do is play the bad guy for year after year after year, eroding their reputation in the world piecemeal.

Now any violence against Jewish persons and sites in Europe is probably racism motivated, but the Israel situation isn’t helping one bit. But then, the whole Chosen People meme will survive, no matter whether the state of Israel does or not, no matter whether persecution happens or not. In fact, death and suffering would probably help. The whole religion has a knack for masochism, for interpreting suffering as triumph, humiliation as divine accolades.

Or maybe all minority religions have that and this one was merely lucky enough to survive in that strange “our God is the same as your God” niche, and that’s why they’re still around to act all quirky and traumatized and witty and neurotic…

[ShaiGar]

This is my first and only foray into this thread.

I cannot understand this crap you americans have with Jews. I'm anti-Israel, and anti-jewish. My problems with Israel stem from their actions, my problems with jews stem from their not accepting me as god. Same problem I have with all other religions and cultures.

Heh. Seriously, what triggers this "Anti-Jewish" stuff? They're just another people... maybe they're xenophobic a little, but so are a lot of people, like the french, the italians, the americans, the chinese... Guess I'm sheltered, living in a racist nation, we're all racist towards everyone and noone. Why defend jews? Why attack them? Jewish jokes are fine by me, hell, so are aussie convict jokes.


This comes from a guy who thinks Hitler was a great guy... I just didn't like his anti-jewish/slavic thing.

[Serket]

Jews get shit because they are historically easy targets.
I was very pro-Palestinian until I had to be Ariel Sharon for three weeks in a politics simulation. Much as I disagree with the guy I would not want to be PM of Israel. You just can't do anything right! Also I offered to give the Golan Heights back, and this was 2 years ago, surprise surprise Ehud Olmert has just offered the same deal. How right was i?

[ShaiGar]

Did he offer to stop bombarding cities and give the Palestinians a chance to live peacefully?

AK-47's aren't the equals of Sidewinders... No matter how much Pro-Israel people like to think it.

[Serket]

He is trying to stay in power. He has to placate the many minor parties, who are religious extremists and pro settlement. So he HAS to protect the illegal settlements with arms, because being illegal the Palestinians tend to attack them.

He should do what I did. After a violent pro settler protest let the ring leader get away and use him as a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. Or maybe we detained the guy but told the media he got away, either is fine.

[ShaiGar]

No he doesn't... So he gets voted out next election. He goes down as a man who managed to do good. Otherwise he's just another politician who likes to play make believe.

[thod]

You have to have an 'other' or they can be no 'us'. The Jews were a minority in all the countries and so provided that 'other'. People want to group and work on common goals, they like to feel part of something that is bigger than themselves. There was nothing special about Jews other than availability. People will always invent an out group to satisfy this need even when the difference is minuscule.

[ShaiGar]

Uhmm... like geeks?

[Serket]

Israeli politics has functioned that way since 1948, every PM does that same stuff, it doesn't matter who, you cannot maintain power without the minority parties.

[Ool]

Heh. Seriously, what triggers this "Anti-Jewish" stuff? They're just another people... maybe they're xenophobic a little, but so are a lot of people, like the french, the italians, the americans, the chinese... Guess I'm sheltered, living in a racist nation, we're all racist towards everyone and noone. Why defend jews? Why attack them? Jewish jokes are fine by me, hell, so are aussie convict jokes.

Well, you have to look at this from a perspective of Medieval Europe rather than modern day America, Europe, or Australia, where minority religions are tolerated.

Judaism wasn’t the only religion that was persecuted and pogromed the hell out of. It was merely the only religion that was persecuted and yet intermittently accepted enough to survive, both under Christianity and under Islam. All the other cults perished, so their descendents are no longer around to spread guilt about their former or current oppression, because their former oppression is forgotten and you can no longer currently oppress someone who is dead.

Eventually some of them became extremely wealthy in this banker and merchant niche that they carved out for themselves, because Christians weren’t allowed to loan out money for interest. They also inadvertedly bred themselves comparatively smart that way. Those that couldn’t make it in that niche always had an easy, non-lethal way out. They were just one baptism away from fading into the mainstream culture. Selective breeding is a funny thing…

At any rate, this is the simple answer to why they are attacked and persecuted: because they are there.

And Celtic druids are not because they are not…

[ShaiGar]

The Celtic Druids became Catholic Priests.

[Ool]

Jews get shit because they are historically easy targets.
I was very pro-Palestinian until I had to be Ariel Sharon for three weeks in a politics simulation. Much as I disagree with the guy I would not want to be PM of Israel. You just can't do anything right!

And if you try to make peace you get shot by the hardliner nutters among your own people. That’s what Yitzak Rabin learned the hard way. It was also the last thing he learned.

Both sides are crazy.





Ool added to this post, 4 minutes and 13 seconds later...

The Celtic Druids became Catholic Priests.

So did a lot of Jews eventually. It’s only those that did not who are still recognizable as remote descendants of the guys who pissed off the Romans in 70 A.D.…

[Jakalwarrior]

There's a guy at a school around here named Saddam Hussein, and I can only imagine what he goes through.

Thats when you change your name to bob smith or something similar ;)

Aren't ALL religons predjudiced against each other? as a base requirement for survival of the religon?
Even as an atheist I am predjudiced against anyone of any religon. I'm not saying I hate them or want to see them harmed but I am predjudiced against voting for them or seeing them in any seat of power (predjudice is not a bad word...).
Either way though, the most liberal religious sects may support tolerance and being nice to the other theist factions... but they never ever support acceptance as that wouldn't work well for any religon (how would it spread? it would die out. Natural selection. AKA Evolution of religon :D ).


Thats all I have to add to this though. I have never come across any "antisemetic" stuff here in the deep south (of the U.S.). I wouldn't even know a jewish person if I saw them.

[thod]

There's a guy at a school around here named Saddam Hussein, and I can only imagine what he goes through.

There was a guy on my course in college called Richard Head (dickhead), true story.

[Ool]

Thats all I have to add to this though. I have never come across any "antisemetic" stuff here in the deep south (of the U.S.). I wouldn't even know a jewish person if I saw them.

They’re the ones with the tails and the horns…

[Jakalwarrior]

They’re the ones with the tails and the horns…

I knew it!

Just kidding. Honestly though, every jewish person I know or have met had to tell me they were jewish or I would never have known. I never even knew it was more than a religon until I was late in my highschool years. My parents even sent me to jewish bible camp (essentially daycare for about 4 hours a day in the summer) when I was a kid because the one at our church was full. Learned all sorts of new customs, foods, and games lol. All I was ever taught was "we believe in jesus, they just think he was a prohpet. They are our friends and gods chosen people. They will probably get into heaven too".

I think the south has too much black v white and the jews missed out on the hate maybe?

[BallentineChen]

This thread reminded me of an article I read: Jewish Liberals Launch Counterweight to AIPAC (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Ool]

This thread reminded me of an article I read: Jewish Liberals Launch Counterweight to AIPAC (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Ah, AIPAC! I think they’re the ones who, at some point in time, must have sat down to read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and then thought by themselves: “Hmm, even though none of it is true, it ought to be…!”