I will listen to that later but I can agree with the headline.
3 Likes
That article is referring mainly to antisemitism in American despite it being a global phenomenon, but even in America I donât think antisemitism will ever not exist, just as racism will never not exist against people of color.
This country is rooted in racism (including against Jews), and its economic system is still systemically driven by race despite the social progress made throughout American history.
I agree that if Jews werenât granted Israel as a place of sanctuary, they would probably be non-existent or a much smaller population.
I think the recent rise in antisemitism is largely due to social media and the growth if the internet. Sadly enough, antisemitism was probably at its lowest right after 9/11, but that came at the expense of Islamophobia. Of course this slowly reversed track over time.
America has always had a Us vs. Them mentality especially amongst conservatives. There always has to be a bad guy, but how that bad guy is determined is never clear to me. I also think the victim-based mentality amongst liberals will force them to defend a community they deem victims or defenseless, such as Palestinians (not Hamas) regardless of the differences in social values.
We have reached a point now where the liberal privileged feels they must defend the underprivileged or disenfranchised, but I think it ends when the liberal privileged feels their own privilege is at stake. Thatâs when their true colors will show (hence antisemitism amongst non-Jewish Ivy League white students)
In other words, I think antisemitism in the Arab community is largely socio-cultural and political, while the recent rise in antisemitism amongst non-Jewish whites is out of fear of loss of privilege/economic power
1 Like
Well, hereâs the thing.
The only person I know of in Congress that is in favor of boycott of and divestment from Israel is the far-left Rashida Tlaib. You also see anti-semitic sentiments from supposedly left-wing people like Helen Thomas. She was once quoted as telling Jews to âget the fâ out of Palestine, and go back to Germanyâ or something obviously anti-Semitic and Neo-Holocaust-ish to that effect.
Of course, she tried to excuse her obviously anti-Semitic sentiment by claiming that she (as an Arab-American) was âalso a Semite.â Thatâs ridiculous, of course. The term anti-Semite doesnât refer to attitudes against speakers of all Semitic languages like Arabic, nor does it refer to attitudes against all people who have such ancestry (such as Arabs and Arab-Americans), but rather, the term refers SPECIFICALLY and EXCLUSIVELY to anti-Jewish attitudes, such as the ones that she expressed. Having Semitic ancestry or being a speaker of a Semitic language (or the descendent of such a person) does NOT negate a person from characterization as an anti-Semite if they hold anti-Jewish attitudes and prejudices.
OTOHâŠthe most gung-ho anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic person I ever met (who also happens to be the only Holocaust denier I ever personally met) was also a big Trump supporter and considered himself to be a far right-winger in most respects; thatâs surprising, because Trump was probably the most gung-ho pro-Israel president weâve had; not sure how he reconciled those positions.
By contrast, in Europe, it seems to me that most far-right groups, like the Vox party in Spain and Geert Wildersâ new far-right coalition in the Netherlands appear to be gung-ho Zionist and pro-Israel; of course, they seem to combine that with strong anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sentiment.
So it seems to me that both the far right and far left have anti-Semitic and gung-ho anti-Zionist elements.
See Pat Buchanan on the right and Tlaib/Omar on the Left.
Someone correct me if Iâm wrong on that.
As for whether Anti-Zionism is a per se form of anti-Semitism, and as to whether a person who is anti-Zionist is automatically an anti-SemiteâŠwellâŠI realize that there may be a small percentage of Jews that oppose the creation of/existence of the State of Israel. But to me, people like that are so far outside the Jewish mainstream as to be almost lampoonable. I can tell you that the Orthodox Jewish university that I have a degree from (Yeshiva University - Cardozo School of Law), celebrates Israelâs independence day almost like a school holiday. I would say that that is more mainstream, but I welcome our Jewish posters to correct me if Iâm wrong on that.
I also hear people say stuff like âFrom the River to the SeaâŠblah, blah, blahâ all the while claiming that they are not anti-Semitic. To those people who claim that they can have such anti-Zionist views without being anti-Semitic, I have to ask. If you truly believe that âFrom the River to the Seaâ stuff, then what does that actually mean? Wouldnât that mean either killing or forcibly deporting over 7 million Israeli JewsâŠor if nothing else, forcing them to live under Arab rule with lesser rights and lesser status? Wouldnât that mean destroying any Jewish state (Israel) in the region in favor of a one-state Arab solution?
Itâs hard for me to hear stuff like that and conclude that the speaker isnât anti-Semitic, given that logical conundrum. I realize that those people may deny being anti-Semitic or hating Jews, but the problem I described above causes me to question whether they are truly being honest about that; perhaps they are even being dishonest with themselves in failing to acknowledge their true feelings about Jews. I seem to hear attitudes like that chiefly from the Left in the USA, though I suppose some people like that could be right-wing as well; thereâs a prominent Arab-American former Republican office candidate in Fort Bend County who has expressed some pro-Palestinian views recently.
Thereâs also an element on the Left that is gung-ho anti-Israel who, when asked if Israel has a right to exist, say no, using, as their rational, that âno country has a right to exist.â
UhhhhâŠok. So does that mean that a Palestinian state/Palestinian nation likewise has no right to exist?
If not, then why are you so gung-ho an advocate of such a thing, and such a gung-ho advocate against Israel?
Noam Chomsky, a far left academian, has made such arguments, as did one far left poster on this board who has long since departed (anyone who was here for Politics Board 1.0 knows to whom I am referring).
So in the end, I donât know if itâs possible to be an anti-Zionist without being an anti-SemiteâŠmaybe it isâŠbut it sure seems to me that most of the more gung-ho anti-Zionists are nearly always also anti-Semites.
Iâd say that there are few exceptions to that. So when I hear someone claiming to be anti-ZionistâŠI automatically form a rebuttable presumption in my mind that they are also anti-Semites, as a general rule.
CongressâŠof courseâŠOVERWHELMINGLY passed a resolution defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. MOST of the opposition to it came from Far Left Democrats.
Make of that what you will.
Isnât one of the main components of Zionism, self determination?
Does that only apply to Jews, or to all people? If all people, then do Palestinians not have a right to self determination too?
Not that Iâm suggesting they should, because ultimately itâs in the interest of the US that Israel remains in power while Palestinians do not for which I donât morally support but I do politically I guess
That being said, people support different things for different reasons. Anti-sentimism or any racism in general is going to differ from person to person. Itâs not like thereâs some sort of universal definition of what racism entails
Well, yeah.
Perhaps the Palestinians could have had self-determination as a part of a two-state solution as well.
It seems to me though, that there are many people out there (anti-Zionists) who perceive Palestinian self-determination through the lens of a one-state Arab solution with Israel being destroyed and 7 million Jewish Israelis either being killed, forcibly deported, or subordinated under Arab rule.
Hard to think of that as not being anti-Semitic.
If Iâm speaking in terms of justice and ethics, or âmoving onâ, the only way I would support a two-state solution is if Palestinian has their own governing body, military, and economic independence, within the state of Israel and outside the walls of Gaza/West Bank.
Iâm not even suggesting that I actually support that outcome, but I would ask a Jewish person living in Israel right now.
Would you allow Palestinians, to live alongside you, completely separate of Israeli surveillance, where they have their own economy and military. They can import and export as they please. Have their own foreign policy, and have direct lines of trade and communication with other Arab countries?
Or does a two-state solution just mean Palestinians can still live alongside Jews, but Israel still have direct control over what comes in and out of the state as well as control over their economy and politics?
To suggest that Israel and Palestine can live amongst each other IN HARMONY, to me, is complete fairytale. The history is too deep, and itâs a threat to Israelâs national security, Jewish security, and for the sake of the US, itâs a threat to Middle Eastern stability.
Even people such as yourself who is outwardly pro-Israel. I ask you, why do you even care about Palestinians? Why not just have them wiped out from history, if you could without any consequences?
Itâs in the interest of the US that Palestinians remain in Gaza. Is it ethical? No. Not really. But is there a higher risk otherwise? Yes.
The world is not pretty, and it sucks that Palestinians have lived in despair and agony for so long and will most likely continue to unless they suffer complete death as a population.
Israel is home to Jews. It just is. It always will be.
Well, I would say that I care about all of humanity. I believe, in principle, in self-determination, even for Palestinians. Likewise, I believe in it for Israelis as well. But I would say that both sides need to recognize each othersâ right to that, and work out a two-state solution.
Given how difficult that has become for both sides, I now wonder if that will ever be possible during our lifetimes.
Arafat should have taken Clintonâs proposal in 2000, and the Palestinians shouldnât have elected Hamas later.
Those events, plus the 10/7 attack, have no made a two state solution tougher than ever to achieve, as you say.
The Clinton proposal didnât work because the solution was heavily biased in favor of Israel.
Israel wouldâve still have control over Palestineâs military, their communications with other countries, and even down to their water supply in West Bank.
How is it a two-state solution, representative of âself-determinationâ, if any of these proposals never gave Palestinian any actual right to self-determination? Of course, it is with Israeli approval.
A two-state solution is not possible. Itâs beyond past the point because it would have to favor Israel, which Palestine will not accept nor whatever terrorist group makes decisions on their behalf.
The longer each sides keeps playing victim or the retaliation card, the harder it will (and has) become to end the conflict.
Iâd have to research it more, but I recall that that proposal would have given the Palestinians all of Gaza, most of the West Bank (more than the Palestinians now have), and even compensation for some 1967 land taken.
Clinton got pissed and was literally pounding his fist on the table when Arafat rejected it.
Good luck getting a deal that good now!
Hence, âFree Palestineâ
Itâs not just about land.
âFree Palestineâ would have meant taking that deal.
Not going the âelect the terrorists/religious extremistsâ route, and then carrying out 10/7.
At this point, all deals are likely off.
Sad, actually.
âFree Palestineâ means freedom from Israeli occupation.
To the radicals, yes, it means freedom from Israeli control at all costs, including through war.
Itâs not an occupation. That implies that Israel doesnât have a right to exist and that they are some sort of foreign invader/occupying force.
Thatâs a load of crap. They are a sovereign nation, recognized by the UN.
The reality is that Israel literally moved people out of Gaza and gave it to the Palestinians some years back.
The Palestinian response to that LACK of âoccupation?â
10/7.
Again, good luck getting a deal after that.
And I donât think anyone except a moron would claim that Israel shouldnât go into Gaza after 10/7 to destroy the forces that attacked and still represent a threat to Israel. To the extent that Israel âoccupiesâ Gaza at this point, it is within the context of a just war.
To Palestinians, yes, Israel is an occupying force because they feel they were forced out of their homeland.
Based on your extensive experience with that community, Iâm sure.
/s
Talk less, listen more. It will do you some good. You can go back and forth with Law to infinity (and beyond), but I think you are making a lot of statements strictly from your feeling and not from any deep study of what youâre talking about.
2 Likes
To the Israelis, the attack on 10/7 was an attempt to force them out of their homeland.
Does that make the Palestinians âoccupiers,â or âraiders?â
Come on now.
Are you advocating the âFrom the River to the Seaâ thing? Palestinians and their supporters that say such a thing, as I say, are expressing anti-Semitic attitudes, because for that to be true, 7 million Jews would have to be killed, forcibly deported, or subjugated.
1 Like
We had corporal punishment in Dayton ISD in the 80s and 90sâŠ
I got popped many times⊠
Anti-semites can kiss my a$$!
What are you talking about?
Itâs the same thing that happens over and over again.
Blacks: unable to build wealth after multiple generations of legal discrimination even beyond slavery, resulting in holding the highest state of poverty in America
Hispanics: largely discriminated against, but have a growing presence in the middle class. Now we see Hispanics being labels as whites on consensus reports
Asians: Score highest amongst other minority groups and yet are the heaviest discrimination demographic in Ivy League admissions. Why?
Jews: after years of discrimination, they have found success in high-paying industries including the arts, finance and academia.
Non-Jewish whites: continue to dominate Ivy League and Ivy League-adjacent admissions through means of nepotism and connections to politicians and corporate higher-ups.
Who suffers the most in Ivy League admissions? Middle class whites.
Answer: because they are considered to be âover-representedâ among the ranks of top universities in proportion to their percentage of the population.
Affirmative action programs are designed to create more opportunities for under-represented groups as opposed to over-represented groups.
1 Like