How many anti-Zionists does it take to change a lightbulb?

[TheBaldyMan]

from the "Comment is Free ..." section of the UK Guardian - Arthur Nelsen's entry http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/arthur_neslen/2007/04/when_an_antisemite_is_not_an_a.html"> When an anti-semite is not an anti-semite
The blog entry goes into some depth at the attempted muddying of the distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. The whole article is well worth a read.

What do Einstein, Mahatma Ghandi, Ehud Olmert and myself all have in common? We could each be censured for racism according to the European Union Monitoring Centre's "working definition of anti-semitism" which was last week adopted by the National Union of Students as official policy.

This definition has lately been sweeping all before it, taking endorsements everywhere from the all-party parliamentary Report on anti-semitism to the US state department's special envoy for combating anti-semitism. The British government has pledged to re-examine its own definition of anti-semitism if the EUMC's successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, ratifies the new lingua franca.

So it's actually a bit shocking to discover that the new definition was largely drafted by a pro-Israel advocate who gives talks on how to elide the distinction between anti-Zionism and hatred of Jews. Kenneth Stern is the American Jewish Committee's expert on anti-semitism and in Defining Anti-Semitism, a paper published by Tel Aviv University's Stephen Roth Institute, he explained how he developed the working definition "along with other experts" in the second half of 2004.

I tend to look on the new definition of anti-Zionist as the same one-trick-pony as the anti-semite epithet, I don't think anyone is paying too much attention to it though. Unfortuneately, if the NUS does implement this working definition it seems that an lot of people will be getting kicked off UK campuses over this.

[Taxloss]

1. There's a problem with this debate.

"It's not anti-semitic to criticise Israel" goes the cry, and it's true. "I'm not against Jews, I'm against Zionists" goes the claim, and most mean it genuinely. And there is indeed a debate about where the dividing line between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism lies.

But here's the problem: both sides are trying to move the line. It's not one-way traffic with a bunch of hard-core pro-Israelis attempting to classify all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, although heaven knows there are a few of them. At the same time, the hard-core anti-Israelis are pushing in the other direction because it suits their purposes to keep the line as blurred as possible. Not to fix the line - to keep it blurred. A blurred line is more useful, because it permits a maximalist interpretation of where the line might ultimately be.

[TheBaldyMan]

3. that's a point that Mr. Nelsen makes at the end of his blog entry

he notes the paradox of diametric opposites stressing the same idea because both groups think it promotes their own interest.

[Andromeda]

28. Gee, I just thought someone who hated Jews

was an anti-semite. They just call themselves anti-Zionists because they think that sounds better.

An anti-Zionist can be an anti-semite; in fact, I believe most of the time that's true. Now, this is only my opinion so just take it with a grain of you know what.

[aquart]

5. Another six of one, half a dozen of the other argument.

Why don't you try substituting Republicans and Democrats for those words and see how even-steven you feel about it all?

If you are against Zionists, could you please tell me what that means? What's a Zionist? Why are you against them? I understand it to mean people who believe in the state of Israel. If you don't believe in the state of Israel, what is your position on the people of Israel? You're for them? You want them all dead? You hope you will wake up and they'll all have gone away like a dream?

Define your terms and cut the crap.

[Taxloss]

6. I think you have me wrong.

I consider myself to be a Zionist. It frustrates me when anti-semites get called on their crap and then say "Oh, I guess criticism of Israel isn't allowed". That's mad. The I/P forum is crammed to the corners with criticism of Israel, and support of it. They are using the blurred nature of the line to pretend that rathr than being a bigot they are the victim of censorship - that is why they like the line to be blurred.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Anti-semites aren't the only bigots who do it...

There's also no shortage of anti-Arab/Muslim bigots who when called on their crap will claim that support of Israel isn't allowed. I know you've had some experience of them on another forum which I won't name here :)

Interestingly enough, I also consider myself to be a Zionist. I assume that yr definition of Zionist isn't any different to my own, but I've found that quite a few folk define it as being that anyone who is critical of Israel isn't a Zionist. So when I point out that I'm a Zionist, little shockwaves ripple their way to out of the way corners of the internet, where banned DUers gather and scream at the top of their cyberlungs "NO SHE ISN'T!!!!!"

Back to the article. I found this part of it highlighted the ridiculous nature of the EUMC's working definition of anti-semitism:

"The terrible irony of all this is that, on its current policy platform, the British National party might have few problems with the working definition. During the Lebanon war, for example, Lee Barnes, the BNP's head of legal affairs wrote on the party's website:

As a Nationalist I can say that I support Israel 100% in their dispute with Hizbullah. In fact, I hope they wipe Hizbullah off the Lebanese map and bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood.

So Lee Barnes would pass the EUMC test. By comparison, Jewish anti-Zionists (such as myself) who have been physically attacked by leading members of the BNP and subjected to anti-semitic campaigns could face censure or worse. How have we come to this?"

[Taxloss]

11. The EUMC definition isn't meant to entrap the BNP, it's meant to define anti-semitism.

The relevance of Lee Barnes' remark is hard to see in this case. Not everything a fascist says is anti-semitic, you know. The BNP has, in the past, attempted to court some extremist Zionist groups - they were rewarded with a frosty reaction to say the least, as well as an internal doctrinal row with their own "more traditional" anti-semitic elements. You appear to be under the impression that the British far right has put anti-semitism behind it - it has not. The existence of Israel is convenient to the BNP - it gives them somewhere to send the Jews. By courting Zionist groups, they are ham-fistedly attempting to triangulate what they see as growing anti-Muslim sentiment, and not getting very far. They've also been making overtures to right-wing Christian groups. And, indeed, everyone who they think will listen.

You have been physically attacked by leading members of the BNP? I urge you to pursue the case under British law.

Incidentally, unless you're working from two definitions of Zionism, how can you be both Zionist and anti-Zionist?

As for "another board", as I was telling someone else scant hours ago, you're behind the times, my account there was closed at my request several weeks ago.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. I believe Ms. Crumble makes it clear she was quoting Mr. Arthur Nelsen

This is how Ms. Crumble opens her quote from Mr. Nelsen: "Back to the article. I found this part of it highlighted the ridiculous nature of the EUMC's working definition of anti-semitism:" - link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171954&mesg_id=171965

Mr. Nelsen not Ms. Crumble, reports being attacked by leading members of the BNP. (British National Party)

Mr. Nelsen not Ms. Crumble, describes himself as a a Jewish anti-Zionist.

link:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/arthur_neslen/2007/04/when_an_antisemite_is_not_an_a.html





"

[Taxloss]

13. Well, that explains it. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. as an example of a position that might possibly be called anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic

70.4% of Palestinians in a survey released in February 2007 believed that an ideal settlement would be "a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and responsibilities" -- link: http://neareastconsulting.com/surveys/all/p22/out_freq_q27.php

One might call this idea naive, simplistic, impractical or even contrary to their concept of Jewish "self-determination". However it would be quite a stretch to call it anti-Semitic.

-- Ron Kampeas, Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency discusses the bi-national concept on C-Span 2 with Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada:

link:

http://www.booktv.org/ram/AfterWords/1206/arc_btv121606_4.ram

__________

Also as documented by Yakov M. Rabkin, Orthodox Rabbinical Scholar and Professor of Jewish History at the University of Montreal in his book -- A Threat from Within: A History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism -- until well into the 1920's or perhaps even 1930's the vast majority of Rabbis across the theological spectrum from Orthodox to Ultra-Orthodox to Reform rejected Zionism because in ran contrary to traditional Jewish religious teaching regarding the doctrine of Exile until the return of the Messiah. The prayer, "next year in Jerusalem" was traditionally regarded as prayer for the coming of the Messiah. Millions of religious Jews lived within the Ottoman Empire and and could have migrated to Palestine. But very, very few did. Yet they continually prayed, "next year in Jerusalem" because they were praying for the coming of the Messiah. Operating from that religious perspective they viewed the establishment of the modern Israeli secular state as contrary to the doctrine of Exile and the embrace of a false messiahism.

Now the numbers of that particular from of religious anti-Zionism is down to a few hundred thousand ultra-Orthodox believers. One might consider this religious belief to be outmoded or even backward, but considering it was embraced by the vast majority of pious Jews for centuries and during the early days of modern secular Zionism it would be a stretch to call it anti-Semitic.

Amazon link to Professor Yakov M. Rabkin's book; A Threat from Within: A History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism:

link:

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-History-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776983/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176043621&sr=1-1


.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I'll field those hard-hitting questions...

Having been labelled an anti-zionist, I feel I'm well qualified to answer them...

If you are against Zionists, could you please tell me what that means? What's a Zionist?

Using my trusty ACME Identify-A-Zionist™ gadget for assistance, I can tell you that a Zionist is anyone who cuts me off in peak hour traffic, anyone who steals my favourite carpark in the city, anyone who jumps into a queue in front of me, and anyone who likes Justin Timberlake...

Why are you against them?

Wouldn't you be against anyone who likes Justin Timberlake?

I understand it to mean people who believe in the state of Israel.

No, my understanding is that it's only people who believe Justin Timberlake should tour Israel...


You're for them? You want them all dead? You hope you will wake up and they'll all have gone away like a dream?

No! If they all go away, then who's there left to complain about? The Australian cricket team? The amount of media coverage Ian Thorpe gets? See, the trick is that any anti-zionist worth their salt wakes up every morning, breathes a sigh of relief that they're greeted by yet another day of being able to complain about zionists, then heads off to their local meeting of anti-zionists anonymous, where they loudly and insincerely wish that all those pesky zionists would go away or at least take a few driving lessons in vehicles that eject them if they try to put a Justin Timberlake CD in the player ;)

[Shaktimaan]

14. Hahahaha.

well said.

[papau]

2. Perhaps for some their anti-Zionist comments come from anti-semitism - indeed that was what

I thought I was seeing on the EU university campuses in at least a large minority of those that call themselves anti-Zionists - of course I was not there long - and one should not tar those that protest the occupation with the hate shown by those that just hate.

But if the haters end up getting kicked off UK campuses over this, perhaps the UK will end up with a better quality of intellectual?

[TheBaldyMan]

4. I was thinking of pro-Palestinian groups.

I can see some of those groups, usually far-left, as well as muslim groups being kicked off campus for "anti-Zionist" statements. In other words - expressing solidarity with Palestinians, their cause or condemning their treatment by the Israeli authorities.

Long-standing NUS policy means hate-speech would get you kicked out of NUS property automatically anyway. Groups have received permanent bans for inappropriate behaviour or statements.

btw I don't think anything could lift the quality your average undergraduate dullard at a UK university. They are selected on economic background over academic talent.

[papau]

15. I hope the PA groups are given a pass- as to economic dullards, I went to

MIT which is a few blocks down the street from Harvard and allowed cross-registration. Getting the economic dullard from Harvard in a MIT class in any math/science course always raised everyone else's grade! :-)

But if the class was focused on putting out 25 page papers saying nothing then the poor MIT student was over his head - those folks could know nothing about some liberal arts topic and still do 25 pages by the end of the week that would be great until you tried to write down the points made, or god forbid, the action points for the future that were suggested.

I had Nicky Nicholas as a rarely show up no help on lab reports lab mate once - and the fact that his Uncle had given him a tanker for his 18th birthday - which landed every 90 days somewhere and sent Nicky $250,000 - in 1963 - plus his owning the apartment in Boston, the apartment in Paris and the apartment in New York - plus his mother getting her friends to buy his clay carvings for an extra $10,000 each week, plus, most annoying of all, his constantly getting laid, gave me a very sour attitude toward the super rich.

:-)

[bemildred]

10. This whole argument is tiresome.

Anti-semitism is about hatred of a religion or ethnicity, like hatred of any other race, religion, or ethnicity, all of which are common as dirt. That is, it is a form of cultural bigotry.

I was recently reading Mark Twain on the Jews, whom he is defending, and I was struck by his repetition in defense of them of stereotypes about "financial success" and "cleverness" and so on. Yet he was defending them against the prevalent anti-semitism of his time, and saying that they were worthy members of society and deserved their "success". Would we call him an anti-semite or not? It seems to me you have to look at motives, at what people are really trying to do, to get at the core of it. And from there it becomes clear: if what you dislike is Jews in general, you're an anti-semite, if what you dislike is a political entity, Israel, or AIPAC, or the like, then you're an anti-zionist. It also seems possible, in my observation, to dislike Israelis as a class, while having a more positive view of non-Israeli Jews. You will occasionally see here, as recently, disparagement of Israelis specifically based on their national "characteristics", which I suppose you could call anti-Israelism or something. And of course you can be a bigot, as Twain was, by repeating stereotypes, without hating anyone or intending them any harm.

Of course one can easily be either any one, or some, or none, and still oppose Israeli goverment policies, as Israelis and Jews from all points of the political spectrum do too, for example.

And it is perfectly clear that Israel is a Jewish political entity, but also that it does not encompass all of the Jewish peoples by any means, nor are they all agreed in supporting Israel, although many do.

And one may not hate anyone, and favor this or that political view on grounds not based on emotion at all, or think you do.

Of course there is always the case of the person who has many "black friends" but still supports the institution of slavery, which makes it clear that the issue will always be muddy, and that people will always work hard to fool themselves and keep it muddy, and I think there is nothing you can do about that, there is no reason to expect the human race to improve soon.

Nevertheless, if you want to treat these words as though they have some sort of precise meaning and are not merely name-calling, you have to treat them as meaning what they say, which is along the lines I have outlined here.

[Shaktimaan]

17. But the lines are blurrier than that.

We're seeing a resurgence today of traditional anti-semitic stereotypes being recast as merely "anti-Israel" sentiments. I, for one, have been appalled by some of the anti-semitic overtures present in some protests supposedly about Israel. It really seems like many people don't realize when they've crossed a line or when they're skirting anti-semitism when their motive is meant to be purely political. It's easy once you take a stand against a whole country, even if it is just politics, to begin generalizing about them as a whole. And many times those generalizations tend to *gasp* fit in with old stereotypes. Stuff like "AIPAC controlls congress because politicians need the vast amoiunts of money they get from Jewish doners, thus the entire political system is unjustly influenced by Jews, whose interests don't match those of America."

I don't think someone has to decisively "hate Jews" to be anti-semitic. And I do think that a lot of the criticism we see of Israel is directly tied to the fact that they are a Jewish state. Look at anti-semitic rhetoric and even attacks happening in europe nowadays. It often takes a distinctly anti-zionist flavor. I've even heard people here suggest that the increase in anti-semitism is because of Israel's practices. Now when someone decides to attack someone of the same ethnicity as is prevalent in a country you dislike, even if they are not a member of that country, then that's racism.

And I do think that words like "anti-zionist" can be construed as anti-semitic. Zionism is the belief that Jews have the right to self-determination. How can you be against that and still consider yourself not anti-semitic? How is a sign like "Smash Zionism" not anti-semitic? It's not criticizing Israel's POLICIES, but criticizing Israel's existence. And you hear stuff all the time like, "Zionism is the worst curse to hit the world in a hundred years, etc, etc." Can you imagine if someone said that about Jordan? Or started calling for the dissolution of any state that was the sole state representing a single ethnicity in the world?

I mean, why is there such anger towards Israel in the UN and in leftist circles? Surely not just for their actions which are less oppressive or destructive than a hundred other states today. Why do they have 10 UN resolutions against them compared to none for Darfur? Coincidence?

[bemildred]

18. They are "blurred" deliberately a lot.

For political reasons. If you stick to plain English it's not blurry at all. The problem with political cant and propaganda is that words and language are what we think with, and when you set out to deliberately damage them, after a while you reach the point where you can't think well at all, and you start believing your own bullshit, and then you are really in trouble. This issue happens to be a perfect case, but there are plenty of others.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Care to expand on that?

So then where does the line so obviously lay between criticism of zionism and anti-semitism? Give me an example.

[bemildred]

22. Please refer to post #10.

That's what it is about.

[Shaktimaan]

24. Sooo...

The issue is muddy and always will be, but the line isn't blurred at all?
And "that's what it is about."

Crystal clear now, thanks.
Nice one by the way.

[bemildred]

25. No, that's not it. nt

[TheBaldyMan]

20. going OT slightly your Mark Twain comment reminded me of

a video I saw from the Beyond Belief 2006 conference in particular a talk given by Mahzarin Banaji, a specialist in bias of all kinds. http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/">You can watch/download the talk here, the video (Session 7) is about 350Mb and takes place in the first 1/2 hour.

Prof. Bananji is Richard Clarke Cabot Professor of Social Ethics at Harvard and Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe IAS, and has produced studies human thinking and feeling in social context, particularly how unconscious assessments reflect hidden attitudes about social group membership such as race, gender and class. Her research has implications for theories of individual responsibility and social justice.

It is very thought provoking and IMHO the whole series is fascinating.

edit to add link:
The online test mentioned ast the end of the talk can be taken at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/">Harvard - Implicit association online test

[bemildred]

23. I took the test, which in all candor did not impress me much.

I can see where it elucidates my "values" in some sense, but they aren't mysterious. I suspect the real purpose of the study is kept from the subjects, which is not unreasonable, but I can't be sure.

I'll try to look at the videos later, and comment, some of those people are ones whose opinions I would want to hear.

[bemildred]

26. A perfect example:

Republican presidential hopeful Thompson: Making money part of Jewish tradition

WASHINGTON - Former Wisconsin governor and Republican presidential hopeful Tommy Thompson told Jewish activists Monday that making money is "part of the Jewish tradition," and something that he applauded.

Speaking to an audience at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington D.C., Thompson said that, "I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that."

Thompson later apologized for the comments that had caused a stir in the audience, saying that he had meant it as a compliment, and had only wanted to highlight the "accomplishments" of the Jewish religion.

"I just want to clarify something because I didn't any means want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/849062.html

[Lilith Velkor]

16. I'm anti-innocent people getting killed

That goes for everyone, and if you want to spin it as anti-anything else, that's your problem. (Hypothetical "you," not the OP)

[bemildred]

19. Well said. nt

[Andromeda]

27. I wonder why I never thought of that.

:think: