Active Now

Element 99
Discussion » Statements » Those who hate and slur Jews and/or Israel and/or Zionism, and then say it's not anti-Semitism, fail to grasp a vital truth and dynamic.

Those who hate and slur Jews and/or Israel and/or Zionism, and then say it's not anti-Semitism, fail to grasp a vital truth and dynamic.

There is a phrase in the Talmud that is central to Jews, Jewish life/community, Israel, and our survival through the centuries as a people against great odds: Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh Bazeh, Hebrew for all of Israel (meaning not just the nation, but the Jewish community in a worldwide sense) is responsible for one another. In other words, Jews living in all nations around the world (community), Judaism (faith/religion), and the nation of Israel (home in an abstract sense for most) are one and the same in solidarity. It is not just a theory but a lived reality. That is why Jews for many generations have valued helping and welcoming strangers, which in turn is why Jews have been heavily involved in social justice causes such as the civil rights movement.

The terms "globalists," "international bankers," and "the corrupt media" all are commonly associated with Jews in the minds of anti-Semites. The notion that Jews control banks and the media is an offensive ethnic stereotype, and it was used by Hitler to justify his attempt to exterminate us. I've even seen it bandied about on here and on Answerbag back in the day, and no matter how many times it was flagged as offensive and hate speech, most site moderators would respond that they didn't think it was offensive.

Thus, anyone who disparages, for example, Israel and its right to survive in the midst of those who would destroy it, actually is disrespecting all of Israel (in the worldwide sense again) and thus Jews and Judaism. And THAT is the very meaning of anti-Semitism.

Posted - November 2, 2018

Responses


  • 32527
    I support Israel and the Jewish people. 
    I criticize globalists, and the media....nothing to do with Jewish people. 
    I do not like George Soros....nothing to do with his Jewish heritage but everything to do with his funding of liberal politicians. I do not believe my criticism of Soros makes me an anti-Semitic. Any more than criticizing a black person makes me a racist. As long as the criticism is based on the actions of the person and not their heritage. 

    I don't believe anyone is above criticism because of their heritage nor should receive any criticism because of it either.

      November 2, 2018 6:52 AM MDT
    5

  • 6098
    I have read this very carefully and cannot find a question in it to respond to so my assumption is you are looking for a response to what you have laid down in this statement.  I think it is quite defensive and looks to extend and broaden the definition of what specifically is anti-Semitism.  Almost as if the more people you can classify as being against you the better your chances for "survival". 

    I would not in any way disparage Israel's survival or the right of any Jewish people to live and practice their faith anywhere.  But you have claimed for yourself not only all ethnic Jews, whether  or not they believe in or practice their faith or even whether or not they consider themselves Jews, all those who reside in Israel, but all citizens of that state whether or not they regard themselves as Jews. When in fact I must see those as three separate entities whether or not they view Israel as their "homeland". 

    I can see where terms such "globalists" and the others you mention may have among certain people referred to Jews but I think to condemn any such terms as anti-Semitic at all times is much too defensive.  They have come to have meaning for many of us which have nothing to do at all with Jewish people or Jewish states.  For one person who posts daily on here "globalism" is simply the alternative, as she sees it, to "nationalism" which she views as narrow and provincial and limited. She means no defense or criticism of Jews. As many of us who are being accused of being "nationalists" also know we must be globalists as well!

    As far as I can see, and I will admit I am not a keen historian or expert on anything, many of the greatest human and civilized ideas of all time have come out of Judaism or have been centered in it. As a Christian I regard that my faith and practice come directly from Judaism. As an American I believe that, through the Jewish faith and religion,  Israel is the only other state which comes closest to our historical notion of freedom and the value and responsibility of the individual person. 

    However must I be labeled an "anti-Semite" if I sometimes object to some of the attitudes and exclusiveness that apparently you see to have been necessary for your survival as a people?   I note that people who help the Jews are classified as "righteous" however that term does not seem to be applied to people who help others of different faiths or nationalities. Which I find to be too exclusive.  My God (which elsewhere you have continued to insist is a "Christian God" rather than the same God as yours as I see it - in other words if I am not a Jew I am not allowed to worship the same God as you! Even though tome God is the same) teaches me to love ALL neighbors as I love myself be they Jewish or whatever.  And the whole notion of  a people living among us having the same rights even if they are not of the same faith comes from the Old Testament as well.  May I not disagree with any course taken by the nation of Israel without being subject to an "anti-Semitic" label?  Or some of the practices which have been used to further Zionism?   As m2c has observed no person or people or historical faith are above criticism because if they were it would simply be like the urban street gang way of looking at things that we are "right" because we are we whereas you are "wrong" because you are not us! Which eschews any kind of morality. 

    Because I am not Jewish (even though by the New Testament I do consider myself as a Jew by "engraftation") I am an outsider and not part of the club which you have made very clear.  But is not necessary to always be letting us all know we are not one of you or part of your club or we don't belong because I would say most of us are very aware of that.  We are outsiders and will always be so.  Yet many of us do not recognize you as "outsiders" nor would we exclude you because of your faith or religious beliefs because we do not see ourselves as essentially separate from you. We see you as making yourselves separate.  All of which - I don't know but you may deem as necessary for your "survival" .   But which lead you to be unnecessarily suspicious and dismissive of people who are not against you at all. 
      November 2, 2018 9:18 AM MDT
    3

  • 13251
    Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I wasn't necessarily looking for responses one way or the other, but, especially in the wake of what happened in Pittsburgh, I felt like laying out these thoughts. It certainly was not meant to be defensive or antagonistic, but you might be surprised at what some folks post that comes across as hateful.
      November 2, 2018 9:56 AM MDT
    2

  • 6098
    Once people start believing that they can't be who or what they want to be because others are who or what they are then they are making those others "the enemy". 
      November 2, 2018 10:10 AM MDT
    1

  • In view of some of the posts on AM since the tragedy in my hometown of Pittsburgh, I think your post is appropriate. I don't listen to people who feel the need to tout their anti semitic or racist views! I would feel exactly the way you do!
      November 2, 2018 10:27 AM MDT
    2

  • 7919
    I'm actually really glad you posted this, Stu, and I hope all comments on it stay above the board because I think this is a discussion that needs to be had. 

    I think it's virtually impossible for anyone from outside a group to understand the culture, beliefs, and attitude the group shares without intensive study, and even then, it's still an outsider's perspective. I will never know what struggles Jewish people face because I haven't faced them. I can say the same about lots of groups. As an admin, I do run into things occasionally where I don't feel I can make a definitive call on whether something is hate speech or racist or whatever, purely because I'm looking at it from the outside. And, it's in cases like that where I either speak to people I know who are part of that group and/or research what's been said about that particular topic by leaders of that group. I try to inform myself as much as possible before making any kind of decision. Sometimes, it's really easy to make a call. Other times, I can spend hours researching something and trying to figure out why someone might find it offensive in the first place. 

    While I recognize your right to feel as you do, what I tend to see more with this concept is that those who mention the zionist movement aren't targeting all Jews. They're unhappy with the actions of a select few. That's what separates it from true antisemitism. In this respect, I can liken it to views on some Muslims. It's socially acceptable (and normal) to express disdain for terrorists, but obviously, not all Muslims are terrorists. You can't denounce the entire faith because some people commit horrific acts. We've seen this with the Catholic faith as well. A small group commit sex crimes. That doesn't make Catholics bad. It makes the people committing crimes bad. I've seen people remark about JWs too. People who leave or are ousted are written off. They can no longer have contact with people still inside. This is a common practice. However, we can attack the practice and not attack the religion and people who belong to it. I happen to live in an area with a lot of people of the LDS faith. Mormons, when they make the news, often do so because specific fundamentalist groups have plural marriages and some still engage in child marriages. Again, this does not make all Mormons bad. I've personally never met a Mormon who thought those actions were ok. I can freely denounce those practices while still respecting my Mormon associates and friends. 

    These are just a few examples. I could keep going all day. 

    The concept you're referencing, I think most would refer to as a conspiracy theory; the question being weather it has any validity to it or not. I don't feel like this is the time or place for that debate. But, I think what does matter is that it does not relate to all Jewish people. It does not attack the Jewish faith as a whole, nor does it attack people who follow the faith. It is purely related to the specific group. 

    While I recognize that you personally identify with all Jewish people, that's what makes the situation more unique. In the examples I gave, individual members of the faith do not associate those traits with their group. They do not associate the actions of a few with their religion, nor see it as a reflection of themselves. In my experience, based on what I've read and people of the Jewish faith whom I've spoken with, remarks about zionism are met with an eyeroll and they move on. They don't see it as reflective of themselves or their community. They do, however, regard it as pure nonsense. 

    By this token, I personally can then associate it with other in-group/ out-group thought processes. We've obviously spent a great deal of time discussing republicans/ conservatives vs democrats/ liberals. I think it's nonsense to target a whole group and blame them for the faults of a few. I also believe that I am not the sum of my party. I can take a critical look at my party leaders and what some do within my party or agree or denounce. What they do is not what I do. What they believe is not always what I believe. When someone makes a party reference and lumps everyone together, I'm behind the keyboard rolling my eyes. It's lame. But, I do not feel personally attacked. 

    And, that's precisely why this is purely a matter of opinion and how one views him/herself; because not everybody responds to those remarks the same way I do. I do hear from members on both sides of the table that they feel personally attacked when someone speaks poorly of a party as a whole. That isn't common, but it does happen. And, I see the same thing reflected in religious disagreements too. 

    I absolutely believe we should practice tolerance and I think hate speech towards groups should not exist, but I don't think these kinds of things are actual hate speech because they don't target the group as a whole. That said, I'm always genuinely interested to hear how other people view it, so I hope this gets more thoughtful answers. 
      November 2, 2018 12:03 PM MDT
    2

  • 13251
    No quarrel with your post in general, JA, with one small exception. I don't believe that comparing Zionists to/with Muslim terrorists and/or Catholic sexual predators is a valid analogy. Not all terrorists are Muslims and not all sexual predators are Catholics, but all Zionists are Jews (with, perhaps, the very rare exception). The land of Israel is sacred to three major world religions. The existence of a strong US-based lobby dedicated to promoting the policies of the Israeli government unsurprisingly generates a counterresponse. And Palestinians have built a national movement over the last five decades, unlike more recently displaced people. These trends shape a legitimate political dynamic.

    But there is plenty of criticism that crosses a line. Jews increasingly feel unwelcome on the left unless they abandon their commitments to Israel. A University of Virginia student reported that some progressive campus groups responded to recent neo-Nazi activity there by calling Jewish students "Zionist baby-killers." At rallies on college campuses, speakers regularly list Zionists in the same category as white supremacists and Nazis. Progressive leaders circulate lists of acceptable Jewish organizations, including only those that do not address Israel or that define themselves as Palestinian solidarity groups. If the left continues to ignore this trend, most of the Jewish community will be pushed out of progressive spaces.

    Despite what some pro-Israel organizations assert (and as you point out), not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Like all nations, Israel has a duty to uphold international human rights laws and to protect the rights of those living under its control. One may protest the closure of the Gaza border and the subsequent humanitarian crisis, the military occupation of Palestinian territories, and Prime Minister Netanyahu's attacks on democracy et al without invoking anti-Semitic tropes. Such policies would be wrong anywhere, whether carried out by Jews or anyone else.

    From a recent piece in The Washington Post, here are some markers to tell the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism:

    Seeing Jews as insidious influencers behind the scenes of world events 

    On the left and the right, anti-Semitism often manifests in a nefarious belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy that wields outsize power. On the right, it’s “globalists” and “elites” who manipulate events. On the left, it’s “Zionists.” The terms may differ, but the fundamental conspiracy theory is the same. For example, after news broke that a private investigative firm made up of former Mossad officers had been digging up dirt on Obama administration officials who helped broker the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran, Columbia University professor Hamid Dabashi tweeted, “Every dirty treacherous ugly and pernicious act happening in the world just wait for a few days and the ugly name of ‘Israel’ will [pop up].” This language parallels the last ad of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, which flashed pictures of George Soros, Lloyd Blankfein and Janet Yellen while warning of a “global power structure” that had damaged the U.S. economy. In another case, when professor Steven Salaita was denied a tenured position at the University of Illinois after a series of anti-Israel tweets, he wrote: “Support for Israel . . . exists in sites of authority, often an omnipresent but invisible accoutrement to swivel chairs, mineral water, and mahogany tables.”

    Also in this category is the theory, popular on the left, that Israeli trainers are to blame for racism and violence against people of color by U.S. police. (Durham, N.C., for instance, recently barred its police department from partnering with the Israeli police or military for training, citing this notion.) This includes insinuations that American Jewish organizations that help send U.S. police officers to Israel for counterterrorism training should be held responsible for the shootings of unarmed people of color. American police have used violence against marginalized people since long before Israel existed. White people have never needed Jews to teach them how to brutalize people of color on American soil. There are reasonable questions to ask about the content of training programs in Israel, but the suggestion — absent supporting evidence — that Jews bear guilt for U.S. police killings merely updates the old anti-Semitic trope that falsely accused Jews of managing the global slave trade .

    Using the word "Zionist" as code for "Jew" or "Israeli" 

    “Zionism” denotes a movement, forged in the late 19th century and evolving ever since, for the existence of a modern Jewish state in the land of Israel. A Zionist, as I define myself, supports one or more of the many variations on this vision, which differ wildly in their political, religious and cultural emphases.

    Critics of Israel sometimes use “Zionist” to assert a global power structure without specifically calling out Jews as its masterminds. After Salaita, the Illinois professor, also lost a position at the American University of Beirut, he wrote, “I was shocked that Zionist pressure could succeed in the Arab World.” The Nation of Islam’s Final Call newspaper asserts that “Zionist pressure ” will not stop Louis Farrakhan from continuing his anti-Semitic pronouncements, which have included calling Jews the “synagogue of Satan.”

    The “Zionist” label attempts to reduce a state full of living, breathing humans to a simplistic political notion. It’s common for Palestinians and their supporters to refer to “Zionist occupation forces” instead of the “Israeli army,” or to the “Zionist entity” instead of “Israel.” At a demonstration I walked by this past week, protesters held signs mourning 70 years of “Israel,” in quotes.

    One may disagree with the decision of the United Nations to recognize Israel decades ago, wish that the state had never come to be or aspire to the establishment of a binational state in its place without necessarily stepping into anti-Semitism. But refusing to call Israel or Israelis by their internationally accepted names denies the very existence of the state and its people’s identities. These coy linguistic tricks are as unacceptable as the right-wing penchant for denying the existence of Palestinians and Palestinian identity.

    Denying Jewish history

    As a means of rejecting the legitimacy of Israel, some stoop to asserting that Jews have no national history there — that they are, in other words, nothing more than European colonizers. For instance, the website Middle East Monitor referred recently to the “alleged Temple” in ancient Jerusalem (the ruins are still there). Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, likewise, resurrected the old canard that today’s Jews descend from Khazar converts in a  recent and much-criticized speech.

    The Jewish connection to Israel goes back millennia. After their expulsion by the Romans in 70 A.D., Jews continued to pray for a return to the land and to observe four fast days each year to mourn the exile. Zionism’s revolution came not in creating a new connection between Jews and the land of Israel, but in suggesting that a return to the land could be achieved through modern political means, rather than by waiting for the messiah.

    Some critics also reduce Judaism to religion, in the mold of Western Christianity, rather than acknowledging our more complex sense of ourselves as a people with a history and an ancestral land, as well as religious and cultural practices. This includes dismissing Zionism as “white supremacy,” as the Chicago Dyke March did last year when its organizers argued that Zionism had no place in an anti-racist movement and that it “represents an ideology that uses legacies of Jewish struggle to justify violence.” Statements like these ignore the fact that, unlike most white people here and elsewhere, Jews have been subject to racially based discrimination — and that more than half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi, meaning their families did not come from Europe. 

    Finally, disregard for Jewish history may take the form of using Nazi imagery to depict Israel or its army. This tactic cynically manipulates the greatest modern trauma of Jewish history to attack us, while minimizing the genocide of 6 million Jews. Israel may be violating its human rights obligations, but is not carrying out a Nazi-style extermination operation.

    Dismissing the humanity of Israelis

    In a conversation about terrorist attacks by Palestinians, one young activist told me, “I can’t judge how other people carry out their liberation movements.” Such lack of concern for Israeli lives is evident in failures to condemn rocket attacks against civilians, in the rejection of the term “terrorist” for anyone who acts against Israelis and in statements blaming Israelis for their own deaths. A movement motivated by concern for human rights requires caring about the dignity, well-being, concerns and self-determination of all people.

    This means opposing the military occupation of the Palestinians, with its attending violence, as well as rejecting terrorism or rocket fire against Israelis. Human Rights Watch, which right-leaning groups often accuse of being anti-Israel, has modeled such an approach by regularly condemning Hamas for launching rockets at Israeli civilians. This approach also means standing with Israeli human rights leaders, who increasingly find themselves the targets of dangerous incitement by the country’s political leaders.

    Assuming that the Israeli government speaks for all Jews

    Rabbis who speak at rallies on domestic issues (the Trump travel ban, police killings, etc.) regularly tell me that audience members shout at them, “What about Palestine?” An explicit disavowal of a connection to Israel shouldn’t be a prerequisite for Jewish involvement in broader social justice issues, as has become the norm on college campuses and in many progressive spaces.

    Imagine assuming that all Americans support President Trump’s policies, or asking Americans to expressly disown their own country before engaging in any international human rights campaigns. Reasonable people may disagree about Israeli policy, about nationalism or about whether the solution to the conflict should involve one state or two. But Jews who care about Israel — many of whom revile Netanyahu and his politics — should not be excluded from progressive spaces based on their answers to such questions. 

    Jews, along with other groups, must fight for human rights, in the United States and abroad. This work means insisting that Israel, like other countries, live up to its human rights commitments. The case can be made without bigotry and hate speech.


     
    This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at November 4, 2018 3:15 PM MST
      November 4, 2018 2:05 PM MST
    3

  • 7919
    I'm not sure it matters that all Zionists are Jews. Again, we're not talking about all Jewish people here, but a select group of them. Let's say, for example, that a news story came to press that a particular group of Jewish people in some obscure rural part of the US was engaging in child marriage. I would assume Jewish leaders throughout the country would be quick to denounce that group. That's the same thing we see across most religions. People of that faith jump up and say, "Those people aren't us! That's not what our religion stands for." We see this time and time again. That's not what we see with people of the Jewish faith and Zionism though. I found this piece particularly interesting: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-why-these-leftist-jews-wanted-to-move-to-israel-1.6513565

    Some are for and some are against. And, I appreciate that the people interviewed in this article were able to elaborate on their thoughts about it. They may not be leaders, but their stories do show a greater picture of the belief system and the divide. At the end of the day, what it still comes down to is that denouncing the beliefs of some is not denouncing the beliefs of all. That piece hits it home; in the words spoken by Jews who felt strongly enough about their faith to move to Israel; many of which do not believe in the Zionist movement. There is a divide, and we can see it in those stories. 

    The article you cited mostly lists smoking guns of hate speech. If someone is referring to Jews as "Zionist baby killers," that's a serious issue; one that should not be tolerated or accepted. That would be something I didn't even have to think twice about as an admin- that would be removed and appropriate actions would be followed. 

    It's the gray areas that are more problematic, such as determining when someone is referring to all Jews or just the Zionist movement. Are they saying something in particular is in line with the Zionist movement, which would arguably be acceptable in many circumstances, or are they essentially saying all Jews are Zionists/ all Jews are bad? The latter would not be acceptable. 

    It's further complicated by the fact that certain people feel strong ties to all Jewish people, and as such, take all remarks about Zionism to be hate speech against their religion. So, while the article you cited does in some ways clarify, it does not assist in any way with those who feel all remarks about Zionism are antisemitic. Nothing will settle that unless all remarks about Zionism are banned, which, in my opinion, is uncalled for.

    Ultimately, each and every remark about Zionists and the Zionist movement has to be examined on its own. The mere mention of Zionism, though it may be offensive to some, is not a smoking gun for antisemitism. Even your article says as much. Finding the line, however, is not so clear-cut. 
      November 4, 2018 3:14 PM MST
    1