Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 05:36 PM

Oh, nothing.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 05:09 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 04:57 PM

JH, OK, I won't discuss it with you, then. Since you're not going to reply, I'll say this: I'm right. You aren't. :)

Tedham, if you're going to call me an anti-Semite, come out and say it. Or at least drag out your man-bitch alter-ego Irwin to do it for you. Your little witch-hunts are always amusing.

OK, now for the nice people... :)

. Troll, I don't think we disagree one bit on the FACTS. As I said in my clarification last night, when I used the word "illegal," I wasn't refering to Israel itself, but rather to its occupation and colonisation of non-Israeli land. So... :)

Deda: Well, the Sikhs are the only group on my list who desire a homeland (Well, some Sikhs do, at least), as far as I know. They would like an independent Sikh nation, Khalistan, in Punjab, between India and Pakistan.

My question SHOULD have been: If these ethnic/religious groups DESIRED a homeland (which like I said, none but the Sikhs seem to), would you support it? Say, a Zoroastrian State in Iran, a Roma State in India, etc?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Deda
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 11:34 AM

First, I just want to say that when I don't respond quickly it's not from lack of interest, and I hope it is not from lack of anything to say; it is because I have a day job, and I feel guilty enough about the amount of time I spend reading all these posts.

It seems clear to me that Anti-semitism has always meant the particular animus against Jews -- although when Anwar Sadat was asked whether he was anti-Semitic he said "No -- how could I be anti-Semitic? I am a Semite!" That moment notwithstanding, we need and therefore have coined (Thanks to Wolfgang for the erudite history!) a term for hatred of Jews, because it keeps recurring, historically, again and again. In the mentions on this thread of Tsarist Russia, no one has pointed out the history of pogroms, sometime carried out by Tsarist soldiers who galloped through the shtetls slaughtering families.

Lepus -- Do the Sikhs or the Romas have an original homeland to which they have always aspired to return? Do they have a long, deep, rich and enriching cultural, literary, musical and religious tradition which is locked to that land? I confess to being ignorant of their histories.

I can't help being pro-Israeli. My 25-year-old daughter, a convert to orthodox Judaism, is Israeli, and she is there even now, with my 3-year-old grandson. I am not as virulently zionist as many, and I want constantly to remind her and all of the lyrics, "There, but for fortune, go you, go I, your or I." Surely that corner of the earth cries out for mutual forgiveness, tolerance, amity -- qualities as scarce there as floods in desert.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 11:08 AM

Once again: the important things isn't what to call this kind of hate, but to work to eliminate it, and that is something we all are surely agreed needs to be done.

That's the commonality that matters.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Troll
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 11:03 AM

Good morning, Lepus. It's a beautiful day.
I simply wanted to know what piece of that areas geography you were refering to since my answer would be based on that.
I fail to see how you can say that the Zionists stole " huge portions of it from the natives and set up a "Jewish State" there." when the State of Israel was set up and approved of by a majority vote of the UN. The reasons were complex but stemmed in part at least from the Holocaust and the horror that the world felt because of it. But it goes back even farther than that in gentile Europe. A case in point is the Balfor White Paper in 1917(?) in England where a Jewish homeland in then Palestine was recommended.
Although their travel was severely restricted, Jews from Europe had always traveled to Israel and there had been Jews living in Plaestine ever since the Diaspora so the idea that the land "belonged" to the Arabs is not quite accurate. It passed from Roman hands to Byzantine to the Caliphs to the crusaders to the Turks to the British Empire.
There were always Arabs, Christians and Jews living there with the Arabs always in the majority population-wise but not necessarily in influence.
When the State was declared in 1948, there was already a low-level war going on in Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs were told (by the Syrians and the Egyptians) That they should ignore the offer of the provisional govt. of ben Gurion to stay and be an equal part of the new country. Instead, they should flee to the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan and return when the war was over. It would, they were assured, be a short one, the Jews would be pushed into the sea, etc. They were wrong.
Where am I going with all this?
The point is simply this. I agree that Israel should not be on the West Bank and should build no more settlements there. That should be the Palestinian homeland just as Israel is the Jewish homeland as per the UN vote in 1948. Some restitution should be made to those made homeless by the building of the settlements. I have no arguments with that.
But Israel has a legal right to exist. You may question the reasnos for it's existance but not its legality.
BTW< I think the Kurds should have a homeland. I don't know if the Roma would want one. Perhaps an international passport though how you would regulate it is beyond me. They'd probably settle for being left along.

troll

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 10:58 AM

Kat: Thanks for the links. I have bookmarked them both. I used to subscribe to Liberal Opinion, but somehow, I let my subscription lapse a few years ago.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 10:54 AM

John Hindsill,

You are absolutely correct.

I hate to say it, but I have become convinced, that those people you're referring to have a specific anti-Israel agenda. Also, tragically, in the last number of years, we have often seen plain old fashioned anti-Semitism try for legitimacy masquerading as anti-Zionism.

I make this comment as a long-time and very active member of American Friends of Peace Now, the principal American organization involved in supporting and promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, an organization that has long been in the vanguard of supporting a Palestinian state in the occupied territories.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: John Hindsill
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 10:42 AM

To Lepus and those who seek to 'broaden' the term anti- Semitic: we do not merely disagree, we have no basis for discussion because we do not have a common definition of terms. Your insistance of having your own definition is a form of 'newspeak'. As far as I am concerned this, discussion is over until there is commonality of terms.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 10:11 AM

The term "anti-Semitism," since it was coined in the 19th century, has always specifically referred to the hatred of Jewish people.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 09:54 AM

I knew you hadn't meant to gve that impression, Wolfgang, but I thought I'd better say that, just in case someone might have got the wrong impression. As we all know, there are some very dodgy sites out there in the internet indeed, and sensible people avoid even opening them.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 09:43 AM

McGrath,
No I haven't tried to give that impression and would regret if this impression has resulted.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 07:33 AM

Whatever you call it the priority is to get rid of it.

I've definitely come across thebterm being used to refer to both types on many occasions over the years, typically by Jews protesting against prejudice against Arabs. And the two types of prejudice seem to have a lot in common to me, the cartoons sometimes look quite remarkably similar, and there's the coded language and so forth.

It may be that there has been some drift in the meaning attached to the word in different places.

I think Dr Zogby's article in Sojourner Magazine puts it pretty well -and Sourdough, he doesn't compare the popular culture depiction of Arabs in the USA in the 70s and 8Os with Nazi Germany, but with pre-Nazi Germany. (And he sounds a pretty reputable man - I'd have thought the right word, Sourdough, wouldn't be self-serving, but consistent.)

(And Wolfgang, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that any of the sites I've linked to in this thread are anti-Jewish, but "sites directly supporting the Arab cause. The site McGrath has linked to is a prime example" might give people that impression. So far as I can see Sojourners position is to support Jews and Arabs in Israel and Palestine who are working for reconciliation and peace.)

But as I said earlier, the important things isn't what to call this kind of hate, but to work to eliminate it, and that is something we all are surely agreed needs to be done.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lanfranc
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 05:42 AM

When the Crusaders arrived in the "Holy Land", the first people they came across were dark-complexioned and dressed in a different way to "Christians". So they slaughtered them.

Another case of poor intelligence (in both senses) - the majority of those slaughtered were Christians.

Mankind does not change, alas.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 05:02 AM

VERY interesting entry, Wolfgang. It's good to get a view on the subject from the 'home' of anti-Semitism. ;)

Like I said, I'm for changing the meaning to include all Semites. If this broader definition of 'anti-Semitic' were to become widespread, and the popular definition were switched to 'anti-Judaic,' the use of 'a-s' by unwholesome German politicians and others of their ilk would be neutralised, I think.

But then, no one else really cares about things like this, do they? At least not enough to WHINE about like I do... :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 04:40 AM

It is interesting to trace the history and meaning of 'antisemitism' and who has narrowed and who now tries to broaden the meaning of the term. Let my add that I do not think any of those here using a broader meaning of that term has the motivations I think some of the groups I'm going to mention have. I have looked through 8 almanachs and dictionaries in German and English and have read a long German article that is based upon the arguably best book about 'anitsemitism'

The term 'semit/semitic' has been coined in the German theological/historian literature of the 18th century and has originally designated the offspring of Sem (Shem), a son of Noah. Now the bible is not a very scientific source and therefore the scope of the term was not completely clear from that source. Later it has been adopted by linguists and ethnologists. In some subgroups of these sciences the term 'semitic' had a clearly defined meaning, but the meanings were different from subgroup to subgroup with a common more or less big overlap.

Then the term was used by sociologists from the beginning of the 19th century on. From the middle of 19th century on, the term began to be used by the normal people, first by the more educated. At the same time the term 'Semit' in German was narrowed (less so in science, but in the population) to mean exclusively jews. It was a term that was quickly adopted for several reasons: It had a scientific touch, it had a negative connotation (coming from all that junk 'science' in that time claiming superior and inferior races), and it included jews that had become Christians by faith. Germans could express their hatred of (ethnic and not only by faith) jews at that time by that term and still had the impression that (a part of) science was supportive of their hatred.

When Wilhelm Marr first used the term 'Antisemitismus' in 1879 the narrowing of the meaning of 'Semit' as solely an ethnic jew was completely finished in the population so that the new term only meant 'hatred of jews' from its very beginning. So in old dictionaries of that time we find 'Semit' explained as 'member of several people from...; often only used for jews and 'Antisemit' explained as 'one who hates jews but not other semites'. I even have found the 'jews, but not other semites' bit in a recent English dictionary.

Therefore, though 'semit' at the onset was a broad category narrowed later in vernacular German, the term 'antisemitism' at its onset was clearly and solely used as 'hatred of jews'. The term came from German into other languages (really nothing to be proud of; but still, how glad could we be if we only had given the world the term and not all what followed from it) and of course it meant just what it meant in German, hatred of jews and nothing else. I still have not found a single dictionary or almanach in English with another definition.

After the last war there has been some effort for very different reasons from two very different groups to broaden the meaning of the term to include arabs. First, from the extreme right in Germany (perhaps in other countries as well, I don't know), second from the arabs. These two groups have one thing in common. A part of their agenda is to downplay the uniqueness of the holocaust for their political aims of today.

The term 'Antisemitismus' has understandably a very bad connotation now in Germany. So our extreme right tries to broaden the meaning including arabs in order to gain grist for their mills from a dull, general racist feeling of a part of the population against dark-skinned people from south-east Europe or the middle east. For their agenda the meaning cannot be broad enough, including the now largest minority in Germany, the turks.

The arabs had a different agenda. In their perception, the West has sided too much with Israel in the Israel/Palestine conflict. One of their many efforts to gain sympathy for their cause was to try to broaden the term 'antisemitism' to include arabs in the understandable hope that the very bad connotation of 'antisemitism' should not solely lead to an emotional support for Israel in the West. The idea is that if antisemitism (that is to be avoided at any) is understood as hatred against arabs and jews alike the emotional headstart for Israel originating from the shoah (holocaust) in Western perception is neutralised.

Of course, this shift in meaning has been adopted by those who rather support the Arab view in the Israel/Palestine conflict. So in Germany of today, you have the unlikely coalition (of course not officially) of the extreme right and the extreme to moderate left who try to broaden the term 'Antisemitismus' as a mean of support for the Arab cause. The mildly left, the broad middle and the right excluding the extreme right in today Germany still firmly insist that 'Antisemitismus' should be used as it has been used from the onset.

In a couple of websearches for uncommon uses of the term 'anitsemitism' I have found that the uncommon use is nearly exclusively restricted to Arab sites or sites directly supporting the Arab cause. The site McGrath has linked to is a prime example. The fight for the scope of that term is a part of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It is no wonder that the harshest refutations of a change of meaning come from Jewish sites.

In summary, the term has meant 'hatred of Jews not including other semites' from its very onset and never has meant anything else until very recently. You might complain that the term was not very good when it was coined (like so many other terms aren't), but whoever tries to give it a broader meaning should know that (s)he is not going back to the roots but tries to change the original meaning.

My position: There has been in (German) history particular hatred of the jews and only jews excluding (either at all or in intensity) other Semites. We need a word for that and I think the term antisemitism which has been coined especially for that purpose is still a good fitting term and it should be used today for what is has meant in history from its very onset on. I doubt that you'll find any English dictionary giving this term another meaning, even only as an alternative.

If you look for a general term indicating hatred of coloured people, use 'racist', if you think we need a term for hatred of Arabs and jews together, coin your own term.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 04:01 AM

Here's the American Anthropological Association's statement on race. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 03:56 AM

That sounds like a joke with a nerdy scientific punchline... :)

You know, I'm not sure, though. If there IS another word for it, wouldn't it just be 'race' under a different name? Oh, someone out there knows... :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Sourdough
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 03:47 AM

Lepus Rex:

I have a question for you. I certainly have heard that academics no longer accept the concept of race. This is a thought that came up after World War II and all of the excesses that the subject of race brought up. WHen I wrote that entry, I deated about whter or not to even use the word but given the terms the discussionw as based in, I didn't know what other word to use. What term has been proposed to label large, fairly homogeneous, populations who are genetically linked?

Sourdough

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 03:00 AM

First, Troll, I made a mistake there. In my entry at 20-Sep-01 - 05:21 PM, I WAS talking about the West Bank, etc. when I said "illegal occupation of Palestine." For some reason, (I was probably distracted) I thought you were asking me how I define "Palestine" in your post at 20-Sep-01 - 10:26 PM, and my answer reflected that misunderstanding. So, I see you were bothered by it, and I'm sorry for causing that. :)

But... I don't think that just because "it has been the dream of Jews for two thousand years to return to Jerusalem" that it was OK for the Zionists to steal huge portions of it from the natives and set up a "Jewish State" there. Why should the dreams of the Jews supersede those of the Palestinians? Just because some Middle-Eastern fable tells them they're God's Chosen People? Modern states shouldn't be built on folk-tales and legends, no matter how charming or influential they might be.

Of course, Jews should have every right to immigrate to Israel/Palestine, to live there in peace, and to worship freely. But, I think, there should not be a Jewish State, a Muslim State, or a Christian State in a place as diverse as Palestine.

And... Sourdough. No, there is no "Semitic Race." There's no Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongolioid, etc. races, either. Race, in that sense, is an outdated, discredited concept (though still a popular one). Semites can be what we'd call white, black, and everything in between. But genetically (and linguistically, of course), the Jews are still closely linked to the other Semitic peoples.

Oh, and the kingdom in in what is now Russis that converted to Judaism was the Turkic kingdom of Khazaria. VERY cool subject, if you're interested. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Sourdough
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 01:34 AM

McGrath of Harlow;

Did you notice who the author of the magazine article was. His official position does not mean that he shuold not be believed but oly that one should question his conclusions whihc happen to be self-serving. The self-serving is not meant as a value judgment, just as a statement.

His conclusion that the popular culture of the US depicts Arabs the same way they were depicted in Nazi Germany and in Tsarist Russia. I do not know whether that is the case with RUssia because I can't recall seeing such materials but I question his comparison with Nazi Germany. There Jews were considered officially, by the government, as rats infesting the state. They were depicted as leeches living off the body politic of the Aryan nation. The least physically attractive of them were held up a specimens of their people. The govenment told lies about them. It was a stated policy to encourage their isolation, impoverishment and eventual destruction.

I do agree that Arabs have been treated badly in popular culture, especially in more recent years. They have become an easy symbol, a kind of shorthand for hack writers/producers to draw on. There has been a slow recognition that the Persian Gulf nations have us held by bonds of our addction to oil and I believe that there is an expression of resentment of their power over us. AMerica's power has led us to be regarded with dislike, fear and hatred by some other countries who realize that decisions made in Washington or in American corprate boardrooms have more influence on their lives than do the decisions of their own leaders.

However, there has never been in the United States the kind of concentrated official hatred of Arabs that Zogby is trying to hold up as comparable to what went on in Nazi Germany. I think that kind of over-statement is counter productive but I do agree, vigorously, that encouraging prejudice against any ethnic or cultural group needs has to be opposed by all thinking, fair minded people. I am convinced that a lack of social justice must ultimately breed hatred and rebellion. Just don't stretch the truth for "extra points".

One more thing but on a diofferent topic, although I have never read this anywhere, I don't think Jews are a Semitic people in the sense of race. One reason for the hatred of them that was encouraged by the early Christian church was that there was a fight for souls going on. There were I believe at least for a while, a great deal of conversions to Judiasm going on. I think that there was a kingdom in Russia that mass-converted to Judaism. Certainly, the progenitors of the many blue-eyed, fair skinned Jews of Eastern Europe must have had roots somewhere else than beside the Mediterranean.

Growing up in New Hampshire, I knew a woman, a Polish Jewess, who had been in the Warsaw Ghetto during the battle there. She had gone through the sewers several times carrying jewelry and cash to buy guns and bring them back to the fighters inside the walls. She was ten years old but her blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin gave her an Aryan look. She could pass for a Nordic type as she moved through the armed forces who had pledged loyalty to a man who looked far more semitic than she did.

Sourdough

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Troll
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 01:16 AM

Since the state of Israel was founded by a majority vote of the US, and the Palestinian Arabs were promised a full partnership in the govt. They chose to believe the mullahs of Syria and Egypt that the war would be swift, the Jews would be pushed into the sea, and left for the refugee camps where they have been for 50 years.
What then is your justification for saying the "illegal occupation of Palestine." What international law was broken in setting up the state of Israel.
If you are refering solely to the settlements on the West Bank, then I agree with you. Otherwise, no.
If you refer to the fact that many of the original setlers came from eastern Europe, what's your point? A country has the right to set up whatever immigration policies it chooses.
It has been the dream of Jews for two thousand years to return to Jerusalem. It is, in many ways, integral to the faith. The final prayer at Passover concludes with; "Next year in Jerusalem."
But you say that they are there illegally.
Why? That's all. Why?

troll

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 12:56 AM

Jim Dixon, this might serve as a nice antidote to the conservative enclave, there's even a letter from the Dalai Lama: American Liberal.

Also, if you want a good weekly read of all of the top liberal journalists of our country, subscribe to the The Liberal Opinion. They include Molly Ivins, Marianne Means, and a bunch of others, as well as political cartoonists. I get mine in the mail every Monday morning. They do have some sample pieces and editorial cartoons online, now, I see. And, you can get a sample copy free of charge. Hmmm, I see they still have me listed. Maybe I'd better get re-inspired to write, again.**bg**

BTW, even if it may show my ignorance, this is the first time I have ever heard of "anti-Semitic" meaning anything besides "anti-Judaic/Jewish."

kat

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Sep 01 - 12:29 AM

Ooh, I forgot about this thread...

Well, Deda, religious homelands (like Pakistan and Israel) are anachronisms, I think, and have no place in our modern world. The "'land' of diaspora" is where the majority of the Jews live already, and where the majority will continue to live.

That said, I'd like to see (if I could wave my magic wand, *poof*) a secular, multicultural state in Israel's place, where Jews and Arabs could live happily ever after...

Since I don't have a magic wand, though... Ultimately, Israel as we know it, like all the previous Crusader States, is doomed. The Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians have higher birthrates than the Israeli Jews, and it won't be long before they are the majority within the legally recognised borders of Israel and in the Occupied Territories (even without a 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees). When that happens, Israel will be a "Jewish State" in the same way that Apartheid-era South Africa could have been called a "White State." Hopefully, the natives will be more pleasant to the Israeli Jews than the Israeli Jews were to them. But with Israel's continued terrorism and slow-motion genocide, that's unlikely, I think.

I'm wondering, Deda, since you seem to be pro-Israeli (Maybe I'm wrong): Do you also support an independent Khalistan for the Sikhs, who are twice as numerous as the Jews? How about nations just for the Zoroastrians, Mormons, or Ásatrúar? Or, especially, maybe one for the Roma diaspora? Just a dumb question I like to hear the answer to. :)

And Troll, OK, SPECIFICALLY, I meant 'the modern state of Israel.' :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Troll
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 10:26 PM

Lepus, what piece of geography are you speaking of when you say; "the illegal occupation of Palestine".
It was my impression that Palestine as a political entitity,ceased to exist after the UN vote that created the state of Israel in 1948.
Do you mean the Palestine of the Ottoman Empire, the partitioned Palestine of the British Mandate (Palestine and Trans-Jordan) or the modern state of Israel.
Please try to be more specific

troll

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 07:26 PM

Here's another article from that magazine link I gave above about some people in the Holy Land who are trying to achieve that.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Deda
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 06:57 PM

Thank you, M. Ted, for a knowledgeable and instructive answer. I appreciate it.

Lepus -- anti-Israel and pro-Jewish. Hm. How's your history? Is there any place in this world where the Jewish people belong, by your lights? Or is their only homeland the "land" of diaspora?

I do understand that the same questions can be asked of the dislocated Palestinians, and I think that some way of sharing that tiny stretch of real estate will have to be found.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 05:53 PM

Deda,

France, as you undoubtedly know, is a place that includes many people of many different views. There is a substantial Islamic, African, and Arabic population there (not necessarily the same, but with much overlapping), and their anti-zionist ideas are expressed and heard,, this population is also regarded warily by many, and much discriminated against, even though many, particularly the Algerians, are French citizens. My experience has been that often, people in these communities may(and this seems to some rather paradoxical) be extreme in their opposition to Zionism, but, on a personal level, comfortable with Israelis themselves--There is also in France, a particularly vicious and virulent "intellectual" anti-semitic movement which repeats all of the traditional slurs and stereotypes, but with an academic veneer--despicable and dangerous people, they amount to nothing more or less than vestigal Nazis--

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 05:21 PM

Oh, really, Deda. Being pro-Palestinian is not the same as being anti-Semitic (By 'anti-Semitic,' I'm guessing you mean anti-Judaic). I happen to consider myself pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, but also pro-Jewish. You CAN oppose the illegal occupation of Palestine without wishing harm on the civilian Jewish occupants.

...

And John: I guess we won't agree, then. I'm not ignorant of the history of the term, though. I just think that some words need to be revised when they don't make a damned bit of sense. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 05:13 PM

Pro-Palestinian may indeed be a 'thin synonym' for Anti-Zionist- but need not be for anti-Jewish. They're not necessarily the same thing.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Deda
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 04:49 PM

*And I would suspect that in France today, for example, where you find someone who prejudiced against Jews, they are also going to be prejudiced against Arabs.*

Not on this planet. My 22-year-old son, who has a very Jewish-sounding last name, is in France and was warned that there is a lot of pro-Palestinian feeling in France, which is a thin synonym for anti-semitic, IMHO. (He is near Normandy, where the pro-American feeling is stronger than the pro-Palestinian.) He knocks any ethnic expectations completely out of the park when he takes his guitar into a local Irish pub and joyfully sings Irish songs all night long.

I love France, I speak French, my son is in France, but I also remember with a shudder the collaboration between the Vichy government and the Nazis.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 03:17 PM

The Arab-Americans refer to discrimination against them as Anti-Semitism--as to kinship, the great Maimonides wrote his philosophical works in Arabic, they were translated into Hebrew, but only after about 200 years, if I remember correctly--Mohammed's first official recognition as the Messenger of God, came when he was recognized as the Messiah by the council of Rabbis in the Jewish city of Yathrib--

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 01:03 PM

I'dsay it's more a case of recognising that there are more than one sort of dog. Here's an article I found on the netthat supports the broader use of the term, from which this quote comes:

"...comparing the depiction of Jews in Czarist Russia and pre-Nazi Germany with that of the Arabs in the United States in the 1970s and '80s. In both content and form the treatments given to each were identical. The two most prevalent German and Russian depictions of Jews paralleled the two most common images of the Arabs projected in U.S. cartoons."

But whether anti-semitism is limited to hatred against Jews, or also refers to hatred against Arabs as well is surely secondary.The important thing is to get rid of both types of hatred.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: John Hindsill
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 08:34 AM

Lepus Rex-

Yes, Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic Languages. Yes Arabs and Jews are a Semitic peoples who trace their lineage to a common ancestor, Abraham. That does not negate the fact that the common and historic use of the term Anti-Semite or Anti-Semitic refers to Jews and Judaism. It has been a term so understood until today.

You and others can choose to broaden the term, and you can also call a cat a dog, but it won't make tabby into fido. Some folks broaden the term out of ignorance of history; some for reasons of their own agenda. I believe that the former is the case with my fellow Mudcatters.

Wolfgang - thanks for that link. I really need to use the web more, but I am still much book-bound.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 05:45 AM

Question 16.1: Why is antisemitism used to mean anti-Jewish? Aren't Arabs Semites too?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 05:31 AM

When the Crusaders took Jerusalem they didn't distinguish between Jews and Arabs - they massacred the lot. Hollywood is something else again. But then again my impression is Hollywood on the whole has steered clear of anti-Jewish stereotypes.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 03:51 AM

Oops, "as others have already pointed out" should have read "as you yourself pointed out." I'm tired. Night. ;)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 03:27 AM

Well, JH, you ARE in the same pot. Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Amharic, etc. are all Semitic languages, as other have already pointed out.

When I say 'anti-Semitic,' it's like the title of this thread, applying to the specific Semitic group that is the focus of the anti-Semitism. It doesn't make sense to use such a broad term for just one group of Semitic people. It's like using 'anti-germanic' to single out the Icelanders. Just because the 'anti-Jewish' definition of 'anti-Semitic' is POPULAR doesn't make it correct. :)

I use 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Judaic,' myself.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: John Hindsill
Date: 20 Sep 01 - 02:42 AM

McGrath - Respectfully, I could not disagree with you more. Anti-Semitism has its roots in earliest Christianity (although it wasn't called such), anti-Muslim , or Arab feelings perhaps to the Crusades, wherin each side seems to have called the other 'Infidel.'

Where in European literature does one find a scurilous calumny such as the "Wandering Jew" applied to Arabs? As a matter of fact, I think that Muslims have been much more thought of as exotic, adventuresome and romantic...'The Arabian Nights', 'The Rubaiyat', and Hollywood movies from 'The Sheik' to the Universal epics of the 1940s & '50s.

Only in the last 20 years has Hollywood used Arabs as a whipping boy, having gone through Nazis, Soviets, & Chinese villains as the bad guy du jour. But even then it is made clear that these are fanatical people.

I cannot remember in my 60+ years as a Jewish person ever being lumped into the same pot as an Arab. I don't think you have heard of that happening either, not then and not now.

La Shana Tova (Happy New Year) to all.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 11:33 PM

Frankly, I don't find the article very interesting one way or another. So another conservative columnist is an insensitive jerk. What else is new?

I AM surprised to know that there is a web site that gathers together such a large number of conservative columnists.

Someone please tell me: Is there a similar site that covers all the liberal/progressive columnists? THAT would be a true delight.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: GUEST,no name
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 03:58 PM

If McGrath of Harlow was half as smart as he thinks he is, then the Government of Great Britain, or perhaps the United Nations, would have put him to use in solving all of the world's problems.

However, his greatness is unrecognized and it is only the denizens of the Mudcat Cafe who get to read his sanctimonious, self-righteous, and generally distorted, tracts.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 03:01 PM

Here is an article from that Islam Online site by an American Muslim about the current climate of fear - "Achtung Muslim"

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: kendall
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 02:14 PM

I wonder if mankind will ever evolve to the point of losing his reptilian brain? All hatred is based in fear, and fear is based in the reptilian brain.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 02:07 PM

Debbie Schlussel, the author of this masterpiece of clear thought, in another article at the same site says:

"Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo demanded a U.S. apology for the crimes of slavery and colonialism, which would "recognize the wrong that was committed against Africans and constitute a promise that such an atrocity would never happen again." Sorry, President Obasanjo, but that promise will have to come from you and your fellow African countries, whose inhabitants sold out their brothers and sold them into slavery centuries ago."

She has many other interesting ideas, as well--

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:28 PM

There have been many times when anti-Semitism has taken the form of sneering at Jews and Arabs at the same time, the basic theme being that European Jews were just a sort of Arabs, and both types of Semites were equally alien and suspect.

That would have been more so in the early years of the century, before the Balfour Declaration.

If Arabs were not targeted in Europe, it seems pretty clear that the essential reason was because, up until a few years ago, there weren't very many Arabs in Europe to target.

And I would suspect that in France today, for example, where you find someone who prejudiced against Jews, they are also going to be prejudiced against Arabs.

I'd see the use of the term in this context perfectly justifiable. It also has the effect of encouraging people to recognise the common features in prejudice against and persecution of the two "Semitic peoples".

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 11:42 AM

Thanks, John, I wondered about the truth of the title, too, after reading the article.

BTW, the writer is a woman, everyone.

I found it poorly written with few facts, no cites of proof of her charges and also, it seems she has no clear view of what exactly she feels or means to say.

It is unfortunate that someone who claims to have this kind of contact and experience with Americans of Arab descent should use this time as an excuse to spew blather such as this.

kat

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: John Hindsill
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 10:42 AM

Having read the opinion linked to this thread, and having read of other anti-Arab occurances, I cannot help but wonder about our future. Sure, we are stunned; we are hurt; we are angry...but we must direct those emotions against the actual perpetrators of the evil acts of the 11th. Innocent individuals must be left alone to live their lives.

That said, the title of this thread is misleading and falacious. "Anti-Semitism" refers specifically and solely to "Anti-Jewish". It is a term first used in 19th century Germany as a euphemism for that particular hatred. While it is true that Arabs are a Semitic people, they were not targeted like Jews for many reasons. There are many studies on Anti-Semitism for those who are interested. I commend them to you.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 09:41 AM

True - copy and paste facility seems to have gone awry for once - here's the (modified) text as it was meant to be:

It's insulting for peaceful, tolerant Americans to hear every news anchor and even President Bush call for them not to physically attack Jews. While we've heard trumped up complaints that they've been harassed over the past few days, it's the exact opposite. As an attorney who has successfully represented Jews in civil rights cases, it's my view we've been far too tolerant.

And would anyone see that as acceptible in a situation where synagogues had been fire-bombed and Jewish traders, or people who were thought to be Jewish traders, had been murdered?

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 09:06 AM

No. It's horrible, unreadable grammar. (seriously, I can't even understand the point)

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 08:54 AM

It's insulting for peaceful, tolerant Americans to hear every news anchor and even President Bush call for them not to physically attack Jews been harassed over the past few days, it's the exact opposite. As an attorney who has successfully represented Jewish Americans in civil rights cases, it's my view we've been far too tolerant.

Is there anybody who would defend that?

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 07:33 AM

"As an attorney who has successfully represented Arab-Americans in civil rights cases, it's my view we've been far too tolerant.

Arab-American and Muslim leaders have done everything possible to stand up for known terrorists and hamper law enforcement efforts to keep us safe. They defend the vilification of the West by terrorist groups, even though they live here and benefit greatly from it."

This doesn't sound like racism to me. It sounds like he is making an observation based on a professional experience---and he's talking about the leadership.

There seems to be a national oversensitivity to being called "racist". So much so that we can't even bring ourselves to make observations about verifiable differences without fear of being labeled as racist.

For instance, it isn't "racist" to conclude that an African American is probably a Democrat----more than 95% of them voted that way. If you sold elephant lapel pins it wouldn't be "racist" to avoid a black neighborhood---you would be a realist.

It's a pretty typical American (false) response to say "Oh, really? I didn't notice that the fellow was (black, asian, arab, etc) even when it is the most obvious physical characteristic.

I read the writer as trying to warn us that in his professional experience there are many among the Arab leadership in America who are not our friends, so it might not be in our best interest to confuse ignorance with tolerance.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:49 AM

Well, Murray, it starts out on an entirely different tone, and then turns 180 degrees. Here's the first part of the editorial, just before the part you cited. Makes it hard to figure out exactly what the writer's position is. To my mind, the first part is quite inflammatory and shows a strong ethnic prejudice.
-Joe Offer-

---

Terrorist-enabling neighbors

New York may be Ground Zero for the World Trade Center (WTC) victims, but I live at Ground Zero for those who aid and abet the perpetrators.

Southeastern Michigan is home to the largest concentration of Arabs outside the Middle East. It's insulting for peaceful, tolerant Americans to hear every news anchor and even President Bush call for them not to physically attack Arab-Americans. While we've heard trumped up complaints that they've been harassed over the past few days, it's the exact opposite. As an attorney who has successfully represented Arab-Americans in civil rights cases, it's my view we've been far too tolerant.

Arab-American and Muslim leaders have done everything possible to stand up for known terrorists and hamper law enforcement efforts to keep us safe. They defend the vilification of the West by terrorist groups, even though they live here and benefit greatly from it. And, without question, the terrorists who succeeded last week could not have done so without the help of some of my Arab neighbors. They could not have done so without brazenly exacting our safety from politicians all the way to the White House.

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:17 AM

Sample qote from the article

"To be sure, most Arab- and Muslim-Americans are decent, hard-working, law-abiding Americans who want strong national security. Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University and WND.com Editor in Chief Joseph Farah – who regularly risk their lives to expose terrorism and hatred in the Middle East, as did the late Seifeldin Ashmawy – make me extra proud to be an American. I take pride in patriotic Cleveland Browns fullback, Tarek Saleh, and moderate, tolerant Islamic leader W. Deen Mohammed.

And, besides those who died or were injured and their family and friends, my heart most goes out to the over 250,000 Chaldean- and Assyrian-Americans who live here. A Catholic minority primarily from Iraq, they were persecuted by Saddam Hussein, and now, their numbers are shamelessly claimed by Arab groups with whom they don't identify, for political and financial gain. Chaldeans are among the most patriotic, decent Americans I know. Now, because they have Middle Eastern looks and names, some may be wrongfully blamed."

Inflammatory stuff indeed ...........

Murray

Subject: RE: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Sep 01 - 12:03 AM

Click

Subject: Anti-semitic and inflammatory editorial
From:
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 11:36 PM

There is an editorial today that shocked me in its tone....I will say that I am for stringent security measures, always have been, and I realize that in various circumstances they will impact some more than others and it can't be gotten around. But this went way beyond that and was not only targetting a group in general, but a very specific local group in her home town. If she has specific evidence she needs to go to the FBI. I plan to write the editor... http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debbieschlussel/ds20010918.shtml