UKC

Just heard a guy from Manchester on the news saying that, as a Jew, he felt threatened by the vandalism recently visited on a shop selling Israeli goods. (He said he hadn't ever received any personal abuse for being Jewish). His position was that the UK is sleepwalking into anti-Semitism

I'm not sure what caused the vandals to act, but I suppose the treatment of (formerly) local non-Jewish Arabs would be a factor. The act was apparently anti Israeli, not anti Semitic.

Is being anti-Israeli the same as being anti-Semitic?

In reply to blurty:

Being anti-Israel means you oppose their stance on Palestine. It doesn't carry any justification for violence against individuals or businesses.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that the rise in anti-semitism is directly linked to Israel's actions.

In reply to blurty:

No, they are very different things, however there appears to be a movement within the Jewish community to equate anything anti-israeli to anti-semitism as it is a useful tool for preventing the criticism of israel and it's policies particularly towards Palestinians.

Anyone who has spoken up against Israel in recent years has met a barrage of accusations of anti-semitism which should be rejected by society, but we are all so scared of being labled antisemetic that it seems politians etc can't fall over themselves quickly enough to condem anti israeli comments as anti semetic.

In reply to blurty:


If it is, then the various groups who identify as Jewish and are opposed to the actions of the state of Israel are in a bit of a paradox.

In reply to blurty:

If you're anti-Semitic then it's pretty likely that you are anti-Israeli

Being anti-Israeli doesn't make you anti-Semitic. However that accusation gets used a lot in order to silence criticism of Israel. There's also an issue that a trade boycott of Israel will disproportionally impact Jewish owned businesses.

There is clearly a rise into anti-Semitism in Europe, and Israel is being used an excuse for it. But I do wonder if Israel itself is making Jews more fearful in order to encourage emigration to Israel, which would then result in further land grabs.

There are extremists on all sides who seem determined to escalate the problem and deepen the divisions. Each portrays themselves as victims to justify aggression.

In reply to blurty:


No, one's against the government (and it's supporters) and the other is against a race. Two very different things, though being anti-Israeli quite often gets you tarred with the anti-Semitic brush.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


But also might be the cause of it, people not agreeing with what's happening in Palestine taking protesting too far.

In reply to krikoman:

There are very valid comparisons between apartheid era South Africa and Israel. but I don't remember "white" businesses in London or Paris being attacked in protest.

Israel is an excuse for anti-Semitism, but to say it is the cause of it implies justification. Desecration of Holocaust memorials is anti-Semitic, regardless of the link from the Holocaust to the founding of Israel.

In reply to blurty:

I am certainly against many of the actions of the actions of the Israeli government. I'm not alone, even the President of Israel has expressed some concerns.

I have no issue with Jews, anymore than I have with any other religious folk.

Living in North Manchester, I know quite a few Jewish folk and have had some interesting discussions about Israel, with some wide ranging views expressed. Of course the people I know probably are not representative, with a strong bias towards the liberal and less religious part of the community.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

There was a permanent picket outside the South African embassy in London and it eventually descended into violence. And we boycotted Cape fruit and Barclays bank.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



It think we live in more polarised times, I also seem to think that what Israel was, and continues to do in Gaza is worse than South African apartheid. It's still blockaded and the aid that our and and other governments sent is still not getting through.

A lot of people are very angry about not just what Israel is doing but the inactions of the rest of the world. While I don't condone any anti_Semitism I think a number of acts of protest might well spill over into it. Together with some people wanting to take a more direct approach, probably counter-productive. What could be better than a large number of Jewish protesters going a match against the killing in Gaza?

During the summer protest there were quite a few Jewish groups and individuals on the streets, I also spoke and heard of a number of Jewish people who were too frightened to come on the marches in case they were targeted, as it happened all the Jewish people who were there were thanked and admired for taking a stand.

In reply to blurty:




all of which is, strictly-speaking, true. However if i was Jewish I can well imagine feeling threatened if vandals have smashed up the shop down the road because it sells Israeli oranges. After all this is a world in which a paediatrician's house can be vandalised because "people are worried about perverts,"

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I believe the paediatrician story is an urban myth.

I don't know the shop in question, but targeting Jewish owned businesses with criminal damage, is hardly an effective protest against the Israeli government and is more likely to be motivated by anti-semitism.

There has been a long running protest outside the Dead Sea skin products shop in the Trafford Centre, but that is about boycotting Israeli products which in this case have close links to the Israeli government.

In reply to blurty:

absolutely not! Isreal's actions are a disgrace and i will condemn them whole heartedly. I have absolutely no problem with judaism (well no more than i have with all organised religions...)

In reply to krikoman:


Judaism is a religion not a race. I can become Jewish by converting. I can't become native American (for example) by any similar means. Difficult to take seriously the opinion of someone not understanding such an obvious fact.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Couldn't it be that it being a useful tool may not be the reason why, and that viewing Israel as a safe haven from antisemitism could also be a reason?

Irrespective of what one thinks of the logic of this, I'm thinking about an emotional reason, that's quite often behind what people do and think.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


Actually in the UK being a Jew is a race along with Sikhs.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


I'll not be swayed by your semantics on Semitics.

It's hard to take seriously the opinions who is more interested in being an arse than discussing the issue.

I may well have been wrong, but I was under the impression that being a Jew in the UK was equivalent of being part of a race, either way you knew what I meant but chose not to.

In reply to The New NickB:


Sorry, but I remember it from the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

There were also physical attacks on people named by the Sun Newspaper, which was whipping up hysteria at the time.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I stand corrected.

In reply to blurty:
As someone who is Jewish, British and Israeli - and a climber - I feel obliged to offer my opinion on this issue. I expect of course to be shouted down, as I have been before, by the many bigots on this forum. BTW, the EU had (but removed under very dubious and strange circumstances) a very interesting discussion of this subject http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisem...

- Anti-semitic means hating Jews. I don't think you can get off the hook by claiming it means something else, like all semitic races, whatever that is. Or by arguing that it is not a race but a culture or a religion and therefore it is by definition impossible to be anti-semitic. Or that some of your best friends are....

- It is impossible to prove that those who publicly abuse Israelis are Jew hating, because even in the current climate it is hard to get away with explicit anti-semitism in the UK. (Although in France and Germany it seems that even now you can march with slogans and banners saying Jews should be killed). Anti Israel abuse is I think too often a deniable form of anti-semitism.

- You should not brush away easily people's feeling from inside the Jewish community. In the past it was, for example, common for men to rubbish claims of discrimination against women, for heterosexuals to not care about the fears of gays. So if Jews say they are worried, and you are not Jewish, you should be careful about denying their feelings
.
- Half the Jews in the world live in Israel. This gives an easy opportunity to anti-semites to make public hate speech against Israel and hide behind the current wave of anger against Israel. This is called the 'Galloway Defense'

- Similarly, you cannot hide behind Jewish public figures that offer anti-semitic tropes. Like the EU said, in its examples: 'Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis'. That Noam Chomsky says so doesn't make it true or acceptable.

- If you criticise Israel for its action but are not prepared to equally and publicly criticise other regimes that are much worse (e.g. North Korea, Syria) than you are open to the question: why? Is it perhaps (probably?) because, uniquely, Israel is identified with Jews? This is the UN Human Rights Council form of anti-semitism. As the EU said 'Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.'

- IMHO, language is the best clue. If you substitute the word Jews for the word Israel and then it sounds like Nazi propaganda, then it is anti-semitic, not anti Israel, speech. Try these examples. 'Israel controls US / UK policy through control of the media and its all powerful lobby.' 'Israel caused / invented / exploits the Holocaust'.'Israelis should go back to where they came from' (This last is of course to the Middle East if you are a European, or to Europe if you are in the Middle East!)

In reply to dissonance:


It's still bollocks. Race is to do with genes not choice. Obviously you are as thick as pig-shit so unable to grasp the concept. You have my sympathy.

In reply to krikoman the great:



No it isn't. If you can't see that then you are an idiot (which I think you knew, or at least suspected, anyway).

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


I look forward to you correcting the legislation.
Of course you could always look at why they made the choice they did for Jews and Sikhs. To take Judaism there was a lawsuit a whilst back against one of the Jewish schools about when a convert qualified as being a Jew and hence were covered under the law.


Actually that depends on the exact definition of race you are using.

In reply to MikeTS:

Or is it because our least unrealistic hope of changing things for the better is through the foreign policy of the government that's meant to represent us, and the UK government and its close allies are currently quite a lot more chummy with Israel than they are with North Korea?

In reply to MikeTS:


I am struggling to see the relevance of the EU quote to your examples of North Korea and Syria?

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

You are right that it is a bit of a weird situation wrt practisers of Judaism being considered a "Race" (I mean it seems weird that there are Black and Caucasian Jews that are recognised as the same "race" yet if they were not religious would be considered seperate races), but legally in the UK and across most european states they are recognised as a race, and covered under Racism laws.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/#a03

The relevant bit:
There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs are included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.

In reply to MikeTS:


This is fair enough, semitic peoples is a term that is much wider than just meaning Jewish people, but the common understanding of anti-semitism is anti Jewish.



It also makes it easy for legitimate criticism of Israel to be dismissed as anti-semitism.


Ignoring people within your own community / faith that disagree with you isn't particularly healthy.


This is just bollocks. Who says North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. are not getting the criticism, sanctions, etc.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:


I'm sensing some hostility...

Dissonance was referring to the UK legal definition, and he's correct. You'll also find that being involved in the shoddy application of tarmac, stealing scrap metal and dog fighting also makes you part of an ethnic racial group according to the CPS.

In reply to dissonance:

Just to clarify, pretty much everyone who looks seriously at the race and genetics from either a sociological or a biological point of view agrees that race isn't a genetically defined notion but a socially defined notion that sometimes correlates with measurable genetic indicators. The notion of a race as a distinct biological grouping is basically restricted to a) 19th century racists and b) people who haven't actually read or thought about the issue in much detail and have consequently inherited the concept as defined by 19th century racists.

This has been a public service announcement.

In reply to MikeTS:


How many MPs are "Friends of North Korea" ? (or Syria, or Iran or any other repellent regime you care to name). How much military aid do these regimes get from our principal allies, the USA. Even without going into the history of the Palestine mandate, the Balfour declaration, or Suez War, our government has been complicit in the actions of Israel. As such it is entirely appropriate for us to criticize a country that we have close links with, can possibly influence, and whose actions could draw us into a conflict.

In reply to MikeTS:

I've noticed that people can do this in many areas of life, though, in (for example) being critical of cat owners letting their cats poo in other people's gardens and being less critical of dog owners not clearing up the poo. Obviously, I'm not saying the two are comparable in seriousness, but hopefully you understand my point, that there's not many people who are uniformly un/critical.

I wonder whether anybody has the emotional capacity to care about all that is wrong in the world too...

In reply to MikeTS:

While not being sure how much I like him, George Galloway actually has taken people to task when they've been antisemitic, and given them an ear bashing.

I gather that a Jewish member of a recent Question Time audience went as far as saying so, in his defence.

In reply to The New NickB:

Thank you for replying. The message I am trying to give is that one cannot prove anti-semitism nowadays, in the shadow of the Holocaust, because almost no-one is as overt as the Nazis were. But it seems that hostility to Israel has taken its place. Fair minded people should think very carefully about what is going on in Europe today. For the first time ever, immigration into Israel (mainly from France) is from Western countries. If French people feel safer in Israel, surrounded as is it by Islamic loonies - then what does this say about France? And about British Jews making the same decisions?


OK. But all I said was, criticism of Israel is also an easy entry point for Jew hatred.


I didn't say that. I was saying that Jews can also be anti semitic. Their existence does not prove criticism of Israel cannot be also anti semitic


Checkout the history of the UN Human Rights Council, which is the world's forum. Israel has more condemnation motions than the rest of the world put together. I am not discussing here the record of Israel. But such disproportionate attention to the only Jewish state walks and quacks like anti-semitism.

In reply to Timmd:



I haven't watched all this QT, youtube.com/watch?v=hR7md9bdsQs&

But Galloway seems unable to draw a clear distinction between anti Israel and anti Jewish behaviour

So Galloway is a classic example of how hard it is to know what is going on inside a person's head. Whatever, the term is now the 'Galloway Defense' for those in the business/

In reply to Chris the Tall:

>As such it is entirely appropriate for us to criticize a country that we have close links with, can possibly influence, and whose actions could draw us into a conflict.

This is not the issue here, I think. No problem with legitimate criticism when it is based on geo-political facts, realistic options, etc.
The question is why Israel has been attacked so selectively and viciously when Britain has acted worse or at best similarly in wars (fire bombing Hamburg, invading Iraq)? That is, there are double standards being applied here. Why? Like I said, quacks like anti-semitism.

In reply to MikeTS:

,
)? That is, there are double standards being applied here. Why? Like I said, quacks like anti-semitism.

what makes you think it is antisemitism rather simply anti-Israel/zionism?

In reply to MikeTS:




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

Campaigning against the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden probably constitutes shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted to be honest.

In reply to MikeTS:


It is troubling, although I should have thought the main concern would be being surrounded by Zionist loonies.


Brilliant. So, as long as you disregard Israel's record, the only explanation is anti-semitism.

Alternatively, you could look at it Israel being paid the compliment of being treated like a proper, civilised, first-world country and being held to the standards expected of such a country. Or do you think the UN should just give up on that?

In reply to MikeTS:



It's at 17 minutes odd where somebody says their fellow Jews might not apprecciate what he's going to say, before naming the person who Galloway bawled out for being an antisemite.

I think this makes the term 'Galloway Defence' a bit unfair on George Galloway...

In reply to MikeTS:


There are, sadly, plenty of out and out anti-semites around nowadays.
There are those who mask anti-semitism in anti Israeli statements but then there are those who try to prevent questioning of Israeli actions by claiming anti-semitism.


Difficult to say really.
First of all we can pretty much discount the probability of all out war. After all Israel has nukes which would put most off (ISIS or whatever they are called now as a possible exception).
Then there would be a Nazi style government policy. I think you would need to be fairly deluded to think there is a risk of that in France anytime soon.
So the threat is with individual/small group attacks, most probably Islamic extemists although not discounting some neo nazi types. So would need to evaluate the risk in France vs Israel. I dont know which way that would end up and I suspect few do.
So may say more about peoples perception of risk rather than reality.


How many of those have been followed by actual action? Might be an explanation for why there are a more.
That, unfortunately, the UNHRC isnt screened to only allow countries with something vaguely resembling Human Rights to be members might be another.

To take one of your earlier comments.
Israelis should go back to where they came from' (This last is of course to the Middle East if you are a European

Or indeed if you are Netanyahu given his comments after the Paris attacks about Israel being the home.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Just to be perverse I'm not sure you are right there. It is quite possible to be out there on the racist right wing having a go at 'them yids' whilst also maintaining a regard for the tough stance Israel is taking against 'them arabs'.

Its easy to conflate the two but whilst Israel acts as a neo-fascist oppressor (Binyamin Netanyahu = Benito Mussolini. Discuss?) in its sphere of influence I'd suspect that quite a few nascent racists have a sneaking regard.

In reply to MikeTS:




Or a rogue state that the 'world's forum' condemns. Or are you suggesting that the UN Human Rights Council, which is the world's forum' is anti-semitic?

In reply to blurty:


And, to go back to the OP, the above is an interesting statement.
1. A shop (ownership unspecified) has been vandalised for selling Israeli goods.
2. The Jewish interviewee has never received any personal abuse for being Jewish.
3. He feels threatened and that the UK is sleepwalking into anti-Semitism.

I can understand the concern induced in he Jewish population by the recent Islamic militancy but is there actually an increase in the incidence of anti-semitism in the UK? Or is this a non-story? As the above interview might suggest. Are there stats for the number of mosques attacked VS synagogues VS methodist chapels for example?

In reply to MikeTS:

http://ijsn.net/

What's your take on the International Jewish Anti-zionist Network?

Doesn't there being Jews who aren't behind Israel suggest that there can be honourable reasons why people who aren't Jews could be critical of Israel?

In reply to Timmd:




I answered that when I talked about Noam Chomsky.

In reply to andyathome:


From the Grauniad a few days ago

'The Community Security Trust, a Jewish security charity which runs an incident hotline, recorded 1,168 antisemitic incidents against Britain’s 291,000 Jews in 2014, against 535 in 2013'
That is, more than doubled.

In reply to MikeTS:
Is that on this thread about Chomsky? I can't see it/can't see for looking.

In reply to Timmd:

OK, it was in my original long post. The point being that amazingly even Jews have bigots and idiots.

In reply to MikeTS:

You don't see them as being peaceful people who want the world to live in harmony?

In reply to andyathome:


It's not a beacon of light. It's a very popular committee, since being on it gives you effective immunity against allegations of breaching civil rights. Amongst its members are:

Algeria (2016)
Congo (2017)
Morocco (2016)
Cuba (2016)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2015)
China (2016)
Kazakhstan (2015)
Pakistan (2015)
Qatar (2017)
Saudi Arabia (2016)
United Arab Emirates (2015)
Viet Nam (2016)
Russian Federation (2016)

It's not surprising. In 2014 we're anti-everything more.

We hate bankers, politicians, footballers, celebrities, religions, anti-religion, bankers (again), the press, the police, people who hate, people who hate people who hate, gay people, people who gays, foreigners, people who hate foreigners, etc.

There are very few tolerant people, or at least the Daily Fail would have you believe.

In reply to Timmd:

All of use, including Beauty Queens, want world peace

In reply to MikeTS:

That's a very glib response? I'm asking you seriously.

At the moment it seems like you view people who don't share your viewpoint as either bigots or idiots, from your post about Anti Zionist Jews, at least.

I'm just vaguely surprised you've not put some thought (or don't seem to have at least) into understanding a differing point of view, even one very different to your own.

Surely it must be possible for Jews to be against Israel without being idiots?

In reply to MikeTS:




Any more independent corroboration?

In reply to MikeTS:


Have I understood you correctly: that you regard the Jewish libertarian intellectual, Noam Chomsky – who has received honorary degrees from forty universities around the world, plus the Orwell Award, the Helmholtz Medal, the Eric Fromm Prize, the Sydney Peace Prize and many others, and was voted the 'world's top public intellectual' in a 2005 poll – as an idiot?

In reply to krikoman:


Surely one is against a nation and one is against a religion. I most certainly am anti-jew in the same way that i am anti-christian, anti-islam etc...

I dont consider myself anti semitic although thinking about it, the Jews have an advantage when it comes to anyone who criticises their religion, only to be able to label the critic the unpleasantly sounding anti semite.

Or have i got that wrong?

In reply to MikeTS

Any idea what part of that is criminal behavior because the police are reporting 5% growth?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31287937

"In London, the home of the largest numbers of British Jews and Muslims, police recorded 358 anti-Semitic crimes in 2014 and 611 anti-Muslim crimes."
Not sure how the ovulation compare but that does some disproportionately anti-semitic.

5% vs 100% growth, got to take both numbers with a pinch of salt.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
It's one of the things I've been taught by my parents, that you can dissagree with somebody and their point of view is still valid.

I'm kind of surprised he's calling anti-Zionist Jews idiots.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Guess some Muslims have even more of advantage based on that argument; imagine being labelled an anti shiite, now that does sound unpleasant.

In reply to MikeTS:

So. Your list aside. Is it 'anti-semitic'? Given that its members are elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations is that also anti-semitic?

Ovulation should read population in my post at 1959

In reply to MikeTS:


We have noticed.

In reply to andyathome:

They are not elected. They are nominated by their regional groups who ensure that no vote is needed. The more logical thing would be to put on the committee only those countries like the UK who believe in human rights

In reply to dissonance:


No it's not. Sikhism is a religion that sikhs follow. Sikhs can be from any race on the planet.

In reply to elsewhere:


The question was asked. It got a clear answer. And you deny it. Interesting

In reply to blurty:

Anyway I am going to sign off with this summary

1. Expressions of hatred of Jews does seem to have increased and British Jews are legitimately worried
2. It is not illegitimate to criticise Israel, and much anti Israel behaviour is not driven by anti semitism
3. Many anti-semites are hiding behind an anti Israel position

Bye -

In reply to MikeTS:


Do these count?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/752575598114168/

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we...

In reply to MikeTS:
Can you clarify which question you are refering too and which answer to that question that you think I am denying?

In reply to blurty:

i dont understand why racism cant cover anything anti jew.
why do they need a special term for racism?
surely its more than just religion,as ridiculing a religion cant be a crime.

i do think alot of the hatred is brought on by their own actions in the middle east.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Come now, Gordon; a bigot AND an idiot...

In reply to MikeTS:





What about anti-zionist Jews?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:



Yes I think you might have it wrong, "against the nation" would undoubtedly include some people who disagree with current Israeli process of expansion, settler encouragement and the terrible human rights issues towards the Palestinians.

My issue is with what the Jewish government is visiting on the people of Gaza and the rest of Palestine and the wests complete lack of action.

Their lies about wanting a peaceful solution then bombing built up civilian area for 56 days and the cynical way they try to justify the killing and the expansion.

In reply to MikeTS:



I can imagine they are (which is very sad and unfortunate) the problem is that a lot of people use a wide brush to paint the situation.
A). Anyone that criticises Israel is an anti-Semite.
B). All Jews hate Palestinians.

Also, the whipping up of the fear factor for Jews is very easy to spot if you look at it from a different angle. The French Jews told Bibi where to go when they started singing La Marseillaise when he was telling them all to come to Israel, it was at one a message that they didn't agree with him and they were stronger than a few nutters with guns. It made me very proud and I'm neither French nor Jewish!



Simply NOT true, you need to open your eyes and see this difference because it's this blinkered view which perpetuates the situation. I understand that nobody like criticism and that this also, make people automatically go on the defensive, but you need to separate the two because they are very different.


It might be true the some are, it might also be true that a great many humanitarians are being painted with an anti-Semitic brush to suit the propaganda of the Israeli government.

In reply to krikoman:

My partner, in laws & many friends are French jews. They all though Bibi was shit stirring & that his comments were mostly addressed to an audience back in Israel rather than in France. Its not the first time he's made such remarks & each time it seems to be for potential political gains with the right wing back in Israel

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


To you and Tim.
I was making two generalisations. That it is possible for people to be smart In their intellectual specialty but not smart when it comes to other matters. And that the existence of jews who are anti Semitic and or anti israel neither strengthens or weakens the anti Semitic or anti israel arguments. Chomsky happens to be an example that links these two. Clearer I hope.

In reply to MikeTS:



That a jew can be anti-Israel (or, at least, anti-Israeli government) I don't doubt but I admit I'm struggling a bit with the concept of antisemitic jews.

In any event, even if by some tortured logic you think it's theoretically possible, that isn't the same as showing that Chomsky is anti-semitic.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Maybe the example of Chomsky does not resonate with you as it does for me, and a discussion of him was not central to my point. But while I'm here, some quotes which suggest that he could be anti-semitic and that he is apparently opposed to 'Western' values.

On Democracy and Civil rights

— Maoist China
“But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable... a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry...”
(Alexander Klein, ed., Dissent, Power and Confrontation [McGraw-Hill, 1971], pp. 117-8)

— Stalinist North Vietnam
“I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments... Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will.”
(Radio Hanoi, April 14, 1970)

— Pol Pot’s Cambodia
“the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives. It is striking that the crucial facts rarely appear in the chorus of condemnations.”
(After the Cataclysm [South End Press, 1979], p. 160)

“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”
(Letter, in Alexander Cockburn, The Golden Age Is In Us [Verso, 1995], pp. 149-151)

On Jews

“The Jewish community here is deeply totalitarian. They do not want democracy, they do not want freedom.”
(Interview, Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought, Summer 1988)

“Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population... privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control.”
(Variant, Scotland, Winter 2002)

“I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust.”
(Quadrant, Australia, October 1981)

On Islam

“for the first time in history the victims are returning the blow to the motherland.” (about 9/11)
(La Jornada, Mexico, September 15, 2001)

“It’s entirely possible that bin Laden’s telling the truth when he says he didn’t know about the [9/11] operation.”
(9-11 [Seven Stories Press, 2001], p. 60)

In reply to MikeTS:



OK, sorry, maybe I confused things with a digression about Chomsky! I'll start again with what I'm trying to say.

1. The role of Public Intellectuals. I prefer a world with a variety of domain experts. For example, if I want to know how to tie two ropes for abseiling I'd consult an Alpine Guide whose life depends on it most days. But I wouldn't consult a boulderer. So on the question of Israel vs Hamas I'd consult Michael Walzer (not personally of course) who has spent a lifetime studying and lecturing about the history and ethics of warfare, and has impeccable liberal credentials. I wouldn't consult Roger Waters although I love Pink Floyd's music
2. The question of the group/racial identity of a protest leader. I would argue that it makes no difference: an issue is right or wrong on its merits. For example, before the World Cup in Korea there were protests from English footballers that Koreans ate dogs That they were English footballers seems to me to make no difference whatsoever about the merits of the case. Nor would it have made any difference if it had been a group of London Korean restauranteurs who supported Arsenal.

In reply to MikeTS:


Try this bloke he's been involved for generations youtube.com/watch?v=ZVBlNiD1XdI&


As for your list above, it's not always useful to pluck the odd quote here and there without any context, I dare say you could pick anyone and make them look a bit daft by doing that.

You seem to regards any mention of Jews or indeed the Israeli government as anti-Semitic which if you can't see through that, then there is little hope.

How would YOU criticise the Israeli government and not make it anti-Semitic or is that just not possible? In which case why are they above criticism?

In reply to krikoman

actually I intended to say the exact opposite, but maybe I was confusing in my syntax!

I agree that legitimate criticism, based on facts and reasonable logic are good. But I suspect, based on seeing incorrect facts and logic at times in this criticism, that there are anti Semites hiding behind it. For example, singling out israel for criticism that is not made of other countries. This is not my observation, it is one of the items that is in the EU discussion I linked to earlier. So if this line of argument is a problem, take it up with the EU working party.

In reply to krikoman


Of course. But chomsky has been consistent in his political writings that he sees western, especially American, society as a disguised form of totalitarianism. And that he has consistently supported brutal revolutionary nationalistic movements. I think these quotes are fair, and I do not think UKC would like his books quoted as a whole on the forum!

If there were only undisputed facts and reasonable logic everybody would have reached the same conclusion and the conflict would probably have never started.

The reality is that conflicts are driven by facts and logic that are disputed.

I think there are plenty of disputed arguments that are legitimate rather than anti-Semitic or otherwise racist.

In reply to MikeTS:



Surely criticism is valid (or not) based upon the content of the criticism, rather than on whether other countries which do similar things are also criticised (or not)? Otherwise, could it not become a way of not acknowledging the content of the criticism?

Take the use of phosphorus being used my the Israeli army, (which burns the lungs I understand, meaning people can suffer/die from it's effects). Whether other countries use it or not, doesn't change the fact that the Israeli army shouldn't have used it when targetting buildings within civilian areas.

Whatever the motive in Israel being criticised, ie antisemitism or sympathy for a percieved underdog, it doesn't change the validity of the content of the criticism, which is what one should be focussing on, I would have thought?

If as a kid I'd pointed to other people doing things they shouldn't when being told off by my Dad, he'd have said 'So what? You still shouldn't be doing it'. It strikes me that international politics involves a certain amount of countries pointing at one another and trying to weasle out of things.

In reply to MikeTS:

Sorry to labour this point but, the singling out doesn't make it any less true. I can see it might be annoying because other stuff is happening elsewhere, but it's still happening. The fact it is happening elsewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped.

The "never mind us, look over there" argument along with the cry of anti-Semitism are the diversionary tactics Israel has used to deflect any criticism of it's actions. Thankfully the success of such tactics has been eroded and people are speaking out regardless.

If you look at the reaction in America over the girl reportedly killed by Jordanian bombing (and their assertions that this couldn't possibly have happened and that ISIS killed her ages ago). You could say what about all the people dying in Syria / Ukraine / etc. She's just one person look at the thousands of others, but that doesn't stop her being dead.


The Israeli government are pushing people off their lands, imprisoning 14 year old girls for throwing stones and keeping Gaza blockaded (these are all facts). So is it anti_Semitic to voice an opinion about it.

In reply to Timmd:

Snap!!!

In reply to krikoman:
I sometimes think the world needs a stern parent figure to go striding about saying 'Nevermind what they're doing, or did ages ago'

In reply to blurty:

The http://bbcwatch.org/2015/02/11/report-of-all-party-inquiry-into-antisemitis... looked at your question (and many others of course)

“The Arab-Israel conflict clearly affects how safe Jews feel in the UK, albeit to varying
degrees, but only one in ten respondents maintained that it has no impact on their feelings
of safety in Britain. Furthermore, almost 80% of respondents said that they have felt blamed by non-Jews, at least occasionally, for the actions of the Israeli Government, purely on the basis of their Jewishness”.

In reply to krikoman:

>So is it anti_Semitic to voice an opinion about it.

I have explained twice before that I am NOT saying that criticising Israel is necessarily anti-semitic. I hope a third time is enough to make that clear.

This thread is about anti-semitism. So I am sticking to that question. And I am suggesting (following the EU's lead) that those people, media, governments and international institutions who single out Israel for criticism are open to that charge. For example, the UK and the USA invaded Iraq without an international mandate (although it did not directly endanger their citizens). They bombed Iraq with advanced weaponry and killed more civilians, and killed a much higher percentage of civilians. But they were not found guilty of crimes by the UN Human Rights Council.

In reply to MikeTS:



I sometimes wonder if it's because of the noble motives behind the creation of Israel in the first place, in wanting to provide a safe place after the horrors of the holocaust, that the international community is now being critical of Israel, but it's pretty easy to understand why you'd think that when you put it like that.

In reply to MikeTS:

Rationality dictates that you must look for the most likely explanation, not the one that best suits your personal motives.

Again and again, you make the illogical leap to Antisemitism as the explanation for e.g. decisions of the UNHRC, or criticism of Israel unaccompanied by a comment on North Korea, or whatever.

Choosing Antisemitism as the explanation - when in fact there are thousands of complex, contributory reasons - suits your personal motives, because it then discredits the criticism of Israel. It is painfully obvious why you choose Antisemitism as the explanation of various criticisms of Israel, and it is absolutely unconvincing.

I am, however, convinced that you have convinced yourself of the validity of this fatuous argument. But you won't convince anyone who doesn't have the same self-serving motive, because the argument is so painfully obviously false.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

No problem. I said 'open to the charge'. Which means I'll listen to other explanations, full or partial..
What the EU (Not me) said

'Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.'

These figure from Wikipedia, with cited references.

Iraq. Source: Iraq Body Count, a United Kingdom-based organization. Figures: From 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013, of 174,000 casualties 39,900 were combatants i.e. civilian casualties were 77% of those killed

Gaza. 2008/9. Source: figures are those published by the IDF, essentially corroborated by Hamas. Figures: 709 militants out of a total of 1,161 Gaza fatalities, with another 162 whose status could not be confirmed i.e. civilian casualties were 39% of those killed

So:
1. The Coalition caused about 40 times as many civilian deaths
2. The Coalition was twice as likely to cause civilian deaths

I would be interested in your explanation as to why the UK and USA, whose record of killing civilians was terrible, was not taken to task by the UNHRC - and Israel for its war was.

In reply to MikeTS:


To apply a double standard, you have to have *the same* situation treated in two different ways. While drawing parallels seems like a favourite sport, it doesn't provide compelling arguments because very few conflicts are similar enough to compare.


I think one would have to know an awful lot about the internal workings of the UNHRC to come up with a compelling explanation. To begin with, I would say that the motive and history of the conflict in question will affect the judgment, as will the ramifications of criticism. I'm not defending these as fair, I'm just guessing at what the factors in the mix might be. I don't imagine for a moment that such an organisation is able to take a "god's eye view" and make judgments that are consistent and fair, representing an objective set of values applied equally to every situation it considers. That is a ludicrously idealistic view. But I see absolutely no reason, given the thousands of factors one could point to to explain the apparent inconsistency, to invoke antisemitism. It's just obviously reaching for a simplistic and silly explanation that suits your personal motives.

In reply to MikeTS:


Apart from if you check those references they are comparing apples and pears.
The Iraqi body count includes not just those caused by coalition forces but those by insurgents, sectarian violence and even increased crime due to the breakdown in law and order.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So, I see you backed out and resorted to an 'ad hominem' argument.

In reply to MikeTS:

No.

In reply to dissonance:


From a moral point of view, which is where the UNHRC is supposed to come from, failure to protect or anticipate consequences was a major basis of their complaint against Israel. So it should apply equally well to the war in Iraq. I think that nothing's the same, but these are very close comparisons.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Have we resorted to this?

Yes.

In reply to MikeTS:

I've said that there isn't a single, simple explanation for the apparent inconsistency but probably a huge number of contributing factors, and suggested a couple. I've said that the implicit expectation that the UNHRC makes judgments against some consistent set of values is unrealistic. And I've re-stated my original position that invoking anitsemitism as the explanation is without rational justification and clearly motivated by your personal desire to discredit criticism.

So, no.

It's absolutely clear that the fictitious antisemitism you see in those that criticise and condemn Israel is a pretty fundamental part of your world view. The world doesn't make sense to you without it. I'm not going to persuade you out of that position. I'm only saying to you that to everyone else, who doesn't share your motives, can see that what you believe is utterly false and can see why you've constructed that view and why you cling to it in the face of rationality.

In reply to MikeTS:

Even assuming this were true, I'll repeat the point that I and Timmd raised earlier: could this not be because Israel is regarded as a proper, civilised, first-world country and moreover one with a history that one would thought would have motivated it to uphold the highest moral standards?

Actually, I think Israel gets cut a lot of slack, especially by the US. One might wonder quite why this is, I wouldn't dare to speculate, but far from being held to a higher standard, it gets away with murder. If you were being hypersensitive, you might even find this rather patronising.

You'll get no arguments from me that the USA and UK shouldn't be held to a similar standard.

In reply to MikeTS:



You cite the EU as if it were a monolith. Shame then, about these pesky EU 'Leftists' . Presumably they are antisemitic.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Leftists-in-European-Parliament-...

In reply to MikeTS:
The Iraq war has been very widely criticised. However defenders of it don't immediately claim anti Christian attitudes in the critics. You might do well to avoid the knee jerk antisemitism claims - they just make you look paranoid. Israel's critics are (at least in the West) critical of its behaviour, not its citizens' religion.

In reply to blurty:

Just to revert to the OP (unusual I know!) I can perfectly understand that a Jew living in UK feels a heightened sense of threat. The actions of Israel coupled with the perceived threat from 'militant Islam' will do that. I'm not sure that that sense of threat is grounded in reality. Actual attacks on Jews or Jewish property in UK? (apart from the National Front, of course!)

I equally understand the threat that some of my Muslim friends feel as a result of the actions of IS and associated bodies.

In reply to andyathome:


Well of course you can - that was the point of you sharing your fantasy about blowing them up with an RPG wasn't it?

That would make people feel a heightened sense of threat for sure.

In reply to winhill:

Bloody hell. Is there an echo in these forums?

In reply to MikeTS:


I think those figure from the IDF are a bit on sided, but I digress.

While I'm not defending the UK and US, there is another major difference with what happened in Gaza last year. The people weren't trapped in the confines of the country by the people bombing them, the Gazans had nowhere to go and accept whatever Israel threw at them.

There is also the small problem of how Israel portrays itself to the outside world as the only shine beacon of democracy, civilisation and culture in a sea of murderers and thieves. when in fact the democracy if for the Jewish people and not the Palestinians, the laws do not relate equally to both people and Israel tells such blatant lies and expects us to believe them.

During the Gaza bombing they were telling us that most of the casualties were Hamas fighters, they also deny , using phosphorus and flechette bombs and having nuclear weapons. so it's not difficult to understand why people dislike the Israeli government.

In reply to MikeTS:

No they arent. Its simply nuts to claim this.
For them to be similar you would need to include all the equivalent deaths in the Israeli figures. So thats all the militant infighting as well as general crime. Lets see those figures.

Also lets look at how effective those motions have been against Israel. Could it be that since every one gets ignored they appear next time round in similar format?

Whereas if we look at the UK the likelihood of a similar action to Iraq has been greatly reduced. See for example the restrictions of what Cameron could do militarily since he got outvoted.

In reply to blurty:

Obviously no, but I think that sets up a fairly unfair set of criteria from which to judge the man's position from. I would believe him when he says that he felt threatened because it is impossible for him to know the disposition of those involved.

How about an example of anti-israel protest which is clearly not anti-semtic for contrast. Do you think the man would have responded in the same way in this case?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/30/activists-arms-factory-acquitt...

edit:

also this is happening

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-drone-maker-elbi...

In reply to blurty:

Many Jews don't have the confidence the posters here express that anti-semitism and anti Israeli are always distinct things.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/geoffreyalderman/2015/02/israel-has-become-a-l...

In reply to MikeTS:



they might not ALWAYS be distinct things, but that doesn't make it true in all or indeed most cases.

I think it's pretty much a given that an anti-Semite is going to be anti-Israeli, but you seem to keep asserting that being anti-Israeli is being anti-Semitic or at least it is sometimes, as if people don't know their own minds.

And it also doesn't follow that because some Jews are in fear of the anti-Israeli protests, that this also, then becomes anti-Semitic.

Yo seem to be saying,"Well it's not very nice and I don't like it and some people are scrared therefore, it's anti-Semitic". This simply isn't true.

In reply to /tmp:








Yeah! good on them, the company refused to go to court, because they would have had to expose themselves to investigation, which might have shown how they were breaking the law. Scumbags making money from killing kids!!

In reply to MikeTS:


I've not parsed every sentence in this thread but I haven't noticed the posters saying anti-semitism and anti-Israeli are always distinct.

In reply to elsewhere:


You would also have problems finding anyone apart from me suggesting that anti-semitism might possibly be a cause sometimes of anti-Israel expression!

In reply to MikeTS:
Only a fool or a bigot would think that "anti-semitism and anti Israeli are always distinct things" so the statement
"Many Jews don't have the confidence the posters here express that anti-semitism and anti Israeli are always distinct things." is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Sorry to be so pedantic, but "always" in that context is silly and "might possibly be a cause" is sensible.

In reply to krikoman:
>you seem to keep asserting that being anti-Israeli is being anti-Semitic or at least it is sometimes, as if people don't know their own minds.

1. I have three times already on this thread said that sometimes being anti-Israel is legitimate criticism. If it helps you, I'll post criticism of Israeli government policy to demonstrate it.

2. People of course know their own minds. But since explicit anti-semitism is outlawed, there is no way you can be sure about motives for public anti-Israeli statements. Which is why, right from the beginning of this thread, I used the best formulation (the EU's discussion paper) I know to help analyse anti-semitic tropes in anti-Israeli positions.

3. Jews are genuinely scared in Europe. They are scared of neo-Nazi parties. They are scared of Islamic anti-semitism, which now in Europe is deadly. And they look to the classic source of protection , from minority-protecting liberals, and do not often find it. Rather what they see is a European left marching and shouting 'we are all Hamas now.' Think about it. It makes no logical sense to consider Israel as an 'insurance policy'. Israel is almost surrounded by Jew hating Islamic fanatics. What Jews are looking for are places like Israel that will explicitly guarantee a future for Jews. And they do not seem to be in Europe!

In reply to elsewhere:

I think, but am not sure, that you agree with my reformulation. I probably overstated it before. I suppose I am puzzled that there seem to be some posters here (and a lot of people outside of this discussion) who seem unable to entertain the rather mild position (check back to what I actually said) that anti-Israeli sentiment can be (although not necessarily is) driven by anti-semitism. Which was of course the question posed by the OP.

This argument is perhaps better put by someone I know who studies this stuff.

http://fathomjournal.org/anti-judaism-anti-zionism-antisemitism/

In reply to MikeTS:
.


What would you expect to see? Bearing in mind the existence of various anti religious hatred laws, anti racist laws, anti terrorism laws, extensive intelligence operations etc.

In reply to MikeTS:
We are in agreement on that reformulation.

At that point I hope you don't mind if I add something else.

In another thread you said you may have met the guy murdered at the Synagogue in Copenhagan.
If you did know him, please accept my condolences. It must have been an honour to have known him however briefly.

In reply to elsewhere:



Thank you. The important thing is that this does not happen again

In reply to MG:



The classic conversation between two Jews is:

'Don't worry, it's not Krystallnacht.'

'It wasn't Krystallnacht until it was Krystallnacht'

In reply to MikeTS:

So what do you expect that isn't happening?

(And do you honestly think comparisons with Kristalnacht are even vaguely valid?)

In reply to MikeTS:


Some Jews, surely not all.

My main argument is that of quantity, while I of course agree some people will criticise Israel as a from of anti-Jewsish protest, I'm not sure the numbers are significant in relation to the people protesting against Israel because it does bad shit. You on the other hand seem to be making out the opposite that the majority of anti-Israeli protesters are just protesting because they can't openly protest against Jews.

I see you point I just think people are protesting against the in humanity show to other people by a supposedly shining beacon of democracy.

In reply to MikeTS:


I've never seen anyone on the European left shouting 'we are all Hamas now', though I dare say it might have happened at some point. And what do you mean by 'Israel is almost surrouned by Jew hating Islamic fanatics'?

In reply to krikoman:


In my social context, 100% of those who are anti-Israeli (or who believe that Israeli policy towards Palestine is abhorrent and that the Israeli government is fundamentally dishonest) are not antisemitic. They include both my parents, one of whom is Jewish, and friends, two of whom are/was in a LTR to a jew; and none of whom would entertain any form of racism - if they did, they wouldn't be my friends. I think if you went on 'Free Palestine' protest you would obviously encounter a lot of Muslims, and I would expect to find a fair amount of antisemitism in that crowd. They're religious people, they don't think clearly and they are likely to have a strong racial and religious identity that could bring in far muddier, emotional and potentially toxic racist element to their views on Palestine. Outside the Muslim community, I would have thought that the very tiny number of antisemites in the UK, as far-right racist nutters, would equally hate the Palestinians - probably more so for being brown.

While the issue of rising antisemitism is serious, and it is related to Israeli policy from the Muslim perspective, the criticism of Israel by the left-leaning public like many readers of this forum has nothing to do with race and everything to do with policy. This is entirely obvious. I also think we'd need some good evidence before take seriously the allegation that those Jews suffering antisemitic abuse don't have the full support of everyone who criticises Israel on political grounds.

In reply to Jon Stewart: It was only a matter of time before you wheeled that one out. God you are a bore.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


As very racist remark I can't believe you ink this is acceptable!! "they don't think clearly" FFS!!

As I've said a number of times there was no animosity towards any of the Jews who were there at the protests, they were seen, quite rightly, as a powerful ally and I say nothing but people (even not clear thinking Muslims) shaking their hands and thanking them for coming.

In reply to krikoman:



Maybe so but the attack on Starbucks puzzled many.

In reply to MG:


I don't think you got the point, although those with a more intimate knowledge of Jewish history probably would.
Before Kristalnacht there was anti-semitism but German Jews thought they had a future. After, it was too late. So the point is: you don't know when it's too late until it's too late.
The question for Jews is (and they have several thousands years of experience of this question): is there a future as a distinct minority? Are anti-semitic attacks going to get worse in Europe? Are governments going to make the hard decisions needed to defend Jews? If you're Jewish, these are real questions.
I had a Jewish friend whose father had a family policy: always there would be a house, a bank account and an adult family member overseas who could rescue them if needed.

In reply to nastyned:


In South Lebanon, Hezbullah. Next to Golan heights, Hezbullah, Iran, and ISIS. In Sinai, an ISIS affiliate. In Gaza, Hamas.

In reply to nastyned:


Not hard to find. So we agree it happened

Here is (an admittedly partisan description) of the London demo. Including a clip of exactly this

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/07/26/we-are-all-hamas-sick-london-pro...

Here from 2009

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/18/hamas-palestine-israel...

Picture here from Oxford University

https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/oxford-university-palestin...

In reply to MikeTS:

For the third time what exactly do you think should be done that currently isn't?

In reply to MG:

Well this thread is me vs everyone else, so please take a ticket!

For one, be much tougher on hate speech, especially by public figures. For example, Baroness Jenny Tonge’s claim that Israel only provided a field hospital to Haiti in order to steal human organs for sale on the black market.
For a second, more and better physical security, learning from overseas. The Danish police were too far away and discrete, the intention being not to worry passers by. In Turkey entry to the main synagogue is through an 'air lock': once inside the first locked door you are checked out remotely and if OK the inner door is unlocked for you
A third, controversially, make it harder for Muslim clergy to preach fundamentalism, and to stop funding for them (like the Saudi funding). OK, it's a shift away from free speech, but what can you do?
Fourth, for the authorities to make it clear that they are on the side of peaceful ethnic communities and will come down heavily on communities who want to kill or encourage killing.

In reply to krikoman:
i fail to see that saying that religious people don't think clearly is racist. There is no implication in my post that Muslims think any less clearly than Jews or Christians or Hindus.

so no I'm not racist towards Jews by being appalled by Israeli policy, nor am i racist towards Muslims by saying that there is antisemitism within their community relating to their religious identity and disregard for reason.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


>>They're religious people, they don't think clearly and they are likely to have a strong racial and religious identity that could bring in far muddier, emotional and potentially toxic racist....

You're painting with a very wide brush though aren't you?, exactly what we hear is a bad thing or even anti-Semitic thing to do, you can see that, right?

They aren't all religious people though are they? And just because some people are religious doesn't mean that ALL their thoughts are not clear does it?


This is only your assumption, which was wrong on the four or five protests I went on in London.

Instead of they maybe some of them might work better?

In reply to MikeTS:




One nutter ( sorry two -there was one person there with a swastika on a placard - He had a flock of newspaper photographers around him and these pictures were widely published in Israeli Newspapers, with appropriately alarming headlines about Nazism taking over the streets of London). Does not make the whole protest anti-Semitic.

Then they went on to a familiar classic: “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”; a reference to wiping out the State of Israel
Could this not just mean people would like to be free to roam where they like?

Another one from the marches In our thousands, in our millions, we are all Palestinians are you suggesting that the Palestinians want to makes us all like them?
Or is it saying that we're all people together, standing in solidarity against a government doing what they like to innocent people?






Hamas is Hamas, you seen to be suggesting that all Palestinians are Hamas; the Israeli government would like you to think that - then they can kill women and children as terrorists.

That's without getting into the validity of fighting for your own land against an oppressor who is constantly stealing it!!

In reply to Mike Highbury:


You'll have to elaborate, I don't know bout this.

In reply to krikoman:

What I'm saying is that Muslims have an axe to grind, and they apparently derive their moral values from Holy Book that (like most of them) is somewhat ambiguous over whether violence towards non-Muslims is a good or a bad thing. And not just non-Muslims in general either, so I gather...


We're still talking about Muslims here, aren't we?


Well it means that I don't trust them not to mix up opinions about policy, with what their Holy Book might be interpreted as saying about a particular bit of land, with collective historical grievances, with the views of charismatic leaders of their faith... So when it comes to an issue like Palestine, the last people I trust to have a reasonably sensible and objective outlook are the religious. Particularly Jews and Muslims!

I would want to listen to someone who's knowledgeable of the reality but without a whopping great ancient inscripted axe to grind.


It's not an assumption, it's what I pick up from the Medhi Houssains, Warsis etc who appear on Question Time:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/anti-semitism-british-muslim-co...
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/106129/minister-warns-against-muslim-anti...


Not really. The words I used were "within the community", "in that crowd". I didn't say that all Muslims were antisemitic, because that would be a load of crap.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




You said "I think if you went on 'Free Palestine' protest you would obviously encounter a lot of Muslims, and I would expect to find a fair amount of antisemitism in that crowd.

But the links above are not about the protest, with a lot of Muslims

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2014/08/517560.html

These blokes were there every time there was a march and every time they were treated as heroes. Obviously these weren't the only Jews on the protest, but these were the most identifiable.

So I still say your assumption of "that crowd" was wrong, and because it says something somewhere else about something else doesn't make your assumption any more correct.

In reply to krikoman:


I expect a notable proportion of vocally anti-Israeli Muslims to be antisemitic, while those without a religious axe to grind are more likely to have objections to Israeli policy that have no racist motivation. I could be wrong, but voices from the Muslim community commenting more generally suggest otherwise.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You are wrong (about the protests at least) but obviously me saying that isn't going to change your thinking. Best thing you could do is to come to the next one and see for yourself, you never know you might learn more than the protset isn't anti-Semitic. I know I did.

In reply to andyathome:


I think that comparison is a bit unfair.....on Mussolini.

In reply to blurty:




youtube.com/watch?v=hrlUzkd8Z8g&

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I suppose that the risk you run with this is that when a Jew does a sketch like that it's funny but when you link to it to prove a point you just come across as a bit of a nit.

In reply to krikoman:


That's a good idea, but I won't be surveying the Muslims at the march to ascertain what proportion of them hold antisemitic views, just to see who's right!

In reply to Mike Highbury:


That's a strange view, since the link very concisely expresses a response to the OP. Either Jon Stewart (err, not me) makes a good point (and well), or he doesn't. Which is it?

The fact that you might bristle when a non-Jew agrees with Jon Stewart's point really is your problem, which perhaps you'd be better off not highlighting.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Who said I was trying to prove a point?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



If highclimber meant that this thread looks like a load of people shouting at a Jew, then I apologise.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

You clearly didn't get what Jon Stewart (daily show) was trying to get across.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Haha. That was quite amusing actually.

But the question remains: was Jon Stewart making a good point or not? I know you find it impossible to actually articulate an opinion, but give it a bash. Take the clip by itself and the point being made - or how you interpret it. Do you agree with what he's saying or not? What's your opinion?

In reply to krikoman:



Hamas of course is close to the ideology of Islamic State, although its origins are the Muslim Brotherhood rather than Salifism. Like Islamic State it’s a Sunni fundamentalist movement that wants a caliphate. It doesn’t believe in elections (except the single one they won ten years ago). Political opponents are thrown off roofs. Women are second class citizens. Gays get the death sentence. Suspected traitors are summarily executed in public. The few Christians in Gaza are badly persecuted.

But most of all, Hamas is deeply anti-semitic. Its charter http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/document... is a rambling mixture of the Protocols of Zion (Jews rule the world) and Mein Kampf (Jews are racially inferior: apes and pigs are favourite descriptions). And it is this Jew hatred that is driving their constant attacks on Israel. They don’t care or talk about settlements or negotiations about two state. They say clearly that these issues are irrelevant to them. They simply want Jews out of Arab lands. They are a movement that doesn’t want Israel to exist because it is a Jewish state. Pure anti-semitism.

Western liberals seem to want to attribute moral motives to Hamas. Like better civil rights for Arabs in Israel, although Hamas itself believes in imposing Sharia law. Or that Hamas wants to stop settlements, although there haven’t been any in Gaza for ten years – actually their idea of a settlement is any place Jews live in their ‘caliphate’. But what Hamas boasts about, to themselves, to Israelis, and to the world, is how much they want to kill and terrify the Jews of Israel.

I suppose that some westerners who say ‘we are all Hamas now’ may not know they are supporting a violent anti-semitic Islamic fundamentalist organisation, one that wants destroy Israel because Jews live in it. But I suspect many of them do know exactly what they mean.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

>> But the question remains: was Jon Stewart making a good point or not? I know you find it impossible to actually articulate an opinion, but give it a bash. Take the clip by itself and the point being made - or how you interpret it. Do you agree with what he's saying or not? What's your opinion?

...

youtube.com/watch?v=39DNaNAMKAU&

In reply to MikeTS:


A bit like getting their own back then? While not apologising for Hams violence, if you were looking for "freedom fighters" who in the conflict needs to fight for freedom? Who is keeping who blockaded, for 8 years? Is it very difficult to understand why in Gaza Hamas might be seen through different eyes then people in Israel of people in the west. Besides that we have the whole Israeli propaganda machine and our press telling us how bad Hamas is too. This doesn't mean that everyone will understand that point of view.


Like I said I never saw this poster of anyone chanting "we're all Hamas", that doesn't mean it didn't happen obviously. What I am saying , and said above, is that the press will jump on stuff life this, like the poster with the swastika on it; while the rest of the protest is largely ignored these "negative " images get 99% of the publicity.

This is one of the things I learnt by going on the protest ( that what we're fed in the media isn't very close to the reality ), along with most people weren't radicals looking to kill someone and make trouble and that there a Jewish people prepared to put themselves out there and speak up too and that there can be protests about such an emotive and violent act yet the protest itself can still be peaceful.

that people from all walks of life and different views can come together and speak out against something that's so obviously not right.

In reply to krikoman:


Again, you are a claiming a motive that Hamas itself does not ascribe to itself. Freedom, in the way we in the West understand it, is not a concept important to Islamists.

Hamas knows that the import restraints (the blockade is on arms and material for conducting wars only, not on food, medicine, or civilian building material, for example) would be lifted in a moment if they disarmed and joined the negotiation process. Freedom from this blockade or arms and material is actually easily available to them. Their current approach to 'freedom fighting' is bringing disaster upon their own people, which is very sad and tragic.

They are not really fighting for freedom, as you claim. They are fighting to remove Jews from the Middle East, i.e. Israel. Or put another way, their definition of freedom is the elimination of Israel

In reply to MikeTS:

So Islamic people are happy to be subjugated and live under the boot of oppression!!! Is that what you are saying?
that sounds very South African circa. 1970, " The balcks don't want freedom, they like to work on our farms for next to no money".

Get real, how you can expect anybodt to believe this shit is beyond me. EVEN if it was true they they don't care about their freedom, it doesn't absolve Israel's and our complicity in not allowing that freedom.



Just a small example of how wrong you are, In 2009, plain processed hummus was taken off the banned list, but hummus with pine nuts was still off-limits. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/attacks-demonstratos-italy#sthash.6EFt5MTU.dp...

Unless you mean they are free to do what they like, except export hummus with pine nuts.