Why Anti-Zionists Who Say They Aren’t Anti-Semitic Usually Are

[shira]

<snip>

....Ultimately, to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic is to accept the existence of the Jews as long as we are dependent on non-Jews for our very lives. By opposing Jewish self-determination, anti-Zionists demand that Jews return to a diaspora condition in which we are minorities everywhere and are entirely subject to the whims of our temporary hosts. Jewish life before the state of Israel, in much of the world, was characterized by humiliation, subjugation, and massacres whenever such atrocities were in the interests of our host communities, and there is no reason to believe that the same situation would not arise again if we were to return to the pre-Israel global dynamic. Essentially, anti-Zionists who denounce anti-Semitism imply that Jews may live as long as non-Jews permit us to live, but no longer.

To be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic is to accept the existence of the Jews as long as we cannot mobilize politically. It is to say that we can participate as individuals in political systems built by and for non-Jewish populations, but we may not build our own political institutions or represent ourselves. We may vote in French elections, for example, but we may not establish a state in which we are the majority so that our communal needs are consistently met; in France, Jews have legal equality but not basic security. Anti-Zionism thus forever constrains our religion, culture, peoplehood, and safety to the limits that non-Jews set for us......To be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic is to accept the existence of the Jews as long as we know our place. The millennia of Jew-hatred and oppression in Europe have left a deeply engrained conception of Jews as beneath non-Jews, as somehow backward and doomed to exist among and between other, more powerful peoples. Zionism is revolutionary in that it asserts a Jewish claim to equality – Jews will no longer accept an eternally degrading status, but rather will demand to function as a group with the same rights as all others, including representation on the international stage and the ability to choose our own leaders. All revolutions are met with conservative backlash, and in the case of Zionism that opposition includes Jews who are content with a diaspora existence, but that backlash does not make the Jewish claim to equality any less legitimate.....To be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic is to accept the existence of the Jews as long as we fit into the boxes that others have prescribed for us. Jewish identities have long been diverse, some based in religious doctrine and others based in other social, legal, ethical, cultural, or historical codes. Judaism was labeled a “religion” by a Church-dominated Europe. Anti-Zionism tends to enforce the Christian European notion of Jews as constituting solely a religious group in competition with the Church, or the anti-Jewish Enlightenment notion of Jews as constituting solely a religious group in competition with rationality and secularism. It denies Jews the right to decide for ourselves how we identify – more often than not, among other things, as part of a nation.

Finally, to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic is to accept the existence of the Jews in theory but not in practice. As other states across Southwest Asia have disintegrated, groups like Daesh have massacred Shi’a Muslims, Christians, and Kurds of various religious backgrounds (especially Yazidis), while groups like the Iran-backed “Popular Mobilization Units” in Iraq or Hezbollah militants in Syria massacre Sunni Muslims. If the Jewish state were to voluntarily dissolve itself, as seems to be the suggestion of many American and European anti-Zionists, or if it were to merge with other states to become an unstable anarchy of rival groups like Syria, Iraq, or Lebanon, it would be inviting a similar wave of massacres against Jews by those who have promised to destroy us, from Hamas to Daesh and many more. I find it strange that American college students who know what happened when Europe drew borders around countries like Syria still suggest that American and European powers pressure Israel into merging with Palestine. If, as my anti-Zionist peers suggest, Israel were to stop defending its borders and cease to exist as a state, the (approximately) half of the global Jewish population that lives there would be immediately vulnerable.

In theory, one can be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, but that is a more subtle distinction than it is generally assumed to be. One can support the continued existence of the Jewish people without supporting our rights to independence, political mobilization, equality in the global system, or self-definition. One can also value Jewish lives in theory without valuing them in practice. The thin line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism should be constantly critiqued, problematized, and challenged, lest it serve as a rhetorical tool to enable anti-Zionists to obfuscate the disturbing natural conclusions of what they advocate.

http://forward.com/scribe/351099/why-anti-zionists-who-say-they-arent-anti-semitic-usually-are/

[kristopher]

1. As an athiest...

my opinion on religion is not exactly mainstream, but maybe thats why I don't fit the profile in the OP. I deplore many of the policies that Israel has pursued, but next to Buddhism, I consider Judaism to be the most admirable religion I've knowledge of.

It doesn't matter who acts with hatred and disregard for human dignity and life, I disapprove.

[aranthus]

2. It's more than that.

National self determination is a foundational human right. The ability to associate with people who are like you, live like you; who have similar language, customs and ways as you, is a fundamental element of humanity. Denying that right is a denial of an entire people's humanity, even if doing so does not place that people under threat to there existence. And if you are part of that fringe that doesn't believe in nations or states, then you are denying everyone's humanity. And as a Jew, I don't much care if you are hostile to my people because you are in fact hostile to all peoples. It's still antisemitism.

I also disagree that it is theoretically possible to be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic. Except for religious anti-Zionists like Neturei Karta, all anti-Zionism is based on some denial of Jewish national existence.

[shira]

17. Good point. Giving up a nation's sovereignty peacefully is absurd & unheard of.

No nation on the planet would voluntarily give up their sovereignty without either surrendering to tyranny or declaring war. But this is what anti-Zionists advocate - tyranny, war.

[Little Tich]

3. I'm opposed to Zionism because I'm against all forms of nationalism that promote ethnic superiority

of one group over others.

This means that I'm probably against all forms of nationalism, as the promotion of ethnic superiority seems to be a defining feature of nationalism.

Unfortunately, the OP is framing anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in a way that makes it anti-Semitic to be against racism, and I disagree with that. I'm no anti-Semite just because I don't like racism...

[shira]

5. What's racist is actively opposing Jewish nationalism & no other. n/t

[shira]

16. What's racist is that your dissolving of the Jewish state leads to dead Jews.

Last edited Sun Oct 9, 2016, 05:58 AM - Edit history (2)

Jews may live as long as the majority Palestinian population (after RoR) allows Jews to live as a minority in Israel. That hasn't worked out well for Jews in Europe, either before the Holocaust or even now in the 21st century. Newsflash: Jews aren't feeling very safe in Europe these days. Antisemitism is on the rise again. Jews are targets there once again. (Not that anti-zionist racists care or are doing anything about it).

But as bad as Europe is, it's about 100x worse in the Arab middle east. Things haven't worked out well for the minority of Jews in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan....where the number of remaining Jews is now minuscule or zero due to racism & violence against Jews. I'm sure you're aware of this.

So that's what's racist about your views.

You want Jews to live under the whim & mercy of others. Sorry, but the Jews cannot afford to trust anyone (whether Europeans, American, or Palestinian) to protect them. You want to pretend in your delusions that facts & history play absolutely no role in any of this. That Jews have nothing to worry about. But look at Europe's Jews. Look at the few Jews remaining within the rest of the Arab world. That's what you want to consign Jews to. You want to pretend that's okay. That Jews have it good enough in Europe & the Arab world. You declare that this is as good as it gets for Jews. To go back to pre-Holocaust conditions without a state of their own. That they do not deserve to control their destiny, their own homeland. Nope. Never again.

So yeah - your view on RoR is racist. How am I wrong?

[shira]

25. London's Ultra Orthodox Jews run daily gauntlet of anti-Semitic abuse

Local activists say hate crime figures 'tip of iceberg' and abuse rarely gets reported in capital.

Children as young as eight are among the victims subjected to daily physical and verbal abuse within London's ultra Orthodox Jewish (Charedi) communities, according to a month-long study.

According to a survey carried out by Stamford Hill Shomrim, a neighbourhood-watch scheme in north London, there's at least one anti-Semitic attack on identifiable Jewish people every day in the capital, with the victims ranging from young children to mothers with their babies.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/londons-ultra-orthodox-jews-run-daily-gauntlet-anti-semitic-abuse-1585699

Tich,

Is this what you believe Jews deserve worldwide as minorities within the nations they live? This is what Jews risk by losing self-determination & sovereignty in our historical homeland. This is why antizionism is antisemitic in effect, if not in intent. What we now see in London - and it would be 100x worse within an Arab majority Palestine - is good enough for Jews in your view, right? I can tell you from our perspective, knowing the past few thousand years of history, the Jews aren't going back to pre-Holocaust conditions as barely tolerated guests within the nations of the world. Jews won't give up their sovereignty in Israel without a fight - and that's what you're advocating. It's certainly not peace you're proposing WRT a full Palestinian right of return of millions. We face obliteration in Israel with a full RoR. Anyone looking at the rest of the Jew free mideast knows that, where Christians, Bahai, and Yazidis are nearly extinct no thanks to an uncaring world (see Syrian genocide). Jews are hated even more than Christians, Bahai, and Yazidis. This is why antizionism is antisemitic.

You have no answer to this. I imagine the best you have in response is that "justice" requires a full RoR, regardless of the consequences (war, violence, bloodshed). Am I right?

[Little Tich]

26. I don't like the thought of Jewish people having to keep a packed suitcase under their beds, just in

case - it goes against everything I believe in. Nobody should have to feel unsafe in their own country, especially not in a democracy. If the events in the IB Times actually happened (In these times of hasbara, nothing is certain, but it's certainly plausible) as described, then it's just awful and a clear example how a democracy can fail in upholding its core values.

But I don't think that issue should be connected with the right of return for Palestinians. If there wouldn't have been any ethnic cleansing, there would have been a Jewish State as per the 1947 partition plan with a possible Palestinian majority, as those 700.000 Palestinians would've stayed put and they and their descendants would have been Israelis. I don't want to trip you, but you have criticized me for being against the 1947 Partition Plan, which if it would have been implemented may well have resulted in a Jewish State with a Palestinian majority. Or are you suggesting that the removal of 700.000 Palestinians would have happened either way, and perhaps that the idea of a Jewish State was wholly contingent on their removal?

Personally, I have no fear of widespread immigration or immigrants from any country. Perhaps that's why I have difficulties understanding your notion of Palestinians as a threat. I truly believe that people can get along just fine if they want to.

[shira]

27. You don't like the thought but that's the situation you prefer for Israeli Jews.

Israel's Jews would become a minority and you have no reason to fear for their security when western democracies are failing to protect Jewish minorities worldwide?

You refuse to accept reality & history. You have no answers to the Jewish people other than your blind faith that things will just work out. To prove it, tell me honestly what you believe would happen to Jewish settlers who remain in the W.Bank to become Palestinian citizens within a new Palestine. Be honest. Can you describe the situation for these Jews in such a scenario?

Personally, I have no fear of widespread immigration or immigrants from any country. Perhaps that's why I have difficulties understanding your notion of Palestinians as a threat. I truly believe that people can get along just fine if they want to.

You have no fear because you're not Jewish. You're under no threat. And you appear incapable of seeing things from our historical perspective. What's the harm in your acknowledging Jews face security threats as a minority throughout the world? Why the denial on your end?

[Little Tich]

4. Maybe I shouldn't do this, but...

European anti-Semites increasingly playing victim in classic ‘perpetrator inversion,’ says expert
Source: Times of Israel, October 5, 2016

If you thought you noticed increasing Jew-hatred online and in mainstream European media, you were right — and Professor Monika Schwarz-Friesel can quantify that scientifically

JERUSALEM — One of Europe’s most distinguished anti-Semitism researchers, Monika Schwarz-Friesel, has an alarming message: Scientific measures indicate a massive upsurge of Jew-hatred on the internet, as anti-Semitism reestablishes itself as an increasingly visible element in European mainstream discourse.

A psychologist, linguist and professor of cognitive science at the Technical University of Berlin, Schwarz-Friesel is one of the most quoted experts on anti-Semitism in both international academic literature and the German media.

In her numerous publications she analyzes and exposes new manifestations of old anti-Semitic sentiments — disguised though they might be — employing much of the same Jew-hatred that has been shaping European discourse throughout the years, even when officially outlawed.

These analyses are evidence that recent anti-Israeli tropes demonizing the Jewish state are actually work-arounds of old anti-Semitic sentiments that have been with us for two millennia.

Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/european-anti-semites-increasingly-playing-victim-in-classic-perpetrator-inversion-says-expert/

Personally, I (totally) disagree with Schwarz-Friesel, and I find her argumentation somewhat circular, but her arguments are similar to the ones in the OP.

[shira]

6. What do u disagree with? You know what antisemitism is while no one else does? n/t

[Little Tich]

7. The "new" definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticism of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism

is outright dangerous.

By simply assuming that some statements about Israel are anti-Semitic when they're not or it's possible that they're not leads to a horribly flawed conclusion that everything is anti-Semitism. What Schwarz-Friesel is doing amounts to pseudo-science.

Anti-Semitism is a form of racism, nothing more...

[shira]

8. You're a self-appointed expert on racism. Everyone else is dumb...

We've addressed this already many times.
Your definition of racism is flawed and you damned well know it.

I challenge you to defend your take on what constitutes racism.
You up to it, or will you punt once again?

[Little Tich]

9. I don't think that my views on what constitutes racism differs from the average person

or how it's defined by law.

However, I see anti-Semitism as merely a subset of racism, so if something isn't racist in the normal sense, it's not anti-Semitic. Those who argue that anti-Semitism is something other than racism and how it's defined by law don't really have a leg to stand on.

[shira]

10. I used your definition to prove writings from Mondoweiss & Gideon Levy....

....were racist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134132251#post22

I even went with your definition.

For me, racism is about targeting a person or a group due to their ethnicity. Merely criticizing an ideology or a country isn't racism IMHO.

You keep ignoring, deflecting from, or denying racism that you've defined. So much so that you're able to give Gilad fucking Atzmon a pass for his odious Jew baiting.

Why?

[Little Tich]

11. You have only proved to yourself that those writings were racist.

Last edited Sat Oct 8, 2016, 03:30 AM - Edit history (1)

I think that most of your argument is that you don't like Gideon Levy, so therefore he must be an anti-Semite. It would be easier for you if he actually harbored negative sentiments towards Jews instead of just being a vocal critic of Israel's racist policies.

Now, Mondoweiss is problematic, because the site isn't intentionally anti-Semitic, but its use of outside material with little vetting makes it possible for some really dubious material to be posted there. I don't have a good link to any of that dubious material right now, but maybe I'll have a look later. However, you'll have great difficulties proving that Philip Weiss himself is an anti-Semite, simply because he isn't one.

At the same time, if the Jerusalem Post introduced a no-tolerance policy against racism towards Arabs, it would mean an end to them publishing any opinion pieces at all... Or maybe not, as the Jerusalem Post seems to lack a functioning editorial board.

I really wish there was a functioning definition of anti-Semitism out there that everyone could agree on, so that there was an end to the idiotic conflation of Anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel like in the OP.



Edit: Interesting that you should mention Atzmon - his revisionist buddy Topham is in the news: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/antisemites-website-should-be-closed/

[shira]

12. I used your criteria & proved it, but let's compare. Here's Gideon Levy...

It starts from the beginning, as the title is an attack on the Jewish people. Here's Levy claiming Jewish superiority.

Jewish People Are Just That, People, and Far From Chosen
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-people-are-just-that-people-and-far-from-chosen-1.388870

At the basis of Israeli arrogance lies the idea that this really is a special nation with special traits that are shared by no other nation. You can see that among Israeli travelers abroad; you can hear it from anyone who comes into contact with foreigners; you can sense it in the deeper currents of Israeli policy. The Americans are "foolish," the Indians are "primitive," the Germans are "square," the Chinese are "strange," the Scandinavians are "naive," the Italians are "clowns" and the Arabs are ... Arabs. Only we know what's good for us, and not only for us but for the entire world. There is nothing like Israeli ingenuity, there is nothing similar to Jewish intelligence, the Jewish brain invents new ideas for us like no other brain, because we're the best, bro.

Clear genetic superiority. Accusing the Jewish people of unconscionable racism....

...how many Nobel Prizes "we" have won, and where that places us relative to the size of the population. The list of Jewish Nobel laureates throughout the generations is immediately put on display, as though saying that they won because they were Jewish. Every prize that is added to the collection immediately reinforces the idea that it's a matter of clear genetic superiority. That is the other side of racism - on the one hand, trampling the other; on the other, we praise and exalt the "chosen people" above everyone else. Two sides of the same coin: unconscionable racism.

The next one starts with the title as well. Don't let "Israelis" fool you because as you read on, it's clearly an attack on all Jews - all chosen people - certainly not Israel's Arab population. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for acts committed by a single Jewish person or group is straight-up antisemitism, just as it would be accusing the Palestinian people as a whole of being terrorists.

All Israelis Are Guilty of Setting a Palestinian Family on Fire
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.669005

At the end of a terrible day, it is this that leads to the burning of families whom God did not choose. No principle in Israeli society is more destructive, or more dangerous, than this principle. Nor, unfortunately, more common. If you were to examine closely what is concealed beneath the skin of most Israelis, you would find: the chosen people. When that is a fundamental principle, the next torching is only a matter of time.

And then there's the incitement. Calling for or justifying the killing or harming of Jews - like Hamas or Fatah does - is incitement, just as much as it would be if against Palestinians.

For Israelis, There's Terror, and Then There's Terror
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.710588

The second kind, Palestinian terror, is criminal in its methods but justified in its cause. There is no connection between the man who committed suicide in Brussels’ Metro and the youth who stabs Israelis at Damascus Gate. A thousand speeches by Benjamin Netanyahu at AIPAC won’t confuse decent people. Palestinian terror is the resort of those who have no choice, a tool of the weak to gain their more-than-justified goals.

From the first sentence above, Gideon Levy argues Palestinian terror is justified. This isn't merely describing "cause and effect" as you like to portray it. It's not saying the Palestinians are even wrong for believing terror is justified. Levy actually believes it and is making an argument for it!

FFS, what else is needed for the penny to drop here?

It’s true that this kind of terror also hurts innocent people brutally. Its means are similar too. Palestinians attacked planes when Osama Bin Laden was still a business administration student in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, and Palestinian suicide terrorists preceded ISIS. But all this cannot cover up the difference: ISIS’s goals are insane, the Palestinians’ goals are justified.

Again, the Palestinian' goals are justified. How is this not a justification of terror?

What would you say to a Gazan youngster hesitating whether to join the resistance? Is there any point to his life and any chance for his future if he and his colleagues bow their heads submissively before their jailers? Is there anyone, in Israel or the rest of the world, who would remember their existence without the violent resistance that is tagged as terrorism? And their brothers in the West Bank — violence may not have given them any real achievements, but at least it raised their issue and put it on the agenda.

See? Without violence, who would know of the Palestinians? It's justified, Levy is telling you!

Let’s be honest about it: Had the Palestinians not hijacked airplanes in the early '70s, would anyone in the world know about their disaster? Be interested in their fate? True, nothing has been solved since then, but this is despite their desperate resort to terror, not because of it.

That's justification.

Israel has given the Palestinians and the Arab world a fateful lesson — it understands only force. Only force got Israel to return Sinai, only force led it to the Oslo talks, only by force will the Palestinian problem be solved. This force, in the case of people who have no army or air force, is terror.

It's only by force that Israel learns. That's Hamas and Hezbollah's motto.

The first 20 years of occupation, during which there was little terror, passed pleasantly, so it occurred to nobody to give the Palestinians even a few of their rights. Terror put these rights onto the agenda. Because of the first intifada, they reached Oslo.

You getting the picture yet, Tich? Only by terror can the Palestinians achieve their goals. In no way is Levy hinting this is wrong-headed.

The second intifada, which was more savage, brought disaster on them — they lost some of the world’s sympathy and some of the sympathy toward them in Israel. But terror was and remained their only weapon. They have no other. Even if they destroy their entire shabby weapons’ arsenal and swear to walk in the light of Mahatma Gandhi, they have no chance of getting what is theirs without terror.

Again and again and again, terror against Jews is justified by Levy.

Levy is a racist and you know it. And that's just Gideon Levy. There are plenty more odious Jew haters within the BDS movement.

Why don't you try making your case for Isi Liebler, since you wrote he's racist? We can then compare.

[shira]

13. I challenge you to find someone at JPost more racist & vile than Gideon Levy.

I'm pretty sure you won't be able to do it, as no one there advocates murder & terror vs. Palestinians like Levy does against Jews.

Of course I could be wrong, but I won't hesitate to call out anti-Palestinian racists.

It'd be nice if you could ever acknowledge racists on your side of the argument.

[Little Tich]

14. In addition to Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post, I'll provide an example from the Israeli Minist

This is a clip that I would characterize as both revisionist and racist, especially towards Palestinians. To be fair, a Palestinian clip with the same kind of content would also be just as racist. (I also posted an OP about it
:http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134133240)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCklswhLb26_1vv3ilDxK9FA

---

I choose Caroline Glick as an example of racists in the Jerusalem Post - She hates Obama as much as she hates the Palestinians. Just imagine the following excerpt if it was about Jews - about how much Jews just want to kill Palestinians...

Our World: Ending the Palestinian exception
Source: Jerusalem Post, By CAROLINE B. GLICK, 09/26/2016
(snip)

As far as Abbas and the Palestinians are concerned, their refusal to view mass murderers as criminals tells us a great deal about who they are and what they want.

The Palestinian national movement they have come to embody was never about a deep-seated desire for national liberation. It was never about building “Palestine.”

From the time it was created by Amin el-Husseini in 1920, Palestinian identity has been about the negation of the Jewish national liberation movement – Zionism. And since Israel achieved independence in 1948, the Palestinians have defined themselves by their collective dedication to annihilating the Jewish state – hence their support for terrorists who kill Jews.

Husseini’s heir Yasser Arafat shared his view that terrorism was a both strategic goal in and of itself and a means to achieve the ultimate end of the Palestinian movement – that is, the violent eradication of Israel.

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Ending-the-Palestinian-exception-468764


I was going to add Daniel Pipes as a racist contributor to the Jerusalem Post, but to my surprise, he doesn't seem to write for them anymore. Anyway, I'll use Glick as an example of what I consider the promotion of racist sentiments towards Arabs in the Jerusalem Post, and the clip from the MFA as another example of the same, but in the Israeli government.

What do you think - do we differ on whether these two examples constitutes the promotion of racism?

[aranthus]

20. Not to defend Glick, but how is this at all racist?

Please cite an accepted definition of the word racist, and then explain how what Glick has written here meets that definition.

[Little Tich]

21. For defining racism, I'll just go with "feelings of antipathy towards an ethnic group"...

It's pretty watertight: If you hate Arabs, Jews, Mexicans or black people - then you're a racist. However, it's sometimes difficult to see if the target for negative statements is actually an ethnic group or something else.

When it comes to the example with Glick, it's pretty clear that she means that it's "The Palestinians" who want to kill Jews. Assigning bloodthirst and hate to an ethnic group seems racist to me. You can read her other writings if you think that she means something else. She really hates Palestinians.

When it comes to the MFA clip, it's both revisionist and racist. The revisionist canard that Palestinians somehow invaded or immigrated to Palestine is just Zionist nonsense. It's also racist as it tries to diminish their link to Palestine by arguing that Palestinians aren't related to their ancestors; the original population in Palestine. I'm not sure if you're aware of the Khazar myth - this is exactly the same thing.

I've noticed that there's little interest in actually defending Glick or the MFA clip. I've stated my opinion on what I think is racist about them, and if you've got a different POW, please let me know...

[aranthus]

22. For defining racism I go with a dictionary.

From dictionary.com:

Racism:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

So are Palestinians a race? No they are not. Does Glick exhibit hostility to Palestinians based on their genetics? No she does not. Does she believe that Palestinians in general are hostile to Jews and to Jewish national existence in Israel? Yes she does. But unless you can show that she believes that all individual Palestinians believe that, then she isn't even engaging in unfair stereotyping. She's talking about Palestinians as a nation, as a set of group beliefs. And in that context her observations are pretty spot on. So she's not lying. She's not engaging in hatred based on race, and on the face of it, she is not even engaging in unfair stereotyping.

[Little Tich]

23. Your definition that racism only includes racial groups is too narrow in scope and completely

Last edited Tue Oct 11, 2016, 12:58 AM - Edit history (1)

meaningless.

Fortunately, the accepted definition of racism is much wider than your interpretation, and it includes all forms of ethnic discrimination and antipathy towards any ethnic group.

For a better definition, I would suggest Wikipedia:

Racism
Source: Wikipedia

Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior. Racist ideology can become manifest in many aspects of social life. Associated social actions may include xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.

While race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior).

Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Note: A whole lotta snark has been deliberately omitted from this post.

[aranthus]

24. It's the dictionary's definition, not mine.

That's why there are dictionaries. So people have a common source to go to for the meaning of words. Also so that people like you can't redefine words to suit their agenda.

Since Wikipedia isn't that good a source, I'm sticking with the dictionary.

Even if bigotry (the actually applicable word) towards Palestinians constituted racism, Glick's writing that you cited wouldn't be racist since what she wrote was arguably true.

[shira]

15. Before I respond to your examples, do we agree Gideon Levy is racist?

Last edited Sun Oct 9, 2016, 05:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Because if not, I want you to explain very clearly how anything Glick wrote is worse than what Levy wrote.

[Little Tich]

18. Oops, seems like I forgot about Gideon Levy.

I don't think he's an anti-Semite in any way - but he's good at holding up a mirror to those Zionists who think they're the good guys and that all the harm Israel is doing is for some greater good. Israel needs more people like him, and all examples are more or less justified criticism.

I may have a minor disagreement about the extent of personal responsibility for doing bad things, but in general, Levy is spot on.

So we disagree on Levy, but I don't know if we disagree on Glick and the MFA clip...

[shira]

19. How is Glick worse than Levy? Explain by comparison please. n/t

[shira]

28. Rabbi Sacks on Antizionism = Antisemitism...

"....would you stay in a country where you need armed police to guard you while you prayed? Where your children need armed guards to protect them at school? Where, if you wear a sign of your faith in public, you risk being abused or attacked? Where, when your children go to university, they are insulted and intimidated because of what is happening in some other part of the world? Where, when they present their own view of the situation they are howled down and silenced?

This is happening to Jews throughout Europe. In every single country of Europe, without exception, Jews are fearful for their or their children’s future. If this continues, Jews will continue to leave Europe, until, barring the frail and the elderly, Europe will finally have become Judenrein".

This is why Israel is needed as a Jewish state.