Is this anti-semitism?

The comic with the men in the kaki shirt and the policemen goes as:

- I believe in the Shoah and it's prophet Elie Wiesel.
- It's ok we'll let you pass.

and pineapples are a reference to Dieudonné's musical hit Shoannanas, which is a portemanteau between pineapples and shoah. Just making sure we know what we are dealing with.

Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Mali, Sudan, not to mention all the countries and places so far gone no one even talks about them anymore.

Oh give me a break. You haven't noticed Ukraine and Iraq, at the very least, in the news this past month? Isis? MH17? Ring any bells? I absolutely agree that some people
are unhealthily, anti-semitically obsessed with Israel's offences but it's nonsense to suggest that nobody's talking about Putin or Islamist extremism anymore.

Also, there aren't a bunch of pro-Hamas, pro-Iran, pro-Syria, pro-ISIS or pro-Russian talking heads on the Sunday morning talk show circuit making the case for why their acts are justified

surely that's defensive - no one believes that if pro-israel voices disappear then anti-israel voices will disappear too

Plenty of people are talking about Putin and Russia and Ukraine and Isis and the downed plane. But they are being talked about largely, to my ears, in measured tones. There are not people on the streets throwing rocks through the windows of Russian businesses and shops.

Also, there aren't a bunch of pro-Hamas, pro-Iran, pro-Syria, pro-ISIS or pro-Russian talking heads on the Sunday morning talk show circuit making the case for why their acts are justified

Part of this is what I was referencing earlier: no one expects this. It is expected that the aforementioned behave exactly as they are behaving, therefore they do not need to justify their actions. Yet Israel is expected to be better than that, so Israel must defend its actions.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/24/new-french-immigrants-to-israel-better-a-night-in-a-bomb-shelter-than-stroll-in-paris-wearing-a-kippah/

The Arab street is a different matter but it's hardly surprising that Israel is going to get disproportionate criticism in the west when it gets disproportionate support. Things like the US veto and Congress's fawning over Bibi will breed protests because such unthinking one-sided support feels manifestly unjust. There is no need to protest against (for example) ISIS when most of the world's governments have already condemned it.

The Arab street is a different matter

Yeah, easy to dismiss tens of millions of people.

If people condemned Israel with the same pro forma fervor with which they condemn Isis, then this thread wouldn't be as relevant.

Thank you DL. I just drafted and redrafted a few posts trying to say just that.

422 million ppl in the 'arab world'!

i see the US veto + ongoing western support as a necessary counterpoint to a UN heavily dominated by Muslim voices and human rights violators like Russia and China who have no problem censoring a country to further a geopolitical agenda.

xp Saying they're a different matter isn't dismissing them. Don't be daft.

thank god the US isn't a 'human rights violator,' eh

Drone Nation US is horrible on that front. Maybe we're just too used to people burning our flag?

Anyway, learning that there are schools in fucking Denmark that Jews are warned to avoid for fear of majority Muslim reprisal was just ... ugh. I consider the criticism of Israel disproportionate because the Jewish people are disproportionately small, and disproportionately vulnerable. That anti-Semitism is one of the loudest forms of prejudice in the world cannot be chalked up to "Israel." There's much more at work there, not least the volume of anti-Jew sentiment that one must contend with from entire regions/countries before you even factor in crossover anti-Israel sentiment in Europe, or America, or South America or wherever.

good point. as long as the UN is a cynical amorality play between corrupt countries trying to leverage international justice as just another realm within which to pursue nationalistic policies let's not force one country to play w/ its arms tied behind its back. every other country in the world gets to be supported by their ideological + strategic allies. xp

You guys ever wonder if all this middle east conflict is some actual god vs. devil thing? Like in John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness when the priest is like "we've been lying to people about the nature of christianity this whole time that it was about being good to one another, but turns out we've actually got Satan in a jar in the basement!" Us enlightened westerners all being like, "jeez it's just one bunch of fundies warring against another bunch or fundies all over some barren scrap of real estate" but the Israeli and American presidents have secretly been sweating hard about the very existence of the universe for decades or something.

Well, Denmark is getting more and more polarized. Another news story this summer was about muslim women getting verbally and in some cases pysically abused because they were wearing a headscarf. Several right-wing voices, including the former leader of the Danish Peoples Party, then came out saying it was their own fault.

So, me, upthread. Wasn't trolling. Also, wan't saying the IDF were directly responsible for anti-semitic attacks in other countries. My 'what about that' was meant to mean 'what about that whole broad issue', not 'suck it'. Looking back on it, it does look inflammatory.

on another note:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/04/09/last-of-warsaw-ghetto-survivors-calls-for-rebellion-against-israeli-occupation/

Mordy, I seem to recall articles about the 'murder' or 'slaughter' of 'innocent' 'children' coming out in response to all kinds of conflicts since 9-11. And coming from supporters of all factions - a forum I used to frequent had people from India and Pakistan on it who would throw around this rhetoric, anti-war people used it during Iraq, pro-war people used it during Iraq ...

and of course 'I seem to recall' isn't much use as evidence, no

but I think if we were going to decide whether that rhetoric really gets used only about Israel, or whether people use it much more about Israel than about any other conflict, we'd want to actually do some statistical word-counting, no? Probably outside the scope of this thread, probably a media studies PhD

You guys ever wonder if all this middle east conflict is some actual god vs. devil thing?

would that it were so. it would make things so much simpler

Something else I've thought, watching this season's conflict and its responses unfold, is that it may be the measured, balanced, grave, remorseful, calm, professional way the Israeli government and media talk about the conflict that drives outside observers fucking wild. (Consider that this is how most people not living in the territory will get awareness of the conflict there.)

The talk of 'unfortunate but unavoidable' civilian deaths, the fantasy of a rational and just war, when everyone knows that war, Israeli or British or Korean or Nigerian, war generally, isn't like that. And when everyone knows that Israeli deaths are never 'unfortunate but unavoidable', that in fact the death of one IDF soldier or two has several times been used to justify full-scale ground assaults in Gaza and in Lebanon.

There is a great tide of old bad blood and tribal hate in Israeli warfare - just as there is in Palestinian warfare - ask any actual normal Israeli - and to see the Israeli elite on TV disavowing it (to see anyone pretending they are not doing what they are doing) is arguably enough to make any human being angry. So some kind of hateful wild response that, in its excess, naturally spills over and targets a general notion of The Jews is ... and you see, I almost said it was unfortunate but unavoidable.

If I actually came out and said that - anti-semitism is unfortunate but unavoidable, given Israel's activities in the conflict with the Palestinians, I wouldn't just be an idiot, but a creepy idiot. There would be so, so much wrong in that statement. It isn't just 'unfortunate' when anti-semitism means that Jewish kids in France in 2014 have to go to school in an armoured bus, and it's not 'unavoidable' because the simplest intelligence ought to distinguish between a kid in France and an armed man in Gaza who have practically nothing to do with each other. If I said the anti-semitism in France was unfortunate but unavoidable, I'd be saying that violent collective punishment based on weak, capricious allegations was unavoidable.

Cool rationalisations of violence, and violence-producing rhetoric in response to violence, seem like they're bound to keep on reproducing each other indefinitely

Your equivalency is nuts.

I'm not expecting anyone to have much time for my last post. It's probably going to be one of those where I wish we had an 'edit' button on here. Okay, but what about the earlier one, e.g.,

Mordy, I seem to recall articles about the 'murder' or 'slaughter' of 'innocent' 'children' coming out in response to all kinds of conflicts since 9-11. And coming from supporters of all factions - a forum I used to frequent had people from India and Pakistan on it who would throw around this rhetoric, anti-war people used it during Iraq, pro-war people used it during Iraq ...

Pretty obviously you could say 'Well, Russian diplomats, British diplomats, etc, also put suits on and talk about unfortunate but unavoidable civilian deaths, why the focus on Israeli diplomats?'

I think that an anti war perspective so radical that it doesn't distinguish between explicitly targeting civilians (whether by rockets in Sderot or broken windows in Paris) from civilian fatalities in the course of war is sympathetic but ultimately incompatible with my personal values. If you want to equate the two I think you'll probably get a lot of agreement here but not from me.

Israel has been explicitly targeting civilians

it's weird that you won't acknowledge this

Even if it hasn't, there's the finest of fine lines between targeting civilians and achieving what are arguably legitimate military objectives in a manner that you know will create a huge civilian death toll (imprecise bombing /shelling of populated areas) out of all proportion to the number of combatants getting hit.

It's not just a question for Israel, though.

We seem to be coming quite close to saying 'Some kids died in Gaza (in the course of war), and some anti-semites (intentionally) smashed a synagogue's windows in Paris: the latter is worse' which is something that I am willing to entertain but ultimately can't agree with

that's certainly what I've read here today and I'm shocked SHOCKRD

For what little it's worth, I have been arguing on Facebook with someone who posted a meme that said 'Fuck Israel and Yehudis'

I asked them if that meant 'Jews' as in Jews not living in Israel and they said yes, the argument went on for some time, I began to get unpleasant inbox messages from friends of theirs

Has chatting with your antisemitic friends given you any insight into the current topic of discussion (the relationship between antisemitism and the pro-Palestinian movement) or just into how best to rank the "worseness" of various bad things?

the argument went on for some time

not sure what there was to argue about really

xp I'm more trying to point out that whatever disagreement I may have with you on this thread is pretty much a non-issue considering the value you bring to the discussion, cf the many things I had not thought about until ILX poster Mordy said them

I'm probably rather taking some kind of connection or goodwill between us for granted throughout this thread

For the record, these facebook 'friends', or 'friend' - one person, the others were not people I knew - is someone encountered only a few times in real life, more of an acquaintance

idk I think I'd rest easier if mordy definitively stated which he thinks is worse broken glass in Paris or dead kids in Gaza, in fact all Jews should have to rank these two things just cos it'd rly help the discussion otherwise occurring ITT which tbf was a little tough to nail down in a quick y/n until now

I've not asked Mordy to make any such definitive statement because to do so would be a stupid verbal trap, whatever Mordy said I could then go 'Aha! So I win, yes?' which is not what I'm here to do; I resent darragh's implying that this is what I'm aiming for

I got no beef witya but at the same time I'll survive

fair enough

at least now I know what keeps darragh up at night

xp

that and the neighbours

who are Syrian BTW but that's aside

The neighbors' laundry iirc.

xp aha

dammit we truly live in a surveillance age huh

xp I'm more trying to point out that whatever disagreement I may have with you on this thread is pretty much a non-issue considering the value you bring to the discussion, cf the many things I had not thought about until ILX poster Mordy said them

Thank you - I think that's a generous post. I am sorry for snarking you - I just find the kind of moral calculus that you've been pushing (first asking whether IDF actions somehow explain or justify antisemitism in Europe and the Middle East, and now contrasting said antisemitism on a moral scale to civilians killed in war) to be questionable. And I did mean my question sincerely - you're currently having a discussion on facebook that speaks directly to what I bumped this thread with - the incredible difficulty separating jew hatred from anti-Israel sentiment. I really want to know what kind of insight you've had from that discussion that might be relevant here.

@Mordy: and thanks to you, too.

I just find the kind of moral calculus that you've been pushing (first asking whether IDF actions somehow explain or justify antisemitism in Europe and the Middle East, and now contrasting said antisemitism on a moral scale to civilians killed in war) to be questionable.

To be clear, I definitively do not support the following positions:

'Anti-semitism is okay, because it's all a reaction to IDF actions'
'You have to agree that anti-semitic violence which doe not include armed killing, is better than violence elsewhere which does include armed killing; further, non-killing anti-semitic violence just doesn't matter, it's trivial - you must spend all of your care points on these dead children, and must not waste any of them on this broken window'
'Anti-semitism among the pro-palestinian movement is a non-issue'

I have seen positions like this put about, which brings me to:

And I did mean my question sincerely - you're currently having a discussion on facebook that speaks directly to what I bumped this thread with - the incredible difficulty separating jew hatred from anti-Israel sentiment. I really want to know what kind of insight you've had from that discussion that might be relevant here.

What little insight I was able to gain from the facebook interaction goes as follows:
* Many people possess anti-Israel sentiment without being part of any organised pro-Palestinian movement. Where this lot are also anti-Semitic, their distance from the organised pro-Palestianian movement should be taken into account. If it isn't - if we lump everyone who talks against Israel socially in with the people who collect money or volunteer in Palestinian farms - it's a lot easier to characterise the pro-Palestine movement as a thuggish reality behind a facade of (political, ethical) concern.
* There are at least two groups of people who have anti-Israel sentiment without being part of an actual pro-Palestinian movement. First, general leftists who are involved in some actual political activity, but for whom opposition to Israel is not a central activity so much as a default determined by their general left allegiance; second, 'lost', messy, young people from a middle-eastern background who have indirect experience of conflict with Israel through their parent's generation and through hearing of it from friends and relatives who live in the region. These two sorts of people were present on that thread.
* But - looking at non-professional pro-Palestinian, or pro-Israeli, postings on social media and IRL talking points - are we then to ignore everyone who only 'lightly' supports a cause? What is the threshold for the sort of person we should look at when trying to work out what is the nature of pro-Palestinianism or pro-Israelism.
* People when arguing on facebook are remarkably quick to profess the absolute sanctity of life whilst (sometimes within the same sentence) more or less dismissing some deaths as irrelevant. This goes for the people I was talking to in the comments under the anti-semitic meme, but I have also seen it in supporters of other belligerent factions (i.e. I have seen it on all sides of Pakistan vs India Online, Northern Ireland Online and Balkans Online).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2703409/Maccabi-Haifas-friendly-Lille-stopped-early-pro-Palestinian-protesters-storm-pitch-attack-players.html

I think that an anti war perspective so radical that it doesn't distinguish between explicitly targeting civilians (whether by rockets in Sderot or broken windows in Paris) from civilian fatalities in the course of war is sympathetic but ultimately incompatible with my personal values. If you want to equate the two I think you'll probably get a lot of agreement here but not from me.

is there clear evidence that israel isn't deliberately targeting civilians beyond "they say they aren't" or "they'd be crazy to target civilians"? in any case the line between "explicitly targeting civilians" and "shit happens, it's war" is pretty blurry; the obama admin also claims not to be targeting civilians despite the fact that u.s. drone strikes have killed hundreds of civilians.