Harry's Place

Great report

What gets measured, gets managed …

(hopefully)

In Medieval times Antisemitism was mostly about religion.
In Modern times Antisemitism was mostly about race.
In “Postmodern” times Antisemitism is mostly about nationhood.

But given that the Jewish people are a tribe-a race, a religion and a nation-Antisemitism will always be about all of the above. Jews make non-Jews uneasy because we don’t fit neatly into whatever universalist project (Christianity, European Nationalism, Globalism respectively) happens to be current. We’re the punk spoilers that ruin every stupid, feel-good idea intended to unite mankind throughout history. I love the Jewish people.

hahaha.

I still wish the CST published it’s reports in text or html in addition to the pdf.

This is stupid, ask any rational anti-zionist and the fears they may harbor against Zionism controlling the US is not about jews but Christian zionists, your far right allies. The evangelicals are by far the most powerful bloc in US politics and they have a fixation with Israel due to misguided religious kookery.

It is all a matter of logic:
All jews are not zionists
All zionists are not jews

Ergo anti-zionism != anti-jews

QED

In the current POMO progressive climate, where Anti-Semitism is the very essence of political correctness and Anti-Zionism the height of virtue, arguments such as these are utterly worthless.

Self-preservation, what?

In the first case, Anti-Semitism is not even recognized as such: Jews or philo-Jews arguing that hatred of Jews leads to disaster—e.g., just look at 1933-1945 Europe—no matter how much it may be historically demonstrated, smacks of Jewish self-interest (those crafty, cunning Jews trying to blackmail others into not hating them!!).

In the second case, hatred of Jews and the State of Israel is precisely the point; it is the ne plus ultra, a seductive destructiveness to which self-preservation takes a back seat. (In other words, why even think of self-preservation when there’s something so much more important to achieve?)

Indeed, the arbiters of progress, humanity and reason, having decided that the Jews must be taken down a notch (or three) and that the illegal, criminal, apartheid Jewish State (the more negative associations you can attach to it, the more easily you can justify and countenance its destruction) be sacrificed for the Higher Good, have in essence decreed that the Jews, the State of Israel (and ultimately, themselves) must be destroyed in order to make a better world.

Sound familiar?

Remember that we’re talking about a higher morality, impervious to petty philosophical or moral quibbles.

“Banality,” you say? “Complex”? Heh…

Oh grow up and get a life will you … seeing anti-Semitism in everything that happens is old hat, untrue and just gets you a reputation as a zionist idiot.

Good point.

Yes. Baht At always comes out with something that makes us stop in our tracks and think. Well done, Baht At. I particularly liked your zinger at the beginning. Did you invent the phrase “get a life”? It has amazing poetry. I don’t think I’ve seen it before. Thanks once again for opening everyone’s eyes to what is going on here!

Seems a measured response.

What is the CST anyway? I have to confess I have not heard of them. According to their website they seem like some sort of security force.

Don’t act the idiot Benji

“Every year CST helps secure over 170 synagogues, 80 Jewish schools, 64 Jewish communal organisations and approximately 1000 communal events. CST also represents the Jewish community on a wide range of Police, governmental and policy-making bodies dealing with security and antisemitism. Indeed, the Police and government praise CST as a model of how a minority community should protect itself.

CST is the only organisation in the country dedicated to collecting, analysing, responding to and publishing statistics relating to antisemitic figures. CST publishes these figures in an Antisemitic Incidents Report annually.

CST statistics, opinion and analysis are also sought by the media, academic bodies, law enforcement and government on all matters relating to antisemitism, terrorism, communal security and policing.

As the threat of terrorism and the physical manifestation of antisemitism –antisemitic incidents – increase, so the work of CST becomes even more essential. CST’s aim is to provide the community with as high a level of security as possible to combat these threats.”

more CST publications and reports can be found at http://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?content=7&Menu=7

Sounds like it does good work. I used to know a German chap who used to help protect Jewish cemeteries in Germany; mind you, the group he was with were a tad rougher around the edges – German anarchist lads who liked having pitched battles with swivel eyed Nazi types.

great answer modernity – fancy a job?

Sorry if you’ve all thrashed this through before, but I am slightly uneasy that it is being suggested that if X criticises Israel – which I take to include criticising an aspect of Israeli policy – X is, therefore and automatically, anti-Semitic. I am a supporter of Israel and of its right to exist, and I believe that virulent, racist anti-Semitism exists, some of which hides behind criticism of Israel or of ‘Zionism’, which should be exposed and fought, as HP does. But – I have the right to criticise some aspects of Israeli policy without being branded an anti-Semite. Is that generally agreed?

Yes it is agreed by all sensible people.

thanks Mark, just working with the materials that you provided :)

Good, thanks Mr T.

OK – here’s a question. Since the report in question states in the exec summary “Explicit antisemitic discourse, whereby Jews are openly targeted on the basis of their religion or ethnicity (rather than attacked for supposedly backing Zionism or Israel), is extremely rare in British society, media and politics.” what we are discussing when we talk about the new anti-Semitism, is a form of implicit racism, right? Or in the debate linked to below between Hirsh and Shaw, “institutionalised” anti-Semitism. If that is correct, I have a question. Is the theory of this new anti-Semitism consistent with the principle of universality? That is, is it the case that what is unacceptable towards one person or group is unacceptable towards any other person or group? And if so, why do we have an EU working definition of anti-Semitism, and not simply an EU definition of racism? Is anti-Semitism equal to other forms of racist discrimination or worse?

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=195

I am going to have a quick stab at this:

“Is the theory of this new anti-Semitism consistent with the principle of universality?”

er, no, I think the theory is based on evidence, not on a pre-determined notion.

so you look at the evidence, connect the dots, put forward an explanation of it, re-work it, see if that explains it, go to the evidence again, etc

a bit like the scientific method, but not so literal

you don’t start out saying “any theory must conform to principle of universality before we’ll use it”

rather it has to explain the symptoms and evidence without prejudging the conclusion before you’ve reached it.

that’s just my take on matters, but of course I could be wrong

“and they have a fixation with Israel”

Or in your case, a demented obsession.

Baht At needs to get a lolly and lick it. He may never get a life, but maybe it’ll shut him ujp for a moment.

“I am slightly uneasy that it is being suggested that if X criticises Israel – which I take to include criticising an aspect of Israeli policy – X is, therefore and automatically, anti-Semitic”

A complete strawman. Nobody is saying this.

in terms of the wider theory I would suggest reading David Hirsh’s work

http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/index.htm

Jon Pike’s comments http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1615

Anthony Julius

http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/the-company-they-keep%253A-antisemitism%2527s-fellow-travellers.html

or posting a question on the Engage blog, I am sure they will be only too happy to explain their ideas

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/index.php

in terms of the wider theory I would suggest reading David Hirsh’s work

http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/index.htm

Jon Pike’s comments http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1615

also, Anthony Julius

http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/the-company-they-keep%253A-antisemitism%2527s-fellow-travellers.html

or posting a question on the Engage blog, I am sure they will be only too happy to explain their ideas

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/index.php

“Is the theory of this new anti-Semitism consistent with the principle of universality?”

What a stupid, stupid comment.
It had to be Ireson.

Mod – I think you misunderstand me. By the principle of universality, I simply mean that something which applies to one person should apply equally to all people. I could have called it the principle of human equality – the idea that all men are equal in their rights and responsibilities. So, in practical terms, if X said against a Jew is anti-Semitic, is X said against an Outer Mongolian equally bad or not?

“what we are discussing when we talk about the new anti-Semitism, is a form of implicit racism, right? ”

That is right. Just as some anti-Arab or anti-Asian racism is disguised as anti-Islamic discourse. Do you see? Or do you deny that attacks on Islam are sometimes racists in nature?

“what we are discussing when we talk about the new anti-Semitism, is a form of implicit racism, right? ”

That is right. Just as some anti-Arab or anti-Asian racism is disguised as anti-Islamic discourse. Do you see? Or do you deny that attacks on Islam are sometimes racist in nature?

“So, in practical terms, if X said against a Jew is anti-Semitic, is X said against an Outer Mongolian equally bad or not?”

What are you getting at, The Irie? Why should all racist language have to be ‘universalisable’? It is, of course (to offer one example) worse to call a black man a ‘n*gger’ than to call a white man the same. That doesn’t mean that anti-black racsism is an illusion.

fuck the jews

But – I have the right to criticise some aspects of Israeli policy without being branded an anti-Semite. Is that generally agreed?

I agree but such criticism is quite hard to find. How often does the might of the UCU weigh in on such matters as the lack of civil marriage in Israel, for instance? Indeed, how many of those foaming moonbats even know of it? When was the last time you heard the SWP complain about the public transport infrastructure in Tel Aviv?

Anti-semitism masquerading as “criticism” of Israel is very easy to distinguish from the genuine article. As Modernity says, it’s all about the evidence.

John – on your first comment, I would humbly submit that unlike in the case of anti-Semitism (which as that report says is not explicit), in the case of Islamic racism, it is commonly very explicit, including physical assaults, attacks on Mosques and so on (not to mention demonisation in the press). A different order to anti-Semitism, I would have thought.

On your second point, I agree with your example. The reason being, the history, and the fact that black people are a weaker minority, whilst white people are a strong majority. But, we don’t have a definition of anti-black racism to my knowledge.

in the case of Islamic racism, it is commonly very explicit, including physical assaults, attacks on Mosques and so on (not to mention demonisation in the press). A different order to anti-Semitism, I would have thought.

All well and good, except that (as has been stated here, with evidence, many times) the last set of figures showed that there were more physical assaults against Jews than against Muslims (of any ethnic group) in the UK. Which, given the disparity in size between the Jewish and Muslim population of the UK is both shocking and extraordinary.

(I will agree that there is far, far, far, more demonisation of Muslims, or indeed of Gypsies or Travellers, in the British press than there is of Jews, however, and that indeed is something of a different order. But on the first point, you are simply wrong.)

Irie:

You ask why EU has ‘working definition’. There is a very straightforward answer: its because ‘working definition’ is diplomatic speak for ‘we can’t quite agree to completely sign off on this and this is as close as we can get to an agreement that suits all signatories’.

Jonny Mac – thanks Oxfordian, indeed nobody is saying that and the sooner people stop saying we are, the sooner we can all be a bit more constructive.

Baht’at should hang around on Ilkla Moor for a while:

Tha’s bahn’ to catch thy deeath o` cowd
Then we shall ha’ to bury thee
Then t’worms’ll come an` eyt thee up
Then t’ducks’ll come an` eyt up t’worms
Then we shall go an` eyt up t’ducks
Then we shall all ha’ etten thee
That’s wheear we get us ooan back

Ven – that is very interesting. Do you know where I can read that report?

For my twopennyworth, I think the main difference between anti-semitism and other forms of racism comes down to the genocidal and millenial hatred of jews compared with the racial superiority complex of other forms of racism.

That is to say white suprematists hate and feel superior to non-whites i.e black africans, people from india etc but they do not want to wipe them all off the face of the earth – they want to kill, maim and even massacre but as far as i am aware the BNP/Nazis/Klan etc (i’m not a huge follower of far right fascist parties) do not and have never espoused the physical destruction of all non-white peoples – yes they want to keep them subordinated and will kill some but i don’t think their intention is genocide, whereas with anti-semites there is both theory and practice of genocide.

I am prepared to be corrected on my interpretation. I am of the firm belief that the willingness and enthusiasm of anti-semites to inflict atrocities on jewish communities over thousands of years and up to the present has partly created the situation whereby israel requires security issues to be resolved before it will countenance open borders and normal relations with its neighbours and i don’t think this is surprising given the history of anti-semitism. What amazes me is the fact that palestinophiles think that the israelis will just roll over and totally disregard their own safety for the sake of improving their public opinion ratings – as others have pointed out here before, the israelis could do anything to ingratiate themselves with their enemies and it would still never be enough for the european anti-semites, the caliphatic(?) suprematists and israel-haters in general. As i say to my SWP chums(!) why is it alright to support the right of self-determination of everyone on earth apart from jews? Answer: oh yeah i forgot, jews are too complicated to be allowed to have self-determination (also we don’t like them but we’re not allowed to say so – so we just couch it in inflammatory mendacious anti-Zionist rhetoric). I’ve rambled but i hope i’ve made the point i intended to make – anti-semitism is different to other forms of racism as far as i interpret it.

Mark – but why does it need a unique definition at all?

No, but check the archives either here, or at the BBC News site. (Or just google intelligently)

Failing that, I imagine someone from either Engage or the CST, or just another reader with a particularly retentive memory could provide a link.

“John – on your first comment, I would humbly submit that unlike in the case of anti-Semitism (which as that report says is not explicit), in the case of Islamic racism, it is commonly very explicit,”

Commonly, yes, but you will admit that there is a non-explicit version, too, one that is smuggled in under claims of attacking ‘Islam’ as an ideology. This is what the BNP do, much as others smuggle in their antisemitism under discussion of ‘zionism’ (zionism being a term that means different things to different people, it is conveneiently vague). You do agree that some ‘antizionism’ is, in fact, disguised antisemitism, don’t you?

Ven – I can’t find it. What I have seen is the CST report here which says explicit anti-Semitism is rare, and various recent reports in the Independent and I think BBC or C4 by Peter Obourne on the extent of attacks in the press and on the streets on Muslims. But if anyone has the link I’d be grateful to read it.

“but why does it need a unique definition at all?”

Read the second comment in this thread. Antisemitism is not racism.

Did you mean this Ven:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537128/Jews-far-more-likely-to-be-victims-of-faith-hatred-than-Muslims.html

He who posits bears the burden of proof, not google.

here

Irie – it needs a definition for legal purposes. It can’t be logged as an antisemitic crime or prosecuted as antisemitism unless there is a definition of the term. (But anyway, every word needs a definition, you Towerofbabelophile).

Radical – I think there’s a lot in what you say. In essence, I reckon antisemitism usually has a different victim dynamic to other racisms. Asem usually involves a fear of Jewish conspiracy / intellect / wealth / power that is quite different to the racist sneering at others’ primitive savagery.

Mark – But why then isn’t there a legal word for other forms of discrimination then (to my knowledge)? Why this unique category of anti-Semitism, and is this consistent with the principle of human equality?

TheIrie wrote:

“Mod – I think you misunderstand me. “

maybe I did, but as you didn’t express yourself with any degree of clarity then you should blame your self for any misunderstanding on this topic.

Normally I would be slightly annoyed at your ill informed contributions, but they do highlight a larger issue,

TheIrie, you probably feel that you are a fairly well-informed, highly educated and competent individual, who should be able to comment on these issues without fear of rancour or insult, you are one of many individuals.

I am sure that the UCU activists list is full of your peers, smart and self-contempt, without any need to inform yourselves on these subjects.

So even simple Web searches which would reveal these issues or show you the documents are beyond you, not because you couldn’t do it, but it doesn’t occur to you that you need to.

There is a sort of self enforced ignorance, willful undereducation.

But I sympathise, remember in November 2006 I sent you a fairly detailed booklist on the Middle East, and your one criticism of it was that there was too much on antisemitism.

Rather ironical? you complaining that there is too much emphasis on antisemitism when you and others plainly know so little about the topic.

It is not so much emphasis, but blind ignorance that is the problem

if only you and your other highly educated colleagues would take the time and trouble to understand and educate yourself on this pernicious form of racism then we wouldn’t be in this situation, in the first place

so please educate yourself and encourage others, can I suggest rather than exhibiting your painful ignorance here, that you take up the booklist that I sent you and start reading.

I think you and UCU activists should use Engage, it is a wonderful resource.

or at the very least read Steve Cohen witty guide (free, on-line) http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/

Mark, great report. I am please that you made an early distinction between people who may have passed Antisemitic images or spoken in Antisemitic tones and yet cannot be called Antisemites for the simple reason that ANtisemitic material has become so much part of mainstream that people don’t realise it may be considered Antisemitic.

It is possible to agree with a verdict that “”X” is not an Antisemite while still stating that what “X” has said is the repetition of an Antisemitic motif. Of course, if “X” does it often enough then unfortunate mistakes look like deliberate acts.

By stating that someone isn’t an Antisemite then its easier to see how criticism of Israel can be Antisemitic but perhaps not intended by the publisher or repeater. Of course, seeking out material that is consistently of a nature considered by victims as Antisemitic then suggests motive rather than naivety.

TheIrie:

“Mark – But why then isn’t there a legal word for other forms of discrimination then”

There are. Lots of them.

“Definitions of Antisemitic Incidents

CST classifies as an antisemitic incident any malicious act aimed at Jewish people, organisations or property, where there is evidence that the incident has antisemitic motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted because they are (or are believed to be) Jewish.”

http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Definitions.pdf

again, try reading The CST’s publications page, it has a lot of very good info.

http://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?content=7&Menu=7

Mark – But why then isn’t there a legal word for other forms of discrimination then (to my knowledge)? Why this unique category of anti-Semitism, and is this consistent with the principle of human equality?

Theirie, the answer is so obvious! As The Chosen People, Jews decided they would also have their own word for victimhood that no-one else was allowed to use. Jews are always doing this. Take The Holocaust. Its in capital leading letters and expressed with the definite article “The”. Only Jews would seek to claim “The Holocaust” as another unique use of language.

All this tosh that the word Antisemitism was invented by some German bloke in the late 1800’s just to mean racial hatred towards Jews is just another Jewish conspiracy lie by “His Chosen People”.

I know this answer will make you happy, even if its a spoof answer because it will satisfy what you have already concluded.

Post – name one.

Irie – on the principle of human equality, any chance of you asking somebody else all these questions? I’ve tried to answer sensibly, but was rather hoping to get back to the rest of my life now. Cheers :)

Time to ban Fwanker?

Damn you, Maven: why did you have to tell him it’s a spoof?

In fact, I know it’s quite true and not a spoof at all, as I managed to intercept a Mossad transmission using my tinfoil helmet, and they admitted it.

The sick Antisemitic cow using the avatar “WendyMann” who posts at 5Live and MPAC UK informs us that Antisemitism exists against Muslims and Islam

if it is part of an on going discussion that covers all sorts of areas and topics then taking a moments slice from it will be entirely misleading ..however it will have those who are anti semitic towards islam/muslim foaming at the mouth since they dont need much to set them off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148564?thread=5835026&latest=1#p68284933 Message 35

She often posts the same Antisemitic crap. Antisemitic because she seeks to deny Jews their own word for racist attacks – like hers.

Mark – that’s fine. You can’t answer it. I can’t answer it. No-one can answer it. Nevermind. Carry on.

“The report cites an Anti-Defamation League poll showing significant recent rises in British and European antisemitic attitudes. 50% (up from 39% in 2005) of UK respondents believe it is ‘probably true’ that ‘Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country”

I’m not sure whether Jews are more “loyal” to Israel than “their own” country. I think it’s a rather silly question. I wouldn’t consider myself “loyal” to Britain, but I consider that just an aspect of being a good internationalist.

However, it’s slightly hypocritical for the neoconservative, pro-Israel crowd to criticize this view, given that they themselves spend most of their time trying to propagate it. Notice, for instance, that every time British or American Jewish anti-Zionists criticize some aspect of Israeli policy, it is somehow implied that they’re “self-hating” or ingratiating themselves with local anti-Semites. In other words, the notion that Jews “owe” loyalty to the militarist statelet is continually asserted by Zionists, who then complain whenever this meme is reproduced by anyone else!

One hasn’t come to expect intellectual honestly from apologists for Israel but surely there are limits?

“Time to ban Fwanker?”

Try it bitch.

Post – come on – you said there are loads. Name one.

Callum, thanks for the vignette. Can you settle on a term of catch-all abuse, or are the following all interchangeable as your post suggests:
“neoconservative”;
“pro-Israel crowd”;
“Zionists”;
“apologists for Israel”.
If they are all essentially the same, then are you saying that you can’t “expect intellectual honesty” from all Zionists?
Who exactly is it thats telling these Jewish anti-Zionists that they are self haters? Did CST do so? No. Did the Chief Rabbi? No. Did the Board of Deps of UK Jews? No. Show me the “every time” proof that you so casually state to be fact.
Very loose language + catch all hate terms + group libel. Nice post, Callum.

racism doesn’t equal sexism doesn’t equal homophobia doesn’t equal antisemitism. and theIrie is only obsessed with one of the above.

“If they are all essentially the same, then are you saying that you can’t “expect intellectual honesty” from all Zionists?”

Well, of course, Zionism is an inherently dishonest political position to hold to, since the existence of Israel (Jewish “self-determination) automatically creates a political situation in which the Palestinians are denied self-determination. The political position violates the very principle it purports to uphold, therefore it’s dishonest. This is uncontroversial in most circles (HP will not be one of them, I understand).

“Board of Deps of UK Jews? No. Show me the “every time” proof that you so casually state to be fact.”

I’m afraid its suggested in every nook and cranny of the post. In the way you seamlessly navigate from the mad ravings of a bizarre Hitlerite cult onto the UCU and the boycott. The way you suggest ambiguous statements like “Jews are more loyal to Israel than Britain” are “antisemitic”. I’d expect most people who agreed with this statement meant it in a sympathetic fashion – that is, they’d think it right that Jews have feelings of fellowship with the “Jewish state”. Did the ADL investigate this possibility?

As for the suggestion that critical Jews are labeled traitors, I’ll offer one example and suggest you do your own research to find more. Honestly, it’s not that taxing an exercise:

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/08/open_letter_to_.html

Look at that post.

Shmuel – why don’t you try answering the question, rather than squirming around. Racism is a form a discrimination that applies equally to everyone. As is homophobia. As is Sexism. It seems to me that Anti-Semitism, as a legal term, is unique in that it is a form a discrimination which only applies to one group of people and not others (as ably demonstrated by Maven above). I may have this wrong, and I’m raising it for discussion, but no-one has had anything intelligent to say on the matter so far.

Theirie wrote:

“no-one has had anything intelligent to say on the matter so far.”

you ask questions like a petulant child, “why?”, “why?” and when people take the trouble to answer you, then you respond “why?” ignoring their replies with an air of pomposity

it is very annoying for a Phd candidate to be so lazy, please, do try harder

Mark Gardner and the CST are clearly doing excellent and much-needed work, as is David T. and Harry’s Place for reporting on it. Well done and keep it up.

mod – on a slightly different note, did you read the exchange I linked to above. I thought it was very interesting. You won’t be surprised that I take Martin Shaw’s position. I think he’s bang on the money. You’ll prefer Hirsh. Actually, I think its quite a good representation of our respective positions.

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=195

Callum – sorry you can’t accept any philosemitic reason for why anyone would back a Jewish state, particualrly one founded 3 years after the Holocaust. Yeah, those pesky lying Holocaust surviving liars.

I said “every time” re your claim about anti-Zionist Jews. Show me even one time from CST, Chief Rabbi or Board of Deps.

Less of the loose language and group libels please. Cheers.

Mark,

in fairness to Callum, he has a bit of form, another one of his gems:

“I think Steven Rose got it pretty much covered in the Indie today.

As for the “why Israel” question – it’s a fairly redundant one. The same question could be asked of campaign against states or groups that abuse human rights systematically, like the Zionists, from China to Darfur.
Posted by Callum at June 4, 2007 04:46 PM”

I wonder if anyone (including Callum) can pick out the Duke inspired type lingo in his old post?

I seconded Roley Poley

Good Work

“Callum – sorry you can’t accept any philosemitic reason for why anyone would back a Jewish state, particualrly one founded 3 years after the Holocaust. Yeah, those pesky lying Holocaust surviving liars.”

Wow, it took you all of two posts to bring up the Holocaust.

Good to see that the noble debating tradition is being held up over there at the CST.

Did I suggest anyone who survived the Holocaust was a “liar” or was somehow a nuisance? No, but I don’t suppose lies are uncommon over at your group, are they?

I don’t know exactly how one might qualify as a “philosemite”. Is their some course I can take? I like Woody Allen films and I’m an admirer of Trotsky, would that get me enrolled?

ops, missed off the link:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2007/06/04/shalom-lappin-opposing-the-boycott/

TheIrie: antisemitism, or Judenhass to give it its original name, is a form of the mental illness known as racism that is unique in terms of its historical manifestation and has a unique collection of symptoms. The new (60 year old) form of racism that manifests as a pathological antipathy towards Israel and Israeli Jews (and not towards Israeli non-Jews) shares many of the specific symptoms found in Judenhass and in no other form of racism. See the reports of the EU monitoring committee for more details.

Where does callum get off saying that Jewish self-determination in palestine negates palestinian self-determination. The oriiginal plan envisioned two states, one for jews, one for palestinian, with each group exercising their right to self-determination in the state meant for them. You can argue that dividing the land wasn’t fair (though i would vehemently disagree), but to say jewish self-determination negated Palestinian self-determination is so much obfuscating nonsense.

“I don’t know exactly how one might qualify as a “philosemite”. Is their some course I can take? I like Woody Allen films and I’m an admirer of Trotsky, would that get me enrolled?”

It wasn’t so hard to be philo-Greek for the left, Callum. Many leftist nationalists demonstrated their international solidarity helping them found a state on the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Do you know which other state was founded on the ruins of the same Empire, do you?

do those who oppose to a separate “racism” category for antisemitism also oppose one for “islamophobia”?

Callum, having branded all Zionist as liars, your next post stated, “Well, of course, Zionism is an inherently dishonest political position to hold to, since the existence of Israel (Jewish “self-determination) automatically creates a political situation in which the Palestinians are denied self-determination.”

The Holocaust was the no1 reality in the establishment of Israel. It remains the no1 reality as to why so many Jews are “Zionists”. Israel was established to save Jews. Zionism was the support of that effort, something that you so easily condemn as an “inherently dishonest political position”.

This comes back to why I originally asked you to refrain from using “neoconservative”, “pro Israel crowd”, “Zionists” and “apologists for Israel” as synonymous catch-all terms of abuse.

You are the one who called all of these people liars in your first post, (”One hasn’t come to expect intellectual honestly from apologists for Israel”.) As I said before, how about you moderate your language and avoid the resultant group libels?

Or do you deny that attacks on Islam are sometimes racists in nature?

Islam is an ideology, and attacks on an ideology can never be racist.

Attacks on individual Muslims can be racially motivated, however.

Criticism Islams prepensity for violence is not racist any more than writing a critiq

Couldn’t finish!

Citicisms of Islam’s propensity for violence are no more racist than writing a critique of marxism.

“Do you know which other state was founded on the ruins of the same Empire, do you?”

South Korea?

“The Holocaust was the no1 reality in the establishment of Israel.”

It was a major catalyst for the establishment of Israel, yes. This doesn’t mean it was justified.

“It remains the no1 reality as to why so many Jews are “Zionists”.”

Interesting, as I understand, the number of European and American Jews who hold to Zionism is falling, and has been for some time (certainly since the start of the latest Intifada). So it appears that rather sickly kind of emotional blackmail is losing its impact amongst many young non-Israeli Jews. And it’s rather heartening to see.

“Zionism was the support of that effort”

Zionism was and is a movement geared towards a colonial land-grab – with added trimmings of imperialism and religious nonsense. The unfortunate and tragic position of many of the people involved in the colonial land-grab is not, in the end, a morally sufficient excuse. I presume you hold a different perspective.

“This comes back to why I originally asked you to refrain from using “neoconservative”, “pro Israel crowd”, “Zionists” and “apologists for Israel” as synonymous catch-all terms of abuse.”

I didn’t. Are you denying that your group, or this blog, is Zionist? Are you denying that it’s pro-Israel?

It seems clear from your post and your comments that this is exactly what you are. So my language, rather than being “abusive” is just accurately descriptive, is it not?

funny, no one picked up on Callum’s particular racist terminology, I explained it before as:

‘Callum,
..

frankly, I’m a little bit surprised that a “socialist”, such as yourself, should use the expression “Jewish supremacism”, and I hope the reasons are self-evident, as far as I know the only people on the political spectrum who openly use this expression are on the extreme right

no doubt, you have heard of David Duke, ex-KKKer, and virulent antisemite?

the notion of “Jewish supremacism” is a common theme with David Duke and he has even written a book on the subject, therefore I mystified why someone like you, Callum, apparently an antifascist and on the opposite end of the political spectrum, should feel it appropriate to co-opt in David Dukes’ lexicon?

so when you have the opportunity and for the sake of your own reputation, and I’m being charitable as I wouldn’t want to misjudge you, please can you clarify your comments concerning “Jewish supremacism”?

oh, and if you put “Jewish supremacism” into google (with the quote marks), you will see what I mean, as a search pulls up some 37,500 and the first fifty seem to comprised mostly links to David Duke, spearhead, truth seeker and a whole host of other neo-Nazi and white power web sites, who are obsessed with the notion of “Jewish supremacism”

so please do explain your views on the notion of “Jewish supremacism” ‘

that was last year, and Callum still has these problems

Callum – is the Holocaust a less authentic trauma than the nakba, or are British Palestinians also dealing in a “rather sickly kind of emotional blackmail?”.

You asked earlier how to be philosemitic – well, you could start by preferring the notion of living Israelis to that of dead Holocaust victims, but perhaps thats a bit harsh for your ideological certainties.

Lets just say that there are quicker routes to philosemitism than asserting that all Zionists are by definition liars and colonialist land grabbers, inspired by imperialist and religious fantasies of grandeur, and that those Jews who survived the Holocaust really should just have shut up and thrown themselves back to the tender mercy of Europe (including the minority haven that was the Soviet bloc). But then, I suspect you knew that already.

Sorry, before anyone asserts otherwise, that should have read ‘the Nakba’.

They pop up and under all the time, TheIrie. Russophobia is one that’s at least 100 years old. The word antisemitism has survived because the Jews, as neither just a race, religion nor nation, strafe boundaries and so the simple word to encapsulate the hatred for the whole “bundle” has proven useful. As for *legal* definitions of hatreds and prejudices: there are lots. Just read some of the recent Hate Speech legislation.

The reason why so many people argue so vehemently about what does and does not fall into the term antisemitism is not because people are nasty or stuck in their ways, but there’s a genuine ambiguity about what *should* be included in the term, because of the genuine ambiguity about what encapsulates “Jewish” and what doesn’t. That’s why only an idiot would say that criticising Israel is NECESSARILY antisemitic. But only an idiot would say that criticising Israel cannot also be antisemitic, or motivated by antisemitism, or manipulated by antisemitism, or be a product of the ethos of millenia of antisemitism.

I mean, think about it for a moment, TheIrie: bearing in mind that the Jews have been hated and persecuted for thousands of years, can you not see why there might be some suspicion against people who seem obsessed by their current homeland, often to the exclusion of other political issues? Now, people may well be WRONG in their suspicion, but you cannot deny that it’s unreasonable sometimes to wonder, can you? But you do get to be able to sniff out who are genuine legitimate critics of Israel, and who are using it as a convenient mask. Usually, if someone seems oddly, rabidly interested in Israel to all else, continually exaggerates Israeli culpability and denies any Arab/Palestinian moral autonomy, if someone finds themselves comfortable bed-fellows with rabid-right conspiracy theorists or theological fascists, then the question mark above their head remains there, and rightly so, wouldn’t you say?

For example, TheIrie, Calum is not a conscious antisemite, but his antisemitism has entered him through a number of pores, via osmosis. Give him a lie-detector test and he’ll pass if he claims he’s not a Judeophobe. But the almost sexual frisson he gets when he thinks of those dastardly “Zionists” tells a separate tale.

vildechaye – 1. I’m not opposed to the category of anti-Semitism. 2. The term Islamophobia has no legal meaning.

“For example, TheIrie, Calum is not a conscious antisemite, but his antisemitism has entered him through a number of pores, via osmosis. Give him a lie-detector test and he’ll pass if he claims he’s not a Judeophobe. But the almost sexual frisson he gets when he thinks of those dastardly “Zionists” tells a separate tale.”

My psychoanalysis of this comment makes me think Post wants to have sex with his mother. I have no proof that he wants to have sex with his mother, and neither does he, but it’s something that I deeply, deeply believe. It’s ozmosis – or something.

TheIrie, please consult wiki, a good encyclopaedia or Engage, they’ll be able to handle your questions concerning definitions

“Zionism was and is a movement geared towards a colonial land-grab – with added trimmings of imperialism and religious nonsense”

This encapsulates the ignorant antisemitic mind in all its ugliness.

Pardon my ignorance, but when and where has “anti-semitism” been considered separate, legally, from racism, as a separate hate crime. that certainly isn’t the case here in canada.

Mark, stating that The Holocaust was a catalyst for creating Israel allows the lie that Israel was created BECAUSE of The Holocaust and so the Palestinian argument “why should we pay for The Holocaust”.

The establishment of a State over which Jews had political rights was a vision of the Mandate for Palestine in 1922. The vision was a state for Arabs and Jews. As things evolved by attacks on Jews by Arabs (and some retaliation it has to be said for completeness) The British proposed a Two State solution under Res 181. The Arabs rejected and attacked, The Jews accepted and defended. The Jews won and Israel was created in 1948. The point is that the stimulus was NOT The Holocaust but it became a retrospective justification in that there had to be a victory in order to provide that safety.

Israel is actually a microcosm of the Mandate conditions being a state where all people have freedom of religion, language, culture and equal citizen rights.

ever so slightly off topic, but it illustrates the point, see how defensive David T’s interlocutor’s are on Socialist Unity blog:

“Jenna Delich: ‘Medieval witch-burning by cynical pro-war ‘modernists”?”

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2779

talk about “when in a hole keep on digging!”

“Zionism was and is a movement geared towards a colonial land-grab – with added trimmings of imperialism and religious nonsense”

What an idiot. What a re-write! Zionism is a movement to re-establish the Jewish National in its original location.

The Mandate for Palestine gave land to Jews and Arabs for the establishment of that Home. At the same time it made a ‘land grab’ of The Lebanon, Syria and Jordan by GRABBING LAND from the original Mandated Palestine Territory. Under the Mandate, never rescinded, then Jews have as much right to live in any area of Palestine as any Arab. Palestine is now West Bank and Gaza since Israel now exists on the remainder and has declared citizenship rules like any other country in the World.

The kind of indifference Callum shows to how the holocaust has impacted Jews is best described in this quote from the much-maligned (by the anti-zionist left) Sean Matgamna of the socialist AWL. He calls it “comprehensive hostility to the Zionist identity which the terrible events of the twentieth century stamped on Jews. That originates with Stalinism, but is now the special badge of honour of professed “Trotskyists”.

the fact that none of this causes any introspection on the part of callum and the like speaks volumes.

Pardon my ignorance, but when and where has “anti-semitism” been considered separate, legally, from racism, as a separate hate crime. that certainly isn’t the case here in canada.

I’m sure Mark could correct me if I am wrong but Antisemitism comes under race law. You prove that you have been racially abused, for example, by reference to actions and words which are defined to be Antisemitic. These treat Jews are a racial/ethnic group and so abuse can be based on comments that play on these racial/ethnic uniquenesses. For example, to call someone a “Big Nosed Scouser” may be offensive on a personal basis but not racist. To call someone a “Big Nosed Jew” is to play on a common racial stereotype about Jews and could be considered to be abuse based on race.

Racism is a form a discrimination that applies equally to everyone. As is homophobia. As is Sexism. It seems to me that Anti-Semitism, as a legal term, is unique in that it is a form a discrimination which only applies to one group of people and not others

A straight person can experience homophobia? Then a non-Jew can experience antisemitism.

And men are commonly victims of sexism.

btw, did anyone ask Socialist Worker if they’ll be featuring this report?

Is Mike Rosen about?

I am sure that SWP web sites and blogs will be featuring the CST report?

Maven: nothing you said indicates anti-semitism is in a separate legal category from racism, which is what was being claimed by irie who said anti-semitism was a separate “legal” category, whereas islamophobia was not. can anyone elaborate?

Callum: I can give you specific referents for my suspicions that you have osmotic antisemitism.If you can give me referents for my alleged oedipal desires, please go ahead.

As I said, though, I truly believe that you think you’re not antisemitic. It’s like olfactory fatigue: you’ve forgotten what it smells like because the stench has been around you and your community for so long, and so you are dumbfounded and outraged when people around you hold their nose.

V – Here is the EU working definition of anti-Semitism:

http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

What I am banging on about is, if we replaced the word Jew with something else, e.g. Arab, would this still constitute an equally egregious form of discrimination or not?

For example, it says comparing Israeli policy with that of the Nazi’s is anti-Semitic. If that is a legal principle, presumably it is equally bad to compare any nations policies with that of the Nazi’s. If not, why not?

good for you, TheIrie,

you’ve learnt to use google !

and for your next trick, could you read a book or 2 on antisemitism, to fill in the gaps?

The legal questions are interesting and derive from some uncertainties re the status of antisemitism – both in terms of how the Police classify it on their computers (’flagging’), and in terms of how prosecution service and judiciary subsequently prove racist aggravation during trial and sentencing.

Ironically, it was all a bit more straightforward under the original race relations legislation whereby Jews (and Sikhs I believe) were classed as a race. It became more complex in recent years when religious hate crime was introduced and also as Police were requested to have more nuanced flagging systems.

The 2006 Parliamentary Inquiry into Asem demanded improvements in police flagging and in CPS performance re prosecutions with race aggravation tariff. This led to the need for tighter legal definition of antisemitism and roughly coincided with similar work done by EUMC (and I think RAXEN network). Meanwhile, OSCE also introduced action vs asem as a requirement for members, again requiring legal definitions, police training and judicial training across Baltic etc.

Its an interesting subject, important but dry.

TheIrie: “For example, it says comparing Israeli policy with that of the Nazi’s is anti-Semitic. If that is a legal principle, presumably it is equally bad to compare any nations policies with that of the Nazi’s. If not, why not?”

What you describe is not a “legal” principle. It’s a semantic, interpretive one with which most reasonable people would agree.

The primary driver of Nazism was the eradication of Jews and Jewish culture from the world. It almost got its way, and dragged the world through a hellish world-war in the process. Bearing this in mind, there is something specifically calculating and disturbing about attempting constantly to draw referents back to the Nazis. There are only two explanations for this, neither of which is attractive:
1) You genuinely believe that the Israelis are the modern equivalent in both ethos, philosophy, scope, motivation and execution of Hitler’s Nazis, in which case your mind has been warped either by horrifying ignorance or by those who wish to warp it, or;
2) You find it useful to attempt, through hyperbole, to make the Jews culpable, retrospectively, in their own persecution (”well, they’re just like Nazis now themselves, so our European guilt is assuaged”).

If I were to discuss the Mayor of New Orleans as “acting like a plantation owner”, then you might understand why the comparisons are never innocent, and are usually odious.

If I were to say that a collection of gypsies were acting as Nazis, I’d expect to be called an anti-gypsy racist too. If I said that some other nation were acting as Nazis, I’d merely expect to be called a ludicrous hyperbolist, usually.

Does this clarify things for you, TheIrie? And again, it’s nothing to do with “legal” definitions

“If that is a legal principle, presumably it is equally bad to compare any nations policies with that of the Nazi’s. If not, why not?”

why not? you ask, why not? without a moment’s thought?

possibly because of the unique relationship that the Nazis had to Jews?

ever, ever think of that?

or, TheIrie, must you judge life like some crude mechanical equation to be resolved without reference to real people, history or events?

Mod – I mentioned the EU working definition in my first post, as you’ll see. I didn’t just find it randomly on Google.

I do think we could do with some similar such “working definition” for anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia. I would include in such a document examples including:

- denying that there is such a thing as a Palestinian.
- holding Arabs collectively responsible for the actions of unelected leaders.
- portraying Muslims collectively as bigots, anti-Semites, fascists.
- making egregious and degrading comments about the profit Mohammed.

…prophet…

Islam is a lot bigger than just palestinians or arabs. You’re looking at islamophobia through a narrow prism. Though I don’t agree with those who hold that there is no Palestinian nation (it’s up to the Palestinians to decide that, nobody else), it’s hardly “islamophobic.”

also, your 4th pt. is absurd unless you also would say making mocking egregious statements (including pieces of art) about jesus is anti-christian racism (i’m sure you know what i mean). Or do you make a (itself racist) distinction between anti-christian art and anti-muslim art (e.g. danish cartoons)?

“I do think we could do with some similar such “working definition” for anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia. I would include in such a document examples including:

- denying that there is such a thing as a Palestinian”

Drivel. It is possible to make a reasoned argument for such a claim. But then, I don’t expect a non-thinking ignoramus like you to understand that.

So, Israeli policies, uniquely in the world, cannot be compared to the Nazi’s. By law.

No, TheIrie. You can make nasty comments about Abraham and Moses and circumcision without being antisemitic, just as you can make “egregigous and degrading” comments about the prophet Mohammed. What turns a healthy disrespect for a bonkers ideology into racism or antisemitism is when you PREJUDGE an INDIVIDUAL based on your assumption that they’ll fulfill the worst tenets of that ideology. So, attack Leviticus all you want, but don’t go assuming every Jew you meet is going to want to stone you to death when you use your iPod on a Saturday.

“it’s up to the Palestinians to decide that, nobody else”

Not when they have expressly declared that it is solely a trick in order to eradicate the Jews and their country.

“So, Israeli policies, uniquely in the world, cannot be compared to the Nazi’s. By law.”

Which part of ‘it’s not a legal issue’ are you having such difficulty with?

TheIrie,

we’ve tried to help you over the years, but “I didn’t just find it randomly on Google.” is you all over

it is simple to find, throw “EUMC antisemitism” into google, and gives you it in,er, 2 seconds.

but I see your problem, if you find basic key word searching on google to be difficult then dealing with real issues and the interaction of humans must be infinitely confusing to you?

its not like a zero sum game (shall I explain that too?), one does not cancel out the other, like maths

please, go, read a simple book on the topic and avoid that vulgar literalism that you so exhibit, it is useless and so intellectually limiting

have you read the CST yet? why not start with that ?

here’s the link to the CST reports, it is in the centre of the page, marked Antisemitic Discourse in Britain in 2007, you might also try reading Antisemitic Incidents Report 2007

NO – you’re a racist cretin so I try to ignore you. But read the EU document – it is a legal issue. And it is equally possible to make “a reasoned argument” against the existence of an Israeli state. Denial of Palestine and Israel are essentially the same thing.

Post – you’re wrong. Its not only about prejudicing an individual, its also about attributing characteristics, like control over the media, to a group.

“So, Israeli policies, uniquely in the world, cannot be compared to the Nazi’s. By law.”

Which law is that?

“The establishment of a State over which Jews had political rights was a vision of the Mandate for Palestine in 1922.”

That is true in a global political, world-powers-as-Realpolitik sense. But the Jewish practical political imperative (as distinct from messianic visions and longing) goes back at least another 50 years.

Excellent post and report, Mark. It’s illuminating, if a little depressing to see collated, the various strands of mainstream antisemitic discourse. You’ve certainly got your work cut out. To echo others’ comments, the work that you do is invaluable and appreciated.

Others have dealt patiently and ably with “TheIrie’s” typical contribution. Putting aside such silly notions as “the universality principle” of racism, I’m sure he agrees that antisemitism comprises at least some distinct qualities and motifs. In which case, why does he have a problem with one form of racism being dealt with separately? Would he oppose an EU study into discrimination against the Roma or Muslims? It sounds exactly like people who insist that antisemitism must be defined literally in such a way that conflates anti-Arab and anti-Jewish hatred; or those whose only response to Jewish Holocaust discourse is to complain about the disregarding of non-Jewish victims. It’s not that anti-Arab racism or non-Jewish Holocaust victims are unimportant subjects, it’s just that they’re usually only invoked to undermine the case against antisemitism, masquerading as universality.

Nothing “TheIrie” has said indicates that he’s read beyond the opening chapter, but he has exhibited a compulsion to identify the first thing he can find to criticise in a report entitled “Antisemitic Discourse in Britain in 2007″. What a curious instinct.

Mod – you dim witted cretin. You’ve got nothing to say have you.

Irie calls me a racist cretin. Irie the ignorant antisemite who can’t get his 2 brain cells to string a coherent argument together.
ROFLMAOWMP.
Did someone say this moron is a PhD candidate? God help us.

Irie dribbles:
“But read the EU document – it is a legal issue”

The EU document prohibits comparing Israel to the Nazis? Can you quote chapter and verse?

“Denial of Palestine and Israel are essentially the same thing”

Leaving aside the fact that it is neither historically nor geographically nor legally the same, and that this reveals your utter ignorance, I didn’t say ‘Palestine’: I said ‘Palestinians’.

Are you really, truly so utterly illiterate and stupid? Can you really not see that ‘Palestine’ and ‘Palestinian’ are not identical concepts?

Is this a PhD candidate? God help us.

Tim – I don’t have a problem with it at all. I just think some other groups could benefit from the same, not least the Roma as you mentioned. And that all forms of discrimination should be based on the same standards. I can’t see how saying that comparing Israeli policies with Nazis is legitimately discrimination if its not equally the case for other countries policies.

NO – Ok, let me rephrase – denial that there is such a thing as a Palestinian and denial that there is such a thing as an Israeli is essentially the same. You go in for the former, so you’re the equivalent of an anti-Semite.

LOL. What an idiot. An Israeli is not the equivalent of a Palestinian. Israeli is a citizenship, Palestinian is a supposed nationality-as-ethnicity. You might have said ‘Jew’ instead of ‘Israeli’, but perhaps even you are not quite so stupid and ignorant as not to realise where THAT nonsense would have led you.

I should add for reader’s unfamiliar with TheIrie, that he’s a scientist, an “anti-imperialist” and somewhat fixated with the Middle East, but not, I repeat not, in a nasty way

it is ignorance, concentrated literalism and for the past 3 years many of us have tried to help him understand the world, answer his simplistic questions, suggest reading material, but to no avail

so when you converse with him bear that in mind :)

Callum: ““The report cites an Anti-Defamation League poll showing significant recent rises in British and European antisemitic attitudes. 50% (up from 39% in 2005) of UK respondents believe it is ‘probably true’ that ‘Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country”

I’m not sure whether Jews are more “loyal” to Israel than “their own” country. I think it’s a rather silly question. I wouldn’t consider myself “loyal” to Britain, but I consider that just an aspect of being a good internationalist.”

Surely being a good internationalist doesn’t blind you to the possible racist, fifth column implications of half your fellow citizens considering you more loyal to a foreign state. And surely, even if this poll happened to survey only good internationalists, Callum isn’t suggesting that they would consider Jews being “more loyal” to Israel some kind of post-nationalist triumph.

Personally, I find notions of race nonsensical, but I wouldn’t brush off a survey that demonstrated that half the country holds racist and ill-informed views, simply because of my own ideological solipsism.

Again, this seems like a pre-programmed response determined to explain away all evidence of antisemitism as something else. I’m genuinely curious as to what motivates such knee-jerk reactions. I thought that Zionists were supposed to bear ultimate responsibility for antisemitism resulting from the conflation of Jewish identity and Jewish nationalism. I didn’t think you were supposed to deny that antisemitism outright.

Here is another very hard intellectual conundrum for Irie to break his teeth on:

If you put forward rational arguments, based on historical facts, to show why Israel is ‘worse than the Nazis’ (a common enough proposition among such antisemites), then that would not be antisemitic per se.

Of course, one would have to be a complete idiot to think that such facts exist that support this lunatic ‘analogy’. But then, antisemites are not exactly famous for their sane analytical capabilities in this area.

What they do, of course, is froth at the mouth when making such comparisons, not rely on factual information.

I have posted several times arguments based on historical facts as to why there are no ‘Palestinians’. You may disagree, but this not at all similar to screeching that Israelis are Nazis.

You want to argue rationally that there are no Jews? Please, be my guest.
Can’t wait.

I should point out to Modernity, that Nearly Oxfordian has been posting here for about five minutes, and is very clearly a foaming racist. Not that he would notice, fixated as he is with my ignorance, and my techniques of using Google, and so on and so forth. If he reads NO’s last post alone, and can think it through, he will see that it is a thoroughly racist contribution.

Fair enough, Modernity ;-)

And as to shooting fish in a barrel/taking sweets from a child …

“I should point out to Modernity, that Nearly Oxfordian has been posting here for about five minutes”

And that is a rational demolition of my arguments, of course … especially from a ’scientist’. Did you not have teachers to tell you that the length of time someone has been posting on a blog bears no relation to the content of their views?
Try drawing a graph, dear.

“and is very clearly a foaming racist”

Dribbled with nil factual evidence.

“he will see that it is a thoroughly racist contribution”

Ditto.

Oh, dear. You really need to sue your kindergarten, first school, middle school and secondary.

Lets see if anyone wants to defend our new friend Nearly, who happily says there are no ‘Palestinians’. Maybe Morgoth will show up and back him up.

TheIrie, here you go:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Race+hate

that should get you started.

There is no difference in law if a white man beats up an Asian becaus he’s Asian, or if a Chinese person beats up a Jew because he’s Jewish.

No one has said on this blog (to the best of my knowledge) that anti-Jewish racism is any worse than anti-Mongolian racism. Anti-Jewish racism has its own name, “Anti-semitism”, because it is a peculiar historical phenomenon, and a useful category.

Incidentally Jews didn’t make up the label “anti-semitism”. It was the name of a party in late 19th century Vienna that espoused and propogated anti-Jewish ideology. Jews didn’t start labelling people anti-semites, the people did that themselves.

Tim, good to hear from you again.

Funny how those that deny there’s anything special about antisemitism are the first ones to claim that there’s something uniquely evil about anti-Zionism.

Coincidence? Shurely not.

“I can’t see how saying that comparing Israeli policies with Nazis is legitimately discrimination if its not equally the case for other countries policies.”

The Nazis killed six million Jews. Israel is the Jewish state. Israel is routinely and perversely compared to Nazi Germany like no other country. I would argue that “critics” of Israel should be particularly wary of invoking words like “Nazi”, and should show an awareness of Jewish sensitivities. The so-called critics boldly demonstrate this awareness by missing no opportunity to compare Jews to their murderers.

To take Norm’s example, a cartoon representing George Bush as a gorilla would be understood very differently than the habitual representation of African leaders as gorillas. That’s because anti-black racism has its own tropes. The Negro/monkey comparison is not a universal fact of all racisms for all time, as you seem to imagine antisemitic tropes must be to qualify as racism.

Mark: “Funny how those that deny there’s anything special about antisemitism are the first ones to claim that there’s something uniquely evil about anti-Zionism.”

Somehow, I don’t think that’s quite what you meant to say.

Nearly Oxfordian:

I said: “it’s up to the Palestinians to decide that, nobody else”

You replied: “Not when they have expressly declared that it is solely a trick in order to eradicate the Jews and their country.”

Whoa! Who is the “they” who have “expressly declared that it is solely a trick,”

If the Palestinians as a collectivity decide that they exist as a collectivity called Palestinians, you can’ta negate that by saying “they” are using it as a trick, as “they” don’t necessarily represent anybody else but themselves. It’s verging on racism for you to deny them their expressed desire for nationhood because of what some unrepresentative “they” declare.

And what “they” said in 1969 or whenever doesn’t necessarily hold in 2008 anyway.

“TheIrie”: “Lets see if anyone wants to defend our new friend Nearly, who happily says there are no ‘Palestinians’.”

OK, I’ll have a pop.

“TheIrie”: “… Nearly Oxfordian has been posting here for about five minutes…”

Admittedly, it’s a flimsy defence, but at least it’s possible to imagine a time when he won’t be polluting the discussion, unlike some of our more familiar friends.

LEt me put it another way. I don’t think Golda Meir, were she alive today, would reiterate her famous statement “there are no palestinians,” as the situation has dramatically changed on the ground.

By the way, when I’m here in Canada and i talk to the lady at the bank wearing a hijab and ask her where she is from, and she says “I’m Palestinian,” am i to assume that in this non-political chit chat she is just trying to “trick” me. get real. The Palestinians may have considered themselves “south syrians” once, but no longer. If you want others to face the reality of Israel, you have to face some reality as well.

Tim – I absolutely take the point that racism takes different forms for different groups. I also take the point that it is only sensible to establish guidelines for the police and so on, to recognise various forms of racism. But I don’t think you can legislate that comparing Israeli government policy (not the Jews as a collective, but a government policy, a government which must be treated as any other government) to the Nazis is discrimination, when its fine for other government policies to be compared to the Nazis. And more broadly, I think a lot of things that would be considered anti-Semitic by official definitions are tolerated or even promoted towards other groups. And there’s also a lot of politics thrown in too.

“But I don’t think you can legislate that comparing Israeli government policy (not the Jews as a collective, but a government policy, a government which must be treated as any other government) to the Nazis is discrimination, when its fine for other government policies to be compared to the Nazis”.

TheIrie:
a) What legislation are you talking about? I am personally opposed to any legislation that sets up opinion-crimes or even insult-crimes.
b) Therefore, we’re talking about semantics and semiotics, not the law. Hyperbole is a useful rhetorical tool. However, the semiotic reason why a sensible person won’t use the imagery of Nazism to discuss the Israeli government even when engaging hyperbole is the same reason why I wouldn’t compare the black Mayor of New Orleans to a slave-plantation owner. If someone chooses specifically to use the rhetoric which invokes either, then they have an agenda and will be called on it. That’s not to say they should be prosecuted under any law; they shouldn’t. But we’ll have the right to note that they’re insensitive, bigoted tossers.

As has been said above, too, one would be happy to call George W Bush a stupid monkey, but one would not be happy to say the same about Obama, because of the loaded semiotic implications in one that are not in the other. Our brains are exquisite at detecting and interpreting these connections, which can be used and abused in many ways. That’s why the simple corollaries that you try to draw (”Surely it’s just as offensive to call any nation a Nazi”) don’t work, even though a strictly logical reductio-ad-absurdem would suggest they might if one didn’t know the tangled context.

TheIrie: “And more broadly, I think a lot of things that would be considered anti-Semitic by official definitions are tolerated or even promoted towards other groups.”

Why does this surprise you? Context is all. You could argue that if it’s offensive to call one group of people by their Latin-derived skin colour (niger = black) then it is just as offensive to call another group by their Latin-derived skin colour (albus = white). But it isn’t, because historical context is all. If I call you a “Brit”, an abbreviation of “British”, I am not being offensive. However, if I call someone a Paki, an abbreviation of “Pakistani”, I am being offensive.

In other words, there is not one generic list of “offenses” (and I use the term not not denote illegality, but uncivilised discourse) that may be termed racist or bigoted, but a range of specificities related almost entirely to the history of that bigotry. It gets even more complicated when a group reclaims a term, as gay people have done with the term “queer” and some black people have done with the term “nigger” – but where it remains offensive for someone outside that group to use the term.

As such, if you come with a naive universalist approach to all this, you’re going to come a cropper. See what I mean? And that’s why certain things are considered antisemitic which you might initially not understand from a normalising standpoint. Semiotic context is all!

This was one of the stupider things the Irie has ever said:

“Racism is a form a discrimination that applies equally to everyone. As is homophobia.”

Here, the Irie owns up to his own antisemitism in his reading of Joe Quinn’s article:

“So, my answer – no, I don’t think that is an anti-Semitic article.”

great article Mark Gardner.

Its odd though isn’t it how for days in related threads about UCU and the character of their proposed boycott many people have argued for a focus on the arguments about anti-semitism rather than a targetting of particular individuals?

yet when a cogent argument for the persistence of a uniquely sinister form of anti-semitism in what are ostensibly anti-israeli positions is presented, we find the same people are incapable of understanding the reality of anti-semitism as a discursive form and can only see the actions of individuals.

I think this shows why HP has been right both to focus on the actions and views of particular individuals in UCU and arguments about the penetration of anti-semitic right wing racist views into ‘progressive’ pro-palestinian activism.

I don’t think Theirie however, realises how much simple joy he can provide to the callous and jaudiced cynics among us but this line had me howling with grimly dark amusement.

‘I just think some other groups could benefit from the same, not least the Roma as you mentioned. And that all forms of discrimination should be based on the same standards.’

Oh yes I thought ‘absolutely! I think it absolutely wrong that my grandmother should have been abused for being a fucking pikey, no her victimisers should have been required to call her a grasping kike as well’

Well done TheIrie ‘what do we want?’

’standard forms of discrimination’

‘When do we want it?”

hahahaha.

“Lets see if anyone wants to defend our new friend Nearly, who happily says there are no ‘Palestinians’”

Your stupidity and ignorance are exceeded only by your pomposity.

“It’s verging on racism for you to deny them their expressed desire for nationhood because of what some unrepresentative “they” declare”

You are using ‘racism’ as a swear word, which is unworthy of you. Furthermore, you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions in your haste to vilify me.
I did not say that I oppose the creation of a separate state in the West Bank (I am in two minds about that). I am simply saying that in my opinion, based on arguments I have listed, this is a fabrication. You might as well allow a group of Wiccas in Wiltshire, who have an irrational racist desire to annihilate everyone else in that county, to start calling themselves ‘Wiltshirians’ in 2008, claim that they are the sole indigenous nation (after all, they are now called Wiltshirians, ergo Wiltshire must be their country and nobody else’s and has been theirs and nobody else’s since 3000 BC).

‘They’ are the representatives that these people themselves have declared represent them. Look it up.

I am simply reminding people of the true narrative.
To suggest that I am therefore a ‘racist’ is utter nonsense. I expect such nonsense from Irie, that goes with his general illiteracy. It’s disappointing coming from you.

“Admittedly, it’s a flimsy defence, but at least it’s possible to imagine a time when he won’t be polluting the discussion”

Do you have the slightest idea what a self-important little tosser you are?

I do think we could do with some similar such “working definition” for anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia. I would include in such a document examples including:

- denying that there is such a thing as a Palestinian.
- holding Arabs collectively responsible for the actions of unelected leaders.
- portraying Muslims collectively as bigots, anti-Semites, fascists.
- making egregious and degrading comments about the profit Mohammed.

If Toys R Us wants to diversify into working definitions and stop selling toys then I suppose it would happen. I think you will find the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference) at the UN is indeed working on some religious discrimination legislation so you can’t critricise Islam. (Toys R Us is my “built for purpose analogy”)

It is absolutely true that there is no solid definition of a “Palestinian” since these are people who could not have existed until 1922 when the Jews of Palestine started to be called Palestinians until 1948. Then entities known by the tag “Palestine xxxxx company” were relablled as “Israeli(i)”.

Arafat steps in just before 1967 and declares that the Arabs of the region who are NOT Israeli are “Palestinians”. They are now collectively called by that name and are eager to have a state.

So, there are such people called Palestinians who were newly created and re-labelled in 1967′ish. There is no history for the name “Palestinian” prior to 1922.

If a group of Liverpudlians want to be known as Scousers then Scousers exist. However, there is no place called Scouse and Scouse isn’t a nationality.

If the Arabs who don’t live in Israel, The Lebanon, Syria or Jordan want to call themselves “Palestinians” then they can do so. Just recognise that Palestinian history starts from around 1967 when Arafat decided to call then Palestinians. Hence, I agree there are a group of people called Palestinians who happen to live exclusively in Gaza and West Bank.

“Do you have the slightest idea what a self-important little tosser you are?”

Take it easy! I was only trying to help you.

Palestinian history doesn’t start in 1967. The name “Palestine” has been around since Roman times. As has Israel. But Israel as a state has only existed since 1948. So, if you want to say Palestinian history starts in 1967, you would have to also say Israeli history starts in 1948.

Read a book, Ireson.

Nearly Oxfordian needs to get himself a proper degree so he can drop the Nearly.

Anyway isn’t it properly oxonian?

Palestinian history doesn’t start in 1967. The name “Palestine” has been around since Roman times. As has Israel. But Israel as a state has only existed since 1948. So, if you want to say Palestinian history starts in 1967, you would have to also say Israeli history starts in 1948.

You are definitely an ill-educated moron. The “Land of Israel” (Eretz Yisroael” was mentioned at the time of the Old Testamament BEFORE the Romans expelled the Jews and renamed it Palestina/Philistina. (The home of The Philistines). The people there had no national association after the Jewish administrations were killed or fled. The area extended to The Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Gaza and West Bank (as we know them today). It was an area of disparate Arab tribes and remaining Jews. It never had a collective identity that had any authoprity known as Palestinian.

It only became organised into political units by the Mandate For Palestine 1922. If YOU say that these Arab people were “Palestinians” then we can say that “Palestinian States” were created in The Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Hence the stories that many Palestinians are actually Syrians who moved to the area around 1947 is accurate. Some Palestinians are Syrians and Jordaniians

Hence, Palestinian People never existed as a single homogeneous and political entity until they declared themselves around 1967. Some of their original homes are The Lebanon, Syria and Jordan from whom the fled to avoid being killed as they wanted not to be ruled by these countries. Arafat, for example invaded Jordan and The Lebanon to try and establish Palestinian States from them. He was a Marxist Revolutionary Homosexual killer thief.

Israel has been there for thousands of years – not since 1948.

“He was a Marxist Revolutionary Homosexual killer thief.”

Wow – has Batman been informed of his existence? I could envisage an exciting clash over the skies of Gotham City!

“Israel has been there for thousands of years – not since 1948.” Yes, I completely agree. And Palestine, as you point out, has also been around since Roman times, not 1967.

“Israel has been there for thousands of years – not since 1948.” Yes, I completely agree.

So, you accept you were wrong then.

And Palestine, as you point out, has also been around since Roman times, not 1967.

True, but there has never been a single entity called “The Palestinian People” until 1967. They were disparate nomadic tribes. For example, the Hashemite Kingdom was a sub-set of ancient Palestine and they stole land from the Mandate For Palestine to become Jordan. So, many ‘Palestinians’ have a home in Jordan.

Who was the Palestinian King who could be pals with King David of Israel?

Achish, king of Gath, perhaps?

Certainly, according to the Book of Samuel, Achish complained that his palace was ‘full of madmen’ so in this sense at least his domain resembled the current state of ‘Palestinian’ affairs….

The Romans called Israel “Palestine” after conquering the Jews just to piss them off. Modern Palestinians may have took the same name for the same reason.

Lay off Ireson, he’s been the victim of several homophobic and misogynist incidents today and deserves some rest.

oh all the old chauvinist arguments about palestinians just being a bunch of arab propaganda are now being rehearsed again I see. The fact that it flies in the face of much contemporary, and indeed older, historiographical research notwithstanding. A useful summary of these arguments is provided by this Zionist historian in his review of Joan Peter’s book.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

The broader problem here is a discussion about racist discourse, in which another racist discourse appears and no-one at all aside from those dubbed ‘political extremists’ have anything much to say about it. At a deeper level, as the Porath article above argues, these are simply the recycling of chauvinist mythologies which any sophisticated Zionist would be embarressed by. What such comments are doing unchallenged in a discussion about racist discourse is anybodies guess.

Maven wrote:

True, but there has never been a single entity called “The Palestinian People” until 1967. They were disparate nomadic tribes. For example, the Hashemite Kingdom was a sub-set of ancient Palestine and they stole land from the Mandate For Palestine to become Jordan.

I thought the Hashemites were from Arabia. Possibly I’m wrong about this, I’m curious to know.

Everything else you said was pretty much spot on…the category “palestinian” to describe a aub-set of the Arab people arises in the mid-late 1960’s. Before that they were refered to by their tribe/clan, or later, simply as Arabs.

However, was “Palestine” not an Ottoman administrative area, part of the province of Syria? Again, I may be wrong.

“What such comments are doing unchallenged in a discussion about racist discourse is anybodies guess.”

Homophobe.

OK, some basic history called for.

Canaan; term ‘Canaanites’ used c. 1800 B.C.E., possibly to refer to rebellious soldiers. From an Egyptian inscription c.1200 B.C.E., the term Canaan was used for the lowlands and the coastal area

Israel; term used in Egyptian inscription c.1200 B.C.E. for central hill country

Palaestina; term used by Herodotus (c. 450 B.C.E.); derived from Akkadian, Hebrew and Aramaean terms

Palestine the Roman term for their provinces after 135 C.E.

[B.C.E. = Before Common Era;
C.E. = Common Era (sometimes known as A.D.)]

Palestine was not a recognisable administrative unit under the Ottomans, when it formed part of the ‘vilayet’ of Damascus.

However, it was a recognisable unit under the Arabic-speaking Ummayad and then Abbasid Caliphates and then the Fatimid rule which preceded Seljuk and Crusader rule in the area. The ‘Jund’ military district of ‘Filastin’ was one of the four sub-districts of the province of Syria. It included areas on both sides of the Jordan river. I dont think there’s any evidence of a ‘Palestinian’ identity relating to this period, tho I should stress that I dont believe that the absence of this should deprive the modern Arab group who call themselves Palestinians from claiming self-determination.

No, Baht At -

It is Oxfordian, Oxonian would relate to the county

From the Republic Of Cowley Rd

I am a bit annoyed at Nearly Oxfordian.

This thread is about the antisemitic discourse in Britain but Nearly Oxfordian wants to derail it and get on his pet hobbyhorse: Palestine

What purpose is there ? Deliberately disrupting an intelligent thread with this vexatious issue?

It is self-defeating, it is doing an “TheIrie”

It achieves absolutely nothing and distracts from the important main post, well done Nearly Oxfordian, you’ve done TheIrie’s job for him.

The Hashemites were from Saudi Arabia and put on the throne in Jordon by the British. What any of this has to do with the question of Palestine is anyones guess (aside from a perverse wish to continue with the fiction that the bulk of the indiginous population of this part of the fertile crescent didn’t really exist, or were nomads, or had not distinctive identity prior to the British arriving). What lies behind this absurdity is a strange metaphysical view in which the place was really empty (its a little bit like contemporary religious settlers in the west bank who just can’t see the local population) and that therefore when the British were partitioning and re-partitioning the region in their own interests this was purely a matter of ’stealing’ land from the Zionist movement, the vast majority of the population being a strange kind of unperson for such commentators. Its just incredible that this kind of wierd bigotry can still be entertained seriously by anyone, but modernities plaints about this are understandable but at the same time problematical.

Because the theory of the new anti-semitism wants to draw connections between the problem of anti-semitism and the deeply contested terrain of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The pit-falls of doing this are amply drawn out by what just happened, and what just happened is not accidental or some kind of individual mistake. Its why its almost certainly a mistake to revise the definition of anti-semitism in this way.

JohnG,

when we need a simplistic history lesson from you, we’ll ask

TRY to stay on topic:

“CST’s new annual report on antisemitic discourse examines language and imagery within discussion and rhetoric about Jews and Jewish-related issues in 2007.”

TheIrie:

Does “misogyny” only apply to approximately half the world’s population?

Does “homophobia” only apply to (gasp!) approximately 1/10?

Is there a symmetrical term (legal or otherwise) to refer to “heterosexual” prejudice or “male” prejudice?

Are you a complete fucking moron?

The world wants to know.

WIESS – cheers for the historical clarification. I agree that the absence of a unique cultural/political identity in the past in no way prejudices the current claim of the Palestinians to statehood.

JOHNG – you said: “The Hashemites were from Saudi Arabia and put on the throne in Jordon by the British. What any of this has to do with the question of Palestine is anyones guess”. You don’t think the question of who rules Jordan (which, until 1922 part of Palestine) has anything to do with Palestine? You’re a fucking idiot.

The “definition of anti-semitism” isn’t changing. No sensible person here, or anywhere else says you can neer criticise Israel. Read the Israeli press for christsake – they criticise it all the time. But, if you deny any people the right to national self-determination, that is called racism – when you direct it aainst the Jews in particular it is called anti-semitism.

And before you throw any chaff, asserting the right of the Jews to their own state in the middle east does NOT, by definition, prejudice the right of the Palestinians to equivalent national self-determination. The Palestinian call for this is relatively new, and the parties are still trying (some with more sincerity than others) to accomodate the claims of both peoples.

oh all the old chauvinist arguments about palestinians just being a bunch of arab propaganda are now being rehearsed again I see. The fact that it flies in the face of much contemporary, and indeed older, historiographical research notwithstanding. A useful summary of these arguments is provided by this Zionist historian in his review of Joan Peter’s book.

The broader problem here is a discussion about racist discourse, in which another racist discourse appears and no-one at all aside from those dubbed ‘political extremists’ have anything much to say …

I had a quick glance at that book and as soon as I saw this I knew it was biased bollocks!

Every bit of evidence that could be found, however trivial it may have been, was used to prove the continuity of the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel and to show that it was central to the life of Jews in exile. Very little was said of the Muslims who meanwhile had become the great majority of the population and the masters of the land. The Zionists argued that Jewish identity and the yearning to return to Palestine were strengthened by the persecutions of the Jews in all parts of the world, including the Islamic and Arab countries.

Jewish evidence “trivial”.

“Very little was said of the Muslims who meanwhile had become the great majority of the population and the masters of the land. ” -

Hey guys its MUSLIM LANDS. Not acknowledging that a Jewish nation existed some 2,000 years (at least) before Islam of 1400. Did he actually charge money for this book? My guess is no. His Arab paymasters must have subsidised it.

I dont believe that the absence of this should deprive the modern Arab group who call themselves Palestinians from claiming self-determination

I think we all agree that there should be a Palestinians state. We just don’t agree that its called Israel.

What lies….. Indeed, you got it in one!

….. behind this absurdity is a strange metaphysical view in which the place was really empty (its a little bit like contemporary religious settlers in the west bank who just can’t see the local population) and that therefore when the British were partitioning and re-partitioning the region in their own interests this was purely a matter of ’stealing’ land from the Zionist movement, the vast majority of the population being a strange kind of unperson for such commentators. Its just incredible that this kind of wierd bigotry can still be entertained seriously by anyone, but modernities plaints about this are understandable but at the same time problematical.

Yes, land WAS stolen from the original Mandate for Palestine. It was stolen by Jordan colluding with Britain. Otherwise the Mandate would have included Jordan.

The Mandate for Palestine states that Palestine should be inhabited by Arabs and Jews with equal rights with the exception that Jews were granted the additional political rights to move towrds government of Mandated Palestine. Mandated Palestine (after Jordan was lopped off) consists currently of Israel, + West Bank, + Gaza.

By refusing to allow Jews to live in West Bank and Gaza teh Palestinians have annexed land that was supposed to be available for all. Arab wars allowed Israel to claim Independence for what they could defend.

For Israel to take Gaza and West Bank as part of Israel would fulfil what was planned by The Mandate but commonsense says that it should be a Palestinian State. In other words “Here’s independence now stop killing us”.

The bigotry of Palestinians towards Israelis, and Jews in particular, is a disgusting stain. Yet Israel was founded by Israel defending itself by continual attacks by Arabs.

er, back to the topic? the CST’s new annual report

Everybody knows what “Am Israel” means since at least three thousand years. It means the People of Israel, or, the Jewish People.

I don’t think anybody heard about “Umma Filastin” (The People of Palestine, meaning the Sunny Muslim Arabs that live in Eretz Israel) until the sixties of the twentieth century.

Read a book, Ireson.

“The Hashemites were from Saudi Arabia and put on the throne in Jordon by the British. What any of this has to do with the question of Palestine is anyones guess”

Trans-Jordan, in fact – but perhaps you don’t even know that Trans-Jordan is 78% of what until that country was invented was usually known as ‘Palestine’.
Now do go and read some books about the ME before you reveal your ignorance again.

“Nearly Oxfordian needs to get himself a proper degree so he can drop the Nearly”

Another idiot who thinks that my screen name has anything to do with Oxford U.
Oxford is also a city, moron.

“Palestinian history doesn’t start in 1967. The name “Palestine” has been around since Roman times. As has Israel. But Israel as a state has only existed since 1948. So, if you want to say Palestinian history starts in 1967, you would have to also say Israeli history starts in 1948″

LOL. More utter stupidity and ignorance. Israel as a state existed around 900 BC.

Utter nonsense, Modernity. I replied to points made by others, and corrected historical distortions posted by others. Do try to keep up.

nearly O:

Im not going to debate this with you any more. To me it’s simple: If Jews can define who they are and have the right to self-determination, so do Palestinians. Your “wiccan” example may be analogous in the abstract, but in the real world, it’s absurd, as is not accepting palestinians as a people, given their unique historical experience (which sets them apart from the Syrians, etc.)

For me, subject closed.

“a biased book” well yes Porath the main Israeli historian of Palestinian nationalism believes Joan Peter’s book was a biased book. Thats what the review said.

Back on topic, the conflict between Arab and Jew in Mandate Palestine was so contested ideologically, that till today there isn’t even an agreed nomenclature about it as Porath argues in the article I referenced. These disputes continue into the present.

This was, and is, a conflict whose dynamic involved the admixture of communal and national claims, about which there is a very large literature and as yet no political or indeed academic consensus. It should be treated seperately from the question of anti-semitism in Europe about which there is such a consensus.

The consensus on anti-semitism that exists in Europe means that there can be clear agreement about what the themes and motifs of anti-semitism are, some of which are laid out in the report. However applications when connected to the very different question of the Israel/Palestine are not uncontested.

So for example, whilst no one could object to an analyses of discourse used by campaigners for the boycott, if that discourse was found to contain what are commonly agreed to be anti-semitic stereotypes, it seems unwise to me to attempt to argue either that a boycott is, in itself, anti-semitism or indeed that comparisons with Aparthied constitute anti-semitism (especially when these comparisons began because of the similarity of what we were seeing on TV about the occupied territories and the South African townships in the first intifada).

Its unwise because it simply will not issue in any genuine consensus. And some kind of consensus is always neccessary in building anti-racist campaigns. Building a consensus about anti-semitic imagery and discourse is valuable and possible. Attempting to equate, in themselves, campaigns or comparisons, with anti-semitism is neither valuable or possible.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is almost a century old. To insist on a consensus about that conflict, as opposed to a consensus about anti-semitism is quixotic and counterproductive.

That would be my constructive contribution to the discussion.

Bearing in mind your banner, I think HP need to sort out their thinking on this.

It seems to me that it is must be legitimate to argue that there is a Jewish lobby in the UK which identifies with Israel and which seeks to influence the UK government in various ways to pursue policies tending towards the preservation and prosperity of Israel. It’s no more strange or inadmissible to my mind than saying there is a Muslim lobby in the UK which identifies with the Palestinian people and which seeks to influence the UK government in various ways to pursue policies tending towards the advancement of the Palestinian cause and the demise of Israel.

There’s plenty of evidence for both propositions.

It’s difficult to say at what point this sort of discourse becomes morally if not legally inadmissible.

Clearly at one end of the scale, direct incitement to violence against Jews is illegal and inadmissible.

I would also say spreading blatant lies about Jews is morally inadmissible – so the blood libels, propagating the Protocols of Zion, the lies about the Jenin massacre etc This must count as anti-semitic and in many cases is currently illegal.

Part of the problem here is the issue of intent or motivation.

Whilst I see nothing wrong in someone saying “Israel is of no concern to us. It was the Jews who wanted to set up a state there, even though everyone could see it was a daft idea. Let them fight their own battles. We should look to our own interests and forget about them.” etc, I can see that one doesn’t really know from that what motivates the person.

Is it a simple realpolitik, national interest belief system? Or is it really based on some fantastic idea of a grand global conspiracy of all-powerful Jews.

johng, we have been asked to get back ‘on-topic’. Glad too! Antisemiotism is also the denial of the establishment of a Jewish State and Abtisemites will often try and argue that Jews had no rights to the region of Palestine. Oh!! That seems to be what you are arguing. You have remained ‘on-topic’ throughout.

The biggest “land-grabbers” of Palestine are The Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (or Trans-Jordan as was). Biggest deniers of the establishment of self-determination? The Arab/Muslim axis.

“field”, no one is saying there are no Jewish or pro-Israel lobby groups; lobbying is a legitimate and integral part of the democratic process. The problem arises when this is referred to as the “Israel Lobby” or the “Jewish Lobby”, characterised as a homogeneous, all-powerful entity, that silences opposition and distorts the democratic process. When this happens, the “Lobby” is indistinguishable from classic antisemitic narratives.

The Lobby is never presented as a benign force, or one player among many in the political scene. It is almost always presented as a shady force determining world events, and this is never backed up with evidence. Blair supported Israel’s action in Lebanon in 2006: why is this often presented as evidence for the power of the Lobby, rather than evidence for the more prosaic and plausible conclusion that this represented Blair’s genuine conviction?

There is room for legitimate debate on the role and influence of lobby groups in general, including pro-Israel and pro-Jewish lobby groups. Unfortunately, just now the only lobby that anyone seems interested in is the “Israel Lobby”, and most discourse is thinly-disguised conspiracy theory.

See the CST report for further details.

I say that contemporary Antisemitism is when a newspaper tells lies about Israel, Lies that are so nakedly LIES that you would be disgusted.

The Independent ”

Back in 2006, Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers from their side of the Lebanese frontier and dragged them, mortally wounded, into Lebanon. The Israelis immediately launched a massive air bombardment against all of Lebanon, publicly declaring Beirut’s democratically-elected and US-backed – but extremely weak – government must be held to account for what Hizbollah does

LIES! Blood Libel LIES!!

If Hezbollah were “their side of the border” then why would they be dragging the bodies “into Lebanon”

MPAC UK, of course, LOVES it http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4931/102/#jreactions

Its on topic because it demonstrates Antisemitism in the media.

Maven – the “their” clearly refers to the Israelis. They were on the Israeli side of the border. That is what it says.

the “their” clearly refers to the Israelis

“Their” is clearly ambiguous in this sentence. Your prejudices are not.

(And the Irie is a fucking retarded homophobe.)

Tim –

I agree. But we have to be careful we don’t stifle free speech. We saw how politicians and commentators played the race card for 30 plus years to stifle any debate about mass immigration. Even now, people are uneasy about discussing immigration issues because of that, despite the fact that the Labour government (e.g. Mr O’Brien) comes out with stuff that ten years ago would have earned ministers a dishonourable resignation. And the damage has been done – hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people who have no sympathy with our culture (our democracy, our laws, our traditions, or our social lives)
have been allowed in and given citizenship.

So whilst “nobody” may be saying discussion of lobbies is illegitimate, this could be the outcome of this type of approach aimed against other types of “discourse”.

I think that rather than trying to call into question the legitimacy of certain types of discourse it is much more important to undertake the direct ideological struggle against those ideologies that threaten us and that propagate dangerous concepts of society e.g. Nazism and traditional Islam. If there were no Nazism and no Islam in the UK, there wouldn’t be a lot of virulent anti-semitism left.

Part of the problem here, I think, is that some – many – Jewish groups aren’t really in a position to do that effectively in relation to Islam – since they do want separate schools, separate laws, social exclusivity (e.g. opposing outmarriage) and full blown race/religious equality legislation. So you end up, ironically, with the Chief Rabbi telling us that Islam is having a positive effect on our society. Well I am afraid one of the byproducts of a strong Isalmic presence in the UK is precisely this sort of anti-semitic discourse.

I think the beginning of wisdom here is recognising there is a problem, that the problem is Islam and that it needs to be addressed rather than
wished out of existence.

Kramer: Next you will be telling me that they need their own schools!

Seinfeld: They have their own schools!

Ahhhhhhh! You’re an anti-Dentist!

“Antisemiotism is also the denial of the establishment of a Jewish State and Abtisemites will often try and argue that Jews had no rights to the region of Palestine”

Maven this is precisely what I would contest. There has been for the best part of a hundred years a conflict centreing on competing national claims in the region. There is nothing wrong with continuing this argument, advancing arguments for either side, or criticising the way in which arguments are put. But its not the case that these arguments about competing legitimacy spring from anti-semitism, and the two topics are not intrinsically linked.

On both sides of course arguments about competing national claims often degenerate into communal and chauvinist rhetoric. If one was dealing with this phenomenan (as opposed to the very different phenomenan of European anti-semitism) it would be neccessary to treat both of these tendencies togeather (something which again, would be best done by abstracting from the question of the legitimacy of the underlying national claims).

This would however be the remit of those seeking peace in the Israel/Palestine conflict, best dealt with Israeli’s and Palestinians, and not as part of an argument about the different subject of anti-semitism in Britain.

This would not be the case with European anti-semitism where there does not exist the same symmetry precisely because one is dealing with a form of racism, not competing national claims and associated chauvinist and communal rhetoric.

This for example:

The biggest “land-grabbers” of Palestine are The Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (or Trans-Jordan as was). Biggest deniers of the establishment of self-determination? The Arab/Muslim axis.

Is simply communal and chauvinist nonsense, no different in kind from opposing communal and chauvinist nonsense. Its beyond the realm of rational discourse, and if any campaign about anti-semitism attempts to target varieties of this sort of thing that exists on the Palestinian side, without including a critique of its mirror opposite in the kind of rhetoric you prefer, it will have no credibility whatsoever.

This becomes a particular problem if there is to be a serious attempt to engage with problems of anti-semitism in the Muslim community where such things exist.

That would be anti-Dentite, Fabian. :D

Most “left” anti-Zionism amounts to one of the following:-

1. a belief that the idea of a Jewish state is inherently wrong or misguided.

2. a belief that the idea of a Jewish state in the historical homeland of Israel / Palestine is inherently wrong or misguided.

3. a belief that the actually existing Jewish state was established in circumstances which render it fundamentally illegitimate such that it should be abolished/ removed/ destroyed.

It is self evident that none of these positions are necessarily racist (although I would argue that they are wrong).

If, however, the basis for the beliefs in relation to the Jewish state are not applied to other nation states, the vast majority of which were established through nationalism, war, conquest and a level of ethnic cleansing (USA, Australia, Turkey, Greece, India, Pakistan.etc), then this is, at the least, institutionally anti-semitic.

It is a form of thinking which whilst not neccesarily motivated, at any level, by an irrational hatred or prejudice against Jews as a people has unwarranted and unjustified impact on the majority of Jewish people.

The trouble with your position left liberal hawk is that in the final paragraph you simply rehearse an argument which is part of the traditional justification for one side of the national, rather then an anti-racist, dispute. There are all kinds of responses to this claim endlessly rehearsed in either rational or irrational ways on the blogsphere and off it. Its not an argument which is going to be settled by redefining what it as actually an argument about competing national claims as an argument about anti-semitism. Of course anti-semitism can and does arise in relationship to argument about this dispute (as does anti-Arab chauvinism and sometimes straightfoward racism). But to attempt to classify the beliefs outlined as by effect if not intention, anti-semitic, the consequence is that the definitions of anti-semitism get dragged into an argument about which there is not, and probably can’t be consensus of the kind that is neccessary in any broad anti-racist campaign in Britain. This is the difficulty. I don’t think its an insoluble difficulty, but its a real one.

Left-Liberal Hawk.

What you call ‘institutionally anti-semitic’ in case of this proposed boycott under the law of the prevention of racial discrimination in employment is called ‘indirect racial discrimination’.

Questions of intention, motivation etc are irrelevant to the task of proving whether indirect discrimination exists.

If the effects of a ‘requirement, procedure, criterion or practice’ are such that a particular racial or ethnic group is treated less favourably, unequally, disproportionately to an other racial or ethnic group, then unlawful, racial discrimination has occurred.

In the case of the boycott it would target Israeli academics preventing them from engaging in or receiving the benefits of academic employment in the UK that would be allowed to all other academics irrespective of their racial or ethnic, or national origin.

As the Israeli academics in question are Jewish, a category recognised in English law as comprising an ethnic group within the meaning of the RRA 1976, there is no question that the boycott would be unlawful racial discrimination.

Now in my reading of this debate among UCU members and their supporters (as at such sites as Socialist Unity) I find it astonishing that avowed leftists and trade unionists seem so unable to understand Employment protection legislation, the kind of thing that we are informed they have spent their lives campaigning for.

When so much discussion revolves around ‘how can we be racist when all we wish to do is to boycott the racist Israeli regime, just like Apartheid South Africa, they are the racists not us’ the blindness of their position has to be explored.

What is it exactly that they don’t see?

Is the blind spot solely in relation to the effects of the boycott, that could not be implemented in the way they want without contravening UK equality legislation?

If this were the case then one would expect that they would have taken legal advice seriously and sought non-discriminatory ways of targetting (even boycotting products of) the state of Israel.

Now part of the problem is surely that an academic trade union is a bit of a tautology as the nature of academic employment and career advancement must be one of the least fraternal, the most ruthlessely individualistic carreers imaginable, where people so often have no resources to rely on but their own.

If we look at other areas of employment discrimination in academe, such as disability for instance, we find a truly horrible, backward and hostile environment at all levels, relating to the equal employment of people with disabilities.

So while academics might be inclined to congratulate themselves on their tolerance and forward thinking views, this is certainly not reflected in the experience of my disabled clients pursuing legal claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Indeed a similar response of academics to this issue when raising issues of discrimination related to disability is found;

A mixture of blank incomprehension alternating with a state of ‘high dudgeon’ bordering on hysteria, that anyone would have the temerity to judge them on anything at all, least of all to dare to imploy that they may have discriminated against anyone, ever.

So I don’t think that academics opposed to the state of Israel and affecting a pro-palestinian aesthetic political posture are being intinsically anti-semitic, they are mostly just continuing to wear their comforting, self-regarding, mantle of arrogance tempered with ignorance.

But as with a maintained ignorance in all things, beyond an excusable lack of knowledge or thought, when steadfastly maintained in the face of reasonable argument, continued ignorance becomes a choice.

We are then entitled to ask; why so much effort expended to maintain this view? what is actually the underlying dynamic, what ineterests does it serve?

but there is no evidence that this would in fact be the result of a call for action about institutional relationships between British and Israeli universities. This is contested by the parties to the dispute. and there has been no legal judgement on the situation. The attempt to present either concern about Israels treatment of Palestinians or on the other hand a failure to accept Israels claims about the legitimacy of its national claims with respect to Palestinian ones as ‘institutionalised racism’ is simply absurd. This was bought out very clearly in an argument between David Hirsh and Martin Shaw reproduced in Engage.

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=195

Here were two academics both of whom disagree with the call for an academic boycott but one of whom does not accept the claims that the call for it reflects racism, institutional or otherwise. This leads David Hirsh to appear to accuse Martin Shaw of being blind to anti-semitism (or at least thats how Martin Shaw appeared to take it). Now I suppose one can have a real disagreement about this. But the attempt to suggest that Martin Shaw is in some way soft on anti-semitism struck me as perhaps the ultimate reducto absurdum of this argument. As Shaw puts it, if I understand him rightly, this is to equate ’strong opposition’ to the Israeli states behaviour, and by implication, ’strong solidarity’ with the Palestinians (misguided or not) with anti-semitism (consious or otherwise).

This is an utterly counter-productive move and many deeply hostile to the idea of a boycott, will be deeply shocked by the shift in the terms of discourse which could lead to someone like Martin Shaw basically being accused of being soft on anti-semitism. Its entirely ridiculous and will be taken seriously by almost no-one.

sorry that should be serious rather then strong.

On both sides of course arguments about competing national claims

I always reject any argument that seeks to cast doubt about the right answer on the basis that two sides of an argument disagree. The Palestinians have a victory. From being a bunch of disparate Arabs of nomadic tendency throughout an ancient area called Palestine, despite the creation of three Arabs states from Palestine called The Lebanon, Syria and Jordan they have managed to come from a position of nomads to one of having their own state simply by being terrorists. A Palestinian State is a victory for terrorism.

If party A and Party B contest something then the solution isn’t 50% of what each side wants. If I have 100% right to something and party B objects thhe it isn’t a solution that I now be allowed to have 68% of what was 100% claim. If the Palestinian terrorists are going to get something then I’d make it on MY terms and not theirs.

Since when does the World go open eyes into creating a modern terrorist state?

And Maven’s batcrazy response about wraps up the argument. It has always struck me that Martin Shaw was the kind of academic always worth reading even when you disagreed with him (which for me over the last decade was most of the time). Which is why it was always strange to me that he should be associated with a journal which was almost never worth reading whatever you thought. Those unaware of his writing and what it represented on the left, might not realise quite how odd the exchange I linked to actually is.

well said Metta:

“I find it astonishing that avowed leftists and trade unionists seem so unable to understand Employment protection legislation, the kind of thing that we are informed they have spent their lives campaigning for.

When so much discussion revolves around ‘how can we be racist when all we wish to do is to boycott the racist Israeli regime, just like Apartheid South Africa, they are the racists not us’ the blindness of their position has to be explored.”

but the problem is that those advocating this boycott (SWPers, or their fellow travellers, etc) ain’t concerned with basic trade unionism, the issue whooshes over their heads, as you suggest, in their self congratulatory manner they assume they can do no ill.

modernity

I am sure you are right and in their hubris as johng has indicated they my well seek to test the law.

All I can say is bring it on!

I do enjoy the idea that the advocates of the boycott are the SWP and their fellow travellers, something which will no doubt surprise many of the key campaigners. But then thats about the level of the argument isn’t it really?

JG I dont think Hirsh was saying that strong opposition to the policies of Israel was in any way anti-semitic (in fact I think he went out of this way to refute the claim that he had said this). What he said was that the boycott which disproportionately affected Jews, including Israelis, and which could not be justified objectively (ie when other states more deserving of a boycott were not targetted) was racist in the intitutional racism / indirect racism sense.

Perhaps another term should be used, other than racism, because such institutional racism is so far away from the hatred and overt prejudice which is generally associated with racism.

I also think that compelling arguments against the boycott and against anti-Zionism can be made without needing to prove any anti-semitism, and tactically there are strong reasons to avoid having the argument on these terms. If, however, your primary concern is fighting all forms of anti-semitism on the left, as with Engage, then I think this is a reasonable point to make.

Here is what Hirsh said about “serious opposition”.

“Martin Shaw is keen to defend the legitimacy of what he calls ’serious opposition’ to Israel. His concern is that the charge that a boycott would be antisemitic has the effect of undermining ’serious opposition’. My position is the opposite. Avoiding antisemitism is a necessary part of formulating serious opposition, not something which undermines it. Serious opposition takes careful precautions against antisemitism and makes its case in such a way as to offer no comfort to antisemites. [9] Such precautions are necessary because one would expect, given the historical embeddedness of antisemitism even on the left, that some opposition to Israel would be antisemitic.”

Yes he does and I’m sure he believes that. Martin Shaw, someone well known on the left for his qualified defence of military intervention and his opposition to those whom HP and others would describe as the ‘anti-imperialist left’, however argues that in effect, what you describe as his tactical mistake, is in fact simply an error, and argues his case convincingly in my view, and one suspects, in the view of many others currently reading the debate, less committed then I am to one side of the dispute. The idea that Martin Shaw (of all bloody people!) should end up being accused of being soft on anti-semitism as a consequence, demonstrates the real danger that the particular take on anti-semitism proposed by those like Hirsh will prove utterly unconvincing to many who do take anti-semitism seriously, and worse, give a loophole to those who don’t. Its the general problem with mixing these things up. Its leading to absurdity.

Sorry you don’t accuse Hirsh as a tactical mistake. You suggest that in general it would be a tactical mistake but that its reasonable for those concerned with the left to do so. Sorry my error.

Shaw’s arguments may be convincing to you but they are not to me. In any event he is opposed to the boycott and therefore, on Hirsh’s case, not in any way guilty of supporting anti-semitism.

The definition of instituational racism may be so broad as to lead to results which you think are absurd. In this case the result being that a campaign by people who are (overwhelmingly) not motivated by any conscious or sub-conscious Judeophobia and rather by what they perceive to be solidarity with the oppressed and a resistance to injustice, being defined as racism. I would be surprised, however, if the SWP did not consider that institutional racism is racism given that this is accepted in mainstream political discourse (and enshrined in UK law).

But it clearly just ISN’T institutionalized racism. Thats the point. Its a nonsense. On this Martin Shaw is entirely correct in my view. And its why he’s now being attacked in the most absurd way in the comments section on Engage, accused both of softness on anti-semitism and being accused of stepping outside his area of competance, as well as not having any competance at all. Deeply unpleasent in every possible way. But in any case this takes us very far away from discussions of anti-semitism, which clearly have nothing whatsoever to do with discussion of the pros and cons of the boycott.

Metta,

The SWP are hardly revolutionaries, a leadership stuffed with public school nobodies and third rate ex-students who are good at Freshers week, but not much else when it comes to real politics (viz. dealing with Galloway).

Another indicators of that is their response to the legal opinions on the proposed Boycott of Israeli academics: they did nothing.

if the SWP and its hangers on had the courage of their own convictions, that such a boycott was not discriminatory, then they would have fought tooth and nail for this Boycott, irrespective of the consequences, but they don’t.

If they truly believed what they argued, then they should test it, argue on the front page of Socialist Worker that boycotting Israeli academics is not discriminatory.

They should use their considerable muscle within the higher echelons of UCU to ignore the legal advice.

They should force the issue, but they won’t.

Not because they’ve suddenly understood employment legislation or the race relations act, but because they are essentially political cowards and incredibly conservative in their attitudes.

Sure they’ll shout and bitch a lot, but when it comes down to doing things, their innate middle-class conservativism kicks in.

So you won’t see any real display of the SWP’s supposed political courage or convictions, they’ll just whine on blogs instead, it is easier.

“Your “wiccan” example may be analogous in the abstract, but in the real world, it’s absurd”

Calling it ‘absurd’ without offering a shred of an argument as to what the difference may be, simply proves that there is no difference.

“as is not accepting palestinians as a people, given their unique historical experience (which sets them apart from the Syrians, etc.)”

There is no such ‘unique historical experience’, neither language, nor religion, nor distinct history, nor distinct institutions, nor a distinct culture, nor a distinct ethnicity. If you want to buy this myth, then I can’t stop you. But you are the victim of a scam.

“Perhaps another term should be used, other than racism, because such institutional racism is so far away from the hatred and overt prejudice which is generally associated with racism”

I can’t see any difference whatsoever.

Maven, 4 September 2008, 1:40 pm:

Spot on.

And along come people who actually are racist. If you want to see the difference just read near oxfordian.

Well it cannot or should not be illegal for someone to argue for the dismantling of a state. Plenty of people think the old USSR needed dismantling. The SNP want to dismantle the UK. Equally the legitimacy of states is often called into question on ethnic or group identity grounds e.g. I’ve read people say that many of the Gulf states are illegitimate involving Sunni Emirs ruling over Shia populations.

I doubt even the SNP would rant on about “English” rule of the media, “English” control of US politics, “English” manipulation of the world or even that the “English” shout ‘anglophobia” when these points are raised…

“And along come people who actually are racist. If you want to see the difference just read near oxfordian”

Rich, coming from a dumb antisemitic tosser with nil reading comprehension.

“Well it cannot or should not be illegal for someone to argue for the dismantling of a state”

Strawman. Nobody here is saying that it is. Some of us are objecting to this argument being used as a smokescreen for posting hysterical antisemitic lies.