Criticizing Netanyahu is in no way anti-Zionist, let alone antisemitic. And if the author accurately quotes a writer in the Jerusalem Post (he doesn't give a citation), then that writer is ludicrous.

Here is where he steps wrong. He claims that all anti-Zionism is a political position, and that simply isn't true. Political and Religious anti-Zionists believe very different things for very different reasons.

First, the belief of Religious anti-Zionists can be summarized as, "The Jews are not entitled to a state in Israel, yet. Sometime in the future for sure, but not right now." The belief of political anti-Zionists is, "The Jews are not entitled to a state in Israel at all. Not now, not ever, never." Religious anti-Zionists accept that Jews are a people who have a legitimate claim to the land. Political anti-Zionists don't.

Second, the belief of Religious ant-Zionists is not political. It is obviously religious. They believe that for Jews to create a state of Israel is a usurpation of God's authority. Political anti-Zionism is premised on the denial of Jewish national rights. That's why all political anti-Zionism is per se antisemitic; it's hostile to Jews at its core. It's also why the existence of religious anti-Zionism does not legitimize political anti-Zionism. They are two very different sets of ideas.

Here is the cite to the JP opinion piece that the original post was talking about. It is by Benjamin Kerstein in the May 20, 2012 Jerusalem Post.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic

but I also believe that Israel has a right to exist as democratic state.

I want Israel to have the same kind of recognition of equal democratic rights for all its citizens like the US has.

Does this mean that my criticism of Israel could be defined as legitimate? Am I a political anti-Zionist?

ethnic groups.

I want Israel to be like France, Britain or the US. Israel is an ethnocracy that has put ethnic discrimination into law. This doesn't mean that Israel is worse than all other countries, but it's a bottom rung democracy, and I really want things to become more democratic in Israel.

In a way, I think that we're arguing past each other, because my concern isn't about Jews or Judaism, it's about universal democratic rights.

I also believe that the liberal democracy is the best way to protect the rights of ethnic groups, regardless whether it's a majority group or a minority. Anti-Semitism is a form of racism, no more, no less, and the best way to combat it is to create a good and democratic society that doesn't foster hate.

I think your siege mentality is misplaced. White South Africans were afraid that giving equal rights to the black South Africans would lead to a race war too, but it never happened.

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 05:25 PM - Edit history (3)

Nothing, right?

I never see the BDS crowd ever calling Palestinian leaders out for their extremely regressive rightwing politics.

I never see you doing that, so I can only assume you support a regressive Palestinian society, not liberal democratic values.

But let's go with your view:
Palestinian leaders treat women, homosexuals, children, & christians like dog shit so why do you think they'd treat the hated Jews better when Jews become a minority in your Utopian vision?

See the problem with your view? You bitch & moan about Israel but your solution is 1000x worse, not just for Jews but for everyone involved.

Once your BDS buddies decide that liberal democratic values are really important & you do something about that - like call out regressive Palestinian leadership for their fascism - let us know. Until then, you're all smoke and mirrors.

All I see from you and yours is deflection when it comes to Hamas' regressive fascist rightwing rule.

Prove to us there is Palestinian leadership that genuinely advocates for liberal democratic values so that Israelis can then see that your 1-state solution has a chance of working. The argument is that with a Jewish minority, that area will be nothing close to a liberal democracy and something on the order of hell holes in Lebanon, Jordan, or Syria. My proof is that you cannot name one liberal/progressive Palestinian leader, nor do you care that they do not exist.

If you care so much for liberal democracy, back it up or you're just blowing smoke.

ALL Jews will be wiped out ... So quickly.

The BDS antizionists never acknowledge that Jews have legitimate security concerns both in Europe and within Israel.

They prefer to pretend it's the Jews oppressing others that's the problem.

That's pure antisemitism, similar to accusing gays of oppressing others for no reason while having no security concerns of their own. Like saying gays cannot be victims since they're oppressors. Same with Jews.

It's evil.

At the same time, that simple fact cannot be used as a fig leaf for actual anti-Semites to falsely claim that all they're doing is presenting legitimate criticism.

The author's description of Ken Livingstone's comments as merely "ill advised" demonstrate that he isn't capable of distinguishing anti-Semitism from "legitimate criticism of Israel".

End of discussion.

....when bashing Israel is to be expected. Same as the next quote about having to hate all Jews in order to be considered a Jew hater.

This hatred rots the brain. Jew hatred makes people dumb.

That, and the enormous pressure not to EVER be critical of anything the anti-zionist Left wants you to believe, or else be branded a rightwing Islamophobe, tossed off the Leftist reservation & thrown under the bus.

....as he fails to acknowledge anywhere in his article that Labour has a serious antisemitism problem which goes far beyond mere criticism.

He disingenuously brings up Netanyahu as if those accused of antisemitism are being attacked for just being critical of Bibi. No one who is taken seriously argues that. Criticizing Netanyahu as he described is of course legitimate. But that's not what anti-Zionists are doing and the writer damned well knows that.

Accusing Israel of being a Nazi state or deliberately targeting Gazan civilians in 2014 (which the writer did in the OP) is not mere criticism. It's slanderous hate speech intended to provoke and incite against Jews & Israel.

The writer mentions rising antisemitism in Europe but doesn't make a connection between it and anti-Israel hate incitement. As if the two things aren't connected at all...

At best, the OP will convince simple-minded people ignorant of I/P. But that's the author's intent, I believe.

===================================

Alan Johnson makes quite clear the difference between criticism of Israel and antisemitism (starting around 1:08).

https://amp.twimg.com/v/679463f5-d750-4c9a-a897-edb57ce03c1c

I think the debate about what's legitimate criticism of Israel and what's anti-Semitism is important. I'm opposed to anti-Semitism and I think it's wrong to justify discrimination of one ethnic group in the pursuit of rights for another, which I believe is Labour's problem in a nutshell. Labour should kick out the trash - up to 20 members have already been suspended, (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.717539) but I'm sure there will be more. I agree with you that Labour has a problem, but I think it can be fixed.

I think the current situation in Israel warrants criticism, and a lot of it too. Israel's democratic character is diminishing, and it seems as things are only getting worse. Hopefully, Israel can turn things around, but it won't happen on its own.

Anyway, I disagree with you on a few points. I don't think that accusing Israel of being a Nazi state is necessarily anti-Semitic, but it can be. Sometimes the Nazi comparison can be legit, like here:

Haaretz: IDF Deputy Chief Likens 'Revolting Trends' in Israeli Society to pre-Holocaust Germany

And that's a complete joke. It's unreal that you don't see how ridiculous it is to believe you know better than Jews what Jew hatred looks like.

I really want to you to see Alan Johnson's latest. Here's a twitter link...
https://twitter.com/MarkyLott/status/728191557418012672

And here's Alan Johnson in a longer article....
http://fathomjournal.org/the-left-and-the-jews-time-for-a-rethink/

It's amazing that a person who characterizes himself to be to the left can give a long speech without revealing any left-wing POW and also talk about criticism about Israel without mentioning even once what the motivation for this criticism could be. It's only about "antisemitic anti-Zionism", and according to Alan Johnson, that's the only form of criticism of Israel coming from the left.

When reading this obvious attempt to create a straw man, my eyes went: eyes: .

BTW, letting people and groups decide themselves what counts as discrimination is a really bad idea. It's led to women being denied healthcare (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/catholic-hospitals-are-still-denying-women-pregnancy-related-care-for-moral-reasons), gay couples not being allowed to order a wedding cake (http://christiannews.net/2016/04/28/oregon-bakers-ordered-to-pay-135000-for-declining-gay-wedding-file-argument-in-appeals-court/) and gay couples being denied a marriage licence. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html)

...between legit criticism and Jew hating demonisation.

Israel.

It's possible that he believes that there is no legitimate criticism of Israel. One would think that a leftie like him would have some problems with a right-wing government like Netanyahu's - but no, his Likud credentials are impeccable.

I think I could find some examples of anti-Semitism in the form of criticism of Israel/Zionism, and some examples of legitimate criticism. I could probably even find examples of very harsh criticism that are not anti-Semitic, and other examples that on the surface are OK, but actually are anti-Semitic.

Would you be able to provide an example of legitimate criticism of Israel? It would help me understand the difference between legit criticism and Jew hating demonisation...

....between legit and illegitimate criticism.

I'm not sure how you missed that unless you enjoy pretending supporters of Zionism find all criticism illegitimate.

So watch that again and get back to me.

Is there an OP critical of Israel in the I/P group from the last few weeks (back to April 25 at least) that isn't classified as legitimate criticism of Israel? I took a look at the latest OPs, and there was only legitimate criticism of Israel, IMHO.

So would you agree that the OPs from the last few weeks in this group contain only legitimate criticism of Israel? I'm wondering, because I'm not sure what you and/or Alan Johnson define as legitimate criticism of Israel...

Last edited Sat May 7, 2016, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Note: I finally got watch the Alan Johnson clip. I must say I really think he's wrong in defining some criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and some not, and that it would be possible to lay it out as a Venn diagram, and there's some kind of sliding scale that makes some criticism more anti-Semitic than others. That kind of thinking is really useless, because it only deals with what anti-Semitism is supposed to look like, not what it is. The problem is that theoretically, there could be a situation with two identical statements about Israel and/or Jews, where one of them is anti-Semitic and the other not, simply because of context; one statement is made because of anti-Semitic views the other not.

However, listening to him, I realize that he's just another Tory, because he's really not mentioning that there are some in the conservative party who have negative attitudes towards Jews, and he seems to be very careful not to cross the Likud line and actually criticize Israel in any way. It's obvious that he personally sees no reason whatsoever to criticize Israel, and while he's not completely dishonest, he still tries to deflect Israel from valid criticism.

Nice try, but I'll stick to what I know:

Anti-Semitism is a form of racism directed against Jews

Anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews

....to America like Naz Shah is pre-meditated, illegitimate and antisemitic incitement. It's deliberate. When Ken Livingstone lied by saying Hitler was a Zionist before going mad, there was only one reason for doing so & it was to purposely provoke hatred against Zionists (Jews).

Malicious fabrications & slander like Israel controls foreign governments, or that Israel set out to murder children in Gaza during the 2014 war, or that Israel kills Palestinians in order to take their organs, or that Jews are thieves who have no history at the Temple Mount...all of this is deliberate antisemitic incitement meant to provoke animosity & violence against Jews.

Defending Hamas & supporting their violence against Jews knowing full well that Hamas' goals aren't just the destruction of Israel but murder of all Jews....is neo-Nazi style antisemitism.

Attacking Jews for being tricksy, by bringing all this up in bad faith in order to defend Israel policy.....is antisemitic. Bashing Israel for doing good things (gay rights, treating Palestinians from Gaza) but always attributing the worst sinister motives for them (pinkwashing) is antisemitic.

All of these examples are possibly anti-Semitic and have the characteristics that should be noticed and investigated. However, just because something may be anti-Semitic, doesn't mean it is. As a comparison, all people who were shot and killed are possibly murdered. But it's not necessarily murder, because there are many instances where people are shot and killed without being murdered. However, every time someone gets shot and killed, it should be investigated.

I think you're too eager to jump to the conclusion that something must be anti-Semitism, when it's possible it isn't. For example, the accusation that Israel is targeting civilians is not slander, nor anti-Semitic - it's an accusation that would be leveled against any country that's killing civilians under similar circumstances. And I don't understand why it's anti-Semitic to criticize pinkwashing - no country should get away with doing things like that.

Your definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism is too inclusive.

It's not just 1 or 2 in isolation, and that's how to distinguish the antisemites from those who might sometimes use 1 of those examples on occasion.

But I want to give one additional reason why I want a restrictive definition of what anti-Semitism is:

I don't want anti-Semitism to lose it's meaning as something really bad. There should never be any doubt that anti-Semitism is something really bad. If questionable things like uncertain statements and criticism of Israel are included, then some anti-Semitic expressions won't be so bad. And in the worst of possible worlds, some expressions of anti-Semitism would even be justified.

You can have the last word if you want.

I define pinkwashing as an attempt to promote a pro-Israel POW by referring to Israel's record on LGBT rights. It's either used to deflect criticism of Israel or to criticize other countries. I've seen both forms in the I/P group. It's not even remotely anti-Semitic to criticize those who do the pinkwashing.

The thing is, reporting about Israel's supposedly good record on LGBT rights is in itself not a bad thing and it's not pinkwashing to do so. It's only when it's used as a pro-Israel argument that's not really connected to the issue that it becomes pinkwashing.

I think that any country that's trying to hide a bad record on human rights by referring to some other issue shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Most countries that are doing it are not democracies, like China and Russia, but Israel is doing it too.

Sometimes the pinkwashing can backfire, because the Israeli politicians who promote pinkwashing aren't actually promoting LGBT rights, they just want to pretend they do. Here's an example:

Day after marking LGBT rights, Knesset nixes 5 gender equality bills
Source: Times of Israel, February 24, 2016

Because if that's the purpose of pinkwashing, it hasn't worked at all.

Agreed?

Do you believe that when Israel sends relief and aid to Haiti or Nepal, that it's trying to deflect criticism? It's called "rubble washing". If so, what's the proof they're trying to deflect - and then tell me how effective that's been.

Israel also helps Syrians and Gazans injured in war/battle. Why? To deflect criticism? Because if so, how's that working?

See, the thing is antisemites will take anything Israel does that's good and try to twist it into something nefarious & conspiratorial & you're falling right into that trap along with all the fascist, extreme Islamists & rightwingers & you either can't see that or don't care.

I want to see you at least acknowledge that - that Jew haters will take Israel's good deeds and try to warp them and that's what the stupid charge of pinkwashing is. BTW, the pinkwashing accusers claim Israel only has a good record on gay rights because they're faking their concern for gays. Same for rubble-washing or helping Syrians/Gazans. All fake. So your idea of pinkwashing isn't what the accusation really is. That accusation is far worse than what you think it is.

Now please acknowledge how stupid and hateful the pink-washing accusation is. Can you do it?

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 10:42 AM - Edit history (2)

There are many, many different examples that could be discussed.

What do you fear?

For example, I think your goal of 1-state is for all intents and purposes the same as that of Hamas. In no way, would that one state be more liberal/progressive than Israel currently.....with a Jewish minority and a radical Palestinian political party in charge. You were shown proof of that with Knesset MP's from the Joint List being quoted with their regressive, rightwing views.

That said, wouldn't you agree that a Hamas version of 1-state is antisemitic given that you admitted Hamas is an antisemitic organization?

Hold that thought and consider that most Israelis and Palestinians are against 1 secular democratic state.

in reasoning...

The thing is, that I can't really define his statement as unequivocally anti-Semitic, as this kind of flawed reasoning is very common under other circumstances not connected to Jews. Politicians and other people too, often use historical events to motivate current policies towards people who weren't involved in those historical events. It amounts to flawed reasoning to transpose the circumstances of a historical event to a current situation, and it's also a common way to motivate prejudice.

Netanyahu said something very similar about the Mufti and Hitler, implying that the Palestinians were the "real" Nazis, but I would hardly define that as "Holocaust Inversion". I'm more interested in the fact that both Livingstone and Netanyahu both are unable to separate the historical event from a political argument. They're really completely unable to do it.

So for me, it's not necessary to use a cumbersome mechanism with a fancy name to explain a relatively common flaw in reasoning.

It's also quite possible that Livingstone is an actual anti-Semite - he's made some other bizarre statements, but until that's proven, accusations of "Holocaust Inversion" are premature.

Once again we see that you don't engage with what's being argued (Holocaust Inversion). You just repeat that you see nothing wrong in it, showing a willful blindness.

There's only one reason Israel is compared to Nazi Germany and it's because it's the Jewish state. No other nation on the planet is compared to Nazi Germany because they're not Jewish states. Only the Jewish state is the Nazi state & that's vile.

It's pure antisemitism.

But anything goes according to you when bashing Israel. There's really nothing beyond the pale anyone could say when attacking Israel and its Jews that you would consider hateful. For you to admit there's a Jew hating problem when it comes to bashing Israel would be a real accomplishment. I don't see that happening, however.

anti-Semitic to must be anti-Semitic without proof.

I just can't do it.

He can't remember ever hearing anyone say anything anti-Semitic either.


Just for clarification... what would "proof" look like?

And do you agree with him that the creation of the state of Israel was fundamentally wrong?

like Jews.

He seems to be pretty keen on connecting Zionism with Hitler, so it's possible he's got more to say on that subject which reveals more than he would like.

I think it's not possible to characterize Israel's creation as right or wrong. It's a historical event that led to other historical events, and it's not possible to just roll it back. There are of course several perspectives - Israel's creation led to forced migrations all over the Middle-East, but on the other hand, a democracy was created which led to better circumstances for some. I'm not prepared to single out the creation of Israel as being better or worse than other events in the post-war era.

Most historical events are not either right or wrong. In fact, very few historical events have only negative or positive consequences.

He says that he isn't a "real anti-Semite" because he doesn't hate ALL Jews, just the ones in Israel.

You agree?

a democracy was created which led to better circumstances for some.

Have you compared the "some" that are Palestinians in Israel/West Bank to those in other parts of the M.E.?

....looked like the past 1000 years. Maybe he/she doesn't care.

Unless Nazis are successfully murdering Jews, anything goes it seems.

Then again, our friend believes that Jew hating Hamas maniac terrorists who murder Jews are victims of occupation so they're not antisemites either.

So no one's an antisemite.

But I'm not convinced that it reveals that he's an anti-Semite, sorry.

For once I would like for you to write down what proof of being racist against Blacks, Muslims, or Arabs would look like.

Then apply that to Jews.

Can you do that?

For me, anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews or alternatively racism against Jews. Proof that a person harbors these sentiments means that a person is an anti-Semite.

The problem is that people express all kinds of things for a variety of reasons, and it's not easy to exactly pinpoint the motivations behind a person's statements. I usually try figure out if the person making a potentially anti-Semitic statement could possibly have another motivation for making it. If there's no other possible explanation, the person is displaying an anti-Semitic attitude and is therefore an anti-Semite.

A good example of this is what Helen Thomas said about Jews in Israel "Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."" (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-house-press-icon-helen-thomas-89-apologizes-jews-palestine-article-1.182117) On the surface, it's just a very angry woman talking back to an idiot "reporter" who's really just trying to annoy people, but actually it's much worse. The only possible explanation for what she said is that she harbors feelings of antipathy towards Jews. There's no alternative explanation. If she she expresses her opinions about a group of people who live and were born in a certain place, and she wants them to leave just because of their ethnicity, that's definitely antipathy towards that group. Helen Thomas was an anti-Semite.

When it comes to other groups like Blacks, Muslims and Arabs, if a statement would be racist against them, it would probably be anti-Semitic too, if it was directed at Jews. I will not provide any example whatsoever, but if you want to post what you consider racism against these groups, be my guest.

....and is therefore basically forbidden.

Takes a lot of chutzpah for them to accuse their opponents of what they themselves are guilty of doing.

It's all legitimate criticism, anything goes, and Zionists are just trying to silence critics.

Nothing to see with Corbyn, Labour...

And they wonder why they're considered Jew haters.