"...since the presumption (and you'll never convince me that this isn't true) is that any criticism of Israel betrays at least some latent anti-semitism."
Perhaps I'm misreading this, but you're saying that there's always a presumption that any criticism of Israel betrays at least some latent anti-semitism?
Um, are you unaware of the jillions of criticisms of Israel made every day by Israelis, and Jews, and in Israeli publications, and Jewish publications, and on Israeli and Jewish tv stations and radio stations and blogs and...?
You can't be. Which is why I'm baffled by this.
Neither can it be that Jews and Israelis don't exist in your universe. So: huh?
Lastly: passive voice: who is making this presumption?
It seems to me there's a lot of suppressed rage in the anti-semitic community because anti-semitic comments get labelled as such and those making them get shunned. Happily the sites where I comment don't have either anti-semites or people who claim that criticism of Israel entails anti-semitism (except in rare, shouted-down cases).
Yeah, I know what you're talking about, and I think the point is quite valid. In my perception the standard response to criticisms of the Israeli government has become an accusation of anti-Semitism.
As for Galloway, I sure don't know the Right Answer to the Middle East Question, but I can tell you I haven't seen a rhetorical ass-whipping like that in quite a while. Not even close. That woman was able to respond on-point to only one of the 500 arguments he threw up (when she tried to argue that the Hezbollah success wasn't one when if you gauge it by the number of Israeli soldiers in Lebanon). I can't believe her producers kept the interview going that long - they should have invoked the Slaughter Rule.
I didn't watch the video (Galloway blows, and should probably be hung), and maybe that makes everything clear, but the phrase Farber quotes is entirely unclear. You could be saying that there is a presumption of anti-semitism when Israel gets criticized, or you could be saying that the presumption of anti-semitism is correct. I'm assuming you mean the first, but this may not be the best area for me to be making assumptions.
"should probably be hung"
It would make Andrew Sullivan too happy if he were _hanged_.
SCMT and Gary, I don't think what ogged is saying is particularly controversial. People who don`t feel sympathetic to Israel have suppressed rage because they keep their mouths shut, and specifically their rage in check, for fear of being branded an (at least latent) anti-semite, which often happens. Are you saying this isn't the case?
And the presumption doesn't apply to Israelis and Jews. But when I, as an Arab, try to criticize Israel, people never take what I am saying seriously; they just chalk it up to anti-semitism and a learned hatred of Israel rather than actual, rational thought.
Wow; one hell of a video. thanks for linking that.
6- in my experience as a liberal proponent of Israel at least it's much much more common to see rhetorical use of the claim that criticism of Israel gets labelled anti-semitism than to see any use of the anti-semitic label in conversation (maybe it's otherwise among conservatives). But then I'm not Arab and don't get received with any sort of prejudice - maybe you're talking to too many idiots.
And of course it's easy to find people dismissing proponents of Israel as doing so just because they are Jews - some of the comments at e.g. Digby's blog about Joe Lieberman shocked me.
No, it's quite the opposite; I can tolerate (or at least occasionally have sympathy for) support of Israel from Jews and Israelis. Otherwise, not so much.
But then I'm not Arab
I don't see that this fact matters, seeing as that you are a proponent of Israel. So unless you are labelling people anti-semitic yourself, which it seems you have the good sense not to do, there's the reason why you don't see it.
I'm a proponent of developing solar energy so we can ignore that entire part of the world just like we do with Africa.
Galloway is a pretty horrible person.
In what sense is he a establishment guy, anyway?
re: 11
He's not an establishment guy at all. He used to be a Labour MP -- in fact, he used to be my MP at one time and I think I may once have voted for him -- but was sacked from the party several years ago.
These days he's an MP for Respect which only has one MP (Galloway) and which is a wierd coalition between the Socialist Workers' Party, some other largely defunct leftist parties, and the Moslem Association of Great Britain.
In the UK, as far as I can tell, he's widely seen as a bit of a joke. A loud-mouthed demagogue whose single-minded focus on the Middle-East gets him a lot of media time but who is essentially a careerist most interested in G. Galloway.
For all that, he's still a pretty effective speaker and Lebanon and Palestine is something which, as far as I can tell, he is genuinely passionate about* and Sky News were totally isane pairing him with that interviewer. He's just going to rip shreds out of someone like that.
* As opposed to the pretend outrage, for the purposes of media attention, that he's also pretty good at.
He's an MP for what, 20 years or so now?
Damn, 13 to 11
He's not an establishment guy at all.
A couple decades in Parliament gotta count for some kind of establishment cred. That's not a total fringe player.
An effective speaker indeed. Although I'd excise the part where he called the interviewer "a silly person." What a dick. But he does make a few good points.
re: 14
Being an MP doesn't automatically make someone establishment. Remember, MPs are elected from a local constituency. There are constituencies that consistently return the same MP for years and where that MP may be fairly anti-establishment -- in terms of their voting record in Parliament, the content of their speeches and so on.
Lobbyists and money play a MUCH smaller role in British politics than they do in the US. MPs don't need to raise huge amounts of money to fight their own seat so it's quite possible for a fringe political figure to get elected to office in a particular constituency without being part of the wider establishment.
To pick a few examples, the election of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands to parliament in 1981, the election of Bernadette Devlin in the late 60s/early 70s in Northern Ireland, the election of Communist MP Willie Gallagher for East Fife in Scotland through the 1930s, 40s and 50s, etc.
Galloway is less fringe than that as he was a member of the Labour party but the Labour party has always contained and still contains anti-establishment MPs who consistently oppose the government --even now that the government IS a Labour government. There's not a lot the national party leadership can do to prevent that-- although they've been getting rather better at preventing it over the past few years* -- as candidates are chosen at local level.
* needless to say, this is not a good thing...
Ah, I'd forgotten he'd been booted from Labour. Definitely sounds much different from here.
The involvement of money is much more at the national level. The national party leaderships make take quite a bit of money from big donors but the local MPs generally don't. They benefit in an indirect way from national party spending but they are much less tied to donations as individuals.
Count on Rilkefan to come through in a pinch.
Gary, people like that are called "self-hating Jews".
A loud-mouthed demagogue whose single-minded focus on the Middle-East gets him a lot of media time but who is essentially a careerist most interested in [himself]. That could be lots of people.
The people Ogged was talking about were in national politics and the national media, not in rilkefan's circle of friends. A lot of people are afraid to publicly oppose Israel because of the swarm of negative reactions, including suggestions or outright accusations of anti-Semitism. It's had an effect of causing a lot of people who are mostly but not entirely sympathetic to Israel to shut up. This has been discussed in several places recently. It's not imaginary.
Anti-Semitism actually has its standard marks: avoidance of Jews, muttered grumblings about Jews, claims of having been being persecuted by Jews, anti-intellectualism, attachment to ideologies of race and "The Land", anti-intellectualism, hatred of ironists and comedians and cynics and critical thinkers, coded remarks about New York City and the East Coast, macho (often).
If someone has none of those marks but is anti-Israel, are they anti-Semitic or just (rightly or wrongly) anti-Israel? I say the latter.
To go further, a lot of Israelis don't think much of the old fashioned cosmopolitan cynic Woody Allen Jews, even though I like them fine. Israel after all is a patriotic nation state, whereas one of the virtues of the old-fashioned cosmopolitan Jews is their doubts about nationalism and militarism. There are still lots of old-fashioned Jews in Israel, and that's to Israel's credit.
it's much much more common to see rhetorical use of the claim that criticism of Israel gets labelled anti-semitism than to see any use of the anti-semitic label in conversation
Really, it wasn't very long ago that charges of anti-semitism were being levelled at people simply for using the word "neoconservative".
Having seen the clip, Galloway appeared on a British channel, and he of course goes a bit further than criticising Israel.
So if one didn't know anything about Ogged one might read the post in a whole different light.
To be clear, I do know you Ogged.
I see you did specify in America, so my point doesn't really hold up. Carry on.
There's definitely a perception that every war that Israel fights is a war for its very survival; therefore, being against any war means being against Israel itself. (Didn't we see this a few days ago in an Unfogged thread?)
Unless you have the proper street cred, being Israeli or Jewish. But not an East Coast Jew. And this is definitely weird, at least to the extent that criticizing other countries' policies doesn't automatically make one a hater of that country.
It is true that reasonable criticism of Israel is often stifled by people who fear to appear anti-semitic. It is also true that this fact enables a fair bit of preening by idiots about how they are telling truth to power when they critcize Israel. And, of course, some critics of Israel are also to some degree anti-semites. You can just run this whole thing with any racially sensitive issue (affirmative action, racial profiling at airports) and the results are much the same.
But all that is to one side of George Galloway being a low-life. Which he is.
baa, the difference between the significance of the reluctance of people to criticize Israel and the reluctance of people to criticize affirmative action is that the latter "racially sensitive issue" (and I resent and disagree with the analogizing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to racial profiling at airports, both in subject matter and gravity) isn't causing hundreds of people to die annually.
Your explanation just shows how much people think that an anti-Israel stance is about race, by the examples you choose to use. Affirmative action is about race, so is racial profiling; race is in the damn name. Having distaste, be it mild or strong, for the policies and actions of the Israeli government has nothing to do with race.
That's the thing; it's not a racially sensitive issue unless you assume that criticizing Israel is motivated by race, unlike affirmative action or racial profiling, which have the motivation built into the topic.
I'll just throw this in the pot. Some of the hawks are getting impatient with Israel too, to the extent that the Israelis seem to be failing or refusing to be America's shock troops.
. You can just run this whole thing with any racially sensitive issue (affirmative action, racial profiling at airports) and the results are much the same.
Agree with this more or less entirely. Does the presumption ogged references exist? Yeah, sure. But it's much, much milder than it was fifteen to twenty years ago, when the "terrorist" in "Arab terrorist" was considered redundant. Given the misuse of the term by the neocon friendlies, it's going to get more mild. Our relationship with Israel is a weird issue, because Israel is really, really weird. But I think that people are increasingly comfortable criticizing that relationship (as they should be), and will grow more comfortable doing so as we stay in that area. And I think we're sufficiently able to do so now that Galloway's not at all redeemed by his willingness to do it.
I'm not sure what you resent. I'm not saying these issues are of the same level of seriousness. Merely that they are tinged with the presumption of bad and discriminatory attitudes. Surely it's true that many people advocating profiling muslims or arabs at airports do, indeed harbor objectionable attitudes towards these groups. That's all.
I'm not getting the objection about the parallel to affirmative action, either. There are pretty good reasons for people, particularly African-Americans, to be suspicious of others objecting to affirmative action. But there are also pretty good reasons to to be critical of af-am. And so people end up having to decide whether the criticizers' objections are the real motivation for the the criticizers' opposition. Seems like more or less the situation with criticism of Israel.
Okay, but why are you bringing it up, then? It seemed like a brush-off of ogged's "people think criticizing Israel belies anti-semitism" claim. It's clear from your 31 that you don't think that's false, so is it that you think the presumption is not unusual, or not particularly grave in this specific instance?
There are pretty good reasons for people, particularly African-Americans, to be suspicious of others objecting to affirmative action.
Agh. What you are saying here, is that African-Americans have good reason to wonder if people who criticize affirmative action are possibly motivated by racism. And similarly, that people who are pro-Israel have good reason to wonder if people who criticize are motivated by anti-semitism. Which is exactly the thing that I am saying is false, and it seems (though I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth) ogged and Emerson are too.
To be clear, what I am saying is that criticism of Israel in and of itself has nothing to do with race. Nothing. Criticism of affirmative action and of racial profiling do.
If someone is antisemitic, they will almost always be anti-Israel. That's true, and it's a complicating factor. But the most aggressive, most absolute pro-Israel bloc is far too quick to loudly claim that all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic.
One reason that this issue is so touchy is that Jews are a major factor in the Democratic core constituency, and Jews quite rightly tend to be strongly pro-Israel, so there's not really a non-extremist political vehicle for the expression of criticisms of Israel.
Also, to 32: Do you think people have good reason to be "suspicious" of people who criticize Israel any more than they have reason to be suspicious of people who criticize the war in Iraq, or our polcy w/r/t to N. Korea, or Iran, or a whole host of other policital/diplomatic issues?
For the record, Americans criticize Israel partly because we underwrite Israel in many different ways. Anything Israel does is credited to the US. We don't have that kind of relationship to any other nation or faction in the region, except I suppose Egypt and the remnants of Jordan.
By supporting Israel we're objectively in opposition to Hezbollah, whether we talk about it or not.
Do you think people have good reason to be "suspicious" of people who criticize Israel any more than they have reason to be suspicious of people who criticize the war in Iraq, or our polcy w/r/t to N. Korea, or Iran, or a whole host of other policital/diplomatic issues?
Per Emerson's #35, they have experience that tells them that some critics of Israel are anti-semitic. They might be leaning too hard on probabilities, but I'm bewildered by your idea that there is no reason to think that there might be a higher proportion of anti-semites who are critical of Israel than of anti-semites who don't criticize Israel. Which is to say, if you're playing "Spot the Anti-Semite," and the only information you're given is an individual's position towards Israel, choose the one who is critical of Israel. As a rule of thumb, it's better than a naive guess, even if not much better.
your idea that there is no reason to think that there might be a higher proportion of anti-semites who are critical of Israel than of anti-semites who don't criticize Israel
But that's not my idea. The relevant proportion is anti-semitic critics of Israel to non-anti-semitic critics of Israel, not the one you cite. I fully agree with Emerson that all anti-semites are probably against the existence of Israel. But that information is not very useful. In relation to ogged's original assertion, it's like saying A is a subset of B, so if someone is in B, they're probably in A (where A is anti-semites, and B is people who are critical of Israel). Which is false.
Which is to say, if you're playing "Spot the Anti-Semite," and the only information you're given is an individual's position towards Israel, choose the one who is critical of Israel.
I object to the rules of this game as you've stated them, on grounds that your formula fails to account for the existence of anti-Semitic supporters of Israel. The ones who look forward to being raptured, for example.
In America, there are self-styled friends of Israel who are not so friendly toward American Jews. They speak in code about "New York City" and etc, as Emerson mentions above.
I was going to say 40, and I'll go further than that: Anti-semites are more likely to be pro-israel than the general population.
In relation to ogged's original assertion, it's like saying A is a subset of B, so if someone is in B, they're probably in A (where A is anti-semites, and B is people who are critical of Israel).
No, it's like saying that if people are in B, they are more likely to be in A than those people not in B. Which is true. Depending on how important it is for you to find people in A, you might use this rule. Application of the rule might be actively harmful for other reasons, but it gives you a minor advantage in guessing who is in A. The anti-semitic critics to non-anti-semitic critics proportion gives you a sense of how often you are likely to be wrong when applying the rule. You might be wrong a lot (I think you would be). Depending on how important it is to you to identify anti-semites, you might not care.
I was going to say 40, and I'll go further than that: Anti-semites are more likely to be pro-israel than the general population.
This is not my experience, and I doubt it's the experience of most Jewish people. I (and they) could well be wrong, but I am (and they probably are) going to need a fair bit of convincing on this point. And the opposite belief, based on experience, is, until definitively disproved, still reasonable (here, "not crazy") even if wrong.
anti-Semitic supporters of Israel. The ones who look forward to being raptured, for example.
This is quite right. In fact, these supporters aren't likely to appear transparently anti-Semitic at all; they're more likely to come across as excessively philo-Semitic, even to the point of creepiness (connecting back to an earlier "Jews For Jesus" discussion here, I've met people who insist that the term "completed Jew" is meant as a compliment to Jews).
And yes, superconservative Christians like these are most likely to have shifted all the usual anti-Semitic tropes over to gays and "coastal elites."
Virulent anti-semites are probably mostly anti-Israel, but people, at least wite people, who're slightly prejudiced against jews I would guess are either fundies, right wing evangelicals or secular people w generally retrograde and hawkish views. As well as lots of liberal-leaning people, I'm sure. It's only a guess, but I think all those fundies tip the balance.
As for jewish personal experience, they mostly live on the east coast, and so don't meet a representative sample of anti-semites.
if people are in B, they are more likely to be in A than those people not in B
But the inquiry is not "where are the As in the general population?" The question is, given that someone is in B, how likely is it that they are in A, not, "are people from A more likely to be B or not-B".
Unless, of course, the game is as you framed it "spot the Anti-Semite," which we can make it, I guess, but I don't think many sane people spend a lot of time devoted to that game. And I don't think it's what's at issue here.
Unless, of course, the game is as you framed it "spot the Anti-Semite," which we can make it, I guess, but I don't think many sane people spend a lot of time devoted to that game. And I don't think it's what's at issue here.
I think more Jewish people are constantly playing this game than you think. Just as more minority people are constantly playing "Spot the Racist" in the background of their everyday life than you think. Or more women might be constantly playing "Spot the Misogynist" in the background than I might think.
I know quite a few people who talk about Jewish people as being 'God's Chosen People' and who think Israel is always right. You would think people like that wouldn't be anti-Semitic, right?
You'd be wrong. The fact that they are firmly convinced that Jewish people run everything in the world and steal, lie and cheat from the cradle doesn't have anything to do with their perception of Israel as a sort of canary in the mine for Rapture and even more importantly as their dog in the Middle East. It's a sort of possessive emotion that has nothing to do with respect or understanding.
Just as more minority people are constantly playing "Spot the Racist" in the background of their everyday life than you think. Or more women might be constantly playing "Spot the Misogynist" in the background than I might think.
Sure, but you're (general you) probably more dismissive of the person who argues that someone who disagrees with them is racist or sexist ('I spot misogyny behind the tree') than the person who insists disagreeing with Israel's policies constitutes anti-Semitism.
The total craziness of the Rapture people is a wild card here. Normal anti-Semites are easier to deal with in some ways. Of course, the Rapture is pure imagination and won't happen, so in a way they're like a Mickey-Mouse cult. But the idea that they're praying for that stuff to happen is creepy.
One reason for the extreme nature of my political pessimism is that I believe that Bush's relationship to the Rapture Christians is not necessarily cynical. You really, really do not him to be sincere about that, but maybe he is. And the CinC and his top guys can do a ltremendous amount without asking for permission from anyone.
The fact that they are firmly convinced that Jewish people run everything in the world and steal, lie and cheat from the cradle doesn't have anything to do with their perception of Israel as a sort of canary in the mine for Rapture and even more importantly as their dog in the Middle East.
Well, sure. The plan's very simple. First the Jews take care of the Arabs for us. Then, when the rapture rolls around, Jesus takes care of the Jews. Everything works out great for everyone who matters.
A TIME/CNN poll finds that more than one-third of Americans say they are paying more attention now to how the news might relate to the end of the world, and have talked about what the Bible has to say on the subject. Fully 59% say they believe the events in Revelation are going to come true, and nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the Sept. 11 attack.
Yes, yes, it's dated, but I don't think this is quite the "Mickey Mouse cult" we'd like to think it is.
While Galloway makes some good points about balance in coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian and Israeli/Lebanese conflicts, he immediately gets the bozo bit set for referring to Israeli "dungeons."
On the other hand, I have no evidence (from this clip) that he's an anti-Semite.
The 2002 quote is not representative of current times, though, because everyone was still recoiling from 9/11.
"Mickey Mouse" in the sense of "loony and deluded", not in the sense of "small and insignificant". Perhaps I should have said "Rastafarian".
No one said he's anti semitic. He's just a bad person.
re: 54
I'm not aware of Galloway ever making (publicly) any anti-Semitic remarks. He's militantly pro-Palestinian -- as you'd expect from a guy married to a Palestinian -- but I've no reason to suspect that stems from anti-Semitism on his part.
57, 58: Cool. I wasn't saying that anyone was. I guess I was trying to say that I think that even a militantly "anti-Israel" position isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, although I do agree that, in general, militant anti-Israelism can be a possible indicator of anti-Semitism.
56: "Rastafarian" s/b "Pastafarian"
The 2002 quote is not representative of current times, though, because everyone was still recoiling from 9/11.
Well, to go pre-9/11 then, here's a poll from 1999M (you have to scroll down):
Do you believe that the world will end, as the Bible predicts, in a battle at Armageddon between Jesus and the Antichrist?
All Adults: 40%
Yes, it's even less current, but if anything I suspect this number has gone up, not down. If anyone can find better, more up-to-date polling on this, I'd love to see it.
"Mickey Mouse" in the sense of "loony and deluded", not in the sense of "small and insignificant".
Thanks for the clarification. For the record, I suspect that George Bush's overtures to the Rapture crowd are as motivated by sincere belief in crazy eschatology as they are by political convenience.
re: 59
Much of the British left is pretty strongly anti-Israel.
However, almost all of those organisations and individuals were, historically, pro-Israel. The drift from strongly pro-Israel positions to strongly anti-Israel positions has nothing to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon at the start of the 80s, the post-67 occuptation and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza, and what is seen as the heavy-handed response to the 1st and 2nd intifadas.
Once Israel stopped looking like the plucky underdog building a new egalitarian democracy and began to look a lot more like an oppressive military power, large swathes of British left-wing public opinion swung against them.
Galloway comes out of that tradition. He may go further than most -- some of his public comments go too far for me, for example -- but his position stems, as far as I can tell, from fairly standard left-wing opposition to 'imperialism' and 'colonialism'.
Stras, I suspect you're absolutely right. Still, devil's advocacy compels me to argue that 1999 was when everyone was freaking out over Y2K and heading for the hills with pitchforks. Fanaticism tends to peak around years that end with zeros in a row.
I personally stock up with supplies when my odometer is about to roll over.
Sure, but you're (general you) probably more dismissive of the person who argues that someone who disagrees with them is racist or sexist ('I spot misogyny behind the tree') than the person who insists disagreeing with Israel's policies constitutes anti-Semitism.
That might be true. But I suspect the order of willingness to be dismissive of claims varies by identifiable subgroup in fairly predictable ways. Moreover, I suspect some people are more willing to be dismismissive of claims of racism or sexism for bad reasons rather than reasons of fairness and charitability. Because I'm straight and because I interact a lot with women, it might be more important to me for everyone to agree that a woman should be subservient to a man than that there should not be a Jewish homeland, for example.
At this point, I'm no longer sure what's at issue. It's not crazy for people to use anti-Israeli sentiment as a factor in any algorithm predicting anti-semitism. It is crazy to use it as the only factor. It might be less crazy if there were reason to be wildly worried about anti-semitism. I don't think there is anything like such a reason.
I was in an HR meeting the other day and someone suggested, quite seriously, that we perhaps should do something to address employee concerns that the recent conflict in Lebanon is part of the End Times. I made a terrible face, but fortunately no one was looking at me.
I would say the percentage of people who at least superficially believe all that eschatological hoo-ha is much higher than the poll would suggest, at least down here in the Sun Belt. The fact there've been two thousand years of End Times doesn't apparently deter anyone from thinking 'OMG THIS SI IT!1!!!' every time someone sneezes in the Middle East.
It's not crazy for people to use anti-Israeli sentiment as a factor in any algorithm predicting anti-semitism. It is crazy to use it as the only factor.
This seems to be an excellent distinction to me.
What's crazy is that people don't feel comfortable criticizing Israel because they have a quite rational fear that they'll be thought, if not outright accused, of being anti-semites. That's just not a good state of affairs for anyone, is it?
Someone just pointed me to this Billmon post, which is on this topic.
And here's my last internet interaction on this topic: make a mild joke, get accused of anti-semitism. I realize any one instance will seem like nutpicking, but it only takes a few responses like that before people think twice about saying what they want.
You end up with a concept like "latent homosexuality" -- anti-Semitism which doesn't have any of the traits of traditional anti-Semitism, but which is in some ways more frightening.
65: Well, Shi'a, if you stopped trying to kill all the Jews, people might extend their courtesy further. And if you'd actually married the ex, you'd have had instant immunity. And, more seriously, how is, Defensive much? an accusation of anti-semitism? It seems like an accusation that you're hypersensitive.
What's crazy is that people don't feel comfortable criticizing Israel because they have a quite rational fear that they'll be thought, if not outright accused, of being anti-semites.
It's as crazy as people not feeling comfortable criticizing the Bush Administration or the War on Terror because they have a fear they'll be accused of being anti-American.
There are also different degrees of criticism of Israel that move the needle on the anti-semitism-ometer differently. Criticizing Israeli actions versus, say, bringing into question Israel's right to exist.
Ogged's Billmon link reminded me of something utterly bizarre: The AFSCME accepted Mel Gibson's apology. What was that about? I mean, you'd think it has to be politaically motivated, because it's so weird. But my impression of AFSCME was that they'd don't have the kind of broad mission where they need to make strange bedfellows, and Gibson is just a celebrity.
63: I couldn't disagree more. This kind of muddled thinking is straight out of the Fox News boardroom. If anything, criticism of Israeli government policies is an indicator for anti-racism and anti-oppression politics in general. In my personal experience of many segments of the left (from liberal Democrats to card-carrying Communists), and in the reading I've done, I've seen almost no evidence that there's any significant infiltration of anti-Semites into anti-Israel politics. At most, you can find a few examples of largely apolitical young men of Arab descent who will show up at the bigger demos on the coasts with crude signage (I've never seen anything like that in the Twin Cities). But they're about as representative of Israel's critics as Fred Phelps is of the Christian right as a whole.
Furthermore, take a look at an explicit and democratic evocation of popular opinion -- the letters to the editor in daily newspapers. Critics of Israeli policy are usually outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 by the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. Furthermore, the letters critical of Israel are virtually always very clear that what they oppose is specific military and police action -- the destruction of Palestinian homes as reprisal for suicide bombings for instance -- rather than "the existance of Israel" or Jewish lives or any of those other racist canards. By contrast, about half of the letters to the editor I've seen that support Israel in daily papers in the US explicitly try to tie Jewish identity and Jewish life to unqualified support for Likudnik policies and the IDF. In fact, there's a significant plurality of pro-Israel commentators who are wont to use the most disgustingly racist depictions of the Lebanese or the Palestinians or the Iraqis ("The Israelis understand racial profiling protects their people in planes. Thus we need to start racial profiling in the airports for the safety of the sane people of this planet -- and let Grandma keep her mouthwash and hairspray." -StarTribune, 8/12/06.) Here's a pro-Israel site that spells it out pretty clearly: "Certain British media, notably the BBC and The Guardian newspaper, unmistakably perpetuate the anti-Semitic and pro-Arab attitudes that Great Britain has long shown." (Hmm, guess we've written the Balfour Declaration right out of our little revisionist history, huh?)
So yes, if you make a criticism of Israel in a public forum, no matter how mild, you will be labeled an anti-Semite, regardless of the fact that anti-Semitism plays an utterly insignificant role in criticisms of Israel.
I, personally, was accused of anti-Semitism in a Crooked Timber thread a while back merely for stating that a particular blog normally took a pro-Likud line on Israel issues. It happens.
I'm just waiting for dsquared to show up and make with the smackdown. I'm cross to have to say that the evidence before me makes me agree with baa, Galloway lacks moral fiber. He's ideally matched to Christopher Hitchens.
(I confess to a soft spot for Peter Hitchens, till persuaded otherwise.)
Now having read the comments, I think that there are self-hating Christians like me who still are on the lookout for anti-Christian bias.
For instance, trotting out the 20% or so who think the Bible predicted 9/11 -- you can pick any opinion whatsoever, and 20% of Americans believe it. Flat-earthism, whatever. What 20% of Americans believe is not indicative of anything.
I've seen almost no evidence that there's any significant infiltration of anti-Semites into anti-Israel politics.
Great. Your bare statement of experience is completely sufficient for me to change my belief based on my own experience. Comity!
By contrast, about half of the letters to the editor I've seen that support Israel in daily papers in the US explicitly try to tie Jewish identity and Jewish life to unqualified support for Likudnik policies and the IDF.
Don't doubt it.
In fact, there's a significant plurality of pro-Israel commentators who are wont to use the most disgustingly racist depictions of the Lebanese or the Palestinians or the Iraqis
Don't doubt it.
So yes, if you make a criticism of Israel in a public forum, no matter how mild, you will be labeled an anti-Semite, regardless of the fact that anti-Semitism plays an utterly insignificant role in criticisms of Israel.
Don't doubt it. But things are changing. If you look at the way that these issues are presented in the media today, as compared to twenty years ago, there is a world of difference. And in five years, it'll have changed more. (Frankly, given the close association between the neocons (both Jewish and non-Jewish) and the Likudniks, and the dominance of neocons in creating public justifications for the war, my own worry is that we'll swing too far the other way.)
I do not doubt that charges of anti-semitism get thrown around without much compelling evidence, particularly in response to criticisms of Israel. But I think that the trend is to discount such charges in those specific circumstances, and (perhaps unfortunately) increasingly to discount the charge more generally.
re: 73
There's no doubt Galloway is an egregious prick.
He's also a notoriously shit constituency MP so he doesn't even have that in his favour. His record of Parliamentary attendance is woeful, for a start.
9 - oddly enough, one can be a proponent of Israel while criticizing many of its policies. My point though was that I acknowledge not being able to have sampled your experience directly and can't argue with the claim in question. But it seems like a different claim than the one in the post - the problem of bigotry vs the question of false labelling.
Are people really basing their argument on what fundies might say? For that matter, I don't understand why anyone would care about false labelling if it's in fact false.
From my perspectivve ogged's example fails - one has to know it's a joke and not a pre-emptive smear to correctly assess it, and to call "Defensive much?" an accusation of anti-semitism in the context seems a bit, well, defensive.
Anybody here think Billmon wouldn't enjoy seeing Israel suffer a strategic defeat? That seems to go beyond criticizing Israeli actions in mrh's formulation.
It is hard for me to know how to express this without being a dick to the many people commenting here to whom this criticism does not apply, but is it not apparent to anyone here how this mostly made-up problem of being called an anti-semite for criticising Isreal is to a great extent a case of the left's chicken's coming home to roost? And to the extent it is not, there is a non-frivolous basis for it.
As someone who is pro-life and who thinks that affirmative action should be unconstitutional, I have spent years being called sexist and racist. It is a standard throw-away line on this blog to describe Republicans as racists, or at least as in league with racists (and much worse, but I will try to stay on topic). This has been a standard rhetorical tactic of the left since the 1960's. But now it is being done to you, and you are all in a dither.
What follows from this?
First, think twice about creating a trope in debate that you do not like being thrown back at you.
Second, get over it. I get upset when people I know, like LizardBreath, call me a racist or a sexist, but otherwise I try (but do not always succedd) to let the sea of insults just wash over me, because all it does is derail the conversation if you spend you time trying to defend yourself from made up attacks.
Third, be real. How often are you really accused of being anti-semetic for criticizing Isreal. Ogged, I read the comment you linked to, and I do not see you begin called anti-semetic. We all (me, too) like to see ourselves as martyrs as we speak truth to power, but really, how often does this happen (not that it never happens, I know that it does).
Fourth, if you sleep with dogs, you are going to get fleas. There is criticism of Isreal that comes awfully close to adopting the views of organizations whose explicitly stated purpose is to kill Jews. And they pursue this course by, among other things, killing civilians on busses, in stores, etc. Those, like Mr. Galloway, who make common cause with people like that may not be anti-semetic, but they cannot be surprised that being in league with people who have made clear that killing Jews is their agenda makes them suspect.
Fifth, and I do not think the chiilling effect claimed here really exists all that much, but to the extent it does, get over it. I criticize Isreal on occasion, and worrying about someone calling me an anti-semite does not make me hesitate doing so. I think pretty much everyone else here is the same. If you are not, you should.
For instance, trotting out the 20% or so who think the Bible predicted 9/11
That wasn't the key statistic I was looking for, Adam. I'm more interested in finding out how many Americans believe in something like the premillenial interpretation of the Apocalypse of John - i.e., an Antichrist and a Rapture and a massive war over Israel between the forces of Good and Evil before the return of a cosmic and bloody-minded Christ. I suspect that these sorts of beliefs are a lot more prevalent than liberal Christians would like to think, although I'll concede that my views on this are colored by personal experience.
Without endorsing the rest of it, I agree with the last three sentences of Idealist's point #5, except that it's Israel.
For that matter, I don't understand why anyone would care about false labelling if it's in fact false.
You're kidding right? False accusations of anti-semitism serve a specific political purpose. They delegitmize critics of Israel's current policies vis a vis Palestine and Lebanon and they serve to buttress a particular political viewpoint on the Middle-east.
At the very least they force people to be incredibly defensive when expressing their views in case such a label is applied. That's the whole reason this topic has come up a few times here recently.
Falsely labelling someone a racist, or anti-semite, or man-hater or whatever is almost never a politically neutral action.
except that it's Israel.
[hangs head in shame]
Falsely labelling someone a racist, or anti-semite, or man-hater or whatever is almost never a politically neutral action.
yep.
78 is excellent for why I for one like and appreciate your commenting here. I've seldom agreed 100% with anything you've written, and I often disagree profoundly with both your conclusions and your reading of the facts. But, given that that's true, this is the spirit of goodwill, the taking for granted that those holding other points of view may be decent human beings, that I admire in you and whomever demonstrates it.
"75
I've seen almost no evidence that there's any significant infiltration of anti-Semites into anti-Israel politics.
Great. Your bare statement of experience is completely sufficient for me to change my belief based on my own experience. Comity!"
Okay, well, let me establish my bona fides then. I've been involved in a variety of leftist social activism for 16 years -- anti-war, anti-racist, pro-immigrant, etc. -- by active I mean that I have attended hundreds of meetings and rallies and conferences, talked to and emailed hundreds of people, read hundreds of magazines and books, watched dozens of films and looked at thousands of websites. I've never seen any actual anti-Semitism expressed on the left. As I said above, the only evidence I'm aware of that this is even slightly tolerated is that occasionally, at large, public demonstrations, some young Arab men, who aren't in any other way a part of the left, will show up with anti-Semitic signs and maybe chant a bit and burn an Israeli flag. That's it. Can you find me any large, significant leftist organization or tendency which explicitly supports an anti-Semitic line? No, you can't, because such a thing simply does not exist. In fact, if you look at the electronic intifada, or A.N.S.W.E.R. , or any similar site or organization, you'll find criticism of Israeli policies which is absolutely free of anti-Semitism or Jew-baiting of any kind. So frankly, I think that the burden of proof rests on you to give any evidence whatsoever that there is a non-trivial amount of anti-Semitism present in leftwing circles that are critical of the Israeli government.
Back to the original topic, my point is that it is impossible to argue that there is significant anti-Semitism on the anti-Israeli Government left with even a modicum of good faith. Making this argument then, proves either willful ignorance or some degree of cynicism and hypocrisy.
And if you agree with my other points, that there does exist a constituency of people who will immediately call into question any critique of Israel on the grounds that it is anti-Semitic, what are you left to conclude? Simply that the discourse is poisoned against any possibility of fairness in the depiction of the conflict, and thus the conclusions that individuals and groups might draw from participating in debates regarding Israel are inevitably going to trend toward uncritical approval of Israel, even when the Israeli government is committing horrifying crimes. And that is silencing.
This may not be the thread in which to say this, since my thought is about sexism rather than Israel, but I'd just like to point out, about 49, that in the last discussion in which the word "misogyny" got flung around (often by me), several women were explicitly stating that they did not like other girls growing up, were, in effect, admitting their own misogyny, and my reaction was, hmm, maybe this has something to do with such people's current attitudes on women's issues. So it seemed fair to bring it up in that context. At least to me. Maybe you were referring to some other discussion, Cala, but I thought I'd throw that in.
"It might be less crazy if there were reason to be wildly worried about anti-semitism. I don't think there is anything like such a reason."
Hard to know what to say to that.
65: "What's crazy is that people don't feel comfortable criticizing Israel because they have a quite rational fear that they'll be thought, if not outright accused, of being anti-semites."
How crazy is it that people don't feel comfortable defending Israel because they have a quite rational fear that they'll be thought, if not outright accused, of being mindless Israel Uber Alles defending, indifferent to Arab lives, militaristic, war-mongering, rightwing, Likud-loving, irrational, close-minded, uninterested-in-honest-discussion, jerks?
Not that that could ever happen. And certainly not on this blog.
"Falsely labelling someone a racist, or anti-semite, or man-hater or whatever is almost never a politically neutral action."
So what? Starting a conversation on Israel with "I always get smeared as an anti-Semite for saying this" isn't politically neutral, either. The only intellectually honest way to proceed is to argue in good faith and to counter false accusations of anti-Semitism by labelling them as such.
I was just comparing the attitudes towards charges of racism and sexism with those of anti-Semitism, and had no particular discussion in mind, ac.
"Back to the original topic, my point is that it is impossible to argue that there is significant anti-Semitism on the anti-Israeli Government left with even a modicum of good faith. Making this argument then, proves either willful ignorance or some degree of cynicism and hypocrisy."
See: it's irrefutable. One can't even disagree in good faith. No argument is possible or allowed.
Glad that's settled, then.
Many sites have rules against attempt to discuss Israel / Palestine.
87:
Not that that could ever happen. And certainly not on this blog.
You hit the nail on the head there Gary, because, in fact, no one has said any such thing. Just the opposite in fact. But there are a significant number of commenters above who do seem to see anti-Semites lurking under every question about Sabra and Shatila. I've seen perspectives like the one you describe expressed from time to time, other places around the internet, but they're hardly what you'd call common. Here's a common exchange:
A: "Of course Israel has a right to exist, and it has a right to defend itself, and it is the only democracy in the Middle East, and it has equal rights for gays and women, and it likes small animals and children, but was it really necessary to bulldoze Rachel Corrie?"
Z: "What's wrong with you, you lousy, Jew-baiting anti-Semite? Unless you hate every Jew who has ever been born, you can't attack Israel like that!"
Multiply the above by about 100,000 times and you have the current state of the discourse on Israel.
Now, I'm not saying that Z, above, is the person you're referring to, but isn't it awfully odd that all one need do is mention Israel critically, and all of a sudden most of the discussion trades in their left-liberal cards and comes out with F-16s a-smiting?
And also, to 75: I'm totally unconvinced that things are moving toward some kind of parity in the media. Maybe those vicious anti-Semites over at the Guardian and the BBC are trying to move it in that direction, but what's your evidence that anything has changed? Arabs and Muslims are always faceless terrorists, IDF soldiers are always good, down-home kids who'd rather be at the beach, Israeli politicians are always serious, beleaguerd statesmen, Arab politicians are always scheming, incompetent, fanatical demagogues. The people killed by Israeli military actions get two sentences on page A17. The Jewish Israelis who are killed by Palestinians get five-column spreads on the front page with tearful commentary from their relatives in the US. Nothing has changed, nothing will change as long as it profits US capital to support Israel.
"91
"Back to the original topic, my point is that it is impossible to argue that there is significant anti-Semitism on the anti-Israeli Government left with even a modicum of good faith. Making this argument then, proves either willful ignorance or some degree of cynicism and hypocrisy."
See: it's irrefutable. One can't even disagree in good faith. No argument is possible or allowed.
Glad that's settled, then."
Oh, gosh Gary, you're right, now I've seen the light! All along, when I complained that the overwhelming bias in the media and in public forums like this one was in favor of the Israeli government, it was really me that was doing the silencing, because even though my viewpoint is decidely in the minority, even though the things I'm expressing are absolutely beyond the Pale in terms of US politics or the corporate media, it's really ME who's in control of the debate, it's really ME who's cunningly engineering all of this to dupe people into supporting my side. Oh, the shame and disgrace of it!
Here's Ogged's key sentence: There's a lot of suppressed rage in America in the generally-less-sympathetic-to-Israel camp, since the presumption (and you'll never convince me that this isn't true) is that any criticism of Israel betrays at least some latent anti-semitism.
Here's the second response to it:
It seems to me there's a lot of suppressed rage in the anti-semitic community because anti-semitic comments get labelled as such and those making them get shunned.
The first response was Gary's, within which he plays dumb, setting the stage for an argument about a very well known issue. Both responses basically denied Ogged's premise.
I think that Israel would, in the long run, be better off if people in the more-sympathetic-to-Israel camp were more willing to talk to people in the less-sympathetic-to-Israel camp, but that's not going to happen.
"You hit the nail on the head there Gary, because, in fact, no one has said any such thing."
Right. I'm so glad that never happened. Thanks for denying my experience. (Which included gratuitious characterizations of me after I left, as well as the name-calling, as well as shutting me down before I even got around to saying anything about my own qualms, questions, and uncertainties on the then-situation).
"Just the opposite in fact."
Someone stepped in and said I wasn't a jerk, and defended me from all the rest? Gee, not last I looked.
But I'm impressed that you've read every comment thread that has ever run on this blog, and can authoritatively speak as regards what's happened here before. Very impressed.
But it goes along with the sort of omniscience that comes with explaining what arguments can't be made "with even a modicum of good faith", and aren't allowable. And clearly I should trust your ability to analyze what might and might not be anti-Semitic. Just on faith.
"The people killed by Israeli military actions get two sentences on page A17. The Jewish Israelis who are killed by Palestinians get five-column spreads on the front page with tearful commentary from their relatives in the US."
A simple reading of any American, let alone British, newspaper shows that this is wildly, blatantly, false.
"I think that Israel would, in the long run, be better off if people in the more-sympathetic-to-Israel camp were more willing to talk to people in the less-sympathetic-to-Israel camp, but that's not going to happen."
Back at you with the sign reversed. You can start by dropping the "I can't criticize Israel without getting smeared" smear.
I forget or never read that thread about rules of discussion—was that more or less about having suspicion of other people's motives in argument? It seems a lot of discussions around here come down to that, to whether that's a valid way to argue. I'd be interested in a post questioning (or affirming) Idealist's point about this being a rhetorical move people on the left have come to regret. Hey, maybe I should write one. Though I doubt I will.
Alternative history: What would the geopolitical scene look like now if the Zionists had cut a deal and moved into Uganda?
people don't feel comfortable defending Israel because they have a quite rational fear that they'll be thought, if not outright accused, of being mindless Israel Uber Alles defending, indifferent to Arab lives, militaristic, war-mongering, rightwing, Likud-loving, irrational, close-minded, uninterested-in-honest-discussion, jerks
Okay, Gary, you're basically implying that this is what happened to you in your last Israel discussion here, which is simply not what I remember happening at all (and feel free to correct me with links and quotes to that thread). I remember you coming into the thread, making several very vague complaints about how upset these discussions made you because no one ever knew enough about the subject, and then proceeding to slam commenters for not including enough detail in the statements they made (for instance, someone - Labs, I think - made a fair point about different factions within Hamas and you responded not by refuting that point, but with a snide remark about Labs's failure to name-check Ismail Haniya and Khaled Mashal).
When it was pointed out that you weren't making an argument so much as you were complaining that there was an argument going on in the first place, you got increasingly defensive, asked if you were irritating anyone, and someone else - BitchPhd, I think - said you were being a jerk.
At no point did anyone accuse you of being "mindless," or "Israel Uber Alles defending," or "indifferent to Arab lives," or any of the other parade of strawmen you marched out upthread (except for the "jerk" line, which, while being needlessly personal, wasn't totally unprovoked). In general you seem less willing to make a case for your views on Israel than you are to cut off discussion, and lack of discussion seems to be ogged's real complaint here.
I also just learned that the Soviet Union established a Jewish autonomous zone, but the location sucked so much that apparently it never took off -- only 1.2% of the population there is Jewish today.
Alternative history: What would the geopolitical scene look like now if the Zionists had cut a deal and moved into Uganda?
We'd all know where Uganda was on a map, for starters.
I just finished reading the thing about the Soviet Jewish region -- in addition to the geographical hurdles, apparently it fell victim to two or three of Stalin's trademark murderous about-faces.
We could have put Israel in Wyoming. Then we could have Armageddon here, without having to commute for the Rapture.
104: But then Gog and Magog would have to be Montana and Idaho instead of Russia and the Antichrist - and that wouldn't make any sense at all!
"Back at you with the sign reversed. You can start by dropping the 'I can't criticize Israel without getting smeared' smear."
And it might be useful if people didn't shout down anyone saying anything remotely defensive of Israel as insane, or asking if they favor "bombing people back to the Stone Age", or claiming that they're clearly not interested in a rational or intellectually honest discussion of this, or "making nonsense arguments, and you know it", or "being a jerk", or making personal characterizations entirely, or anonymously making unnecessary and false characterizations of them when they're no longer around.
Those all might be helpful steps towards respectful interchange.
So might be not taking personal experience and using it to absurdly generalize what "people" experience, which is always a dishonest (if not consciously so) and utterly unhelpful technique.
People's experience understandably varies quite a lot. And as regards a particular question, when people are on more or less opposite sides of it -- although that in itself is frequently an unhelpful characterization, as often there are a multitude of popular positions -- people's experience tends to vary widely, and sometimes dramatically. And thus so do their perceptions.
Allowing for that isn't just helpful, but downright necessary.
As might be avoiding personal characterizations of other people for having different views.
Then we might go to pdf23rds helpful tips on how to argue, for starters.
Oh, and minor general tip: it's useful to be able to spell that which one debates: it's "anti-Semitic," and likewise, "Jews" gets capitalized. I'm quite sure that people are merely being ignorant or careless when doing otherwise, and not deliberately derogatory, but not capitalizing "Jews" is traditionally derogatory, so awareness of that is also a small good thing.
Back on the issues, which I'm actually not all that enthused, to put it mildly, about debating here, or just about anywhere in current times, I read tons of perfectly legitimate criticism of Israel every day, and rarely have gone more than a few days without reading such; I have no trouble telling it from anti-Semitism. I certainly grant that there are rabid pro-Israelis who can't, but they seem to me to be vastly outnumbered by those who instead simply don't know much about the issues, and thus toss about ignorant claims like "Israel is a theocracy" or "Israel always responds militarily and with excessive force," or somesuch.
But I have to say at this point in my life that while I see only relatively small percentages of debates about Israel containing anti-Semitism, that I'm far more concerned these days with people simply being anti-Israel not in the sense that they're interested in criticizing it, which of course is 100% legitimate (and that shouldn't even have to be stated, since the alternative is absurd), but in the sense that they believe Israel is an illegitimate state, that it doesn't have a right to exist.
Generally I find "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" to be immensely unhelpful, nearly useless, terms. We accept around here, as most all liberals do, that we criticize the U.S. and its government all the time: this doesn't make us "anti-American" and it doesn't make us not "pro-American."
Why that should be different for Israel, I like to say I don't know, but I do know. It's because an awful lot of people don't accept Israel as a legitimate country. They believe perfectly well in the rights of Palestinians to have a state (as do I, fervently, as I always have, as I've worked with various groups for thirty-plus years to defend, with Americans For Peace Now, with friends in New Jewish Agenda, and so on), but they doubt or disagree with the right of Jews to have a state.
It's that position that these days I find far more alarming and worrisome and distressing than, in most cases, worrying about lurking anti-Semitism. (Though anyone who thinks anti-Semitism isn't still a serious problem in the world (along with hatred of Moslems, and all the other isms), and on the increase again, and isn't still lurking in America, simply isn't paying attention (which is understandable for most people; you don't have to; but denying it without researching it isn't a grand idea, either). And, incidentally, I've blogged plenty of examples on my blog over the years.
Back at you with the sign reversed. You can start by dropping the "I can't criticize Israel without getting smeared" smear.
It's not a smear. It happens, just as it also happens that anti-Semites attack Israel (as I said above). Your lightning response above was bullshit.
I must say I thought Galloway's performance on the clip was more than refreshing: it's the ONLY great defense of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian position I've ever seen on TV. We NEVER see this position on US TV EVER.
I don't know much about the guy, but he's been called "a bad person" and "an egregious prick" on this thread. Why is he called those things?
To see someone put forward his position so clearly, and without a hint of anti-Semitism, and smack down an obviously biased "reporter" -- as ALL our US TV reporters are -- is a real eye-opener.
He's my hero of the day, so I'd like to know what's actually so bad and egregious about him. Does he beat his wife, kick his dog, and refuse to pay prostitutes after he's bonked them?
When someone enters an argument by cataloguing Hezbollah's atrocities, insisting that anyone who respectfully disagrees with you is delusional, oh, and then, this is my favorite part, when someone quite reasonably wonders, since you're, mind, at this point, completely denying that Hezbollah can be dealt with diplomatically, whether you're suggesting an extreme military position, you not only act all hurt and defensive but follow it up with a Hezbollah quote to prove, presumably, that they cannot be reasoned with. All this done without stating a position except that negotiating with Hezbollah is impossible, but that doesn't entail anything about your views on military action.
Seems like you're already following pdf's rules. Those are the ones where you get to blame any interpretation of your words that you don't like on your opponent's lack of charity, right?
[poised for a high-five with Cala]
pdf's rules are for whiners.
"I don't know much about the guy, but he's been called 'a bad person' and 'an egregious prick' on this thread. Why is he called those things?"
Do a touch of research on him.
"All this done without stating a position except that negotiating with Hezbollah is impossible"
Of course, I've never said any such thing, and I've written tens of thousands of words otherwise, just in recents weeks, let alone over the years, saying otherwise.
I've said that I'm not aware of any offer that can be made to Hezbollah that would lead them to make full peace with Israel. That's not remotely saying they can't be negotiated with; of course they can be negotiated with (and on the positive side, unlike Hamas and the Palestinians in general at this time, they at least have a leadership that's in control). What, precisely, they'd be willing to settle for and what they'd be willing to negotiate, is another question, and the one I previously addressed.
"Seems like you're already following pdf's rules. Those are the ones where you get to blame any interpretation of your words that you don't like on your opponent's lack of charity, right?"
Huh? Obviously not.
106: Gary, a lot of your linked examples are people getting frustrated with you because you spend most of that thread getting very upset at people for holding various opinions on Lebanon without actually expressing any positive opinion of your own. I'm actually interested to know exactly what you think about the morality and utility of Israel's current actions in Lebanon. But other than some devil's-advocate-style talk about being unable to guess the strategy of various Israeli generals, I haven't heard much from you about whether you think this, now, is justified, and if so how it's justifed.
I don't think anybody here denies or questions Israel's right to exist, and I don't know why we keep coming back to the subject of Israel's existence. It's simply not the focus of this discussion. The people you're arguing with aren't denying Israel its existence, they're criticizing its tactics. To substitute one for the other is a strawman.
He's my hero of the day, so I'd like to know what's actually so bad and egregious about him.
He had an oddly congenial relationship with a former Iraqi dictator.
...unlike Hamas and the Palestinians in general at this time, they at least have a leadership that's in control.
Maybe one reason the Palestinians don't have a leadership that's in control, is because the Israelis have kidnapped and locked up a third of their elected parliament in their "dungeons."
Gary, your biases are showing.
"insisting that anyone who respectfully disagrees with you is delusional"
Huh?
It appears to me Gary plain won those points and wasn't defensive about it.
Incidentally, people have been sloppy about distinguishing between conversations held here, those held on other reasonable blogs, and those held with crazy folks. My claims above do not apply to discussions of the third sort if it wasn't clear.
"What would the geopolitical scene look like now if the Zionists had cut a deal and moved into Uganda?"
I'd ask, "What would the geopolitical scene look like now if the Palestinians had cut a deal and moved into Uganda?", but whenever anybody does they get labelled an anti-Palestinian.
Gary, I'm sorry, but that is not a totally unnecessary or unfair a characterization of you. Every time this issue is discussed here, you repeatedly say that no one knows what the hell they're talking about, as a way of asserting that that demolishes their point (which is, e.g., what you were doing to SCMT with the Ismail Haniya comment), imply that you're the only one who is fully up on the subject and generally give the impression that these discussions are a waste of your time.
I, for one, don't really like talking to people that just tell me that I don't know anything (which, to be fair, I am 100% certain that you have more knowledge than me on this subject, and maybe than many people here. So what?). It why I've largely made no comments on this subject. Until today. But now I'm just too pissed off.
He had an oddly congenial relationship with a former Iraqi dictator.
As did the US in general, and Rumsfeld in particular, back in the day.
I'm still asking: does he beat his wife, kick his dog, or refuse to pay prostitutes after he's bonked them? That's what I call "a bad person." Are you calling him "a bad person" simply because he's a politician?
Of course, I've never said any such thing, and I've written tens of thousands of words otherwise, just in recents weeks, let alone over the years, saying otherwise.
"But the leadership of Hezbollah will no more ever make peace with Israel or the U.S. than al Qaeda will. And expecting to talk to them and get more is no more reasonable than expecting that trying to be an "honest broker" can get both al Qaeda and the U.S. together in peace."
It's impossible to see how anyone could have thought that you thought that Hezbollah couldn't be negotiated with for peace (presumably what we care about; not so interested in their cookie recipes.)
As did the US in general, and Rumsfeld in particular, back in the day.
And how much do you admire Donald Rumsfeld for it?
"Crazy folks" are pretty common everywhere, and they often show up where you wouldn't expect them. For example, anytime Israel/ Palestine is discussed. ("Crazy folks" includes but is not limited to anti-Semites.) Dershowitz, for example, is crazy almost exlusively on Israel-related questions.
I contradicted myself, of course, because crazy folks do not show up unexpectedly on Israel-Palestine threads, since by now everyone expects them there.
Rilkefan and I have been involved in a long and fruitless discussion of the expansion of the term "anti-Semitic" to include Arabs. One nice thing about the expanded use of the term would be that it would make the Israel-Palestine disopute easy to pigeonhole: Palestinians and Israelis are both extremely anti-Semitic in their different ways.
Defending Galloway is the wrong way to go, I think. He's not as bad as Krauthammer thinks he is (nobody is as bad as Krauthammer thinks he is), but he's a sketchy guy.
From my mini-research on Galloway:
George Galloway is a British politician noted for his socialist views and rhetorical style. He is currently the Respect Party Member of Parliament (MP) for Bethnal Green and Bow, and was previously elected as a Labour Party MP for Glasgow Hillhead and Glasgow Kelvin. Galloway is perhaps best known for his vigorous campaign to overturn economic sanctions against Iraq, and for his visits to Saddam Hussein in 1994 and 2002. In October 2003, he was expelled from the Labour Party when a party body ruled that he had brought the party into disrepute over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when he called the Labour government "Tony Blair's lie machine", and stated that British soldiers should "refuse to obey illegal orders." In January 2004, he teamed up with the Socialist Workers Party, leading members of anti-war movements such as Salma Yaqoob, and other figures on the British left such as film-maker Ken Loach and journalist George Monbiot (who later left), to form RESPECT The Unity Coalition (Respect), a new political party to the left of Labour. He won his seat in the 2005 general election, standing for his new party. In January 2006 he sparked controversy for taking part in the television series Celebrity Big Brother.
As for Galloway and Saddam:
Giving evidence in his libel case against the Daily Telegraph newspaper in 2004, Galloway testified that he regarded Saddam as a "bestial dictator" and would have welcomed his removal from power, but not by means of a military attack on Iraq. Galloway also pointed that he was a prominent critic of Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s, as well as of the role of Margaret Thatcher's government in supporting arms sales to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Labour MP Tam Dalyell said during the controversy over whether Galloway should be expelled from the Labour Party that "in the mid-1980s there was only one MP that I can recollect making speeches about human rights in Iraq and this was George Galloway." When the issue of Galloway's meetings with Saddam Hussein is raised, including before the U.S. Senate, Galloway has argued that he had met Saddam "exactly the same number of times as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns."
122: You're either convinced by the linked arguments in #73, or you're not.
115: I was referring to an actual plan to give the Zionists a new Jewish homeland in Africa. I did not pull Uganda out of my ass.
Today I linked to this post saying that I wish there were "more Democrats like this." I basically meant the fiery and aggressive rhetoric and the calling out of bias -- I also think that (based on my admittedly sub-Farber level of knowledge) Israel's recent attacks on Lebanon were appallingly disproportionate and that the burden of proof should be on the person defending Israel's actions, so the concrete content of Galloway's speech was congenial to me.
But I'm not surprised if he's a bad person. All politicians are bad people. If a good person stood for election, I would not vote for that person.
Are you saying Rumsfeld isn't a bad person?
He's an apologist for all kinds of bad people and immoral actions.
"Rilkefan and I have been involved in a long and fruitless discussion of the expansion of the term "anti-Semitic" to include Arabs. One nice thing about the expanded use of the term would be that it would make the Israel-Palestine disopute easy to pigeonhole: Palestinians and Israelis are both extremely anti-Semitic in their different ways."
The whole "arab's are semites too" argument rings suspiciously of the right's use of "reverse racism" in the context of e.g. affirmative action.
I was kidding this time around.
re: 122 and 124
Fwiw, I agree with much of what Galloway actually has to say.
However, he's been pretty disingenuous vis a vis his Iraq dealings and he's a pretty self-serving and egotistical politicians. He's not a good MP when it comes to the things that constituency MPs really ought to be doing.
I may agree with many of his views (but not all of them) but still think he's a pretty crappy individual.
Incidentally, re: my views on Galloway as a constituency MP, unlike anyone else here, he actually was my MP at one time. He was pretty well-known for never being available, not attending constituency meetings, a woeful parliamentary attendance -- including key votes on issues that he was apparently invested in -- and so on.
Look, at the risk of sounding like the aggrieved restaurant patron played by Bruce McCulloch in that Kids In the Hall sketch, could someone please just tell me where all of this leftwing anti-Semitism is hiding? Please, anyone? Because as far as I can tell, nobody has yet offered up any kind of evidence that such a thing exists. So I think I'm more than 100% justified, in the absence of any evidence of contemporary, leftwing, critical-of-the-Israeli-government anti-Semitism, in saying that people who are basing their arguments on this lie as a "fact" are the ones who are operating in bad faith.
Of course, we all know what the real score is here, don't we? All of these leftists who are critical of Israeli military actions are just PRETENDING not to be anti-Semitic. And actually, there's a vast, left-wing conspiracy to cunningly trick the world into believing in Israeli atrocities, and this conspiracy meets every 100 years in a cemetary in Paris! Oh, those tricky critics of the Israeli government! They're so deceitful!
So yeah, Gary and them, until you can show me some proof that all of this anti-Semitism is roiling around the left, I think you're defecating on the memories of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman and Bernard Goldstein and Niuta Teitelboim. You're not debating in good faith in any sense of the term.
minneapolitan, I don't think Gary et al (see, e.g. Idealist's 78) are arguing that there actually is a lot (or even a significant amount) of anti-semitism of the left, what they are arguing is a mix of
a) False accusations of anti-semitism aren't that common, or not common enough to chill criticism of Israel;
b) False accusation of anti-semitism happen, but suck it up and deal, cause b1) similar baseless claims are made about proponents of Israel, and/or b2) it's just like accusations of racism or sexism that get thrown around all the time.
I don't see anyone arguing that the Israel-critical left is actually a bunch of anti-semites.
I just watched the clip again (for the third time), and man, that last thirty seconds is amazingly powerful. Wow.
re: 131
I think a) is false. They are, on the web at least, pretty common. Less so 'offline', I suspect.
The 'suck it up and deal' thing, hard though it may be to actually do, seems fair enough, though.
I don't see anyone arguing that the Israel-critical left is actually a bunch of anti-semites.
Actually, I can think of a few media columnists in the UK who do make that claim: Melanie Phillips, for one. I may think those columnists are nuts, but they have a platform -- Phillips is a columnist for a major newspaper.
There was a Frontline article a while back that got a lot of attention in the UK press that also made pretty universal accusations of anti-Semitism. Again, Frontline may not be that mainstream, but there was a lot of media attention given to those claims.
Also, in the interests of comity, I can think of a few fringe-left blogs that do tread pretty close to the line on anti-Semitism, or which, at least, are pretty hysterical in their condemnation of Israel. Hysterical in the conspiracy theory sense, rather than merely loud and passionate in their attacks on the actually indefensible things done by the state of Israel. Those blogs aren't mainstream -- they are pretty whacky and not at all representative of the broader 'anti-Israeli left' -- but they exist.
For the record, I think a) is false, too, I was just trying to clarify arguments.
Because as far as I can tell, nobody has yet offered up any kind of evidence that such a thing exists.
This is one prominent example, but there are others.
"135
Because as far as I can tell, nobody has yet offered up any kind of evidence that such a thing exists.
This is one prominent example, but there are others."
Here's the thing, this example you cite proves my point, not yours. Let's review: The ADL is an uncritically pro-Israel organization. One of their main rhetorical fallbacks is precisely the attack on critics of Israeli government policy that I have been rejecting, namely that such critics are anti-Semites. The ADL is so committed to this erroneous point of view that they paid a private detective and agent provacateur to infiltrate left-wing groups who were critical of Israeli policy and then shopped those people (some of them my comrades) to the CIA and the apartheid-era South African secret police. So this is hardly some unbiased, factual source we're talking about here. But don't take my word for it, let's look at the ADL's case for this so-called "anti-Semitism":
"On Israel’s founding, they cite as truth several of the most extreme anti-Israel perspectives. They write of Israel’s “crimes against the Palestinians” in the creation of the state."
What the ADL is contending here is that the founders of Israel did not commit crimes against Palestinians, and that to claim that they did is to be an anti-Semite. In order to believe this, we have to completely disregard the history of Israel's creation. During the 1930's and 1940's in the area that would become Israel, Jewish terrorists like Menachem Begin and Avraham Stern carried out a variety of attacks on both British and Arab/Palestinian targets. Some of these were straight reprisal killings, but some, like bombing the King David Hotel, were terrorism, through and through. And don't forget Deir Yassin while we're at it -- even if there was an "exaggerated" death toll, you can't deny that the village was ethnically cleansed. To the issue of refugees in general, doesn't it seem a bit disingenuous to take the ADL/AIPAC line that when people flee their homes, as a result of a war, that they should not ever be allowed back, and that their property is forfeit? Of course, the pro-Israel side claims that these killings and displacements were entirely justified by the expulsion of Jews from Iran, but are we really in anti-Semitic territory when we call that logic into question?
When I asked anyone to find me evidence of anti-Semitism among leftists critical of Israel, I meant exactly that. I didn't mean "find me an accusation of anti-Semitism that's entirely baseless and made by the very people I'm criticizing for making baseless accusations of anti-Semitism."
Just one more example of bad-faith argumentation on the part of Israel's uncritical defenders, which should come as no surprise.
On the topic of whether saying 'NYC' is code for 'I hate Jews' out in the heartland, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence of this. People who hate NYC hate it because it's liberal, elite, and effeminate and everyone there has better style. Jewishness probably doesn't cross most people's minds.
It's certainly true that the pro-Israel evangelical group don't know anything about Jews or Jewish culture, but that's not the same as active hatred.
78: Idealist, maybe I'm misreading your position, but you seem to be onboard with gleefully calling anti-Israel anti-Semites because people have called you racist or sexist. Isn't that a little bit petty?
People who hate NYC hate it because it's liberal, elite, and effeminate
But "liberal, elite, and effeminate" are all traditional anti-Semitic tropes. It's still the same prejudice, rooted in anti-intellectualism and culture-war paranoia - it's just no longer specifically aimed at actual Jews. Instead the target is shifted to gays and New York and "coastal elites."
But if no one arguing those tropes would associate it with anti-Semitism, or Jews, is it still anti-Semitic? I mean, I'll allow that it's prejudice and anti-intellectual, but it seems a pretty wide net to cast: "He thinks he's hating a gay professor, but really he hates the Jews."
But if no one arguing those tropes would associate it with anti-Semitism, or Jews, is it still anti-Semitic? I mean, I'll allow that it's prejudice and anti-intellectual, but it seems a pretty wide net to cast: "He thinks he's hating a gay professor, but really he hates the Jews."
A standard argument is that if you hate the characteristics that make up a man, you might as well hate the man. As ac has pointed out before, "I don't hate women, I just hate people who [series of feminine characteristics]," is not necessarily comforting to people worried about misogyny. To go further, if you have a hatred of certain characteristics ("liberal," "intellectual") that will be code "Jewish" for you on your exposure to (say) NYC, you might not be an anti-Semite, but you may be more likely to either (a) behave like one, or (b) be one once you encounter NYC and meet the stereotype halfway.
I'm not overly fond of that argument.
Typical liberals, claiming that all Jews are gay. Have you no decency?
maybe I'm misreading your position, but you seem to be onboard with gleefully calling anti-Israel anti-Semites because people have called you racist or sexist. Isn't that a little bit petty?
You are indeed rather egregiously misreading my position, but I am not ready to accuse you of being petty. My points included that people who feel free to use accusations of racism and sexism on little or no real evidence as rhetorical tools should rethink their tactics in light of how they feel when a similar tactic--accusations of anti-Semitism--is used against them. That does not make unfounded accusations of racism, sexism or anti-Semitism OK, either in a moral sense or in the sense of being honest argumentation.
However, whether or not they are OK, just as I (try to) let all the baseless accusationsof racism and sexism leveled at me pass by, lest my defense of them of them derail any possible conversation, my recommendation to those who feel that they are being accused of anti-Semitism unfairly and as a rhetorical ploy is to do the same. Try not to engage, because part of the rhetorical ploy is to derail the conversation.
Typical liberals, claiming that all Jews are gay. Have you no decency?
All Jews are gay. That's why they steal Christian babies and leave changelings behind; how else can they keep up their numbers?
Or is that elves? Same difference, I guess.
"elves" s/b "Elves" -- I don't want to be accused of anti-elfism.
Someone needs to write up a passive-aggressive list of rules for debating about Israel.
With regard to the use of racist codewords, post-9/11 it's much harder to get away with using "New York intellectual" as a slur, whether or not the intention behind it is specifically anti-Semitic. Instead, it seems to me that there's been a marked increase in attacks on the "liberal Hollywood elite", the West Coast version of the same rubric. (The fact that some of those attacks come from self-hating liberal Joe Lieberman should confuse no one, as we all know what strange bedfellows he's been chastely cuddling up to.)
Thought experiment No. 1: An Gujarati friend comes up to you and says, "Friend, I'm a progressive: I believe in equal rights for women and gays, I want stronger protections for the natural environment, I think unions should have more power in their dealings with management and I think we need universal health care. Nevertheless, I strongly support the BJP, as all good Hindus should, and I think anyone who criticizes the BJP or its policies towards Muslims, or it's handling of the Kashmir situation is likely to harbor deep feelings of prejudice against the Indian people." Wouldn't you feel compelled to respond "Friend, you may very well subscribe to all of those opinions, but I think there's something deeply inconsistent about your politics, and I think that people who have a strong political critique of the BJP would probably be justified in taking offense at the fact that you're smearing them as racists without any reference to any explicit anti-Indian prejudice in their words or actions."?
Thought experiment No. 2: You're posting on an environmentalist website regarding the controversy over Inuit whale hunts off the coast of Canada. A proponent of the Inuit, pro-hunt side comes on and writes "Everybody who is opposed to this whale hunt is prejudiced against Inuit people! Obviously, whale-hunt opponents are racists, because I've been reading debates about whale-hunting for a long time, and nobody ever brings up the fact that Shell is destroying the Nigerian environment in their exploitation of oil resorces there, or that the Chinese have flooded thousands of square miles of their countryside with the Three Gorges Dam project. After all, only a few whales are being killed each year, and you're focusing all your attention on them, simply because you hate Inuit people who are trying to hold on to their traditional culture." Now, does the fact that environmental degradation is going on all over the world, all the time, mean that it's not only illegitimate, but actively racist, for anyone to criticize one particular instance?
Now, does the fact that environmental degradation is going on all over the world, all the time, mean that it's not only illegitimate, but actively racist, for anyone to criticize one particular instance?
I don't know about actively racist, but I would think it fair to say that a person who gets all outraged over the barbarism of the Inuit killing a few whales (or bull-fighting, or oh god I suppose fox-hunting, or similar) but tends to regard Shell's practices as just the way the capitalism and the world works, and therefore not something a reasonable person can really object to -- and there are certainly people like that out there, though probably not many among the active posters on environmental websites, and I am sure you are not one of them -- is at least working from unexamined premises that could fairly be called racist, and which could use some open-minded thinking-about.
I am not making any kind of point that I would generalize to the context of either the Israeli/Palestinian or the Elf/Dwarf conflicts, or really any kind of point at all, really. Where is the delivery guy with my food?
The delivery guy arrived! He was an Arab so I didn't tip him.
MM, When Galloway ran for office on the Respect ticket, didn't he say some terrible things about teh Labour MP he was unseating. Were there racial slurs involved?
I'm a bit spotty on the details. Ian Duncan Smith (hereinafter "IDS") said that he treated Oona King despicably, but I don't really trust IDS's judgment. Still I find this line (taken from the BBC's website via Wikipedia) pretty appalling:
"100,000 people lie dead as a result of the decisions she made", replied Mr Galloway, including a lot of women who "had blacker faces than her".
A lot of people criticized him for going on Celebrity Big Brother, because it meant, as Helen Mirren said, that he was abandoning his constituency.
151: In fairness, the question to which Galloway was replying (Don't you think it's 'misguided' to be running against one of the few black women in Parliament?) is also pretty appalling, and hard to answer non-offensively.
"What a preposterous question," as in the video, might have served him better.
Linking to Sullivan and (indirectly) LGF means I lose the argument.
Isn't Sullivan basically doing the photo-post equivalent of nutpicking?
What's great is that Sullivan makes explicit that he's nutpicking: "It may not be typical, but it exists." Gawd, he's a douchebag.
On the subject of purple cows:
Me:
"I've been involved with ranching and dairying for a long time, I read Hoard's Dairyman, go to 4H conventions and county fairs and most of my friends know something about cows. On the basis of that, since I've never seen a purple cow, except for one or two that some wag has dyed that color, I don't believe you when you say there are naturally-occuring purple cows everywhere."
Others:
"We don't really deal with cows that much, in fact, our main exposure to cows comes from what we see on the 6 o'clock news and looking at a couple of websites. Nonetheless, when respected organizations like the National Sheep League and the American Anti-Cow Committee say that there are purple cows running rampant in this country, we have to figure that they know what they're talking about."
What in gawd's name are you wittering about, mn? Unless you have some sort of survey evidence, you've got the same basis for making claims as the rest of us: personal experience. Moreover, I don't see people claiming that "purple cows" are overrunning the world, simply that they exist, they have a pernicious influnce, and those two facts make it rational for people to attempt to identify the secret purple cows.
115: It appears to me Gary plain won those points and wasn't defensive about it.
In this comment I said that I thought Dingell's quote had been distorted and gave a fuller quote, indicating that Dingell thought we should be an honest broker between Israel and Hezbollah. I then acknowledged that one might think that it was stupid to try to be an honest broker with Hezbollah, but that that wasn't the question at issue; the question was whether Dingell had advocated an 'honest broker' position or a 'friend of Hezbollah' distinction.
Gary then accused me, providing no evidence, of picking my fuller quote out of context. When I challenged him to explain how (and left the thread), he replied that the 'honest broker' position is not anodyne when made about Hezbollah. But that is not what the dispute was, and it has no bearing on his original accusation that I was taking quotes out of context. The dispute was over whether Dingell said that we should be an honest broker between the parties. Saying, as Gary did, that we shouldn't try to be an honest broker with Hezbollah, was changing the subject, not winning the point.
Of course Gary got the last word in, by being so unpleasant to everyone who disagreed with him that we didn't want to argue with him any more. But he was called out for being unpleasant and arguing dishonestly, not for his support of Israel.
My points included that people who feel free to use accusations of racism and sexism on little or no real evidence as rhetorical tools should rethink their tactics in light of how they feel when a similar tactic--accusations of anti-Semitism--is used against them.
I, of course, disagree. (Hi, Idealist!) First, this whole "people who" is awfully vague and strawmannish. Second, I feel responsible, as one who does, in fact, identify statements as racist/sexist from time to time, that I in fact take the argument that criticisms of Israel may well be provoked by unrealized anti-Semitism pretty seriously, and have tried to think through that.
I mean, what's so difficult about realizing that prejudice is part of the world, and about recognizing that one might not be perfect, and trying to seriously think about where one gets one's ideas?
what's so difficult about realizing that prejudice is part of the world, and about recognizing that one might not be perfect, and trying to seriously think about where one gets one's ideas?
Nothing. On the other hand, that laudable endeavor has little to do with using the smear of racism or sexism as a rhetorical tool. To reflexively label those with whom you disagree as racist or sexist (this may not be apparent to you, B, but I suspect that you are not so often on the receiving end), is quite a different matter, and is indeed contrary to a genuine examination of the motivation of others, or indeed, oneself.
159: I don't take this as contrdicting/opposing idealist's point so much as restating what I thought his point was. It isn't that these aren't useful things to think about, it's that they are often casually and thoughtlessly used. In saying you think seriously about these things, both when you raise them and when you think about them when others raise them to you, you've taken yourself right out of the category of people he was referring to, who use all of these things to mean nothing more than "vile opponent whose views I need not take seriously".
161: Yeah. I don't think there's any argument over the principles that thoughtfully noting racism, or sexism, or anti-Semitism, or whatever sort of prejudice when it occurs is a good thing, while spraying around accusations of prejudice where it's not clear that any exists for rhetorical advantage is a bad thing. The arguments are over the very specific questions of who is doing the first, and who is doing the second.
160/161: I think this whole "often casually and thoughtlessly used" thing is a bit of a strawman; didn't we cover this in the annoying liberals thread? I'd say that if I were often accused of racism/sexism/blah blah whatever, I'd try to examine why: is there some view I hold that is structurally inimical to gender/racial equality? I get accused occasionally of hating men. I think this is silly, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking, okay, are there things I'm saying (or allowing to be said) that, in fact, are easy and foolishly reactionary? And yeah, sometimes they are.
FWIW, I do think that being anti-abortion is a fundamentally sexist position, but then you already knew that.
I do think that being anti-abortion is a fundamentally sexist position, but then you already knew that.
Other people thinking that criticizing Israel is a fundamentally anti-Semetic position.
I know that, and as I said, I've given a lot of thought to the nuances of different versions of criticizing Israel and the extent to which they do (or do not) intersect with different kinds of anti-
Semitism. There are criticisms of Israel that I won't tolerate for that reason.
Anti-X accusations seem meaningless unless (a) the act at issue goes directly to the heart of being X (gay conversion springs to mind), or (b) the accusation is really a prediction about the cast of a series of future unknown actions (people using state rights language to argue against desegregation, for example). When people "throw around" claims of racism, sexism, or anti-semitism, they're usually making predictions. Those predictions might be better or worse, but there's no real way to settle the issue. All we can really do is determine whether we think those are good predictive rules.
Yeah, I think both (a) and (b) are valid, and that both of them in a reasonable discussion require explanation of *why* X goes directly to the heart (e.g., the abortion thing) or why X carries probable dangerous consequences (e.g., the "why do men have to pay child support" argument). I'm not saying that it's enough to simply say X is bad.
On the other hand, I am saying that the person accused of X has a responsibility, if acting in good faith, to say, "huh, why do you say that" instead of just reacting with a knee-jerk, "nuh-uh!" At least, they do before they're allowed to just dismiss the person making the accusation of being merely rhetorical.
More from Sullivan. I suspect 85 is wrong about A.N.S.W.E.R., but consider complaining about them nutpicking. The Mel sign is pretty funny though.
(It really annoyed me that the sane anti-war left didn't manage to organize those rallies - I think it greatly weakened our hand.)
168: So, tell me again where I said that the one place you were NOT likely to find actual anti-Semitism among opponents of Israeli policy was in the hands of a small minority of demonstrators at big protests on the coasts? Oh, oh yeah, that's right: I said just the opposite.
So you "suspect" I'm wrong about A.N.S.W.E.R., huh? Well maybe I "suspect" you're a Communist and a racketeer. So what? Do you have any actual proof of significant anti-Semitism on the critical-of-the-Israeli-government left in this country? I can't imagine that you do, since all that's been presented here is 1. a few deplorable examples of individual anti-Semites who happen to come to large, public demonstrations & 2. a nonsensical polemic from an organization whose existence depends on drumming up fears of anti-Semitism, and which, as I mentioned above, is happy to engage in some pretty nasty tactics to ensure that the money keeps rolling in.
157: Once again, you've completely elided the issue. Where are YOU getting the evidence that would support conducting these witchhunts to ferret out secret anti-Semites among the critical-of-the-Israeli-government left? Nowhere, that's where. Obviously, we disagree about the proposition that if you are going to accuse an individual or group of some negative action, the burden of proof lies with you. What you are proposing, namely that, because some leftists are accused of being anti-Semites, then some leftists must be anti-Semites, is fallacious. That's all there is to it. Are you prepared to accept a statement like "Some people who use the handle 'SomeCallMeTim' might be pedophiles, therefore, some significant number of the people who use the handle 'SomeCallMeTim' should be presumed to be pedophiles until they can prove otherwise"? If not, why are you so sure that there are a non-trivial number of anti-Semitic leftists?
"Oh, oh yeah, that's right: I said just the opposite."
So what? It's not all about you. I clearly say the picture is irrelevant to the larger argument here in my comment - perhaps you don't know what "nutpicking" suddenly means.
"Well maybe I "suspect" you're a Communist and a racketeer."
Are you in A.N.S.W.E.R.? If not, that's just a random ad-hom.