Definition of anti-Semitism Is a Threat to No One but anti-Semites

[shira]

This week British Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she would adopt “the working definition of anti-Semitism,” due to an increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents and because the battle against anti-Jewish prejudice is an important part of her efforts to build a fairer society. Last week that definition was discussed at a UNESCO conference in Paris, and later in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). At both conferences there was mention of the adoption (for the first time) of the definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in May in Romania. Each of the organizations has dozens of members.....

...A clause in the definition of anti-Semitism, which discusses denying the right of the Jewish people to self determination, made it possible to say at the conference that self determination means identity, history and roots, whose denial – in reference to the ancient Jewish people of all groups – is discrimination, if not anti-Semitism for its own sake....

...It’s a practical definition – one page in length – that does not go into the identity and motives of anti-Semites or a description of their image of Jews. It determines, in one sentence, that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This is followed by a series of examples: incitement to harm Jews, myths about their imaginary power, Holocaust denial and accusations of dual loyalty. In the end, examples of statements against the State of Israel that are defined as anti-Semitism, such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

A few years ago the definition was removed from the website of that EU monitoring body, perhaps for technical reasons, as its directors claim. Since then, leading personalities and organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, have been trying hard to reinstitute it, and, as mentioned, lately there have been results. That may be happening due to the constant effort, and perhaps because in Europe, where fascist and totalitarian regimes flourished, the attitude towards legislation differs from that in the United States, and therefore a definition of anti-Semitism that serves as a basis for identifying activity, or for legislation to counter it, could open the door to a definition of Islamophobia, as well as hatred of Christians, blacks, Roma and other minorities.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.760175

[oberliner]

2. "Israel is a racist endeavour"

Wow.

True colors are laid bare.

[shira]

8. Your example of Umm al-Hiran is deceptive, racist incitement to hatred....

I don't at all agree that you're against racism wherever it appears if you don't believe purposeful deception & incitement against a people is hateful racism. Never once have you conceded here on this forum that deliberate lies & incitement against a people is proof positive of racism. Which basically says it all, actually...

Using Bedouin issue as an anti-Israel propaganda tool

...The discussion of the Bedouin issue is legitimate. Different countries have dealt in different ways with the recognition of native populations' rights. The Scandinavians had the Sami people (the Lapps), the Australians had the Aboriginal people and the Americans had the Indians. Each democratic state adopted its own solution.

One thing is clear: The arrangement offered by Israel is probably the most generous and decent arrangement, compared to other countries. Israel is offering every Bedouin family in one of the unrecognized communities generous solutions, which include both a piece of land and infrastructures.

But the coalition of incitement and deception – which includes Adalah, Balad, rights movements and the Islamic Movement – is unhappy with these solutions. This coalition also has the Haaretz newspaper, which is fanning the flames, at its service.

It should be clarified that there is a huge difference between a critical stance against the state's conduct and major deception, which has one result: Lies and incitement. There is no need to mention that the coalition of incitement and deception chose the second option – not a battle for the Bedouins, but another opportunity for an anti-Israel campaign.

Last week, the Supreme Court decided to approve the evacuation of Bedouins from Umm al-Hiran to allow the construction of the new town of Hiran. According to Prof. Aeyal Gross, Haaretz's commentator, "The residents, who are about to be evacuated from the community and whose homes are about to be demolished in favor of the Jewish community of Hiran – have been living there for 60 years, after moving to the Nahal Yatir area in 1956 at the military governor's order."

Had these been the facts, we should have joined the protestors against the brutal eviction government. The problem is that Gross' statement is inaccurate, to say the least.

The facts are, first of all, that the Bedouin expansion to the compound allotted to Hiran began only after the decision was made to build the new community. It's written in the ruling. There are aerial photos that prove it. But Gross wasn't wrong. He misled his readers. If there is an opportunity to spread another lie about the Zionist expulsion, the coalition of deception and incitement will seize that opportunity.

Secondly, most of the Bedouins who were in the areas discussed by the Supreme Court willingly accepted the arrangement proposed by the state, according to the Prawer outline. The outline included generous land allotments in the adjacent recognized community of Hura, including an exemption from payment for the land, an exemption from payment for infrastructures and additional compensation for the transfer.

Thirdly, up until two years ago, the Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages of Negev – which are at the heart of the conflict – was headed by Ibrahim Aloquili, who tried to advance an arrangement with the state. The members of the coalition of incitement and deception didn't like it. They worked to present him as a collaborator and oust him. Why? Because radical elements wanted a militant line. "Aloquili has been seen for a long time now as a person who is sabotaging the attempts of other leaders to advance a more hawkish line vis-à-vis the government," they argued. The picture is becoming clear.

Other solutions can and may be presented. The Supreme Court's decision can be criticized. But that's not what Haaretz did. It misled its readers. It failed to mention the fact that most Bedouins supported the arrangement without being forced to. It failed to mention the fact that the Bedouins expanded to the community of Hiran only after it was decided to build it. It failed to mention the fact that the Bedouins' families are not being thrown out on the street but are receiving a generous arrangement from the state. Why were these facts concealed from the readers? We know the answer. It's not criticism; it's incitement and deception.

Not everyone who opposes the Prawer Plan is an enemy of the State of Israel or the Zionist enterprise. But for many, the Bedouin issue has turned into another propaganda tool as part of the attempt to present Israel, and the entire Zionist enterprise, as an enterprise of oppression, discrimination and expulsion. This is the reason why the campaign has become international.

Admittedly, the lies are winning. Even the European Union has already volunteered to save the Bedouins from the Zionist regime. In the face of the lies and distortion, all that is left is to present the facts.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4656018,00.html

Now what's interesting below is that the leader of RHR (Arik Ascherman) said in the comments under the article that he would respond to Ben Dror Yemini's points. But he never did. He didn't dispute anything in the article. He's full of shit. In fact, no one has attempted to dispute Ben Dror Yemini.

The blood libel film

...A viewer unfamiliar with the facts is left full of anger and ill will. A masterful work of atrocious propaganda. Israel is not a civilized state. Israel is a monster.

In the background a campaign has being going on for a long time, crafted by Haaretz. There have been a lot of baseless claims, but I will make do with just two that were published this week. Oudeh Basharat claimed that Israel was robbing the Bedouins of land in Umm al-Hiran, and immediately called this apartheid. One day later, Prof. Eyal Gross claimed that Bedouins were being evicted from their homes in order to build a Jewish town. When a lie is repeated a thousand times, it becomes fact.

The words transfer and apartheid appeared in the campaign, in order to finger the culprit. This, of course, is the Zionist enterprise. This is what it did in 1948. This is what it is doing in the territories. This is what it is doing to the Bedouins. This is how incitement is created. This is how demonization is done. Haaretz readers have no inkling that Bedouin began to live in Umm al-Hiran only after the initiative to establish Hiran. Is it unreasonable to demand that a law professor know the facts before writing a report?

A fair arrangement for the Bedouins is no simple matter. One thing certain is that the path the state has chosen is not expulsion, disinheriting or transfer, but rather a generous offer that has cost and will cost the state hundreds of millions of shekels, and provides the Bedouins with tremendous benefits. This is discriminating against the Jews and affirmative action favoring the Bedouins. No Jew is entitled to receive free land in a Bedouin community, nor to buy land that is offered to Bedouins at reduced prices, when that possibility exists. A Bedouin, on the other hand, can choose between a Bedouin community and a Jewish community. If he wants to live in Hura, there is land with infrastructure waiting for him, at no charge. If he wants to live in Hiran, he may do so, under the same conditions as a Jew, Armenian or Buddhist.

When “rights groups” and Haaretz automatically side with the Bedouins who oppose the arrangement, rather than with those who support it, the arrangement is doomed to failure. Just like the “forces of progress” in the world, who fan the flames of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and the fantasy of the Arab Right of Return. This is no way to reach an arrangement, and only bolsters the objectors. This perpetuates the suffering and the conflict and the bloodshed. What the “progressives” are doing for the Palestinians, the “rights activists” are now doing for the Bedouins.

Truth be told, it is doubtful if there is a population anywhere in the world with similar characteristics, native or nomadic, that has been awarded such a generous settlement. But the propaganda film has managed to reverse this picture, such that matters must be returned to the proper perspective. It’s not that Jews are doing to the Bedouins what anti-Semites did to the Jews. Just the opposite. It is the “rights groups” and Rabbis for Human Rights, and it’s Haaretz that are continuing the old, despised tradition of libels. In the past it was against the Jews. Now it’s against the State of Israel.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-blood-libel-film/

[shira]

15. You can't dispute one fact from Ben Dror Yemini. Not one. n/t

[shira]

17. See post #9 with Irish Travelers, Gypsies. Is that Apartheid?

Is the UK a failed democracy too....a racist endeavor?

[shira]

26. Ben Dror Yemini exposed that lie for what it is. Pure incitement.

So why repeat it?

I know you read Yemini's article. The President of RHR did also, and never disputed anything in it. So why repeat the lie that Israel is forcibly removing one ethnicity and replacing it with another, as if that's an accurate description of what's going on?

[shira]

9. The UK has the exact same "racist Apartheid" issue w/ Irish Gypsies

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/1006/features/on-the-road-again/

But if the Bedouins were to vanish, magically replaced in the Negev by the Irish Travelers (Gypsies) who were recently evicted from their unauthorized settlement at Dale Farm in the United Kingdom, Israeli authorities could be forgiven for failing to see any material difference.

In the 1980's, the Council of Basildon let a few Travelers pitch caravans at nearby Dale Farm when they were not on the road; but the Council denied permission for further settlement in what is part of England's "Green Belt." Last month, after years of lawsuits, the Council got permission to clear 86 families from Dale Farm—and did so, not without raucous protests, unfavorable media attention, and a mediation offer from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Now to be fair, let's see your outrage at the "Apartheid" racism going on in the UK.

Bring it.

Waiting...

[shira]

3. What you wrote is bigoted. You would never say that of any other nation....

....particularly not a free democratic liberal western nation, which Israel is.

Never have you uttered the same of any other nation on the planet. The only reason for such discourse is to demonize the Jewish state, in order to delegitimize its very existence.

Not long ago, you argued calling for Israel's destruction is antisemitic. That's the only reason to call Israel, in contrast to all other nations, a racist endeavor. The reason Israel is called Apartheid, Nazi-like, a racist endeavor, etc... is to delegimize its very existence, making its existence illegal.

Shameful.

[oberliner]

6. "Beginning to look like"

But you said Israel "is" - not "beginning to look like" - a racist endeavour.

And you didn't say "Netanyahu's Israel" as you are saying "Putin's Russia" here.

You wrote that Israel (not Netanyahu's Israel) is (not is beginning to look like) a racist endeavour.

Maybe you should reflect on why you chose those words differently with respect to the two countries.

[oberliner]

18. I am not trying to convince you of anything

I am asking you to reflect on the language that you chose. If you did, I appreciate you taking the time to have done so. This thread is about antisemitism and its definition. If you'd like to start a thread about another topic, please feel free to do so. If you want to talk about whether or not the belief that "Israel is a racist endeavor" contains any antisemitic undertones, I'd be happy to have that discussion.

[oberliner]

22. That sentence shows how open you are to being convinced of anything

Which is why there is pretty much no point in attempting to do so.

Not even "I don't think calling Israel..." - just 100 percent certainty that you are right, no matter what.

Makes it hard to engage in any kind of discussion when you make it clear that you have no interest in entertaining the possibility that you might be even a little bit wrong.

And your patronizing, repeated requests to "Google" something that we've already talked about several times on this board show that you don't really pay particular attention to these exchanges anyway.

If you really want to challenge yourself, try this thought experiment:

Start with the following question: What is it about the statement "Israel is a racist endeavor" that could possibly be perceived as having antisemitic undertones?

Then maybe make a list of some possible answers, even if you think they are ridiculous at first. Perhaps something will come of that.

I mean, that exact sentence was given as an example of antisemitism in the aforementioned document. So there are apparently a fair number of reasonably intelligent people who do think that sentence is antisemitic.

Might be worth at least trying to figure out why they think that.

[oberliner]

24. Again, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you on anything

I am presenting you with the fact that the definition of antisemitism in the OP identifies what you wrote as an example of antisemitism.

Here is the relevant excerpt:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the
religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence
of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf

I am asking you to consider why that might be the case. Can you at least try to imagine a non-political motivation for doing so?

Are you willing to identify maybe one or two non-political reasons why they might have included that sentence as an example of antisemitism?

[oberliner]

31. OK

I appreciate your consideration of the questions that I posed.

I would re-iterate that I did not present any explanation of anything and that I do not consider criticism of Israel to be antisemitic.

If you want to understand more about the definition and example discussed in the OP, then you can probably find more information from better sources than me.

Maybe there is something at the IHRA website that might be helpful.

[oberliner]

34. You wrote: "An analogous example would really help me understand"

That is what gave me the impression that you did have a wish to understand more about this definition of antisemitism.

If you think that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance are "a bunch of idiots" then I guess it would not behoove you to read anything else from their web site.

It seems clear that your mind is made up with respect to this subject, so I don't think we need to waste any more time discussing it.

[shira]

37. Yes, folks are idiots for being concerned about the safety/welfare of Jews worldwide...

Spoken like a true anti-racist.

Words & actions that hurt Jews and place Jews in danger are totally fine so long as racist intent cannot be proven 110%. All benefits of the doubt must be given to critics of Jews.

Wonderful philosophy to live by.

[shira]

32. Tich, that's very disingenuous. You're against Jews' self-determination & sovereignty.

I don't see any criticism of any other nation of people on the planet in which such "legitimate" discourse calls for the elimination of their state, their sovereignty, their self-determination.

I don't see it because such advocacy would obviously and rightfully be called hateful incitement and a clear call to war since no nation would voluntarily self-destruct.

Stop pretending you don't know how violent your words are towards the Jewish people. Our lives are actually at stake. Our ancient homeland is all we have as a last resort. If we lose sovereignty there, we're fucked. Either you don't want to "get it", you don't give a shit, or this is all just a game for you. I assure you that your hostility towards us as a people is not a game to us.

[shira]

36. It is. Everyone is guaranteed rights in Israel, which is a free country.

You're welcome BTW, for now knowing exactly why your advocacy is considered antisemitic. It's because you don't advocate for the destruction of any other nation (let alone a free democracy). You don't want to take the right of self-determination and sovereignty away from any other group of people other than Jews. Lastly, you couldn't care less what that action would mean for the long term safety and security of Jews worldwide.

That's why your 'criticism' is antisemitic.

So no more pretending it's about banning all criticism of Israel.

You'll notice that other critics of Israel like Obama, Hillary, Bernie, J-Street, Gush Shalom, etc.... do not call for the end of the Jewish state, or for an end to Israeli sovereignty or Jewish self-determination. They do not shrug at the safety and welfare concerns of Jews who would become very vulnerable without IDF protection. This is what separates critics from antisemites.

So now you know. No pretending otherwise from now on.

[shira]

27. Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Dont Really Matter

Imagine for a moment that you’re standing with your friends in a park, enjoying a nice summer day. You don’t know me, but I walk right up to you holding a Frisbee. I wind up – and throw the disc right into your face.

Understandably, you are indignant. Through a bloody nose, you use a few choice words to ask me what the hell I thought I was doing.

And my response? “Oh, I didn’t mean to hit you! That was never my intent! I was simply trying to throw the Frisbee to my friend over there!”

Visibly upset, you demand an apology. But I refuse. Or worse, I offer an apology that sounds like “I’m sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you.”

Sound absurd? Sound infuriating enough to give me a well-deserved Frisbee upside the head?

Yeah.

So why is this same thing happening all of the time when it comes to the intersection of our identities and oppressions or privileges?

Intent v. Impact

From Paula Deen to Alec Baldwin to your annoying, bigoted uncle or friend, we hear it over and over again: “I never meant any harm…” “It was never my intent…” “I am not a racist…” “I am not a homophobe…” “I’m not a sexist…”

I cannot tell you how often I’ve seen people attempt to deflect criticism about their oppressive language or actions by making the conversation about their intent.

At what point does the “intent” conversation stop mattering so that we can step back and look at impact?

After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us?

In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships.

If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn’t much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else – because my partner is hurting.

I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize.

And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don’t do it again.

But when we’re dealing with the ways in which our identities intersect with those around us – and, in turn, the ways our privileges and our experiences of marginalization and oppression intersect – this lesson becomes something much larger and more profound.

This becomes a lesson of justice.

What we need to realize is that when it comes to people’s lives and identities, the impact of our actions can be profound and wide-reaching.

And that’s far more important than the question of our intent.

We need to ask ourselves what might be or might have been the impact of our actions or words.

And we need to step back and listen when we are being told that the impact of our actions is out of step with our intents or our perceptions of self.

more...
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/

The Issue of Intent: the rise of unacknowledged racism

...At other times, Australian racism is expressed more furtively – reflected, now by the growing insistence in some quarters that racism should be excused if the act was not consciously intended to offend. ‘I didn’t mean to be racist,’ has become the immediate defence for many offenders.

Intentional or not, acts of racism do not occur within a vacuum. But instead of acknowledging the hurtful and divisive nature of racist behaviour and using it to educate ourselves and strengthen our multicultural identity, there is a growing insistence that racism should be excused if the act was borne out of ignorance, as opposed to outright hatred. The excuse of ‘intent’ is now so widespread that it pervades almost every facet of Australian public life.

more...
http://www.wheelercentre.com/notes/the-issue-of-intent-the-rise-of-unacknowledged-racism

[shira]

28. Leading Jewish Scholar Prosecuted in France for Alleged anti-Muslim Remarks

The anti-Islamophobia collective called Bensoussan’s statements “dangerous and in line with far-right rhetoric” targeting Muslims.

But three prominent French writers and historians — Jacques Tarnero, Yves Ternon and Michel Zaoui – disputed the allegations, calling the complaint against Bensoussan “scandalous.”

The cautions taken against Bensoussan “are part of a strategy of intimidation intended to censure any lucid statement, any form of criticism,” they wrote in a statement they published online last week.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.760053

Sound familiar? Did this guy have racist intent? Does it matter?

[shira]

7. It's racist for 2 reasons. First, it's a deliberate lie & incitement to hatred....

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:39 AM - Edit history (2)

Second, no other nation is relentlessly attacked this way, where its very existence is opposed. Certainly no other democracy, but not even any totalitarian or fascist shit hole either. So sure, if you were doing this equally with other nations, what you'd be doing is fine, but that's not the case....

This is not criticism, it's singling out the Jewish state. Full stop. Show me similar criticism of other nations. Show me opposition to their very existence, or incitement and calls for their destruction, which is exactly what you are doing. Show me another nation or people on the planet, other than Jews, who are undeserving of self-determination. Show me another nation whose people's right to self-determination you want to take away.

Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, but what you're doing to Israel (which you would never do to any other nation or people) goes well beyond criticism and you know it.

BTW, Oberliner nailed it with your comparison to "Putin's Russia".

[shira]

12. No, if you criticized other nations like you do Israel, that would be fine....

The definition doesn't state criticism of Israel is forbidden. It's fine if it's in line with criticism of any other nation. No sense pretending all criticism of Israel is bad according to the definition. Obama, HRC, and Bernie all criticize Israel but who here calls them antisemitic? Your criticism is far different than theirs.

[shira]

16. Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country isn't antisemitism...

Read carefully what's in the WD of antisemitism....

“Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.

Got it?

Deal with that, not the BS you're making up about stifling all legitimate criticism of Israel. Now what's wrong with it?

[shira]

25. That's not criticism you level against any other country....

Also, the reason you call Israel a racist endeavor, and not Putin's Russia, is because you're against Jewish self-determination altogether. You call it a racist endeavor because you're delegitimizing the very existence of the state you want gone. You want to take the Jewish people's right to self-determination away, unlike any other nation or group of people. The Jews are not worthy of their own nation & do not deserve their own sovereignty, therefore death to the Jewish state of Israel.

That's what you believe.

And that is racist because you would never do that against any other group of people on the planet. It's worse, considering what happens to Jews when we are a vulnerable, quite helpless minority in any nation on the planet. You know very well what would happen to a minority of Jews under fascist Hamas/PLO control and you don't give a shit. How is it possible to be anti-racist, yet not give a shit how a minority of Jews under Hamas/PLO control would fare?

Where am I wrong?

[oberliner]

30. Valiant effort

Doubtful that it will have the desired effect.

[shira]

38. It's inconceivable to not know the diff. b/w criticism of Israel & bigotry...

....given the explanations in this thread.

Games are now over & the mask is off.

ps,
And I know what you're thinking about 'inconceivable'.

[oberliner]

39. Everyone involved with that movie was Jewish

Except Andre the Giant.