Could having an anti-Israeli sentiment be an indicator of anti-Semitism?

[Behind the Aegis]

Two men, Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small, did a study in 2005 titled: Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism In Europe: A Statistical Study*. Despite its being about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I thought it was interesting and thought it could be applied to the current conflict among Israel, Lebanon, and Hizb'allah.

I have seen anti-Semitic responses at DU in response to the current conflict. I have also seen legitimate criticism. However, when and how does one distinguish when the criticism of Israel is actually steeped in anti-Semitic attitudes? I know that all criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, nor does it necessarily come from an anti-Semitic place. But how do we address it when the criticism does come from anti-Jewish bias? Isn't it possible that some people are critical (overly-critical) of Israel because of something darker?

The Abstract
In the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, extreme
criticisms of Israel (e.g. Israel is an apartheid state, the Israel Defense
Forces deliberately target Palestinian civilians) coupled with extreme policy
proposals (e.g. boycott of Israeli academics and institutions, divest
from companies doing business with Israel) have sparked counter-claims
that such criticisms are anti-Semitic (for only Israel is singled out). Our
research shines a different, statistical light on this question: based on a
survey of 500 citizens in each of 10 European countries (for a total sample
of 5,000), we ask whether those with extreme anti-Israel views are more
likely to be anti-Semitic. Even after controlling for numerous potentially
confounding factors, we find that anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts
the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the likelihood of
measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment
observed.

The study is 22 pages long in PDF. It is loaded with statistics and how they came to their conclusions. It may be too much for some (because there are TONS of very technical stats), so, even if you are not heavy into formulas and such, skip over them and read the conclusions. I had to read the stats parts a few times to make sure I was getting it.

*The Study

[oberliner]

1. hmmm

I think you can probably predict exactly what sorts of responses you are going to get here.

That said, thank you for posting the study!

[Behind the Aegis]

2. We shall see.

I struggled with some of the more technical parts (I agree with Barbie...Math is hard!). Any discussion about Israel is going to be complicated and complex. Sadly, many people cannot see that fact. IT will be interesting to see if I get any comments or if people even read the study. Unlike most things posted here, this is not a 20 paragraph article.

On edit: Of course posting it at 2am CST probably wasn't the best idea....who the hell wants to read 22 pages this early in the damn morning!? :)

[Emit]

9. I'm having a hard time reading the study

because the text is so darned light -- did you have that problem? I'll continue, but might have to save it for the am when I'm more rested. It's pretty late here.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Light?

When I read it, it was in black-faced typeface. When I encounter a site that I have a hard time reading, I highlight the entire section, that allows me to read it better.

[Emit]

11. It's a PDF file

When I highlight it it turns blue for me. It's a light grey -- very hard to read. I've copied and pasted it into Word for now, although it messed with the formatting.

[Wonk]

3. Is article 33 of the 4th Geneva convention anti-semitic?

I was thinking of starting a separate thread asking that, but I may as well tack it on to yours.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Which is?

On edit: Thanks to oberliner, I now know what you are referring to. What does it have to do with what I posted or the premise of the study?

[oberliner]

5. and we're off....

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

[Wonk]

7. re: collective punishment

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

[Behind the Aegis]

8. please see my edit in post #4.

What does that have to do with the study?

[k_jerome]

6. it depends. nt.

[nashville_brook]

12. when are you people going to get it!!! criticizing israel -- NO

MATTER WHAT THEY DO is called an-ti-sem-it-ism.

remember this always.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. If you have nothing productive to offer, why even respond?

[DoYouEverWonder]

79. The poster has a valid point

and you are one of it's worst examples.

How many years have you monitered every LBN thread, ready to stomp on anyone who says anything even slightly negative about Israel? You have a way of sucking the air out of a room.

If you are going to lead a discussion, then at least treat each response with respect.

[lumpy]

101. Hear hear!

v

[Behind the Aegis]

120. The poster did not have a valid point.

It was nothing but a platitude.

You make assertions that you cannot possibly substantiate. Whereas I may address the unequal treatment that Israel gets, it is NO different than you and several like you who seem to work overtime to produce as many anti-Israeli articles as you can.

Also, I am not "leading" a discussion, and not every response deserves to be treated with respect, although, I did ask what was his purpose of posting something that was not at all true.

[DoYouEverWonder]

133. "I am not "leading" a discussion"

Ah excuse me, you did start this thread didn't you? Then it's your thread, ie your discussion.

[Behind the Aegis]

134. .

:crazy:

[burythehatchet]

47. thank you for your response

it just gets tiresome...

[Behind the Aegis]

48. What is "tiresome" are the FALSE allegations...

...of being called an anti-Semite!

Care to comment on the actual OP?

[H2O Man]

51. I have friends

who we consider part of our extended family. Their kids consider me their uncle, and I have always treated them as my nephews. I became concerned as the boys were growing up, because almost as a rule, every single problem they had became framed as "they don't like me because I'm _____." Their parents always framed everything in terms of prejudice and anti-______ feelings on the part others.

It actually becomes more than tiresome. It creates a psychological wall that keeps people from dealing with the reality that not everything is prejudice. Sometimes people simply want others to take responsibility for their behaviors. More, the constant claims of victimhood cheapen the many very real times when prejudice and hatred do play a role in events.

[Jazzgirl]

62. Thank you H2O man for making this very important

point. It does become tiresome and is often heavily overused, no matter who uses it. You are so right that when there are valid claims of prejudice it is often poo-pooed because of constant prior claims of bias because <fill in the blank>.

JG

[LostinVA]

56. God, I know... I told my ex people were implying I was anti-semitic

because I disagreed with Israel's attack on Lebanon. She laughed and said then she must be anti-semitic too... and, since she's Jewish and not self-loathing, that's a pretty hard thing to do.

There's a difference between loyalty and blind loyalty.

[lumpy]

100. It appears to be an obsession

v

[Taxloss]

103. "You people"? n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

14. So How Does This Gibe With The Fact

That a Pew poll found that anti-semitism in Europe has actually declined over the past decade, despite all the recent bad press?

And yes, we can expect some people to have sincere anti-Jewish views when they criticize Israel, just like we might expect some people to be genuinely racist against blacks when they criticize affirmative action. But like you say, such facts of life doesn't necessarily discredit reputable criticisms of both issues.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. I don't see how it is relevant.

Because there hasn't been an marked increase in anti-Semitism, how does that affect the study? Also you weren't very honest in saying "That a Pew poll found that anti-semitism in Europe has actually declined over the past decade, despite all the recent bad press?" From your own source, it is clear that it has not declined, as you state, but rather has not increased.

Despite concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, there are no indications that anti-Jewish sentiment has increased over the past decade. Favorable ratings of Jews are actually higher now in France, Germany and Russia than they were in 1991. Nonetheless, Jews are better liked in the U.S. than in Germany and Russia. As is the case with Americans, Europeans hold much more negative views of Muslims than of Jews.

Also, look at the year they are discussing. More recent polls paint a very different story.

[wellst0nev0ter]

43. What Recent Polls?

In any case, how come the rate of antisemitism in those European countries declined even after criticisms from those countries were ratcheted up against Israel, especially after the famous Operation Defensive Shield in 2002?

And yes, it has declined, read the poll again. Same thing goes for the ADL poll

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Did you read what you actually posted?!

It has NOT declined...it has stayed the same (per your poll), and as for the ADL...

"A survey of 12 European countries revealed that a plurality of Europeans believe Jews are not loyal to their country and that they have too much power in business and finance. The opinion survey of 6,000 adults – 500 in each of the 12 European countries – found either minimal decline, no change or, in some cases, an increase in negative attitudes toward Jews from its 2004 findings."

You are taking "small," if any decrease, as some type of indicator that anti-Semitism DOESN'T play a role in anti-Israeli attitudes. You couldn't be more wrong!

[wellst0nev0ter]

123. Did You Read What I Actually Posted

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.image?id=3532

I don't even have to draw you a picture.

As for the ADL poll, yes the decline was minimal from 2004, but it is significant from 2002, despite the outcry from Defensive Sheild and other operations afterwards.

[radwriter0555]

15. No. It's being able to look at an issue untainted by racist rhetoric.

It doesn't matter what nationality or religion or skin color or ethnic heritage a terrorist is. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Israel is acting as the aggressor and the terrorist. The same as the USA is doing in Iraq.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. And that has what to do with the assertion of the authors?

What does it have to do with the study?

[radwriter0555]

61. It has to do with the fact that not all people can be painted with the

same brush. Sadly however, most people are racist and do let their racism taint their lives.

Luckily a few of us take the exception.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. I'm sure there are people who are coming from that line of thinking

but I cannot help but also think that there are number of people who reflexively support military action against Arab and Muslim people whether by Israel or anyone else partly out of racist sentiments. I have noticed a number of post here on DU that hit me as blatantly racist. Even the word "terrorist" has in some peoples minds become a synonym for "Arab" while they completely overlook terrorist actions carried out by "more respectable" sorts. The phrase "Islamo-fascism" smacks me as obvious racism.

There are some people who seem to presume that the Arab world are a bunch of savages (I have seen post here on DU that sound like that to me) and any action taken by Israel (or anyone else for that matter) must be justified.

But back to your question, I don't doubt but what anti-Semitism is where a few people are coming from. But I think to a lot of people criticizing Israel is essentially criticizing American policy. Because America is to a large extent paying the expenses and supplying the weapons for Israel's actions. I frankly feel a little bit like that it is America bombing Lebanon and the Gaza and carrying out the occupation policy by proxy.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Interesting comments.

I agree with you that there are some whose reflexive support of action against Arabs or Muslims is based in racism and Islamaphobia. But, out of morbid curiosity, why do you see the coined term, "Islamo-fascism" as racist?

Your assertion that some here "seem to presume that the Arab world are a bunch of savages (I have seen post here on DU that sound like that to me) and any action taken by Israel (or anyone else for that matter) must be justified" could also be misunderstanding a position a poster is taking. Just as "anti-Israeli" doesn't always mean "pro-Hizb'allah," the same can be said that "pro-Israeli" doesn't always mean justifiable actions because the "enemy" is Arab or Muslim.

At least you can see that some, even on the left, could be making anti-Israeli comments because they hate/despise/fear/distrust Jews.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. I suppose the phrase "fighting Islamo-fascism" sounds to me like a phrase

that bates and entices racist feelings. If we substituted (please excuse me.I know it sounds crass) "fighting Judeo-fascism" it would certainly sound anti-Semitic to me and I think probably it would to you as well.

Also I am concerned about how the phrase tends to lump together all forms of political-Islam. I don't personally admire any form of political Islam. But the phrase "Islamo-fascism" tends to tie together every group to the moral equivalent of Al Queda. As undesirable as the various forms of political Islam might be -- most are not the moral equivalent of Al Queda. Whether we like it or not (and I don't) political Islam is a major force in large parts of the world.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Thanks!

Actually, considering I have seen "Christo-fascism" used as a term, I don't see it as "racist." The fact is that all major religions, and even some smaller ones, have been assaulted by "fascists," so I have NO issue calling them what they are. I have seen some things that I would consider "Judeo-fascism," including the recent attacks on the World Gay Pride Parade that was to be held in Jerusalem. Of course it wasn't just Jewish extremists. It seems the only thing that brings the three ME religions together (at least the fundamentalist (fascist) sects) is their hate for gays!

I appreciate your explanation. Although it is not a term I use (at least I can't remember using it), I can see your point, even if I don't fully agree.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Bookmarking for tomorrow.

As an atheist, I'd like to think I don't let my views on one religion or another cloud my judgment, but this issue is very complex.

Thanks for recognizing this and for posting this study.

[jannyk]

20. So where do we...

..that are Jewish and vehemently criticize Israel's current offensive fit on the chart? By the way, does he state whether a Jew is a person born Jewish and therefore it is a 'race' or is it someone who practices Judaism and therefore a religion? If I suddenly became Catholic (got it scheduled on my to do list for when hell freezes), would I still be Jewish?

I am Jewish, but I'm not an Israeli and I support Israel not a whit this time. I seem to have no more in common with its people than I do with Republicans. Israel has no more 'right' to destroy' Lebanon than Bush & Co had to destroy Iraq. So now, call me anti-semetic - see if I care.

I thought for myself after 911 and during the lead up to the Iraqi invasion, I have no intent on participating in 'Group Think' now that 'my kind' are the ones doing the dirty deed. Wrong is just wrong.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. The puzzle.

So you are of the opinion that Jews cannot be anti-Semitic? That simply is not true. They do address attitudes of Jews toward Israel, or at least comment to it.

It appears you, and others, have missed the point. It is not that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Nor is the point that those making comments against Israel are anti-Semites. The question is do some anti-Israeli feelings have a 'base' in anti-Semitism? After this past two weeks, I have no doubt that is true!

On edit: spelling error

[jannyk]

31. No, not me...

...I got the point, but mine seemed to whiz right over your head. Plainly put, I'm proud to be Jewish - It's Israel I'm ashamed of. Next.....

[Behind the Aegis]

33. I got your point.

But, I really don't think you got mine.

[ThomCat]

104. So you assume that anyone Jewish who is critical

of Israel is anti-semetic?

Clearly you (personally) cannot separate the Jewish religion from the State of Israel, but that doesn't mean anyone else is similarly disabled.

[Behind the Aegis]

125. Your assumption is incorrect.

Insulting me has nothing to do with what I posted. I think it is stupid to think that just because someone is Jewish or has a sister, whose best friend's hairdresser's nephew married a Jewish woman, means they get a "pass" on being anti-Semitic.

Since this point seems to have been lost on you and several others in this thread let me make it very clear:

Bring critical of Israel or her policies DOES NOT automatically make a person anti-Semitic!

That said, there are people (some post here), who are 'anti-Israeli' because they are anti-Semites!

Anti-Semitic Jew = Roy Cohn

[Emit]

131. Here's where the authors' study puts you

From my post #50:

Also, although there was "no statistically significant difference between the fraction of anti-Semitic responses obtained from Jews...compared to Christians" it appears from the "Logistic Regression Table: Response Variable: Anti-Semitic Index" (if I'm reading it correctly) that Jews score higher on their "anti-Semitism index" than Christians.

What that means, exactly, I surely do not know. It is not elaborated on in the study, nor explained, but I did find it an interesting result.

All in all, I found the study, its methods, etc. very problematic.

[rman]

22. Duh.

It's hardly a surprise that people tend to be extra critical of those who they strongly dislike.
What else is new?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. So...

...basically you are saying that "yes" some of the critics of Israel do so because they are anti-Semites.

[rman]

45. Of course. But it's not news. Just listen

to what racists say about blacks, hispanics etc.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. I am surprised to see your response.

As for what racists say about others, that is no surprise. It is not anything we would expect to see at DU. So why do we see anti-Semitism at DU?

[rman]

49. I don't think there's any significant amount of anti-semitism at DU

The fact that those who do hate jews are likely to be very critical of Israel does not mean that everyone who is very critical of Israel hates jews.

At best (or worst, if you will) it means that some of those who are very critical of Israel, are so because they hate jews. Isn't that what this study found?
It does not mean that strong criticism of Israel is evidence of hatred of jews.

[LostinVA]

57. I haven't seen any anti-semitism at DU

Unless there have been some trolls whose posts I haven't seen. I have no idea if any REAL DUers are anti-semitic or not, but if so, I have NOT seen that reflected in any posts on here regarding the recent and ongoing conflict.

I do see nasty anti-female comments on here all the time, quite a few anti-Hispanic posts, more than a dollop of anti-Islam posts, and an occasional sprinkling of homophobic posts...

[Lurking Dem]

99. A lot of deleted posts.

Many by longterm posters.

Is calling Bob Dylan a "Heeb" or Lamont a "Jew hugger" something other than antisemitism?

[rman]

109. Fewer than other posts that get deleted

Otherwise i'd have seen those anti-semetic posts.

[Behind the Aegis]

130. Just as an FYI...

...one poster was recently banned and had been a member BEFORE 2003. Why was he banned...."Bush is the American Jew president," and repeatedly talking about how the "Jewish lobby," NOT the "Israeli lobby," the JEWISH one controls Congress (and DU...yes, he said that)! If he was a troll then his tombstone should NOT read he "disrupted poorly" because he did a Hell of a job!

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't been at DU!

[charlie]

23. In short

Jew-haters aren't likely to think much about Israel. Seems obvious.

Try to walk that formula backward though, and you'll bag a lot of people who don't deserve it.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. huh?

[charlie]

29. I expected that

Carry on.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Why don't you try explaining what you meant.

[LostinVA]

60. What's there for him to explain? What he said is very clear

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. It's self-evident. Stop playing innocent. -nt

[ThomCat]

105. While antisemites will hate israel,

the reverse is not true. Those who hate Israel will not necessarily be antisemites.

Duh.

[LostinVA]

59. Hahahaha

[LostinVA]

58. Bingo n/t

[Bretttido]

83. We have a winner! DING DING DING

[ErisFiveFingers]

24. Until calling for Israel's destruction, while supporting equality of...

... all peoples, is considered acceptable, Israel detractors will be considered "anti-semitic".

So, why is only Israel singled out?

Hm...

How much space does the Roman Catholic Church "own", defended by their military? (1 square mile)
How much space does the Confucian belief "own", defended by their military? (0)
How much space does the Sunni belief "own", defended by their military? (0)
How much space does the Shia belief "own", defended by their military? (0)
How much space does the Mormon belief "own", defended by their military? (0)

I single out Israel because I find it to be a theology-based "nation", to the detriment of others.

I think this is wrong.

If there is an inherent belief in the faith, or practice, of Judaism, or any other religion, that people who practice a given faith are given dominion over a given chunk of land
... well, I would *also* think that wrong.

You see, the problem (as seen in prior threads) is within two beliefs deeply held within their faith:
1. That members of that faith have a claim to ownership of lands, granted by by G_d.
2. The members of that faith, while they have no actual common genetic connection, actually believe that they are a connected aggregate of people, and thus, a "nation".

[Behind the Aegis]

32. So...you are calling for Israel's destruction?

Israel is not a 'theology-based' nation. And why do you place the word nation in quotes? Does this mean you also favor the destruction of all the Muslim-based governments and countries?

[ErisFiveFingers]

36. Fair 'nuff questions.

Piece by piece:
"Israel is not a 'theology-based' nation"
Law of return indicates otherwise. When muslim palestinians receive monetary benefits to move in, on the same scale as jewish immigrants, we'll talk.

"And why do you place the word nation in quotes"
Because it is a totally abstract concept. There is no such thing as a genetically "Israeli" person, or genetically "German" person. Nations are a concept designed to group people, with no foundation whatsoever in anything empirical. They're very 20th century, with no grounding in... oh.... reality.

"Does this mean you also favor the destruction of all the Muslim-based governments and countries"
I favor the destruction of non-democracies. If the democracy votes for sharia, or whatever, so be it. As long as it's a democracy, and voters can change it, let them.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. and a response...

"Israel is not a 'theology-based' nation"
Law of return indicates otherwise. When muslim palestinians receive monetary benefits to move in, on the same scale as jewish immigrants, we'll talk.

"Law of Return" doesn't indicate that Israel is a theocratic nation. To imply such a thing, is intellectually dishonest. Politicians in Israel are voted into office. The multiple parties are 'representative' of the populous of Israel. Although Palestinians face a particular set of issues, it is not the same. Non-Jews can become citizens of Israel through the naturalization process, just like anyone else. So what you present is false.

"And why do you place the word nation in quotes"
Because it is a totally abstract concept. There is no such thing as a genetically "Israeli" person, or genetically "German" person. Nations are a concept designed to group people, with no foundation whatsoever in anything empirical. They're very 20th century, with no grounding in... oh.... reality.

So when you discuss Lebanon, or Germany, per your example, do you also use the word nation in quotes?

"Does this mean you also favor the destruction of all the Muslim-based governments and countries"
I favor the destruction of non-democracies. If the democracy votes for sharia, or whatever, so be it. As long as it's a democracy, and voters can change it, let them.

This attitude is as ethnocentric as any I have seen at DU! Israel IS a democracy! Saudi Arabia is not! Nor is Jordan. Nor Iran. Nor.... But, you still didn't answer the most important question...


"So...you are calling for Israel's destruction?"

[KitSileya]

76. I would like to point out tho', that not every Israeli is equal.

To adress your first point, Israeli citizens who are not Jewish have been denied the purchase of Israeli property, for example. I condemn practices like that routinely when it comes to other countries, why shouldn't I be allowed to do the same with Israel without being painted as an anti-semite? Human Rights Watch has reported that Israel has a separate school system for Israeli children of Palestinian Arab descent. I condemn the separate, but equal doctrine as implemented in the US, why shouldn't I be allowed to condemn it in Israel? Doesn't make me an anti-semite any more than it makes me a anti-American.

Now, onto more general issues. A fellow grad student of mine couldn't return home to Palestine because she had participated in an underground school system after the Israelis had closed Palestinian universities and refused to allow the import of school books. If she went home to visit her family, she would most likely be denied the right to travel back out. My cousin, one of the youngest member of her city council, was in a delegation that visited Israel and Palestine in the early 90s. At the airport, she was held back for over 24 hours and interrogated because she had kept a travel diary of her journey which Israeli officials suspected was critical of the treatment of the Palestinians (it was.) I routinely condemn that kind of behavior in the Chinese government, but no one would think of calling me anti-Asian. I do admit that I am sceptical of Israel and its government, but that is not because they are Jews, but because I have heard these stories and others, and formed my opinion thereon. I am not saying that I am defending Hisbollah's bombing or the suicide bombings of the Palestinians - however, I do recognize that those with the most power holds the most responsibility for trying to gain peace, and in this case, that is Israel. But that is the exact same position I have with regards to the US as well. And I also recognize that a people has the right to defend itself against occupiers - like Iraqi insurgents, French Maquis and Norwegian resistance fighters during WWII, or Palestinians whose entire infrastructure is slowly being destroyed. I do realize that Israel can't be wiped out of existence any more than the US can be given back to the Native Americans or South African land be taken from every white person. But Israel cannot treat the Palestinians like Americans treated African Americans, or Europe treated (and treats!) the Roma, and expect us to accept it because they are Jews. In fact, 23% of the Israeli population are not Jews, and I hold them just as much responsible as I do those who are Jews.

That being said, many anti-semites will criticize Israel and claim that they are anti-Israel, not anti-semite, simply because that is more politically correct. But that doesn't meanthat all those who criticize Israel are anti-semites. I refuse to believe that. One can criticize Israel yet still protest neo-nazis, or give money in order to extend the route of the security watch company that guards the parish church so that it includes the Jewish bookstore in the neighborhood that'd had their windows broken several times.

[Ignoramus]

27. I think it shows "Anti-Semitism predicts 'anti-Israel' sentiment"

(argghh.. wherever it reads "anti-Semites", I typed "anti-semitism". Damn you, spell checker)

I didn't really follow the references to Figure 3, but I read the prose about the figures. Also, I didn't look at any of the linked sites.

I think the implications of the study will depend on who participated. When I first saw the post, I pictured a study of anti-Semites among palestinian rights activists, and I suspect that is what would be expected by someone likely to look at the study. But, the study says that the degree of anti-Semites is higher the older someone is answering the survey. Also it says it's higher the more likely someone is to express general dislike of people from other cultures.

That certainly doesn't fit the typical activist against Israeli government policies. The image I get from the statement about age and xenophobia, is that they asked random people, 17% of whom were Archie Bunker like individuals.

So, the study could be showing that anti-semitic people are more likely to give answers that are negative about Israel.

Also, it says answers to the questions in Table 2 on pg. 17 determine if you are "anti-Israel". This seems to have the same sort of incoherent meaning as "anti-American".

Israel is a geographical region, a population, a government and a name for policies representative of that government. Being "anti-Israel" could mean many things. Usually, someone accusing someone of being "anti-American" is confusing different American things. It serves to lump together any criticism of something related to America as applying to everything else that is American. So, if you don't agree with Bush, and Bush is American than you don't like America.

It's hard for me to imagine someone that "hates Israel", the object. It's like being "enraged by polygons". The notion alludes to someone who has anger with respect to some stereotype associated with Israeli government policies or something else Israeli, but that confuses that with anything else the accusers chooses, in order to attribute the dislike of one thing to "hatred" of the other.

Bigotry in general is not a simple thing. There is a difference between someone having an ignorant view of a stereotype, and someone who acts on it, or forms a hierarchy of ideas based on the view.

For example, some person who "hates jews", because they met some person who was jewish that they don't like, and they are aware of some stereotype and they have not been exposed to much education, is much different than someone who is a more sophisticated and conscious bigotry.

Also, I find anti-Semites an unusual notion in itself. It's different than racism and different than religious bigotry I think, because of the notion of secular jews. In general, you can't tell that someone is a jew, so the type of bigotry that is possible to have, against jews, is limited.

I suspect it is much easier to confuse criticism of a policy of a group that happens to include people who are jewish, and then attribute that to bigotry against jews, then it would be to make the same sort of confusion about racism.

[ErisFiveFingers]

34. I love your thinking.

However, polygons are racist scum which must be driven into the sea.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Simplistically, yes.

Anti-Semites are going to be anti-Israeli...that is more of a "given." But, I also have seen anti-Israeli attitudes that are based in anti-Semitism, but I don't know that the posters realize it.

I agree bigotry is not a simple thing. I also agree there are a few problems with the study. However, it does give me pause when I see the virulent anti-Israeli attitudes and posts here. I have to wonder..."how many are really against Israeli policy, and how many are just Jew-hating pricks that can hate Jews under the guise of hating or criticizing Israel?"

[OneBlueSky]

37. I call bullshit . . . anti-Israel does NOT equate with anti-Semitic . . .

in fact, "anti-Israel" is most often not even that -- but rather opposition of the policies of the current Israeli government . . .

you can love the Jewish people, love the Israelis, love the country of Israel -- and still hate what their government is doing . . . and that is NOT anti-Semitic . . .

[Behind the Aegis]

41. I think you missed the point.

The authors of the study (and I) were not saying anti-Israeli attitudes were anti-Semitic. per se. The 'question' was "are some anti-Israelis really anti-Israeli because of policies or because of bigotry?"

[endarkenment]

90. Which becomes a simple truism.

As others have pointed out. Anti-semites are anti-Israel. You want to work backwards from that inferring that we must therefore question all anti-Israeli opinion as possibly anti-semitic, which is exactly what we have seen ad nauseum here on DU in this recent crisis, only the 'possibly' drops right out. Sorry, I won't play. If you have evidence of anti-semitism, lets see it. Criticising Israel is not evidence of anti-semitism.

[OneBlueSky]

98. thank you . . . the fact that people who ARE anti-Semitic are also . . .

likely to be anti-Israel doesn't require a research study to confirm . . . it's just common sense . . .

[Behind the Aegis]

126. but that wasn't the premise of the study.

[Emit]

138. The authors found that

"anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts
the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the likelihood of
measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment
observed."

This finding is based on 28 people, or actually .6% of the total 5,004 participants -- a very small number overall. IMO, that's the more significant finding of the study -- that so few people fit their premise.

On edit, see post #50 for clarification

[mogster]

38. Good post

We need to relate to this complex question.

[Emit]

50. Couple of important points about this study

Okay, a few, rather.

It doesn't really tell us what we didn't already know -- that the more anti-semitic a person is, the more critical they will be. But, I take issue with some of the numbers as they're presented. If we had access to the raw data, we could tell even more about this study. Correct me if I'm wrong you statisticians out there.

As I understand the data, of 5,004 participants, less than 1% were found to be 'anti-Israeli' and 'anti-Semitic.' That's what, 50 people? And, the authors state that 56% of this number (50) of people expressed 'anti-Semitic' views. That's 28 people, or actually .6% of the total 5,004 participants -- a very low percentage -- Yet, the 56% finding seems to be the major emphasis of the entire paper.

Further, 12% of those 50 people were found to be supportive of Israel while still expressing 'anti-Semitic' views. According to the study, "The overall fraction of respondents harboring 'anti-Semitic' views equals 14%." So, the percentage of people who are supportive of Israel yet express anti-Semitic views is similar to the entire population of respondents -- similar to 14% of the whole.

What this tells me is that the majority of the people surveyed who are critical of Israeli policies are actually not anti-Semitic according to the authors own definitions, parameters and results, which I think is an important point. But, this isn't presented in the paper. I realize that this was not the intent that the authors started out to address, but, still, it seems a significant finding, overall, don't you think?

Also, although there was "no statistically significant difference between the fraction of anti-Semitic responses obtained from Jews...compared to Christians" it appears from the "Logistic Regression Table: Response Variable: Anti-Semitic Index" (if I'm reading it correctly) that Jews score higher on their "anti-Semitism index" than Christians. That is an interesting finding as well that was not elaborated on. I'd be curious to know why this is so and what the authors thought attributed to this finding, even though it was not significant -- probably because the sampling numbers were too small?

As another poster pointed out, I would be curious how these findings relate to other studies done in respective countries, as I have read, too, that anti-Semitism is declining in some areas and increasing in others. Yet again, I know that is not the purpose of this study, but it would be interesting none the less.

Lastly, it is my understanding that studies like this, which are very subjective, are problematic because great care needs to be taken when developing the type of questions, and with giving weight to the responses, in order to extrapolate the data in as an objective form as possible. For example, there appeared to be limited available responses to questions asked of these respondents, and some of the questions may not have had a 'yes' or 'no' answer in the minds of the participants.

Other than that, what I got from all this is that it is likely that some -- a small percentage -- people who take issue with Israeli policies are, in fact, anti-Semitic, while some -- a greater number overall-- are likely not anti-Semitic and are just simply expressing dissatisfaction with Israeli policies.


On edit, my last comment seems in conflict with their reported findings, but, ironically, is consistent with their data.

[bloom]

85. "Jews score higher on their "anti-Semitism index" than Christians"

That is interesting.

[Emit]

110. Yes, I wish the authors would've commented on that

Perhaps their next study can focus on some of these other indexes.

Also, the fact that the majority of the people surveyed who are critical of Israeli policies are actually not anti-Semitic really should have been stressed, IMHO.

[ima_sinnic]

52. okay, yeah, it could. happy now?

in reading through this thread I get the idea that you want your point validated. shall we beat this dead horse some more?

[shadowknows69]

53. Is this a trick question?

n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

66. Yes. n/t

[godai]

73. Yes, and an attempt to dodge the current issues of IDFs over-reaction

Let's all switch the topic and ignore the real problem of Lebanon's plight under the IDF bombardment.

[JI7]

54. i think anti Israel comments are often anti semetic

and i'm not talking about accusations from assholes like Limbaugh spewing crap about how Dems support terrorists over Israel. people like him are full of crap.

but i have seen people defend that fundie from Iran with all those comments about destroying Israel. people who make up all these theories about AIPAC, Israel etc controlling everything and how horrible they are. yet dismiss people like that guy from Iran.

refuse to see the tie between what Israel does to defend itself because of people like that Iranian leader and Hezbollah , Hamas etc.

it's one thing to criticize Israel's response. i myself am critical of Israel's actions because i don't believe they are effective and do lead to many innocents being killed which in turn makes things worse. but i can still see why Israel does what it does. it's because of Hezbollah attacks and not based on some conspiracy to take over the world.

but i have seen some very ugly things on DU. a LIBERAL SITE. the more i have seen certain things on here the more i can understand why some people, especially those who are Jewish would be sensitive to criticism of Israel and see it as anti semetic. it's because it often is and some of the comments i have seen don't even hide the bigotry.

[jonnyblitz]

55. I would like to see a study of anti-arab racism of the Israeli's nt

[ThomCat]

106. That would be an interesting study.

And I think it would be very embarrassing to many people who think they are progressive.

[Solly Mack]

63. It can

One of the best indicators that there's something "darker" behind the comment is the language used.

People, whether they realize it or not, give themselves away with the choice of words used.

It isn't always an obvious word or group of words that clearly demonstrates racism, but an idea or thinking that is premised on a racist belief that gives voice to the comment made.

I do think that any time Israel is in the news that racist do come out of the woodwork to join in on legitimate discussions. This makes it hard for those with legitimate concerns, because for the racist, any discussion on Israel is seen as an opportunity to attack Jews. So when the racist comments come out, it ends up looking like a mass attack on a people and not the legitimate criticism of a country's policies.

And let's be honest, if you're Jewish and you're hearing the same old stereotypes in the midst of a discussion that also contains legitimate criticism, you're not going to look too favorable on anything you're hearing. No one would. If it was a discussion on matters concerning African-Americans, Latinos, the GLBT, women, men, etc....if you see bigotry rear it's ugly head, the tone of the entire discussion is now changed....and not for the better either.

Even still, it's unfair to assume just because one or even two people (or more - don't get stuck on the number, it's not the point) make racist comments that all criticism of the country's actions is an attack on the people because they're Jewish.

And, the same is true of Muslims and Arabic countries - the racists come out of the woodwork and take advantage of what's in the news to unleash their hate of Muslims.

[KitSileya]

84. As for the media, I actually have thought that Norwegian media,

for example, was pro-Palestinian. I figured there was a Palestinian bias in Norwegian media because so much of what we saw were reports of Palestinian deaths, of Israeli destruction of Palestinian infrastructure etc, and read articles and saw news reports with that in mind. However, I recently read a paper that claimed, on the basis of a British report that claimed British media was pro-Israeli, that Norwegian media was much better at keeping both the reporting and the language they used neutral. That surprised me. Wasn't there also a thread recently that quoted a report saying that APB reported, for example, 113% of the death of Israeli children in bombings, but only 75% of Palestinian children?

[Solly Mack]

89. Sadly, the media is a not so innocent shaper of bias

I don't know about the thread you're asking about. I'm gonna look for it though - to better understand and 'cause I'm curious.

You make an excellent point about the media.

Keeping in mind that propaganda can be true, that still doesn't change the fact that presenting only one side, no matter how truthful, is designed to direct thinking and to shape opinions to one side. It's meant to marginalize the other side.

In that way, the Press is horribly guilty of promoting bias and, in the doing, making matters worse.

[KitSileya]

118. I agree.

But what struck me, tho', was that reporting that was actually neutral in language and fair in reporting incidents on both sides, seemed biased simply because there were so many more incidents to report on one side. One of the things that Norwegian media was comended for realizing was the fact that while the Israeli hindered independent reporting from both Israel and (especially) the occupied territories, they had a much better network for getting their reports, pictures etc out outside of Israel. Norway has of course been much engaged in the situation - it wasn't called the Oslo accords for nothing. That might have helped, I think, in shaping the media's view of the situation. Doesn't mean that most of the Evangelical Christian groups don't cry pro-Palestinian bias and most of the radical leftist groups cry pro-Israeli bias every so often. Our main broadcaster is state-owned, and we do have a fairness doctrine, so we're used to a lot less propaganda and corporatist governing of our media, thank God.

[neebob]

64. Without knowing the conclusions,

because my dinoputer is very anti-PDF, I'd say of course it could. I'd guess that being against Israel predicts anti-semitism in the same way I'd expect being against reparations for slavery to predict racism, or being for a marriage protection amendment to predict homophobia, or having problems with female authority figures to predict misogyny.

I mean is it just me, or does this study have a high duh factor? Seems to me that if you talk to a number of people who don't like Israel, you're going to find that a number of them don't like Jews, either, and that number will probably be higher than if you were sampling people who support Israel.

What would be much more interesting, I think, would be to sample non-Jewish supporters of Israel and find out which of their attitudes tend to predict anti-semitism. And just for fun, let's make it non-Jewish American supporters of Israel.

[USA_1]

65. Arabs are Semites

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. But 'anti-Semitic' refers specifically to hatred of Jews, and ALWAYS has.

To say that it can refer to hatred of Arabs is to twist and distort language and rob it of its meaning. When someone says 'anti-American', you KNOW they mean 'anti-US'; you can say 'Canadians are Americans, too', which, while technically correct, is still COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. Could a blase attitude about Lebanese civilian deaths be an indicator

of racist motherfuckerism?

:eyes:

[RandomKoolzip]

121. LOL!

Well played, sir.

[Kingshakabobo]

124. YES!!!!!!!! n/t

[SmokingJacket]

68. I have a simpler explanation...

All anti-Semites are anti-Israel. So there is definitely a strong correlation.

It's like saying being Republican is an indicator for being a Christian Fundamentalist. Pretty much all Christian Fundamentalists are Republican, but not all Republicans are CFs.

Still, it's possible to be a Republican without being a CF, just as it's possible to be anti-Isreal without being Anti-Semitic.

(Full disclosure: I'm neither anti-Israel nor anti-Semitic, nor Republican, nor CF)

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Horrible Statistical Analyses Here

Just horrible. They establish no causation at all. In fact, they have virtually provided a textbook example of autocorrelation. The whole conclusion is a syllogism, not logic rooted in sound analysis.

I'd bet a paycheck that these guys had a conclusion they wanted before they ever started the study.

The Professor

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. Without Getting Into The Merits Of This Work

Doesn't most scientific inquiry start with a hypothesis which is essentially a conclusion.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. Yes, But That Doesn't Apply Here

This isn't a purely scientific endeavor. While any study requires the positing of some thesis to be proven or disproven, there is no evidence of a null hypothesis in this work.

It appears to me that there is absolutely no condideration, in the sampling methodology, in the test criteria, or the explanation of their conclusions that they did anything to invalidate their own thesis (in other words, pressure testing their own idea).

Secondly, there has to be some already existing observations to lead to the hypothesis to be tested. An observation that some idiot who hates Jewish people once said something bad about Israel, is hardly the scientific basis upon which to initiate a hypothesis.

Lastly, any sound scientific inquiry may go in with a thesis to be examined and from which conclusions can be drawn. Having the conclusions prior to the study, is not sound science.

On Edit: Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be very proud of these "scientists".
The Professor

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. It's Hard to Have Value Free Social Science Research

Because even what you decide to investigate is indicative of your values or biases.

[ProfessorGAC]

128. Hence, Methology is Everything

And, the set up of the sample, the stratification, the tests of significance, the alpha chosen to determine validity of the test, etc. are all designed to support the null hypothesis, not that you already believe. Then, if all those biases are overcome, the initial "interest" bias can be fairly overcome.

That didn't happen here.
The Professor

[NoodleyAppendage]

95. Not to mention that the study is poorly powered...

I'll go in on your bet.

J

[Emit]

112. It is a problematic study, IMHO

I tried to go through their results and my conclusions are in post #50.

[MadHound]

72. We have absolutely got to get rid of this false meme

Criticism of Israel and her actions is NOT indicative of anti-semetic views. In fact Israel has used this particular meme to literally get away with murder. Israel has a history of over-the-top reactions to various situations, and yet when somebody dares to call them on their actions, like would happen with any other government, then there is a dogpile to label them with the term anti-semite. Thus we have seen Israel get a pass on one atrocity after another, simply because people are afraid of being labeled as a bigot.

And sadly, it is the innocents of the ME who have paid the price for this. How many innocent deaths could have been halted if Israel had honestly been called on the carpet for its actions in Gaza, the West Bank, in Lebanon, etc.? This latest conflict is a good example. In past cases where Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner, negotiations were opened, prisoner exchanges were held, and the matter was resolved peacefully. Yet now Israel has chosen the way of the sword, and in their bloodlust they are killing innocents and destroying a soveriegn country. Is this just? Is this right? No, but if one dares to mention it, the chorus of anti-semite begins. Thankfully, this time around it isn't as effective, for one reason because Israel's crimes are so very blatant.

So to reiterate, no, being critical of Israel and her actions is not, in and of itself, anti-semetic. Sure, I will grant you that there are anti-semites who will criticize Israel at every chance. But to lump together every critic under that label is disingenous, and an obvious attempt to stifle all cricism of Israel's action. I find that to be intellectually dishonest, and quite frankly morally repugnant.

[MH1]

116. Excellent response.

I think the term "anti-semitic" should be banned at DU (when referring to a person's post, argument, or obviously the poster themselves) because it is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

[Spider Jerusalem]

75. Faulty logic...

syllogism: 'All anti-Semites are critical of Israel, therefore one who is critical of Israel must be an anti-Semite.'

That's like saying 'All New Yorkers are Americans, therefore all Americans must be New Yorkers.'

[mainer]

77. Could being anti-Bush mean you're anti-America?

I know plenty of Jews who are anti-Israeli policy.

[KaptBunnyPants]

78. Seems like common sense to me...

If someone hates Jews, they should be likely to hate Israel. Whats more interesting is the political uses of studies like this, which are highly dishonest attempts to ignore substantial criticism of Israel by the strawman of anti-Semitism. Which given the way Israel behaves, must be much easier than actually addressing said criticism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. I'd still be against Israili policies if it was a Muslim state.

Or, a Christian state, or an Atheist state. Or, for that matter, if it was a purely Democratic state responding to the will of it's people.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[leesa]

82. Yes, of course. The obligatory accusation of anti-semitism for anyone

criticizing the country of Israel of wrong-doing. It's worked for decades, hasn't it?

[megatherium]

122. self-delete nt

[Karmadillo]

86. No, but the accusation is useful for chilling criticism of Israel. Kind of

like the right accusing anyone critical of the US of being a terrorist sympathizer.

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. A number of years ago

I went to a musical performance by the Paul Winter Consort. At the time, they were doing a piece of music about whales and their plight. Paul Winter told everyone about all the atrocities that were being committed and how this magnificent animal would soon be extinct if the killing wasn't stopped. By the time you got to the end of the piece you felt that this was certainly a terrible, terrible thing.

I got to see the band perform again a few year later and Paul Winter had changed his mind about the song and his approach. He said even though it was a wonderful piece of music, people ended up feeling very guilty by the end of it. He realized that the guilt didn't translate into action and that he was not accomplishing his goal of saving the whales. So with that in mind, he had written a new piece and that hopefully at the end of it, instead of felling guilty, we would feel good about whales and that the positive approach would be more productive.

BtA, I call tell you care and believe very deeply in your POV, but hitting us over the head with a sledge hammer all the time only turns people against your cause. I hope you can find a way to sing a new song. :hug:

[Karenina]

129. DYEW...

:loveya: May I tell you again :yourock:

[BurtWorm]

88. Please define anti-Semitic.

Isn't it specifically a reference to Jewishness?

How do you know an opinion about Israel that doesn't mention Jews or Jewishness, for example, is anti-Semitic? If someone is critical of the behavior of the Syrian government, does that make one anti-Arab?

[Ravenseye]

91. My question as well

I don't want a wikipedia link to anti-semitism. I get the general aspect. I just want to know what makes a person anti-semitic. What kinds of thoughts or actions.

For instance I think Israel has gone too far, too often in it's reprisals and is causing more harm to themselves than good. I also think it was a mistake to ever create the nation of Israel. I don't support any action that would ever harm a civilian or a child.

So I'm pretty anti-israel.

My best friend (other than my wife), is jewish (as is his wife and child). When we make a bit more money we're looking forward to moving to the jewish neighborhood in town (it's nicer, the people are nicer, etc). We'll probably even join the JCC here (great gym, daycare, activities). In fact tonight we're dropping our daughter off to be babysat with my friend. We joke about her and their son having an arranged marraige (they're close in age). I count a number of other jews amongst my good friends (and even a hasidic orthodox jew (who voted for Bush btw...we've argued about that one)).

So am I anti-semitic? What would I have to do to be anti-semitic?

Seems to me this study is kind of pointless and just a pot stirrer. Are anti-semites also anti-israel? Yes.

It's like saying that all german sheperds are dogs and coming away from that asking whether all dogs are german sheperds.

[BurtWorm]

93. A very large number of Jews would be anti-Semitic by this definition

including my wife, her mother and late father, most of our friends, and the majority of Jews on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

:eyes:

[Emit]

111. The authors found

if I'm understanding their chart correctly, although there was "no statistically significant difference between the fraction of anti-Semitic responses obtained from Jews...compared to Christians" it appears from the "Logistic Regression Table: Response Variable: Anti-Semitic Index" that Jews score higher on their "anti-Semitism index" than Christians.

See post #50: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1715019&mesg_id=1715348

But the authors do not elaborate on that finding.

[Ignoramus]

115. The questions measuring anti-semitism were

Do you agree or disagree with:

Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind.
Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they
want.
Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country.
Jews have too much power in the business world.
Jews have lots of irritating faults.
Jews stick together more than other (CITIZENS OF RESPONDENT’S
COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE).
Jews always like to be at the head of things.
Jews have too much power in international financial markets.
Jews have too much power in our country today.
Jewish business people are so shrewd that others do not have a fair chance
to compete.
Jews are just as honest as other business people.

The questions measuring "anti-Israel" ism, were:

Do you agree or disagree with:

The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is similar to South Africa’s treatment
of blacks during apartheid.

Who do you think is more responsible for the past three years of violence in
Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis or the Palestinians?

In your opinion, during military activities inside the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, do the Israeli Defense Forces intentionally target Palestinian civilians,
or are civilian casualties and accidental outcome of Israel’s military response?

In your opinion is there any justification for Palestinian suicide bombers that
target Israeli civilians?

So, as many posters to this thread have figured out. The study is dishonest in stating that it shows that being "anti-Israel" predicts anti-semitism, since it's results show the inverse, that among the people they found to be anti-semitic, i.e. the people that agreed with statements like "jews don't care about what happens to anyone but their own kind", etc., these people also agreed with the "anti-Israel" questions.

Of course, just the assertions that the study measured how "anti-Israel" people are, was dishonest in and of itself.

Beyond the obvious dishonesty of the study, I think it raises the issue of what it means to be anti-semitic in general.

For all these claims that there has been anti-semitism evident in posts on DU, I have actually seen a total of one comment that was anti-semitic. The thing is, I thought it could have just been tactlessly worded. The person asked rhetorically if "Israelis" could be slaughtering Lebanese because the same was done "to them" by Germany... That is clearly an anti-jewish remark, but it is possible to ask a similar question, worded differently that is not anti-jewish. So, was the person asking just being ignorant, or was it malicious?

For example, if some elderly person says "get your cotton pickin' fingers off of that". The comment is racist. But is the person racist for having said it, or are they just ignorant of what it refers to.

My impression is that 99.9% or more of the claims of anti-semitism I have seen are baseless. Those baseless claims are a form of bigotry. And that is a big problem, because it serves to strengthen the terrorism that is killing Arabs and Israelis.

[ulysses]

92. sure. so could any number of other things.

The only point I can see behind this is to silence criticism of Israel.

[NoodleyAppendage]

94. NO. Assholes are assholes...no matter their race, religion, or creed.

Kaplan and Small can kiss my gentile ass. If Israel weren't being such a jerk in this conflict, then I'd have not problems.

J

[treestar]

113. Exactly. And it is getting tiresome to see the deliberate attempt

to confuse the issue. You're supposed to feel some sort of guilt just for saying anything other than the Israelis should be able to kill whoever they want whenever they want and are entitled to take the maximum strong-arm response in every instance. Because it's supposed to mean you are "anti-semitic." And you're supposed to feel bad and wrong just for being called that.

I'm not even sure Israel is unjustified in what they are doing today, but I sure do resent seeing these heavy handed arguments against anyone daring to question it.

[NoodleyAppendage]

117. Anti-semitism claims as a weapon. Alive and well around here.

There's anti-semitism, and then there's claims of anti-semitism as a means to close down an argument or obfuscate wrongdoing by Israel. This same tactic is used when people try to raise points about organized religion or the problems of any minority. I'm SICK OF IT.

There's something of an objective truth out there, and I don't care who or what you are, if you are doing something wrong you should be called on it.

In any event, the same people calling us anti-semitic for criticizing Israel are likely to harbor the same criticisms of Palestinian or Lebanonese peoples. Are these people willing to admit that they might be "anti-Arab?" Friggin' hypocrites.

J

[DiverDave]

97. I call BS on this

so, a black dude robs me, I get pissed at HIM, and that makes me racist?
A native American takes my money for something I bought online, I yell and scream about thieves, I'm against ALL Native Americans?

This is bullshit, utter nonsense, shame on you for posting it.

[ProfessorGAC]

107. My Comparison

It's not even as personal as yours, but equally valid, i think.

I think Idi Amin was a horrible person and brutal dictator. Rooted in racism? I think not.
The Professor

[leftofthedial]

102. YES!!!!

In exactly the same way that criticizing the bush cabal means you hate America.


psssst . . . THEY ARE ALL SEMITES--jews arabs palestinians . . . you moran.

[Malikshah]

108. So what doe Pro-Israelism lead to? By that logic...

I am not sure the answer would be easily forthcoming

[MH1]

114. The word "anti-semitic" and its derivatives should be BANNED at DU

(when referring to a person's post, argument, or obviously the poster themselves) because it is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

Evidently

a) many people - a great many of those flinging the word around - don't know what the word means

b) many people - and I will suggest, MOST of those flinging the word around - do so because it is easier to make an ad hominem attack than to address the substance of their target's complaint about the Israeli actions.

"anti-semitic" is an ad hominem attack - even when it's true.

And I am f***ing tired of not being able to discuss the Israeli/Lebanon conflict intelligently at DU.

Edit to clarify - obviously no word should be banned for discussion, just when it is used to characterize a person or an argument. As part of a quote or in historic context, that would still be fair for discussion.

[Spinoza]

137. I'll agree if the word 'racism' , 'sexism',

'homophobia', etc should also be banned on DU with all their derivatives. Or is the word denoting bigotry against only ONE group unacceptable? As if the oldest prejudice in the world doesn't exist? As if Israel does not consist primarily of refugees and the direct descendants of refugees who fled the concrete manifestations of anti-Semitism? Certainly not all (or even most) anti-zionists are anti-semites. However, I guarantee you that ALL anti-Semites are anti-Zionists.

[MH1]

139. Attacking someone as "racist", "sexist" or "homophobic"

probably should be banned too. IMO. It's ad hominem and adds nothing to the discussion, and is often used to distract from the real points raised.

However, there *IS* something different about the word "anti-semitic". Why should any one group get special treatment? Many races have been victimized over the centuries. Racism is racism. But for some reason people seem to extend "anti-semitic" to ANY criticism of Israel...including cases where "racist" clearly would not fit. Is it "anti-semitic" to say that semitic peoples have no special right to a particular spot of geography more than any other people? Why is it "anti-semitic" to say that I shouldn't treat semites any different than any other race of people? Why are semites special? Isn't it bad to single them out by giving them their own special word for their own special victimization?

And sorry - the fact that your ancestors beat up my ancestors doesn't give me the right to beat you up, and it damn sure doesn't give me the right to beat up the descendants of an unrelated group. (Of course, if you retain economic advantage from that history, it might be wise for you to quietly pass a little of that advantage back to the descendants of the people it was taken from....because I might not give a damn what I have a "right" to do or not. But wisdom is not exactly what we expect from angry people, is it?)

[Spinoza]

140. There may have been one, but for

all the claims of extending 'anti-semitic' to ANY criticism of Israel...including cases where "racist" clearly would not fit' I have never seen a single instance on DU. I would be grateful if you could point one out. Of course criticisms of Israel are, in themselves, not anti-semitic. Even a cursory review of ISRAELI opinion shows constant criticisms of EVERYTHING about Israel. I venture to say there is more criticism of Israel by Israelis than of the U.S. by Americans.

No, what IS anti-semitic is double standards applied to Israel and no other nation; the use of age-old Jewish hate tropes: E.g. 'Jewish cabals', 'jewish power and influence'-- opinions Hitler would readily agree with-- calls for the destruction of Israel or that Israel alone among the nations of the world has no right to exist--opinions Goebbels would readily agree with--comparisons of the supreme victims of Nazi Germany (2 million Jewish children under the age of 14 gassed) to the Nazis, etc.

Who is asking for one group to receive 'special treatment'? 'Anti-semitism', a word first coined in the late 19th century by a German to describe hatred of Jews (it has nothing to do with 'semitic' peoples in general) is a real phenomenom that characterizes a unique form or racism (since Jews are not a race or only a religious entity. Jewish atheists are still Jews) Anti-semitism describes a predjudice and persecution which is the oldest in human history and still exists today after thousands of years. There is no question that the jewish people have suffered the most sustained persecution in human history. A little empathy here from non-Jews for Israeli 'paranoia' might be in order.

For an excellent leftist perspective (from a fairly hard core British socialist group) on 'left anti-semitism read: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/5847
snip> "Let us grant that they do not want to be anti-semitic — that they loathe the Tsarist, Nazi, and Christian anti-semitisms of the past. Anti-semitism is nonetheless there in what they advocate — the destruction of Israel. The benign, but stupid (and the more benignly intended, the more stupid), version of the “get rid of Israel” mindset says “oh, a single secular-democratic state would be much better”, or “a binational state would be better” — proposing things which are inconceivable, now, without the prior conquest and destruction of Israel, and which would be impossible, or a sham, after that destruction.

It is anti-semitism because it proposes to destroy the Israeli Jewish nation, and because it involves those who advocate it in a comprehensive “political” hostility to Jews everywhere, the big majority of whom — actively or vaguely, critically or uncritically, enthusiastically or reluctantly, but in any case instinctively and more or less inevitably — identify with Israel.

We repeat: this anti-semitism can be identified and measured objectively — in what they propose. It doesn’t matter whether or not someone supporting the destruction of Israel is subjectively hostile to Jews. The anti-semitism is in what they propose.

In fact, however, the feelings involved in support for the destruction of Israel are usually feelings of intense and unreasoning hostility. The idea that the “feelings” of the anti-Israel left are not intensely hostile to Israel is not only “plainly dishonest” but plainly silly" .<snip

[springhill]

119. I think it's more likely the fact that..........

Israel is bombing the hell out of the citizens of a country with impunity.

[porphyrian]

127. Of course it's an indicator, but not an indictment.

Most of the problem revolves around people who don't make a distinction between the country, its people, its current government and the religion of Judaism. Just a slight addition to any criticism would stop the majority of the misunderstandings on the issue.

[Karmadillo]

132. Kick

nt

[Spinoza]

135. Great article from British Socialist Org

on 'left anti-semitism.
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/5847

snip> "Let us grant that they do not want to be anti-semitic — that they loathe the Tsarist, Nazi, and Christian anti-semitisms of the past. Anti-semitism is nonetheless there in what they advocate — the destruction of Israel. The benign, but stupid (and the more benignly intended, the more stupid), version of the “get rid of Israel” mindset says “oh, a single secular-democratic state would be much better”, or “a binational state would be better” — proposing things which are inconceivable, now, without the prior conquest and destruction of Israel, and which would be impossible, or a sham, after that destruction.

It is anti-semitism because it proposes to destroy the Israeli Jewish nation, and because it involves those who advocate it in a comprehensive “political” hostility to Jews everywhere, the big majority of whom — actively or vaguely, critically or uncritically, enthusiastically or reluctantly, but in any case instinctively and more or less inevitably — identify with Israel.

We repeat: this anti-semitism can be identified and measured objectively — in what they propose. It doesn’t matter whether or not someone supporting the destruction of Israel is subjectively hostile to Jews. The anti-semitism is in what they propose.

In fact, however, the feelings involved in support for the destruction of Israel are usually feelings of intense and unreasoning hostility. The idea that the “feelings” of the anti-Israel left are not intensely hostile to Israel is not only “plainly dishonest” but plainly silly" .<snip

[timtom]

136. Look!

It's tempting to conflate anti-Zionism with being anti-Jewish. AIPAC does it all the time.

As it turns out, I, for one, have a strong tendency to side with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, of Neturei Karta.

Those Orthodox rabbi's do make sense, after all.