“the only real tolerated form of antisemitism is anti-Zionism”
Douglas Murray, at the Monk Debates, gave one of the most impressive explanations as to why, in the real world, anti-Zionism is antisemitism: “the interesting thing about antisemitism is the Jews can never win because historically … they were hated for being stateless…. Now they’re hated for having a state…. It’s about double standards.”
A hot topic is whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism. The way I’ve answered it in the past is that while it’s theoreticallly possible to be against Zionism but not against Jews, that theoretical debate does not reflect the real world. In the real world, the desire to destroy the Zionist state – Israel – is part and parcel of Jew hatred.
An organization in Canada called The Monk Debates had a debate on that question. Here is their promotional description of the debate:
On Monday June 17th we convened at Roy Thomson Hall for our spring 2024 debate.
Motion: Be it Resolved, anti-Zionism is antisemitism
About the debate
Hate crimes against Jews are surging globally as the war in Gaza continues into its eighth month. This reality has brought new urgency to a decades-old debate about whether anti-Zionism – the rejection of statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland – is being used as a cover for antisemitism or hatred against Jews as a people. Critics of Zionism argue that it is a supremacist and exclusionary ideology that unjustly privileges the lives and rights of Jews over non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel. The charge that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is a smokescreen to cloak Israel from much needed international scrutiny and hold it to account for its actions. Nonsense, say Zionists. A key feature of antisemitism is applying one standard for Jews, and another for everyone else. Zionism is nothing more than the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historic lands. This is the same right that has been claimed by countless other nations and groups for centuries. Those who say that the Jewish state alone is illegitimate are not simply anti-Zionist but antisemitic and bear responsibility for rising hate crimes against Jews worldwide
The Debaters
Arguing for the resolution is award winning journalist, best-selling author, and former Munk Debater Douglas Murray. His debate partner will be Natasha Hausdorff, an international law expert and legal commentator on antisemitism.
Opposing the resolution is Mehdi Hasan. Mehdi is a best-selling author, former MSNBC anchor, and the CEO and editor-in-chief of the new media company Zeteo. He will be joined by the award winning Israeli broadcaster and Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy.
I didn’t watch the debate, it required joining the organization. But there were some ‘hot’ clips posted. I particularly liked this one:
A truly amazing moment where Natasha Hausdorff exposes @mehdirhasan for the liar that he is during the #MunkDebate.
Earlier, Mehdi claimed that Arthur Balfour called Jews an “alien and hostile people.” Natasha then showed the audience how he intentionally edited the quote to… pic.twitter.com/vUwgPnN7L5
— Sky Palma (@DeadStateTweets) June 18, 2024
As well as this one:
Douglas Murray just dropped the quote of the year at the Munk Debate:
“There is no law of war that says you're allowed to start a war, and then complain when you lose it." pic.twitter.com/ySrdHoLqT5
— Rabbi Shmuel Reichman (@ShmuelReichman) June 19, 2024
But by far the most impressive was the opening statement by Douglas Murray. author of The War on The West.
Murray gave one of, if not the, most impressive explanations as to why, in the real world, anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
Murray won the debate decisively.
Watch below.
“Israel is the only state which when attacked, gets attacked more.”
Absolutely phenomenal opening statement of @DouglasKMurray at the recent @munkdebate on whether anti-Zionist is antisemitism.
👏 👏 👏 pic.twitter.com/c6ZD9j5WF7
— Emily Schrader – אמילי שריידר امیلی شریدر (@emilykschrader) June 18, 2024
Transcript
(auto-generated, may contain transcription errors, lightly edited for transcript clarity)
Well, thank you very much, Rudyard. It’s a great pleasure to be back to the monk debates. When I was last here a couple of years ago, I just returned from the frontline of the war in Ukraine where I was with the Ukrainian Armed Forces. And for most of the last eight months, I’ve been in Israel and Gaza, following the war there as closely as I can. And I won’t go into all the details now that I could give you of what’s happening, but I would just put it in perspective in this way.
First of all, what happened on the 7th of October was not just a massive attack on innocent people inside Israel. It was the equivalent to about 6,000 Canadians being massacred and burned in their homes in one day. It was the equivalent of about one and a half thousand of your fellow Canadians being taken hostage.
You know, you would’ve thought after an attack like the one that Hamas instigated that started this terrible war, you would’ve thought that there would be some sympathy for the world, from the world. You might have thought the world would pay attention to the attack and at least pay attention to the people behind it.
You might have expected, like me, that there might have been a worldwide opposition to the terrorists and rapists and murderers of Hamas. You might have thought there would be hatred around the world erupting, that the government of Qatar and its mouthpiece Al Jazeera, its funding of Hamas and its hosting of the leadership of Hamas in Qatar. You might have thought there’d have been an outpouring of rage at the Islamic revolutionary government in Tehran, but no, there was an immediate outpouring of rage against the state that had been attacked.
‘Bring back our girls’ we had 10 years ago in the war in northern Nigeria, which I also covered. Bring back our girls, no international campaigns saying, bring back our Jewish children. Believe all women we’ve been told for years. But turns out not if the raped women are Jews.
Israel is the only country in the world, which when it’s attacked, gets attacked more.
You know the interesting thing about antisemitism is, as my late friend Jonathan Sacks said, it’s a shape shifting virus. It moves across the centuries. When you could hate people for their religion, the Jews were hated for their religion. Then you couldn’t hate people for that anymore, so people hated the Jews for their race. And then after the 20th century, people realize that wasn’t such a great idea either. Now, the Jews are hated not for their religion or their race, but for having a state.
People around the world hate them so much for it that Israelis are attacked when they have hostages taken. And this is to remember the 100 hostages still in captivity in Gaza, who if they were given back by Hamas today, the war would be over. And they’re also attacked when they rescue their hostages.
You know, the interesting thing about antisemitism is the Jews can never win because historically they’ve been hated for being rich and for being poor. They’ve been hated for integrating and for not integrating. They were hated for being stateless. Remember ‘stateless cosmopolitans’, the far right used to say. Now they’re hated for having a state.
Today, the only really acceptable form of antisemitism, aside from the sewers of the far right, the only real tolerated form of antisemitism is anti-Zionism.
And Zionism, as we just heard, is simply the right of the Jews to self-determination in their historic homeland. That’s all anti-Semitism.
As we’ve also just heard, is double standards against Jewish people or cruel and unfair treatment of people because they’re Jews.
This isn’t very far away from home here. If this isn’t antisemitism, can the audience here tell me why the following things have happened since October the seventh? Why in a Montreal suburb a synagogue should be firebombed, as happened in November. Why there should have been gunshots against the yeshiva? Why in Toronto, a bookstore owned by a Jew should be attacked? Why a Molotov cocktail was thrown through a Jewish community center in Montreal? Why a Toronto Jewish deli in North York was firebombed? Why in Toronto, the orthodox synagogue was vandalized? Why in Toronto, two men opened fire the other week on a Jewish girls school?
If it isn’t antisemitism, tell me why, just a week ago, pro Hamas protestors tried to go through Jewish areas in this city shouting not just Alahu Akbar, but, and I quote, sorry for the language. ‘fucking filthy fucking Zionist pigs, dirty Zionist rats.’ Have you heard that language before? The Jews have.
Now look, if you are interested in this motion, just bear this in mind. It’s not about Netanyahu, it’s not about this war.
It’s about double standards. And one question hovers over it above all, the question of who would protect the Jews, who would you trust to protect them? The Europeans, the Arab world?
No, history shows only one people protect the Jewish people. The Jewish people. That’s what Zionism is.
Thank you.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
the world needs someone to hate and more importantly who wont fight back
they have the poc but the elites keep them at bay with every social program they can steal from the middle class
but the jewish culture as we alllll know
have proven too intellectual strong for them to handle
so they take advantage of them in the fear they put onto the communities
sharpton and jackson etc are proud of that
white leftists the world over realize that when the je ws are the target
the pressure is off the poc ( who will fight back and burn things down) so they go after them
and the poc get mad b/c the j ews “play the victim” and that upsets the blmplo tribe
same way as the “migrants” flowing in get allll the attention>>>money and
black groups that are solid in the fjb camp have to threaten to move their votes to the otherside if fjb doesnt stop the “migrant” inflow$$$
To be honest, in every country of the world with the possible exception of Israel itself [and I understand that there may be Jewish sects who are against a state of Israel] pretty much every country in the world has a significant portion of its population that hates Jews reflexively. It is what it is. Antisemitism is real and widespread. It does not make it right, but it has to be dealt with, by Jews and others.
Subotai Bahadur
The antiZionist factions within Orthodox Jews (with the exception of the fringe group Neturie Karta, who have been excommunicated even by the anti-Zionist Satmar) have nothing in common with the antiZionists of the left and the right. They do not claim that Jews have no business living in Israel or have no history here or connection to the land. They don’t claim that Ashkenaz Jews are Europeans or have no connection to the Jews at the of the Jewish kingdoms or for that matter all the way back to the patriarchs.
Their opposition is to Jews establishing a state rather than waiting for G-d to redeem His people and restore the Davidic dynasty. They see this as a revolt against G-d and that this revolt is one of the sins delaying the redemption.
My description is by necessity a gross oversimplification.
Even the genuine Neturei Karta believe that the Land of Israel belongs only to the Jews, and that the Arabs are trespassers. They do not in any way support the “Palestinian” cause. What you are referring to is a tiny group of clinically insane individuals who have hijacked the name Neturei Karta and blackened it to the extent that the real members are now ashamed to be associated with it in the minds of those who don’t know. The nut cases can’t set foot in the real NK headquarters, because they would not leave in one piece. But being deliberately media-unsavvy the real NK are at a disadvantage; only insiders in the haredi community know the difference, and even most of them don’t.
In personal context I have found that who dislikes me is a good measure of what I am accomplishing.
I think that this might be true for Jews. If there were no Jews that hatred would be directed at Caucasians and Asians, in fact that is already the case. Mid range dumb people are barely smart enough to recognize that they are inferior, Those who are even slower are like children, and generally do not harbor resentment.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/first-the-saturday-people-then-the-sunday-people/
Posted by William A. Jacobson Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 08:00pm
https://nypost.com/2024/06/19/world-news/israeli-peace-activist-held-hostage-by-hamas-i-dont-believe-in-peace/
Read a comment a year ago that in Prog. Speak, Antisemitism is “bad” Jew hate, while Anti-Zionism is good. The person ,making the comment basically said it’s just the opposite; Antisemitism=don’t like Jews, well OK…..Anti-Zionism=elimination of 7 million Jews in Israel, as a starting point.
His opening statement was a masterpiece. The debate was already over then.
Indeed. It also helped that one of his opponents was Medhi Hasan.
Part of the problem is Jews making themselves a privileged race with the Holocaust card. It keeps them from thinking clearly. “We are attacked so often that it justifies seeing antisemitism everywhere.” When there isn’t antisemitism everywhere, which they will not notice.
There’s a cultural plus for this – it keeps Jews from assimilating.
But it’s a minus from not only being annoying to regular people – like blacks finding racism everywhere – but it displaces a winning argument by being more tempting.
The winning argument being which side has repeatedly opened mutual trade with the other side, benefiting both sides, and which side has repeatedly blown it up or shot it down.
It’s ongoing behavior that determines who’s right and who’s wrong, not a fantasized history of being oppressed, which both sides avail themselves of.
Use the right argument and see what happens to antisemitism.
Murray said not one thing about the Holocaust, but how antisemitism has morphed. He focused on behavior, historically to the present, in the context of October 7. He refuted your antisemitic crap, that Jews seek pity for the Holocaoust, to shame. Peddling tropes is not convincing except to you know who.
The guilty run when none pursue. rhhardin is living proof.
Antisemitism is bad because of the Holocaust, is how the Holocaust comes in.
Yeah, the Holocaust obviously resulted from Jews complaining about the Holocaust rather than being the culmination of a millennium of hatred directed at Jews. Now tell me why the pogroms in the Rhineland in 1096 & 1143.
No, that’s not what he said. You asked how the Holocaust came into the discussion, and he answered that it came in because it’s what made antisemitism socially unacceptable. The Holocaust is why antisemitism is “bad”. Which is a point you yourself made elsewhere in this discussion. Therefore, he says, the anti-antisemitism lobby keeps reminding people of the Holocaust, so they’ll be reminded of why they should oppose antisemitism.
Moreover, Jews freely assimilate in places where people are not openly bigoted against them. More antisemitism as you pretend that Jew haters want to trade when they say clearly the goal is genocide. Your arguments are foolish. And when confronted with reality you spout esoteric nonsense to make an unknown point. In its way, Bidenesque.
We know that you hate that the Holocaust happened hardin. Not because 6 million Jews were killed, you are sore that Hitler wasn’t allowed to finish the job. But because it proved that antisemitism really exists, as if there wasn’t enough proof already. In your eyes the only “right” argument is “the only good Jew is a dead Jew”.
Your naked ugly antisemitism is showing. Why don’t you post your hate on a site that agrees with you like the Electronic Intifada or CounterPunch ; those are your people.
Your comments are bigoted rubbish. You speak like a moronic German National Socialist from the 1920’s or 193o’s. You casually make these contemptibly presumptuous, sweeping and farcical accusations/pronouncements as if you actually had hard evidence to stand on, but, you don’t — you can only offer your own manifestly stupid and bigoted bile as if they represented fact.
The manner in which you spew these obnoxiously fallacious, presumptuous and sweeping generalizations, e.g., “Jews making themselves a privileged race…,” without even adding moderating qualifiers such as “some,” or “a segment,” etc., demonstrates further how bigoted, unbalanced and unserious your statements are. They condemn tens of millions of people without a scintilla of evidence proffered.
Jews are the furthest thing from a “privileged race” — they’ve generally achieved remarkable success, worldwide, through education, intelligence, hard work and gumption, in the face of unprecedented historical prejudice, abuse, persecution and oppression. The fact that you’re incapable of acknowledging that basic reality, demonstrates both your stupidity and your unseriousness.
His argument boils down to “Jews make themselves hated by remaining Jews, so that Jews will remain Jews. Ergo so long as Jews exist, people will hate them for it. If only they would become something else, no one would hate them for being Jews.”
He thinks that theory reveals a vast intellect. He is half-right.
Well, there’s more to his position than that, but yes, I think that’s a reasonably fair preview of it. I think it’s wrong, but not antisemitic.
I have never read Levinas in my life, and the excerpts he’s quoted don’t make me want to. But bear in mind that that’s where he’s coming from.
Yes. Categorization of the attacks on Jews, historically. is a big part of being Jewish. Purim and Passover are just two of the holidays based on that theme.
Hey, this piling on against rhhardin is not right; I think his position on this subject is profoundly wrong, but it’s not antisemitic. If you think it’s antisemitic you haven’t bothered to read it properly and understand it. I did, and I’m pretty sure I understand what he’s saying, but to me it’s so obviously incorrect that I can’t even handle debating it. But I really don’t think he hates Jews. His position seems to be derived mostly from reading too many obscure Jewish philosophers, and not enough Jewish history.
That’s very kind of you but I think too kind his position sounds more like Norman Finkelstein to me ; and sometimes people need to be called to the carpet or they will never learn. I’m sorry if it seems like too much but there are moments in time and this is one of them where a person needs to call out hate when they see it or they allow it to stand and become part of the enabling and coddling force behind it.
Finkelstein’s shtick is table magic: he”s an operator palming cards to “win” arguments.
Problem is, he’s good at it.
Milhouse, this is Hardin’s line, and he’s played it since 10/7: “if the Jews would just shut up and go away, they wouldn’t be hated”.
It’s more like “the Jews want to be hated, and do all they can to keep people hating them, because they think that’s in their long-term interest.” It’s not a completely invalid point; just mostly invalid. But it’s definitely not an antisemitic point.
The Jewish people have been hated since long before the Shoah…That is Mr. Murray’s point.
You are awash in ignorance.
Besides Faith or because of it The Jewish Story is – we were attacked by enemies of G-d, Survived. Prospered. Exodus/Passover and Purim to name just two. It is a very MAJOR theme.
Hardin, GFY.
At heart, I’m an anti-zionist. I don’t believe that racial categorizations are useful, and I’m not a particular fan of theocracy. But if I have to choose between a racist theocracy that is peaceful, and a barbarian horde of child raping terrorists, I’m happy to hang out with the former.
Those who support the Palestinian cause, even after decades of violence, backward illiberal values against women and homosexuals, rampant corruption, and festering unquenchable resentment, have embraced the greater of two evils. Had there been a Palestinian version of Gandhi, and had they embraced non-violence, they would not only have a state of their own, it could very well have outshone the jewish state.
If you had given Gaza to the Mormons in 2005, it would have been a paradise by 2024.
Every supporter of Hamas in Gaza deserves to be captured or killed. And every supporter of Hamas in the US should be considered as aiding and abetting a terrorist organization. If we can send wayward Boogaloo bois who fall into FBI entrapment to jail for building silencers for fake Hamas agents, we should be throwing actual, open and vocal Hamas supporters and violent activists into jail as well.
Zionism can end once jews are able to live in peace in every islamic country. When there are 40 million jews living peacefully in Tehran, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Jordan, we can start talking about turning Israel into a non-zionist state. Until then, they get a pass, even if I don’t like it in principle.
Racial categorizations are the reality and generally okay except for Israel. Though some Muslim states may be theocratic, the Jewish state is not. 20% of the population Arab and many secular Jews. Not to mention, it’s not only Jews that cannot live peacefully in Tehran or other places mentioned. Recall Jordan’s policy when it wrongfully occupied Jerusalem between 1948-67.
Otherwise, it’s accurate that the Palestinians in general have no one to blame but themselves.
1. Jews are a race only in the sense that Americans or Frenchmen are a race. And that is a sense that has fallen out of usage; two dictionaries I just consulted tag it as “dated”.
2. Theocracy?!!! Are you somehow under the impression that Israel is a theocracy, or that zionism is a theocratic movement?! Israel is a decidedly secular country, and the zionist movement was overwhelmingly non- or anti-religious.
Zionism isn’t fairly characterized as a racial conceit — it’s a movement supporting the right of Jews to live in their ancient historical homeland.
And, Jews are fairly viewed as both an ethnic/racial group, and, a religious group, given that Jews originally came from a single state/area, before the diaspora.
Except that most Jews are not religious — and of those who are, many subscribe to other religions, not Judaism. Being a Jew doesn’t require believing in the Jewish religion; and believing in the Jewish religion doesn’t make someone Jewish.
Jews are a nation, that has a religion, that most of them don’t believe in. Much like the English — they have a religion, but it has far more adherents in Nigeria than in England.
In any case, Israel is in no way a theocracy, and never has been.
Anyone who claims that Israel is racist, or a theocracy, has obviously never been there and is acting on biases and preconceptions, not on the real world. Israel protects the religious rights of all religions (with the possible exception of heterodox Judaism and to a lesser extent Orthodox Jews) and in fact, it is much safer legally for someone to disparage orthodox Judaism and orthodox Jews in the most disgusting terms, that would get them arrested if they leveled similar comments at Christianity, Christians, Islam or Muslims.
Religious Jews, who join the IDF face a glass ceiling; they are allowed to advance up to a certain rank, but no further. The leadership of the army is blatantly and outspoken, anti-religious, and often deliberately take actions design to show religious soldiers who is boss, Unrelated to and unnecessary for any military objective. Yeah, some “theocracy!”
Israel’s non-Jewish citizens are permitted to vote, form, political parties, hold office, own property, practice, trades, and professions, etc., on the same basis as Jewish citizens.
What theocracy are you referring to and how is that relevant? Israel is not a theocracy under any definition.
The one that exists only in his ignorant imagination.
You left out the call for genocide against every Jew in the world in the Hamas Charter and the Koran.
As important as winning on the substance is exposure of the the dishonesty of the losers and those like them. Frauds for the cause.
I dearly love Murray and listen to him often, but I am perplexed about this statement
“They were hated for being stateless. Remember ‘stateless cosmopolitans’, the far right used to say. Now they’re hated for having a state.“
The far right, what does he mean by this?
I’m what would be considered “far right”, and I 110% support Israel, and the Jewish people.
Is he saying “far right”, as in MAGA?
I dont understand.
It’s disturbing to me
When Jews were called cosmopolitan, there was no state of Israel or MAGA, so he could not have been referring to supporters of Israel, but haters of Jews.
Today, those that blame Israel the state are not generally of the right.
Depends whether you call David Duke and his KKK neo, Nazi buddies or Nick Fuentes and his alt that right nut cases, including the so-called “grippers“ far right. No, they don’t use the term “ruthless cosmopolitan” but they very much begrudge Jews the existence of a state. For that matter, they very much begrudge Jews an existence.
What I’d like to see more of is a discussion of child abuse (Hitler, Stalin) and the role of displaced anger (I can’t hate my parents – in part biological- but i have to hate some thing/one.) Well I wrote a blog post. The intro and a link ==>
“The Role of PTSD in History”
Hitler was an abused child. Marx was an abused child. Stalin was an abused child. Putin is an abused child. The displaced rage from their abuse dissolved their morals. The anger and the accompanying narcissism are the disease. Abused children are angry, Permanently. They have no human empathy. They crave power and control.
https://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-role-of-ptsd-in-history.html
I know a bit about that psychology. I used to be an abused child.
Start with The Drama of the Gifted Child, by Alice Miller.
You may consider yourself “far right”, because you see yourself as all the way on one side of the spectrum of conventional US politics. But the term “far right” doesn’t mean that, and never has; it refers to people who aren’t even on that spectrum. In the USA it barely even exists any more.
Though you see vestiges of it in the use of “globalist” as a slur; that is just an updated version of “rootless cosmopolitan”, which was an early-20th-century code for “Joo”, along with “international banker” and other such euphemisms.
You also see it very occasionally when someone trots out half-remembered rants about the Rothschilds; half the time people doing that don’t even realize it’s antisemitic, and would avoid it if they knew.
He is likely referring to what we would consider the alt right.
Not even most of them. ALT-right is not the same as “far-right”. Some people on the ALT-right are antisemites, but as far as I know most are not.
Wha this alt right, how is it different than far right?
We talking KKK here?
I’m posting this here because it needs to be read amd this family need financial
Help badly.
The government literally murders this man for walking into OUR HOUSE, peacefully…
We don’t deserve this country of we are not willing to fight for it.
How many more must pay the price for our freedoms?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/j6-political-prisoner-julio-baquero-iii-diagnosed-stage/
https://www.givesendgo.com/helpjulio
I have identified exactly three legitimate non-antisemitic reasons why someone would oppose zionism; three explanations for how one can be anti-zionist without being antisemitic. One problem is that all three are relatively fringe positions that very few people actually adhere to. If all the people who opposed zionism for one of those three reasons were to hold one big rally, they could barely fill a stadium.
A more serious problem is that all three of those reasons should make a person oppose the “Palestinian” cause even more. As far as I can tell it is literally impossible to support the “Palestinians” without being an antisemite. All of the legitimate arguments against Israel’s existence apply ten times as much to a “Palestinian” state.
The vile and evil European dhimmis and American Dhimmi-crats are hugely supportive of “indigenous” peoples’ rights — except where Jews are concerned.
The deference and legitimacy paid by these reprobates to the transparently fallacious. contrived and revisionist propaganda mythology asserting that the Arab Fakestinian invaders from Arabia are the alleged indigenous people of “Palestine” (that word representing a contrivance of the ancient Romans that was concocted long before Islam was founded) is indefensible and contemptible. These myths are offensive to objective historical truth, and, to moral probity.
Well, they don’t support the rights of the indigenous people of Europe, either.
If America had remained a Christian country, allowing complete religious freedom to minority groups there would be little antisemitism. The lawfare and activism employed to strip America of any manifestation of its Christian heritage created a mindset that made fertile ground for antisemitism.
As a matter of fact, religious based antisemitism in the United States was very prevalent until the end of the second world war, when Christians recoiled from the revelations of the extremes that the Holocaust led to.
And I’m not talking about refusal of admission to country clubs (which most Jews at that time could not afford to join anyway). I am talking about legally, enforceable, housing, discrimination, legally permitted to discrimination in college admissions (including state universities), employment, and street violence. People who grow up in post World War II America, have a very incomplete knowledge of what life was like for Jews in the United States before then. And I hasten to say, of course, that for all of the defect, it was far, far better in the US for Jews, even before the second world war, than any place in the world that immediately comes to mind.
Opening access to such places need not have required a decades-long assault on Christianity.
There has been no such assault, and certainly not a Jewish assault.
And while the American people are fairly described as a mostly Christian people, and certainly were so at the founding, the corporate entity known as the United States of America was explicitly founded on the principle that it was not to be Christian.
Decades? For nearly 2,000 years the church taught that our refusal to become Christians was ipso facto an assault against Christianity equalivlanet to crucifying that certain man all over again.
Please stop reversing cause and effect.
We were founded by Christians of various flavors that’s true. The cultural framework which shaped our founding was unquestionably rooted in Western Civ, Christianity both of which heavily draw from Judaism.
However the founders explicitly rejected the establishment of an official State Religion. Lots of very good reasons for this. How has the gov’t sought to strip away your religious freedom in your life? (other than the Covid mania closing Religious gatherings)
Speaking of which, I find myself very reluctantly being forced to the conclusion that the left were right about Thomas Massie all along, and he is an antisemite. I like Massie, and I’ve spent years defending every statement and every vote that has been cited as evidence of his antisemitism, but it’s getting harder and harder to do that.
I also appreciate Massie. Can you point to concrete actions that demonstrate this ‘antisemitism’ on his part or full context statements that show antisemitism? I don’t think that someone opposing taxpayer funding for any particular purpose is evidence nor do I believe that statements describing the scope or even effectiveness of lobbying group(s)/PAC(s) is evidence for antisemitism.
Just for a few examples, his vote last year against a resolution condemning antisemitism, on the spurious grounds that it would somehow violate people’s freedom of speech; his vote, also last year, against a resolution that said denying Israel’s right to exist is antisemitism, which he defended on the grounds that Jerrold Nadler is anti-zionist, as if it were not possible for him to be antisemitic; and his recent statements attacking AIPAC, especially asserting that it’s the agent of a foreign country and should have to register as one. It’s hard to defend any of those.
I don’t count any vote against a measure that would spend money; I can understand his opposing that, even if I don’t always agree. In general when I hear he voted against something that sounds like a no-brainer to support, I first ask what exactly was in it beyond the headline.
Well hang on and lets flesh out what I see as the unstated premise of those points before we accept this. Please correct me if I misunderstood.
Is it antisemitic to oppose funding for Israel? IMO, one can oppose foreign aid spending without being ‘anti’ or guilty of ‘ists and isms’.
Is it automatically ‘antisemitic’ if one refuses to condemn someone else for their beliefs? At root that’s what the vote was about.
Is it antisemitic to state that a particular lobbying group which advocates for increased flow of taxpayer $, increased trade and increased ties both economic and political with a particular Nation is antisemitic? Would a similar lobby doing the same things on behalf of Taiwan or South Korea be viewed as lobbying on behalf of a foreign Nation and thus need to register?
Strip out Israel and replace it with another Nation and remove AIPAC and replace it with a lobbying outfit that does the same for another Nation and IMO we see daylight.
IMO it is very possible to separate the lack of support for pro Israel positions from antisemitism. I do agree that the vote re the ‘existence’ of Israel ‘feels’ as if it is getting a bit too close for comfort BUT at root the argument there is that failing to adopt a pro Israel position is automatically ‘antisemitic’. I see distance between antisemitism and failure to embrace the Nation of Israel.
FWIW I believe the US and EU Nations +Britain have a moral obligation to support the Nation they decided to create or perhaps more accurately allowed to come into existence (The Israelis did the damn hard job of carving out/defending it themselves) in a very hostile neighborhood with arms/munitions sales at a minimum.
No, which is why I explicitly said “I don’t count any vote against a measure that would spend money”. I mean, it can be antisemitic, if the person opposing such funding doesn’t have the same objection to similar spending that doesn’t involve Israel. But Massie does, so he’s entitled to keep opposing it when it does involve Israel.
Yes, I think refusing to condemn something is akin to condoning it, which creates a strong suspicion that one shares it. Especially when that thing is particularly odious, as antisemitism is.
Would you accept that Democrats who refuse to condemn BLM nevertheless genuinely disagree with its premises?
That paragraph needs serious editing, but I’m pretty sure I understand what you meant to write. AIPAC is an American organization; its members, management, and funding are all American. It lobbies for Israel, but not on its behalf. The Israeli government neither funds it, nor gives it directions. Therefore it is obviously not a foreign agent, and if it were advocating Taiwanese interests rather than Israeli ones, no one would even think of demanding that it register as one. Demanding that AIPAC so register is as much as to say that Israel is somehow secretly controlling it, or that the Americans who do control it are not really Americans at all but Israelis. I think it’s fair to call that antisemitism.
No, do that and the question wouldn’t even arise. No one would even think to suggest it. Nobody would claim that an Irish-American organization that lobbied for US policies that would be favorable to Ireland was somehow secretly acting for the Irish government.
The US and EU Nations +Britain did not “decide to create” Israel. Not only did the Israelis do the hard work, they did all of it. “Allowed to come into existence”?! The British did their damn best to prevent it; they failed. The US and other nations did nothing to “allow” it; their permission wasn’t required and they were in no position to stop it. The only country that actually helped was Stalin’s puppet regime in Czechoslovakia. And that didn’t last long, once the new Israeli government decided to align with the West rather than with the USSR.
Ok. Thanks for responding. I always appreciate a reasoned discussion without vitriol. Truly appreciate it.
My disagreement comes down to what I see as daylight between antisemitism and anti Zionist as well as the distinction between criticism of Israel, wishing/doing harm to Israel or its Citizens and a reluctance to sign onto an effort to grant gov’t imperature.
Overt actions and/or speech re Israel such as ‘river to the sea’ have a clear meaning; the destruction of Israel as a Nation at best and the genocide of Israeli Citizens at worst. Both are intolerable. Actually engaging in violence v Israel or Israeli Citizens is IMO obviously anti Zionist and in 99.9% of cases driven by some degree of antisemitism.
Failing to embrace/acclaim/support the policies of the Israeli govt isn’t anti Zionist much less antisemitism. Failing to denounce every negative thing that exists in the world is not evidence that one embraces/approves of those negative things. IMO that’s the same as the lefty woke argument that ‘silence is violence’.
IMO every lobbing outfit that as part of its mission statement or by its activities seeks to influence Congress/POTUS for the benefit of a foreign Nation should be required to register in that category; lobbying for a foreign Nation. Perhaps a new category would better fit. I strongly disagree that Israel and AIPAC should get a pass on this. We wouldn’t give a pass for a similar org ding the same for Russia or China…..though we probably do (but shouldn’t) give a pass for an the Ukraine lobby.
I was under the impression that the UN resolution in late ’47 gave international recognition to the ‘process’ of establishing a Jewish State by partitioning the ‘British Mandate. Six months ish later the multiple ‘Jewish’ areas unified to establish the State of Israel. I include Britain due to the Balfour Declaration which didn’t have the force of law or a true diplomatic recognition ‘of’ a Jewish State but did lend British diplomatic notice to the idea/goal/possibility(?) of a Jewish State in the future. I am quite aware of the hostility of British policy on the ground (where it counts IMO) to the reality of Israel in the post WWII era. Lots of actual antisemitism in Britain and Europe then (obviously) and probably now.
If I didn’t make it clear the folks in Israel with very little overt support from Nation States (but with some sub Rosa support) along with financial and material support from individuals and groups sympathetic to the cause did the heavy lifting. Against very bad odds they pulled it off. Then had to keep doing it year after year since then. I have read widely on the military aspects/some on the diplomatic aspects of the establishment of Israel and have great admiration for Israel and its Citizens.
Massie is an intellectual giant and a true patriot. You should think twice before branding your betters with cheap hate words. He soars high above such base prejudice.
When I was growing up (Orthodox) part of every holiday prayer/greeting was “Next year in Jerusalem”. My understanding is that to be Jewish you have to be a Zionist. It is inherent in the religion.
You don’t have to wait for the holidays. Observant Jews pray three times every day for God to return to Zion, reestablish the House of David’s monarchy, rebuild the Temple (which means demolishing al-Aqsa), etc.
But the term “zionism” was invented by a secular and largely anti-religious movement, which arose as a rejection of those prayers; it was a declaration that if Jews wanted it ever to happen they had to forget about God and go make it happen themselves. And most religious Jews saw that as a rebellion against God. At the time of Israel’s founding most religious Jews were against it; but once it became a reality most concluded that opposition to it was now irrelevant. Israel exists, and the vast majority of religious Jews understand that if it were to disappear it would be a disaster, so they have to support its continued existence.
I was never that observant except for a year or two growing up. My dad and mom had lots of orthodox friends (they weren’t too observant either) so me and my brother got the full treatment.
Three times every weekday, 4 times on every New Month & Chol HaMoed, and once a day each Shabbos and Festival, we pray for G-d to rebuild the temple, return us to Zion & rule over us there. Zionism is the belief that we should return on our own, rule over ourselves & that the Temple & Divine rule are irrelevant. Religious Zionism/ Dati Leumi synthesizes the two & believe that the second is a Divinely inspired step toward realizing the first, even though the advocates of the first may not realize it.
“the interesting thing about antisemitism is the Jews can never win because historically … they were hated for being stateless…. Now they’re hated for having a state…. It’s about double standards.”
Jews don’t assimilate and that’s translated as stateless. But it’s Jewish policy, maintaining alienation. It’s called being closer to prophets than to (early Greek) philosophers, who were about the polis. They’re not exactly hated for it but it’s a difference with no obvious reason.
The Holocaust card (antisemitism spotted everywhere) is the modern way to maintain that alienation lest assimilation happen.
Alienation doesn’t work as smoothly as it does for blacks because blacks look oppressed owing to lower success rates, whereas Jews do much better than the native populations and don’t look oppressed in spite of their claims. It takes a lot of noise-making to put it over.
And look! there’s a nearby population – Palestinians – that does look oppressed and is claiming that the Jews are the oppressors. So that’s the “hated for having a state.”
Translate that claim back into its causes and it’s not a double standard but just a different dynamic, one adopted by Jews to avoid assimilation and the other having a higher IQ than the general population, and they come into dynamic conflict.
The way out of the train wreck is focus on the morality of the Jewish state in dealing with the Palestinians (trade in particular) and the immorality of the Palestinians shooting that down or blowing it up. Oppression not mentioned anywhere.
It’s called being closer to prophets than to (early Greek) philosophers, who were about the polis. They’re not exactly hated for it but it’s a difference with no obvious reason.
It is like being a Constitutionalist. Original intent matters according to some versions.
When I was a kid we were often encouraged to disparage Christians. Then I grow up to find out that philosophically there was hardly any difference. Well until the Protestants went nuts about abortion.
There is no way out of the train wreck as long as the ME adheres to Islam. You ever read (in translation) the Koranic quote in the Hamas Charter? Getting rid of Israel/Jews doesn’t solve the problem. Only world domination solves the problem.
As a practical matter the parts of the world unwilling to be ruled by Islam (the religion of genocide) ought to support Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood supported Hitler in WW2. Hamas is an offshoot.
and obama supported the mobrohood
You couldn’t design a religion better suited to abused boys than Islam. Abuse makes the boys angry. Islam directs that anger. I have a link (below) that shows that Islamic Countries are rampant with the abuse of boys. They are religious about protecting girls because abuse produces immoderate/promiscuous girls.
The link about Islamic Child Abuse is in an update to this post ==>
https://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2023/12/october-7th-we-are-fighting-mental.html
October 7th made me collect my thoughts about a lot of things.
Some stories about the pervasiveness of the Islamic abuse of boys. If I was to design a religion for abused boys it would be quite a lot like Islam. Some place to direct and discharge the anger. Jews. Infidels. No drugs or alcohol means no relief other than taking out the anger on Jews and infidels.
Total garbage. Using fancy words changes nothing. The parallel to Finklestein is apt.
One cannot trade with people that engage in genocide against them. Nasrallah will be Israel’s make a great trading partner, right?
Jews fully assimilate when the society allows it. Assimilation does not mean giving up identity as a Jew.
Intellectual antisemites are antisemites nonetheless. Murray helped to show that.
Aristotle praised apt analysis as carving the duck at the joints. It’s really not a matter of choice. If you stick together things with different causes, the result is not apt.
More garbage, with due respect to Aristotle.
To paraphrase another: Some ideas are so dumb that only a perceived intellectual could believe them.
Keep talking.
Narcissism is a requirement for human leaders. Narcissism is unnatural. Where are you most likely to find it in humans? Abused children. Hitler was an abused child. It is why we have the civilization we have. Wars among narcissists craving power, control, and the adulation of crowds.
https://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2024/01/why-politics-attracts-mentally-ill.html
Another one in a similar vein:
Abused child PTSD causes narcissism. All leaders need narcissism. Narcissism makes them identify with their country and not with solutions. Abused child PTSD makes them angry – which they displace. Until the racket is ended it is best to come out on top.
https://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-role-of-ptsd-in-history.html
when certain cultures in america “takeover” neighborhoods
that only seems to be a problem when its white people taking over the neighborhood
if its non white people taking over the neighborhood its that seen as a victory for humanity etc etc
lefty controlling the narrative must be stopped
BTW
ITS NOT TOLERATED
its encouraged
Of course the critics of Israel consist mainly of those who were already Jew haters, and I’ve always assumed that to be the case.
That’s been my experience the last 30 years. At some point they slip up and say “Jews” when they would have said “Israelis” if their criticism was really about the actions of Israel.
Add to that the actual genocides that have gone on and are going on that the same people ignore while calling self-defense “genocide”.
Leave a Comment