"Anti-Semitism": The new Thought-Crime?

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

"Anti-Semitism": The new Thought-Crime?

Unread postby Rhiannon » Sat May 01, 2004 12:23 am

Warning: This forum has always been for fair, intellectual debate. It is not a place to spout propaganda, attack people for their beliefs, or present false information intentionally. This is a highly sensitive topic, and I expect civility. Make sure you are criticizing the arguments that people present, and not the people themselves. I will post this reminder of the forum rules in the Academy Garden.

SoSZ Moderation Guidelines wrote:We have decided to complete revise the management approach for this forum. My goal for this section is for it to be a place where discussion can occur on any subject (especially those that society as a whole has trouble dealing with). Moderators in this section should resolve as many situations as possible without resorting to forum rules. If two members are in a very heated debate, moderators should never step in to end it unless one of the involved members specifically says that it needs to cool down.

Our policy here is now “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. If you cannot stand the thought of someone arguing in favor of or against abortion, for example, do not participate in the abortion thread. If you cannot stand the thought of someone saying that <x religious work> does not seem like complete fact for <x reasons> do not participate in the discussion. We will allow these discussions here because The Scholars of Shen Zhou is neutral in political, country, religious, and current affairs issues. It is also important to remember that moderators are not neutral in all of these factors, and the are encouraged not to censor their views. They are, however, not allowed to punish people due to a difference of opinion.

Sounds like a free for all, right? Not exactly. Moderators will carefully watch posts by members to make sure views presented are done so to spark intellectual and knowledgeable discussion and are not plays on a person’s views to make them angry. Topics that are started simply to make people angry will also not be tolerated. Posts in this section should be thought provoking or informative (and for the most part this is true of all posts in the forum right now). Trolling (trying to start a fight), attempting to make other people angry, bringing up topics just to hurt people, and spamming (unnecessary or pointless posts) will not be tolerated. Biased treatment of issues combined with hostility toward other members who hold a different view will not be tolerated. Racial and sexual bias will also be carefully monitored.


-----------------------------------

Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary*
Anti-Semitism:
1: hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination.
2: opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel

The first is a term that has been accepted in use since 1849. The second is the broad political usage of the term that many Israelis and Jewish people utilize to label anyone who expresses dissent over Israel and its policies as anti-Semites. Thought crime laws against anti-Semitism exist in Germany and France (and, I am sure, many other places).

Examples of "Criminals":
* Ernst Zundel, a Revisionist. His basic stances are an objection to the term "THE Holocaust" (instead of merely the Jewish Holocaust), a belief that the Holocaust numbers are greatly exaggerated, that there was not a Jewish extermination policy (rather, a combination of expellation from Europe combined with the use of extermination camps), and that there were no gas chambers. He has faced numerous censorships along the way from the Canadian government, including denial of citizenship, suggested extradition to Germany, postal bans, seizure of passports and bank accounts, criminal accusations of spreading "false news", and charges for "inciting hatred". There is far more than I can cover here, and I suggest if you are truly interested, to do research on your own about the man. Many other Revionists have followed in his footsteps.

* Mel Gibson, and the movie "Passion of the Christ". Because the movie identifies Jews as being part of the crucifiction of Christ, Gibson was labelled an Anti-Semite.

* Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In speaking of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, she said that "the root cause of the Arab- Israeli conflict is the occupation." She was subsequently shamed in public, one professor at the University at which she was to speak remarking he was "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak".**

* Batman Returns, for the "anti-semitic" symbolism of the Penguin as an evil Jew.

* The Bible, for making Jews appear "immoral" and "lusty for blood."

* Multiple news organizations, for presenting a pro-Palestinian view in their media regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


Think about us as a society now. We are, in essence, hyper-sensitive to the "Jewish Issue". This revolves around two central events: the Holocaust of WWII and the existance (and conflicts revolving around) the State of Israel. Two of the most popular and greatest slandars used today are "Nazi" and "Anti-Semite", terms which carry more weight than "racist". It is clear that the Jewish Holocaust has created a syndrome within our society in which it is not only improper to bring criticism against any Jewish organization or state, but it is also immoral and, in some places, illegal.

While we cannot deny that there was a great wrong done to Jews in WWII, we must also consider that our sympathy for the plight they endured should not override our sense of values and virtues. We must not be afraid, as many are today, to question anything Jewish because to do so is to be labelled with one of the highest brands of prejudice in our society. We must certainly not allow such empathy for the victims of the Holocaust to censor our freedom of thought, a right far greater than even our freedom of speech. To merely think about an event critically should never be a crime. In a society that has supposedly "evolved", it is fearful as to what these trends may mean.

Has our society, both western and global, transitioned into a new era of thought-crimes, in which that which is not Pro-Israel is Anti-Semite, and the questioning of past events is criminal? Are we now seeing a new brand of heresy, in which one who is skeptical of any Israeli policy, or of the numbers and truth of the Holocaust of WWII, is one who becomes a heretic and a criminal? And are we beginning to see other thought crimes spring up as well in our society?

"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing."- George Orwell

*It needs to be noted that the International Dictionary is Webster's -unabridged- dictionary. Abridged dictionaries (the kinds commonly bought and kept in households) only carry the first definition.
**Source: Robert Fisk's article, "A Warning To Those Who Dare To Criticize Israel In The Land Of Free Speech; Another Case Study: Mary Robinson". Original source (must pay to access). Full article.
Final Note: I am aware that I have not provided sources for all of my "claims", but I will continue to update this with solid sources for them. Rest assured, I did not make them up; I merely have a hard time tracing back some things that I have read and am working backwards to find them.
"For us to have self-esteem is truly an act of revolution and our revolution is long overdue."
— Margaret Cho
User avatar
Rhiannon
Joy & Oblivion
Joy & Oblivion
 
Posts: 5268
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 10:10 pm

Re: "Anti-Semitism": The new Thought-Crime?

Unread postby TheGreatNads » Sat May 01, 2004 7:12 am

Wild-Eyes wrote:Examples of "Criminals":
* Ernst Zundel, a Revisionist. His basic stances are an objection to the term "THE Holocaust" (instead of merely the Jewish Holocaust), a belief that the Holocaust numbers are greatly exaggerated, that there was not a Jewish extermination policy (rather, a combination of expellation from Europe combined with the use of extermination camps), and that there were no gas chambers. He has faced numerous censorships along the way from the Canadian government, including denial of citizenship, suggested extradition to Germany, postal bans, seizure of passports and bank accounts, criminal accusations of spreading "false news", and charges for "inciting hatred". There is far more than I can cover here, and I suggest if you are truly interested, to do research on your own about the man. Many other Revionists have followed in his footsteps.

* Mel Gibson, and the movie "Passion of the Christ". Because the movie identifies Jews as being part of the crucifiction of Christ, Gibson was labelled an Anti-Semite.

* Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In speaking of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, she said that "the root cause of the Arab- Israeli conflict is the occupation." She was subsequently shamed in public, one professor at the University at which she was to speak remarking he was "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak".**

* Batman Returns, for the "anti-semitic" symbolism of the Penguin as an evil Jew.

* The Bible, for making Jews appear "immoral" and "lusty for blood."

* Multiple news organizations, for presenting a pro-Palestinian view in their media regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


I remember reading in a famous U.S. year book(The American Peoples Encyclopedia Yearbook, I forget the year) and a few newspapers with all sorts of speculations and sometimes outright accusations of Jimmy Carter of all people being Anti-Semitic after pressing to make the Camp David deal with Egypt and Israel. It's utter hysteria.

Wild-Eyes wrote:Think about us as a society now. We are, in essence, hyper-sensitive to the "Jewish Issue". This revolves around two central events: the Holocaust of WWII and the existance (and conflicts revolving around) the State of Israel. Two of the most popular and greatest slandars used today are "Nazi" and "Anti-Semite", terms which carry more weight than "racist". It is clear that the Jewish Holocaust has created a syndrome within our society in which it is not only improper to bring criticism against any Jewish organization or state, but it is also immoral and, in some places, illegal.


Yes, Jewish organizations have used the Holocaust as a club to attack any dissent against, well, virtually anything Jewish. In regards to the usage of Nazi as an insult and the general feelings of the Holocaust, or the importance of solidarity with Israel, if you look, those feelings didn't exist in say 1945, or 1955, or later. They really started in the late 60's, the years Israel had finally proven itself as the perfect "cop on the beat." During that time, U.S. propagandists used extensive methods to "bring back" the Holocaust in a sense, and over the years Israel became the darling of the United States. This has been exploited by fraudsters and thugs like the World Jewish Congress and numerous Jewish corporations to create an atmosphere which mirrors the one you described. That's why we have Holocaust memorials in the United States(Which merit another discussion altogether, why isn't there much representation for Roma suffering as there is Jewish? Why is it standard for Holocaust historians to believe Jews suffered more than Roma during the Holocaust?). Imagine if Germany built a giant museum to commemorate the suffering of Native Americans. :shock: Another question, with an obvious answer to anyone who wants to realistic: Why is the Holocaust considered 'unique?' Why is it always emphasized, and being prioritized over other's people's suffering? And for that matter, why is Jewish suffering in history often considered more dramatic than other people's suffering? Jews are literally steretyped as the suffering ethnic group. When someone criticizes Israel, the hardliners will call them Nazis, while the moderates will say: 'You have to understand Jews experienced the Holocaust, we have been discriminate against throughout history.' That's why no U.S. Presidential canidate who hopes to win can even try to criticize Israel's assassination of a Hamas leader for a tiny example. And people who write books or state their opinions that criticize Israel, or make a movie about Jews being responsible for Jesus' 'death' are slandered, fire from their jobs, and other methods. It's like I said, a club.

But there's something very odd about this paranoia, especially in the United States where it is most frequent. Namely, Jews are doing well, they are one of the most powerful ethnic groups, why does this continue? It obviously has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism.

That's incidentally why people like Norman Finkelstein, a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors, is labeled as a "Holocaust revisionist," a "self-hating Jew," "something you find under a rock," and a "clone of David Irving" for writings books on Israeli crimes against Palestinians and how the Holocaust has been exploited, particularly by groups claiming to be collecting "Holocaust compensation." I had to mention Norman Finkelstein, because to his credit, most of the things I have said were ideas I read from him, and his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering which I really urge people to read.

Wild-Eyes wrote:Has our society, both western and global, transitioned into a new era of thought-crimes, in which that which is not Pro-Israel is Anti-Semite, and the questioning of past events is criminal? Are we now seeing a new brand of heresy, in which one who is skeptical of any Israeli policy, or of the numbers and truth of the Holocaust of WWII, is one who becomes a heretic and a criminal? And are we beginning to see other thought crimes spring up as well in our society?


Obviously, from my statements above: yes.
TheGreatNads
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:02 am
Location: nowhere new, ever

Unread postby GummyBears » Sat May 01, 2004 7:48 am

I agree with what The Great Nads had to say about the issue, but I think it's also how we were raised as a generation. I know I was raised learning that racism was bad. Every year the schools I attended held some special Holocaust symposium of sorts for the students. Doesn't all this makes people of Jewish descent feel more pressured? I don't think the majority of the Jews that live everywhere want to exploit their past history. It's like a select few radicals that sway the opinions so much. Even online I see people using the term Jew as an insult. I play an online game and I mess up. One of the most common insults given to someone who messes up is "You stupid Jew". I don't think this thought crime has become anything people are fearing but something that people are regretting more and more til anti-semitism is at a high much like back in the days of WW2.
GummyBears
Tyro
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 7:42 am

Unread postby TheGreatNads » Sat May 01, 2004 7:59 am

GummyBears wrote:I agree with what The Great Nads had to say about the issue, but I think it's also how we were raised as a generation. I know I was raised learning that racism was bad. Every year the schools I attended held some special Holocaust symposium of sorts for the students. Doesn't all this makes people of Jewish descent feel more pressured? I don't think the majority of the Jews that live everywhere want to exploit their past history. It's like a select few radicals that sway the opinions so much. Even online I see people using the term Jew as an insult. I play an online game and I mess up. One of the most common insults given to someone who messes up is "You stupid Jew". I don't think this thought crime has become anything people are fearing but something that people are regretting more and more til anti-semitism is at a high much like back in the days of WW2.


Yes I should say, groups like the World Jewish Congress, and people exploiting Jewish suffering do not represent the views of Jews. That's one of the reasons I mentioned Norman Finkelstein. The dramatism of Jewish suffering does corrupt some, but still, it is certainly not true to say that Jews want to exploit their history or for that matter, don't care about the suffering of Palestinians, Roma, or anyone else.

I agree with you that Anti-Semitism is certainly around and perhaps rising, and especially is the stereotype that Jews want to, as I recently heard, "screw people out of things." And that stereotype and ones like it, have a lot to do with the sort of fraudsters and propagandists I mentioned, who frustrate and anger people by the way they dramatize the Holocaust, or deny Palestinian suffering, or criticize Mel Gibson and others for such ridicolous reasons. People are sick of hearing about the Holocaust, and when it is mentioned by an ethnic group, who at least in the United States, are relatively well-off in general, it breeds Anti-Semitism.



And since this is your first post, let me say, welcome to the board.
TheGreatNads
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:02 am
Location: nowhere new, ever

Unread postby GummyBears » Sat May 01, 2004 8:21 am

Thanks

I never knew the Penguin was Jewish... If you look at a point of view of a Jewish person, more of our generation, they seem to be more expressive and more free thinkers as in the fact they don't use past histories as a crutch. Many of my friends who are Jewish and Arabic seem to hate the media's attention on them. It puts them in almost a state of fear or denial. Also Media's coverage on people of certain background whether it be religious or ehtnic I think further flames the hate between the majority and the minority. I really don't understand why these groups for and focus so much attention on their people when I think most of the time they don't want it. Media attention makes it seem like minorites are special. Who wants that?
GummyBears
Tyro
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 7:42 am

Unread postby JCC » Sat May 01, 2004 10:04 am

Wild-Eyes wrote:Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary*
Anti-Semitism:
1: hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination.
2: opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel

The first is a term that has been accepted in use since 1849. The second is the broad political usage of the term that many Israelis and Jewish people utilize to label anyone who expresses dissent over Israel and its policies as anti-Semites.

Personally I tend to go with the first definition, myself. "Anti-Semitism" to me is just a group-specific term that falls under the more general term "racism". Seems to me anti-Zionism would be a better term for the second definition, and that the second definition is stereotypical itself in assuming that every Semite is a Zionist, and unfair in stating that one bears hostility toward Jews as a group by simply not supporting the state of Israel.

Thought crime laws against anti-Semitism exist in Germany and France (and, I am sure, many other places).

The recognition of anything as a "thought crime", regardless of how despicable the thought in question happens to be, is ultimately not conducive to a free society, and in this case serves as a prime example of why this issue needs to be looked at more closely.

Examples of "Criminals":
* Ernst Zundel, a Revisionist. His basic stances are an objection to the term "THE Holocaust" (instead of merely the Jewish Holocaust), a belief that the Holocaust numbers are greatly exaggerated, that there was not a Jewish extermination policy (rather, a combination of expellation from Europe combined with the use of extermination camps), and that there were no gas chambers. He has faced numerous censorships along the way from the Canadian government, including denial of citizenship, suggested extradition to Germany, postal bans, seizure of passports and bank accounts, criminal accusations of spreading "false news", and charges for "inciting hatred". There is far more than I can cover here, and I suggest if you are truly interested, to do research on your own about the man. Many other Revionists have followed in his footsteps.

I agree with him 100% as far as preferring the term "the Jewish Holocaust" to "the Holocaust". There have been plenty of other events in world history that could have been described as holocausts, such as those suffered by Haitians under the Dominican Republic and by Armenians under the Ottoman Turks. While the Jewish Holocaust was on a much larger scale than either of these, it should not hold a monopoly on the term and thus minimize their significance.

As for the rest of Zundel's claims, I strongly disagree with them. Any evidence I've ever seen of the Jewish Holocaust shows that claims of its extreme nature are certainly valid and that the intent was most certainly extermination. However, there's nothing hateful or racist about expressing an opposing theory, particularly if he's found evidence which in his mind supports it. He's committed nothing which I would call a crime, and in fact I would consider the threats of deportation, seizure of his bank accounts, etc., to be a violation of his rights, and the censorship of his works to be, quite simply, oppressive.

* Mel Gibson, and the movie "Passion of the Christ". Because the movie identifies Jews as being part of the crucifiction of Christ, Gibson was labelled an Anti-Semite.

What really is there to say about this, other than that's it's silly? Yes, "silly" is, without a doubt, the best way to describe the absolutely unfounded accusations made against this movie. The movie is based on a story in the Bible, and one of the most well-known stories of all time, no less. There really wasn't much room for Gibson to take liberties in how he presented it. In the story from the Bible, the Jews played a major role in the crucifiction of Christ. In the movie based on the story from the Bible, the Jews played a major role in the crucifiction of Christ. What did people expect?

Also, the Romans weren't portrayed very nicely either. In fact, it is the Romans and not the Jews who are the perpetrators of violence against Jesus in the scourging scene, which most people I've talked to consider to be the film's most brutal. Yet I've seen no complaints accusing Gibson of being anti-Roman.

* Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In speaking of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, she said that "the root cause of the Arab- Israeli conflict is the occupation." She was subsequently shamed in public, one professor at the University at which she was to speak remarking he was "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak".**

* Multiple news organizations, for presenting a pro-Palestinian view in their media regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Also ridiculous. Personally, I'm a major supporter of the state of Israel both in general and in its handling of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, that shouldn't mean that someone whose opinion is different should be shut down for it. There are many ways someone can look at the situation, and anyone should be allowed to express whichever one they feel is most valid.

* Batman Returns, for the "anti-semitic" symbolism of the Penguin as an evil Jew.

This is alot like the "Passion of the Christ" situation (though on a different level, of course), in that the Penguin character has been portrayed a certain way for a very long time, and in making a movie that includes the character, one has to portray it as it's always been portrayed. Even so, I didn't notice any Jewish stereotypes in the movie, or even any indication that the Penguin was Jewish.

* The Bible, for making Jews appear "immoral" and "lusty for blood."

If anything, the Bible is extremely pro-Jewish. In nearly every story after that of Abraham, the descendants of his son Isaac are portrayed as the protagonists and face hardship after hardship at the hands of others. Of course there are examples in which individual Jewish people, or even groups of them as in the story of the crucifiction, are portrayed negatively, but as a whole God continually favors them throughout the Bible.

Think about us as a society now. We are, in essence, hyper-sensitive to the "Jewish Issue". This revolves around two central events: the Holocaust of WWII and the existance (and conflicts revolving around) the State of Israel. Two of the most popular and greatest slandars used today are "Nazi" and "Anti-Semite", terms which carry more weight than "racist". It is clear that the Jewish Holocaust has created a syndrome within our society in which it is not only improper to bring criticism against any Jewish organization or state, but it is also immoral and, in some places, illegal.

This is most definitely true, as I've personally witnessed this past week when some comments I made in jest were ridiculously overreacted to by people who know me well enough to know I'm by no means anti-Semitic, or racist in any way. What people need to realize is that the Jewish Holocaust did happen, and while it was indeed one of the most horrible events in recent history (if not the most horrible), that this should not mean it should never again be spoken of or that a Jewish person can do no wrong because of it.

While we cannot deny that there was a great wrong done to Jews in WWII, we must also consider that our sympathy for the plight they endured should not override our sense of values and virtues. We must not be afraid, as many are today, to question anything Jewish because to do so is to be labelled with one of the highest brands of prejudice in our society. We must certainly not allow such empathy for the victims of the Holocaust to censor our freedom of thought, a right far greater than even our freedom of speech. To merely think about an event critically should never be a crime. In a society that has supposedly "evolved", it is fearful as to what these trends may mean.

I have nothing to say about the above paragraph, other than "seconded". Excellently, excellently put.

Has our society, both western and global, transitioned into a new era of thought-crimes, in which that which is not Pro-Israel is Anti-Semite, and the questioning of past events is criminal? Are we now seeing a new brand of heresy, in which one who is skeptical of any Israeli policy, or of the numbers and truth of the Holocaust of WWII, is one who becomes a heretic and a criminal? And are we beginning to see other thought crimes spring up as well in our society?

Yes, yes, and I certainly wouldn't doubt it.

GummyBears wrote:I agree with what The Great Nads had to say about the issue, but I think it's also how we were raised as a generation. I know I was raised learning that racism was bad. Every year the schools I attended held some special Holocaust symposium of sorts for the students. Doesn't all this makes people of Jewish descent feel more pressured? I don't think the majority of the Jews that live everywhere want to exploit their past history.

I see nothing wrong with learning about the Jewish Holocaust in schools. It's a very significant historical event, and thus should be learned about just like every historical event of significance should. The problem is when references of it are invoked to label someone as anti-Semitic for opposing something done by a Jewish person or group of Jewish people.
User avatar
JCC
Mod! Law!
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:31 pm

Unread postby Mitsunari Ishida » Sat May 01, 2004 8:56 pm

Wild-Eyes wrote:* Mel Gibson, and the movie "Passion of the Christ". Because the movie identifies Jews as being part of the crucifiction of Christ, Gibson was labelled an Anti-Semite.


I don't find this to be against the Jews in anyway. If in history something happens, it should be dipicted in the film. It doesn't matter if people don't agree with it, its controvacy and we need it at the moment. The American media is under threat from becoming a big sissy.

Wild-Eyes wrote:* Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In speaking of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, she said that "the root cause of the Arab- Israeli conflict is the occupation." She was subsequently shamed in public, one professor at the University at which she was to speak remarking he was "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak".**


I don't see why someone shouldn't express their opinion. There is nothing wrong with what she is saying. The only bad thing was if she was to act on them which is unlikey. I am not against Jews in anyway but I feel there should be a proper Palestinian state.

Wild-Eyes wrote:* Batman Returns, for the "anti-semitic" symbolism of the Penguin as an evil Jew."


Another pointless way for people to complain. If you don't like it, don't watch it. A pretend film animal that doesn't exist shouldn't hurt anyones feelings.

Wild-Eyes wrote:* The Bible, for making Jews appear "immoral" and "lusty for blood."


If they were like that, write it down. If you don't like it, don't read it, its not compulsory.

Wild-Eyes wrote:* Multiple news organizations, for presenting a pro-Palestinian view in their media regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


There should never be biased news channels, in any form. There are anti-arab news channels as well, they arn't the only ones.
Mitsunari Ishida
Scholar
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 9:21 pm
Location: England

Unread postby Ts'ao Jian » Mon May 03, 2004 7:35 pm

Some of it is just idiocy. The very concept of a "thought crime" is ultimately just a limiter on unpopular opinions and thus, freedom of speech. While sometimes there is anti-Semitism (Neo-Nazi groups, etc.), every little thing should not be considered as such. I agree with Mitsunari Ishida that people should be allowed to express their opinions, and that some of this is just idiocy (Gibson, Batman, etc.). I see a difference between thinking that Jews are evil and discriminating against them, and simply writing/showing what you believe happened that they were involved in. People are allowed to have opposing opinions, but taking it too far is the problem. While a movie can criticize their actions, or show that someone is anti-Zionist (or anti-Israel...), that doesn't mean that they are any more racist than a movie that shows support for the South in the American Civil War. While such things can be racist, that doesn't mean that it is, or that, even if it is, it should be banned.
I hope that makes sense, I'm just typing as it comes to me...
Now heroes are men who cherish lofty designs in their bosoms and have plans to achieve them; they have all-embracing schemes, and the whole world is at their mercy. -Ts'ao Ts'ao

Hell is other people. -Tagline of No Exit
Ts'ao Jian
Langzhong
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Somewhere... maybe.

Unread postby Song Jiang » Tue May 04, 2004 2:28 am

I myself am a jew though only by birth. I consider myself to have little or no religious affiliation at all. However, i do think that there is much wrong with the world and anti-semitism. I myslef am against Israel, i believe there should be a bi-national state for both the jews and the palestinians. But am i an anti-semite, no. I have no hatred towards the jews at all. I am anti-zionistic, not anti semetic. And i do believe that the entire anti semetic topic is extremly sensitive. However, there are many other topics as so. I am in school, and some of my jewish friends say, we have to kill all of the dirty arabs. It makes me sick. yet, we see neo-facists saying we have to kill all of the jews, sickening as well. Yet, when it comes to the media, people have to realize the truth. The passion is not true. many of the depicted events were altered to make the movie more dramatic. The movie is based off of one passion play written by a crazy woman centuries ago.( or so i have been told). yet i do know many of the facts are not true. However, i do not believe that only anti-semtiism is rampant or that it is the only big issue. right now, americans and jews alike must deal with the anti-arab sentiments we have. Not all arabs are bad, the same, not all jews are rich. It is such a touch issue.
When i sit in class at school, and people dont know the difference between Teddy and Roosevelt and FDR, it makes me sad, i almost want to cry.
Song Jiang
Initiate
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:09 am
Location: The marsh of course.

Unread postby Tigger of Kai » Tue May 04, 2004 6:58 pm

Didn't the North American colonists, to use what seems to be the favorite example, kill even more innocent people, using methods that were just as offensive as those employed by the Nazis? Doesn't this show that the slavery/extermination of one-third of the European jewry over a span of 2-4 years wasn't really all that bad?

Unlike my relativist friends, I am not so quick to dismiss my moral intuitions here. Cold utilitarian calculations cannot tell us which crimes are worse than others. Sexual abuse, for example, becomes a significantly more odious crime when the victim is a child. Why is this? I think it is because every child possesses an intrinsic innocence, and seeing that innocence fouled in such a way makes the crime especially bad. Similarly, in Nazism we saw the perversion of the most dearly-held values of the civilized West: patriotism, love of science and technology, repect for law and order - all of these were thrown back in our faces in the ugliest possible way, and with the worst imaginable consequences. Evil of this kind leaves a mark; it would even if there was no Israeli occupation, or even if there were no Jews left at all.

Whether or not you agree with the above ethical analysis, you probably believe that there is a middle ground between being anti-Zionist and being pro-Nazi. Ernst Zundel (he's the one in the center) most emphatically does not. Neo-Nazis of Zundel's ilk see themselves as engaged in an "us vs. them" struggle with the Jews, and the idea that we should start referring to "the Jewish Holocaust" is a rather transparent attempt to cast that tragedy as "their problem". And of course calling it that would effectively ignore the suffering of the 4 million homosexuals, Communists, trade unionists and other undesirables who also suffered and died in the Nazi death camps. Also, a word on thought crime: a few stupid dictionary editors do not constitute a Thought Police. They are simply and demonstrably wrong, and the rest of us have the right and the duty to call them on it.

...

My term in a segregationist Catholic school here in Toronto was where I first learned that anti-Semitism is not like the other prejudices. There were many students who did not like blacks or homosexuals, for example, but they did not believe that these groups were taking over Wall Street and Hollywood as a prelude to world domination. Nor did they accuse them of murdering Jesus Christ. During this time I also saw how anti-Semitism requires "doublethink", to continue the Orwell theme: on this view, the Jews are both capitalist plutocrats and the sinister genius behind Communism, at the same time. In the Muslim world especially this kind of filthy libel has come back in a big way, along with belief in proven frauds like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And don't even get me started about reactionary Christian nutbars like Mel Gibson. So I can't blame some Jews when they fantasize about a place where they can be safe from all of this - I think I would like to join them there. The great failure of Zionism is the inability to recognize that such a place must necessarily be a secular democracy.

Some worthwhile things have been said so far about the big tent of anti-Zionist Jews (by the way, "self-hating" is the last adjective I'd ever use for old Norm. Check out this cartoon picture of himself that he posts on his website - is that Norman Finkelstein or Paul Newman?). It should be added that before 1948, the only anti-Zionists were Jewish. Arthur Balfour was a British anti-Semite, and author of the infamous Balfour Declaration calling for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In response, the anti-Zionist Jews back then had a slogan:
When the anti-Semites say 'Jews get out', the Zionists offer to be the travel agent.
Hasidic Jews have always refused to recognize the State of Israel, which they regard as a bogus and atheistic barrier to the coming of the Messiah.

There are a few Israeli partisans who, in desperation, will assert that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. To some people, apparently, this signifies the onset of a sinister Orwellian dystopia. To me it is just pathetic, and easily dealt with.
Last edited by Tigger of Kai on Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mithril! The dwarves tell no tales. But just as it was the foundation of their wealth, so also it was their destruction. They delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled.
User avatar
Tigger of Kai
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 12:26 am
Location: Scarborough, Canada

Next

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved