Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mo_reese]

The "war" didn't start on 10/7. Israel has for decades been pushing, abusing and arresting and imprisoning thousands of Palestinians without charge. We largely didn't hear about it because the US government had no problems with it so their corporate "state" media didn't cover it as they don't cover anything that might embarrass the government or 1%. But something different happened after 10/7. While the state media was glad to broadcast the alleged atrocities of Hamas they didn't report on those by the IDF, including the fact that the IDF stood down seemingly to allow the attack and that many of the 1400 dead were killed by the IDF friendly-fire. Also, the IDF came out with fantastic horror stories that were unbelievable. While the "state" media was happy to tell Israel's story, the 99% public were seeing a different story playing out on social media and independent journalism. With the spotlight on, the stories like that of the beheaded babies were being easily debunked. Not by the NYT or MSNBC but by independent people via social media. While Biden and Democratic Elites are willing to support genocide the 99% class are not. This put the NYT and CNN in a tight spot as people could easily see they were not being honest. This has nothing to do with anit-Semitism at CNN and NYT but the fact that, unlike other atrocities, those by Israel couldn't be hidden by the 1% Class.

The 1% will try to kill social media like they killed wikileaks.

[Sy Borg]

Wrong again. It's just logic, observing the situation.

There is nothing special about this conflict. There are others that are worse, but this one takes priority due to the influence of the still-powerful anti-Semitic movements.

[Good_Egg]

I think what you're describing here is what Wikipedia calls a "prejudicial distinction". Treating a person differently because you have pre-judged them, based on their membership of some group.

Yes, I think that's right.

Are you saying that holding and acting on an underlying attitude that blacks/Jews/Republicans are likely to be more than averagely criminal/miserly/hard-hearted/whatever is discrimination, whether this prejudice involves feeling of animosity or not ?

Yes, I think so.

So a person who, based on their experience, pre-judges Jews as tending to be wealthy or well-educated, is guilty of discrimination ? Whether that prejudice is true or not ?

But presumably if their attitude to wealthy well-educated people is entirely positive then that isn't anti-semitism ? It is possible to discriminate for or against any group ? To be biased either way ?

But if that someone dismisses wealthy and well-educated people as not warranting our sympathy, and treats them less favourably than others (those in whom they discern some level of victimhood) then they are discriminating against Jews and are thus anti-semitic ?

[amorphos_ii]

I don’t see why there needs to be ambiguity in categorical distinction. If a person makes a complaint that does not include the sub-category of the given race, then it is not racist.

Then as always there will be inferences of racism, which is far more interpretable. If people ‘lump things in-together’, there is a danger of it being used as a shield, and we arrive at the complaint; ‘you can’t say anything about the Jews, without it and you[ad-hominem] being classified as anti-Semitic.

[Pattern-chaser]

Every day there's another featured pity piece from the supposed "pro Israel press" about the plight of some small group of Palestinians...

Here in the UK, our newspapers (the "press") and TV are solidly pro-Israel, as our elected leaders are. It's only on social media, and on our streets, that any support for the plight of the Palestinian people becomes evident. The protests reflect only that the voice of the 'common' people is not being reported, and so it's not being heard. This may all be different in other countries. Any comments from any of those other countries?

Every day our articles are either:

1) something sad in Palestine

2) sad Palestinian children

3) Our foreign minister calling:
a) for a ceasefire
b) to give more funding to Palestine
c) expressing concern.

And zero pieces covering other humanitarian crises. The hypocrisy of it all is astonishing.

I searched for this, but only managed to find mention of Oz restoring funding to the UNRWA, nothing about giving "more funding to Palestine". Maybe I've simply failed to find the news you mention?

[Pattern-chaser]

I think what you're describing here is what Wikipedia calls a "prejudicial distinction". Treating a person differently because you have pre-judged them, based on their membership of some group.

Yes, I think that's right.

Are you saying that holding and acting on an underlying attitude that blacks/Jews/Republicans are likely to be more than averagely criminal/miserly/hard-hearted/whatever is discrimination, whether this prejudice involves feeling of animosity or not ?

Yes, I think so.

So a person who, based on their experience, pre-judges Jews as tending to be wealthy or well-educated, is guilty of discrimination ? Whether that prejudice is true or not ?

It's my understanding that discrimination is making negative comments or assumptions about a particular group. In your particular example, it's about portraying Jews as miserly skinflints, or the like, not praising their wealth or education.

But presumably if their attitude to wealthy well-educated people is entirely positive then that isn't anti-semitism ? It is possible to discriminate for or against any group ? To be biased either way ?

But if that someone dismisses wealthy and well-educated people as not warranting our sympathy, and treats them less favourably than others (those in whom they discern some level of victimhood) then they are discriminating against Jews and are thus anti-semitic ?

I'm still trying to avoid the intentionally-misleading term "anti-Semitism", and go instead with the catch-all parent term, "discrimination". And yes, I can read the words of the topic title, but there are those who will insist that negative political observations concerning the political state of Israel are "anti-Semitic". By that measure, I am strongly anti-Semitic, as my opinion of the actions of Israel are disapproving. And yet I do not, and would never, discriminate against those of the Jewish faith *because* they are Jewish. So can we say "discrimination", for clarity?

[Belinda]

Pattern-Chaser wrote:

"I'm still trying to avoid the intentionally-misleading term "anti-Semitism", and go instead with the catch-all parent term, "discrimination". And yes, I can read the words of the topic title, but there are those who will insist that negative political observations concerning the political state of Israel are "anti-Semitic". By that measure, I am strongly anti-Semitic, as my opinion of the actions of Israel are disapproving. And yet I do not, and would never, discriminate against those of the Jewish faith *because* they are Jewish. So can we say "discrimination", for clarity?"

(Would someone please advise me how to put an extract from another's post into a quotation 'box' ? That format seems only applicable to entire posts, or is it?)

Pattern-Chaser I accept your good suggestion. Discrimination it is!
However maybe we still need to look into the state of Judaism the religion : is it discrininatory?
I understand that zionism is a nineteenth century invention that was deliberately inserted into Judaism. However is there something Scriptural that perpetuates the "Promised Land" notion that I learned about long ago at school, as a Christian child.
Moreover I wonder if the promised land myth is common to most if not all religions or if it applies only to those cultures that colonise and own land.

[Pattern-chaser]

(Would someone please advise me how to put an extract from another's post into a quotation 'box' ? That format seems only applicable to entire posts, or is it?)

Just use the double-quotes button above the post, as usual, and then delete the bits you don't want (to quote). Just remember that what it shows you is HTML, and HTML commands always come in pairs. So a "Quote" (in square brackets, not double quotes) always has a matching "/Quote" (ditto), and so on for other commands too. You need to be careful that, after your editing is complete, you don't have any lost heads or tails (of commands), or you will end up with a Big Mess. It's also Bad News if you accidentally knock the "]" off the end of a command, or the leading "[" from the beginning. This will stop it from being a command, and chaos may result...

You can always check if you've got it right by using the "Preview" button.

However maybe we still need to look into the state of Judaism the religion : is it discriminatory?

One of the Sikh gurus teaches and advises respect for the teachings and followers of other faiths. I'm sure the opposite could be the case, and if it was, then I suppose we could consider that faith to be discriminatory. But is that a useful inquiry, I wonder? There are many entities that could act in a discriminatory fashion, just as individuals can. I see no particular need to focus on Judaism, do you?

[Sy Borg]

Every day there's another featured pity piece from the supposed "pro Israel press" about the plight of some small group of Palestinians...

Here in the UK, our newspapers (the "press") and TV are solidly pro-Israel, as our elected leaders are. It's only on social media, and on our streets, that any support for the plight of the Palestinian people becomes evident. The protests reflect only that the voice of the 'common' people is not being reported, and so it's not being heard. This may all be different in other countries. Any comments from any of those other countries?

Every day our articles are either:

1) something sad in Palestine

2) sad Palestinian children

3) Our foreign minister calling:
a) for a ceasefire
b) to give more funding to Palestine
c) expressing concern.

And zero pieces covering other humanitarian crises. The hypocrisy of it all is astonishing.

I searched for this, but only managed to find mention of Oz restoring funding to the UNRWA, nothing about giving "more funding to Palestine". Maybe I've simply failed to find the news you mention?

Money for the UNRWA is money for Palestine. You will notice that the daily pity pieces continue. I see half a dozen or more per day. I think I might have seen one or two pity pieces about the plight of Sudanese innocents in the last decade.

[Gertie]

Belindi

I understand that zionism is a nineteenth century invention that was deliberately inserted into Judaism. However is there something Scriptural that perpetuates the "Promised Land" notion that I learned about long ago at school, as a Christian child.
Moreover I wonder if the promised land myth is common to most if not all religions or if it applies only to those cultures that colonise and own land.

We have a pretty good history (at least partly mythologised)  of the Jewish people as an ethno-religious tribal group.  I don't know how common it was in the times of the ancient Hebrews, but they had a sad record of being invaded and occupied, or exiled and enslaved by their invaders.   They did a  bit of that themselves too.  Their ''Promised Land'' was Canaan, it was promised by Yahweh to Abraham and his descendents, and it's where Moses led the Jews to after exile in Egypt.  

Jerusalem was made the site for Solomon's original  Temple, which contained the Holy of Holies,  a sort of holiday home for Yahweh's visits to his Chosen People. Babylonian invaders destroyed Solomon's Temple, but it was re-built, and the Second Temple was at the centre of the great Jewish religious festivals - like how Jesus came to Jerusalem for the Passover and turned over the outer Temple money-lenders' tables causing a  ruckus- the rest as they say, is Christianity.  The Romans destroyed the Second Temple during a rebellion a bit after Jesus' time (around the time of the first Gospel, Mark's, in AD 70), causing yet more dispersion, but the ruins are still venerated. Anyway, one way or another the Jewish diaspora made them an ethno-religion of immigrants dispersed all over the place.  And they were often treated with suspicion and animosity as immigrants still are, with the extra burden of being the 'Christ killers'.  

Lots of  myths grew up about Jews as the immigrant 'other', like the medieval  'Blood Libel' that they sacrificed Christian babies in rituals,  and the cursed Wandering Jew.  And there are more trendy ones like the  Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, going back at least to The Protocols of Zion.  And today when you see neo-fascists and anti-immigrant marchers chanting 'They will not replace us' and 'Blood and Soil'  they're directly mimicking Nazi nationalists.

Zionism is understandable given that history, and finally the genocidal displacement of WWII led to Britain deciding to give a chunk of modern day Palestine to the Jews.   Like you do.   Jerusalem is still the holiest place on earth for Christians and Jews, and Mohammed has some important connection too, and the sacred Dome of the Rock Islamic temple was built on the old Hebrew Temple Mount (rude!). 

So Jerusalem in particular is a religious as well as territorial hot potato.  You also have a bunch of  evangelical Christians who've convinced themselves that it's prophesied Jesus's second coming can only happen when the Jews re-occupy the Promised Land.  These are Christian Zionists.  I don't know how much sway they have in American politics, but it doesn't help. Biden is a disgrace in his own right. And Trump moved the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as an FU to Palestine, as was his Jewish son-in-law's proposed 'peace plan'. The same bloke now in the midst of a genocide -

''Jared Kushner has praised the “very valuable” potential of Gaza’s “waterfront property” and suggested Israel should remove civilians while it “cleans up” the strip.

The former property dealer, married to Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, made the comments in an interview at Harvard University on 8 March.''

- Guardian. 

[Pattern-chaser]

Money for the UNRWA is money for Palestine.

UNRWA is surely about providing relief, as in "United Nations Relief and Works Agency"? The money is to buy food and water for hungry and thirsty people.

[Pattern-chaser]

...the genocidal displacement of WWII led to Britain deciding to give a chunk of modern day Palestine to the Jews.

I think it was the UK and the US, who coerced the UN into going along with it, too. They 'gave' the Jews 55% () of someone else's land — Palestine. They did it to appease the Jewish terrorists who were bombing and maiming innocent civilians (ring any bells?) until their demands for a Jewish homeland were met. Just as Neville Chamberlain tried (but failed, in his case) to appease Hitler and his Nazi cohorts.

A very sad state of affairs.

[Sy Borg]

Money for the UNRWA is money for Palestine.

UNRWA is surely about providing relief, as in "United Nations Relief and Works Agency"? The money is to buy food and water for hungry and thirsty people.

It was but Hamas has been taking aid from that agency for some time. https://unwatch.org/evidence-of-unrwa-a ... tober-7th/

- UNRWA members participated in the attack

- UNRWA aid bags in the subterranean hideout of Hamas Gaza chief Yahya Sinwar

- UNRWA supplies premises, electricity to Hamas

- UNRWA aid used by Hamas

- UNRWA facilities used for Hamas weapons storage

- UNRWA aid stolen by Hamas

- UNRWA aid bags used by Hamas to store equipment

- UN equipment used by Hamas. UN vests were found together with ammunition and explosives, some inside UNRWA aid bags

- UNRWA school used as base to fire weapons

- Hamas fires rockets from near UN facility

- Hamas tunnel located near UNRWA school

[Gertie]

...the genocidal displacement of WWII led to Britain deciding to give a chunk of modern day Palestine to the Jews.

I think it was the UK and the US, who coerced the UN into going along with it, too. They 'gave' the Jews 55% () of someone else's land — Palestine. They did it to appease the Jewish terrorists who were bombing and maiming innocent civilians (ring any bells?) until their demands for a Jewish homeland were met. Just as Neville Chamberlain tried (but failed, in his case) to appease Hitler and his Nazi cohorts.

A very sad state of affairs.

Yes the Nakba never ends...

[Good_Egg]

It's my understanding that discrimination is making negative comments or assumptions about a particular group.

A militant atheist might make negative comments about all religions even-handedly. Is that discrimination ?

I would say no - if they apply the same standard to the Judaic religion as to any other then they are not discriminating against Jews.

So can we say "discrimination", for clarity?

Unfortunately there seems to be a big lack of clarity in what you think discrimination consists of...

If you think that all nations have a right to defend themselves except Israel, then you are applying a double standard.

The people who lose from that double standard are those who count the state of Israel as their homeland.

That is discrimination against Jews.

In the same way that if you think that all nations except France deserve something positive (respect ? A seat at the UN ? Whatever) then you are discriminating against French people.

The people you are discriminating against are those on the wrong side of your double standard.

You may well protest that you are not motivated by any feeling against Jewishness as such. I don't doubt that such a protest is true. I'm observing that you do not appear to make such a requirement part of the definition of discrimination when you apply the concept to the actions of others.