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

[Belinda]

Netanyahu I am a better Jew than you:


Ah, you who join house to house,
who add field to field,
until there is room for none but you,
and you are left to live alone
in the midst of the land. (Isaiah 5:8)

[Sy Borg]

This exchange is not a political or ideological one. It's more basic than that. You claim that anyone who criticises Israel without taking into account — and citing, clearly! — every other vaguely-similar situation across the world, is "anti-Semitic" (which term, in this case, must mean anti-Israel, as the target of criticism is Israel, not Jews or the Jewish faith).

No, I am saying that an intense laser focus on this issue while completely ignoring others, some of which are worse, is clearly and obviously an anti-Semitic bias.

Anti-Semitism has infected academia, even to the top universities. This is proven and well-documented. So, many of those who relied on "trusted sources" are having their heads filled with anti-Semitic cultural Marxism.

The anti-Semitism of universities filters through to journalists and other influential graduates, who automatically adopt their learned anti-Semitic attitudes without actually feeling to same hostility towards Jews as the cultural Marxists who invaded western academic institutions.

Thus, if Israel does anything considered to be wrong (such as defending itself from Iran and it's Palestinian proxies) the media will be all over it, and their every move will be examined with a fine toothed comb. Even the UN is wildly anti-Semitic, with over half of its resolutions being aimed at Israel - and less than half aimed at all of the rest of the world. It's outrageous, and people just accept it as normal, because anti-Semitic journalists don't report it.

Only recently have there been articles (ironically) decrying the international community's neglect of Sudan while being focused on Palestine. Imagine if the media and its followers (including forum members who are on the Palestine bandwagon) pored over the dubious actions of Sudan's RSF the way they did to Israel. There would be hardly any room for other news.

[LuckyR]

Well, the reality is that Jews have a legitimate reason to complain about how they have been historically treated. Just as US blacks have a similar reason to complain.

However, when people make the decision to exercise their legitimate "right" to so complain, they create increased scrutiny of how they treat others, ie. many want to verify that the complainers are free of the behavior that they are complaining about in others.

Because US blacks are not a major part of the power structure, they generally pass this extra scrutiny since, as a group they're usually not in a position to disenfranchise other groups. Israel, as a country and Jews, as a group however are subject to this criticism (hence headlines and this thread). Though one could argue, logically, that this is a completely predictable situation, given the choices made.

[Good_Egg]

The constant attacks on Israel while ignoring equivalent and worse issues in multiple places in the world (not just Sudan) is simply anti-Semitic. There's no getting away from it.

I disagree with the "simply".

The meaning of words is how they are used.

I think we all agree that antisemitism is discrimination against Jews. Where people disagree - use words differently - is around the concept of discrimination itself. Specifically how far the intent to "pick on" a particular group is necessary in order for an act to be discriminatory. Which is related to the level of moral disapproval that should be attached to discrimination.

PC is right to point out that we humans have limited mental capacity and attention span. If you or I should choose to spout about Gaza today, Ukraine tomorrow and Sudan only the day after that, for innocent reasons to do with our human limitations, there is no evil in that.

"Should implies can". We cannot take in everything in one go and then rationally prioritise our attention based on a sound understanding of every situation. Thus it is misleading to imply that we should.

But you are entirely right to point out that bias exists. That loud condemnation of the perceived crimes of Israel while excusing or ignoring equally-serious or more-serious crimes elsewhere is uncomfortable for those who have an attachment to Israel, i.e. Jews.

So that - if you believe that bias does not have to be malicious in order to count as the crime of discrimination, which some clearly do - then such condemnation is antisemitic.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser:
"So would it be acceptable to create a topic to discuss the Sudanese conflict? "

Since dictator Al-Bashir was deposed Sudan's people have suffered from merciless militias. What Likud and the Sudanese militias have in common is "merciless".

[ Revenue Management Act define the regulatory framework governing the hydrocarbon sector.[3]

[3] Petroleum Act, Laws of South Sudan, Ch. II–V, 2012. Also, Laura M. James. “Fields of Control: Oil and (In)security in Sudan and South Sudan,” Small Arms Survey, HSBA working paper 40, November 2015, pg. 18. “Energy Capital & Power Re-releases Africa Energy Series: South Sudan Report,” Energy Capital & Power, October 8, 2021. David K. Deng. “Oil and Sustainable Peace in South Sudan,” South Sudan Law Society working paper, February 2015, pg. 3–5, accessed July 13, 2022.

National oil companies (NOCs) based in Asia are the major foreign oil companies in the oil sector in South Sudan. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), and Malaysia’s Petronas hold large stakes in the leading consortia operating in South Sudan. The leading consortia operating in South Sudan are the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, the Dar Petroleum Operating Company, and the Sudd Petroleum Operating Company. [1] ]

I think you may have misunderstood the post from which you quoted my words. I was trying — not very well — to illustrate why/how Sy Borg's argument just doesn't seem to work, IMO.

Sy Borg argues that Israel may not be singled-out, or ignored, because that is 'anti-Israel' discrimination. So, by Sy Borg's argument, we are "anti-Semitic" if we criticise Israel without criticising all the other savage and brutal military invaders. And as a corollary, no other such barbarism may be mentioned without also mentioning Israel, because that too would be "anti-Semitic".

[Analogy:] It's a sort of Bullies' Charter, whereby you can't address one bully without addressing all bullies, or *you* are a bully for singling out just one of them!

I cannot accept that this is a valid argument. Savagery may be called out singly or in groups, it doesn't really matter, as the primary aim is to oppose savagery, in any or all of its manifestations. IMO. In fact, many campaigners will criticise you if you say, for example, "Yes, black lives matter, because *all* lives matter." They will accuse you of trying to diminish their arguments by dilution, as it were. Perhaps they have a point, I'm not sure...

[Belinda]

Thanks, Pattern-chaser for your helpful precis.

My intention with that post about Sudanese oil was to point out that Sudan oil sort of belongs not to Europe but elsewhere, whereas Israel is the sole European democracy in the ME which is important for European oil trading .
I can't ignore Sy Borg's first premiss that our media are mainly interested in Israel which has the effect of not paying the attention they deserve to the suffering of Sudanese people.

[Sy Borg]

The constant attacks on Israel while ignoring equivalent and worse issues in multiple places in the world (not just Sudan) is simply anti-Semitic. There's no getting away from it.

But you are entirely right to point out that bias exists. That loud condemnation of the perceived crimes of Israel while excusing or ignoring equally-serious or more-serious crimes elsewhere is uncomfortable for those who have an attachment to Israel, i.e. Jews.

So that - if you believe that bias does not have to be malicious in order to count as the crime of discrimination, which some clearly do - then such condemnation is antisemitic.

Yes, it's about the degree of focus. Due to the level of indoctrination in academic institutions and their journalist graduates, it's not uncommon for anti-Semitism to be unwitting rather than malicious.

I don't have any attachment to Israel, personally, I just notice the unfairness of the inordinate focus on what Jews do.

[LuckyR]

Pattern-chaser:
"So would it be acceptable to create a topic to discuss the Sudanese conflict? "

Since dictator Al-Bashir was deposed Sudan's people have suffered from merciless militias. What Likud and the Sudanese militias have in common is "merciless".

[ Revenue Management Act define the regulatory framework governing the hydrocarbon sector.[3]

[3] Petroleum Act, Laws of South Sudan, Ch. II–V, 2012. Also, Laura M. James. “Fields of Control: Oil and (In)security in Sudan and South Sudan,” Small Arms Survey, HSBA working paper 40, November 2015, pg. 18. “Energy Capital & Power Re-releases Africa Energy Series: South Sudan Report,” Energy Capital & Power, October 8, 2021. David K. Deng. “Oil and Sustainable Peace in South Sudan,” South Sudan Law Society working paper, February 2015, pg. 3–5, accessed July 13, 2022.

National oil companies (NOCs) based in Asia are the major foreign oil companies in the oil sector in South Sudan. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), and Malaysia’s Petronas hold large stakes in the leading consortia operating in South Sudan. The leading consortia operating in South Sudan are the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, the Dar Petroleum Operating Company, and the Sudd Petroleum Operating Company. [1] ]

I think you may have misunderstood the post from which you quoted my words. I was trying — not very well — to illustrate why/how Sy Borg's argument just doesn't seem to work, IMO.

Sy Borg argues that Israel may not be singled-out, or ignored, because that is 'anti-Israel' discrimination. So, by Sy Borg's argument, we are "anti-Semitic" if we criticise Israel without criticising all the other savage and brutal military invaders. And as a corollary, no other such barbarism may be mentioned without also mentioning Israel, because that too would be "anti-Semitic".

[Analogy:] It's a sort of Bullies' Charter, whereby you can't address one bully without addressing all bullies, or *you* are a bully for singling out just one of them!

I cannot accept that this is a valid argument. Savagery may be called out singly or in groups, it doesn't really matter, as the primary aim is to oppose savagery, in any or all of its manifestations. IMO. In fact, many campaigners will criticise you if you say, for example, "Yes, black lives matter, because *all* lives matter." They will accuse you of trying to diminish their arguments by dilution, as it were. Perhaps they have a point, I'm not sure...

To my mind you're (you and Syborg) are both right. You are correct that Israel's behavior is definitely subject to scrutiny and criticism without pointing out every other example of similar behaviour. This is nothing new and is a norm of human behavior (just as answering such criticism with examples of others doing similar things is also a norm).

Syborg is correct than many (but nowhere near all) individuals who criticize Israel, do so with a personal animosity towards all things Jewish in their heart and are taking advantage of legitimately reprehensible behavior by, say Israel to safely display their racist animosity.

[Pattern-chaser]

Syborg is correct that many (but nowhere near all) individuals who criticize Israel, do so with a personal antimosity towards all things Jewish in their heart and are taking advantage of legitimately reprehensible behavior by, say Israel to safely display their racist antomosity.

This I will not accept, without evidence. I refuse to believe that the 100,000s of my fellow countrymen who left their homes to march for peace in Palestine, and freedom for Palestine, in cities across the country, are guilty of anti-Jewish prejudice. That, at least, there is recent evidence for: roughly 15% of UK citizens are "anti-Semitic" (anti-Jewish), or hold anti-Jewish feelings or sentiments. This figure is matched across many European countries. It is reprehensible, IMO, but it is nowhere near the majority that your words seem to imply (see highlighted quote).

That said, I think anti-Israeli prejudice is common, and getting commoner, as Israel's savage and barbaric treatment of Palestine and Palestinians continues and worsens.

[Sy Borg]

Syborg is correct that many (but nowhere near all) individuals who criticize Israel, do so with a personal antimosity towards all things Jewish in their heart and are taking advantage of legitimately reprehensible behavior by, say Israel to safely display their racist antomosity.

This I will not accept, without evidence. I refuse to believe that the 100,000s of my fellow countrymen who left their homes to march for peace in Palestine, and freedom for Palestine, in cities across the country, are guilty of anti-Jewish prejudice. That, at least, there is recent evidence for: roughly 15% of UK citizens are "anti-Semitic" (anti-Jewish), or hold anti-Jewish feelings or sentiments. This figure is matched across many European countries. It is reprehensible, IMO, but it is nowhere near the majority that your words seem to imply (see highlighted quote).

That said, I think anti-Israeli prejudice is common, and getting commoner, as Israel's savage and barbaric treatment of Palestine and Palestinians continues and worsens.

Your own hostility towards Israel is palpable. t's interesting. I've never seen you so incandescent about bad behaviour before. Your approach to all non-Jewish violence has been, well, philosophical. But not here. Not a bit. Meanwhile, you hold no animosity at all towards the RSF and their atrocities in Sudan. Not a bit.

Nor have you shown displeasure with China's genocide of Tibet, nor their or crushing of Uyghurs. Nor have you acknowledged that Palestine gave China explicit endorsement and approval for their ruination of their Muslim "brothers and sisters" in Xianxiang. You think this is a simple situation, but there are many proxies involved, and manipulating westerners is part of the strategy.

Despite your heavily skewed anger, I cannot say for sure if you are anti-Semitic, I would have thought it out of character for you. However, you clearly jumped on a "hot" bandwagon that is indeed lead by fanatical anti-Semites.

You show all the fair-mindedness towards Israel as the UN (ie. zero) does. You expect "fair play war" from Israel, while their opposition uses human shields. Israel is fighting for its existence, as it is ever more surrounded by Iran's proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis). Like any good Marxist, your empathy is entirely with those deemed as The Oppressed, but you ignore the role the that The Oppressed play in their own problems.

What would happen to the Philippines or Bhutan if they protested China's continual salami-slicing of their territories by firing missiles into China, killing thousands and kidnapping, raping and torturing hundred of hostages? They would be hit harder than anything Israel could dish up. The nations would be ruined. The situation is equivalent.

That is why the Philippines and Bhutan do not attack China, despite their constant loss of territory, sometimes taken violently. The reason their leaders do not attack China is that they actually care about their people, unlike Hamas. They know what would happen if they went to war. Hamas knew what would happen too. In fact, they counted on it. Hamas/Iran treats Palestinian lives as pawns of their power play, noting that the (very wealthy) Hamas leaders who live abroad in luxury and safety, are seeking to drive Israel out of the Middle East so they can play oligarch with assets and technology taken from them.

Iran/Hamas struck the first blow here, and it was strategic. None of the protesters will admit that. Things have been going to plan for Hamas as unthinking bleeding hearts in the west are winning this war for them, just as their leadership had planned. Today the "useful idiots" (not my term) of the west are a key part of anti-Western warfare today. Russia, China and Iran have naive westerners thinking they are fighting for human rights, when they are simply fighting against their own side for no valid reason.

[LuckyR]

Syborg is correct that many (but nowhere near all) individuals who criticize Israel, do so with a personal antimosity towards all things Jewish in their heart and are taking advantage of legitimately reprehensible behavior by, say Israel to safely display their racist antomosity.

This I will not accept, without evidence. I refuse to believe that the 100,000s of my fellow countrymen who left their homes to march for peace in Palestine, and freedom for Palestine, in cities across the country, are guilty of anti-Jewish prejudice. That, at least, there is recent evidence for: roughly 15% of UK citizens are "anti-Semitic" (anti-Jewish), or hold anti-Jewish feelings or sentiments. This figure is matched across many European countries. It is reprehensible, IMO, but it is nowhere near the majority that your words seem to imply (see highlighted quote).

That said, I think anti-Israeli prejudice is common, and getting commoner, as Israel's savage and barbaric treatment of Palestine and Palestinians continues and worsens.

Whoa there. We're in agreement here. If 100,000 people march, I said "nowhere near all" of them are (traditional definition) anti-Semitic. Probably 99,000 attended the march because of the stated reason, to show support for the Palistinians. My guess is more than 1,000 just happen to dislike Jews as a separate thing. The ADL puts the percentage of US adults who claim antiSemitic beliefs as around 10 to 25%, there's no reason to assume that they would be underrepresented in a march in support of the Palestinians.

I apologize for being difficult to understand, I guess to me 15% is "many, but nowhere near all". I would have used "most" if I believed it was a majority. Other times I haved used the phrasing: "a healthy minority", to mean the same thing.

[Moreno]

It's the inordinate focus.

Not for US citizens. Our government gives Israel economic, military and military intelligence support. A US citizen can consider themselves complicit in Israel's behavior in ways he or she would not in your other examples.'

Further the expectation that everyone must scan either the category of problem they are reacting to or all problems, then choose to distribute their criticism evenly or from worst problem to least, or they are antisemitic is a confused claim. It is a conclusion about individual attitudes based potential correlation, not cause. Or at least it is merely presumed cause. 1) the issue I mention above about the US Israel relationship 2) what issues the person is exposed to. 3) what other reasons, other than the special relationship or media focus, lead that person to focus on the situation in Israel.

Is one sexist and/or child-hating if one does not focus on human trafficking but focuses instead on children's mental health?
Is one anti-Uyghur if one focuses on China's laxity/complicity in intellectual theft?
If one is an activist for animal right is one anti-child or anti-human?
If one fights against sexism, does this mean one is primarily racist (or the reverse) if someone can demonstrate which is the worse problem?

It matters if the criticism is valid. If it is not valid, then that's a problem with the criticism.
If it is valid then that needs to be answered.
People get involved in specific issues for all sorts of reasons. To assume that they must catalog the world's problems and then either start from the worst and only having complained about that problem to some degree may they move down the list OR they hate the people causing problems of lesser importance as a race or social group or sex or whatever is confused. And after having created the list, they must then consider the possibility that the media is focusing too much on this issue - and also why they might.

They may have nothing against the group but still have ended up for whatever reasons focused on that issue.

I think it is certainly possible that some individuals and some media outlets have an anti-Israel POV. But the moment it is assumed that we know what is going on in the individuals, I think it's confused.

Here you present a kind of meta-criticism, concluding that complaints about Israel are antisemitic, unless the person in question has criticized other governments equally.

Do you yourself pass this kind of criticism and does it make sense to apply it? Have you complained about other kinds of unfair prioritization in the media and considered those who went along with this to be anti-woman, or anti-Syrian, for example - when the neo cons and other hawks and their allies really wanted to get troops on the ground in Syria and Syria was at the top of the media list, did you assume the media were anti-syrian and those who became concerned about this were also Anti-Syrian, unless they also focused on other situations? Do you take into account in your assigning racist beliefs how the citizenship and the behavior of individuals' (or even media outlets) governmental policies might be affecting your focus? What conclusions can we draw about your prejudices if you haven't done that?

If Israel is doing something wrong, then I can certainly imagine saying that there are also other places where groups need our advocacy - which labeling the attitudes of people being critical.
If Israel is not doing something wrong, the substance based defenses of their actions are on point and the other criticism is distraction.

[Belinda]

Like President Kennedy who reared as an American said he was a man of Berlin: so I who reared as a Protestant say I am a Jew.
Anyone Jew or Protestant who has been cradled and educated in Old Testament morality understands the Ten Commandments and their ramifications throughout the OT, and for subsequent eras.

Netanyahu supports settlers who are stealing and coveting on the West Bank .

[Moreno]

The ADL puts the percentage of US adults who claim antiSemitic beliefs as around 10 to 25%, there's no reason to assume that they would be underrepresented in a march in support of the Palestinians.

I'd say this is at least complicated.
1) a lot of the people who claim anti-semitic beliefs are also Islamophobes and/or hate Arabs - who are, of course, also semites. Of course, people who hate Jews may not realize that Arabs are also semites, but both groups are hated by many of the same people.
2) the ADL may well have biases, and at the very least the greater the problem of Anti-semitism seems to be or is, the easier it is for them to get funding. So, getting statistics elsewhere might be more objective.
I'm not allowed, oddly, to post links to other domains but if one google's Boston Review and The Anti-Defamation League Is Not What It Seems
and The Guardian and Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics
You can see some of the external and internal criticism related to these biases.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your own hostility towards Israel is palpable. t's interesting. I've never seen you so incandescent about bad behaviour before. Your approach to all non-Jewish violence has been, well, philosophical. But not here. Not a bit. Meanwhile, you hold no animosity at all towards the RSF and their atrocities in Sudan. Not a bit.

Nor have you shown displeasure with China's genocide of Tibet, nor their or crushing of Uyghurs....

I'm sorry you feel that way. My feelings and beliefs do not agree with your description. I hope fervently that this is your misapprehension, not mine...