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

[LuckyR]

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.

I agree. Thus those with purely anti Jewish sentiment is lower than the numbers I quoted, say 8% (instead of the 10 to 25% that the ADL, which is a biased group) quoted. I think 8% is many, but nowhere near all.

[Sy Borg]

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... 🤔

Well, I see you being uncharacteristically incandescent about the misbehaviour of Jews while never even hinting at anger about anything else, aside from wealth inequality. You are normally so benign and understanding, which is why your harsh judgement of Israel, without any attempt to see the situation from any angle but the Palestinians', makes clear that something is going on.

Personally, I think that you, like many intellectuals, automatically default to what we have always been told was science, learning and reason. Trouble is, we were lied to, again and again. Why? Because, as I have heard said, academic institutions consist of those with sharp minds and sharp elbows, and those with sharp elbows are in control. That means that it's harder to be sure if the material they influence us with is the result of research or activism.

Consider the new official definition of racism: treating it as systemic rather than personal, resulting in the absurd situation where it is now technically impossible to be racist to white or Jewish people. Thus, a white woman can be gang raped, with the attackers making clear that it's a racist assault, and academics will say that is not racism, as such. It can't be racism, because it was perpetrated on an Oppressor (ie. white or Jew).

How about the UN's absurd over-focus on Israel at the expense of dealing with other conflicts is never discussed, simply treated as normal? The CSIRO report claiming that nuclear energy is too expensive for Australia while using as a basis for their calculations a notoriously dysfunctional US project. How about demands to shut down a few coal-fired, and even nuclear, power stations while China builds multiple coal-fired stations every single day to deal with growing western demand for green technology? Not to mention growing fraud in universities, including plagiarism by Harvard's president, who also believed that calls for genocide against Jews were not necessarily against university policy, depending on "context". What about all the dodgy papers slipping past the peer review process now? Corporate interference, with health advisory organisations including sugary food suppliers as sponsors. Then add sensationalist and manipulative reporting by journalists trained in these institutions.

The fact is that our academic institutions are no longer trustworthy https://freedomandfulfilment.com/public-trust-academia/, and they are causing unwitting anti-Semitism in good people who normally abhor prejudice.

[Good_Egg]

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.

I think you've missed the point.

Pattern-chaser 's stated view of discrimination is that whether someone has such animosity or not doesn't matter - it's an act of discrimination regardless.

You're putting forward the (common) view that criticism is only antisemitic if it is motivated by "a personal animosity towards all things Jewish in their heart".

Our friend PC has drunk the kool-aid of social progressivism (Sy Borg calls it "social Marxism"). Which holds that doing what someone racist would do is racist. That discrimination can be accidental, because it is defined by differential negative outcome rather than being defined by motivation.

Which makes his own opposition to the actions of the Israeli government "accidentally anti-semitic", by his own understanding of what discrimination is.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, I see you being uncharacteristically incandescent about the misbehaviour of Jews while never even hinting at anger about anything else, aside from wealth inequality. You are normally so benign and understanding, which is why your harsh judgement of Israel, without any attempt to see the situation from any angle but the Palestinians', makes clear that something is going on.

Firstly, I have always held and displayed tolerance of any and all religions, faiths, and creeds. I have never criticised Judaism, or Jews.

Secondly, in discussions like this one, the word "incandescent" is usually found in the phrase "incandescent with rage", and I deny ever having displayed rage in this forum, or anywhere else. Anger is less clear. Yes, I have displayed anger, in the sense of righteous indignation, toward the political state of Israel, and its doings. But not the kind of anger that is often referred to as the red mist. That kind of anger is uncontrolled and incoherent, and approaches rage. And I have never displayed that kind of anger.

As for seeing things from the point of view of Israel, I find their case, and their situation, difficult to understand, and impossible to justify. They were given more than half of someone else's land — by the UK/USA/UN: that part was not done by Israel — and their response to this was to take even more! Until today, when Israel controls pretty much all of Palestine.

Consider the new official definition of racism: treating it as systemic rather than personal, resulting in the absurd situation where it is now technically impossible to be racist to white or Jewish people. Thus, a white woman can be gang raped, with the attackers making clear that it's a racist assault, and academics will say that is not racism, as such. It can't be racism, because it was perpetrated on an Oppressor (ie. white or Jew).

I'm sorry, but this just isn't the case. White privilege is real, but even that cannot achieve the overt malevolence you describe here. Oh, and "white people" refers to skin colour; "Jewish" refers to people of the Jewish faith. These are not the same distinction: skin-colour vs. religion.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser 's stated view of discrimination is that whether someone has such animosity or not doesn't matter - it's an act of discrimination regardless.

You're putting forward the (common) view that criticism is only antisemitic if it is motivated by "a personal animosity towards all things Jewish in their heart".

Our friend PC has drunk the kool-aid of social progressivism (Sy Borg calls it "social Marxism"). Which holds that doing what someone racist would do is racist. That discrimination can be accidental, because it is defined by differential negative outcome rather than being defined by motivation.

Which makes his own opposition to the actions of the Israeli government "accidentally anti-semitic", by his own understanding of what discrimination is.

Now, you misrepresent me. You asked me if discrimination could possibly be accidental; unintended. And, when I thought about it, it seemed (and still seems) daft to deny that this could be so when simple consideration tells us that it is surely possible. But you jump from this to describe me as asserting that discrimination can be accidental, which isn't really what I said. To acknowledge a possibility is different from asserting that it is so, or asserting support for it.

[Gertie]

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

...

By the worst estimates, Stalin killed more than three times as many Russians as died in Nazi camps. So, by your logic, mentioning the Holocaust without also acknowledging the (possibly) far higher numbers of Russians killed in the same conflict (WW2), makes one anti-Russian.

I submit that your 'logic' just isn't helpful. And, by the Goddess, we could do with "helpful" when discussing this awful conflict.

My logic is the most helpful possible, being centrist. Your "logic", by contrast, is part of the problem. Millions have been influenced by journalists and academics who had been trained in social Marxism at university, who denigrate Jews because they have been deemed The Oppressor. Then these jaundiced observers spread their anti-Semitism to a general public, who largely lap up whatever they are fed.

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).

The problem with that is that, since the beginning of recorded human history, our world has been filled with such conflicts. It simply isn't possible, in a purely practical sense, to mention them all, or even most of them, when discussing just one of them. There are just too many of them. But should we prevent the discussion of one because we can't list all the others every time we do it?

All such conflicts are wrong. So any action against just one of them is a step in the right direction. Action against all of them would be better, but impractical to achieve all at the same time. In practice, that level of multitasking might actually prevent us from considering each issue justly and fairly, with appropriate scope, depth, and breadth.

The constant attacks on Israel while ignoring equivalent and worse issues in multiple places in the world (not just Sudan) is simply anti-Semitic.

So would it be acceptable to create a topic to discuss the Sudanese conflict? After all, to do so without mentioning Israel (and all the other similar situations throughout the world) would be displaying anti-Sudanese discrimination/prejudice, by your logic.

The end result of following your recommendations is that no 'military injustice' can be morally discussed in isolation, but only all together, all at the same time, so that no-one is criticised when someone else equally guilty is not mentioned explicitly. Looked at in one way, your logic offers a Bullies Defence, that no bully can be stopped without stopping all bullies, everywhere, to avoid 'unfair' focus on any one bully. It just doesn't make sense. It isn't helpful, and it isn't justifiable.

Right, it's a case of The Perfect being the enemy of The Good. To abandon doing good because we aren't perfect is a recipe for abandoning any progress. And as perfection is rarely possible, it's a disastrous approach.

It's a fallacious argument to say it's anti-semitic to criticise a state currently commiting genocide on this basis. And weaponising that to defend genocide is disgusting.

There's a more complicated argument which says anti-semitic forces are at work bringing this particular genocide to the world's attention, and there may be some truth to that. But there are many reasons why much of the world is interested in Israel and Palestine - historical, geo-political and religious. Plus for decades it's been seen as the flashpoint which could ignite a spreading culturally based war in the region, and world-wide as associated allies are so entangled. Watch that space...

So weeding out intentional anti-semitic actors in the mainstream news coverage would be difficult, as would Islamophobic actors, though different regions and groups will have different natural sympathies. And at least balanced in the West by pro-Israel establishment interests. One of the reasons people in countries like the UK are motivated to protest for a ceasefire is because our own government which represents us is complicit in condoning and actively military resourcing a genocidal state willfully obliterating a virtually helpless people. Actively complicit in genocide, think about that for a moment. It seems unthinkable, but here we are. That's horrifying to most people, as it should be. Our media reporting forcing us to face it in this instance isn't a bad thing. Criticism and protest is the right response, the human response.

[Mo_reese]

This is a quick reply of random thoughts. I think we are overlooking a very important factor as to why Americans and others around the world are focusing on support of Palestine. We are watching genocide or ethnic cleansing before our eyes. We see horrors with dead babies and children with horrible wounds. We see IDF soldiers bragging about shooting children and wounding people by shooting them in the knees. The horrors are endless. We are witnessing the isolation of Palestinians to be shot with guns, tanks and missiles like fish in a barrel. Starvation is being used as a tool to eliminate people. We are seeing this unlike the other horrible things in the world. We were not allowed to see the horrors in Iraq as the US killed Iraqi's. When they were leaked, those that did the leaking were prosecuted. If it wasn't for social media, the US government media would not be reporting on the horrors but they have to now because of social media. The Powers That Rule will be looking at how to shut down the window into the realities of their horrors.
The US government has come out and labeled anti-genocide protests as anti-Semite with Pelosi saying protestors should be prosecuted. These are steps to fascism. No one is allowed to say "from the river to the sea, Palestine to be free". This is big brother to the max. The government is supporting Israel in spit of what the people say.

[Sy Borg]

Well, I see you being uncharacteristically incandescent about the misbehaviour of Jews while never even hinting at anger about anything else, aside from wealth inequality. You are normally so benign and understanding, which is why your harsh judgement of Israel, without any attempt to see the situation from any angle but the Palestinians', makes clear that something is going on.

Firstly, I have always held and displayed tolerance of any and all religions, faiths, and creeds. I have never criticised Judaism, or Jews.

Secondly, in discussions like this one, the word "incandescent" is usually found in the phrase "incandescent with rage", and I deny ever having displayed rage in this forum, or anywhere else. Anger is less clear. Yes, I have displayed anger, in the sense of righteous indignation, toward the political state of Israel, and its doings. But not the kind of anger that is often referred to as the red mist. That kind of anger is uncontrolled and incoherent, and approaches rage. And I have never displayed that kind of anger.

As for seeing things from the point of view of Israel, I find their case, and their situation, difficult to understand, and impossible to justify. They were given more than half of someone else's land — by the UK/USA/UN: that part was not done by Israel — and their response to this was to take even more! Until today, when Israel controls pretty much all of Palestine.

You have shown clear anger at Israel here. Let's not pretend. Do I have to hunt down your quotes? I'll do it and list the comments, if you don't admit it. I have never seen you so angry - not even close - yet we have considered far worse things here over the years without the same response.

Like Hamas, you do not believe Israel has a right to exist. That's my point, You see everyone's POV but the Jews'. Funny thing is, I did not think you were deliberately anti-Semitic, just influenced by the constant barrage of media propaganda. Now it turns you that, yes, you are actually anti-Semitic and believe that Jews have no right to a home while Arabs deserve all of the Middle East.

Consider the new official definition of racism: treating it as systemic rather than personal, resulting in the absurd situation where it is now technically impossible to be racist to white or Jewish people. Thus, a white woman can be gang raped, with the attackers making clear that it's a racist assault, and academics will say that is not racism, as such. It can't be racism, because it was perpetrated on an Oppressor (ie. white or Jew).

I'm sorry, but this just isn't the case. White privilege is real, but even that cannot achieve the overt malevolence you describe here. Oh, and "white people" refers to skin colour; "Jewish" refers to people of the Jewish faith. These are not the same distinction: skin-colour vs. religion.

White privilege existed once but today it is a lie, a lie perpetrated for black people to maintain a victim status that leads to handouts. There are millions of well-connected wealthy blacks in the US and millions more of impoverished whites with no hope of progressing. That would be impossible if white privilege was real as a widespread rather than localised phenomenon. And you do you realise that most US blacks were not descended from slaves, don't you?

It may not be logical, but whites and Jews are classes of people (along with East Asians) who are deemed to be Oppressors and thus given last consideration regarding university admission.

[LuckyR]

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.

I think you've missed the point.

Pattern-chaser 's stated view of discrimination is that whether someone has such animosity or not doesn't matter - it's an act of discrimination regardless.

You're putting forward the (common) view that criticism is only antisemitic if it is motivated by "a personal animosity towards all things Jewish in their heart".

Our friend PC has drunk the kool-aid of social progressivism (Sy Borg calls it "social Marxism"). Which holds that doing what someone racist would do is racist. That discrimination can be accidental, because it is defined by differential negative outcome rather than being defined by motivation.

Which makes his own opposition to the actions of the Israeli government "accidentally anti-semitic", by his own understanding of what discrimination is.

Okay.

So if PC's opinion is that actions (not intention) is what matters (when using the label of discrimination), how does Syborg's opinion that the (action of) criticizing Israel alone (leaving out Hamas, Congo etc), which is something that folks with and without traditional anti Semitic intentions could do, is de facto anti Semitism (discrimination), differ fundamentally?

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, I see you being uncharacteristically incandescent about the misbehaviour of Jews while never even hinting at anger about anything else, aside from wealth inequality. You are normally so benign and understanding, which is why your harsh judgement of Israel, without any attempt to see the situation from any angle but the Palestinians', makes clear that something is going on.

Firstly, I have always held and displayed tolerance of any and all religions, faiths, and creeds. I have never criticised Judaism, or Jews.

Secondly, in discussions like this one, the word "incandescent" is usually found in the phrase "incandescent with rage", and I deny ever having displayed rage in this forum, or anywhere else. Anger is less clear. Yes, I have displayed anger, in the sense of righteous indignation, toward the political state of Israel, and its doings. But not the kind of anger that is often referred to as the red mist. That kind of anger is uncontrolled and incoherent, and approaches rage. And I have never displayed that kind of anger.

As for seeing things from the point of view of Israel, I find their case, and their situation, difficult to understand, and impossible to justify. They were given more than half of someone else's land — by the UK/USA/UN: that part was not done by Israel — and their response to this was to take even more! Until today, when Israel controls pretty much all of Palestine.

You have shown clear anger at Israel here. Let's not pretend.

Who's pretending? Look:

Anger is less clear. Yes, I have displayed anger, in the sense of righteous indignation, toward the political state of Israel, and its doings. But not the kind of anger that is often referred to as the red mist. That kind of anger is uncontrolled and incoherent, and approaches rage. And I have never displayed that kind of anger.

I have never seen you so angry - not even close - yet we have considered far worse things here over the years without the same response.

I will only observe that, if I wished to attack you — and I don't — I might have said exactly the same of you. Your posts have ... hardened since last October.

Like Hamas, you do not believe Israel has a right to exist.

This is a calumny. It is a belief you have ascribed to me quite a few times lately. It is distasteful and untrue. Please do not repeat this again. Thanks.

Why do you feel you have the right to tell me what I think and believe? What makes you feel you know enough about what I think and believe, to proclaim, with apparent confidence, these unpleasant fantasies? In what way is that supposed to be helpful, especially when it's untrue?

[Pattern-chaser]

Like Hamas, you do not believe Israel has a right to exist. That's my point, You see everyone's POV but the Jews'.

Please don't flip between faith ("Jews") and nationality ("Israel") as though they are synonyms. They aren't, despite long-term Israeli propaganda to the contrary. This false conflation is nothing but propaganda, the sort of propaganda that is wholly untrue, and distributed for dishonest reasons.

Opposition to the military occupier of Palestine, Israel, is political. The context for that criticism is nationalistic, and territorial. It has nothing to do with faith or religion, with Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. And so I have no need to see the POV of the Jews, in this exchange, because their POV is irrelevant here. It is the views of Israeli citizens, and Palestinian citizens, that are relevant here. And the political views of all interested parties, of course.

[Sculptor1]

There was a moment back in the 1940s when a plan by the League of Nations and newly blooning Untiled Nations where there was a chance of the foundation of Israel and a "deomocratic" state in the region of Palestine.
Sadly one day before the expiry of the Britsh Mandate (granted by the League of Nation) Jewish terrorists seized control of Palestine ending forver the chance of a negotiated settlement.
They proceeded to muder, and round up for placement in concentration camps to local population. This "Nakba" has been ongoing for 75 years. Gaza is basically one large concentration camp that is periodically bombed, and detprived of the means of civilisation.

Israel's right to exist entails the illegal detantion, deprivation, oppression, murder, dislocation and starvation of Palestinians.

So, meh, I do not think Israel any longer had the right to exist.

Now they tell me saying al lthis is entisemitic, yet most of this information as come from Jewish friends of mine.

Daily news of the genocide and atrocities contune. Despite the greatest technology where Israel is capable of destorying with PRECISION 800 missiles from Iran, we know that its bombs fall of placed of choice such as AID WORKERS, and JOURNALISTS. People whose only weapon is a bag of flour.

The lastest PRECISION strike, is a children's playground.

AT least 11 people, including children, have been killed in an Israeli attack on the Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza, it has been reported.

The Palestinian Wafa news agency reported that the strike hit a playground frequently visited by displaced children.

Most of those killed were children, the news agency reported with several people also wounded in the attack.


But apparently I'm antisemitic?
If calling out Israel for their crimes is antisemitic then I am proud to be antisemitic.

[Sy Borg]

Like Hamas, you do not believe Israel has a right to exist. That's my point, You see everyone's POV but the Jews'.

Please don't flip between faith ("Jews") and nationality ("Israel") as though they are synonyms. They aren't, despite long-term Israeli propaganda to the contrary. This false conflation is nothing but propaganda, the sort of propaganda that is wholly untrue, and distributed for dishonest reasons.

Opposition to the military occupier of Palestine, Israel, is political. The context for that criticism is nationalistic, and territorial. It has nothing to do with faith or religion, with Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. And so I have no need to see the POV of the Jews, in this exchange, because their POV is irrelevant here. It is the views of Israeli citizens, and Palestinian citizens, that are relevant here. And the political views of all interested parties, of course.

Let's revisit your comment - and don't pretend now that you think Israel has a right to exist. You previously said:

As for seeing things from the point of view of Israel, I find their case, and their situation, difficult to understand, and impossible to justify. They were given more than half of someone else's land — by the UK/USA/UN: that part was not done by Israel

To start, Israel was not a joint project between Jews and Europeans. Maybe you should study more before forming such hardline opinions? Jewish refugees flooded their old homelands because they were having a little bit of trouble in Europe. Then the local Arabs tried to wipe the refugees out and fighting was so intense that, after some years, the world powers decided that creating a separate land might stop the killing.

What's impossible to justify is not Israel's existence, but Hamas's attack. If Palestinian leadership earnestly sought a two-state solution instead of missile attacks, kidnappings, rapes and tortures, even if the partition deal was sub-optimal, the Palestinian people would be vastly better off today. Of course, when they realised that Israel had gone crazy, they could have returned to hostages and stopped the bloodshed. But they chose to wring the situation for all it was worth.

Why do you think the Philippines isn't sending rockets into China, despite the theft of their critical fishing grounds? Because to do so would end up raining hell on their own people, as Hamas as done to theirs. Israel has perpetrated many wrongs, but Hamas's extremism has been an unmitigated disaster for all concerned.

[Mo_reese]

It's not anti-Semitic to oppose what is happening in Gaza.
The “anti-Semitism” label is used as a bludgeon in attempts to silence opposition.
Pelosi wants to demonize demonstrators and have them investigated for terrorism. That's not Democratic nor democratic.
Our government is demanding that we toe the establishment line and support the genocide in Gaza.
Those that support the murder of all Palestinians in Gaza make strange bedfellows. The RightWing, the Elitest Dems and their sycophant worshipers, the corp-media, and the militarized police.
Is anyone in the 1% Class opposed to the genocide? It's just the common people that recognize that big government is wiping out the common people of Gaza.

[Mo_reese]

I find it inconceivable that Israel-US didn't know about the Oct 7 attack. The US has satellites that are sophisticated and can watch the Hamas training. They have technology to spy on Hamas, probably some agents even embedded. I've heard that they can listen into the tunnel systems and most likely know where the hostages are.
The attack on Oct 7 played directly into Bibi's hands, giving him the justification to eliminate the Palestinians in Gaza. He most likely isn't interested in getting the hostages out because it would eliminate his justification for continued murder and they may be in danger if Hamas tries to release them.
I do not condone or support Hamas' actions against civilians and it's not because I am Islamophobic. I also do not believe Israel's accounts of the horrors of Hamas because they've been caught lying too many times, not because I am anti-Semitic.
I believe Hamas should give up the hostages because it's a crime against humanity and holding them isn't helping them anyway.
Again, I am not anti-Semitic and not even anti-Israel. The people of Israel are not responsible for the actions of their government any more than the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas, or even the people of the US for our government's actions.