Philosophy Discussion Forums

Consul wrote: ↑January 26th, 2024, 1:58 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 21st, 2024, 3:45 pm Why do people single out Israel, basically demanding that Jews be scattered again, without a home ("from the river to the sea"), but care NOTHING for ANY of the other wars?

Easy answers: Publicity by anti-Semites whipping up hatred.

I agree.
Consider North Korea: Aren't the North Koreans the most oppressed people in the world? Isn't this country virtually one big concentration camp in the horrible grip of the Kim family's tyranny? Shouldn't Free North Korea! be one of the Woke Left's central concerns, given their obsession with hierarchies of oppression and their love of non-white ethnicities? If you think the Israeli government is a nightmare of domination and oppression, go have a look at the North Korean one!

"Rare footage obtained by BBC Korean shows North Korea publicly sentencing two teenage boys to 12 years of hard labour for watching K-dramas.…"

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68015652

I stand with John Cleese, Rowan Atkinson and you on the "woke" issue. I do not stand with Claudine Gay and the Ivy League.

The issue is not what Israel and Palestine are doing to each other so much as what so many other people are doing to each other which are being largely or completely ignored, while the welfare of Palestinians is treated are vastly more important than the welfare of Uyghurs, Ukrainians, Yemenis, Syrians, South Sudanese, Afghanistanis, Somalians, Congolese, Mexicans, Mali people, Haitian et al.

Can someone tell me why, in terms of publicity, one Palestinian life is worth 10,000 lives of Yemenis, Syrians, etc?

Why does their oppression matter so much and everyone else's is nowhere near as important? Why have half of UN resolutions concerned Israel and Palestine, while zero have concerned China and the Uyghurs?

If it is not anti-Semitism, then what?

The Economist had a special about the conflict with a focus on solutions for peace in December 2023:


The magazine: https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2023-12-09

A related online article:

Israel and Palestine: How peace is possible
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/ ... s-possible

What is the definitive characteristic of a so-called 'antisemite? Is there such an attribute, or is anti-semite purely a derogatory name like some common swear word ?

If there is a definition of 'antisemite' , who defined the word?

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:19 am What is the definitive characteristic of a so-called 'antisemite? Is there such an attribute, or is anti-semite purely a derogatory name like some common swear word ?

If there is a definition of 'antisemite' , who defined the word?

Antisemite used to be a term for a person who hated Jews.
Now it is a term use by Isreal and its supporters for people they dont like.

Apparently even "Save the Children" is antisemitic now.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:22 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:19 am What is the definitive characteristic of a so-called 'antisemite? Is there such an attribute, or is anti-semite purely a derogatory name like some common swear word ?

If there is a definition of 'antisemite' , who defined the word?

Antisemite used to be a term for a person who hated Jews.
Now it is a term use by Isreal and its supporters for people they dont like.

Apparently even "Save the Children" is antisemitic now.

I see. I wonder if there there is a name for aggressive people who historically were victims and who claim to be victims still. And is there a name for people such as the Palestinians, who are victims of former victims?

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:34 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:22 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:19 am What is the definitive characteristic of a so-called 'antisemite? Is there such an attribute, or is anti-semite purely a derogatory name like some common swear word ?

If there is a definition of 'antisemite' , who defined the word?

Antisemite used to be a term for a person who hated Jews.
Now it is a term use by Isreal and its supporters for people they dont like.

Apparently even "Save the Children" is antisemitic now.

I see. I wonder if there there is a name for aggressive people who historically were victims and who claim to be victims still. And is there a name for people such as the Palestinians, who are victims of former victims?

I think Paestinian victimhood has not diminished.
Those the participated in the October attacks were between the age of 18 and 22. 80% of them were orphans.
You might want that to sink it.
Gaza was created as concentration camp, and remians so. Isteal controls all inports and exports.
They are currenly stopping the inport of anasthetics, so that amputations are done without them.
And in the West Bank, Palestinians are systematically evicted from their family homes to be replaced with Jews, mostly from New York.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:19 am What is the definitive characteristic of a so-called 'antisemite? Is there such an attribute, or is anti-semite purely a derogatory name like some common swear word ?

If there is a definition of 'antisemite' , who defined the word?

This is a question that has bothered me for a long time. The Semites are an ancient tribe who dwelt in the Middle East, from whom many Jews and Palestinians are descended. But the term "anti-Semitic" has long been used to identify discrimination aimed only at Jews, not Palestinians. OK, the meaning of words changes as they are used, that has always been the case.

But following the dreadful Holocaust of WW2, the IHRA produced a 'definition' that included both discrimination against people of the Jewish faith, and criticism of the political and modern state of Israel. It is this latter that is contentious. It has allowed Israel to *use* the horrors of Holocaust to protect themselves from criticism of their actions. They have long promoted the fallacy that Israeli = Jewish; Jewish = Israeli.

This has backfired on them in recent times, as disapproval of the actions of Israel in Palestine has led to attacks on Jewish people across the world. Such attacks are wrong, of course, a consequence of widespread anti-Jewish feeling. I was surprised and shamed when an investigation into anti-Semitism in our UK Labour Party confirmed that it was and is present in around 15% of party members ... just as the same proportion, 15%, of all UK people harbour such unpleasant views. 15% of my fellow citizens harbour anti-Jewish feelings! I think such proportions are echoed across the world, and this is something we all should be trying to change, IMO.

So the answer to your question is that "anti-Semitic" began with its literally-obvious meaning, but was then skewed (as above) by the IHRA, on whom Israel (understandably) has considerable influence. Now, it is often taken to mean "anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli"; this is the meaning that Israel prefers and promotes. It is never, as far as I know, used to describe anti-Palestinian feeling, although its literal meaning includes that too.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 10:00 am

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:19 am What is the definitive characteristic of a so-called 'antisemite? Is there such an attribute, or is anti-semite purely a derogatory name like some common swear word ?

If there is a definition of 'antisemite' , who defined the word?

This is a question that has bothered me for a long time. The Semites are an ancient tribe who dwelt in the Middle East, from whom many Jews and Palestinians are descended. But the term "anti-Semitic" has long been used to identify discrimination aimed only at Jews, not Palestinians. OK, the meaning of words changes as they are used, that has always been the case.

But following the dreadful Holocaust of WW2, the IHRA produced a 'definition' that included both discrimination against people of the Jewish faith, and criticism of the political and modern state of Israel. It is this latter that is contentious. It has allowed Israel to *use* the horrors of Holocaust to protect themselves from criticism of their actions. They have long promoted the fallacy that Israeli = Jewish; Jewish = Israeli.

This has backfired on them in recent times, as disapproval of the actions of Israel in Palestine has led to attacks on Jewish people across the world. Such attacks are wrong, of course, a consequence of widespread anti-Jewish feeling. I was surprised and shamed when an investigation into anti-Semitism in our UK Labour Party confirmed that it was and is present in around 15% of party members ... just as the same proportion, 15%, of all UK people harbour such unpleasant views. 15% of my fellow citizens harbour anti-Jewish feelings! I think such proportions are echoed across the world, and this is something we all should be trying to change, IMO.

So the answer to your question is that "anti-Semitic" began with its literally-obvious meaning, but was then skewed (as above) by the IHRA, on whom Israel (understandably) has considerable influence. Now, it is often taken to mean "anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli"; this is the meaning that Israel prefers and promotes. It is never, as far as I know, used to describe anti-Palestinian feeling, although its literal meaning includes that too.

Thanks for your factual though complex answer. Taken together with Sculptor's answer to my question, your answer shows the trap into which Zionists want people to fall so that Israeli atrocities in Gaza may be excused.

The anti-Semitism is mixed up with anti-white and anti-west ideas. As the young are increasingly marginalised in their own societies, they lose faith in the system. It's understandable, since they are the first generation who will be worse off than previous generations for a very long time. So now a number of them are against the system that let them down and would like to see it fall. That way, they figure, they might gain more opportunities.

So many in the west want it to fall. This chimes in with existing Marxists, anti-west migrants, and it all dovetails with postmodern thought in academia. The UN has dealt with over 100 complaints, and over half of them have been against Israel. Yet far worse problems have been found in the many places I listed earlier, but no complaints. Now, it's been found that the UN group that was supposed to monitor Israel and Hamas ended up joining Hamas in their attacks on Israel. That's anti-Semitism.

The fact is that, when Arabs kill, torture and exile each other in the hundreds of thousands, no one cares. When China crushes their Uyghur minority - with the blessing of Palestinian leadership - no one cares. When Jews kill 13,000 Arabs, that is an atrocity!

That uneven treatment of problems is clearly anti-Semitism. However, not all who protest are anti-Semites. For instance, Pattern-Chaser and Belinda are clearly not much for racial or cultural prejudice, so for them it's their usual humanism interacting with the blanket coverage of the conflict, making it hard for them to ignore.

Meanwhile, it's extremely easy to ignore the deaths and torture on Uyghurs, and in Yemen, Syria, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, DRC, Mexico, Mali, Haiti, Burma, Burkina Faso and Niger.

We either believe that Palestinian lives are worth more than those of the above countries or we have been deeply influenced by anti-Semites in universities, media and social media (the divisions often covertly encouraged by bad actors) who are responsible for the uneven publicity. Or maybe a bit of each?

It reminds of the blanket coverage of 9/11, where 3,000 died. A few days later I read a small column on the side of page 9 of a newspaper, saying that 100,000 Indians had died in an earthquake. Some lives matter, some don't, apparently.

Let's face it, while people are in AGONY over a relatively small number of suffering Palestinians, who amongst them gives a damn about suffering Haitians, Burmese, South Sudanese, Congolese, Somalians etc? Almost none. Meditate on the reason why this is the case.

In the end, the suffering of this world is far beyond anyone's ability to comprehend. home than abroad. There is not the time, expertise or available money. You could redistribute every billionaire's money to the poor in developing countries and it would little difference to ordinary people (other than issues through breakdown of industries). However, there'd be a lot more African and Arab billionaires.

I now think it makes most sense to consider those suffering at home - those stuck in cycles of poverty, those living ghetto lives, the homeless - and leave other nations to look after their own problems as much as is possible in a globalised world, with complex strategic considerations.

Consul wrote: ↑January 26th, 2024, 3:34 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑January 26th, 2024, 3:11 am I don't believe it is necessary to bring "Woke" into it. Neither do a I see a relentless campaign by the left against the "genocidal apartheid state" of Israel. It sounds to me like you're just pushing a political agenda.

No, I've just been describing the current political activism of the Woke Left (aka Radical Cultural Left), which is fuelled by antisemitism.
(Being a Leftie myself, I don't equate the Woke Left with the Left in general!)

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑January 26th, 2024, 3:11 amDiscuss the situation in the ME, put your views forward, and others will judge your views on their merits. There's no need to bring US politics into it.

I'm living in Germany, and the Woke Left is active here as well (particularly at universities). See e.g. this!

To call anyone "woke" is a simple insult with no substance in it. You might like to improve your vocabulary.

"Now, it's been found that the UN group that was supposed to monitor Israel and Hamas ended up joining Hamas in their attacks on Israel. That's anti-Semitism." wrote Sy Borg .But , Sy Borg, that did not happen!

What actually happened was that 12 staff members ,out of a total staff numbering tens of thousands,
took part in a heinous and illegal event.
The response by many countries to stop humanitarian aid a response by many countries including the UK and Australia is extremely cruel and unnecessary. The 12 perpetrators are being identified and punished.

The action of my country the UK is shameful and certainly not in my name. I am sad that you an Australian support your own government's cruel and unnecessary stance!

I stand corrected. Not the entire unit - just some employees.

Nonetheless, that is a matter of detail. The Jews certainly have not missed the UN bias, though.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/an ... ed-nations

... there is a considerable anti-Semitic component behind the policies pursued there and expressed without challenge (except by the United States) in its fora.

Emergency Special Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. In fact, during the last 15 years they have been called only to condemn Israel.

Whereas Arab states have traditionally used UN fora to demonize and isolate Israel (for example, they routinely attempt to deny Israel its credentials), they now believe they enjoy "Western" support which emboldens them.

The latest Emergency Special Session, called to address Israeli construction at the Har Homa site, set in motion steps to de-legitimize Israel and to bring it to its knees. During its July meeting, the Session considered a resolution that requested member states "not to allow any import of goods produced and manufactured in occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem" -- a virtual boycott and collective sanctions against the state.

Sy Borg wrote:

"Let's face it, while people are in AGONY over a relatively small number of suffering Palestinians, who amongst them gives a damn about suffering Haitians, Burmese, South Sudanese, Congolese, Somalians etc? Almost none. Meditate on the reason why this is the case."

My reply is that I care, and if I care then it's a sign many others care.
I don't know why media coverage is so much more about the blatant genocide in Gaza, but I surmise the reason is because people like us vowed to never again allow genocide to happen.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 27th, 2024, 6:19 am If there is a definition of 'antisemite' , who defined the word?

"In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism :

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

* Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

* Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

* Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust

* Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

* Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

* Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries."

Source: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

Belindi wrote: ↑January 28th, 2024, 6:37 am To call anyone "woke" is a simple insult with no substance in it.

It depends, but in the descriptive sense it's like calling someone Catholic.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 28th, 2024, 6:37 amYou might like to improve your vocabulary.

I already did so by writing "the Woke Left (aka the Radical Cultural Left)" in a previous post. I use the term "the Woke Left" broadly (and partly anachronistically, since "woke" in the current political sense didn't gain currency before the 2010s) to refer to the post-70s, post-New-Left Cultural Left, the identitarian-minoritarian Left, which is informed by multiculturalism, postcolonialism, and postmodernism, and aims at a radical transformation of (the Marxian superstructure of) society.