Antisemitic ? - Another poll.

[erol]

Another poll I am afraid. Please do remember that there is no compulsion on anyone to vote or read this thread.

So this one has been prompted by the following that popped up on bbc . It is on a 'live updating' web page so can not link to it directly but the relevant section is as follows.

A Labour candidate in Aberdeenshire has quit following a row over anti-Semitism.

Kate Ramsden stood down in the Gordon constituency after the Jewish Chronicle highlighted a blog post in which they said she compared Israel to an abused child that becomes an abusive adult, and claimed anti-Semitism allegations against Jeremy Corbyn were “orchestrated by the wealthy establishment”.

So I am looking at the first part only for now. The abused child / abusive adult . I am posting this poll because I do not really 'get it'. For me criticising Israel is not the same as criticising either the Israeli people or the Jewish people ? Any more than criticising the UK is not the same as criticising the British people ? Am I missing something here ? Is any criticising of the state of Israel at all, in and of itself, antisemitic ? If it is does that not put the state of Israel beyond criticism no matter what it might do ?

Confused.

[Groucho]

I say yes... because using the term Israel is encapsulating all Israelis in a sweeping generalisation. It is a cheap shot to use such a generalisation as a pejorative term much as calling Germans Nazis. Individuals are often abusers but to use the name of a whole nation and accuse them all of being abusers is low.

[jofra]

Dictionary:

Semite
/ˈsiːmʌɪt,ˈsɛmʌɪt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: Semite; plural noun: Semites

a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

Also:

The Semitic languages, previously also named Syro-Arabian languages, are a branch of the Afroasiatic language family originating in the Middle East that are spoken by more than 330 million people across much of Western Asia, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, as well as in often large immigrant and expatriate communities in North America, Europe and Australasia. The terminology was first used in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen School of History,who derived the name from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis.

[erol]

I say yes... because using the term Israel is encapsulating all Israelis in a sweeping generalisation. It is a cheap shot to use such a generalisation as a pejorative term much as calling Germans Nazis. Individuals are often abusers but to use the name of a whole nation and accuse them all of being abusers is low.

So you think criticism of Britain for (to pluck one random example out of the air) setting up concentration camps in SA in the 1900 is anti the British people ? If the term 'State of Israel' was used rather than just 'Israel' would that make a difference for you ? If not what term could be used in your opinion to level criticism at the actions of the state of Israel that would not be antisemitic ? Or are you saying there is no term that could do that ?

Or have I misunderstood you ?

Still confused.

[Keithcaley]

I'm afraid that Groucho has also confused me a little - not difficult, I know!

I understood you, Erol, to mean 'The state of Israel' when you used the word 'Israel' - not 'All Israelis' or 'All Jewish people'.

Let's see what Groucho says...

[Deniz1]

Why all these polls?

[tomsteel]

Why all these polls?

I put it you, why not? They stimulate differing points of view/conversation and if you do not like them or do not wish to participate within them, you have a simple option.

[erol]

I put this poll up because I want to understand better. I am 'confused' about this. I put other polls up for other reasons.

[jofra]

What is the probability that this will be reported as an anti-semitic act?
"Under a 1994 peace treaty, Israeli farmers could cultivate land in the Jordanian areas of Naharayim and Tzofar - known as Baqura and Ghamr in Arabic.
The lease governing them was for 25 years, but could have been extended."
While it "could have been extended", in light of Isreal's (NOTE state not individuals!) policy of expanding settlements, might Jordan be being cautious in case Israel decided to try to make these leases "permanent"....?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I would say comparing Israel to an abused child that becomes an abusive adult isn’t anti-Semitic and might be a fair point but saying allegations against Jeremy Corbyn were “orchestrated by the wealthy establishment” might be leading towards that territory because it has the sound of the Rothschilds orchestrating the world conspiracy theories which certainly would count in my book.
Whilst there are no doubt some anti semites in The Labour Party as there are in the Conservative party and life I think a lot of it is the opposition to Israel from the hard left which seems to be based on their default anti Americanism and view that Israel is an imperialistic endeavour. They don’t seem to look on the problem in a balanced way which leads to double standards. The problem is the Palestine problem isn’t as simplistic, black and white, good versus evil as they make it. This leads them having to carry out moral backflips and straying into anti semitism. All they are ultimately doing is causing a siege mentality in Israel and giving comfort to Netanyahu’s hardline approach.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

What is the probability that this will be reported as an anti-semitic act?
"Under a 1994 peace treaty, Israeli farmers could cultivate land in the Jordanian areas of Naharayim and Tzofar - known as Baqura and Ghamr in Arabic.
The lease governing them was for 25 years, but could have been extended."
While it "could have been extended", in light of Isreal's (NOTE state not individuals!) policy of expanding settlements, might Jordan be being cautious in case Israel decided to try to make these leases "permanent"....?

What is interesting is that in 1921 what was 75% of Palestine was hived off to create TransJordan so the Israelis could well say to the Arabs that you already got your bit. There is a belief that were there to be a two state solution which is the only solution imo that Palestine would be amalgamated/join to Jordan within a generation. There is a famous quote from Walid Shoebat:

“One day during the 1960s I went to bed a Jordanian Muslim, and when I woke up the next morning, I was informed that I was now a Palestinian Muslim, and that I was no longer a Jordanian Muslim.”

Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism”.

I think the first question that has to be asked is do you believe the Jews should have a homeland?
I think there are many in the Arab world that don’t and there’s the problem.

[wanderer]

Do I blame Sykes Pico or Rothchild
Or the Methodists and LLoyd George
Official reports
In 1920, the British Government's Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ. Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or—a small number—are Protestants. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.[39]

By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including Bedouin).

Report and general abstract of the Jewish agriculture was taken by the Palestine Zionist Executive in April 1927.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Do I blame Sykes Pico or Rothchild
Or the Methodists and LLoyd George
Official reports
In 1920, the British Government's Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:
.

A land without people for a people without a land.
The British and French virtually drew lines all over the Middle East and created countries. Many were not or never had a history of being a nation state as such.
I suppose you could liken it to the American West. The Sioux and The Apache for example had lived on their lands for centuries but there were no official borders, no titles to the land, no flag, constitution, specific or unique currency or anything that would define it as a nation state apart from residence of the same group of people.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000.

By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews (UNSCOP report, including Bedouin).

The Jews undoubtedly did more with the land and there is a school of thought that by making the land more liveable it attracted Arabs to Palestine. The reason for and the number of Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 has long been the subject of dispute but what can’t be up for argument is that they hadn’t all been there for centuries at least half had to have only been there 20 years, many had lived there less time than many of us have been in TRNC

[erol]

I would say comparing Israel to an abused child that becomes an abusive adult isn’t anti-Semitic and might be a fair point .....

Thanks for your perspective. I think I have worked out why that specific analogy is not antisemtic for me. Why it was so jarring to me. It is not the "state / people" thing. It is that the analogy only applies in the context of "post WW2". Of post holocaust. It is not using tropes that have a continuity of millennia. Unlike

..but saying allegations against Jeremy Corbyn were “orchestrated by the wealthy establishment” might be leading towards that territory because it has the sound of the Rothschilds orchestrating the world conspiracy theories which certainly would count in my book.

Indeed such tropes are antisemitic. They have had an existence over 1000s of years. It does seem to me the problem with the first example being labeled antisemitic in a knee jerk manner, if it is not, is that this then feeds in to the trope of "conspiracy of interest".

[EnjoyingTheSun]

[quote="erol]
Indeed such tropes are antisemitic. They have had an existence over 1000s of years. It does seem to me the problem with the first example being labeled antisemitic in a knee jerk manner, if it is not, is that this then feeds in to the trope of "conspiracy of interest".[/quote]

I don’t know the person so it’s a bit difficult to know about the context and their personal history on this subject. I think that the first comment isn’t but the second comment probably is and if they were made in the same speech that was a bit of an own goal. For example I firmly believe that Chris Williamson has justified being called an anti Semite so even if he made a comment about Israel that on the face of it wasn’t on unfair point I would still be inclined to believe there was an anti Semitic subtext to it. In much the same way if Nick Griffin made a reasonable point on say the prevalence of black knife in London I would still believe his intent was to stir up racism.