How to define antisemitism

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3276
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Fooloso4 » August 8th, 2018, 2:07 pm

Newme:
...intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famous said:
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
You have a great many opinions but do not have the facts to back them up. As you are fond of reminding others: this is a philosophy forum. There is no equality between informed opinions and uninformed or misinformed opinions and no justified reason for not being intolerant toward misinformed opinion.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1088
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 8th, 2018, 5:48 pm

Newme wrote:
August 8th, 2018, 11:55 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 7th, 2018, 12:49 pm


I do.
Consider this.
Before the 1950s US universities had a Jewish Quota. This was not to ensure they had a representative sample, but to unsure that universities were not overcrowded with Jews. They wanted non-Jews to get a chance.

The simple fact is that Jews are generally more capable people. The reason for this is purely Darwinian.
A "race" of people that has suffered 2000 years of oppression, pogroms, suffering, torture, and prejudice has meant that only the most capable have been able to live out their lives and have children to continue their lines.
Only those with enough money to flee, with enough political and social capital, wealth, cunning, adaptivity.. all the qualities of survival.
So the funny thing here is idiots like YOU and other antisemites have not only caused Jews to hide, to stick together, to be strong together, they have created (inadvertently) a much stronger and more clever group. And the more you oppress that group the stronger and more clannish it will get.
Let's face it Jews are smarter than you.
Has this not even occurred to you yet? Maybe you should try to think it over?
That must be it. The bible says so. The Jewish talmud says it all more emphatically - how dare anyone exist if they are not Jewish! What nerve!
Maybe you are too stupid to read properly.
Go and see a teacher of Jewish decent - you might learn something.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 8:56 am

My conclusion on this topic, which was (initially) specifically about the antisemitism row in the British Labour Party, is this: I've been convinced that the criticism of the Labour NEC's decision to slightly alter the IHRA definition of antisemitism is unjustified. And I'm also convinced that some of the people doing the complaining are doing it because they don't like Corbyn. This is obviously and transparently true of right wing newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Mail. But it's probably also true of some people within the Labour Party who don't like the direction in which the party has gone under Corbyn.

But I still don't think the whole furore can entirely be described as a right wing plot - i.e. a plot motivated by objections to Corbyn's position on the political spectrum. I think it's also motivated simply by the love of a good, juicy story. This seems to me to be demonstrated by the currently equally big furore over Boris Johnson's remarks about Muslim women's body coverings. I'm no fan of Boris Johnson, but I think that is also overblown, for partly the same reason. It's a nice, big, juicy story that gets everybody up in arms and therefore sells copy. If we're going to condemn Johnson for saying that it's a bit mad to wear a garment that entirely covers the body, face and eyes (while opposing the banning of those garments) then don't we also have to condemn, for example, Monty Python's Life of Brian for ridiculing other religious customs? In this instance, surely Boris Johnson is just being a good liberal, defending people's rights to dress as they want while also exercising his right to take the piss.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1088
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 9:02 am

Steve3007 wrote:
August 10th, 2018, 8:56 am
My conclusion on this topic, which was (initially) specifically about the antisemitism row in the British Labour Party, is this: I've been convinced that the criticism of the Labour NEC's decision to slightly alter the IHRA definition of antisemitism is unjustified.
So when I note that a person in the Labour party wants to support Israel over the interests of the UK and I point that out - that makes me antisemitic?
What a joke!

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 9:05 am

So when I note that a person in the Labour party wants to support Israel over the interests of the UK and I point that out - that makes me antisemitic?
Er, no, in my opinion it doesn't make you that. I think you've misread what I said.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 9:08 am

If I were following your example in your past dealings with me and most other posters, since you've misunderstood the meaning of a simple sentence of mine that you quoted, I guess I could throw a few insults at you. Idiot. Fool. "slapshead". etc. (I never did work out what you meant by that one.)

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1088
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 9:08 am

Steve3007 wrote:
August 10th, 2018, 9:05 am
So when I note that a person in the Labour party wants to support Israel over the interests of the UK and I point that out - that makes me antisemitic?
Er, no, in my opinion it doesn't make you that. I think you've misread what I said.
Given that you said Labour is wrong to tweek the defintion, You DO think I am antisemitic.

The other change in Labour's definition would also allow me to quote from the UN report which condemns Israel as an apartheid state.
Sadly were we to keep the so-called "internationall accepted" view (which it is not) I cannot post the UN report.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1088
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 9:11 am

Sorry I did not see your verbal diarroeah.
What you meant to say is that Labour IS justified in changing the IHRA definition?

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 9:15 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:Given that you said Labour is wrong to tweek the defintion, You DO think I am antisemitic.
Jeez. I'll walk you through it:
Steve3007 wrote:I've been convinced that the criticism of the Labour NEC's decision to slightly alter the IHRA definition of antisemitism is unjustified.
Note the structure of this fairly simple sentence. The thing which I propose is unjustified is the criticism. Criticism of what? Of the Labour NEC's decision to slightly alter the IHRA definition of antisemitism. What was the alteration? Removing some supposed examples of antisemitism, such as the supposed example of accusing some Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to Britain.

Did you read the rest of the paragraph?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1088
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 10:59 am

No I did not.

It is so rare that one so polemic on this forum is capable of changing his mind.

Well done.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 11:36 am

It is so rare that one so polemic on this forum is capable of changing his mind.
Me? Polemic? Prolific maybe, but not polemic. The biggest criticism that has generally been levelled against me by other posters here is that I sit on the fence and don't clearly and unambiguously state a position, but, instead, qualify everything I say. For example, it's a criticism that Dachsund made just a few minutes ago. So probably the opposite of polemic.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 12:04 pm

So probably the opposite of polemic.
There, you see. I said "probably". I can't even unambiguously commit to whether I am the opposite of a polemicist.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1088
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 1:00 pm

Polemic:
eg
"Your "argument" seems to be: "The Sun and The Daily Mail are anti-Corbyn. Therefore all accusations of antisemitism in the Labour leadership from any source, whether inside the Labour party or outside, is part of a right-wing British Establishment Jewish conspiracy.""

In fact absurd and childish polemic.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 2:34 pm

Since you simply posted a series of absurd Daily Mail and Sun front pages and claimed "I could do this all day" that apparently was your idea of an argument.

A large number of your posts are argument-free insults ("you're an idiot", "you're a fool" etc). Polemic is, apparently: "a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something."

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1088
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How to define antisemitism

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 13th, 2018, 9:04 am

FYI.
Thought you might be interested in this; an open letter signed by thousands of ordinary party members to the Labour NEC expressing their concerns about how to define antisemitism.


Dear members of the NEC,

As members of the Labour Party, we, the undersigned, call on the party’s National Executive Committee to resist calls to adopt all eleven examples accompanying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into the party’s code of conduct on antisemitism.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and as such must stand up for justice and equality and speak up against oppression. We are gravely concerned that two of the currently omitted examples in particular will be used to silence free speech on Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights and freedom.

The IHRA states that instances of antisemitism may include “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”. We fear that if adopted into the party’s code of conduct, this example will be used to oppose and ban support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Criticism of BDS often centres upon it “singling out” Israel and treating it differently than other “democratic” states. However, Israel is not a democratic state. It enforces a system of apartheid in the occupied West Bank, with different roads and different legal systems and courts for Israelis and Palestinians, including the world’s only military court for children, and has recently adopted a law relegating Israeli Arabs to second class citizens in Israel proper. The BDS movement is modelled on the boycott of apartheid South Africa, the latter which had broad support on the European left. We resisted apartheid then and we must resist it now.

The IHRA further includes as an example of antisemitism “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.” We fear that this will be used to silence discussion and raising awareness of the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of some 750,000 Palestinians in 1947-48 so that the Israeli state could be established as an ethno-nationalist “Jewish homeland”, as well as criticism of the current apartheid system. We ask the NEC to please note that the two parts of the example are separate issues. Claiming that the State of Israel is a racist endeavour is not the same as denying Jewish people the right to self-determination. It is denying such self-determination at the cost of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. It is denying self-determination in the form of an ethno-nationalist state. All people and nations have an internationally recognised right to self-determination, but it is our view, and we believe it should be the view of the Labour Party, that such self-determination should be in the form of a democratic state that grants equal rights to everyone lawfully residing within its borders. That is not how the state of Israel was created. It was created through the expulsion and killing of members of one ethnic group to make room for another, and this continues to be the basis of the Israeli state today. The Nakba has been well documented by both Palestinian and Israeli scholars, and the Palestinian right of return has been formally recognised by the UN. We must be allowed to speak freely about this. Our Palestinian members must be able to speak freely about the Nakba and about the current system of apartheid and ongoing ethnic cleansing just like our Jewish members must be able to speak freely about the Holocaust. Recognising that right does not equate to denying Jewish people in Israel the right to self-determination in a fully democratic state.

As members of the NEC will be aware, the IHRA definition and examples have been used elsewhere to shut down legitimate and non-racist debate on Israel, such as at the University of Lancashire last year, where a panel on “Debunking misconceptions on Palestine and the importance of BDS” was banned by the university citing the IHRA definition, after pressure from pro-Israel groups. If all eleven examples are adopted by the NEC at its next meeting in September, many party members will face an impossible choice – be silent or face possible suspension and/or expulsion. We are deeply concerned and fearful of what will become of our party and our movement if members are not able to freely speak out against apartheid and ethnic cleansing. To endorse the BDS movement or to suggest that the the State of Israel in its historic and current form is a racist endeavour are not expressions of antisemitism. Imagine if members had been banned from speaking out in a similar way against apartheid South Africa. It is absolutely crucial – for the future of our party and the country, and for the prospect of an end to the brutal occupation of Palestine – that members of the Labour Party are able to speak freely about Israel’s crimes without fear of punishment.

Post Reply