How to define antisemitism

[Newme]

If you wish to convert to Orthodox Judaism talk to an orthodox rabbi. If you are just looking for information see the article on convention at myjewishlearng.com.

When I clicked on your link, I got:

“No route found for "GET /myjewishlearng.com." (from "viewtopic.php?p=323720#p323720")”

Judaism is exclusive and self-righteous - doctrinally and culturally.

[Fooloso4]

Newme:

When I clicked on your link, I got ...

I misspelled it. Here is a link from the site discussing denominational differences on conversion:


https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... onversion/

From the section of orthodox Judaism:

Under Orthodox Judaism, the only acceptable reason for a person to convert is personal conviction. The vast majority of those who seek Orthodox conversions are serious people who genuinely want to commit themselves to a traditional Jewish life. Conversion simply for the sake of marriage is, at least according to official policy, neither condoned nor permitted among the Orthodox.

The Orthodox conversion process always requires mikveh [ritual bath - purification - baptism] and brit milah [male circumcision] or hatafat dam brit [taking a drop of blood from the penis if the male who wishes to convert is already circumcised]. Acceptance of all the applicable mitzvot [commandments], the commandments of Jewish law, is expected. The beit din [rabbinic court] must consist of three Orthodox legal authorities, usually rabbis. (Brackets added).

Newme:

Judaism is exclusive and self-righteous - doctrinally and culturally.

First, Judaism in not a doctrinaire religion. There are no doctrines that all Jews adhere to. What unites them is the Law. The Law is not a doctrine.

A bit of early Christian history sheds light on the question of exclusivity. Jesus taught his followers that they must follow the Law. Paul taught that this was not necessary. The spreading of the “good news” that Jesus saves, that is, witnessing and conversion, became for some Christian sects an essential element of what it means to be a Christian. Catholic literally means ‘according to the whole’ and has been understood in both an inclusive and exclusive sense. Inclusive in the sense of converting everyone to Christianity, and exclusive in the sense of establishing official gospels, doctrines, and practices

Here we begin to see the root of the problem. What does it mean to be a Christian? Is there a code of conduct? A set of beliefs? Is anyone who believes that Jesus will save them no matter what they say and do a Christian? It is clear that Jesus did hold that there was a code of conduct, the Jewish Law. Paul claimed that the law is written in the heart but that it was only with the death of the body that we are free from doing what is sinful. There is some disagreement as to whether he meant this literally or figuratively, but what is clear from his letters is that his followers did not always conduct themselves as he said they should. But according to Paul the end was near and so it may be that all these questions about who is or is not a Jew or Christian and how one should act would soon be moot. The saved alone would be transformed to “spirit bodies” and live forever on a transformed Earth. It was with this sense of urgency that his followers sought to save as many as they could before it was too late. Paul was not interested in matters of theology, only with persuading people to believe in order to be saved.

But the end time did not come to pass in his lifetime or in the next generation or any generation since then. Christians are, however, still concerned with bringing everyone to Christ. And this means getting everyone to believe as they believe and do as they say you should do. Most Jews, however, did not buy Paul’s version of the Messiah. They are closer to Jesus’ Jewish teachings about the Law than to Paul’s eschatology. They stand apart because the Law separates those who adhere to it from those who do not. Christians do the same when, for example, the exclude homosexuals. But this is not true of all Christians and is not true of all Jews either. While some dig in their heels other have always been and are still receptive to change.

One final point. While Christianity is widely accepted Judaism still is not. The separateness of Jews has more to do with their being excluded, being ostracized and persecuted, their unwillingness to be become Christians or break the commandments, then it does with their being exclusive. They are safe from within but not from without and so many stay together. The majority, however, assimilate as they did successfully in Germany until they were herded together and sent to the death camps.

[Steve3007]

(A UK General Election related question.) Now that claims of antisemitism against the Labour Party have been brought back into the headlines again, just in time for the General Election in just over 2 weeks, is anybody here swayed by them? My own view of these claims is the same as it has been previously. I think that they are largely unjustified and are simply a convenient stick with which to beat the Labour Party. I think criticism of the policies of the government of the State of Israel, and/or support for the plight of Palestinians, does not constitute antisemitism. We may or may not agree with those criticisms, but there's nothing wrong with making them. We may or may not agree with the political direction in which the Labour Party has moved in recent years, but this is not the way to express that.

But I don't think the response by the Labour Party should be to accuse the Tory Party of anti-Islamic prejudice. I think both sides should get on with debating the actual issues which genuinely divide them.

[Consul]

* Marcus, Kenneth L. The Definition of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

"If anti-Semitism is to be addressed, it must be explained; and if it is to be explained, it must first be defined. Since at least 1879, the term “anti-Semitism” has been repeatedly, variously, and contradictorily defined and redefined in scores of lexicons, encyclopedia, and other reference works, as well as scholarly books and monographs. Despite these efforts, the question of definition is now more unsettled than at any previous time. Indeed, the definitional issue has arisen as the central question in the contemporary study of anti-Semitism, much as etiology was the central question for the generation that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, definitional controversies, while always present in the study and discourse surrounding anti-Semitism, have increased in the years following the onset of the Second Intifada, because scholars, practitioners, and activists need a generally accepted means of distinguishing between anti-Semitism and the various offenses that are directed at Israel or at Jews who support Israel but that do not merit that designation. This is true today for the same reason that it has long been true: because definitions are fraught with ideological assumptions that divide schools of thought." (p. 6)

[Jklint]

* Marcus, Kenneth L. The Definition of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

"If anti-Semitism is to be addressed, it must be explained; and if it is to be explained, it must first be defined. Since at least 1879, the term “anti-Semitism” has been repeatedly, variously, and contradictorily defined and redefined in scores of lexicons, encyclopedia, and other reference works, as well as scholarly books and monographs. Despite these efforts, the question of definition is now more unsettled than at any previous time. Indeed, the definitional issue has arisen as the central question in the contemporary study of anti-Semitism, much as etiology was the central question for the generation that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, definitional controversies, while always present in the study and discourse surrounding anti-Semitism, have increased in the years following the onset of the Second Intifada, because scholars, practitioners, and activists need a generally accepted means of distinguishing between anti-Semitism and the various offenses that are directed at Israel or at Jews who support Israel but that do not merit that designation. This is true today for the same reason that it has long been true: because definitions are fraught with ideological assumptions that divide schools of thought." (p. 6)

It's true that antisemitism should first be defined before debating the subject but there are in fact, so many variations and reasons for it, whether real or imagined, that it can never be defined conclusively. The 'ideological assumptions' of antisemitism remain so ingrained - paradoxically so - regardless of all the debunking that's already occurred that its survival is assured for at least another 100 years.

If one were to attempt a definition then start with the term itself which at its core incorporates a contradiction. Semitic, as has long been known, refers to language and not to race. In it's true definition, any group whose primary language is Semitic are claimed to be Semitic which doesn't only include Jews. Etymologically, the term itself doesn't make sense and prevents any possibility of a definition.

[Consul]

If one were to attempt a definition then start with the term itself which at its core incorporates a contradiction. Semitic, as has long been known, refers to language and not to race. In it's true definition, any group whose primary language is Semitic are claimed to be Semitic which doesn't only include Jews. Etymologically, the term itself doesn't make sense and prevents any possibility of a definition.

Etymologically, a Semite needn't be a Jew but can be "a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and many of the peoples of Ethiopia." (American Heritage Dict.). However, "anti-Semitism" is in fact used to refer to Jews only.

"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."

(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 55)

[Sculptor1]

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/jewish-voice ... isemitism/

[Sculptor1]

(A UK General Election related question.) Now that claims of antisemitism against the Labour Party have been brought back into the headlines again, just in time for the General Election in just over 2 weeks, is anybody here swayed by them? My own view of these claims is the same as it has been previously. I think that they are largely unjustified and are simply a convenient stick with which to beat the Labour Party. I think criticism of the policies of the government of the State of Israel, and/or support for the plight of Palestinians, does not constitute antisemitism. We may or may not agree with those criticisms, but there's nothing wrong with making them. We may or may not agree with the political direction in which the Labour Party has moved in recent years, but this is not the way to express that.

But I don't think the response by the Labour Party should be to accuse the Tory Party of anti-Islamic prejudice. I think both sides should get on with debating the actual issues which genuinely divide them.

There is a bit of low key "Rothschilds world domination of the banks" sort of myth flying around social media. Most of the complaints to the Labour party revealed the sources of these not to be Labour members. Though in a party of half a million members a 100 or so genuine cases from people not in any positions of power in the party is to be expected.
But the hysteria has led to many Jews in the party being expelled for irony, along with a tiny number of real anti-semites.
But these facts remain:
1) Labour has never had a racist policy
2) No party has done more against racism than Labour
3) It is unlikely that Labour shall ever have a racist policy, and shall never make a racist law.
4) Other parties do not get the same attention on this matter, eventhough they have shown themselves to be far more racist with the leader of the Tories using phrases such as letter-box faces to describe Muslim women and mellon-smiled pickanninies to talk about black children.
5) Labour is openly critical of Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, fouting of UN resolutions, and large scale human rights abuses of Palestinians.
6) Jeremy Corbyn himself has been a lifelong campaigner against racism. Possibly no other MP has done as much in this fight.

But you have only to reflect on the words of The Chief Rabbi to know he is taking craopology as he makes claims that not only cannot be true, but even if they were he could never be party to the information necessary to make such statements, and despite continued requests to meet with Labour on the issue they (The Jewish establishment) have refused to agree.

I know many Jews in the Labour party and they are hopping mad, but the limits put on free speech by the definitions of what AS is supposed to be make it near impossible to speak out on this issue.

Labour has been too soft. Labour people are far too keen to root out any un-PC comments are self-flagellate. For what is basically tittle-tattle they are allowing themselves to be racked over the coals and have shown themselves quite willing to participate in their own oppression.
The party has also entertained internal Jewish sub-groups; JLM and JVL who have been busily fighting amongst themselves and tearing the party apart. JLM has, in the past, been found guilty of taking money directly from Israel.

Although there is also a lot of negative publicity concerning the aims of Al Jazeera, they are committed to bringing democracy to the middle east; it is worth watching The Lobby - a four part documentary about Israel's attempt to meddle with British politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceCOhdgRBoc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dn-VV3czc

I also quote a letter from a friend (A Jew) who has responded to the Chief Rabbi's recent comments.
Dear Chief Rabbi,

You have shamed you office today and rendered the Jewish people even more vulnerable to real antisemitism by reinforcing the fake, media-induced antisemitism that you recklessly impute to Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

To interfere politically at this point in an election in a way that could affect the only party that could bring hope and social justice to this country is beyond contempt and renders you unfit for office.

As a Jew and a Labour Party supporter, I am proud to be part of a venture that I see as a continuity of so many of my Jewish forbears who have fought for social justice here and in Europe.

You talk about 'the soul of the nation being at stake' YET have you not noticed what has happened to that soul over the last nine years where:
1. The poor have been vilified
2. The ill have been attacked
3. The mentally ill have suffered
4. Inequality has soared.
5. Greed and financial rapaciousness has flourished
6. Austerity has been unnecessarily applied after a financial crisis brought about by an out of control finance sector that has benefited the wealthiest.

Where was YOUR voice about the nation's soul then? Yet you inveigh against a decent and honest man who, even now, maintains integrity in the face of manifest manipulation, deceit and digital sleight of hand from the Tories.

You have shamed your office, the justice loving tradition of the Jewish people and laid the grounds for future tensions in the most irresponsible way.

You seem to lack the acuity of intellect to even spot the most obvious use of this bogus antisemitism as a political weapon. Justin Schlossberg of the Media Reform Coalition called the antisemitism saga 'a disinformation paradigm' and made a detailed study of the issue. The great scholar, Norman Finkelstein, likewise, sees this a purely politically motivated attack.

How dare you, amateurishly intervene in this, betraying the great Jewish scholarly tradition of intellectual and analytical acumen embodied in the Talmud and the exegetics of the Chumash.

With profound sadness and considerable disgust,

Simon Cohen

I understand it is going viral.

[Sculptor1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEX5OGmXLz4

[Sculptor1]

https://i.redd.it/crxpa35vu6e11.jpg

[Sculptor1]

If one were to attempt a definition then start with the term itself which at its core incorporates a contradiction. Semitic, as has long been known, refers to language and not to race. In it's true definition, any group whose primary language is Semitic are claimed to be Semitic which doesn't only include Jews. Etymologically, the term itself doesn't make sense and prevents any possibility of a definition.

Etymologically, a Semite needn't be a Jew but can be "a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and many of the peoples of Ethiopia."

Not remotely relevant.
Since no one uses the term to talk about anyone other than Jews.

[Sculptor1]

Judaism is exclusive and self-righteous - doctrinally and culturally.

I think you will find that is "religion" that you are describing.

[Jklint]

If one were to attempt a definition then start with the term itself which at its core incorporates a contradiction. Semitic, as has long been known, refers to language and not to race. In it's true definition, any group whose primary language is Semitic are claimed to be Semitic which doesn't only include Jews. Etymologically, the term itself doesn't make sense and prevents any possibility of a definition.

Etymologically, a Semite needn't be a Jew but can be "a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and many of the peoples of Ethiopia." (American Heritage Dict.). However, "anti-Semitism" is in fact used to refer to Jews only.

"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."

(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 55)

It would appear that antisemitism is only the most recent incarnation of the historical religious animosity against Jews and Judaism. Today it's no-longer necessary to believe the Jews killed Jesus to be anti-Semitic.

Anti-semitism seems a continuation of anti-Judaism based on more modern secular reasons even if those reasons are as false as the old myths. A long historical entrenchment of hatred is not, based on human nature, easily rescinded. Instead, new generalizations and false conclusions are created to justify its continuation. Hatreds persist even when its causes no-longer exist or declared bogus.

As for the quote given, every word has a history, its 'etymology" and history denotes change. This implies the further back you go the more important it's point of origin becomes to understand the mindset and civilization of those who created and employed it. We don't dig up ancient cities to explain how different they are from ours but to understand the culture of those times. In that sense the genealogy of a word going back to its first known instance is of paramount importance regardless of what any professor of linguistics has to say.

[Sculptor1]

Etymologically, a Semite needn't be a Jew but can be "a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and many of the peoples of Ethiopia." (American Heritage Dict.). However, "anti-Semitism" is in fact used to refer to Jews only.

"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."

(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 55)

It would appear that antisemitism is only the most recent incarnation of the historical religious animosity against Jews and Judaism. Today it's no-longer necessary to believe the Jews killed Jesus to be anti-Semitic.

Anti-semitism seems a continuation of anti-Judaism based on more modern secular reasons even if those reasons are as false as the old myths. A long historical entrenchment of hatred is not, based on human nature, easily rescinded. Instead, new generalizations and false conclusions are created to justify its continuation. Hatreds persist even when its causes no-longer exist or declared bogus.

As for the quote given, every word has a history, its 'etymology" and history denotes change. This implies the further back you go the more important it's point of origin becomes to understand the mindset and civilization of those who created and employed it. We don't dig up ancient cities to explain how different they are from ours but to understand the culture of those times. In that sense the genealogy of a word going back to its first known instance is of paramount importance regardless of what any professor of linguistics has to say.

Etymology is not relevant.
AS is nothing more than a specific type of racism.

[Steve3007]

If one were to attempt a definition then start with the term itself which at its core incorporates a contradiction. Semitic, as has long been known, refers to language and not to race. In it's true definition, any group whose primary language is Semitic are claimed to be Semitic which doesn't only include Jews. Etymologically, the term itself doesn't make sense and prevents any possibility of a definition.

Etymologically, a Semite needn't be a Jew but can be "a member of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and many of the peoples of Ethiopia." (American Heritage Dict.). However, "anti-Semitism" is in fact used to refer to Jews only.

I think these points about etymology both support Consul's quote from "Language and Linguistics: An Introduction" by John Lyons:

"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."

I agree that the etymological origins of words, though very interesting, and often contributing to an understanding of the developing meaning of a word, can't be used to entirely define that meaning in the present. Ultimately words are defined by the ways in which they are currently used, and those current uses often leave the etymology behind like a section of fossil DNA.

This kind of common usage idea of language, I think, is one of the main contributors to the modern arguments as to whether a person is being antisemitic. A common defence is to point out that one can be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. But a common attack against that defense invokes the metaphor of the "dog whistle". That metaphor is often used in this context and others to claim that the speaker is actually saying something different (to those whose ears are attuned to it) than what he/she is literally saying. So, in this case, the accuser might claim that anti-Zionism is code for antisemitism. This has in fact been claimed by various critics of the British Labour Party.

The trouble with all "dog whistle" claims like this, from all sides, is that it's difficult to argue against them. The accused can't simply say "look at what I actually said" because the accuser claims that they meant something different from what they actually said. How do you refute that with an argument?