Comments on: A tsunami of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism?

By: Crooked Timber » » Poppies

Crooked Timber » » Poppies — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:43:42 +0000

[...] Never put off blogging something, or Matthew Turner will beat you to it ! Last year Carol Gould wrote a piece about an alleged epidemic of anti-Americanism in Britain and the some of the decent left linked to it enthusiastically (one describing the piece as a breath of fresh air ). When I dared to suggest that it was a load of old tosh, the decents cried foul . Will they, I wonder, continue to accord heroine status to Ms. Gould when they read her latest hilarious effort . Some choice exerpts: Last week was the culmination of that poignant fortnight in which people all over the world wear a poppy in the lead-up to Remembrance Day. Nothing is more dramatic than seeing the sea of red flowers in the lapels of British men and women as they make their way to the office in the early-morning rush hour. … On British television, every presenter and anchor wears a poppy. In keeping with the motto of the British Legion—“Wear your poppy with pride”—every shopkeeper, publican, hotel manager and cabbie wears a poppy…. It was therefore all the more astonishing last week when I took a long walk along Edgware Road, the most densely Muslim section of London, and discovered that not one person was wearing a poppy. [...]

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:01:36 +0000

And if you can’t understand the difference between “Israel is New Zealand” and “Israel is similar to New Zealand in some significant ways,” then this discussion is truly hopeless. Actually, I wonder if this might be the impetus behind some of the historical uniqueness arguments – the belief (conscious or otherwise) that drawing parallels between two situations is tantamount to equating them. Frankly, I find the idea of discussing a geopolitical situation without comparison to other experiences silly, but your mileage may vary.

By: mona

mona — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:35:29 +0000

Josh and Gary Garber: actually, yeah, in theory, that was supposed to funny, or really just silly, light-hearted, a joke, nothing prize-winning, there was just something that I found humourous in the exchanges between Gary and Seth. No denial of the existence of antisemitism or racism today or in the ‘50’s, and no blaming antisemitism on targets of antisemitism, was implied. Gee, nothing that serious was implied at all, really. I never thought anyone would take it seriously, I mean, wasn’t it obvious I was being silly, talking about pop culture and tv series? Did you actually think I thought The O.C. is proof antisemitism doesn’t exist? Now that is funny. Nevermind.

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:42:22 +0000

And if you can’t understand the difference between “Israel is New Zealand” and “Israel is similar to New Zealand in some significant ways,” then this discussion is truly hopeless.

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:36:53 +0000

Dude, I have never, ever, claimed to be unbiased, and have declared my bias on numerous occasions. Reasonable is another story. That’s in the eye of the beholder.

By: Luc

Luc — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:38:33 +0000

This is not precisely the act of Nazis, or even apartheid-era rulers in SA. It isn’t. Just as Israel isn’t New Zealand. This hardly makes the last paragraph, as so honestly represented here, evidence of “ethnic cleansing.” On the contrary, the Arab proportion of the population of Jersusalem is growing! I do consider it a form of ethnic cleansing. To quote another piece out of context:

The compound is currently, and gradually, being cleared of its Arab population by means of legal procedures; but tension has erupted from time to time.

Israel has politicies in and around Jerusalem that are clearly in conflict with international law, as recently confirmed by the ICJ. You can talk around that, say it is not ethnic cleansing, Har Homa is no settlement, it is no population transfer because there were Jews living there before 1947, ethnically separated neigboorhoods are a fact of live etc. but for me those are flimsy excuses for not dealing with the problem. I troll these things because many, especially Jonathan Edelstein, have the habit of somehow posing their views as the unbiased or reasonable one, while clearly having a horse in the race, so to speak. And, hey, by all means, let’s only take note of the faults and wrongs of one side. A weird excuse that I fail to grasp. Besides I made a reference to MEMRI, to show off the one-sidedness and propaganda character of my post.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:57:23 +0000

Oh, and regarding that Haaretz story, it’s interesting to read the context. While Lupolianski suggested rezoning plan for a single neighborhood is dubious, and there seems to be good cause for objecting to it, several things are notable. One is this: “Commenting on Lupolianski’s request to the Housing Ministry, the chairman of the Yahad branch in Jerusalem, Ehud Arnon, said that the mayor, who always spoke nobly of equality for the Arab population in the capital, was now revealing himself to be no different from his predecessor. Arnon, a former Jerusalem city councillor, opposes the rezoning proposal and is demanding that the neighborhood be built for the capital’s Arab population, which, he says, has suffered land appropriations and discrimination for many years.” This is not precisely the act of Nazis, or even apartheid-era rulers in SA. Ditto this: “Jerusalem Municipality spokesman Gideon Shmerling said that Lupolianski was doing a lot to prepare outline and construction plans for the capital’s Arab sector, too. With regard to the planning of the neighborhood on the slopes of Mount Scopus, Shmerling noted that it was intended to create territorial contiguity between the Mount Scopus, French Hill and Ramat Eshkol neighborhoods and that a decision on the matter had yet to be made. Housing Ministry sources have said that Lupolianski’s request makes a lot of sense from a planning point of view; but they also noted that no decision on the matter had been made.” Lastly, reading this: “Meanwhile, according to data compiled by officials drawing up the new outline plan for Jerusalem, the capital’s Jewish population is expected to shrink by up to 60 percent by 2020. At present, the city’s population is some 67 percent Jewish and 33 percent Arab; but the last two years have seen a dramatic slowdown in the growth rate of Jerusalem’s Jewish population in relation to the growth rate of the Arab sector. The figures in the new outline plan show that between 1967 and 2002, Jerusalem’s population grew at an average annual rate of some 12,000 residents, with the Jewish sector comprising around 63 percent of this number. Over the past two years, however, the Jewish sector’s part in Jerusalem’s population growth has been 43 percent only. The outline plan notes that the government’s target with regard to the demographic balance between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem – 70 percent Jews and 30 percent Arabs – is no longer realistic.” This hardly makes the last paragraph, as so honestly represented here, evidence of “ethnic cleansing.” On the contrary, the Arab proportion of the population of Jersusalem is growing! There are more than enough real offensive acts of the government and individuals in Israel to complain about than it’s worth spending time making this into what it isn’t. And, hey, by all means, let’s only take note of the faults and wrongs of one side.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:47:59 +0000

There’s little point, from my point of view, in my continuing further; I’m not going to convince someone who believes “Israel, and its genocidal policy towards the Arabs” is an accurate description of events—but when the death camps are running, get back to me—and they’re not going to convince me, any more that Bremer or Negroponte are going to be inviting me their kids’ bar mitzphas, or black masses, or drinking blood parties, or whatever, any time soon. A word to Mona, though, regarding: “If the Brits hated Americans and Jews so much, why do they love so many American and Jewish actors and pop stars?” I gather that the popularity in the UK and US in the fifties of black jazz musicians meant that racism wasn’t a problem, and that by the Sixties and Seventies, given Bill Cosby, Sidney Poitier, Willie Mays, and a gazillion other black entertainers and basketball players and boxers and track starts and sports stars in general as well as musicians, racism completely ceased to exist. Good to know! Today, of course, there is no longer any racism, anti-Semitism, or sexism, in either the U.S. or Britain. Or, conceivably, no one was saying that “Brits hate Americans and Jews so much” (maybe the FrontPage writer, but conversation in this thread long since left her behind as a topic), and no one sane would say there is no anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism in Britain, and the only reasonable question is how prevalent or rare those phenonena are; but I don’t see a likelihood of more truth being squeezed out of those left on this thread. Seth Edenbaum says “And I’m not going to bother to explain my ‘Israel is Germanic’ comment” before bothering to explain what he meant. “Ashkenazi” is the word you were looking for. And the majority of people who put Begin and the Likud in power, as it happens, were Sephardic (Ladino/Middle Eastern), which kind of messes with your reiteration, but since I find your focus on ethnicity pointless in the first place, it’s no surprise that I’m not going to find your path of reasoning interesting. “Israel was an ideology before it was a fact.” Yes, this makes it entirely different from all the other socialistic states that were created out of the same storm of formative ideology of the 19th century. Not at all like the Soviet Union, or Mao’s China, no siree! They were/are, you know, natural states. Ditto Pakistan. And so many others…. “Wilhelm Marr? Thanks for the link….” I’ll take that as as close to an admission that you were completely clueless as to the meaning of “anti-Semitism” as you are likely to make. I’m sorry to be so rude—that’s not my preferred style—but you’re not exactly approaching these topics with an attitude of humbleness about your cluelessness in at least some areas, or great politese, either.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:26:42 +0000

I’m as tired of Gary Farber as I am of the occasional anti-semitic trolls. The partition of India? It was a disaster for all involved. The difference between populations and borders? You spoke of them at first as if they were identical. Wilhelm Marr? Thanks for the link, but if Jews are not Semites or the mixed ‘race’ descendants of Semites, then they really have no more right to land in the middle east than the French did in Algeria. As time goes on, Gary, you’re sounding more and more reactionary: We humans know only the pure simplicity of battle. We’re all base creatures, victims of our own bloodlust. Why deny the Jews their place? That’s not a moral argument is it? And I’m not going to bother to explain my ‘Israel is Germanic’ comment. How many of the founders of the country spoke Ladino? European Judaism is a Germanic culture. Josh Cherniss, At the beginning of this I asked someone to respond to the thought that Jews in the white world are both part of that world and not. This seemed clear enough. No one has responded. My ex girlfriend’s grandmother, a woman in he 80’s, a backer of Likud, extremely wealthy, and conservative to the point of racism, while watching reports of the Rodney King fiasco on TV, blurted out the following in front of her entire family: “I feel sorry for the blacks… They can’t hide” And I did not say that Israel was or is a Fascist state; I said it was an artificial state, with an artificial nationalism. Israel was an ideology before it was a fact. There is in this a relationship to Fascism as there is to the various failed attempts at utopia.

By: josh

josh — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:03:11 +0000

Another point about the 2 million Russians becoming Israelis overnight: they weren’t Russians. Of course, they were from Russia, and spoke Russian, and all that. But under the laws of the Soviet Union, their nationality was Jewish, not Russian. So a great many of those people who have migrated to Israel grew up being legally regarded as Jews, not Russians. And many were subject to quite vicious anti-Semitism, as many Jews in former Soviet territories still are. This does not, of course, in any way excuse Israel’s crimes. But I think the preponderance of anti-Semitism in recent European history is a relevant bit of information here. As to Mona’s last comment: ‘scuse me? ‘it’s statistically proven that one of the main causes of antisemitism is Jews arguing with other Jews on who’s more Jewish than the other, what is Jewishness and who knows more about it.’ Is this supposed to be funny? I’m sure it was meant innocently, but to blame anti-Semitism on Jewish behaviour—or, rather, on the behaviour of some individual Jews—as a way of making a point, even in jest, seems to me pretty thoughtless. All that said, I also think the snipes at Chris above are most unfair. He read reports of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in his country; being neither anti-American nor anti-Semitic, he was concerned by this; so he asked people for their experiences. This all seems a fair, reasonable, humane thing to do. That the comment board has attracted a certain number of anti-Semitic whackos, and that the conversation has been taken over by arguments about Israel, may not be greatly surprising; but it’s in no way Chris’s fault. I think we all owe him a word of thanks for starting this discussion—and some of us owe him a word of apology for dragging down its level.

By: mona

mona — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:25:38 +0000

You know, it’s statistically proven that one of the main causes of antisemitism is Jews arguing with other Jews on who’s more Jewish than the other, what is Jewishness and who knows more about it. The gentiles, poor simple creatures they are, can get very confused by that. But not to worry, what political debate can’t do, pop culture will. If the Brits hated Americans and Jews so much, why do they love so many American and Jewish actors and pop stars? How ancient are Horowitz and his FrontPage crew? Yeah, thought so, tsk…

By: elizabeth

elizabeth — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:16:26 +0000

It seems ludicrous to rationalize the actions of Israel, at a time when their influence extends into the White House at an unprecedented level, and their influence is possibly a major reason for this war in Iraq. Yes, many countries have committed unthinkable atrocities in their founding, and history, against indigenous peoples. What is dangerous now, is the fanatical actions of Israel, and its genocidal policy towards the Arabs. The stakes are much higher, for all of us, than when Colombus touched down in the new world. Comparing Israel to New Zealand is like comparing apples to french fries.

By: Luc

Luc — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:09:53 +0000

Israel even maintains targets for its current “ethnic cleansing” campaign:

The outline plan notes that the government’s target with regard to the demographic balance between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem – 70 percent Jews and 30 percent Arabs – is no longer realistic.

Small scale stuff really. Nothing to be taken serious. And they are even failing at it. And this piece of wisdom is again sourced from the poor man’s MEMRI.

By: Jonathan Edelstein

Jonathan Edelstein — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:29:40 +0000

If Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing I think it’s “has” rather than “is” – one episode, in 1947-49, and since then a fitful and often ham-handed attempt to reach a modus vivendi with its Arab citizens. What’s with all the Israel-is-Germanic-like stuff Herzl was a great admirer of Habsburg liberalism, although I’m not sure that’s what SE had in mind.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:50:01 +0000

“There’s a difference between moving borders and moving populations. Obvious yes?” Yes, Seth Edenbaum, and I was speaking of the second, not the first. Perhaps you are as unaware of the European and Indian subcontinental history which I alluded to as you are of who Wilhelm Marr is, and what “anti-Semitism” is. Did you bother to click on the link about Marr I gave, or otherwise Google on him, by the way? You discreetly entirely ignored my point. “There’s nothing new about ethnic cleansing.” If Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing—and on an extremely small scale, in a State smaller than New Jersey, I’d agree with that—can you please explain ~781,350 Arabs, constituting about 17.8 percent of the population? Can you please explain Balad, Hadash, and the United Arab List? Could you please explain Abd el-Malek Dahamsha, Taleb a-Sana’a, Hashem Mahmeed, Tewfik Khatib, Muhammad Kena’an, Mohammed Baraka, Issam Mahoul, and Ahmed Tibi? Could you explain why Israel hasn’t just declared that Palestinians should all go live in Jordan, which is majority-Palestinian, and expelled them all there, taking over the entire West Bank? What’s the hold-up? (What’s with all the Israel-is-Germanic-like stuff, by the way? I don’t even get that, unless you’re doing the Nazi comparison.)