Jeremy Corbyn and Anti-Semitism (from UK Politics)

[Samson]

Yeah right now Arabs are allowed to farm land in Israel too. They have far more rights than Jews ever had under Muslim rule.

Some are, many cannot.

You can't be serious...
Under Muslim rulers pogroms were every bit as common as under Christian rulers. Jews were constantly murdered, beaten, had their temples destroyed. There were Muslim rulers whose bigotry and hatred of the Infidel was legendary. Throughout Muslim rule Jews were banned from their most sacred places under penalty of death.

When things were good, under a tolerant caliph, Jews could expect some security and a second-class citizen status (more taxes than Muslims, restrictions on owning land, on free movement, on public prayer, on civil administration). Then the tolerant caliph died, some bigot took over, and it was pogroms all around.

I am absolutely serious. I was at the history museum in Jerusalem and the message I got was clear: over the last 1500 or so years ownership of Jerusalem has alternated between Christian and Muslim rulers, and the Jews had it far better under every Muslim ruler than every Christian ruler with the exception of the British. It is not easy to link to this on the internet, but that is definitely the message given there, and I am sure it is not a haven of anti-semitism.

 

[Patine]

This has to got to be the most idiotic semantic argument thrown around these days.

Yes, Arabs are "Semites", but in common and even academic speech, "anti-Semitism" refers to prejudices against Jews only. So yes, Arabs can be anti-Semitic.


Now you know.

Well, to me, it just goes to show how daft and flimsy-sounding a lot of terms we use today sound by definition. Like "homophobia" - literally "fear of the same," or "fear of like," from Koine Greek root words. If you think about it THAT way, it makes you think, WTH? The collective IQ, reason, rationality, thoughtfulness, level of useful education, and willingness to question what one has been "indoctrinated" with of the people on the world today, on average, is strangely on decline, a bizarre irony given information is far more readily and easily available than at any previous time in history.

 

[ori]

This has always been a weird turn of phrase I've never understood. It's probably just lack of education of the speakers in ever case. But, by definition, Hamas, nor any other group of Arabs, nor any Arab nation or government or military, nor any individual Arab, can, by definition, be anti-Semitic. Do you know why? Because Arabs, like Jews, are a Semitic people, and the Arabic language, like Hebrew, is a Semitic language. Fun fact!

Anti Semitisim is a term coined during the late 19th century and expressly targeted Jews - arguing that it is not correct usage is cute but utterly devoid of any information about the history of anti-Semitism.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, to me, it just goes to show how daft and flimsy-sounding a lot of terms we use today sound by definition. Like "homophobia" - literally "fear of the same," or "fear of like," from Koine Greek root words. If you think about it THAT way, it makes you think, WTH? The collective IQ, reason, rationality, thoughtfulness, level of useful education, and willingness to question what one has been "indoctrinated" with of the people on the world today, on average, is strangely on decline, a bizarre irony given information is far more readily and easily available than at any previous time in history.

The term "homophobia" is just a corruption. Iirc even the original (for english) term was closer to sounding logical; something like homo(i)ophylophobia (fear of the same gender -attraction), which still is rather lame a term, but at least that is the one used in current greek.
Indeed, "homophobia" just sounds stupid, cause it would mean "fear of the same/equal".

 

[Patine]

Anti Semitisim is a term coined during the late 19th century and expressly targeted Jews - arguing that it is not correct usage is cute but utterly devoid of any information about the history of anti-Semitism.

In the late 19th Century, Arabs, from a European viewpoint, were one of many ethnicities who were suffering and benefiting in the vicious, racist, and uninformed sociological cycle called "Orientalism." This is no longer the case. In a modern world where these terms are more easily accessible and there's less excuse for lack of clear statement and definition and to succumb to bad stereotypes and long-debunked myths (despite the fact it still occurs commonly - there's less EXCUSE for it), either anti-Semitism should be used in an appropriate and exhaustive context, or the term "anti-Jewish" should simply be used instead. Otherwise, people, even those of education and the pretense of knowledge, sound like idiots and fools (at least to me - and they SHOULD to more people).

 

[luiz]

Some are, many cannot.

The citizens of Israel can farm land in Israel, Arab or Jewish or whatever. Indeed non-Jews in Israel have far more rights than Jews could ever dream of under Muslim rule.

I am absolutely serious. I was at the history museum in Jerusalem and the message I got was clear: over the last 1500 or so years ownership of Jerusalem has alternated between Christian and Muslim rulers, and the Jews had it far better under every Muslim ruler than every Christian ruler with the exception of the British. It is not easy to link to this on the internet, but that is definitely the message given there, and I am sure it is not a haven of anti-semitism.

Yeah this is utter BS. Muslims persecuted Jews throughout their rule in Jerusalem. Some more, some less. But even during the "good times" Jews were still second-class citizens. Then came bad times, and synagogues were destroyed and profaned, Jews killed in pogroms, sometimes expelled, etc. Then came another "tolerant" caliph who would allow them back, let them rebuild one or two synagogues, etc. Then came another bigoted one. And the cycle continued until British rule.

Read a book or two on the subject. I recommend the excellent "Jerusalem: a Biography" by Simon Sebag Montefiore for ease of reading and entertainment value - it's full of amazing anecdotes on daily live in Jerusalem throughout its history (warning: Montefiore is Jewish, so Corbyn fanboys might not want to touch the book). A key takeaway is that Jews were as discriminated against by Muslims as they were by Christians - with the difference that from the 18h Century on the Christian world begun to gradually emancipate its Jewish citizens, something that still has not happened in many places of the Muslim world.

 

[Patine]

The citizens of Israel can farm land in Israel, Arab or Jewish or whatever. Indeed non-Jews in Israel have far more rights than Jews could ever dream of under Muslim rule.


Yeah this is utter BS. Muslims persecuted Jews throughout their rule in Jerusalem. Some more, some less. But even during the "good times" Jews were still second-class citizens. Then came bad times, and synagogues were destroyed and profaned, Jews killed in pogroms, sometimes expelled, etc. Then came another "tolerant" caliph who would allow them back, let them rebuild one or two synagogues, etc. Then came another bigoted one. And the cycle continued until British rule.

Read a book or two on the subject. I recommend the excellent "Jerusalem: a Biography" by Simon Sebag Montefiore for ease of reading and entertainment value - it's full of amazing anecdotes on daily live in Jerusalem throughout its history (warning: Montefiore is Jewish, so Corbyn fanboys might not want to touch the book).

But the Jewish cavalry archers (their main military force in the Medieval Middle East) sided with Saladin against Richard I and Philippe IV, griping to Saladin about endless abuses by the Crusaders upon them.

 

[AmazonQueen]

He certainly should, just like people are free to say the "n-word" too. He will needlessly offend many people by comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, and it is also an idiotic comparison, though.

Agreed on the latter points. Jeremy Corbyn attended the meeting but disagreed with Hajo Meyer's views so whats the problem with that? If hes allowed to speak people have to be allowed to listen.
You are never going to get a definition of anti-Semitism agreed to by all Jews any more than you are going to get a definition of any other type of racism agreed by the members of that group but any definition that restricts the right of members of that group to speak and be heard is clearly unacceptable.

 

[luiz]

But the Jewish cavalry archers (their main military force in the Medieval Middle East) sided with Saladin against Richard I and Philippe IV, griping to Saladin about endless abuses by the Crusaders upon them.

Sure, Saladin was more tolerant to Jews than the Crusader leaders. He was among the "tolerant" Muslim rulers (still treated Jews as second class citizens though). But some of his successors, even in his own dynasty, were far less tolerant.

 

[luiz]

Agreed on the latter points. Jeremy Corbyn attended the meeting but disagreed with Hajo Meyer's views so whats the problem with that? If hes allowed to speak people have to be allowed to listen.
You are never going to get a definition of anti-Semitism agreed to by all Jews any more than you are going to get a definition of any other type of racism agreed by the members of that group but any definition that restricts the right of members of that group to speak and be heard is clearly unacceptable.

I don't have a problem with that. To be honest I don't even have much of a problem with Labour's definition of anti-Semitism - though it shows to what degree the Party under Corbyn has lost the trust and good faith of British Jews.

What I have a problem with are Corbyn's anti-Semitic (sorry, anti-Israel ) demented conspiracy theories, his friendship and admiration of anti-semtic terrorists, and all other stuff we've been talking about.

 

[Patine]

Sure, Saladin was more tolerant to Jews than the Crusader leaders. He was among the "tolerant" Muslim rulers (still treated Jews as second class citizens though). But some of his successors, even in his own dynasty, were far less tolerant.

Although, all-in-all, Medieval history is bad for making points here. It was a brutal, barbaric, savage, violent, and nasty time for EVERYONE when ALL world leaders were pretty much hereditary warrior nobles or theocratic clerical despots with the only limits on their power and egos being each other. And that was across the board, not just certain nations. Also, it was so long ago that to tie a DIRECT and UNBROKEN chain of motivation to the modern day would be foolhardy and the domain of conspiracy theory at best.

 

[luiz]

Although, all-in-all, Medieval history is bad for making points here. It was a brutal, barbaric, savage, violent, and nasty time for EVERYONE when ALL world leaders were pretty much hereditary warrior nobles or theocratic clerical despots with the only limits on their power and egos being each other. And that was across the board, not just certain nations. Also, it was so long ago that to tie a DIRECT and UNBROKEN chain of motivation to the modern day would be foolhardy and the domain of conspiracy theory at best.

Yes it would be best for example to look at how Muslims treated Jews before the British Mandate.

 

[ori]

In the late 19th Century, Arabs, from a European viewpoint, were one of many ethnicities who were suffering and benefiting in the vicious, racist, and uninformed sociological cycle called "Orientalism." This is no longer the case. In a modern world where these terms are more easily accessible and there's less excuse for lack of clear statement and definition and to succumb to bad stereotypes and long-debunked myths (despite the fact it still occurs commonly - there's less EXCUSE for it), either anti-Semitism should be used in an appropriate and exhaustive context, or the term "anti-Jewish" should simply be used instead. Otherwise, people, even those of education and the pretense of knowledge, sound like idiots and fools (at least to me - and they SHOULD to more people).

anti-Judaism is separate from anti-Semiticism as it is a well established pattern based on (christian) religious doctrine, while anti-semitism was and is a different beast based on a more race/ethnicity based understanding and the two have been used to define different historical patterns, so calling for the incorrect use of anti-judaism just because you feel it would be more correct based on semantics is a rather poor understanding of how the different terms developed and what meaning they carry. The whole argument regarding anti-semitism also of course is mostly based on the rather cute argument that somehow it is ambiguous in its meaning which it is not, so switching terms to a third arbitrary term mostly would serve to muddle the discussion as any new term would by default carry much less information than a well established term.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It seems to me that the conversation went:

• Luiz: Anti-Israel conspiracy theory
• Others: That is Anti-Israel not Anti-semitic
• Luiz: IT IS SO BAD IT MUST BE ANTI-SEMITIC
• Others: I am not sure that is the case, there have been some dodgy things done by mosad
• Luiz: IT IS SO BAD IT MUST BE ANTI-SEMITIC

Also, the Torys are also showing how racist they are, can we start criticizing them now?

I didn't even bother reading the conspiracy theory in question as I'm honestly not that interested, but even I can see the fairly obvious difference between criticising someone/something for something that they are actually demonstrably doing on the one hand, and making up some crazy paranoid slur against the same someone/something on the other. And how the latter could be taken to demonstrate an entirely different level of prejudice than the former.

Yes there's plenty to pick apart in the logic here, particularly as to whether or not the latter would definitely demonstrate anti-semitism or not, but no-one was even recognising the clear distinction he was making and just kept repeating "criticising Israel is not anti-semitism". It was frustrating to read.

Edit: Oh never mind "was", it still is. Here's a prime example that happened even after this exchange:

Only and Anti-Semetic Terrorist Nazi-Supporting Communist would dare to Criticize Israel, find fault with anything Israel does, or show sympathy towards to Palestinians.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Of course it's left-leaning. It's pro-Labour and always has been (well at least for the last 40+ years). Okay so it's not some pro-anarchist smash the system rag, so obviously it's not going to be "left leaning" to a lot of people on CFC, but as far as the normal political spectrum is concerned it clearly is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mirror#Political_allegiance

Honestly don't see how this is even in question.

 

[AmazonQueen]

anti-Judaism is separate from anti-Semiticism as it is a well established pattern based on (christian) religious doctrine, while anti-semitism was and is a different beast based on a more race/ethnicity based understanding and the two have been used to define different historical patterns, so calling for the incorrect use of anti-judaism just because you feel it would be more correct based on semantics is a rather poor understanding of how the different terms developed and what meaning they carry. The whole argument regarding anti-semitism also of course is mostly based on the rather cute argument that somehow it is ambiguous in its meaning which it is not, so switching terms to a third arbitrary term mostly would serve to muddle the discussion as any new term would by default carry much less information than a well established term.

Anti-Semiticism as a term was coined by one of the first psuedo-scientific racists against Jews, William Marr, and you're right its very different from anti-Judaism. Prejudice against Jews on the grounds of religion, customs or economics at least allowed the possibility for the Jew to change (although I think there was underlying anti-Semitism in the Christian anti-Judaic tradition in that converted Jews were often still persecuted). Anti-Semitism doesn't care if the Jewish target converts, assimilates or becomes a Marxist. To Hitler or Marr their race is their offence and that can't be changed.

In that sense I don't believe Corbyn is an anti-Semite. His problem is with Israel's politics, not Jews as a race. He has done and said some foolish things including meeting with Hamas who I think can be fairly called anti-Semitic.

 

[Kyriakos]

anti-Judaism is separate from anti-Semiticism as it is a well established pattern based on (christian) religious doctrine, while anti-semitism was and is a different beast based on a more race/ethnicity based understanding and the two have been used to define different historical patterns, so calling for the incorrect use of anti-judaism just because you feel it would be more correct based on semantics is a rather poor understanding of how the different terms developed and what meaning they carry. The whole argument regarding anti-semitism also of course is mostly based on the rather cute argument that somehow it is ambiguous in its meaning which it is not, so switching terms to a third arbitrary term mostly would serve to muddle the discussion as any new term would by default carry much less information than a well established term.

It isn't "ambiguous", it just is a stupid term given the etymology. Moreover it does show just how little some care about the arabs.

 

[Patine]

Yes it would be best for example to look at how Muslims treated Jews before the British Mandate.

Pretty much EVERY ethnic and national group in history has done monstrous, horrible, vile, unforgiveable things to at least one other such group (usually more than one) in their history. This is not a rare or exceptional thing, and the world and history are not divided into a sharp, binary, absolute list of "aggressor" cultures and nations and "victim" cultures and nations, without overlap. The only ethnicities not guilty of these horrible crimes on others in their history are those so remote and isolated they have no contact with anyone else, like certain uncontacted tribes in the Amazon Rainforest, or small clans in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, or ethnicities in the most inaccessible highlands of New Guinea.

 

[Patine]

It isn't "ambiguous", it just is a stupid term given the etymology. Moreover it does show just how little some care about the arabs.

And the Assyrians. And the Berbers. And the Copts. And the Maltese. And numerous ethnicities in Ethiopia. And a whole bunch of old ones from Antiquity that were very relevant and mentioned very often in Hebrew Scriptures, in various lights.

 

[luiz]

Pretty much EVERY ethnic and national group in history has done monstrous, horrible, vile, unforgiveable things to at least one other such group (usually more than one) in their history. This is not a rare or exceptional thing, and the world and history are not divided into a sharp, binary, absolute list of "aggressor" cultures and nations and "victim" cultures and nations, without overlap. The only ethnicities not guilty of these horrible crimes on others in their history are those so remote and isolated they have no contact with anyone else, like certain uncontacted tribes in the Amazon Rainforest, or small clans in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, or ethnicities in the most inaccessible highlands of New Guinea.

Yeah, duh. But Jews have been historically oppressed in historical Palestine since the Roman Empire. They were not in a position to oppress Muslims, they were oppressed by them instead.