Why are Israelis/Jewish people standoffish?

[Verbose]

Let's go with Wikipedia's "Antisemitism is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews".

Singling out the only Jewish state in the world fits the definition.

Only if the singling out for criticism is because it is Jewish.

 

[warpus]

I'm sorry but based on what?

Based on the fact that people often disagree with the governments of various countries, including Israel, including even their own nations. Heck, I could give you a list of 5 or 6 I disagree with for one reason or another right now. It would be ridiculous to suggest that I am racist against the inhabitants of these countries just because I disagree with the policies of their governments.

It's a copout.

 

[Verbose]

Eli:

Really, I would say compared to Turkey, Israel gets attention lavished upon it, and now gets slammed for its comportment by the Europeans precisely because unlike with Turkey there isn't a lingering suspicion that Israelis are a bunch of Mid Eastern semi-barbarians. Israel is getting slammed because it is seen for what it is, which is a member of the western club of liberal democracies — only it is engaged in activities against which exception is taken. Israeli behaviour isn't explained by reference to some kind of mythological Jewish alterity here, be it "race" or "genes" or whatever, which in an actual antisemitism would serve as a basis for proscribing a specific "what Jews are like".

You can argue there's a fair dose of European hypocrisy involved, and probably reasonably pull it off, but if you want to argue it is "antisemitism", then you either have no real grasp of what that is, or you're just looking to pull some kind of fast rhetorical temporary advantage.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Antisemitism? Yes.

So let's see... State A is under heavy public attention. Hence there must be an inherent hate for State A at place.

If one's judgment is clouded by paranoia (no offense, if I were a Jew living in Israel I might have a little paranoia myself) I am sure that this is the most logical clear-cut conclusion in the world.
But as a matter of fact: It is not. Not at all.

Medial coverage of world politics is unbalanced in its emphasizes? WOuuu! Are you serious? What an outrage! This can't be possible! Some kind of ancient hate must be behind that!

But wait... this is actually the most normal thing about the coverage of world politics ever. For many many reasons in each case. To just jump at Antisemitism is saying more about you than the Anti-Israel-Crowd.

A really nice example of how someone can simply see what he or she wants to see. Well done, sir.

 

[Cheetah]

It's very simple.

[...]

That state is the only Jewish state in the world.

Antisemitism? Yes.

It is also the only democratic, liberal, highly developed Western state in the world that was artificially created in modern times, populated with American and European immigrants and that simply can not allow - whether it would like to or not - large parts of the area's previous population to remain within its territory lest demographic changes will eliminate its sole purpose for existence.

Whatever religion you then hold is quite irrelevant - the state of Israel is judged by high standards precisely because it appears to be a high-standard nation by most normal accounts.

If all you do is rave against everything the US does while ignoring, say, the Russian war in Chechnya, the Iranians acquirement of Nuclear Weapons, the Darfur genocide and the North Korean attack against the South Korean ship, then yes, you're anti-american.

One must be allowed to discuss one topic while not invoking every single other topic known to man not to appear to be single-minded!

I can criticise the US when I see reasons for it. I can criticise the situation in Chechnya when I want to, I can comment on the situations in Iran, Darfur and Korea when I choose to!

Not discussing every such situation at the same time is not unreasonable. In fact it is very, very sensible, as it keeps discussion on topic!

The Israel-Palestinian situation gets an disproportional amount of media attention. I absolutely agree with you there. But - speaking of Western media for the most part - that does not need to be because of anti-antisemitism, it may simply be that a Western audience identifies more with people in Israel than people in Darfur or Chechnya (which I believe you should be proud of) and thus when things happen there it is a better story than when things happen in Africa!

Furthermore, it is possible that media attention can be view as somewhat of a rank-size distribution. So that any event in Israel may get - perhaps - twice as much attention as a similar event in the next ranked country. Fame and attention isn't necessarily proportional to reality: think of how many people who have heard about the Red Baron (who is credited with 80 air-combat victories) compared to the Black Devil (who is credited with 352 aerial victories - "the highest-scoring fighter ace in the history of aerial warfare" (Wikipedia)).

 

[Tani Coyote]

Only now you're doing it! I.e. failing to clearly differentiate between diaspora Jews and Israelis.

No, I just can't think of an explanation for Jews. I can explain Israeli sentiments though, I feel. It's a siege mentality.

Big problem right now is how diaspora Jews are being pestered to come out for or against Israel, as if they had any kind of principal responsibility in the matter. A number of situations (like the Swedish Reepalu-affair) is specifically about people failing to uphold that crucial differentiation — either directly requesting "their" Jews to speak out against Israel, or just failing to uphold the principle that such demands are untowards to make of a local Jewish minority (which is where Reepalu failed).

And yet the "for us or against us" part of the Bush doctrine was supposed to be reviled... whatever happened to shades of gray?

Otoh the Netanyahu government in Israel would seem to be doing exactly the same thing — assuming all diaspora Jews must rally to Israel, or even move there asap, as the world in general is against the Jews, and only Israel can be relied on to protect them.

I'd say there's plenty of anti-Semites who are anti-Israel. But I wouldn't say by any measure are most anti-Israel people anti-Semites. It's insane rhetoric at its finest. That's like saying that any nation who withdrew from Iraq was pro-Saddam, or any nation who didn't want to go to war in Afghanistan was pro-terrorism and anti-America.

Furthermore, as - Form I think it was - was pointed out, even JEWS are accused of being anti-Semitic when they don't kiss Israel's backside.

 

[luiz]

I think the excuse that Israel gets more attention because it is held to higher standards is lame. As Eli correctly pointed out, even the US (which is also a highly criticized country) does not get the same kind of scrutiny as Israel. Think of all the crap Israel received for boarding a ship on international waters, violating Turkey's sovereignty. Now think of all the times the US has violated other countries' sovereignty unpunished. Hell, Obama said during the campaign he might order bombings inside Pakistan and nobody crucified him for that! Is Israel held to higher standards than the US? Of course not!

The way Israel is treated by a lot of people, including a good deal of the international left, is not based on logic and is not defensible. It is discrimination and anyone with half a brain can see that.

 

[spryllino]

I think that the drama and political interest in Israel is chiefly responsible. It's not, in my opinion, a real matter of anti-semitism as such. Israel is an oddity in a unique state of almost perpetual war. Clearly, this is going to interest the public.

Yes, it's true that the US is held to different standards here, but no-one cares not because of anti-semitism, but because it's not particularly interesting, and the media relies on reporting interesting news. This lack of interest is firstly because no-one can do anything about the USA anyway (what's the use in reporting something that cannot be dealt with?), and, moreover, secondly because the USA's various abuses of power aren't obviously part of a significant and bloody mess: less people die on direct account of the USA's actions.

Therefore, to most people, Israel's culpability seems more apparent than the USA's (although I personally think Israel is largely in the right).

 

[deanej]

If you want to claim Israel is being singled out, check out the scrutiny Iran and North Korea receive. We're hardly singling our Israel - in fact, until quite recently, we've been turning a blind eye to what they've been doing.

By the way, I don't think the US should be violating other countries sovereignty any more than I think Israel should. But of course you aren't going to hear uproar about it - why would Americans attack their own country's policies? It's un-American!

 

[Tee Kay]

Would that mean all the media outlets which gave disproportionate time to reporting on Israel during the Gaza Flottila Incident (pretty much all of them) are anti-Semetic?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Alright, I thought it was so self-evident that the conclusion disproportional attention --> Antisemitism bares any solid basis that I waived to go into any detail.

Apparently I was mistaken.

So here it comes:
It already has been established that "Non-Western" countries are not comparable regarding the standards held on Israel.
Now you luiz refer to the USA to demonstrate that also among the Western hemisphere Israel still is disproportional criticized up to a level that it would prove an anti-semitic sentiment.

But you fail to see the unique differences when looking at the Israeli "war on terrorism" and the American one.

A) The Israeli issue with terror is perceived as being partially caused by the state of Israel itself. This may or not be true for America as well, but we are not talking about the truth but about public opinion.
The Palestinians were expelled through the creation of Israel without that they had done anything to deserve so. It was an unprovoked action against them. And until today the Israeli government continues to do so, i.e. see the housing development.

B) The Palestinians have no sovereign country of their own. They basically exist at the merit of Israel. Hence their destiny is the responsibility of Israel.

Both aspects are not true for the American war on terror, nor for any other conflict I am aware of. And I don't think it is hard to see how those aspects have the power to change the entire perception of such a conflict.

NOTE: I did not write this down to present my own view on the issue, nor was it my intend to give a balanced valuation of the entire situation. I merely pointed out some facts with potentially profound influence on any moral judgment.

 

[Mansa Musa]

I think that Jews view Israel as their last refuge on Earth if another genocide of the Jews take place (Though I doub that'll happen). As a criticism of the Jewish state of Israel is seen as the same as questioning the continuing existence of the Jewish people since they view their survival as tied to the state of Israel.

 

[BurnEmDown]

They could have declared independence as well back in '48, but they chose to attack Israel because they wanted to deny its existence.
I'm not saying that they don't deserve a state now or something, but Israel's creation didn't mean they were not getting a state of their own. Their failure to accept Israel's right to exist is their own fault, not Israel's.

 

[luiz]

So here it comes:
It already has been established that "Non-Western" countries are not comparable regarding the standards held on Israel.

This has not been established at all. The most ferocious critics of Israel, both in this forum and elsewhere, make it quite clear that they think Israel is committing "crimes against humanity", that Israel is an "apartheid state", some even talk of genocide. In other words, they don't consider Israel a fellow western democracy.

Now you luiz refer to the USA to demonstrate that also among the Western hemisphere Israel still is disproportional criticized up to a level that it would prove an anti-semitic sentiment.

But you fail to see the unique differences when looking at the Israeli "war on terrorism" and the American one.

O course there are differences. No two cases are equal. But what you wrote below makes zero sense, and I'll prove it.

A) The Israeli issue with terror is perceived as being partially caused by the state of Israel itself. This may or not be true for America as well, but we are not talking about the truth but about public opinion.
The Palestinians were expelled through the creation of Israel without that they had done anything to deserve so. It was an unprovoked action against them. And until today the Israeli government continues to do so, i.e. see the housing development.

Eh, the Palestinians never had a state of their own, and they were supposed to have one besides Israel. It was the Arab aggression that prevented the first attempt at a two state solution, so the lack of a Palestinian state is at least as much the fault of Arabs as it is of Israelis.

B) The Palestinians have no sovereign country of their own. They basically exist at the merit of Israel. Hence their destiny is the responsibility of Israel.

The same applies to the Kurds, Tibetans, and etc. Hardly an unique case.

Both aspects are not true for the American war on terror, nor for any other conflict I am aware of. And I don't think it is hard to see how those aspects have the power to change the entire perception of such a conflict.

I never said the conflicts are the same. I merely pointed out how people react differently to the same action.

Israel boards a Turkish ship on international waters - the whole world goes on Jew-hating mode for a week.

US violates the sovereignty of a number of countries, and even Obama talks openly about bombing targets within a supposed ally - nobody cares.

The two conflicts don't have to be the same. Israel was massacred in the press for violating the sovereignty of another country, something the leading power of the world has an habit of doing. The situation of the Palestinians has nothing to do with this massive double standard. Hell, left-wing americans (who love Obama for the most part) were among the loudest in this forum criticizing Israel for the violation of sovereignty!

 

[luiz]

Would that mean all the media outlets which gave disproportionate time to reporting on Israel during the Gaza Flottila Incident (pretty much all of them) are anti-Semetic?

They want to sell papers, and bashing Israel sells papers.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This has not been established at all. The most ferocious critics of Israel, both in this forum and elsewhere, make it quite clear that they think Israel is committing "crimes against humanity", that Israel is an "apartheid state", some even talk of genocide. In other words, they don't consider Israel a fellow western democracy.

Whut?
One does not follow the other. The USA encouraged genocide-like conditions in Nicaragua. Yet they did not cease to be a Western democracy by doing so.

Eh, the Palestinians never had a state of their own, and they were supposed to have one besides Israel.

That doesn't change the fact that the region inhabited by them has been intruded by an outside force without any provocation in order to create the state of Israel. The intend may have been justified, may have been in good faith, but it doesn't change that this act is by itself deeply immoral. No good reason will change that.

It was the Arab aggression that prevented the first attempt at a two state solution, so the lack of a Palestinian state is at least as much the fault of Arabs as it is of Israelis.

As I said, it was not my intend to offer a balanced evaluation of the whole. Crucial characteristics which are not in favor of Israel is my concern in order to explain why the harsh criticism on Israel is due to political circumstances, not Antisemitism.

The same applies to the Kurds, Tibetans, and etc. Hardly an unique case.

True, and as I recall China has been severely criticized for its policy in Tibet. I guess the world also holds a racist notions against the Chinese. Turkey has been condemned for its crime on the Kurdish people by the US parliament just this year.

I never said the conflicts are the same. I merely pointed out how people react differently to the same action.

Well, of course. Because the context is what matters. This is the whole point you neglect.The action itself just serves as an act of symbolism in the end. Always has.

Israel boards a Turkish ship on international waters - the whole world goes on Jew-hating mode for a week.

US violates the sovereignty of a number of countries, and even Obama talks openly about bombing targets within a supposed ally - nobody cares.

Oh come on. It startles you that actions against humanitarian aid groups are differently treated by the public than actions against terrorists? If this really was about humanitarian aid is another issue we don't need to discuss here.

The two conflicts don't have to be the same. Israel was massacred in the press for violating the sovereignty of another country, something the leading power of the world has an habit of doing. The situation of the Palestinians has nothing to do with this massive double standard. Hell, left-wing americans (who love Obama for the most part) were among the loudest in this forum criticizing Israel for the violation of sovereignty!

As I already mentioned: Circumstances. Look at them, thoroughly, please.

But you know in the end nor I nor anybody else can prove to you that the heavy criticism on Israel is not due to Antisemitism. It is after all a matter of interpretation.

But I want you to ask yourself if you really believe that all kind of people over the world are secret Jew-Haters. That they all did not learn anything about racism from the Holocaust. Why on earth should they do so? For what reason? For what popular belief?

 

[Verbose]

They want to sell papers, and bashing Israel sells papers.

No that's not it.

Sorry but that kind of simplistic attempt to just generally try to undercut the credibility of all media, and all its audience in Europe, is just crude beyond belief.

 

[Verbose]

They could have declared independence as well back in '48, but they chose to attack Israel because they wanted to deny its existence.
I'm not saying that they don't deserve a state now or something, but Israel's creation didn't mean they were not getting a state of their own. Their failure to accept Israel's right to exist is their own fault, not Israel's.

Now, how is that observation NOT a complete non sequitur with regards to the rest of the discussion going on?

 

[Fifty]

Its so difficult to figure out what to believe here.

I mean, people who are critical of Israel will cite stuff all day in support of the claim that Israel gets an incredibly soft treatment by the mainstream media. Chomsky and the like will go all day, citing prima facie credible sources, that Israel is severely under-criticized.

People on the other side of the coin think the media vilifies Israel, and I'm sure that they have stuff to back that up too.

Are there any systematic studies about this, or is it just the trading of righteous indignation between the two sides that the other could even entertain the notion that the media acts differently than they think it does towards Israel? My main experience is with the Chomsky stuff, and the reply one usually gets when that is brought up is OMG CHOMSKY LOL HE SUPPORTED GENOCIDE IN CAMBODIA LOL!!!!!!!, which is hardly a convincing rebuttal.

I'm not looking for CASE STUDIES of the form OOH HERE'S THIS ONE TIME THAT ISRAEL WAS CRITICIZED, THEREFORE ITS ALWAYS CRITICIZED, or OH HERE'S THIS ONE TIME THAT ISRAEL WASN'T CRITICIZED, THEREFORE ITS NEVER CRITICIZED.

I mean, someone has to have studied this stuff on a serious level?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Dude, get real. I've seen on this very forum people claim that a poster showing evil "Israelis" with pointy teeth and ears and a mouthful of blood were not anti-semitic

Can I get a link to that? Sounds interesting. Wonder who it is?