It is popular these days for right-wing bloggers like Charles Johnson or Jeff Goldstein to accuse the Left of being anti-Semitic due to Leftists' approach to Israel. It's important to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment. There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about advocating the extermination of 6 million Jews, or justifying the actions of those people whose explicitly stated goal is the extermination of said Jews, so as long as those Jews in question are located inside Israel. Outside of Israel is different. But inside Israel, it ceases to be anti-Semitic.
Is that clear? Good. I just wanted to make that distinction.
UPDATE: For those of you confused by the Orwellian language in this debate, Victor Hanson has a glossary. Hat tip: Ace.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
huh?
"Just out of curiosity", are you saying that someone who thinks that Israel is not 100% innocent is anti-Semetic?
Not necessarily. But I am 'curious' about those who see Israel as holding most of the blame for its deranged, sociopathic forever seeking its annihilation.
John
Why can't the Iraelis instead of sending bombs and tanks to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas, send a message of love? Surely, if they laid down their arms and sent a message of love through the UN it would bring out the inner goodness and peace loving nature of the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist. Then everyone could live in peace and harmony in the Middle East.
I wish I could think the same as you, Craig. But I think back to the time during the Clinton adminstration when Israel was ready to make huge concessions. The response? Sencond intifada.
Besides, I am loathe to criticise too much, simply because I recognise my own compltet ignorance as to their DAILY struggles. We were shocked by terrorist acts on our own soil, poleaxed. This is a daily occurence for them. I cannot in any way fathom that kind of struggle.
I always like to remind other Christians that Lebanon is 45% Christian. The President of Lebanon is a Christian as well.
bass player's wife
I meant my comment to be a bit of sarcasm. If the Israelis laid down their arms and sent a message of love, the peace loving and misunderstood terrorists would move in and kill every Israeli they could get their hands on. These are not nice people that you can reason with. Thinking that you can is to misunderstand the nature of evil.
I'd like to echo Michael's "huh?" and ask for a little clarification, John.
Well, I do not think that the voices within the Left which see Israel as the root of the Israel-Arab conflict are necessarily anti-Semitic. But they are giving rhetorical cover and political support to forces which seek to anihilate the Israeli population.
It is something akin to looking at the death camps of Nazi Germany and saying, "Well, the Jews had it coming to them." Those who give rhetorical cover to the terrorist forces (e.g. Hezbollah) or state actors (e.g. Iran) who want to wipe Israel out of existence are taking up a moral cost for doing so. Providing moral justification for the extermination of 6 million people in Israel is morally on par with provoding moral justification for the extermination of 6 million people in the Nazi German empire.
Whether their motivation is anti-Semitic or not, those voices within the Left (and elsewhere, where they may be found) who constantly seek to falsely villify Israel are siding with forces of genocide. Seeing Israel as the major cause of this conflict isn't just a different opinion; it's flagrantly intellectually dishonest. And because words have consequences, it's an opinion that is pure evil.
Richard,
The battle is not with the Lebanese, Christian or not, nor with its Christian president. The battle is with Hezbollah which is not Christian nor peaceful nor loving nor willing to negotiate. They are, in my humble opinion, an arm of Syrian support which is still stinging from the '67 Mideast War. Jordan and Egypt came to terms with Israel and its right to exist as a nation; Syria never did.
Lebanese civilians are being hurt coincidentally because Hezbollah hides amongst them. Israeli civilians are being deliberately targeted and hurt intentionally.
I don't know what being Christian has to do with anything since Lebanon has not been able to defend itself for years, so it is an ideal resting and regrouping and rearming place for Israeli enemies since there is no one to stop them or the flow of arms to them.
Not necessarily. But I am 'curious' about those who see Israel as holding most of the blame for its deranged, sociopathic forever seeking its annihilation.
I can't give you an answer. I don't understand why anyone who claims to be a Christian chooses sides, ignores the atrocities of "their side" and then invokes the idea of "Just war" in order to justify the killing of innocents on "the other side".
When we start saying things like "ALL Palestinains want Israel destroyed" as you said on my blog, I think we're getting into dangerous theological territory as Christians.
As one example, I know a Lebanese Presbyterian minister who watched, in the 1970s, the Israeli army come into his seminary (which was also a hospital), choose two seminarians and a hospital patient to shoot because Lebanese soliders had killed three Israeli soliders the previous day in battle. This minister is a passionate preacher of peace. Reading the blogs, many American conservative Christians seem to want me to pray that his grandchildren will die.
I do not want any Israelis to die but the hatred many Christians express toward the Lebanese and Palestinian people also sickens me.
I will continue to pray for peace and others can continue to pray for the destruction of Palestine and Lebanon. I trust God to know how he should properly act.
When we start saying things like "ALL Palestinains want Israel destroyed" as you said on my blog, I think we're getting into dangerous theological territory as Christians.
I didn't say all, just most. And polling and surveys among Palestinians has strongly asserted this for years.
And if it's not factually wrong, how can it be dangerous theological territory?
I didn't say all, just most. And polling and surveys among Palestinians has strongly asserted this for years.
I went back and checked and you did say "most". Apologies; I relied on my memory.
And if it's not factually wrong
The "actuary" inside me wants to ask you where your empirical and statiscally-reliable data is for you claim about the motivations of most Palestinians, but I think that's neither here nor there....
how can it be dangerous theological territory?
Well, when I read the gospels, I read about a Jesus whose primary message seemed to be about forgiveness and reconciliation and turning the other cheek. I honestly don't find anything in the bible about how to determine who is the innocent party in a dispute and how or why disciples of Jesus are permitted to use violence on those who they deem to be the "bad guys".
I'm prepared to be pragmatic and say that in a sinful world self-defense is sometimes regretably necessary, but theologically that message is "Defensive violence is still sinful" and not "Christians know the mind of God and Christians know who is guility and are given God's blessing in using violence against those they deem guilty."
One other comment on theology.
I don't see how anyone who professes to be an Arminian who believes in prevenient grace could possibly come up with a theology that says that God values the human life of one nationality over another.
Even the most theologically conservative of Methodists surely has to agree that God creates and loves every life equally and that God weeps for every dead baby including Palestinian babies. I'd sincerely like to you ask your professors if they could defend a theology of God cheering for the death of a Palestinian baby; I trust Methodist theology far enough to bet that they think the idea abhorrent.
Even Jewish rabbinic tradition speaks of God and the angels weeping at the loss of Egyptian life when the Red Sea closed in on Pharoah's armies. I think we need to get some of that Wisdom back.
I don't see how anyone who professes to be an Arminian who believes in prevenient grace could possibly come up with a theology that says that God values the human life of one nationality over another.
I agree.
Even the most theologically conservative of Methodists surely has to agree that God creates and loves every life equally and that God weeps for every dead baby including Palestinian babies. I'd sincerely like to you ask your professors if they could defend a theology of God cheering for the death of a Palestinian baby; I trust Methodist theology far enough to bet that they think the idea abhorrent.
I agree.
Even Jewish rabbinic tradition speaks of God and the angels weeping at the loss of Egyptian life when the Red Sea closed in on Pharoah's armies. I think we need to get some of that Wisdom back.
I agree.
Have you been referring to what I've been saying in this thread? Because if so, you're attacking strawmen. If you see other Arminians or even just Christians cheering on the deaths of Palestinians, do let me know, for I shall rebuke them.
"When we start saying things like 'ALL Palestinains want Israel destroyed' as you said on my blog, I think we're getting into dangerous theological territory as Christians."
I didn't say all, just most. And polling and surveys among Palestinians has strongly asserted this for years.
And if it's not factually wrong, how can it be dangerous theological territory?
In instances of extreme conflict and violence, I find the sweeping generalizations like "all, most, or many" (whether statistically true or not), rarely serve the purposes of peace. They certainly lack the nuance of dissenting opinions on opposing sides - the very voices that need to be heeded if peace-making is still work we are committed to.
Incidently, the post that started this thread was shockingly short on nuance as well, which I believe is equally problematic.
I googled several opinion polls anyway, just for kicks, and found this dated one below. But regardless of what other ones there may be, I remain deeply skeptical of policy, diplomacy, and critical reflection that relies on such intruments to draw conclusions in matters of such importance.
The following comes from a Palestinian opinion poll taken in September of 2004 (size sample 1319 in 120 radmonly selected locations):
86% of the Palestinians feel a loss of personal security and safety. This percentage stood at 77% only three months ago. Despite this feeling, the largest percentage (41%) views unemployment and the spread of poverty as the most important problem confronting the Palestinians today followed by the continuation of the occupation and its daily practices (35%), the spread of corruption and lack of reform (15%), and finally, internal chaos (8%).
Despite widespread support for bombing attacks (77% for the attack at Beer Shiva) and despite the belief of 64% that armed confrontations have helped the Palestinians achieve their national rights in ways that negotiations could not, the overwhelming majority (83%) wants mutual cessation of violence and a large percentage (59%) says it will support taking measures to prevent attacks on Israel when an agreement is reached on a mutual cessation of violence.
Moreover, despite the widespread support for armed attacks against Israelis, only 48% see them effective in confronting Israeli settlement expansion and 49% support nonviolent steps (such as a ceasefire and a return to negotiations) instead. If a peace agreement is signed by the two sides, three quarters would support reconciliation between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples.
In instances of extreme conflict and violence, I find the sweeping generalizations like "all, most, or many" (whether statistically true or not), rarely serve the purposes of peace. They certainly lack the nuance of dissenting opinions on opposing sides - the very voices that need to be heeded if peace-making is still work we are committed to.
Of course. It's far more nuanced to decieve oneself and pretend that the Palestinian people are not consumed with a mass psychosis which impels them to seek the annihilation of their neighbors.
I realize that facts may get in the way of idealistic political and theological fantasies. It may lead us into what Pambg calls "dangerous theological territory". I am, however, unsympathetic. Bomb vests loaded down with rat-poison soaked ball bearings tend not to respond well to nuance.
Bomb vests loaded down with rat-poison soaked ball bearings tend not to respond well to nuance.
I think you missed my point. The nuance I am speaking of would be one that distinguishes a Palestinian from a terrorist, a child from a soldier, a blanket statement (the ideological kind that don't like messing with factual details) from more measured ones that realize there is ideological diversity present in Israel and in Lebonon, and that makers of bomb vests don't speak for all the people they claim to.
Incidently, if factual polls and opinions are really the raw material of truth and clear thinking, than I am curious if your view of the U.S. is in keeping with the majority opinion the world has of its citizens and its politics - after all, "polling and surveys of non-Americans have demonstrated rampant anti-American sentiment for years" (abuse of power, raping countries of their own resources, hegemony over commerce and politics that favors American interest over all others, no matter the repercusions of such unchecked greed and self-interest that often have devastating effects on other countries and peoples).
Why should we worry about nuance? Or does it come into play in this case?
Ah, I see what you're saying.
Well the problem is that it is hard to distinguish between a Palestinian kid and a Palestinian terrorist.
If it were easy, this problem would be easier to solve. Split the terrorists off from the population, round them up, and imprison and/or shoot them.
But when the broad mass of a population screams "Death to the Jews!" it gets a lot trickier. Even when a kid screams "Death to the Jews!" we're very hesitant to put a bullet in his head. And rightfully so.
The problem is not one of greivances by either side. Nor is it about the precise location of the border. The problem is one of culture: the Palestinian people are obsessed with killing their Jewish neighbors.
Incidently, the post that started this thread was shockingly short on nuance as well, which I believe is equally problematic.
I'm sorry if the humor was just a bit too subtle.
It's a tidy equation.
Criticism of Israel is the equivalent of giving "rhetorical cover and political support" to forces bent on destroying it, which is a)anti-Semiticism or b)not anti-Semiticism, but at least "intellectually dishonest" and "an opinion that is pure evil."
Claims that this is in part "subtle humor" aside (it is, after all, not the sort of humor that's supposed to be ha-ha funny, right?), why not just go the next step?
Since a prerequisite to any real discussion or thought on a subject is having an open mind, being willing to follow answers and possiblities where they lead, and since we've determined a priori that holding certain views as to the facts of the issue are "pure evil," why not go all the way and say that asking questions or thinking too much on the subject is immoral, too? Don't ask, don't think, just be prepared to yell "hooray Israel" and "dirty, dirty A-rabs" on cue.
It's the kind of thinking our current Administration wants us to follow. Terrorists want to destroy our freedom. George Bush is trying to stop terrorists. So... criticizing George Bush means you want terrorists to destroy our freedom.
We see how harmless that is. I mean, he's never, ever abused that, right? (subtle humor...)
Mightn't one think that Hezbollah sucks, that Hamas is a less than heroic organization, and still think that Israel has a whole lot of explaining to do, that Israel has pulled a lot of crap that just isn't right? Or are we stuck in a nonsensical black and white world where each and every conflict has one guy in the black hat full of hate and venom and every base desire, and another in a white hat beyond reproach?
Personally, as a member of the "left" who is very much not anti-Semitic, I get a little offended by the casual slinging of accusations like this, tempts to dismiss any discussion or opposing view points by demonizing people, questioning their motives and character from the start. It's beneath you.
I also find it curious to read accusations of the sort on this site. Charges of racism, anti-Semiticism? If the rhetoric of the "left" was nearly as dismissive, generalizing, and offensive toward Jews (in or out of Israel) as much of what you write is toward Muslims, Arabs, and Mexicans, then the left would indeed have a moral problem. To read slur after slur fired at any racial/ethnic/religious group you find fault with and then hear "anti-Semiticism!" when people fail to support your team is a little too much to swallow.
But hey, that's just me, a Jew-hating, terror-loving, freedom-squandering, pampered, godless liberal.
Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic. But a perspective which sees Israel as the great villain of the Middle East and the Palestinian cause of destroying Israel as one meriting sympathy and value has no basis in reality or respect for human life or rights. By rhetorical consequence, it is pro-genocide, regardless of whether that position is motivated by anti-Semitism or not.
I am not taking the absolutist position that Israel has totally clean hands and should never be criticized. But to desribe Israeli self-defense as the principle cause of the Middle East conflict is a flat-out, bald-faced lie. And it is a lie with big consequences as it gives open rhetorical support to a side which supports genocide. For example, a German paper interviewed a Lebanese sheik about the war, who correctly said:
A local sheikh explained to me laughing that the Jews would lose in any event because the rockets would either be fired at them or if they attacked the rockets depots, they would be condemned by world opinion on account of the dead civilians.
Post a Comment