Does anybody have a problem with this statement by the Palestine Solidarity Committee?

[Joanne98]

Racism Against Jews Is Not Acceptable

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/racism-against-jews-is-not-acceptable/#more-28247

I read the whole thing and I think it addresses some of the problems we have in debating the I/P issue. But I don't want to post it if will offend some members. I've also never heard of this group before.

What do you think?

[cali]

1. it's a pretty damn good statement

though I wish they'd left out this:

Thanks for posting it.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Good statement - thanks!

[azurnoir]

3. No absolutely no problem with it

it is a very good statement

[bunnies]

4. Nothing offensive in there, imho.

Its right on.

[aranthus]

5. Yes I do.

Much of it is not bad. However, this section is problematic:

"We also reject the false identification of Zionism with the Jewish people of the world."

"The Zionist movement which founded the State of Israel was and is a secular nationalist movement. Many Jews, including many Israeli Jews, do not subscribe to the principles of the Zionist movement. Jews are an ethnic group. One may be Jewish without subscribing to the religion of Judaism, and one may be Jewish without being a Zionist or a supporter of the State of Israel or its policies."

First of all, not all Zionists were secular. In fact most were not. It is fair to say that Zionism is a political or national movement. Second, the claim that "many" Jews do not support Zionism is misleading for several reasons. First, how many is many? Second, who is a Jew? The truth is that the vast majority of identifying Jews are Zionists. Jews are a nation, and Zionism is about that nation having a state of its own in its ancient homeland. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. Can you imagine that the majority of Jews would not support it? Zionists don't have to be Jewish, but Zionism is inherently about Jews.

This section also has problems:

"Criticisms of Zionism or of the State of Israel are not the same as criticism of the Jewish people of the world."

"However, since we reject the Israeli government’s identification of “Israeli” or “Zionist” with “Jew”, we must be careful not to equate these terms ourselves, positively or negatively. We must be rigorous in our awareness of racist terms and stereotypes that have historically been applied to Jewish people.

“Anti-Semitic” is the common adjective for prejudice against Jews, but the terms “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Semitic” can be misleading. While historically understood to refer to prejudice against Jews, the terms actually promote an outmoded use of racial categories. Under that terminology, Arabs are also Semitic people. Since for the moment we are focusing on prejudice against Jews, we prefer in this context the more precise term “anti-Jewish”."

Mere criticism of Israeli or Zionist policies and tactics is not antisemitism. However, you need to be aware of some important considerations. First, many of the people who criticize Israel and Zionsim are antisemites who use the language of critiquing Zionism as a mask to hide who and what they really are. Second, the core Arab argument is not merely a critique of Zionism or Israel, but a delegitimation of Zionism, Israel and Israel's existence. "Anti-Zionism" as opposed to mere critique of Zionism is antisemitism per se (because it is founded on a denigration and denial of Jewish national existence and rights). Imagine someone saying, "I don't hate Italians, but Italy has no right to exist and should be destroyed." Would you believe that they weren't anti-Italian? Would an Italian?

Finally, I think it's interesting that the group wants to substitute, "anti-Jewish," for "anti-Semitic." The reason the word, "anti-Semitic," was coined was to create a better sounding, more sophisticated, more scientific, and more legitimate term for the animus than the previously used, "anti-Jewish," or, "Jew hatred." Things come full circle don't they? I don't think that antisemitism is a misleadng word. The argument against its use originally came up because Arabs and their supporters wanted to deflect honest claims that they were hateful of Jews (that they were antisemitic). If you want to go back to using Jew hatred or anti-Jewish, I don't mind.

[bemildred]

6. "First, many of the people who criticize Israel and Zionsim are antisemites"

So, like, "how many is many?" :-)

It's hard for me to see how "delegitimation of Zionism, Israel and Israel's existence" is not a legitimate view. If one is to be allowed to "criticize Israel and Zionsim", it's hard for me to see how that could not extend to the idea that the whole thing has been a mistake. I don't myself support the idea that Israel should be done away with, one would then have to decide what to do with all those Israelis, who apparently like their current status; but I'm not willing to call anyone who feels that it was not such a good idea after all an anti-semite. One must admit that a great deal of blood and treasure has been sunk into the enterprise, and the result is far from being pretty in all its aspects.

It has been my impression that many of the Jews I have known (I live in the USA) view their Jewishness in much the same way that I view the fact that I'm a Scots, a matter of mild positive interest, but not important. The problem arises with people who think you have no choice about it, which is essentially a ethnocentric point of view.

I think that your statement that self-identifying Jews would also likely support Israel in some degree or another is correct.

It is my view that the main trouble arises with people that think that the solution is killing, ethnic cleansing, abrogation of human rights, and the like. And that's not an ethnic trait.

[lightningandsnow]

7. You're right.

I was raised pretty strongly Jewish, and still identify as Jewish in the cultural sense, (I'm also a mildly agnostic Celtic Pagan with a dislike of organized religion), but it's not the be all and end all of my existence. Nor do I think it compels me to think a certain way.

[bemildred]

24. "mildly agnostic Celtic Pagan with a dislike of organized religion"

LOL. You sound like my kind of woman.
:thumbsup:

[aranthus]

10. Some good points.

First as to, "So, like, 'how many is many?'" Ouch. Shame on me. I should have said something along the line of a significant percentage.

As to anti-Zionism being a legitimate view. Do you think that anti-Americanism is legitimate. Do you think that it is a valid position that the US should not exist? I have heard people who think that the US was a bad idea. I think that they are anti-American. Part of the problem with anti-Zionists is that they so often couple their de legitimation of Israel with advocation of violent actions to destroy it.

Being Jewish is a choice. You can convert to Judaism. Being American is a choice. You can move to this country and become a citizen, and adopt the ways of Americans, and assimilate and be accepted. I'm not so sure you can choose to be a Scot, or a Greek, or Japanese, because there seems to be an element of tribal or blood identification. However, I don't think that it matters whether one can choose to be a Scot or not. What matters is how we treat each other's differences. Hatred (and the violence that springs from hatred) is definitely not an ethnic trait.

[bemildred]

18. No need to be shamed Sir, it's an easy mistake. I do it all the time.

It was sort of a cheap shot. I was just trying to point out how one can get carried away by ones own rhetoric.

Yes, I think anti-Americanism is a legitimate view. A lot of us "Americans" can be anti-American from time to time, it has a long history. I think this is true of most countries. It is not uncommon for ethnic minorities to adopt such views about the state they are a part of. I don't think that either nations or countries are some sort of sacred cows that cannot be reconsidered.

Whether it "should exist" or not is a murkier business. That's sort of what the argument is all about, isn't it? I revert to my position that the question is how this sort of disagreement ought to be resolved. If you choose war, you choose a lot of other unpleasant stuff along with it. There is a principle of "self-determination" that suggests that peoples ought to have a right to have different opinions about what country they should belong to, and who should run it. I don't claim to have an answer, but it's clear the present method of resolving these issues has a lot of drawbacks.

I would certainly agree that a too ready enthusiasm for a resort to violence to resolve these disagreements is a very bad thing, and yet I consider that anyone attacked with violence has a perfect right to respond in kind against the parties that attacked them. So we wind up with a sort of "cycle of violence". People do generally often respond to violence with violence, and when considering violence oneself one ought to consider that fact carefully.

My point is that it is not always a choice, you are born in a certain place, from certain parents, and that can define you whether you like it or not. There are a bunch of people in Gaza who are in that position right now. On the other hand, my wife is Jewish, she could be married orthodox in Tel Aviv if she wanted to, and did the preparation, and had a suitable husband handy, but she doesn't care a fig about it. So whether it is a choice or not depends on your circumstances. I think that the lack of choice about it is wrong, I favor self-determination for everyone.

But that is a problem too, if everyone who wanted to could be an American, we would be overwhelmed with the new arrivals. So you can't equate self-determination to the right to live whereever you choose.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

20. It's a choice to a degree.

If the Palestinian arabs of Gaza decided to convert to Judaism, I doubt they would be welcome.

[Recursion]

23. I've tried that thought experiment when people talk about religion in the conflict

I really don't think a mass conversion of the Palestinians or the Israelis would change a thing, even if such a thing were conceivable or desired.

[Recursion]

12. "Anti-Semitic" was coined by a 19th-century anti-Semite

In order to make his hate sound less hateful and more "scientific". I've never liked the word.

[aranthus]

14. That was my point.

I don't mind the word, though, because it has an accurate meaning. However, if people want to go back to using Jew-hatred, or anti-Jewish, I don't mind. I don't think it should be a big deal either way.

[Recursion]

16. It kind of adds insult to injury to Palestinians though

At least a few Palestinians I know feel that way: they feel expanding Jewishness to cover all of Semite-ness is a disturbing analogy for the elements of Israeli society that want to expand Israel to cover all of the Levant.

[aranthus]

19. I understand that.

Of course, as you point out, it wasn't the Jews that did that. It was the Jew haters. So much of the problems is hurt sensibilities and senses of justice.

[lightningandsnow]

8. I agree 100%

Thanks for posting! It's spot-on.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Very good that they're laying out the distinctions

and stating categorically that antisemitism is unacceptable. The state of Israel is absolutely NOT the Jewish people.

[Arrowhead2k1]

11. Good, the anti-zionist movement is finally starting to smarten up.

Israel just loves it when people opposed to them act like rabid anti-semites, it turns out to only work in their favour.

Now people are starting to open their eyes and see that those who oppose the crimes committed repeatedly by this nation do not do so out of bigotry, it's the actions stupid.

[Recursion]

13. God, I hope this document gets coverage and support from the Palestinian "street"

This is great.

[ohio2007]

15. Posted with permission from Palestine Solidarity Committee – Seattle

That means they can't be shot as collaborators against Hamas.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95HN1H02&show_article=1
I doubt Hamas would give them permission to allow such statements to be made in Gaza

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. Too bad Europe was never forced to confront it's anti-semitism after WWII.

[Recursion]

22. There were plenty of poor brown-skinned people to make pay for Europe's sins

Though I wonder if a mostly-Sephardic Jewish state in the Levant might have worked; as it is the addition of hundreds of thousands of Europeans doesn't seem to have "worked".

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Very true.

And nascent Israelis were all too happy to handle Europe's "jewish problem" post WWII.

Yet the fact remains, the wells of anti-semitism in Europe run deep.

[LeftishBrit]

27. I don't think that the Ashkenazi/Sephardi distinction is the important one here.

I believe that most citizens of Sderot, the town under most attack from Hamas, are Sephardi.

I don't think one can translate Western racial distinctions into Middle Eastern ones very easily.

And Europaean Jewish immigration to Israel started long before WW2; and in fact non-Europaean Israelis are mostly of more recent immigrant origin than their Europaean counterparts.

[AnOhioan]

17. No problems here

[Joanne98]

26. THANKS EVERYBODY!

:grouphug: