Re: Anti-Semitism and the "New Jews" (on DU home page)

[laststeamtrain]

In this article Mr. Weiner writes:

"For obvious reasons, anti-Jewish expression on the Left mostly does not make its way into liberal discourse. But if you want a good starting-point for thinking about the issue, I'd suggest a 2003 article that transcribes a rare forum on the topic: Jamie Glazov's "Symposium: Anti-Semitism - the New Call of the Left" at FrontPage Magazine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Page_Magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Glazov

Good starting-point for thinking?

That's a surprising statement. I guess it depends on one's definitions of words like 'good' and 'thinking'.

Here's a little factoid about Front Page:

"After controversial right-wing columnist Ann Coulter got fired from National Review Online for the radical, anti-Muslim comments she made after the September 11th attacks, David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine picked up her regular column."

We live in odd times.

[izzybeans]

1. The whole article seemed out of place. It was the most perplexing

Weiner article I've seen.

I thought it was satire at first. Either way the call is to be sure that your arguments are with the Israeli government and not its people. As the same goes for support for Palestinian people and not terrorist organizations.

[cali]

2. Yuk. FrontPage.

Way to discredit your whole argument,

[Behind the Aegis]

6. But this does beg the question...

"Why aren't such things written about by many on the left?"

The article is actually really good. It does point out many things I, and others, have said in this very forum. Just this morning, I confronted such ignorance. Thankfully, despite the early hours, a moderator was up and able to "disappear" the anti-Semitic rhetoric, which started out as anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Sometimes I find myself in a very odd position. There are times that I want nothing more than such anti-Semetic statements to 'disappear,' then there are times I wish the moderators would leave those statements up so that others here, especially the ones who claim it doesn't exist on the left or at DU, could see it in its raw and naked hatefulness.

[AlienGirl]

28. As a moderator, I take special pleasure in banning anti-semites

I get to see all the nastier comments--and they do happen, and I like banning those responsible for them.

Tucker

[bemildred]

10. The Front Page article, oddly enough, is not bad.

Lerner of Tikkun is a sterling fellow, and some of the others too.
You should read it.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. I agree with you.

If one can wade through the obvious BS, the liberal voice is found. I find it strange that FrontPage would even publish this, because, frankly, it makes them look a little stupid!

Despite having one very conservative POV, the others are clearly liberal, and deride the premise in some ways. The FP is trying to paint the entire "left" as anti-Semitic, but those liberals interviewed show it is just a select few, which basically destroys the "meme" that the "left" is as bad as the "right."

[bemildred]

3. Slightly odd article in any case.

The anti-semitic left meme has been around a while; the USSR was not kind to Jews either, which is even stranger considering who Marx was, but then Russia has a long history of that, like France. But one wonders why it is necessary to conflate the notion of anti-Jewish bigotry and paranoia with one's political leanings, since historically - and even in the present - it's been popular on both the left and the right (and the center for that matter). So while this fellow seems reasonable enough, it does need to be explained why in discussing anti-semitism he seeks to conflate it with "the left", and not "the right".

[Posteritatis]

5. I get the impression that was his point

It's too easy to assume that Only The Other Guys are bigots, and a lot of people will - incorrectly - assume that only the right has a large body of gotta-hate-them-Jews types. There's rather more of them on FreeRepublic than DU, but there's plenty here as well.

The article doesn't explicitly conflate it with either the left or the right - it mentions right-wing bigotry quite a bit throughout. What he's saying is that there's a problem with this particular issue on both sides of the spectrum, which is very different from saying only the left does it.

We aren't spotless. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to dump the kool-aid down the sink right now. I'm not exactly comfortable with seeing some of the problems on this side of the spectrum, but if my options are to recognize and possibly address them on the one hand, and get offended at their being voiced on the other (which is the tone I'm getting from other comments on this), then I know what I'm going to choose.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. My opinion...

"So while this fellow seems reasonable enough, it does need to be explained why in discussing anti-semitism he seeks to conflate it with "the left", and not "the right"."

I feel the reason he is specifically talking about the "left" is because it is not often discussed on the left as being a real problem. Discussing anti-Semitism on the right, well,....that's like shooting fish in a barrel (or shooting quail/friends by Cheney).

[bemildred]

9. I don't think you got mine ....

His premise is wrong, anti-semitism on the left gets plenty of discussion. I know because I read about it here all the time, it is a subject of great debate, and there is a private debate dungeon for it here because the debates get so heated. And yet as one of you admits, it is not particularly more prevalent on the left than on the right. When I see such sites and such articles, and I see plenty, my assumption is not that "the left" is anti-semitic, but that the parties involved are anti-semitic or naive. What I am pointing out is the stereotyping of "the left", when what is actually being discussed is certain writers and certain sites.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the subject not be discussed, but that one avoid stereotyping "the left" on the basis of the content of certain web sites. You can read some stuff here that will wake you up a bit, but that doesn't mean "DU is anti-semitic" or any of the other things this fellow alleges about "the left" and "the alternative press", it means we try to avoid censorship.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. I am not sure I got your point.

"His premise is wrong, anti-semitism on the left gets plenty of discussion." I have to disagree. It doesn't get discussed. What is discussed is Israel. The very idea that anti-Semitism is discussed on the left is almost comical to me. What you read here is what he was talking about "...anybody writing anything in opposition to Israeli policies is all too-often smeared with the "anti-Semitic" or "Jew-hater" brush;..." Well, at least, that is what we are led to believe.

You say there is a "dungeon" here for those topics. You are right on one level. Think about it...how many times are topics about Israel "whisked away" into I/P even thought they don't have a damn thing to do with that conflict? What are the charges leveled at DU? "They don't want open discussion of Israel!" However, even non-donors can participate in I/P.

I don't think the author, or myself, for that matter, paint all of the "left" as anti-Semitic. However, the very fact that we mention it, we are accused of 'broad-brushing' the left as anti-Semitic.

Face it, there are some here that salivate at the chance to 'bad-mouth' Israel. I could post, "Israeli scientist discovers cure to diabetes!" and that would be met with "But, they kill Palestinians! They are an apartheid nation! They are responsible for our being in Iraq! They are...." and the news article would be sent to the "dungeon."

So tell me...how am I not supposed to view the constant attacks on Israel as not possibly being based in anti-Semitism, even if this is a left-wing site?

[bemildred]

22. In order:

"His premise is wrong, anti-semitism on the left gets plenty of discussion." I have to disagree. It doesn't get discussed. What is discussed is Israel. The very idea that anti-Semitism is discussed on the left is almost comical to me. What you read here is what he was talking about "...anybody writing anything in opposition to Israeli policies is all too-often smeared with the "anti-Semitic" or "Jew-hater" brush;..." Well, at least, that is what we are led to believe.

Articles about anti-semitism from "leftists" are posted here regularly, as are "Israel bashing" articles, it's part of the debate. Before the USSR rolled over and died, talking about communist anti-semitism was very popular on the right, as it is now popular to talk about leftist anti-semitism WRT the Palestinian issue and Middle Eastern/Muslim issues. It is true that the arguments are frustrating and border on comical at times, but then, they wallow in stereotypes, on both sides. There are plenty of sites, which I will not list here, varying from Nazi-style polemic to the more expository, that bash Jews by way of bashing Israel, and one can find the converse among the defenders of Israel. There is some amazing shit out there. What I object to is the stereotyping of all "leftists" based on the content of certain sites. One could as well argue against the stereotyping of all "conservatives" based on half-wit stooges like Limbaugh, or the stereotyping of all Jews based on Ariel Sharon. The principle is the same.

You say there is a "dungeon" here for those topics. You are right on one level. Think about it...how many times are topics about Israel "whisked away" into I/P even thought they don't have a damn thing to do with that conflict? What are the charges leveled at DU? "They don't want open discussion of Israel!" However, even non-donors can participate in I/P.

There are a number of dungeons at DU, they are an unpleasant compromise, but they serve their purpose well, to keep contentious issues from dominating more general boards. Gun debates, for example, which I don't happen to care a fig about, have a similar tone. I don't particularly like it, but I understand why it was done. We used to have long, vituperative debates here on the I/P issue which were amazing both in the amount of energy they consumed and their lack of useful content. Many people have feelings about the subject, more than they have ideas, more than they reason about it, and that is what you see much of the time in the "debates" over it.

I don't think the author, or myself, for that matter, paint all of the "left" as anti-Semitic. However, the very fact that we mention it, we are accused of 'broad-brushing' the left as anti-Semitic.

I agree. I am powerless to stop others from bashing you, as I cannot stop them from bashing me. I have been called both a pro-Palestinian shill and a pro-Israeli propagandist. My conclusion is that people are nuts. In the particular case here, they talk of "the left", when talking about ANSWER and other groups which are far from spokesmen for "the left". Within the discussion it is looked at in a more balanced way, but that does not let them off the hook for bashing "the left" in a sloppy way, insinuating that it is anti-semitic. Jews have a long and proud history on "the left". "The left" is much more complicated and diverse than the right-wing herd-thinkers like to give it credit for.

"The left" is bashed all the time for not having its shit together, not agreeing on anything, the "circular firing squad" meme, and the next day someone will come along and assert we are all agreed in hating Jews. It annoys me.

Face it, there are some here that salivate at the chance to 'bad-mouth' Israel. I could post, "Israeli scientist discovers cure to diabetes!" and that would be met with "But, they kill Palestinians! They are an apartheid nation! They are responsible for our being in Iraq! They are...." and the news article would be sent to the "dungeon."

True enough, people like to rant. People hate Jews, or someone else, they are xenophobes. It can pay well, too. The I/P issue is a favorite subject, vast quantities of polemic and propaganda are produced on the issue.

So tell me...how am I not supposed to view the constant attacks on Israel as not possibly being based in anti-Semitism, even if this is a left-wing site?

Some of them are, some of them are not, why should you think differently from that? I understand your feelings, but I can assure you there are many members and former members that think this is a very pro-Israel site. I think they dance on the knife edge here between the two as best they can. I'm not saying I agree with them here, but I think they are honest in their intentions, and the debate here is better than you will find elsewhere.

YMMV.

[Spinoza]

12. "which is even stranger considering who Marx was...."

But Marx himself was a blatant anti-semite. (He was babtized at age 6).

Here are some comments he made in letters to Engels about Ferdinand Lassalle a Breslau Jew who became the founder of German socialism as a mass movement:

From Letters of Marx to Engels: ('Marx-Engels Works' ii,iii)

3/7/1856: "...Lasalle is a real Jew from the slav frontier. The Jews of Poland are the dirtiest of all races.....he is a greasy Jew disguised under brilliantine and flashy jewels...."

May 10, 1861: "...A propos Lasalle-Lazarus. Lepsius in his great work on Egypt has proved that the exodus of the Jews from Egypt was nothing but the history which Manetho narrates of the expulsion of the 'leprous people' from Egypt. At the head of these lepers was an Egyptian priest, Moses. Lazarus, the leper, is therefore the archetype of the Jew, and LaSalle is the typical leper...."

July 30, 1862: "It is now perfectly clear to me that, as the shape of his head and the growth of his hair indicates, he is descended from the Negroes who joined in Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the father's side was crossed with a ni--er.) This union of Jew and German on a Negro base was bound to produce an extraordinary hybrid...." (the spaces above in ni--er are mine, not Marx's.)

In 1844 Marx published his "On The Jewish Question" Here is an excerpt:
"....the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldy God? Money....Money is the jealous God of Israel, besides which no other God may exist...."

In fact, many have argued that Marx is the first modern self-hating Jew.

[bemildred]

14. I'm not interested in defending Marx.

I brought him up to point out the oddness of the anti-semitic streak in the Commies. Trotsky was Jewish too. Leftie Jews were common back then. I've just been reading Wilson's "To The Finland Station", which goes into Marx's relationship to Lasalle in some detail. Marx vituperated him most of all because he was competition, a better leader for "the workers". It's a good book, I can recommend it.

[MrPrax]

16. Why would being baptized be relevent? n/t

[Stand and Fight]

4. Hmmm... Most Disappointing Article

While I generally enjoy Mr. Weiner's articles, I found this one to be far-reaching in its attempts at logic and support of his position. In fact, I often check the DU homepage to see if The Crisis Papers have published anything new. I was more than a little disappointed with this particular piece.

While I do agree that the ANSWER Coalition has turned many off to protests -- myself included -- I do not see Anti-Jewish feelings on the left. Furthermore, he has a long way to go in showing real example of Anti-Semitism expressed by progressives. Then he refers to FrontPage Magazine as a "good starting-point" for backing up his position... All I can say is DAVID HOROWITZ -- he most definitely is neither progressive or liberal.

In short this article reads badly and leaves a nasty after-taste in the mind. It comes off as trite and reaching.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Out of curiousity...

...are you Jewish?

I think his choice of a "jumping off" point might not have been the best, and there are other examples out there. But, I don't think it should discredit his premise.

You say you feel the article comes off as "trite and reaching." How so?

On edit: These are honest questions. I am not "throwing down a gauntlet." When I reread my post, I saw it came of somewhat terse and could be seen as an "attack." It is not intended as such.

[MrPrax]

15. Really makes you wonder...

about this board and the Democratic Party, doesn't it? They can't be that out of touch...or maybe.

Nobody even vetted it?

The fact the term 'anti-semtism' is being used is a bone of contention in itself? I recalled not too long ago having a post pull on an entirely unrelated matter because the link was to what the Mod thought a 'hate site'--fair enough.

But then ON DU very indexing page they have a link to Horowitz's site?

Moreover, as you point out the writer, Weiner, smears with no specifics and then refers the whole thing to Horowitz's site as a starting point for discussion? For who?

Same cheap trick--anybody I ever met that supported the Palestinian cause, or campaigned for Sununu, or demanded an inquiry to the assassination of Hook, or wrote letter to editors decrying the murder of Rachel Corrie, etc etc never is interested in this debate--THEY TALK about specifics...Zionist never do and it's become very obvious on this board...

[Behind the Aegis]

20. No wondering...

..well, except for those that don't read the article. I find no surprise that those who can pass judgment on something they have little knowledge of. I find no surprise that some can't be bothered to actually read for themselves what was written, lest it challenge their own train of thought.

I find it very interesting that you lob an attack on a group of people, but don't seem to understand that the very author you are deriding said: "...anybody writing anything in opposition to Israeli policies is all too-often smeared with the "anti-Semitic" or "Jew-hater" brush..." or "Most liberals and leftists, including those who have grave disagreements with Israeli policy and U.S. policy toward Israel, abhor generalized statements about any subgroup of people, be they Jews, Arabs, Muslims, African-Americans, gays, women, et al."

What party are you registered with?

[MrPrax]

24. LOL...

Why the hell would I read some article that starts off with a title about 'new jew'....LOL

You can be an 'new jew', I'm perfectly happy being an 'old one' -- so what color did 'homosexual' children in camps wear, brother?

ROLF...for g-dsake...you 'question' my political loyalities, yet this article is pure 'crank' and linked to David 'kill all academics' Horowitz own site.

You figure when Pat Robertson while he's over reading Dave's latest missive, we could get him to have a look at the Glazov article, so he can be part of our book club...

LOL...look YOU can pull that shit with the stupid liberals, but not with me, pal.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. How very sad...

You are "blasting" an article you didn't even bother to read. Maybe you should go back and actually read the article.

[Posteritatis]

27. Congrats, you've waived your right to hold an opinion on the article. (nt)

[bloom]

11. I thought it was pretty nuts

esp. at the end with the link to Frontpage.


Was the article referring to this piece? (It wasn't clear - that I noticed) :

The Israel Lobby

"It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one.....

Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x197671#197696

[bloom]

13. Maybe he was talking about this piece

that was talking about the piece that I mentioned:

"In any case, the publication of this study is a milestone in the annals of the debate over American foreign policy. For the first time in memory, the power of the Lobby has been challenged by two prominent academics: try as the Lobby's activists might, they won't succeed in smearing either Mearsheimer or Walt as neo-Nazis, nor will they be able to dismiss their concerns as the ravings of fringe characters. As far as the Lobby is concerned, the jig is up – and all I can say is, it's about time.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730

[Behind the Aegis]

21. maybe you should read the link....

[bloom]

23. He's going to have to post it somewhere else.

I don't support right-wing sites.


I think it's pretty weird that people are expected to support right-wing Jews - but it's ok to bash right-wing Christians. I don't have any sympathy for the right-wing Christians - I just think it's pretty weird when people argue that Jewish people should all be off limits - no matter how right-wing they are. That's the message I'm getting. I think it's nonsense.

I support plenty of Jews - Harold Pinter - for instance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x723285

[Behind the Aegis]

26. You are talking about something you know nothing of.

I can understand not supporting RW sites, but the "article" there is not really an article as much as it is an interview with four people, three of them liberals! Frankly, I am surprised it was published at FP because those being interviewed lay waste to the interviewers questions and premise.

But, whatever.

BTW...did you read the article in "the Crisis Papers?"

[bloom]

29. did you read the article in "the Crisis Papers?"

Why do you ask?


I think this thing is like if someone were to post an article on DU saying that we are "anti-right-wing Christians" (and that that is supposed to mean we are bigots) and so we need to go to Rush Limbaugh's site and he has an article that will clear things up for us. I think it's insulting.

If you have some enlightened view that you got from it that you wish to share - go right ahead.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. You are aware that "the Crisis Papers" is a LIBERAL site?

So, your premise is faulty at best and further proof that people really should comment on things they haven't read!

[bloom]

31. I wasn't assuming that the "Crisis Papers" site

was not liberal. I did go to that site. From what I could tell the Weiner seemed mostly ok.

I thought maybe you were going to make a case about me going there after I said I didn't support right wing sites.



I might go to right wing sights for dirt. I don't expect to go to right-wing sites to be "educated" - so that I can think like them.



You still haven't - to my knowledge - been able to say what wonderful things you found on Horowitz's site - that make it so valuable and all. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to comment on Weiner's article - based on what it said alone - which I have read. Which was lame.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. What are your thoughts on this?

(1) Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Frontpage Symposium. Let us begin with this question: would we agree that the contemporary growth of anti-Semitism on the Left is the result of anti-Semitism now becoming enmeshed with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-globalization etc?

Dinnerstein: First, I'm not sure how much leftist anti-Semitism is based on political concerns. The manifestations may be anti-Semitic but political concerns may not have been the cause of the anti-Semitism. Secondly, I'd like to see statistics on how many leftist anti-Semites there are. I am familiar with conditions in the United States. I am not familiar with conditions in other parts of the world.

Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that the current wave of "increased" anti-Semitic manifestations is driven both by Muslim activists and concerns about Israeli policies.

<snip>

Dinnerstein: I would not be so quick as to label attacks on Israeli policies as the equivalent of blistering anti-Semitism. I also want to see statistics on how many people are involved. While I do believe anti-Semitic manifestations are on the rise around the world, the same is not true for the United States. I wish I did know who has become anti-Semitic as a result of the Middle East situation and how many have used the opportunity to express their anti-Semitic views which they had already held.

Lerner: Anti-Semitism on the Left remains a marginal phenomenon, because very few people on the Left would consciously say that they believe that Jews or the Jewish people ought to be treated differently or deserve worse treatment than any one else on the planet. Unlike, for example, those who hold that some people on this planet deserve more wealth and some people less wealth because of their alleged merit (in work, intelligence, or some other feature of their lives), very few Leftists hold that Jews deserve less of the goodies of the planet or the benefits of society than anyone else.

What irks many on the Left is when Jews take a larger portion than others relative to their proportion in the population of the world’s wealth (e.g. by being disproportionately represented in the elites of the most piggy society on the face of the earth which has 5% of the world’s population but consumes 25% of the world’s wealth) or when the Jews benefit from the support of colonial or imperial ambitions of, first Britain, and then the U.S., in the Middle East to establish a society benefiting as the single largest recipient of U.S. aid, and then using those benefits to create a society which oppresses Palestinians. Here, a small percentage of people on the Left single out the Jews and Israel for special, and in my view anti-Semitic attention, allowing what could be legitimate criticisms were they spread to all beneficiaries of an unjust global system to be focussed illegitimately on critique of the Jewish people and on Israel, and by ignoring the vicious and immoral acts of terror committed against Israeli civilians by some who advocate the Palestinian cause. Moreover, some groups on the left deny Jews the same right to have national self-determination (and with it all the attendant distortions that nationalism frequently produces) that they champion when it comes to other historically oppressed groups.

...

Does the aforementioned excerpt not show that the RW source actually provided some useful information?

Also, I find your duplicity on this a little troubling. You say, initially, "I wasn't assuming that the "Crisis Papers" site was not liberal. I did go to that site. From what I could tell the Weiner seemed mostly ok." Yet, you conclude your post with, "And I think it's perfectly reasonable to comment on Weiner's article - based on what it said alone - which I have read. Which was lame." "Lame" and "OK" are not synonymous. I feel your post fulfills the saying, "giveth with one hand, taketh with the other."

[bloom]

33. I googled Weiner and he didn't seem to be a wacko like Horowitz

That's what I was talking about.


As far as my thoughts on the excerpt you posted.

I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS!!!


Ok - So first it's starts out -

"would we agree that the contemporary growth of anti-Semitism on the Left is the result of anti-Semitism now becoming enmeshed with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-globalization etc?"

No I wouldn't agree with that at all. It sounds like bullshit. Just what I would expect to be on Frontpage. For one thing it assumes that there is a "growth of anti-Semitism on the Left" without establishing it.


Then we have:

there is no doubt in my mind that the current wave of "increased" anti-Semitic manifestations is driven both by Muslim activists...

That sounds like bullshit too. I have not heard any "Muslim activists" who are encouraging "anti-semitism" (a phrase that makes no sense in that context since Muslims could be semites.). I have heard a lot of ANTI-MUSLIM activists - Jews like Horowitz and Pipes as well as the Christian right-wing who send out crap trying to get people to hate Muslims.

Lerner seems to be the one who is talking out of both sides of his mouth. I don't know anything about him - but it seems like that last paragraph you quoted could be used as "evidence" of anti-semitism or zionism - depending on what part you are quoting.


Actually - I have to wonder if anyone who thinks the Horowitz thing to be reasonable is actually right-wing - at least when it comes to issues regarding Israel. Because that's what I think it's about. Another thing - trying to silence people who take issue with Israel's policies.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. And you miss the point....

You claim that you "googled Weiner and he didn't seem to be a wacko like Horowitz." Fine.

As for the excerpt...the point was that the RW site provided an inane premise, quickly shot down by the left.

However, you continue to "gather air" with your misquote. You state:

That sounds like bullshit too. I have not heard any "Muslim activists" who are encouraging "anti-semitism" (a phrase that makes no sense in that context since Muslims could be semites.). I have heard a lot of ANTI-MUSLIM activists - Jews like Horowitz and Pipes as well as the Christian right-wing who send out crap trying to get people to hate Muslims.

Yet, what you fail to do is show that the ENTIRE quote was : "First, I'm not sure how much leftist anti-Semitism is based on political concerns. The manifestations may be anti-Semitic but political concerns may not have been the cause of the anti-Semitism. Secondly, I'd like to see statistics on how many leftist anti-Semites there are. I am familiar with conditions in the United States. I am not familiar with conditions in other parts of the world.

Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that the current wave of "increased" anti-Semitic manifestations is driven both by Muslim activists and concerns about Israeli policies." Seems the respondent is AGREEING with you, in part. You haven't heard Muslim "activists"...then, IMO, you are 'deaf.'

And, what a interesting statement: "Lerner seems to be the one who is talking out of both sides of his mouth. I don't know anything about him -... You know claim to know "nothing" about Lerner, but go on to claim he is "...talking out of both sides of his mouth."

Finally, you end with...

Actually - I have to wonder if anyone who thinks the Horowitz thing to be reasonable is actually right-wing - at least when it comes to issues regarding Israel. Because that's what I think it's about. Another thing - trying to silence people who take issue with Israel's policies.

Well, had you read the piece you would be able to comment. Yet, you are one of those who think "anti-Semitism" applies to Muslims...it does not. Do you really not know what "anti-Semitism" means? Or, are you simply trying to down-play the real meaning of the word?

[Behind the Aegis]

17. On Politics and Anti-Semitism

Bernard Weiner published an article titled “Anti-Semitism and the "New Jews"” that struck on a number of things. I found it to be a very interesting read. What was most interesting is that he did not shy away from the idea that anti-Semitism was a problem on the “left.”

He says in his article, “ Anti-Semitism on the Left is generally not spoken about, but it's real and appears to be growing.” I find this to be very true! The very idea that a form of racism on the ‘left’ is so repugnant, that many will deny it outright. Instead, deniers will pretend that it is the Jews, who may be pro-Israeli, making “something out of nothing.” These are often the same people that tell Jewish liberals they can’t distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli comments. I find that the height of arrogance and, in some ways, anti-Semitic…as if Jews really don’t know when they are being derided.

Like Weiner, I agree that “ It's often difficult to locate that fine line” between “ opposing Israeli policies and actions - to out-and-out anti-Semitism.” Sometimes, the line is very blurry, sometimes not. So, I find myself in his position, as well, of “have(ing) to follow a pundit's writings over time, and discern where the arguments are coming from and where they are going.” I have encountered many anti-Israeli screed at DU. When I see an unfamiliar author’s name, I google him/her; in doing so, I often discover if the person is a Jew-hater or simply an Israel-hater. To me, hating a country means, more often than not, hating that country’s policies, not its people.

He is correct that “ (t)he anti-Semitism-on-the-Left issue cries out for more in-depth examination as to motive and intent.” But, will it get the attention it needs? Or will it be met with ‘knee-jerk’ reactions of “trying to paint the “left” as anti-Semitic (which he is not doing)? Will it be met with outright dismissal (“such bigotry could never occur on the left”)? Or, will it be dismissed as the “Jews playing up their victimhood status?”

Where the author goes “wrong” is when he asks readers to “jump off” on this journey by citing a right-wing (RW) site. The problem is that most won’t bother to go to the site and see that the article (actually a conversation with a number of people) is actually a good jumping off place. The article on the RW site is a conversation amongst a variety of people, including liberal Jews. Instead, it will be dismissed outright and the author’s entire article along with it. Interestingly enough, many of those who will dismiss the article because of that “error,” have no issue with quoting the likes of Pat Buchanan and his protégé, Justin Raimondo (of anti-war.com fame) with the glib, “a broken clock is right twice a day.”

So, one has to ask him/herself, does anti-Semitism exist on the “left?” If so, what is to be done? If you answered “no” to the first question, then you are part of the problem because you either engage in the behavior or ignore it; either way, it is still a real problem!

[bpilgrim]

34. i am much more worried about the anti-semitism directed at muslims

there are a lot of folks on the left rightly pissed at israeli gov policies as well as U.S. gov policies though that doesn't make them against the jewish people.

peace

[Behind the Aegis]

35. there is no such thing.

[bpilgrim]

36. oh

i am sure that is a major part of the ongoing problem in the ME for some... they are unwilling or unable to see the persecution and racism that is directed against their enemies.


more...
http://globalfreepress.com/images/me/

peace

[Behind the Aegis]

37. That is called anti-Arab bias or Islamaphobia...

...it is not anti-Semitism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. are not Arabic people a semite people?

Thus one could reasonably say that anti-Arab racism is also a form of anti-semitism?

Semites
{sem' - yts}
General Information

Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians. In a Biblical sense, Semites are peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to Shem, Noah's eldest son. The ancient Semitic populations were pastoral Nomads who several centuries before the Christian Era were migrating in large numbers from Arabia to Mesopotamia, the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River delta. Jews and other Semites settled in villages in Judea, southern Palestine.

link:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/semites.htm

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Irrelevant.

From your own source....

Anti - Semitism
Advanced Information
The term was introduced in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German political agitator. At the time it designated anti Jewish campaigns in Europe. Soon, however, it came to be applied to the hostility and hatred directed toward Jews since before the Christian era.

Long and painful best describes the history of anti Semitism. Among Jews, the tragic facts about anti Semitism are well known, for it occupies a major portion of Jewish history. Today, after more than two millennia, this seemingly ubiquitous evil continues to exist. Hence, sensitivity to the wiles of the would be anti Semite is never far from the collective conscience of world Jewry. In Christian circles, however, the story of anti Semitism, often sordid and self indicting, remains generally untold. This is the case, it would seem, because the history of the church is about as long as the history of anti Semitism, if not in the overt acts of Christians, certainly in their guilty silence.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/antisemi.htm

So, no, it is not resonable to say that anti-Arab racism is a form of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism only applies to Jews.

[laststeamtrain]

41. Exceptional, so to speak...

I wonder if there's a special word for the prejudice of Ashkenazim toward Sephardi in contemporary Israel?

I read about it and believe it exists. It seems like a horrible injustice.

I think the word 'anti-Semite' applies to any and all Semitic peoples. Islamo-phobia seems overly medical to me.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Not at all exceptional.

I doubt there is a special word for prejudice of Ashkenazim toward Sephardi in contemporary Israel other than anti-Semitism, or in this case, probably more of a type of racism.

You can think what ever you like, but you are simply incorrect to think anti-Semitism applies to anyone other than Jews.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. If one prefers the term anti-Arab racism

Well I don't see much point in arguing over semantics about semitics.

One does not have to go very far to witness the vitriolic and socially acceptable racism against Arabic people. It's in the movies, on the front pages of newspapers, rampant in both political parties, legitimized in American foreign policy and not infrequently on the forums of DU.

The word "islamophobia" overlooks the fact that a significant minority of Arabic people are Christian or followers of a non-Islamic faith.

The word "bias" understates this evil.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. There is a semantic issue here.

Anti-Semitism is only about discrimination against Jews, no one else. This 'need' some people have to make it apply to other groups is discriminatory in that it is an attempt to minimalize the discrimination against Jews by saying, "hey the word isn't right." Rather then trying to change the meaning of the word, accept that it simply means discrimination against Jews, and go from there.

I think you are no understanding Islamaphobia. It deals with discrimination against those who are Muslim. It has nothing to do with the person been Arab or not. Thus, there is the simplistic anti-Arab bigotry/racism. This is why, when discussing issues of the Middle East, I usually talk about anti-Arab prejudice and/or Islamaphobia. Sometimes the two are tightly linked, other times they are not.

You may feel "bias" understates the case, but sometimes, that is what is happening, bias. Discrimination, bias, and bigotry are just shades of one another, but all carry different implications.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. granted their is also plenty of bigotry against non-Arabic Muslims

just as there is plenty of racism against non-Muslim Arabs; fair enough.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. .