The new-old Jew hatred

[oberliner]

The malignant use of the expression “chosen Jews” is recurring in the latest attacks on Israel made by secular intellectuals, archbishops, mainstream journalists and European politicians.

Such vilification inspired historical waves of violence, like the pogroms, the expulsion of the Spanish Jews and Martin Luther’s demonology (the founder of Protestantism argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people but instead “the Devil’s people.”)

“Modern-day Jews are not God’s chosen people,” the head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III, declared recently in a meeting with former US President Jimmy Carter. “Do not believe their claims that they are God’s chosen people, because it is not true.”

It is no longer only Syria that aired a movie against the “Chosen Jews” or the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mohammad Mahathir, who warned that “the Jews must never think they are the chosen people.” The obsession for this issue now widely appears in the latest indictments of Israel as an “apartheid state” and in the legal campaigns against the Law of Return.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4137444,00.html

[LeftishBrit]

1. 'Chosen people' is often used dishonestly by antisemites

It means 'chosen to fulfil a task' not 'chosen for special favour'. As someone once said, it means 'chosen' as in 'it's your turn to wash the dishes'.

Nevertheless, I would not trust Giulio Meotti as a source. As I posted elsewhere:

'Giulio Meotti is certainly no man of peace. He is a vicious spreader of the 'Eurabia' myth, claiming that western secularism, low birth rates and permissive immigration policies (which are by no means really all that permissive) are leading to a Muslim takeover of Europe. This is just as vile as (and fundamentally quite similar to) the antisemitic conspiracy theories of Helen Thomas and her ilk that imply that 'Zionists' own the White House, Hollywood and the media. When someone spreads this sort of vile propaganda, it's hard to take them seriously on anything else. He is not Israeli or Jewish, which is not of course in itself a reason for being suspicious of his views on Israel-related matters - but in his case, reading much of what he has written, it does seem that he is using Israel and the problem of antisemitism as pawns in a far-right Europaean anti-'multiculturalism' cause, similar to that of Geert Wilders.'

I would add to this that he has made vicious attacks on progressive Israelis such as Oz and Grossman, calling them 'immoral', etc.

Antisemitism in the world is a genuine, common and serious problem; but Meotti is not the best source on the problem IMO.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. I remember reading that 'immoral novelists' article a while back...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4046028,00.html

It was a nasty harangue. Somehow I think Oz and Grossman, being Israeli authors, would have a far better idea than Meotti what Israeli identity, memory and reality is...

[shira]

3. Does Richard Falk bother you as much as Meotti? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

4. Yes. But he wasn't quoted on this thread, so I don't see the relevance.

[King_David]

5. Very relevant to this forum,even if it was not in the OP

And it was a good point .

[LeftishBrit]

6. OK. I don't like or trust ANY writer who starts from a point of bizarre conspiracy theories

Which applies to both Falk and Meotti. And a number of others too.

Personally, I'd be very happy if neither was treated here as a serious authority.

[shira]

7. Falk bothers me way more than this nobody.

Falk's appointed position at the UN makes him far more dangerous a person. After all, leftwing secular progressives like Maryam Namazie write similar things about political Islam and noone serious considers her a bigot.

The indifference demonstrated here WRT Falk's enthusiastic promotion of neo-naziism is chilling.

I expect more from "left" wingers.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Meotti himself may be a nobody ...

but the 'Eurabia' myth is influential and is promoted by quite a few people on the right.

It's not Meotti himself; it's what he represents.

If someone quotes Falk as an authority, either on '9-11' truth, or as regards the G-word (anyone who accuses *either* the Israelis or Palestinians of genocide instantly loses all right to be taken seriously), or therefore as regards anything else, I would certainly object strongly to that. Though I have to admit that the first time someone did so here in 2007, my immediate response was 'Who is Richard Falk?' I have learned a bit more since then about the various nutcases on all sides.

Anyway, Falk and Meotti don't represent the only alternatives! If they did, there'd be little point in discussing the I/P issue as it would all be hopeless anyway.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

11. Falk is not a leftist, and I don't think most of the left support him.

Mind you, a lot of people don't know who he is.

I see no evidence that he's a Nazi however, though he is an antisemite which is quite bad enough on its own.

I DO think that some anti-war progressives are prepared to accept the support of anti-war xenophobic-isolationists, who are often antisemitic/racist in other ways/economically far-right/all of the above. I strongly object to this, as I do to ANY alliance with or sympathy with political right-wingers.

[shira]

12. Then the left and human rights groups should have no problem condemning Falk...

You won't find any of the harshest critics of Israel here condemning this 'non-leftist'.

They can't.

That would be admitting the UN has a serious problem.

For that matter, "leftist" human rights groups won't condemn this 'non-leftist' either. They can't. He speaks for them. They've backed him this long - why should they stop?

=====

Furthermore, Falk enthusiastically promotes neo-nazi anti-Jewish hatred (Atzmon's latest hate screed). That goes beyond the antisemite descriptor, don't you think?

[shaayecanaan]

17. I condemn him...

I think he is shrill, bombastic, is prone to excess and has virtually no judgment whatsoever. I don't think he is a Nazi - unlike you I hesitate to make frivolous comparisons to Nazis. But I think the UN should wash their hands of him.

[shira]

20. Impressive. Thanks! n/t

[shaayecanaan]

25. No worries. Now, are you willing to condemn Islamophobes that endorse the "Eurabia" thesis?

That would include the author of the OP.

[shira]

27. Oh, without question. Without thinking twice. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

21. Agree.

[shira]

28. You agree with what? That Falk's endorsement of Atzmon speaks more to his lack of judgment...

....than utter contempt towards Jews?

He's more stupid than anything else?

[LeftishBrit]

35. The line between utter stupidity and utter bigotry is a thin one.

I think he is both stupid AND bigoted.

I don't think, however, that he is a Nazi.

Lots of people over the generations have shown contempt and discrimination and bigotry towards Jews. Sadly, antisemitism has hounded our ancestors for hundreds of years. But Nazis actively tried to exterminate all Jews and actually killed about six million of them. There is a difference; and Nazism is *so* exceptionally evil, that the term should not be trivialized.

[oberliner]

13. He is definitely a leftist

At the very least, he self-identifies as such.

This article in The Forward from earlier this year refers to him as a leftist more than once.

U.N. Official Answers Questions About Fierce Criticism of Israel

http://forward.com/articles/140075/

[azurnoir]

15. Interesting article but also of interest is the splitting up of a group

or liberal vs progressive vs leftist interesting indeed

[oberliner]

18. No idea what you mean

What group is being split up?

What's the difference between a liberal or progressive or leftist?

And what does this article have to do with any of that?

The terms liberal or progressive don't appear anywhere.

[LeftishBrit]

19. A lot of people self-identify as leftists

I tend to be accused of getting over-involved in the definitions of right and left, and specifically of using the No True Scotsman fallacy here; but in my view it's not the same thing, as being a left-winger - or right-winger- is partly defined by having certain attitudes and views, whereas being a Scotsman isn't.

Being a leftist is in my view defined more than anything by views on economic and general social justice. Falk *may* be a left-winger in this sense, but I am not aware of his having strong views on such issues one way or another. I could be wrong. He seems to be a 'leftist' mainly in the sense of being formerly against the war in Vietnam, and more recently against the war in Iraq. Of course, these issues are extremely important but I don't think on their own they make you a left-winger.

In any case, whether he's left or right is perhaps less important here than that he seems not entirely in touch with the real world. I'm not criticizing him for being critical of Israel, or supportive of Palestinians; I'm criticizing him for using the G-word, and using it repeatedly. Anyone who uses the word 'genocide' about EITHER Israel OR Palestine - which both have *increasing* populations - is either out of touch with reality, or is deliberately demonizing one of the sides, and in either case is trivializing real genocides. Also, his involvement with 'trutherism' makes him unreliable in my eyes. A couple of the people commenting on the article thay you cite suggest that he may be not so much antisemitic/self-hating as ignorant, which seems to me quite likely in fact. A pity in someone in his position.

[LeftishBrit]

10. P.S. Maryam Namazie does not say ANYTHING like the Eurabia-myth promoters

There is a huge difference between criticizing political Islam, or for that matter even criticizing Islam itself, or even criticizing particular right-wing/ anti-integrationist immigrant groups; and taking the view that Muslim immigrants and their descendants are TAKING OVER Europe; threatening national identity; using this view to justify demanding a halt to Muslim or even simply 'non-Western' immigration; etc. With your emphasis on the difference between criticism and demonization of Israel, I am amazed that you don't see this difference, which is precisely that between criticism and demonization of Muslims! The accusations that a small minority group is responsible for most of a country's evils, and that they are seeking a takeover of their country's institutions, reminds me very much of the similar shrieks about 'Zionist' takeovers, control of the media, etc.

There is a stark difference between people like Namazie whom I greatly admire, and the likes of Wilders, Dan Pipes, Melanie Phillips, and their various hangers-on such as Meotti, and Douglas Murray (whom Namazie has debated, e.g here):

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/01/limiting-immigration-is-racist-why-not.html

[shira]

14. Thanks. The link to Namazie/Murray helps. n/t

[oberliner]

30. Sorry this whooshed right past me

Only just now reading up on this guy - I am sorry I posted his piece.

[LeftishBrit]

31. No problem; I know you don't agree with his sort of views

[azurnoir]

16. a question here many right wing settlers claim a right to Judea and Samaria

because G-d promised it to Jews, does this substantially differentiate from the 'chosen people' meme because it seems to more acceptable to some

[oberliner]

22. Yes, they are completely different

I think the concept has been explained ad infinitum so I'm not sure why you would still be confused.

[azurnoir]

23. because I have not seen this 'concept' explained at all

but I knew that somehow it would be 'different'

[oberliner]

24. That's weird

Maybe you can consult one your favorite websites:

Crucial to the Jewish notion of chosenness is that it creates obligations exclusive to Jews, while non-Jews receive from God other covenants and other responsibilities. Generally, it does not entail exclusive rewards for Jews

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

[azurnoir]

26. still and none the less the claims of right wing settlers come quite close to claims of antisemites

calling Jews G-ds chosen, as what other people did G-d promise a specific piece of real-estate to?

I do not believe either to be correct however it should be noted that one could compliment the other

[oberliner]

29. RW settlers are RW

It is a tautology!

[LeftishBrit]

32. Right-wing settlers and antisemites are bigots (both groups)

so it's not surprising that they have things in common. But neither group's existence justifies the other, much as both groups would like to think it does.

[azurnoir]

34. no they do not justify each other

hoever they may well 'fertilize' each other, so to speak

[LeftishBrit]

36. Sadly true (at any rate with regard to far right Israelis and far right Palestinians).

As tends to be the case for rival bigoted groups, in general

[azurnoir]

37. ah so far right Israelis and far right Palestinians is it?

sadly Palestinians have not brought up prior this and that was not my comparison

[shaayecanaan]

33. Most religions regard their own as the "chosen people"

According to the Shinto religion, for instance, the Gods lovingly crafted Japan with their own hands, whereas the other countries simply coalesced from mud and seafoam. Xenophanes said: "Men make gods in their own image; those of the Ethiopians are black and snub-nosed, those of the Thracians have blue eyes and red hair. Yea, if horses or oxen or lions had hands and could produce works of art, they too would represent the gods after their own fashion".

I don't think its accurate to say that this impulse can be characterised as innocuously as being chosen to wash the dishes. Obviously, its an expression of nationalism, ethnocentrism, exceptionalism (take your pick) and the potential for chauvinism that all that entails.

In any event, many Jews are furiously critical of what they call "replacement theology" - the Christian notion that the Christians became the Chosen people after the advent of Christ. I am not sure that you can regard such a Christian claim of "chosenness" as malevolent while at the same time claiming that the Jewish version is inherently harmless.