No, it's not anti-semitic

[drewb]

When the president of Harvard University declared that to criticise Israel at this time and to call on universities to divest from Israel are 'actions that are anti-semitic in their effect, if not their intent', he introduced a distinction between effective and intentional anti-semitism that is controversial at best. The counter-charge has been that in making his statement, Summers has struck a blow against academic freedom, in effect, if not in intent. Although he insisted that he meant nothing censorious by his remarks, and that he is in favour of Israeli policy being 'debated freely and civilly', his words have had a chilling effect on political discourse. Among those actions which he called 'effectively anti-semitic' were European boycotts of Israel, anti-globalisation rallies at which criticisms of Israel were voiced, and fund-raising efforts for organisations of 'questionable political provenance'. Of local concern to him, however, was a divestment petition drafted by MIT and Harvard faculty members who oppose Israel's current occupation and its treatment of Palestinians. Summers asked why Israel was being 'singled out . . . among all nations' for a divestment campaign, suggesting that the singling out was evidence of anti-semitic intentions. And though he claimed that aspects of Israel's 'foreign and defence' policy 'can be and should be vigorously challenged', it was unclear how such challenges could or would take place without being construed as anti-Israel, and why these policy issues, which include occupation, ought not to be vigorously challenged through a divestment campaign. It would seem that calling for divestment is something other than a legitimately 'vigorous challenge', but we are not given any criteria by which to adjudicate between vigorous challenges that should be articulated, and those which carry the 'effective' force of anti-semitism.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n16/butl02_.html

[Darranar]

1. Well...

personally, I think the president is right. I have never liked the usage of boycotts or sanctions, and I think that their usage causes far too many humanitarian problems. So, boycotts, in my view, are effectively anti-semitic. The sanctions on Iraq were also effectively anti-Iraqi.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. I have problems with boycotts, too...

but I have more problems with essentially describing actions against the Israeli government as anti-Semitic.

Yes, there could be an undercurrent of bigotry, just as there could be undercurrents of bigotry when sanctioning any other country. African and Asian countries come to mind. The furor over France is tough to call covert racism, but anti-French sentiments abound, and they got slammed more than any other country that opposed us.

I sense that too often purely political actions are slandered with charges of some form of racism.

[Darranar]

3. I agree...

I am saying that those boycotts hurt MORE than the Israeli government.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Yeah,

that's why I have trouble with boycotts, embargos, etc..

They never seem to hurt the ones they are aimed at, and there is far too much "collateral damage."

[vierundzwanzig]

5. Well, you know

Israel is a 'democracy'. The people can always change the government. This was not true for Iraq.

I for one think boycotting Israeli goods and companies is an effective tool. We are not talking about some third wirld country with its people living in substandard environments to start with.

Israeli living conditions are comparable to European.

A little pressure (like not giving them $9 billion of your and my tax moeny is a good thing.

[Darranar]

7. The Israeli economy is in shambles...

that didn't dampen Likud's success in the last election. Boycotts will make it worse, and Likud will still pull through. The politics in Israel focus around security more than anything else.

[The Magistrate]

6. This Is Old Hat On The Left

Describing an action or statement as effectively something, if not intentionally that thing, is nothing new at all. It is more commonly levelled in matters relating to gender relations or relations between whites and peoples of color: all that is unusual about this is that the mode of analysis is applied to a different field, and indeed, turned on people who are more accustomed to use it against others than they are to having it applied to themselves.

[bemildred]

8. Well said.

Esp. in combination with yr sig line.

If the meaning of words is not kept honed and sharp,
they will not be able to effectively cut through all
the bullshit ...

This fudging of the meanings of words in pursuit of
rhetorical points results in the end in an inability
to think clearly, at all, because one no longer has a
clear understanding of what one is talking about.

Mr. Darranar's analysis of boycotts vs anti-semitism is
a perfect example. By seeing the problem as a boycott he
avoids the whole muddle of "anti-semitism" and makes a
clear argument against the boycott based on rational grounds
with no sticky emotional residue.

[The Magistrate]

9. Well Said Yourself, My Friend

It is not my habit much to quote scripture, but Ezekiel's "I say to you, each man shall die for his own sin!" has always appealed to me. It is seldom necessary to make things up; generally there is some wrong being done. Nor is it necessary to be absolutely right, and on the highest conceivable moral ground, to be correct in opposing some other's action toward an outcome you do not yourself desire or approve of. People looking for starkly differentiated blacks and whites would do well to avoid the Levant in all instances.

[StandWatie]

10. it's not just the left..

it wasn't that long ago that opposing US adventurism in Iraq was labeled "objectively Pro-Saddam".

[The Magistrate]

11. Fair Enough, Sir

But they copped the "objectively" bit from old Vladimir, and owe his estate a royalty. A lot of these "neo-cons", after all, are de-frocked leftists rhemselves. It is though, a human trait, nor is such analysis always incorrect. It is hard to argue against the proposition, say, that insistence on a property tax basis for local school funding works obviously to restrict the prospects of those born to poorer families, and that, given the pretention to belief in equal prospects for all in our country, some other system of financing local education would be employed if this outcome were really viewed as undesirable.

[StandWatie]

12. true, that..

I try and jetison the knowledge that many of the neo-cons came over from the left side. Cold War politics left the authoritarians at either extreme and it's incredible how many times you could watch them turn on a dime and go from party-line, militant communist to party-line, militant, capitalist.

[bemildred]

13. Not really a political attribute.

It seems most popular with people who want to
believe that the World is really simple and that
simple descriptions of it are sufficient to guide
one. The division of political thought into a linear
continuum extending between "liberal" and "conservative"
is a perfect example. All political thinkers are then
crammed onto the line somewhere, based on some few of
their positions, while ignoring the totality of their
opinions on subjects that do not "fit". In the same way,
the meaning of words is fudged as necessary so that the
desired world view is maintained.

Of course this sort of thing is also done intentionally
for propaganda purposes by most governments and political
organizations with an interest in political power.

[Fight_n_back]

14. Muhammed Ali was on Phil Donahue once

when I was a kid. He was pointing out that a lot of things that are dark have an evil stigma attached to them in our culture. He said that this made African Americans hyper aware of their color. When he used devils food cake as an example (angels are white devils are dark) a woman in the audience said "Thats not racist" Ali said, " You have no right to tell me what I find offensive."

Perhaps when a group says that something said about it is bigoted, perhaps as liberals our first response should be to listen first and get hyper defensive later.

Sometimes I think DU doth protest too much.

[Darranar]

15. When legitimate criticism of Israel...

is labeled anti-semitism, that's mislabeling. It isn't targeted towards Jews.

That only applies if you are speaking about one person indvidually or an entire group.

[Fight_n_back]

16. The question remains

who has the right to decide what is to offensive to a group, the offended group or the offending group?

Do you ever ask anyone what they find offensive about criticism of Israeli politics? Obviuosly it isn't criticism of the government itself that is the issue since no one considers tha Labor Party in ?Israel anti semitic, so perhaps it is somehing else?