Hypothesis for Kerry's concession?

[Carolab]

"Democrats are not out to capture a few million Jewish votes that they know they already have, but to gain a near-split in the Christian-Zionists’ vote needed to win. Without a sweep Bush is a one term President like his Warmaker father. With a modest split of this vote, Kerry is in."

http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/Carter.htm

Is this what it's all about? Kerry conceded (even though he knew he won) because he didn't get this "split"? If you look at the Jewish vote, he clearly came out ahead. But the Christian Zionist vote went to *? There aren't enough Christian Zionists to swing the election. So, perhaps this isn't about numbers, but about "influence"; i.e., support for the U.S. support of Israel and the "powers" behind it.

[rdmccur]

1. This isn't the first time

this has been suggested to me (in reading the link).
Possibly true, but where is the leverage for this to happen?
Is it in the money controlled by these "powers"? I think it's deeper than this (or rather the reasons are not simply lumped into those implied in the article). For example how does deal with the rise of the economic power of Japan and China that may soon overshadow that of the West? Perhaps it is not a concern because of the belief in an eminent apocalytic event (similar to the attitude of non-environmentalism)?

[thanatonautos]

2. This site seems to contain a lot of borderline antisemitic literature.

This article about Ukraine from Israel Shamir is a
real gem:

Ukraine on the brink

Some excerpts:

Another great supporter of Yushchenko is a group of
Russian Jewish oligarchs kicked out of Russia by Putin.
...
Internal supporters of Yushchenko consist of two quite
different groups. The biggest is the nationalists of
Galichina, West Ukraine. ... Galichina has a strong
nationalist tendency; during the World War Two they formed
an SS division fighting on the German side. Nowadays, they
form the base for such groups as swastika-bearing Svoboda
(formerly Ukrainian National Socialist Party), UNA and
UNSO who venerate Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist and
supporter of Hitler. Today they are united in support of
Yushchenko.
...
They do not mind that Yushchenko is supported by the Jewish
oligarchs; the oligarchs do not mind them, either. Soros
even financed them. So much for antisemitism: the Jews
remember to mention it only when it suits them.
...
The future of Ukraine may be bleak: the beautiful girls
I saw on the shores of Dnepr River will be shipped to
cathouses of Tel Aviv and Istanbul; their boyfriends will
fight for America in Iraq and elsewhere, their coal mines
will be privatised, sold for peanuts and closed down.
Ukraine can be free in union with Russia – or in thrall
to the West and the Jews.

This is, quite frankly, pretty poisonous stuff. It's
along the general line that Western Jewish capitalists
control everything ... pretty much lifted right out of the
Protocols.

It is especially poisonous when you consider how an
article like this feeds into Ukraine's very long history
of the most vicious antisemitism.

For people who are not familiar with Israel Shamir,
he's an Israeli-Russian writer, who became infamous
around the time the second intifada started, when
he started speaking out against the Israeli occupation.

It emerged that he was actually writing a lot of
classically antisemitic tracts, one of which can be
read here.

Take Two: Easter greetings to you from Israel Shamir

Here's an excellent response to this letter from Ali
Abunimah and Hussein Ibish:

SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT ISRAEL SHAMIR

You can read more about Shamir's case here:

THE ISRAEL SHAMIR CASE

Personally, I won't be looking for any explanations
of Kerry's concession at WHTT.

[Carolab]

3. First, this much is true.

"They do not mind that Yushchenko is supported by the Jewish
oligarchs; the oligarchs do not mind them, either. Soros
even financed them. So much for antisemitism: the Jews
remember to mention it only when it suits them."

Soros has financed a campaign, and Menatep is involved in it, to free Khodorshovsky, the oligarch who owned Yukos Oil.

Second, speaking of mentioning antisemitism when it suits someone--this post was not about Jewish influence; it was about Christian Zionist influence.

Third, I would like to add: Arabs are also semites.

Fourth, I would not like to get into a discussion of the Jewish vote, again. Thank you.

[thanatonautos]

4. `Semites.'

First, this much is true.

"They do not mind that Yushchenko is supported by
the Jewish oligarchs; the oligarchs do not mind them,
either. Soros even financed them. So much for antisemitism:
the Jews remember to mention it only when it suits them."

So I take it that you think the following statement is
objectively true:

So much for antisemitism: the Jews remember to mention it
only when it suits them.

Are you quite convinced of that?

Soros has financed a campaign, and Menatep is involved
in it, to free Khodorshovsky, the oligarch who owned Yukos
Oil.

Soros has financed many campaigns across eastern
Europe attempting to work towards establishing more open
societies. What of it? There's always a little truth
in every antisemitic rant.

Second, speaking of mentioning antisemitism when it
suits someone--this post was not about Jewish influence;
it was about Christian Zionist influence.

You accuse me of mentioning antisemitism only when it
suits me?

I beg to differ. I mention antisemitism when I see it.

By the way: `Christian Zionist' seems to be a very odd
linguistic construct, considering that Zionist already
has a very well-defined historical meaning. What's the
purpose of employing this term at all?

I'm not at all convinced that such a group of people exists,
never mind that they can be considered a voting block.

Third, I would like to add: Arabs are also semites.

Sorry: but that is false.

People should learn that it's a common canard of
antisemites to say that Arabs are also `semites'
in order to support the false conclusion that Arabs
can't be antisemitic.

The problem with saying that Arabs are `semites'
is that there is no such thing as a semitic race.
This old biblical theory of the origin of the races
has long since been discredited.

`Arabs' no more constitute a racially pure
group than do `Jews.'

What actually does exist is a group of related
languages which has been termed by linguists the
Semitic language group, after the biblical character
Shem. It's for sure that Arabic and Hebrew are both
within that family.

However: antisemitism means one thing and one thing
only: hatred of Jews. The term was coined in Germany at
the turn of the 19th century, as a more acceptable
replacement for the term Judenhass.

Fourth, I would not like to get into a discussion of
the Jewish vote, again. Thank you.

I will be more than happy not to get into a discussion
of the Jewish vote with you.

You're quite welcome.

[Carolab]

7. Christian Zionists don't exist and are not a voting bloc?

"By the way: `Christian Zionist' seems to be a very odd
linguistic construct, considering that Zionist already
has a very well-defined historical meaning. What's the
purpose of employing this term at all?

I'm not at all convinced that such a group of people exists,
never mind that they can be considered a voting block."

The Christian Science Monitor begs to differ with you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p15s01-lire.html

I recommend you read the entire article, but here is a snip:

With a handful of similar groups here they are marshalling financial and moral support from evangelical Christians around the world, and particularly in the United States, to fulfill what they see as their role in an unfolding final drama.

Christian Zionists, an Evangelical subset whose ranks are estimated at 20 million in the US, have in the past two decades poured millions of dollars of donations into Israel, formed a tight alliance with the Likud and other Israeli politicians seeking an expanded "Greater Israel," and mobilized grass-roots efforts to get the US to adopt a similar policy.

Christian Zionist leaders today have access to the White House and strong support within Congress, including the backing of the two most recent majority leaders in the House of Representatives.

************

Definition of "semite":
Semite
Related: People

(sĕm´ît, sç´mît) , originally one of a people believed to be descended from Shem, son of Noah. Later the term came to include the following peoples: Arabs; the Akkadians of ancient Babylonia; the Assyrians; the Canaanites (including Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Phoenicians); the various Aramaean tribes (including Hebrews); and a considerable portion of the population of Ethiopia. These peoples are grouped under the term Semite, chiefly because their languages were found to be related, deriving presumably from a common tongue, Semitic. The Semites were largely nomadic pastoralists, although some settled in villages. At least as early as 2500 BC, the Semites had begun to leave the Arabian peninsula in successive waves of migration that took them to Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean coast, and the Nile delta. They were organized into patrilineal tribes, occupying defined territories and ruled by hereditary leaders, or sheiks. In Mesopotamia, Semitic people from the earliest times were in contact with Sumerian civilization and with the rise of Sargon of Agade (Akkad) and Hammurabi of Babylon were able to dominate it completely (see Sumer ). In Phoenicia the Semitic population developed a widespread maritime trade and became the first great seafaring people. That group of Hebrews that had been diverted through Sinai into the Nile delta settled at last with other Semitic inhabitants in Palestine. These southern or Judean Hebrews became the leaders of a new nation and religion (see Jews and Judaism ).

Bibliography: See W. R. Smith, History of the Semites (1956, repr. 1972).

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Semite.asp

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Semitic

SYLLABICATION: Se·mit·ic
PRONUNCIATION: s-mtk
ADJECTIVE: 1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures. 2. Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.
NOUN: 1. The Semitic languages. 2. Any one of the Semitic languages.
ETYMOLOGY: New Latin Smiticus, from Smita, Semite, from Late Latin Sm, Shem, eponymous ancestor of the Semites, from Greek, from Hebrew m.


http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/S0258800.html

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

[thanatonautos]

8. `Christian Zionists.'

"By the way: `Christian Zionist' seems to be a very odd
linguistic construct, considering that Zionist already
has a very well-defined historical meaning. What's the
purpose of employing this term at all?

I'm not at all convinced that such a group of people exists,
never mind that they can be considered a voting block."

The Christian Science Monitor begs to differ with you.

An interesting article, however, it raises more
questions than it answers.

As a general rule, I am very little impressed
by arguments from authority, either yours, or those
of the Christian Science Monitor.

The mystery only deepens, when I read the following:

Christian Zionists, an Evangelical subset whose
ranks are estimated at 20 million in the US

Estimated how? One may ask, and what is the precise
definition of the subset that leads to this estimate of
20 million?

Did the authors ask all the evangelicals whether they
are Christian Zionists?

One may well wonder.

That someone other than yourself uses the term
does not in any way address the question I raised:
`what is the purpose of introducing this odd linguistic
construct?'

Why not use a term like pro-Israeli evangelical, or
pro-settler movement Christian, or pro-Likud Christian
or premillenialist, or premillenial dispensationalist
instead?

The Christian Science Monitor article on this subject, by
the way, appears to agree with me, to the extent that the
authors note in the concluding paragraph of the first page
-- having used the term without definition throughout the
whole article -- that the term `Christian Zionist' is of
pretty recent origin, and they define it as follows:

Christian Zionism is a more recent term for a
19th-century theology that began in England, called
premillennial dispensationalism.

So I repeat the question: Why has this odd construct
been introduced?

Why not just stick with the term premillenial
dispensationalist if this is actually what characterizes
this group?

Are there premillenial dispensationalists who are not
Christian Zionists? It certainly seems possible to me.

To me `Christian Zionist' appears inherently
contradictory, given generally accepted usage
of the noun Zionist.

Zionist

n. a Jewish supporter of Zionism
adj. relating to or characteristic of a supporter of Zionism; the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl
adj. relating to or characteristic of Zionism; the Zionist
movement



I'm perfectly well aware of the dictionary definition
of the word Semite, thanks very much.

But your argument from etymology does not establish the
current existence of well-defined peoples called
`Semites.'

The term antisemitism simply does not apply to hatred,
whether racially, culturally, or religiously motivated,
of Arabs, which I believe was the context of the discussion.

Christian and Jewish hatred of Arabs certainly exists,
but that is historically a very distinct phenomenon from
the hatred of Jews, and in neither case has it actually
been based on those people being distinguishable as
`Semites.'

If the word antisemitism is applied to the hatred of Arabs
then it is misapplied.

[Carolab]

9. I didn't invent these definitions, nor do I believe the CSM exaggerates.

I have read other, similar articles on this movement, whatever you wish to call it, popularly referred to as "Christian Zionism".

As regards the definition you provided of Zionist, it is rather circular, don't you think, unless you also include a definition of Zionism?

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

As for misapplying "anti-semitism", I believe that it is widely misapplied these days in order to dampen criticism of Israel's policies and to stiffle discussion about the conflict in general. Moreover, it has many connotations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

In fact, recent usage of the term--at least in Europe--appears more directed at persons of Arab-Muslim faith rather than at Jewish persons.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121503A.html

[stillcool]

11. I would very much like to say....

Thank You!! You are the very best teacher I have ever come in contact with!! From a grateful student.

[qwghlmian]

13. Carolab - do you read the links you post?

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121503A.html

describes European anti-semitism, and has nothing to do with hatred directed at "persons of Arab-Muslim faith".

(By the way - what in the world is "Arab-Muslim faith"? Is it different from "Farsi-Muslim faith" or "Asian-Muslim faith"?)

[thanatonautos]

15. Good catch and welcome to DU!

There certainly isn't any such thing as Farsi-Muslim
faith. The faith is called Islam, those who hold it
are called Muslims, whether they are Arab, Farsi,
Asian or other.

Completely as an aside, there is an interesting
dialogue among Muslims about Arab/Farsi
relations which goes back to very early times
in the history of Islam.

Here's a link to a discussion of the question in English,
for any who might be interested.

Has Allah placed Arabs above non Arabs?

[Carolab]

16. Read the section on racism from wikipedia.

Following the creation of Israel, land-ownership in many Israeli towns was limited to Jews, and many Muslim countries expelled Jewish Arabs and continue to refuse entry to Jews.

In the United States, racial profiling of minorities by law enforcement officials is a controversial subject. Some people consider this to be a form of racism. Some claim that profiling young Arab male fliers at airports will only lead to increased recruitment of older, non-Arab, and female terrorists. (Some terrorism experts disagree with this claim.) Many critics of racial profiling claim that it is an unconstitutional practice because it amounts to questioning individuals on the basis of what crimes they might commit or could possibly commit, instead of what crimes they have actually committed. See the article on racial profiling for more information on this dispute.

********
The limiting of land-ownership to Jews in Israel is anti-Arab and therefore anti-semitic also. Jews are just as anti-semitic as Arabs are.

Furthermore, the statement is still valid. I personally know Muslims who are being discriminated against. And yes, you can draw a distinction between Arab-Muslims and other Muslims. The question is whether you are being anti-semitic based on race or based on faith or based on a combination of the two (i.e., Arab-Muslim). It seems to me that there is a bit of Arab-Muslim antipathy in France, from what I have read.

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

http://www.counterpunch.org/madarasz12052003.html

Strongly amended but eventually validated, the study's final version recommends using the term "Islamophobia" with "utmost precaution". Among the other reasons evoked, there is an insistence on preventing any amalgam between the terms "Arab" and "Muslim" when the current expression of intolerance in France is most often confused with an anti-Maghrebin racism.

For the first time, the CNCDH has nonetheless highlighted the specifics of anti-Muslim racial discrimination. The authors have sought to define this emerging phenomenon. What the latter points to is "unreasoned fear and total rejection of Islam as a religion, way of life, community project as well as culture." This hostility, fed by international events like the Algerian civil war, the GIA (Groupe Islamiste Armé) terrorist actions in France in 1995, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and 9/11, has been "reinforced with the mixed-up use of terms such as Muslim, Islamic, fundamentalist, Islamist and terrorist," the study asserts. These amalgams wield disgrace on anyone who is a rigorist practitioner of Islam by suspecting them of practicing political Islamism.

********
Which seems to me a bit like drawing a distinction between Zionists and Jews.

************
http://www.princeton.edu/~intrlist/issue1/europe/kapusta.europe.shtml

France is a country struggling to find its identity. Unlike the United States, which has a long history of accepting refugees from around the world, France has never had to deal with a large number of immigrants, allowing for a more closed definition for its national identity. With the influx of immigrants over the past forty years - mainly from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia - France has reached an identity crisis. Of its population of around 60 million people, France now has over 650 thousand Jews and about 5 million Muslims, both populations representing the largest of their type in Europe. The first- and second-generation immigrant population represents the poorest section of society, suffering high unemployment and performing menial jobs. Although some of them may be French citizens, they are still considered outsiders by many and suffer discrimination. Just as anti-Semitic criminal acts have been increasing in the past few years, so too have anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant acts. Many experts go so far as to compare the positions of immigrants in French society to the position of the pre-war Jews.

The success of the extreme right-wing, anti-Muslim, xenophobic candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen in the last presidential election indicates the anti-immigrant sentiment that is sweeping through France. Following the general outcry over election results, Chirac attacked anti-Muslim ideals. This may explain why he has shown reluctance to take any actions that may be hurt the position of the Muslim immigrants in society. The government has refrained from taking measures to harshly punish the immigrants responsible for anti-Semitic attacks for fear of worsening the condition of all North Africans in France. It seems that the Jews are easy scapegoats for frustrated and poor Muslims in France, and for now the French government is politically bound to remain tolerant towards larger minority. Although these are unfortunate politics, it does not reflect an inherent form of anti-Semitism in French society. Nor does this suggest that the French government will look on with tolerance if these attacks continue. Instead, it suggests that France will need to address the heterogeneity of the twenty-first century. From understanding the political context, one realizes that the issue is much more complex than the "Boycott France" position may suggest.

Another issue that is integrally tied with anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism. It is well known that France has been a strong supporter of Palestine and many high government officials have made negative comments about the state of Israel. But to what extent can an anti-Israel position be interpreted as anti-Semitic? While it is not socially acceptable to make overtly anti-Semitic comments, one may criticize the political entity of Israel. Thus, old anti-Semitic feelings may be manifested in anti-Israel statements. However, it is premature to say that all well-founded criticisms of Israel are based purely on a dislike of Jewish people. Many French view the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands as a parallel to French colonization in Algeria. This perception, along with the large Muslim population, causes French policy to support the Palestinian cause.

The close correlation with the Palestinian-Israeli violence suggests that anti-Semitic violence in France is at least partly attributable to instability in the Middle East. Although they probably do not understand the details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, poorly integrated immigrants in France can probably relate to the Palestinian feeling of frustration. The Muslim immigrants feel strong resentment towards French society and lash out against the easiest scapegoats, the Jews who are seen as representing Israel. Many hope that when the violence subsides in the Middle East, so will the anti-Semitic acts in France.

[minorjive]

20. about the term "anti-semitic."

In a strict denotative definition, "semite" does not really refer to anybody since it is false to assign racial identities based on what language a person speaks. HOWEVER, the term has a history of usage that colors its meaning. Anti-semitism has since the 19th century been a European racist ideology which views Jews as members of an inferior race. It arose as a reactionary response to European liberalism In a number of countries. 19th century European liberalism involved assigning fuller citizens' rights, such as the vote and property ownership, to a number of previously excluded groups. In the debates around European liberalism, the "Jewish problem" figured prominently. Those reactionaries most vehemently opposed to the European liberal ideology would often adopt a specifically "anti-semitic" position, as if the final test of a society's "purity" was whether it could keep the Jews out. And I mean that these folks were self-avowed, card carrying anti-semites. They called themselves so to identify their reactionary position. Carle E. Schorske covers the ins and outs of the different anti-semitic positions in Austria in his book Fin-De-Siècle Vienna.

More generally, you see the term semite applied specifically to Jews in a wide range of 19th century European literature fascinated with the then trendy and ever so disgusting "science" of race. Take, for example, Matthew Arnold's famous "Hebraism and Hellenism" chapter in his book Culture and Anarchy , which was first published in 1869:

"Science has now made visible to everybody the great and pregnant elements of difference which lie in race, and in how signal a manner they make the genius and history of an Indo-European people vary from those of a Semitic people. Hellenism is of Indo-European growth, Hebraism is of Semitic growth; and we English, a nation of Indo-European stock, seem to belong naturally to the movement of Hellenism." (162, 1869 edition)

Arnold makes a more complicated argument about a broader, negative influence of Hebraic culture amongst the American Puritans; but the main point here is that the term "Semite" has a history of usage in reference to Jews in the disgusting science of race—a usage that had wide appeal in Europe for at least a half century before the rise of Nazism.

I abhor bias against Arabs, and I understand that Edward Said has forcefully challenged the exclusive application of anti-semitism to anti-Jewish bias. Still it seems to me that whatever else anti-semitism has meant or does mean now, the term has a sorry legacy in specific reference to Jews.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi minorjive!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[thanatonautos]

26. Thank you for adding that scholarly discussion.

I reject Edward Said's arguments, but that is beside
the point.

I also abhor bias against Arabs.

I would only add that a specifically racial aspect
of European, let me now say instead anti-Judaism,
in order to avoid anachronism, can be traced back
at least to the promulgation of the Sentencia-Estato
by the secular power in Toledo (1449).

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/z/mzk108/limpieza.html

(added on edit)

Through the efforts of Inquisitor General Torquemada edicts
were eventually established banning Moriscos as well as
Marranos from holding religious offices and other offices
of prestige in a number of Iberian cities.

[minorjive]

28. your welcome...

I don't accept Said's argument. I was only acknowledging its existence. Amongst historians I belive it is a matter of some dispute as to whether anti-Judaism from the middle ages is the same ideology as anti-semtism. The latter is a pointedly racist ideology which views Jews as members of an inferior race. Race wasn't a concept in the 15th century. The two things are certainly closely related. I'm not sure if it's all the same though.

[thanatonautos]

29. I am not certain either about the relationships.

It is important to avoid the error of writing
whiggish history.

[mollyd]

36. Etymology of anti-semitism

Etymology
and usage

The political writer Wilhelm Marr is credited with coining the German word Antisemitismus in 1873, at a time when racial science was fashionable in Germany but religious prejudice was not. This term was offered as an alternative to the older German word Judenhass, meaning Jew-hating, but did nothing to lessen Marr's reputation as an anti-Semite. (See also the coinage of the term Palestinian by Germans to refer to the nation or people known as Jews, as distinct from the religion of Judaism.)

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first printed in 1881. In that year Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the "Neue Freie Presse" of January. The related word semitism was coined around 1885.

Originally, the term referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and not to people who speak semitic languages as a whole (e.g., Arabs). For nearly a century this has been the only use of this word. In recent decades, however, some people have argued that the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language but this usage has not been widely adopted. The unhyphenated term antisemitism is favored by some to represent anti-Jewish beliefs or behavior.

N.B.: The terms Semitic and "anti-Semitic" are not antonyms, despite the use of the prefix "anti."
A wider meaning

Anti-semitism is often defined as ranging from ad hoc antagonism towards Jews on an individual level to the institutionalized prejudice once prevalent in European societies, of which the highly explicit ideology of Hitler's National Socialism was perhaps the most extreme form.

Some Jews traditionally see the world as a dichotomy: non-Jews either show sympathy and are philo-Semites or they show antipathy and are Anti-Semites. This broader definition sometimes causes some confusion as it is only a political label and has no connotations of passing moral judgement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism/Draft#Etymology_and_usage

[minorjive]

27. and about French anti-semitism

This article that you cite pays minimal lip service to the history of anti-semtism in France in order to dismiss its importance and say instead recent incidents have more to do with the 2nd intifada. This comes very close--too close in my book--to blaming current problems that French Jews face on Israel rather than hold the French society accountable.

Among the many problematic statements:

Jews were viewed as outsider, which made them easy scapegoats for the majority of the French people. However, the recent trend does not suggest that this is the nature of the attacks. The vast majority of these attacks on Jews are perpetrated by poorly integrated, unemployed youths who are children of North African immigrants. These immigrants are themselves a minority and viewed as outsiders by the majority of the French. European society has progressed so much since the end of World War II that to draw a direct parallel between the Vichy government and modern day France is overly simplistic.

This is like saying that just because Ken Blackwell is black, his efforts to disenfranchise African American voters isn't because of American racism. Maybe even more to point, it's like saying violence against African Americans or Arabs in America isn't racist if it's perpetrated by poor whites who are also oppressed by the system. Racism has always been used as a tool to pit oppressed people against eachother and keep them from working towards their common interests.

The article closes with this reassurance:

Although France has been scarred by past anti-Semitism, it has, since the end of World War II, returned to the noble tradition of "the Rights of Man," passed by the French National Assembly in 1789. These guarantee such fundamental rights as liberty, equality, property, and so on. In modern day France, legislation has been implemented to provide protection of minorities against the oppression of the majority. These laws make it highly unlikely that the level of anti-Semitism seen before 1945 will ever return to France.

This noble liberal tradition is very much at the root of modern French anti-semitism and what led to French participation in mass deportations of Jews in WWII. See, for example, The False Promise of Emancipation.

I would add, finally, that splitting hairs over the difference between French anti-Zionism and French anti-semitism is worthwhile but maddening when it comes to articles like this one. After all, neither France, nor England nor any other European nation would admit the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust into their countries after the war. There were, essentially, two places to go: the US and Israel. To overlook the reasons why founding a Jewish homeland was necessary and then praise France as a great home to Jews is at best insensitive.

Do you think an African American, a Latino, or an Arab American who is subject to racial profiling and police brutality feels reassured by how many more minorities are now part of the American middle class or sit on Bush's cabinet. I doubt it.

[thanatonautos]

14. More arguments from authority.

As regards the definition you provided of Zionist, it is
rather circular, don't you think, unless you also include
a definition of Zionism?

You are quite correct, of course: my sincere apologies
for the omission.

If I may provide my own definition, which I think is
reasonably common and comes close to the heart of the matter.

Zionism describes an ideology which holds that the
Jewish people are a nation like any other and that
they should gather together in one place and establish
a Jewish state.

I am far from certain that the goals of this movement that
you claim is `popularly' referred to as `Christian Zionism'
are consistent with that definition.

(Changed on edit from:
I am far from certain that the goals of the movement
popularly referred to as `Christian Zionism' are consistent
with that definition.)




As for misapplying "anti-semitism", I believe that
it is widely misapplied these days in order to dampen
criticism of Israel's policies and to stiffle discussion
about the conflict in general. Moreover, it has many
connotations.

I see. No doubt that is a very popular point of view
in some circles.

I would certainly agree that the term can be misused
in this way. But I disagree firmly that it is very widely
or very effectively misapplied in this way, judging simply
from the fact that criticism of Israel's policies is extremely
robust and widespread in Europe, the US, the Arab world,
and indeed also in Israel itself. If criticism had been
effectively stifled, it's hard to explain the voluminous
existing literature, academic and non-academic, from all
sides and all points of the compass that criticizes
Israel's policies.

In fact, recent usage of the term--at least in Europe-
appears more directed at persons of Arab-Muslim faith
rather than at Jewish persons.

On the basis of my personal experience, I do not agree.

My experience when living in Germany, France and England
has been that that educated people pretty commonly
distinguish carefully between anti-semitism, and anti-Arab
or anti-Muslim feeling.

For anti-Arab feeling the word anti-Arabisme was
current: similarly anti-Muslimism is common enough,
and there is also Islamophobia.

Now if you would: please answer a couple of specific
questions for me.

Do you think that I am misapplying the term
antisemitism to the writings of Israel Shamir
in order to `stiffle criticism of Israel's policies'?

Do you consider what Israel Shamir writes to be
antisemitic?

[Carolab]

17. See above. n/t

[thanatonautos]

24. I see above that you dissemble and equivocate. Is this antisemitic?

Jesus taught, love your neighbor as yourself, even if
he is a traditional enemy of Jews, a Samaritan. That
is why he was hated by the Jewish supremacists of his
time. He said: you can not worship God and Mammon, the
god of greed, you have to choose. That is why he was
hated by supply-side economists and bankers of his day.
They sentenced him to death and the Empire obliged
and carried out the execution, in order to keep peace
with these all-important forces.

Full context:

Today is a beautiful day, a day of new hope and new
promise. Two thousand years ago, the first joust of
two spirits, the spirit of brotherhood of Man and the
spirit of Master-Slave domination, was over. Jesus
taught, love your neighbor as yourself, even if he is
a traditional enemy of Jews, a Samaritan. That is why
he was hated by the Jewish supremacists of his time.
He said: you can not worship God and Mammon, the god
of greed, you have to choose. That is why he was hated
by supply-side economists and bankers of his day.
They sentenced him to death and the Empire obliged
and carried out the execution, in order to keep peace
with these all-important forces. Our fathers did not
dare to speak against their leaders. The spirit of
domination scored a victory, but the spirit of
brotherhood did not vanish.

I received the Easter message of Naim Ateek, a priest
from Jerusalem. He writes, "Here in Palestine, Jesus
is again walking the Via Dolorosa. It only takes people of
insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses
throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children
being crucified. Palestine has become one huge Golgotha,
the place of the skull'.

The Jewish supremacy forces and the greed worshippers
united again to crucify Christ. The US, this New Rome,
again gives hand and agrees to become the executioner.
Now it is our turn to decide.

History gave us an incredible luxury, Take Two, as
they say in the movie production. We can now repeat
the mistake of our fathers and silently connive with the
plans of our self-appointed leaders. We can correct this
mistake now, and stop the crucifixion.

In the Jewish Passover narration we say, each one of
us has to see oneself as if he personally was liberated
from bondage. I say to you, each one of us has to see
oneself as is he personally stands on Via Dolorosa, and
decides, whether the execution will be carried out. If
we keep our mouth shut, we deserve to be called
'Christ killers'. If we stop it, we shall change history.
The scarlet as blood sins of past will become white as snow.

Two thousand years ago, the spirit of brotherhood rose again,
to give hope for the second joust. If he is defeated again,
we all shall become forever slaves to our faceless masters.
They will destroy the Mother Earth herself, turn her into waste
lands of Mordor. They need this victory to bind us together by
the dark forces of domination. Let us deny them, this time.

Share with me wine and bread of Palestine, my brothers and
sisters, as the sign of new covenant of Brotherhood of Man,
as an oath of our decision: this time, Christ will not die
on the cross.

[qwghlmian]

12. From your sources:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/antiS1emi.asp

anti-semitism: form of prejudice against Jews , ranging from antipathy to violent hatred.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/A0349000.html

an·ti-Sem·ite

One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

Funny how you did not include these in your research. Kinda destroys your "Arabs are Semites so they cannot be anti-Semitic" argument.

[Carolab]

18. Nice that you extracted only PART of the definitions I provided.

Go back and put them ALL out there, as I did.

[qwghlmian]

21. Nice that you keep pushing the

idea that the word "anti-semitism" means "someone opposed to semites" when your own sources that you cite define it only as "hatred of Jews". Why would that be?

[thanatonautos]

25. You posted NO definition of anti-Semite or antisemitism whatsoever.

You posted dictionary definitions of `Semite,'
and you ignore the definitions that the same
dictionary provides for `anti-Semite.'

It seems clear enough that, for some reason or
other, you wish to equivocate about the meaning
of the word antisemite (or anti-semite, or anti-Semite).

I am not at all particular about the spelling.

[Carolab]

30. LOOK AGAIN. Post #9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

[thanatonautos]

37. Post #9 has a LINK, but it contains NO DEFINITION.

I've put in those `PARTS' which you claimed in post #18, were
omitted by qwghlmian.

In fact it appears it is you yourself who omitted to post
relevant `PARTS.'

You stated in post #9:

As for misapplying "anti-semitism", I believe that it is
widely misapplied these days in order to dampen criticism of
Israel's policies and to stiffle discussion about the conflict
in general. Moreover, it has many connotations.

This statement self-evidently does not provide a definition
of anti-semitism.

You merely say you believe the word anti-semitism is
misapplied for some purpose, and you state very vaguely
that you think it has `many connotations,' then pointing
to a link which purportedly would support the connotation
you wish to apply to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

There is certainly no support to be found in the article at
this link for the connotation I imagine you wish to give to
the word ... namely that it applies equally to hatred of Arabs
and of Jews because both are, as you falsely claim: `Semites.'

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility
towards Jews. It ranges from ad hoc antagonism towards Jews on an individual
level to the institutionalized prejudice and persecution once prevalent in
European societies, of which the highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's
National Socialism was perhaps the most extreme form.

This article describes the development and history of anti-Semitism from its
earliest inception up until World War II. A separate article exists on modern
anti-Semitism, which deals with anti-Semitism after World War II up to the
present.

Some forms of anti-Semitism include:

* Racist anti-Semitism, a kind of xenophobia. Some people perceive Jews as
people of a racially distinct origin from other peoples, and claim that
discrimination on the basis of such distinctness is valid.

* Religious anti-Judaism. Like other religions, Judaism has faced
discrimination and violence from people of competing faiths and in countries
that practice state atheism. Unlike anti-Semitism in general, this form of
prejudice is directed at the religion itself, and so does not affect those of
Jewish ancestry who have converted to another religion.

The term has always referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and
not to other people who speak semitic languages (e.g., Arabs) and this has
been the only use of this word for more than a century. In recent decades some
people have argued that the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include
prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language. However, this
usage has not been widely adopted. In that there are few instances of
prejudice against both Arabs and Jews to the exclusion of other races or
nationalities, and in fact many more instances of antagonism between Jews and
Arabs than of a specific bias against both groups together, there would seem
to be little need for a word to describe such a prejudice, and thus to
redefine 'antisemitism' this way would result in robbing the word of any
usefulness.

Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are
not antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many writers on the
subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the
unhyphenated term antisemitism.

An alternative term, "Judeophobia", stands for fear or irrational hatred of
Jews. It was invented by Leon Pinsker and first appeared in his 1882 pamphlet
Autoemancipation (text). As a professional physician, Pinsker preferred the
medical term because he was convinced that pathological, irrational phobia may
explain this ancient hatred:

"Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy... this ghost is not disembodied like
other ghosts but partakes of flesh and blood, must endure pain inflicted by
the fearful mob who imagines itself endangered... To sum up then, to the
living the Jew is a corpse, to the native a foreigner, to the homesteader a
vagrant, to the proprietary a beggar, to the poor an exploiter and a
millionaire, to the patriot a man without a country, for all a hated rival."

One may well ask how you can possibly imagine that
anything said there tends to support your position,
as qwghlmian pointed out.

It really appears that you do not read anything at the
links you post supposedly in support of your arguments.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Would they have this level of analysis of the vote on Nov.3

This seems like reaching to me. I can't imagine they could have analized exactly how much of each vote they'd gotten the day after.

Are the Zionists down with the neocon agenda, considering part of the idea is to protect Israel by creating a democratic M.E.?

On the other hand, I'd like to know exactly which of his advisors recommended concessions, and I'd like to know if they had their own loyalties and agendas. How about the people those advisors were getting their information from. Did those people have their own agenda? How enthusiastic were some in the Dem party for a Kerry presidency.

[zeemike]

6. Remember the KISS principle

It had nothing to do with Jewish votes or anything else other than one single point;

That Bush was a winner as long as there was a quick concession and no light on the actual vote. In that case bush could steal it by 10 points and no one would know.
Kerry preformed the only act that was required of him by the RW and that was concede without questioning the vote. And if it were not for that single act by Kerry Bush would be in a very different position now that he is. And you watch Kerry in the future, his fortunes will multiply i assure you.

[Al-CIAda]

10. One thing we DO know is the Christian Zionists owned all the machines.

...but I wonder about the bonesman as well.

[Carolab]

19. One thing I know for sure.

This fight over a strip of land in the Middle East is raising hell all over the world.

[sabra]

22. strip of land...

Can you explain your assertion further?

[Carolab]

31. Don't be coy.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciagaza.html

Notice the definition for anti-semitism. And this is from the Jewish Virtual Library.

Anti-Semitism (antisemitism)

Literally means opposed to Semites (which would include Arabic and other semitic peoples as well), but usually applied specifically to opposition to Jews (anti-Judaism).

[minorjive]

32. read that definition again

"literally means" does not tell you anything about how the term is used. What is more there is no such thing as a Semite. It's sort of like saying the definition of "bull head" should be: literally means the head of a bull, but usually applied specifically to a small freshwater fish with large head.

Like the term "semite," "bull head" has little siginficance or meaning when taken literally. It only means something when you apply its conventional usage.

Did you read what I wrote before about the history of anti-semitism? Did you read the Wikipedia article you linked above?

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility towards Jews. It ranges from ad hoc antagonism towards Jews on an individual level to the institutionalized prejudice and persecution once prevalent in European societies, of which the highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's National Socialism was perhaps the most extreme form.

This article describes the development and history of anti-Semitism from its earliest inception up until World War II. A separate article exists on modern anti-Semitism, which deals with anti-Semitism after World War II up to the present.

Some forms of anti-Semitism include:

* Racist anti-Semitism, a kind of xenophobia. Some people perceive Jews as people of a racially distinct origin from other peoples, and claim that discrimination on the basis of such distinctness is valid.

* Religious anti-Judaism. Like other religions, Judaism has faced discrimination and violence from people of competing faiths and in countries that practice state atheism. Unlike anti-Semitism in general, this form of prejudice is directed at the religion itself, and so does not affect those of Jewish ancestry who have converted to another religion.

In that same wikipedia article there is nice, concise explanation of the 19th century origins of anti-semitic political ideology.

Racial anti-Semitism, the most modern form of anti-Semitism, is a type of racism mixed with religious persecution. Racial anti-Semites believe that Jews are a distinct race and inherently inferior to people of other races.

Modern European anti-Semitism has its origin in 19th century pseudo-scientific theories that the Jewish people are a sub-group of Semitic peoples; Semitic people were thought by many Europeans to be entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations, and that they can never be amalgamated with them. In this view, Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their supposed hereditary or genetic racial characteristics: greed, a special aptitude for money-making, aversion to hard work, clannishness and obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, low cunning, and especially lack of patriotism.

Ironically, while enlightened European intellectual society of that period viewed prejudice against people on account of their religion to be declasse and a sign of ignorance, because of this supposed 'scientific' connection to genetics they felt fully justified in prejudice based on nationality or 'race'. In order to differentiate between the two practices, the term antiSemitism was developed to refer to this 'acceptable' bias against Jews as a nationality, as distinct from the 'undesirable' prejudice against Judaism as a religion. Concurrently with this usage, some authors in Germany began to use the term 'Palestinians' when referring to Jews as a people, rather than as a religious group.

See also eugenics.

[Carolab]

33. Anti-Semitism embraces xenophobia and vice versa.

Xenophobia means fear of strangers or the unknown and comes from the Greek îåíïöïâéá, xenophobia, literally meaning "fear of the strange". It is often used to describe fear of or dislike of foreigners, but racism in general is sometimes described as a form of xenophobia, as are such prejudices as homophobia. The word xenophobic is often used as a political insult against racists, isolationists, and nationalists.

Xenophobia does not apply to Jewish people alone, nor does it apply to race alone.

Anti-semiticism as applied to political ideology is not the same as anti-semiticism as applied to race, and you are splitting hairs here.

Some of us are "enlightened Europeans" and do not subscribe to anti-semiticism as it applies to either religion or to race. The only thing I have a "problem" with is the idea that semites who are Palestinians are somehow not supposed to inhabit the same space as semites who are Israelis--and people on BOTH sides are of this view. This is discrimination based on both race and religion. The U.S. was founded as a "melting pot", embracing freedom of religion and (as it evolved) freedom from discrimination based upon race. Current foreign policies are causing grievous damage to our nation in that regard and stirring up racial and religious hatred all around the world. Suddenly, we have to worry about "anti-semitism" and/or "anti-Islamism", etc. and now we have profiling and black voters are deliberately suppressed and we are subjected 24/7 to crypto-Christian wackos. This isn't the America I grew up in, nor is it the one I love.

[minorjive]

34. there is no such thing as a semite

there are not Jewish semites and there are not Palestinian or any other kind of Arab semites.

The term anti-semitism came into being to describe a political ideology consisting of anti-Jewish racsim. Racism has always been a political ideology that spills over into and encourages personal prejudices.

The freedoms that are American ideals have never been universally applied. The Civil Rights movement was (and is) about forcing the US to live up to its as yet unattained ideals.

Worries about anti-semitism and about racism against Black, Latino, Arab, Asian, and Native Americans are not sudden, new things for the members of those groups.

Some administrations in the past have made some attempts to remedy some of the effects of racism in our country. No administration has ever shown a commitment to eliminating the racism that is built into the system. The Bush administration is particularly scary because it is overtly trying to capitalize on and increase the effects of racism in our society and in the world. But so did Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr.

It is true that Palestinians and Israeli Jews have a great deal in common, and the strife between them is all the more tragic for that reason. The policies that sow the seed of that conflict are not especially new; they are as old (or older) than the State of Israel. Though again, the Bush administration, and the Sharon administration, have done their best to accentuate and promote the conflict towards the worst possible outcomes.

[Carolab]

35. Agreed.

But, at least literally and initially, anti-semitism could be construed to have a broader scope. I understand completely that now it is viewed as synonymous with "anti-Jewish" racism. I thought it had died a long time ago, but that is just my narrow world-view as an American. I think it is all very, very tragic indeed. But now it rears its ugly head with a concommitant rise in anti-Arab sentiment. And I have a friend who is an Iranian and she has been in this country for 20 years, but suddenly the FBI decides it needs to review her files and she had to file a case to fight for her citizenship, although both of her children are U.S. citizens as are both grandchildren. She is a wonderful lady who has done nothing but good deeds during her time in this country and I am so sorry for her. People who worked with her--people with advanced degrees, who should know better--in her health education non-profit are now afraid to be associated, simply because of her race and her religion. This wouldn't have happened last year. Now, isn't that sad? I guess that I am just a little hypersensitive in her behalf.

[thanatonautos]

38. Astounding. Why all the argument then?

`But, at least literally and initially, anti-semitism could
be construed to have a broader scope.'

`I understand completely that now it is viewed as
synonymous with "anti-Jewish" racism.'

I think you still misunderstand somewhat.

The point that has been made is that the term was
initially viewed as being synonymous with anti-Jewish racism.
It was invented as a self-identifying sign by and for a group
of people who were proud to be anti-Jewish racists.

It can of course be construed many ways, but to do so
can make the term completely meaningless.

`I thought it had died a long time ago, but that is just
my narrow world-view as an American.'

I think it went out somewhat out of fashion in Europe
to be explicitly anti-semitic for some time following
WWII, in the sense that knocking the Jews wasn't
generally considered to be anymore a topic for
dinnertable conversation in polite society. But it
never died and it shows no signs at all of doing so.

It took a very long time for the French to acknowledge
the disgraceful behaviour that took place in regard to the
mass deportation of Jews. There was a plaque in Gare de L'Est,
it was there when I visited in the early 1990's, which
referred to the `deportation' of thousands of `French citizens'
to the east from that station under the Nazi occupation,
but did not mention that those citizens were Jews. President
Chirac has been one of the first to begin to more fully
acknowledge those events.

The brief period in which anti-semitism was not tolerated
in polite society appears to be drawing rapidly to a close
considering that we now see members of the British Royal
Family dressing up as Nazis, and the Prime Minister so
far declining to comment directly, assuming I haven't
missed some news on that front.

As for the experience of your Iranian friend I am very
sorry to hear of it. There are many people in her situation
now, I personally know some, and I think that these new
policies are in very many ways misguided. In the long
run I think that the atmosphere which is being created
is extremely damaging to the country, while in the short
run it creates lots of unnecessary antipathies and personal
suffering.

[thanatonautos]

39. The link is to a page entitled: CIA Factbook, Gaza.

The very brief definition you cite is on a different page
at that site, which is entitled Glossary. As was already
noted, the literal meaning of a term indicates nothing
about the usage of that term, and to the extent that
the gloss does discuss usage, it explicitly says that
the term is usually applied specifically to opposition
to Jews.

GLOSSARY

A much better procedure for someone wanting to learn, from
this site, about various usages of the word would be to go
to the following page at the same site, and peruse some of
the links thereon:

Anti-Semitism & Responses

For extensive and academic discussions of antisemitism.
the site also provides a bibliography:

Bibliography & Bookstore