Wanted to add, the very first thing I thought of when I read this thread’s title was Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones).
Point being, there are folks that are anti-Semitic in spite of their politics and there are those that are because of their politics. Trying to figure out which is which ain’t easy.
In Baraka’s (Jones’) case it makes sense if you’re aware of the generations long tension between African Americans and, certain, Jews particularly in New York City. (Not that that in any way excuses it.)
I will admit a possible misunderstanding, but a complete misunderstanding? My take is that there is an official, as in part of or ancilliary to the government, apparatus, which is controlled by a particular sect (not by Netanyahu though I am sure in practice he can tell them what’s what to a great extent) and which is authorized to determine who is a Jew, and they are not going to take the word of a Reform Jew, Hasidic Jew, Karaite Jew, “Falasha”, or anyone else on their own say-so. Azoulai (dead now) was Minister of Religious Affairs and he is quoted as stating that he did not consider Reform Jews “who did not follow the religion of Israel” [which means whatever he wants it to mean] to be Jews.
The comment was about Reform Jews, not American Jews. The Minister in question had no problem with American Orthodox or Conservative Jews who met his definition of Jewish. Upon making such a stupid statement he was soundly slapped down by his boss Netanyahu who told him to shut up and do his job.
As someone brought up Conservative but who married and brought up his kids Reform, he’s still a Grade A Putz in my books (as is Bibi).
Out of curiosity, I figured I’d try this one myself. I went to Ibram X. Kendi’s Facebook page (where I realized I’d been misspelling his name–sorry!).
I had to go back three days to find this post.
This is a great post, @Babale. It really clarifies my understanding of your views and completely meshes with my experiences.
This is all fair. I would never tell you to turn to the right. I can’t either, and I would have if I could, because it’s unpleasant not having a political tribe - but all the problems I see on the left are also there on the right, and then some. I can’t unsee it. Plus their attitude toward women is also… not good. That’s one reason getting the left to move away from bad ideas is so important. Unfortunately, extremists on both sides feed off each other, and nowhere more so than in America. What we don’t want is a choice between two illiberal extremes.
The biggest threat to Israel is probably the current (right wing) government, who are determined to avoid a two state solution. I don’t understand what they think the end game is; the less viable a two state solution becomes, the more pressure there will be for a one state solution.
I’ve literally never seen anyone saying anything like that. Perhaps religious people have their own social media? The civilisation vs barbarism theory fits pretty well what I’ve seen of conservative attitudes, but they’d support Israel just because the left doesn’t, at this point.
In fact, the door of dispensationalist eschatology hinges upon Israel’s role and restoration as a nation. Weber provides an excellent summary of the dispensational end time scenario involving Israel:
At the end of the age, God would again make Israel the center of his concern. Daniel’s seventieth week would begin, leading up to the coming of Messiah and the setting up of the long-promised kingdom. . . . After the partial re-gathering of the Jews in Palestine and the re-establishment of the state of Israel would come the ill-fated pact with the Antichrist, betrayal at his hands, immense suffering for those Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah before his coming, and the final invasion by hordes of Gentile armies. . . . When the Gentile powers had the Jews close to total annihilation, Jesus Christ would return to earth, slaughter Antichrist’s armies, and finally establish the kingdom that he had originally offered to the Jews at his first advent. After witnessing his majestic display of power, the Jews would acknowledge Messiah Jesus and once again bask in the blessings of God.
Evangelical historian Timothy Weber, in Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism 1875-1925 (Oxford University Press, 1979)
Jews and the Rapture | Catholic Answers Magazine
Minor aside: Research more or less bears this out. Getting a diagnosis is helpful, overidentifying with it is not. I have a lot of feelings about it (and a lot of experiences, too), that would be appropriate for another thread. But I definitely don’t think people with ADHD and autism identify as such because we wish we were as oppressed as Black people. That is a ridiculous and yes, I’ll say it – ableist assumption.
FWIW this may be true but my WAG is that the existential threat was more before the Hamas attack: the drive to push Israel towards theocracy that may have driven many of the secular citizens that drive the country out.
No one genuinely wants to be oppressed, that’s a strawman.
But it would be good to have a thread on this, because I do suspect some of the efforts to change attitudes around mental illness (although good in some ways) have negatively affected people I know in real life.
Israel is getting more religious over time because religious people have a lot more kids, right? How much of the political change there has been driven by events like the second Intifada and how much by various demographic changes?
A lot of the current conflict is the result of just under a million Jews being freed to leave the crumbling USSR.
Besides the guerrilla war of the First Intifada, the Palestinians also hoped to withhold their labor and gain leverage that way. The influx of Soviet Jews solved that problem, but exacerbated the bigger conflict.
The population of the Palestinians has grown as well, which the Israeli right wing claims is only because of their benefaction (all those great scut-work jobs).
I was curious, so I tried searching Twitter for people making statements along these lines, and asking them where they got the idea or learned this definition. I only got one reply, and it was to tell me to google it. I’m not exactly surprised: I couldn’t say myself where I heard of these ideas, or give any kind of authority for them. If asked to defend them, I’d give the same argument @Kimstu did, not refer to some academic.
One person had posted a quote to back up their claim that you can’t be racist against white people, and it was from the Australian Human Rights commission (and doesn’t actually come out and say you can’t be racist to white people).
I’m not sure what the point is of giving you examples of a phenomena you’ve already said is totally fine - what difference does it make how common it is? - but here are some more links I googled up:
The last link also refers to the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre definition that I linked earlier as being a good explanation.
Who is really influential here? Not academics, except indirectly. Progressive orgs, maybe, but which? Diversity trainers, DEI offices? There are so many. I wouldn’t be surprised if most young people learn these ideas from peers.
It does make me wonder if an argument from authority would work. If I can find some prominent progressive org or person saying you can be racist against white people, would that make any difference? Or would they dismiss it as irrelevant?
Palestinians must be one of the few populations outside Africa not to have undergone demographic transition. I wonder if the Israeli birthrate is as high as it is because people there don’t feel safe on some level?
Isn’t that the fatal flaw of identity politics? One of “my” tribe pulls some shitty stunt or says something stupid and I’ll say “well, that’s just one idiot. Ignore what he said” or “go ahead and lock him up and throw away the key.” But when one of “them” is on the hook it’s “typical behavior, that’s their genetic disposition on display, baked in the bone for that bunch.”
Are you serious? I could probably find on twitter some lone nut who truly believes that racism is made of cheese. Would that be worth discussing in “Great Debates”? If you think this is a big problem, then prove it. Show that whatever you think is bad is actually widespread.
Okay, a bunch of links that appear to be from actual organizations as opposed to random nuts on twitter. Thanks very much – this is a start to an actual discussion! So quote the parts you disagree with. Show me what the problem is, specifically, and then I’d be happy to respond.
I think you are, at best, unintentionally misunderstanding the claims being made. I do not claim you’re the only human being on earth to misunderstand (unintentionally or otherwise) what anti-racist folks are saying. Asking you to quote anyone prominent in anti-racist circles is to help you realize things like:
It’s a very common claim, of course, that “racism” means “systemic racism” or “institutional racism.” This is entirely a matter of definition, not substance, and folks who make this claim IME almost always clarify that there’s a distinct phenomenon of racial prejudice which is also harmful. The claim is often misunderstood, and IME most often by thinking it’s a claim of substance.
I explored these ideas in some detail in this thread: Systemic Oppression, Personal Bigotry, and Jerkiness
The claim that defining racism as systemic racism leads to antisemitism is completely unsupported. Asking you to find anyone significant who’s making the claims you believe they make will hopefully lead you to a better understanding of the nuances of anti-racist ideas.
Yes. I don’t think any of us are immune from that. All this stuff is tribalism when it comes down to it.
“Pro-Palestinian groups at Harvard University, including one comprised by faculty and staff, reignited the controversy over campus antisemitism over the long weekend when they posted an antisemitic cartoon on their social media accounts.”
“The cartoon, which dates to the 1960s and was condemned when it was first published, showed a hand inscribed with a Star of David and a dollar sign holding ropes around the necks of a Black man and an Arab man.”
Cambridge, we have a problem.
Harvard’s response: