Nobody is mistaking Israel for Iran, and it may seem like small potatoes, but if there is no public transit on the Sabbath then it does not sound like you are holding it back. Also gay marriage, a whole bunch of things.
Yeah, every country has its own mishegas. At least we have socialized health care, cheap college, a strong social safety net, union-friendly labor laws, and a drinking age of 18.
The public transit thing is a problem, and it’s definitely one of the issue I look at when voting. But it’s not something new - Israel has never had public transit on the Sabbath, and it’s as much due to Israel’s socialist history as its religious present. Israel’s Labor Party founders were big on days of rest. And in a way, services businesses being closed on the Sabbath is still very much a labor law issue - because if they were allowed to operate on weekends, they’d prefer to hire workers who were willing to work on the Sabbath - which would discriminate against workers who don’t work on the Sabbath. I know that may seem outlandish to you, but observant Jews are a huge voting block. It’s why employers are legally required to pay workers 150% of the base salary for any Sabbath work hours.
As for gay marriage, yes, the entire Israeli marriage system is messed up - a British colonial legacy that our religious nutbags refuse to change. But gay adoption is legal, and gay marriage does sort-of exist, in a way: Israel has a mess of legislation and court rulings recognizing “common-law marriage”, for both straight and gay couples, which for all effects and purposes grants rights almost identical to those of actual married couples. It’s not quite as good as the real thing, but the situation isn’t as black and white you may think.
So yes, we’re behind the U.S in several areas, many of them because of our religious nutbags. But you’re behind us in more than a few areas, too - and your religious nutbags are as bad as ours. In conclusion, religious nutbags suck.
An area that came up in conversation at the Sedar last night: my dad was stunned to hear how many Americans reture with basically no savings (and we got to talking about elderly people who can’t retire and end up working in retail and such to meet their basic needs). My wife on the other hand was stunned to hear that every employer in Israel must provide a pension. Private sector pensions are basically unheard of in the US.
Yes, but you never answered my question either:
If the group in question has not taken equal efforts to demand that all members of a national and/or religious group disavow the actions of said government/religion, then I can’t help but see a massive evidence of bias.
This is NOT a gotcha. This is an honest question as you appear to be trying to draw a clear distinction between anti-Israel government and military actions and the people and religion in general.
It’s certainly possible, but I’m not sure it’s so, because I think your analogy there is eliding some important differences.
Of course the actions of the Israeli state are arguably not (or perhaps were not until recently, or however the quantitative comparisons shake out) worse in terms of oppression and bloodshed than, say, the actions of the Chinese state against the Uyghurs, or the actions of the US against Native Americans, or many other instances of oppression and bloodshed. So, many ask, why “single out” Israel for condemnation?
Well, one thing that bothers many American (and European) critics of Israel is that Israel’s actions are the only ones on that list that Americans (and Europeans) are currently expected to be enthusiastic partners in. For instance, the Chinese government isn’t demanding that we “stand with them” in their treatment of the Uyghurs, nor are the Russians expecting that pro-Ukraine protests on American campuses will be suppressed as “russophobic” bigotry.
Consequently, a number of American leftists—at least, according to what some of them say, AFAICT—are indeed more focused on condemning oppressive actions by Israel than by, say, China. Specifically because it’s Israel’s actions that the American government is railroading the American people into supporting and defending.
Similarly, many of us American Jews* take Israel’s actions a lot more personally than atrocities committed by many other countries, and feel a greater obligation to repudiate them, because it’s claimed that they’re being undertaken largely for our sake.
Now, maybe none of those concerns are actually valid in the case you mention and the UVermont sexual assault survivors’ support group folks were motivated purely by antisemitism. Maybe. I don’t know all the details of that particular controversy, or anything about the individuals involved in it. And certainly I would never disagree that almost any interaction involving Jews may well be motivated partly by antisemitism, to some extent. Antisemitism, like racism and sexism and homophobia and other forms of bigotry, is present in pretty much everything.
All I’m saying is that I don’t think your argument to that effect is quite the evidentiary slam-dunk you seem to consider it. There are IMHO other pretty significant motivations that could potentially be involved.
[*] Counting as such those of us who are at least Jewish enough to be eligible to make aliyah to Israel if we so choose. I try to be careful not to demand or assume recognition of my own (perceived and cherished) Jewish identity on the part of more halachically qualified Jews who think the boundaries should be drawn more narrowly, because IMHO the people in the in-group are entitled to set the membership rules. However, Netanyahu and the Israeli government in general evidently consider me at least to some extent part of the Jewish people in whose name and for whose benefit they claim to be doing what they’re doing, so I kind of feel that imposes on me some kind of ethical obligation to assert that identity on my own behalf.
I think you chose to focus on 2 elements and dodged my explicit request about showing an equal desire to kick out anyone who supported the actions on 10/7.
That’s… telling.
So, yeah, I don’t think I need a slam dunk. And your other arguments are equally questionable - railroading has been ongoing in support for other nations, but especially for the US “Love it or leave it” since at least the Bush era(s) - and yet I don’t see a lot of historical requests by student bodies to demand eviction of military or government affiliated or children thereof from those associations.
? I don’t think I “dodged” anything. I explained why it seems to me that not “showing an equal desire to kick out anyone who supported the actions on 10/7” (I presume you mean the Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians) might not be motivated by antisemitism.
We already have a very clear and overwhelming cultural consensus in this society that Hamas terrorism is wrong and bad. We don’t have anything like such a clear and overwhelming consensus that Israel’s ongoing denial of rights and sovereignty—and even mass slaughter, in the tens of thousands—of Palestinians is wrong and bad. On the contrary, we as Americans seem committed by our government to facilitating and supporting it, and we’re constantly being exhorted that not doing so is unfair and hypocritical and probably antisemitic.
Might that be part of the explanation for why some college student activists went way off the rails and demanded, absurdly and unjustifiably, its condemnation as a prerequisite for participating in a sexual assault survivors’ support group? Or shall we just complacently ignore that possibility because we think we’ve come up with a logical rationalization to reassure us that their motivations must have been just plain old antisemitism?
As I said above, I don’t in the least underestimate or minimize the importance of antisemitism as a force for evil, or its capacity to infect a lot of behavior even on the part of people who consider themselves well-intentioned. But I worry that especially under present circumstances, putting our focus so much on antisemitism has become, paradoxically, a form of self-soothing that enables us to look away from our own actions and our own acquiescence in other wrongs. Look how badly they’re treating us, like they always do. It’s the same old unfair story of persecution. It’s all just antisemitism.
Well… maybe.
It is one of the most well-known stories about American retirement: the decline of defined benefit pensions in the private sector. At one time, 88 percent of private sector workers who had a workplace retirement plan had a pension. That number is now 33 percent.
Decreasing yes, but 33% is hardly rare.
Not to mention, just about every company has a 401K plan, often with some matching.
Somewhat under 25% have no retirement planning outside Social Security. That is still too many, I concur. Mind you, if you live in an inexpensive place to retire in the USA, Social Security might be enough to live on.
However, some googling shows Israel’s “social security” does pay out $2000 or so a month, I dunno if that is the minimum or the average?? However, it is not cheap to retire there, the sources say. (Cheaper than some USA metro areas to be sure)
That article is almost 10 years old. It’s clpser to 15% now.
That sounds closer to right. Most companies have switched to defined contribution plans, like 401k plans. Which are nothing to sneeze at. A good one, like a good pension plan, is worth a great deal.
I come to this thread late, likely from having recently read a cover story in the Atlantic titled “The Golden Age Of American Jews Is Ending.”. I went back and started reading from the beginning, but stopped before seeing whether a clear definition of anti-semitism has been agreed upon.
Yes, it is important to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. IMO, I am not seeing difficulty with expressing anti-Zionist sentiment. Especially on campuses. Hell, students and faculty ought to be free to criticize American policy, so I don’t know why they oughtn’t be free to discuss the policy of a foreign nation. And there are plenty of legitimate debates to be had over how various lines were drawn in the middle of the 20th century.
Anti-Semitism as described in the initial posts - a TA saying they would take action against students because they were Jewish, and acts of violence against Jewish people and their property, rape kit denials - it seems clear that that ought to be dealt with harshly. Both at colleges and in society in general. As would similar actions directed at members of any other religious/ethnic/sexual orientation/whatever group.
But I think a lot that is described as anti-Semitism falls considerably short of what is described at U-Vt. I was also surprised the Atlantic article described anti-Semitism as “a tendency to fixate on Jews, to place them at the center of the narrative, overstating their role in society and describing them as the root cause of any unwanted phenomena.” Is that an acceptable definition?
I would be surprised if a huge number of people - students, TAs, or other - actually believed that. But I could well believe that many people tend to readily think unfavorably of people who stress their personal distinctiveness, who identify with a tight “clique”, or who seem to owe considerable loyalty to a nation other than the nation of their primary residence.
I understand that members of many minorities strongly resist any suggestion that they assimilate. Maybe I would feel differently if I felt there were some group or identity beyond my family that was more meaningful to me than my status as a human being and an American.
It’s incomplete. But “describing [Jews] as the root cause of any unwanted phenomena” is certainly antiSemitic. And it certainly does happen.
None of which are any truer of Jews than of a whole lot of other people.
Suggestions that minorities assimilate to the majority often amount to ‘you have to turn into us’. Many people, minority or otherwise, don’t want to be told that they have to turn into somebody else. What if people started telling you that in order to keep your status as an American you needed to start behaving entirely differently, in multiple ways, than you now ordinarily do?
I don’t disagree with your post in general, but I’m responding in order to clarify a particular detail of the University of Vermont allegations that really seems to have been spun up in the telling.
From the OP’s quote of a different-thread post by DSeid:
From Babale in post #21:
From Thing.Fish in post #323 and #324:
And most recently,
People, AFAICT the actual incident we are talking about here is the following:
-
in 2021, an anonymously-run Instagram account having zero official affiliation with the University of Vermont or with any officially registered student organization at the University,
-
which is called “ShareYourStoryUVM” and is apparently intended to be an anonymous online support group for survivors of sexual assault,
-
made some posts complaining about alleged instances of sexual abuse of Palestinians in Israel and declaring that the group would “hold our peers accountable for their pro-Israel or Zionist stances”, and that Zionists were not welcome to participate in the group.
Now, I remain firmly committed to my previously expressed position that foregrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the context of a sexual assault survivors’ support group, no matter who’s running it or whom or what it is or is not affiliated with, is inappropriate and unjustifiable.
But I think the posters here who are inadvertently garbling and exaggerating this report into rumors about Jewish student survivors of sexual assault somehow being “denied rape counseling services” or “denied rape kits” at the University of Vermont are, to say the least, not helping anybody’s understanding of the situation in any constructive way.
Can you offer a more complete definition?
I agree. Some whites think poorly of blacks and some blacks think poorly of whites. Some Christians think poorly about Muslims and some Muslims think poorly of Christians. Possibly depending on how each member of each group presents oneself and their experiences with the others.
Right. But to some extent, one’s choice to not assimilate perpetuates that person being viewed as “different.”
I dunno. To some extent, there is an expectation of religiosity and jingoistic patriotism which I do not readily share. But I tolerate it. And if I moved to a different country, or a different part of America, I’m not sure I would make a point of identifying myself as where I was from, and emphasizing the ways I disagree with the majority.
My apologies. As I said, I did not read the entire thread, and was trying to refer to several of the actions alleged in the initial posts.
What on Earth are you complaining about?
Did you read my original post #21? Because none of the added context you listed changes my point. Like, at all.
Where did my post say anything about being denied services by the official university, or anything else that’s addressed by your bolded point?
The assholes running the support group denied their services to Jewish kids because they disagree with Israeli policy. They demand that Jewish kids who want to use their services undergo a performative loyalty test where they reject the Jewish state and prove that they are not the uppity sort of Jew.
They did not do something similar to Chinese students over Chinese government action or to Persian students based on Iranian government action, but they did single out the Jewish kids, because the assholes running this group are anti-semites.
Can you quote where I said that this was official university policy? Because otherwise, I’m not sure what your quotes that allegedly show me being dishonest are supposed to prove.
There is “different” as in ‘those folks eat different food than we do/wear different clothes than we do/use different furniture than we do/worship differently than we do/celebrate different holidays than we do.’
And then there is “different” as in ‘those people aren’t really Americans’; and/or ‘can’t be trusted’; and/or ‘our kids mustn’t make friends with them’.
They are not the same thing, and I think you may be conflating them; or assuming that the first must automatically lead to the second.
And possibly depending on what their parents, or their friends, or their place of worship, or their legislator, or the internet, has been telling them. Which may have nothing to do with actual experiences with the “others”, except that it may cause them to see those experiences through such a flawed lens that they (possibly unconsciously) force them to fit their preconceptions.
They picked a particular manifestation of antiSemitism (presuming that you quoted the whole thing).
It has a lot of manifestations. Not all anti-Semites hold all of the manifestations, though many of them hold multiple ones.
Believing or stating that Jews secretly hold huge amounts of power is one. But somebody who doesn’t believe that could still believe, say, that all Jews are foul because the anti-semite thinks that Jews killed Jesus; and/or that Jews can’t be loyal to America/whatever country they’re citizens of because their true loyalty is to Israel (you said something very like that in post #351, but I don’t know whether you were giving it as an example of something you believe or only as an example of something some others believe); and/or that Jews will always favor other Jews over anyone who isn’t Jewish no matter what the right of the matter is; and/or that Jews are greedy and only interested in money; and/or that Jews literally use the blood of murdered Christian babies at Passover; and/or that Israel must be supported right now because its existence is Really Important to bring on Armageddon but that as soon as it starts any Jew who doesn’t instantly convert to Christianity will burn in hell forever.
I’ve probably left something out.