That, Argent, is unfortunately a pretty shitty metric. For better or worse, Israel is a cause celebre. Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd, and plenty of people talk about Israel because plenty of people are talking about Israel. Of course, the average anti-Israel goon doesn’t know the difference between Hamas and Hama, Hezbollah and Haniyah, but that doesn’t stop 'em from pontificating. It’s not necessarily bias and bigotry, just cause-joining, ignorance and idiocy.
And you choose to read a tweet against Israel’s policies as a hatred of Jews. Forgive me for not being ready to mosh down that road with you.
Occasionally I may think that members of a minority group (blacks, Hispanics etc.) are unnecessarily taking offense at a remark that dredges up a historically common form of bigotry against them.
On reflection I generally think better of it, realizing that they have greater familiarity with such slurs and it would be arrogant of me to lecture them on what they should or shouldn’t get offended at. What’s especially good to avoid is saying “Damn, you can’t criticize Them at all or you’ll get called a racist.”
But that’s precisely my point: what seems like a totally obvious slur to a member of a minority group might not seem like anything at all to someone less familiar with the slurs.
For me, given what I’ve read in the past day about Israel-First’s history, I’m not disputing anyone’s right to be offended by it; what I’m disputing is the assumption that the folks who used the term in this instance necessarily knew the term’s offensive history, or that its offensive implications were necessarily intended.
Just as you realize that members of a minority may have greater familiarity with such slurs, do you concede that nonmembers may have less familiarity, and may therefore use offensive language unintentionally?
The problem, LHoD, is that even when dealing with the clueless, it’s still a wildly sloppy and rather offensive term for totally separate reasons. Again I’d point out that even if it’s not being used to repeat the Dual Loyalty canard, it’s being used to slime one’s political opponents as being traitors to their own homes, simply because they have different politics than the person slinging the “Israel-firster” label. And even then, it is directly based on the premise that, in the pursuit of the benefit of the Jewish State, Jews and gentiles are united in sacrificing their own homes. That is, even when it’s not used in a deliberately anti-Semitic manner, it’s still a rather offensive phrase.
Now, the modern discourse has been shaped by such “realists” as Walt, who has rebranded the old slur of Dual Loyalty into the newer, dog-whistlier “conflict of interest”. It begins to strain credulity, especially when dealing with political wonks themselves, that those whose first line of attack is to call someone an “Israel-firster” are truly unaware of its baggage, connotation, denotation, and implication. Some of them, okay (they’re still guilty of using shitty partisan tactics). But just like if political commentators on the right were almost all using chimp=Obama imagery, or routinely invoking the phrase “welfare queens”, we’d be justified in not having the default assumption being absolutely no malice.
Would it be fair to call this dude an Israel-Firster, or would that be too divisive?
I know you disagree with my interpretation that it can mean prioritizing the relationship with Israel, but I don’t find your disagreement with that interpretation persuasive, especially when the alternative is that people using the phrase are calling political opponents traitors. Yes, it’s intended as a slur, but I think it’s (in the cases we’re currently talking about, at least) a slur along the line of “Wall Street’s toady,” not along the lines of “Communist infiltrator.”
Forgive me for not considering someone an anti-semite until they say something anti-semetic. I guess I just wasn’t born with the ability to know people are racist. I mean, I’ve seen things equivalent to R-Oil Industry, D AFL-CIO, R- Wall Street* and obviously these aren’t racist. I’ve heard people say politician so and so is in the pocket of special interests. But it is somehow anti-semetic to suggest that AIPAC, one of the most powerful lobby groups has a politician in their pocket?
*Or is this one too close to Wall Street=Banks=Jews?
Not just like this at all, unfortunately, because there’s no possible way that comparing Obama to a chimpanzee is part of rational political discourse, whereas implying that someone places too great an emphasis on a particular point of foreign policy is absolutely a part of rational political discourse.
I don’t know that there is an appropriate comparison to anti-black racism, because there aren’t really stereotypes about black people in politics in the same way that there are about Jewish people in politics. Maybe if people were suggesting that a black politician always made decisions based on his anger rather than on reason, that’d be similar, because there certainly are politicians who do that, but at the same time such an accusation would tread dangerously close to the stereotype of angry black men.
You’re still not seeing it. The “Israel-firster” criticism is not that people place too big an emphasis on a particular point of foreign policy but that they are traitors to their homes who have placed another nation above their own nation and who sacrifice their own home for the benefit of that nation. That’s the whole point. That’s why they’re not “people whose politics I disagree with for reasons X, Y, Z” but “Israel-firsters!”
Because in the name of International Relations, states will do what states think benefit them the most. The US has not always agreed with Israel, and we’ve threatened to sanction them a few times. So let’s not kid ourselves. When it’s not beneficial to us, the relationship will weaken.
Careless, ignorant users of racial/ethnic slurs exist.
When minority group members take exception to the use of such slurs, it doesn’t strike me as helpful to conjure up outrage and pile on them for daring to be offended.
Nor are we talking about Joe Bob on the street, who might use an ethnic slur without realizing its implications because he grew up around such language. CAP is a liberal think tank that has been heavily involved in trying to influence Middle East policy. Its staff should be educated enough to know better.
Dustups like this do not promote peace. Why not try and avoid them in the future?
Considering that I’ve never heard any Gentiles who called for killing the President “Israel-firsters” that strikes me as a remarkably dumb, though revealing question.
Has Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh said that they hoped Obama was murdered by the Mossad while people would have said lots of horrible things about them, they wouldn’t have called them “Israel-Firsters”.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable per se to refer to someone as “Israel-first” if his policy positions require support of Israel at the expense of US security or other policy goals.
I’m not saying that’s the case (with Lieberman or anyone else), but our federal officeholders are elected to represent US interests.
On the other hand, if you called Lieberman an “Israel-Firster”, or whatever, you’d have to be willing to say the same about those who supported the interests of other states or foreign entities* at the expense of US interests.
*I’m looking at you, Peter King.
ETA: Jesus Christ. That Adler guy is a complete fucking idiot.
If by “seeing it” you mean “persuaded of it,” you’re right. If you mean I don’t understand what your claim is, I’m pretty sure I do–I just don’t see how you’re supporting the claim that “Israel-firster” is, in this context, an accusation of treason. Do you have some evidence that that’s how these CAP staffers intended the term?
Jackmanii, I agree that casual use of slurs is a problem. I agree that piling on people who point them out isn’t good. I believe we differ in whether accusing people who use these terms of antisemitism is accurate or productive.
Anti-semitism has probably been (quite effectively) transformed into dislike of things or people that are traditionally, but not explicitly, Jewish. Look how much people hate on New York, Hollywood, lawyers, middlemen, the nouveau riche, helicopter parents, and left intellectuals. You’ll probably see quite a few parallels to old-fashioned anti-semitism.
Nope, in this case it’s not a matter of opinion, so it’s not a question of being “persuaded” but of actually understanding. I’ve pointed out what the actual definition of “traitor” is (which is not the same as “treason”, despite your substitution). I’ve pointed out how, objectively, a politician putting a foreign country above his own home would be a traitor, as would a pundit, as would most ordinary citizens. We’re simply on the level of denotation at that point still.
You’ve stated that your non-comprehension is due to your lack of patriotism, but I’ve pointed out that it’s not about patriotism, since it isn’t. It’s the same reason your wife would have cause to be annoyed at you if your ripped out your house’s insulation and gave it to Ms. Smith down the road because you put Ms. Smith’s welfare above those who live in your own home. Even if your wife wasn’t particularly devoted to your-four-walls as such.
You seem to be arguing much too hard for a Pollyanna interpretation of the phrase. If, as you say, it’s value-neutral and merely discusses people who believe that the Israel-America relationship is one of the first considerations one should make when creating a calculus of international relationships, then why don’t they refer to themselves as Israel-firsters? After all, many anti-Israel folks claim that it’s a sinkhole of money, international good will, etc… and their focus is on changing out relationship with Israel. And yet although they obviously prioritize it as high or highest on the list of things we must change about our foreign policy, they never self-identify as Israel-firsters. Under your gloss it should be treated exactly the same as someone who was “economy-first”, and obviously people can be economy-first and believe in divergent economic policies when it comes down to brass tacks. So why aren’t those who disagree with our position on Israel self identifying as Israel-firsters?
The answer is obvious (to most of us, I suppose), which is that it’s not a statement about the order in which one wants to resolve or value international relationships. It’s a statement that American citizens who support certain policies wrt Israel are “betraying another’s trust or are false to their obligation or duty” as Americans. And if you don’t understand that, it is a matter of comprehension, not persuasion.
Ah well.
No, I think it’s just been transformed into “anti-Zionism”.
Can you be anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic? Sure you can. But when “Zionism” is the only issue that you get worked up over, and you have no personal connection to the Middle East or to Israel, and you can’t give a summary of the history of Zionism or its major players, then - yeah, I think you’re an anti-Semite.
Just so I’m clear on your position here:
We have a columnist advocating that if the US doesn’t attack Iran on Israel’s behalf, Israel should assassinate Obama. You are claiming 1) that if a non-Jew said this, people wouldn’t accuse them of placing Israel’s interests over the US’s, and 2) that it is inappropriate to accuse the columnist of placing Israel’s interests over the US’s? Seriously?
Okay, at this point, I agree with you on this quote–I just disagree about which side of the equation I’m on. I don’t see anything remotely persuasive or illuminating in what you just wrote, and given that what seems to you to be an attempt to clarify just looks to me like a more verbose repetition of the same unsubstantiated claims (along with a lack of understanding of what a pejorative term is), I don’t really think there’s much percentage in our continuing the conversation.