In this intriguing column, Jonah Goldberg claims that Jews seem to no longer have victim status, especially from the left. He offers some examples:[ul][li] the PETA ad comparing Jews in a concentration camp to animals[]attacks on a pro-Israel rally at San Francisco State. (I was upset enought to write to the President of the University, complaining that the Arab attackers received light punishment, and the victim was also charged with wrongdoing.[]The fact that some American students take seriously the idea that Jews had advance notice of the World Trade Center attack.[] Greater acceptance of anti-Semitism throughout Europe in main stream media.[] “Not a day goes by where I don’t get the nastiest anti-Semitic bile, largely from self-described ‘progressives’,” says JG. [/ul]Goldberg then goes on to offer an explanation.[/li][quote]
The left has embraced some core principles that make anti-Semitism seem almost rational to them. Leftist intellectuals have firmly embraced identity politics, which says, in primitive terms, that you can’t escape your authentic identity. Blacks are blacks, women are women and white men are white men. Second, power - economic, cultural, etc - is bad and oppression is noble.
Israel is militarily powerful and many Jews are well-to-do and influential, they argue. Palestinians are “oppressed” and therefore admirable even when they perpetrate horrific violence. And last, America is always a force for evil in the world. And America is a friend of Israel’s. In short, if some Jews are bad, all Jews are bad. End of story.
[/quote]
Finally, he offers a test:
So, what do you think? [ol][]Are Jews no longer numbered among the “victims”?[]Is the left now more anti-Jewish than formerly?[]Is the religious right now more pro-Jewish than formerly?[] Do you agree with Goldberg’s reasons for the shift?If the PETA ad featured dead Palestinians, would there have been a greater outcry?[/ol]
Sadly, I agree with december about this, that is, about the recent decline of the left, and of the Democratic party. It is, in part, because of their overwhelming victory, thanks to the New Deal and Great Society, and our other quasi-socialistic changes since 1900. Social Security, Medicare, and so on. Not that they’re perfect, but they exist and are accepted.
These days, it seems that a greater and greater part of leftist doctrine is based on racial and gender politics, without ideals besides social equality, as opposed to social achievement.
Perhaps it would be good to consider what forms of liberal social achievement the left could work for. Perhaps more vacation time, to equal worker’s rights in Europe?
Hm. Worker’s rights indeed. The last twenty years have been the rise of the corporation over the worker, and the diminishment of human rights in a business environment. Perhaps there’s something juicy there to work with.
[[ol][li]Are Jews no longer numbered among the “victims”?[]Is the left now more anti-Jewish than formerly?Is the religious right now more pro-Jewish than formerly?[] [/li]Do you agree with Goldberg’s reasons for the shift?If the PETA ad featured dead Palestinians, would there have been a greater outcry?[/ol] **
[/QUOTE]
mmm, hard one, and a question that requires a lot of nuances.
jews are still numbered among victims, but…there is a growing feeling of antipathy towards Israel because of the way theu are handling the Palestinian conflict. A lot of people in Europe can’t understand that an ethnic group of people who know what it means to be oppressed, go and oppress another nation. It seems illogical. A lot of Europenas also argue that behaving as an oppressor made them lose whatever moral high ground they had…
I don’t know about the Left, as far as i know, the left was always rather pro-jewish, and the right was very much anti-jewish. I have to state, though, that in Europe, well, Belgium, at least, as that’s where I’m from, there is a distinction being made between the Jewish people, and the Israeli administration.
I don’t think the religious right is now more pro-jewish, but again, can’t really answer that as I’m not religious, or right-wing, nor do I mingle with people that are.
4)no, I do not agree with Mr Goldbergs reason. I stated the reason in my no1 answer, that lots of leftist europeans would see the Israeli state as oppressive to the Palestinians. I do not condone violence of any kind, but the world will always be more in favour of the underdog than the Big State. Plus, I find it inconceivable, that the Isreali state woul act just like their opporessors did, a few decades ago. As long as the Palestinians are oppressed, there will be violence, i’m afraid.
that’s not true, Diogenes.
Anti-Bush is not anti-american.
I don’t have a lot of time for the Bush administration, but that doesn’t make me anti-american.
I’m not anti semitic, in fact i grew up in a very anti-nazi environment. Every programme on TV to do with either of the WW, was watched in our home. I had a lot of exposure to the Holocaust, and what exactly went on in the concentration camps in Poland and Germany. I know exactly what’s meant when some one quote the line: Wir haben Es nicht gewusst.
Literaute about WWII was mandatory in our family, and anti semitism was definitely NOT allowed.
The whole Israel-Palestine conflict is nearly as complex as the Northern ireland one, and as I stated before, it was largely the Brits, with their empire-complex, that are responsible for the fact that the whole conflict got out of control.
They never asked the people lliving there at that stage, if it was ok if they gave the country away. So ofcourse when thousandfs upon thousands poured in after WWII, and no real rules were agreed upon, ofcourse there’s going to be conflict.
I might add, that the Palestinians and the Jewish people once fought side by side against the Brits, this before WWII.
When so many Jewish people made their way to Israel after WWII, they started buying up land, something which worried Palestinians, as they did not have the money to do so.
That is where it all went wrong. Isrtael wanted land, so did the Palestinians. Neither could agree on borders. Palestinians kept on rejecting plans drawn up by the UN (Pre 1967 borders)
Israel in the end grabbed a whole bunch of land, and a lot of access to water. Palestine now wants to go back to the pre 1967 borders. I can see why Israel wouldn;'t want that, as it would mean giving up about 60% of their current property.
It really is the settlers (Isreali people on recognised Palestinian land) that angers the Palestinians. Settlers get an awful lot of subsidies, too, evenm the Israeli Labour Party wants to withdraw the settlers, stop the subsidies and start talks again.
That, in my humble opinion, seems to be the best idea.
Too bad Sharon doesn’t think so…
Sharon…he could be more like his name. At the moment I can only see the thorns, not the flower.
And he DID step down as defence minister. Isn’t that the same as admitting something was amiss? How come he was allowed to gain more power, again? It’s beyond me…
Well, which would you rather be, oppressed or oppressor? Neither, of course. But if you had to rank the three options: a. oppressor, b. oppressed, c. neither, in what order would you do it? Myself, I’d put “oppressed” last. So I guess I’d rather be victimizer than victimized; or to phrase it btter, anything’s better than being a victim.
How can you live with yourself, knowing you’re oppressing people? I’m not saying the fact that they are oppressed automatically absolves Plestinians suicide bombers of their actions, everyone should be held accountable for their actions.
But it does seem unfair that Israel, being the stronger nation, is oppressing a nation that has not even half the means they have.
It really goes against my grain.
This does not mean I’m anti-Jewish, far from it. I have actually been mistaken for beinmg Jewish quite a few times. Apparantly my lineage does go back to include some Spanish-Jewish ancestory. (about 200 years old, though)
Non of my family are religiously inclined in any way, both my parents were raised Catholics, severely so, so they decided to leave their kids free to choose whatever religion thay want.
In school I opted for “Zedenleer” which loosely translates as “Morale”. Lessons about life, and conveying morality without the dogma, without a God. In my last year, I opted for Islam, as there are/were a lot of Muslim immigrants in the country, and I wanted to get a better understanding of their religion and culture.
i am quite used to seeing Orthodox Jewish people in the streets (Antwerp has a very big Jewish Community, nearly all of the Belgian diamant trade is in Jewish hands.), and I have no particular strong feeling against them. they are an ethnic minority, just as I am, in my own country, even…
I find these assertions utterly ridiculous. Schulman offers no support at all for his definitions of “anti-Israel” and I categorically deny that they have any validity. Opposing some of the more extreme policies of the Israeli government is absolutely not the same thing as saying Israel should not exist. Believe it or not, there are Jews who criticize Israel, are they anti-Semites too? Schulman can invent whatever definitions he wants for “moderate” and 'progressive" anti-Israeli sentiment, but he certainly doesn’t describe what I think, and I resent his attempt to smear any critics of Israel with a rather large and loaded brush.
The symbol != means “not equal to, not the same as”. != derives from various computer programming languages, but has not yet become common knowledge – though you will run across it now and again on message boards.
Three questions for 2Thick, Diogenes the Cynic and those who agree with them.[ol][]Is a sign reading “Saddam: Hit Tel Aviv” anti-semitic? []Is it anti-semitic to partipate in a demonstration where some people are carrying signs like this?Would it be racist to participate in a demonstration where there were some signs like “KKK: Bomb Harlem”?[/ol]