I'm fed up with anti-antisemitism and pro-antiarabism on this board.

The BBQ Pit
1

I’m not fond of opening pit threads (it will be the second one in 5 years), and I’m not particularily good at rants, so I’ll keep this short.
Following the thread about the museum of tolerance to be built in Jerusalem and the “are muslims ever not outraged?” thread, I wanted to express my frustration regarding two reccurent issues on this board :

  1. The tendancy a number of posters have to throw subtle or not so subtle accusations of antisemitism when Israel (generally, but sometimes political figures) is criticized. There’s another example in a current thread in great debate that devolved into a “you’re an antisemite” thread. I’m really, really, fed up with this attitude.

Maybe you’re going to tell me that there are some basis to suspect such prejudices in such or such post. I would answer that a) Such assumptions are made on the basis of indirect hints, generally, “some antisemites say the same thing so you must be an antisemite too” b) I’ve seen many a time the same accusations made when the only “hint” is simply a criticism of Israel, or even of the party currently in charge in Israel, or a positive comment made about Israel’s ennemies. c) The equation Israel = Jews is generally not made by the alleged antisemite but by the poster making the accusation. Like in the “museum of Tolerance” thread when a poster suddenly turn into “we” mode to build a strawman about not being allowed to buid stuff or something similar. “We” as in “we, Israelis” or “We, staffers of the Wiesenthal center”? Nope, we as in “We Jews” . What I see here is that the poster is projecting his own perception (Israel= Jews=me) on the person he is accusing d) see my point 2) below
2) Where are these offended posters when various broad-assed statements are made about muslims and/or Arabs? Why aren’t they all over the thread throwing around accusations of racism? That’s secondary, though, to my main beef which is :

Strongly prejudiced comments about muslims and/or Arabs are made all the fucking time on this board. Ranging from the broad assed statements one can read in the “outraged muslims” thread to “we should nuke the shit out of them” statements which are, in my book, plainly calls to genocide.

I won’t say that nobody criticize such statements. Many posters do. But my problem is the double standard displayed. Let’s be clear : if we were to replace “Muslims” or “Arabs” by “Jews” or “Blacks” in all the threads where the two first words are used, there’s simply no way many posts we can read would be tolerated on this board. No fucking way. Not a snowball chance in hell.

So, my two comments about these two points :
Regarding 1), it’s quite simple. From now on, I will apply my own variation of the Godwin Law. I will assume that the slightest hint of an accusation of antisemitism, directed at me or at anybody else, which isn’t prompted by a direct and prejudiced statement specifically about Jews and only about Jews, not about Mr X who happens to be a Jew or an Israeli, means that the poster who made it lost the argument and after calling him on it, will completely ignore whatever else he has to say about the issue at hand. That’s for my own peace of mind, in order to avoid arguing with people who use this “debating tactic”, be it out of paranoïa, ignorance or malice.
Regarding 2) , a question to moderators and administrators of this board. I believe there’s a rule about not being an asshole. I would want to know when exactly this rule is broken when posters are displaying their prejudices against Muslims and Arabs? What is tolerated, what is not? How is the enforcement of this rule carried wrt posts about Muslims/Arabs by comparison with posts about Jews/Blacks? Would you tell me that I could, with full impunity, and without risking even a warning, post about Jews all the shit that is posted about Arabs?

Random example : could I freely state that the continued presence of Jews in our countries represent a danger for the survival of western civilization and western values? At which point displaying my utter ignorance about anything related to Jews by spouting nonsense about them in support of my antisemite prejudices would get me warned for “being a asshole”? If such a thing could happen, when exactly do you intend to do something about the unadressed rampant racism on this board? If it won’t happen, can you state clearly that displaying racial or ethnic prejudices is allowed on this board regardless of which group is targeted? And that it does not constitute assholish behavior?

2

I’m Jewish and I said, in the “Muslim outrage” thread, that I agreed that the Pope’s comments were troubling. I mention this simply because you ask

Answer: I assume from the present thread that you are eager to avoid making blanket statements about groups of people. To the extent that I participated in that thread, while I did not “throw… around accusations of racism,” I did disagree with that OP.

3

Just maybe because all the people who claim they’re not anti-semitic somehow pick examples like yours. It’s always funny how they never pick , oh, I don’t know, the Serbs, or the Hottentots as a random example of a ethnic group. And it’s always funny how they ignore gross violations of human rights all over the globe, yet when it , often on a much smaller and debatable scale, in one specific country the size of New Jersey, outrage prevails.

It just has to make one wonder.

4

Yes, please change the rules so that insulting religion is no longer allowed.

OR I WILL BEHEAD YOU!!

5

Fine, but I already mentionned that many people do criticize these kind of statements. My issue is the fact that they’re, generally speaking, tolerated. I’ll grant that this one, though including prejudiced and offensive comments, could maybe pass muster, but I’ve read worst than that.
Besides you’re saying that you’re Jewish. Fine, but are you part of the posters who play the “antisemite” card as soon as they see an opportunity? If you aren’t, then my rant isn’t directed to you. There are plenty of Jewish posters here who don’t use this cheap tactic, and posters who use it and aren’t Jews.

6

Well, I’m not sure that any poster is going to think that they’re using a “tactic.” Yes, sometimes I’ve questioned whether a statement on the boards is antisemitic, or have asserted that I think it is. I wouldn’t describe that as a “tactic,” however.

7

Fine. First implementation of my new rule. You hinted at me being an antisemite, I won’t waste my time answering.

8

I’ve heard plenty of criticism of the Serbs, and the Hottentots are obscure. Israel is in the news very often.

As I said, it’s often in the news. Plus, America supports it; that makes it politically important. Finally, it’s important to the dominant religion in this country. Those are the reasons most people pay attention to what’s happening there IMHO.

Also IMHO, there is bigotry of a sort involved in how they are judged, but it’s bigotry in their favor. They are held to a higher standard because they are not Arabs or Africans or Asians. Just like after WWII, how people were and are more outraged over the atrocities committed by white Christian Germans than those by the Asian non-Christian Japanese; the Japanese were held to a lower standard, because we expected nothing better from “their kind”.

9

I’m willing to admit that some people making such assumptions do so in good faith, and not in order to obfuscate the issue. It isn’t any less irritating.

10

Subtle allusion to the method used by Charlemagne to convert the Saxons to christianism, I suppose? Did I get it right? What did I win?

11

So is racism, no?

12

Hmm… Yes. That would be the reason why I’m asking why it is so easily tolerated when it is directed at Arabs.

13

Not sure if you are or not. But unless you find yourself getting continually outraged at the plight of the Kurds and the Tibetans and other downtrodden minorities as well as the Lebanese and Palestinians, I suggest you honestly examine your motivations for debate.

14

I believe that “Hottentot” is generally regarded as an an archaic and insulting term these days, and that the more acceptable name is Khoikhoi.

15

Yes. So I’m trying to understand why a well-intentioned statement that something is anti-semitic (i.e., racist) “isn’t any less irritating” than a “tactical” statement that something is anti-semitic.

I’m not trying to contend with you, but to understand your perspective.

16

Speaking only for myself, I only get a whiff of antisemitism when it’s the group being criticized, or rather demonized, rather than the actions of individuals. Similarly, I think that many people–Israelis and Arabs alike–effect a disingenuous stance of righteous defence against broad-brush smears in the face of legitimate criticism of such actions. “If you criticize my actions, it must be because I am a Jew/Arab.”

Many of the examples cited by the OP are just such obfuscations.

17

Hmm… I wouldn’t call such a statement “well-intended” whether it’s honest or not.
Because it’s insulting to make such assumptions? But on second thought, it’s not only that. It’s also frustrating to hit the antisemitism wall half of the time when an issue is argued about. Also, I hate having to justify myself against arbitrary accusations. Finally, there are certain people, who, maybe genuinely, don’t seem to be able to conceive another reason for disagreeing with them apart from antisemitism. They’re so convinced they’re right that in their eyes, only prejudice and/or complete ignorance and/or utter stupidity can explain disagreeing with their stance. At this point whether they’re honest or not really doesnt make much of a difference, irritation-wise. And I suspect they might constitute the majority of the “must be because you’re an antisemite” crowd.
Finally, I can’t tell whether someone is making this statement genuinely or not. Is he obtuse, like in the last example I mentionned, or using antisemitism as a tool to silence the opposition, hoping that people won’t dare to speak out their mind out of fear of being suspected of antisemitism? What’s wrong with not assuming the worst? Not assuming that someone who disagree with Irael’s policy is an antisemite, not assuming that someone who doesn’t support the death penalty for sex offenders a carded member of NAMBLA, not assuming that someone who dislike positive discrimination a white supremacist, and so on? It seems to me that it should be the default position. So, why should I not ressent it, regardless of whether it’s genuine or not?
I mean : the France-Palestine comitee (I assume you can guess it isn’t a pro-Israel organization) in the Paris district I live in is (or at least used to be) headed by a… rabbi. I don’t remember him looking out for rabid antisemites when I attented a meeting. Somehow, equating opposition to Israel and antisemitism doesn’t seem to be an obvious assumption to him, so it must be humanely possible not to. And why should it be otherwise? Why should I accept such default assumptions with a big smile? Who likes being a suspect?

18

Amen.

I don’t wade into discussions about Israel too much because I always feel like there is a lot that I don’t know or understand about the conflicts in that area, but I try to keep an open mind and appreciate as many perspectives as possible.

But if the discussion is about United States’ policy, I will gladly voice my opinion, even if that policy happens to pertain to Israel. And when I speak up, I don’t appreciate posters who are convinced that the world is aligned against them trying to attack me for having an opinion that differs from theirs.

I made mention of this in the aforementioned GD thread and I’ll mention it here. A lot of the people treat accusations of racism as if that is the absolute worst thing you could call a person, but they will waste no time labeling someone an anti-Semite. What the hell is up with this double standard? Just on this board, I’ve seen idiots flatter themself with the idea of black women (myself included) wishing to be raped “slavemaster-style” by white men, but protests arose when the word racism was used to describe the despicable positions that they held. Yet those very same idiots have no problem calling someone else an anti-Semite just because they criticize a country. Not a person, mind you. Not even a group of people. But a freaking country.

It’s enough to make me want to choke someone sometimes.

19

Most times it’s all they’ve got. Israeli supporters conduct an ongoing campaign of ignorance in the US. The cry of “anti-semite” is a useful weapon in that war. Don’t take it personally, it’s not like they actually mean it or anything.

Because muslims and/or Arabs generally aren’t Jewish and/or Israelis. Moreover, it is part of the same campaign of ignorance: To wit, those muslims/Arabs are such bad guys. Ergo our mindless backing of Israel must be good thing.

I’ve noted it myself. But again you have to remember the majority by weight, of this board do live in the Anti-Muslim propaganda zone. And it is sustained and well-funded propaganda, executed by professionals. It is no wonder these views are widely found amongst the vulnerable members of the community.

I assumed the rational users of this board did that already. It may be worth stating as a rule. Clairobscur’s rule?

Not fair? Of course it’s not fairly applied. I’ve voiced the fact that in GD and elsewhere: There are general ‘defending Israel’ and ‘Attacking Muslims and Arabs’ exceptions to the board rules. Everybody knows that. Don’t they? In this instance, I think there is less likelihood of the board codifying those rules.

20

Says the piece of waste that already has a final warning for trolling by Jew baiting.

Gods but it’ll be good to see you get flushed back to where you belong once you’re finally banned, you filthy little lying bigot of a troll.