You are aware that Great Britain was still a pretty anti-Semitic place when the Jews were expelled, as was Spain under similar circumstances, right? Bigotry isn’t rational, Glutton, that’s why we call it bigotry.
So then you’re conceding that anti-Semitism is a significant issue in Norway?
Probably not as bad as anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim racism, but it’s still an issue.
With all due respect, I can’t believe you’re seriously asking this.
When have people ever needed to know large numbers of an ethnic group to hate them.
By your reasoning it would be absurd to claim that Islamophobia is an issue in Mississippi because there are so few Muslims there.
Also, by those standards there’s no anti-Semitism in Tunisia, Libya or Saudi Arabia.
Bigotry is as often based on the cultural image of the other, as on direct contact with the other.
Plenty of homophobes have never actually personally known an openly gay person, for example.
I’m not “conceding” anything; I’ve never been to Norway and don’t know anything about their culture. There probably is anti-Semitism there, of course. There is bigotry everywhere. What I’m saying is that people having heard “Jew” as a term of abuse doesn’t in itself mean that anti-Semitism is a serious problem there. I’m aware of a whole lot of terms of abuse, but it doesn’t mean that I see bigotry against the groups these terms refer to on a frequent basis.
Put it this way: You could not fault me for being astonished at the (hypothetical) presence of antisemitism in, say, Japan or Korea. And there are probably more Jews in either country now than in Norway.
Borat’s Kazakhstan is antisemitic. But the real-life Kazakhstan? I would guess – just a guess – that, being Muslims, they’re antisemitic just on principle and in theory, 'cause all of Dar al-Islam is doing it since Israel was founded; but that ethnic Kazakhs mentally classify their local Jews as “Russians” (which is worse), and that Russia’s own antisemitic traditions are largely irrelevant to them. It’s not a simple thing.
Yes, it’s worth remembering that there are many different causes for prejudice. In this thread we seem to be trying to prove that Norwegians are anti-Semitic, because it brings to mind Nazis and death camps and the idea that “it could happen again”. But the anti-Semitism that may be found in Norway today may be very different in origin and in how it manifests itself than the German anti-Semitism of the 1930s. Just like the fact that Arab anti-Semites sometimes hold up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence doesn’t mean that modern Arabic anti-Semitism is the same thing as early 1900s European anti-Semitism.
ETA: I forgot to make that point explicitely, but your guess that Kazakhs possibly identify their Jews as “Russians” is worth mentioning. Disliking Jews not because they are Jews, but because you view them as an arm of a oppressive foreign power in your country (which they may very well be, from your viewpoint) is a wholly different problem, which won’t be solved by only telling you “oh you’re just a Nazi.”
How do you know why Dershowitz is criticising Tutu? He has a long MO of using antisemitism smears on anybody who criticises the Israeli government or policies. This instance is just one of many.
You’d have to place drshowitz’s Tutu quotes in their proper context for you to make those claims. I’m sure that they’re just fine in their proper context and don’t trust dershowitz’s “quotes” as they are. This is the guy who supposedly never calls Israel-criticisers antisemitc yet has a long record of doing so.
The ADL are basically one of the outfits/people who play the antisemitic card every time somebody credible criticises Israel. Their bullshit poll produced by a bunch of Likudnik lobbyists is a perfect example of the bullshit they produce. The ADL is basically a highly politicised pro_Israel lobbying organisation :
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/10/01/nazi_insult/index.html
Even the ADL eventually stopped bashing Tutu when they realised how ridiculously extreme and silly it made them look. The only people they’d appeal to by continuing to claim that tutu was an antisemite would be the real extremists, the one-eyed people who, for whatever reasons, see threats and plots everywhere. Here’s jewish South-African Tony karon, a Time magazine editor, to explain :
*The utterly charming thing about the Zionist Thought Police is their apparent inability to restrain themselves, even from the very excesses that will prove to be their own undoing. Having asked sane and rational people to believe that Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier simply for pointing out the obvious about the apartheid regime Israel maintains in the occupied territories, the same crew now want us to believe that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite. No jokes! That was the reason cited for Tutu being banned from speaking at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis. “We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy,” explained university official Doug Hennes. The “anti-Semitic” views Tutu had expressed were in his April 2002 speech “Occupation is Oppression” in which he likened the occupation regime in the West Bank, based on his personal experience of it, to what he had experienced as a black person in South Africa.
[..]
As a South African veteran of the liberation struggle, I can testify that there are few, if any, more decent, humane, courageous and morally unimpeachable individuals in the world than Bishop Tutu. Speaking truth to power is what he’s always done, both to the old regime in South Africa as much as to the new, when the latter has failed to live up to the standards it professes on AIDS, crime and other issues.
He has spoken forcefully on human rights struggles around the world, and his statements about the West Bank are based on what he has seen there. The diminutive Bish is a moral giant of our times, and the fact that he is condemning Israel for maintaining an apartheid system on the West Bank should serve as a wake-up call to liberal Americans who prefer not to think about these things. Yes, of course Bishop Tutu makes people uncomfortable; that’s what he’s always done, like a good cleric, challenging his flock to consider their own actions and omissions against the morality they profess to embrace. Instead, thanks to the atmosphere created by the right-wing nationalists of AIPAC and the ADL etc., many mainstream institutions would now prefer to shoot the messenger, if only to avoid incurring the wrath of those who have stripped the very term “anti-Semitic” of its meaning (by using it as a bludgeon in defense of behavior utterly abhorrent in the Jewish tradition as much as anything else), and as such, commit a great crime against Jews and Judaism.
[…]
*Postscript: Seems that even the likes of the ADL realize that when they’re seen to be trying to gag someone like Bishop Tutu, they’re destroying their own credibility in the eyes of many Jews. Not least in response to the efforts of the good people of Muzzlewatch, it seems that the university has reversed itself and restored Tutu’s invitation, with the support of even the ADL.
*
I’ve never seen any definition of antisemitism include references to judaism as violent. Maybe you can call it anti_Juadaism but I’d guess that the guy is an atheist anyway and was trying to make some other point to the one you think he’s making.
So, you can “hate Judaism” (and the Jews who hold to it) and that’s somehow okay? Nonsense. Bigotry is bigotry. By that standard, your medieval inquisitor wasn’t “anti-Semitic”, since he liked Jews just fine if they converted. :rolleyes:
I have no idea what the author’s personal religion is if any, but there is nothing in his screed that could possibly be reconciled with atheism. Not many atheists go around saying stuff like “The Kingdom of God is compassion and forgiveness”. 
This isn’t an atheist’s calling-out of all religions as bad and wrong. Criticizing Israel on that basis would be dumb enough - as I’ve said, Israel is not a theocratic society and the majority of Zionists were and are in fact atheists themselves (Zionism being an ethno-nationalist , and not a religious, movement) - but it is ten times as dumb, and ten times as bigoted, from an expressly Christian perspective.
Face it, the author of this piece is a bigot, or at least, he wrote as one.
And it’s worth noting that Borat was lampooning the antisemitism traditional in Eastern Europe, which imputes to Jews the character of moneylenders, etc. (mainly because only Jews could charge interest on loans in medieval Europe, but that’s another discussion). Not Islamic antisemitism, which (pre-Israel) for the most part simply regarded them as stubborn, frustratingly unassimilable dhimmis. If Borat came from Belarus instead of Kazakhstan, it would make more sense.
You’ve yet to produce any evidence that the study was faked and your link to Glenn Greenwald doesn’t help since Greenwald never accuses the ADL of falsifying studies.
Also, you refused to answer the question so I’ll ask it again.
Why did you decide to not that the people who conducted the study were “Jewish Americans”?
Would you have listed them as “Italian-Americans” if they’d been of Italian descent?
Please have the courage to answer rather than dodging yet again.
With all due respect that statement is both extremely stupid and extremely offensive.
What makes you so sure that all Muslims or Muslim countries are so anti-Semitic. To give some fairly obvious examples I doubt Albania or Bosnia are any more anti-Semitic than the countries in the region and I doubt that Muslims in Tanzania give a damn about the situation in Palestine.
We’re not all brought up to think of Jews as the enemy any more than Jews are brought up to hate Catholics or Muslims.
I presume Borat was given a Kazakhstanian origin purely for the obscurity value - in that few if any of the victims of the stunts pulled by “Borat” would have any ideas at all about the place. It’s a veritable tabula rasa as far as most in the West are concerned, on which he could create anything he wanted, including an outrageously anti-Semitic persona.
There probably is a tendency among Muslim peoples to identify more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis in the Israel-Palestine conflict, or with Lebanon in the Lebanon-Israel conflict, but you’re correct that this doesn’t necessarily make them anti-Semitic.
But here’s an example for you. Suppose that a man in, say, Indonesia, decides to wear a Hezbollah t-shirt in order to show his support for the Lebanese in the conflict that has pitted them against Israel. Would you call him an anti-Semite based on this and the fact that the Hezbollah is a political party explicitely calling for Israel’s destruction? Maybe he’s not thinking about that; he merely wants to show his support for Lebanon against foreign agression. This is not a hypothetical: similar things have happened in many countries, and not only with Muslims.
You may be right, but some disagree. I know Argent Towers, for one, likes Serbs and dislikes Bosniaks based on his perception that the latter are anti-Semites, citing events dating from World War II in the process.
Do they? I will admit not knowing much about Tanzanian Muslims. Though I do remember a post by even sven explaining that people in Third World nations often view world events much differently than we do. She explained that in the (Muslim) part of Cameroon where she was living, Osama bin Laden t-shirts were very popular. Not because people wanted to express support for the 9/11 attacks, or even for Islam (they barely even knew the guy was Muslim), but because they knew the West was pissed at him for some reason, so it made him a folk hero in their eyes. So perhaps Tanzanians would support the Palestinian side in that conflict for unexpected reasons.
Readers will note that Dick has immediately gone and found a Token Jew, and made a point to advertise him as such. Why, he’s not just an editor for Time, he’s not just South African, damnit, he’s a Jew! Obviously, for Dick, there’s some reason that this should be mentioned.
Of course, readers will also note that quotes and facts were provided, in Dick’s own cite that ironically showed that Dershowitz’ complaints about Tutu were based on blatantly anti-Semitic things that Tutu had said rather than simple political disagreement as Dick had imagined. Again we see that even if someone does say something obviously anti-Semitic, that the response is not only to defend them (as long as they’re also criticizing Israel) but to hop up on the cross and claim that it’s impossible to criticize Israel without being oppressed by those nasty thought police.
And whatever you do, don’t read the actual cite to see that the reason he’s criticizing Tutu is all of Tutu’s blatantly anti-Semitic public statements. Instead, trust Dick. It’s where the smart money is at.
As pointed out, Dershowitz has criticized Israeli governmental policies. Also, still no cite, and the only one that Dick provided refuted his own claims. Funny, that. It’s almost as if there’s a bullshit meme that you can’t criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite, and Dick is going for it full steam ahead regardless of its truth value.
Piling absurdity upon absurdity, now we’ve gone past the “everybody is called anti-Semitic if they criticize Israel ever!” meme to the tacit claim that nobody who criticized Israel is ever an anti-semite, and if there happen to be a bunch of 'em and you point it out, well, then you’ve got a record of doing so and then that just proves that you weren’t objecting to their bigotry, but their politics.
Naturally.
:rolleyes:
Plus, it has an awesome national anthem! 