Twist of Fate, here’s a hypothetical for you: Let’s say that at another university there’s a movement to rescind a speaking invitation to a well-known anti-affirmative action activist on the grounds that he’s racist. The accusation is controversial (the activist has never made overt remarks indicative of racism, for example).
Would you then say that the people at the university are weakening the word “racism”? Do their actions make racism any less real? Or is it more reasonable to argue that in the specific instance cited, they do not present sufficient evidence to justify their claim?
I think thats unfair. Mary Robinson has never said anything that can be construed as anti-semetic nor has she said anything that opposes the right to an Israeli state. She has certainly criticised Israeli actions, but that doesn’t make her anti-Israeli.
Coming out and calling her anti-semetic because she criticised Israel weakens the word.
Still, what you have asked me doesn’t have anyting to do with agiantdwarf’s comments.
I am not referring to agiantdwarf’s comments. I’m addressing your thread title.
And what exactly is “unfair” about my comparison to the hypothetical anti-affirmative action speaker (not so hypothetical, as I seem to remember this happening on at least one U.S. campus)?
If (and I happen to agree) a charge of anti-Semitism cannot be proved in the case of Mary Robinson, how does that “weaken” the word, while the word “racism” is not weakened by a similarly tenuous charge? Is anti-Semitism such a frail and dubious construct that it can be “weakened” by a claim with which we disagree?
"In the end, Foxman said, while American Jews are sometimes too quick to assume that antisemitism is at play, history has offered plenty of reasons to be wary of debates over their influence on foreign policy."
For a start, Mary Robinson has not spoken out against Israel. She said that Israeli presence in the Occupied territories is one of the causes of the current conflict. Which it is. We can argue wether they should be there or not, or their legitmacy for being there, but the fact that they are there is one of the causes. Stating that isn’t apportioning blame.
It isn’t just a claim we disagree with, it is an outright lie. They want to label her as an anti-semite purely because she was involved with the UN.
Although I don’t agree that your hypothetical is equivalent, I would say that without the facts to back up an accusation of racism, it does weaken the charge.
Um, no. The claim against her (the root cause, if you will) stems largely from the fact that a UN conference under her auspices (she was the Secretary-General of the World Conference Against Racism) degenerated into Israel-bashing without emphasizing virulently bigoted attitudes on the other side of the fence. From this site:
"Rep. Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California, in a 2002 article in the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, blasted Ms. Robinson for not doing more to prevent anti-Israeli rhetoric from taking over the Durban conference.
“Mary Robinson’s lack of leadership was a major contributing factor to the debacle in Durban. Her yearning to have a ‘dialogue among civilizations’ blinded her to the reality that the noble goals of her conference had been usurped by some of the world’s least tolerant and most repressive states, wielding human rights claims as a weapon in a political dispute,” wrote Mr. Lantos, who attended the conference."
Again, that doesn’t justify calling her an anti-Semite in my view, nor is it a good reason for denying her a chance to speak and express views unpopular with a segment of the campus.
And why not?
Ah, the “charge” would be weakened.
I think you see my objection to your thread title, even if you can’t acknowledge the basis for it. I would have no problem with your phrasing your thread title as “Is this charge made by some students and faculty at Emory University weak?”
nonsense Jack. The issue of wether the charge was weak was never at question.
Although, I can see how you have come to your conclusion in your final sentence. perhaps I’m not clear enough. “the charge” I refer to, is all charges, so to speak. The more you throw a term about, the weaker it becomes. By applying the term anti-semetic to people who are critical of Israeli actions for ligimate reasons, weakens the arguement against people who are critical of Israel for illigamate reasons (true anti-semites, if you will).
Actually, judging by your post in the “analysis” thread, this thread appears more to be an ad-mon in response to an ad-hom:
In other words, to translate:
[an Israel supporter, to Israel critics] “you are all a bunch of Jew-haters!”
[an Israel critic, to Israel supporters] “You see what he said? Israel supporters are always saying shit like that! All they do is try to dismiss legitimate arguments with accusations of Jew-hatred!”
[an Israel supporter, to Israel critics] “You see what he said? Israel critics are always saying shit like that! All they do is try to dismiss us as a bunch of whiners!”
Odd then that you threw it out for debate (and got one).
We have dealt with this point before, but it is rare to the vanishing point for people who criticize Israel to be labeled anti-Semites simply for objecting to Israeli policies (my standing invitation to cite any such occurrence on this board, for example, remains in force). And your mentioning Robinson’s being caught in the crossfire over the Durban Conference does not in any way, shape or form “weaken the argument” against the much more common phenomenon of anti-Semites who further their agenda by attacking Israel.
I don’t think I can make this any more clear to you. The word, the construct, the reality of anti-Semitism is not weakened by this particular case, any more than the reality of racism is diminished by an unproven accusation against an opponent of affirmative action.
It wasn’t a dig. I was responding to your title’s question.
I’d prefer a direct quote for the purpose of context, and I’d also like to see whether he qualified the statement (“some Jews” is certainly different than “Jews”).
Even if I’m wrong, who cares? I’m saying they’re wrong, not anti-semites or anything.
If so, what challenge are you talking about??? The closest thing I can find to a “challenge” in any my posts here, is this: “…my standing invitation to cite any such occurrence (of people being labeled anti-Semites simply for objecting to Israeli policies) on this board, for example, remains in force…”
The Emory Wheel is not the SDMB.
The distinction is irrelevant anyway, since no one in that linked article is making the claim that criticism of Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism, or anything remotely close to that.
