I think it’s a bad idea to confuse issues of word choice with those of character. I read Molly Ivins’ columns from time to time, so I’ll say she’s not an anti-Semite, the comment is political in nature (mostly pertaining to the fact that, since many Arab countries feel the US is hopelessly biased towards Israel and that the war on Iraq was an attempt to make Israel a regional superpower, putting a leader in place with strong ties to Israel will raise MANY eyebrows).
The term Zionism IS used often by anti-Jewish/anti-Israel bigots [anti-Semitic is an almost amazingly inaccurate term for a host of reasons]. However - and I say this from experience - people on the left have ‘borrowed’ it recently. Why? Actually, for the opposite reason. It’s hard to explain, but usually they’re attempting to explain that they’re opposed to the current policies of the Israeli government, not to the existence of Jews, Judaism or Israel. You might hear Sharon’s policies, for example, referred to as Zionist because of their aggressiveness against the Palestinians, with the intent being “THIS stuff is what we’re opposed to; we have no problem with Jews or this country, but what Israel is doing right now is wrong.”
Accusing everybody who disagrees with the Israeli government of anti-Semitism is just as dirty and disingenous as calling someone who doesn’t like the US government’s current policies anti-American.
We’re not sending him to mediate. The purpose of a mediator is to bridge the gap between two groups, to represent both. Garner is to represent the US. A better analogy would be if people were objecting to the IRA’s choice of delegate because he had stong public ties to the Catholic Church.
And I don’t see anything that indicates “strong public ties”, unless saying that you think it’s bad when Israelis are murdered constitutes “strong public ties”. Here’s another hypothetical: suppose someone visited New York after Septeber 11 as a guest of an American organization, and condemned the people who hijacked the airplanes. Would that person now be considered to have strong public ties to the US?
Moreover, this guy is general, presumably in the US army. Isn’t a little odd to be concerned that someone who’s a member of a military that just attacked Iraq might be favorably disposed towards a country that is merely hostile? The implication seems to be that the Iraqis might be able to come to a constructive relationship with the US, but Israel is out of the question.
However, for the sake of clarity, I don’t claim that Molly Ivans is an anti-Semite. The OP was careful to address just this particular column. Any anti-Semitic tone in this column was certainly unintended. The cause IMHO is that she strives for humor and a certain snappy style. Also, she’s no expert on the Middle East, so she is apt to use an offensive term without realizing it. Her columns about local Texas politics are much better. Some are side-splittingly funny.
I guess the offensiveness of the word “Zionist” depends on depends on who uses the word and the context. In some cases, it’s more like the “n-word.” E.g., Barton’s post:
I found Marley23’s point interesting.
Since “Zionist” is sometimes used by anti-Semites as a slur, it can lead to confusion when other people use the same word in some other context. E.g., within this column, where the Ivans didn’t always make it clear which meaning of “Zionist” was intended.
I too have seen / heard some people with anti-semitic tendencies call themselves “anti-zionists”.
But the term was originally coined by a jew (Nathan Birnbaum) and described the political movement striving for the return of the jews to palestine / israel.
Present use of the term (as i have perceived) includes denoting a group of people that share certain views on the jewish peoples historical link to the land of Israel / Palestine, and certain opinions on how this should presently affect political issues such as the jewish settlements and so on.
Now, the term is happily used by these people about themselves, as something with positive connotations. Consider f. e. these links:
So wouldn’t you guys agree that we run into a bit of a practical problem if we won’t let newspaper columnists use a certain term to refer to a group of people that they use about themselves? Do you have a better alternative term to suggest?
This is old news, someone already pointed out Jay Garners links to JINSA when he was first pencilled in for this post, months before the war began.
But the Northern Ireland analogy doesn’t quite work for me, a better analogy would be the hypothertical situation of the Irish Republic being ruled over by a sociopathic dictator (Seamus O’Hussein) and the UK going in and deposing the regime militarily. Imagine if they appointed a member of a Scottish Orange order as the head of the interim military government, it would not be the wisest choice (remember
this is only an analogy to point out the conflict of interests).
Jay Garner’s links to JINSA are (well were, more later) pretty solid and JINSA is an organisation which is very pro-Likkudnik and one of it’s primary concerns is Israel.
There are two reasons why Jay Garners strong Israeli sympathies make him a bad choice:
Conflict of interest, Israel clearly does have a strategic interest in the rebuilding of Iraq and this may or may not conincide with the interests of the Iraqi people, who should be the interim adminstrations primary concern.
Credibilty (this is the most important of the two), If his pro-Israel background were to become known in Iraq, he would most likely lose all respect, also on the international arena (particularly the Arab world) this does not look good and again brings US motives into doubt.
Jay Garner and the US adminstration are certainly aware of point 2., and to this end any mention of Jay Garner was removed from JINSA’s website before his appointment.
It is not antisemitic to point out Mr. Garner’s Israeli sympathies and comment on given these, whether or not his appointment was a good one.
It would of been prudent for the US adminstration to point someone without such obvious Israeli connection, BUT that does not mean that I believe the war wasd for the benefit of Israel or that this appoint is for the benefit of Israel. I reserve all judgment.
Interesting. I’ve seen the context of Santorums remarks and I would defend him. Taken out of contex they can appear very different from what they were.
Also, note that in my hypothetical the SDMBer didn’t accuse Cal Thomas of being a racist, just that his remarks were racist. That was on purpose as I noted you had done the same.
Randy, this is not what you asserted above. All you said was, “So wouldn’t you guys agree that we run into a bit of a practical problem if we won’t let newspaper columnists use a certain term to refer to a group of people that they use about themselves? Do you have a better alternative term to suggest?”
I suppose there could conceivably be a bit of a practical problem. But, I don’t see where you have shown that this potential problem excuses the cited column.
Unlike the Jewish cites you provided, Ivans’s column clearly intended the term “Zionist” to be a pejorative, at least from the POV of Iraqis. However, the column only demonstrated that Garner was sympathetic to Zionism in its non-pejorative sense. I think she was stretching to find a criticism of Garner that would be a parallel to her more solid criticism of Chalabi. The column is unclear. It certainly can be read to imply that there’s something wrong with supporting Israel’s right to exist.
Also, it matters who’s using a term. E.g., an African American group calls themselves NWA (“N-- With Attitude”). That’s not racist. If I used the N-word, it would be racist. Similarly, it’s OK for some gay professors to call their a field of study that “Queer Theory,” but it would be offensive for me to call a gay person, “queer”.
John Mace, I overlooked the precision of your analogy. You are right.
Impressive. It’s interesting that when terminology discriminates against African- & gyno-Americans they can be changed. But when a term, by logical implication, denies the legitimate ethnic heritage of Arabs the dictionary becomes an acceptable defense. You may not be an anti-Semite, but I’m wondering if you aren’t a little bit of a miso-Semite, or even a little Semite-phobic.
Many before me have noted that terms are often claimed, re-claimed and twisted around in the midst of a political debate. To give a synopsis:
Jews invent term Zionism to express desire for homeland;
then bigots use it to connote alleged Jewish lust for blood and imperial designs;
then leftists use it to refer to policies of Israeli government, esp. Sharon (as distinct from country and its citizens) to AVOID racism.
Weird shit, I admit.
December, old chap! I kinda expected that you wouldn’t let go of the bone that easily.
Pejorative maybe, but then in the same cathegory of pejoratives as “leftist”, “hawk” or even “republican”. Terms denoting an ideological / political stance, that have all been used as pejoratives by unsympathetic speakers.
I do not believe it to be a stretch to find it unsuitable to chose someone with zionist sympathies viceroy designate over Iraq.
Since arabs in general are unsympathetic to zionist political sentiments on the issue of occupied territories to say the least.
The term has multiple connotations. It ought to be quite clear to a reasonable reader that it is not used with the anti-semitic connotation here, but as a means to single out political sympathies on an issue.
Side note: as I understand it Garner himself is not jewish so how can you possibly claim that calling him “zionist” is anti-semitic?
No it can not (in this context at least). Unless the individual calling himself “december” have a superior urge to do so, and posseses a fair amount of creativity.
As noted already it is quite clear that the writer do not refer to that kind of pre-Israel zionism.
Present day use of the term in a political sense denotes people that share the belief that jews are bound through history to the land of Israel / Palestine and that this now constitutes legitimacy to that land. All fine and dandy. But the controversial spin is that this bound is often said to hold for the so called “occupied territories” as well.
Now you agreed that the sites of israeli origin that i linked earlier called themselves “zionists” in the non-pejorative sense. This is what one of them (“The Peace Encyclopedia”) has to say about settlements on the occupied territories. These settlements are illegal under the Geneva Convention and condemned by UNSC resolutions:
Note that they are arguing that the jewish people have a legitimate claim to these territories, and have a right to hold on to them. This is of course much more radical than Israels official line.
That is why you should understand how chosing a “zionist” (in this positive-connotation sense) as an administrator of Iraq is a pretty lousy choice.
Yeah, I thought you would try to make that analogy. It is inaccurate.
“Nigger” and “queer” are both derogatory terms that were originally coined and used as such. Later these terms were hijacked in conscious (and successfull) attempts to claim them for respectively the african-american and gay communities.
“Zionism” on the other hand was originally coined and used by the Jews themselves as a term with positive connotations refering to the movement for return of jews to Israel. People with anti-semite sentiments have at times tried to hijack it. But it is still in very active use by israelis and others without the anti-semitic spin.
Many of those who talk about “Zionists” also cheer their murder.
It’s not a stretch, but I don’t agree. Maybe Iraqis should be unsympathetic to the PA. After all, the PA sent “volunteers” during the war to try to help keep Saddam in power. More importantly, Iraq has its own problems – plenty of them. Whether or not Jews control some part of the West Bank has no effect on the people of Iraq.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Iraqi government were judged by its domestic success, rather than its demonization of Jewish scapegoats? I can imagine that happening.
Not at all. Early in the column, Ivans says, “The problem of Garner’s alleged Zionist sympathies is also causing talk.” She doesn’t say who alleged the sympathies, who’s talking, or what the problem is. You can make whatever guess you like about what she meant. (My guess is that she didn’t really know what she meant.) However, what she said was that “Zionist sympathies” (whatever that means) are a problem.
Because it was used in parallel to a “crook” and an “old spy.”
I agree.
That is a matter of opinion.
True.
As I said, that’s a problem for Arafat, but not necessarily for residents of Iraq.
Glad to see you’re thinking.
Analogies are not supposed to be accurateThey are suposed to be apt. I agree that the analogy is imperfect, but I do think it’s apt. You wouldn’t call a gay person a “queer” and you wouldn’t call me a Zionist. Why defend Ivans’s use of a term that you would avoid?
I’m sure that you can find such examples. However, the most common usage I see is as a part of an-Israeli or anti-Semitic epthet.
Putting the quote right above it makes it clear that the perception that he HAS those sympathies is going to be a problem. How many Arabs do you think are going to want a man who they see as pro-Israel - and thus, anti-Arab - running their country?
You’ve said that’s the most common usage, and you’ve said those who use the term ‘often’ call for the blood of Jews. Both are true, but neither makes Molly Ivins an anti-semite; they mean that Zionist is often an anti-semitic term, which everyone already knew.
Now, now december, how come you suddenly resort to replying to sentences you’ve ripped out of context instead of replying to the points I actually made? Could it be lack of good arguments?
So for example this, I bolded the parts of my post that you did not quote or reply to in your answer:
(Bolded parts left out in your post below)
Gone are my reasons for why it is a bad / inaccurate / appropriate analogy. Remains only my claim that I say it is so. Fighting ignorance now are you really, december?
If you could manage I would very much like to see you having another go at answering my previous post. Please do bother to actually reply to my arguments. Rather than just ranting at some randomly chosen sentences of it.
Sorry to disappoint you, Randy. I didn’t respond point by point. Instead, I pointed out that the analogy was apt enough, because
That answers your argument that there are differences in the degree of insult between “Zionist”, “N—”, and “queer”.
I also pointed out that that “Zionist” was often used as a slur by people who murder Jews and Israelis or people who celebrate those murder. In those cases, it’s worse than the other slurs.
My argument was not that “there are differences in the degree of insult between “Zionist”, “N—”, and “queer”” as you claim.
Which would be obvious if you had bothered to quote it in as a whole.
I pointed out that there’s a qualitative difference in origin, history and use of the term “zionist” on the one hand and the terms “queer” and “nigger” on the other hand.
Because of that the term “zionist” has several legitimate uses that doesn’t constitute any kind of racial insult whatsoever. Even when used by a non-jew.
I made an argument to that effect. An argument I would like you to adress in it’s entirety. Rather than just chopping it up into miniscule pieces and chosing the most unrelevant piece to reply to.
Am I to big an optimist, when I wish for that to come true, december? Pretty please?
