Forgive my ignorance on this, but that sounds more like an internal issue of perception than anything connected to an outside factor. Is that a fair assessment?
If culturally your self worth revolves around avenging humilation or not being humiliated by “other”, than sure. But if in one’s world sometimes the underdog wins, and that is recognized as an opportunity instead of an insult, the world kind of looks different.
That strikes me as odd - I would say that treating other human beings as property, as chattel with legal status little different than a herd of cattle, as less than human, arises out of hate in the way we use the word today. There are many ways to manifest hate, and sometimes, as during the period you mention, the door to one manifestation is closed, but the hate just finds another.
No, perhaps you know that the Jewish year is one holiday after another celebrating deliverance from this society’s or another’s anti-Semitism. All of which pre-date Zionism.
I’m also curious as to why exactly it’s being advanced. It seems to have a bit of kinship with the type of “they brought it upon themselves” and “Jews cause anti-Semitism” arguments in it. I’m curious to see the rationale behind it elaborated.
Anti-Semitism amongst Middle Eastern Muslims in the form of believing that Jews were inferiors to be treated as second-class citizens though worthy of protection so long as they “knew their place” and agreed to pay certain taxes, not bear arms, wear certain types of clothing, and not ride horses but only ride mules has been around for 14 Centuries.
However, “Judeopathy” the hatred of Jews, believing they are almost subhuman and should be exterminated is a 20th Century phenomenon and is a reaction to the humiliations Muslims suffered at the hands of people they’d historically regarded as inferiors, specifically Westerners and later Jews.
Furthermore, amongst the Jews of the Middle East saying that Zionism was specifically a reaction to the anti-Semitism they faced from their Muslim neighbors.
Well it depends on how we define the words. “Zionism”, the concept, was around for years before significant amounts of European Jewish immigration occurred and Jews as second class existed for centuries there. Saying that the rise of Arab anti-Semitism correlated roughly with Zionism would be simplistic but not incorrect. Of course it would be as accurate to say that the rise of Zionism correlated roughly with Arab anti-Semitism. Neither statement should be taken to mean that one caused the other. Of course.
I am also curious to see the rationale behind parsing it that specific way elaborated. If the intent is to imply causation then a more nuanced understanding is more appropriate:
Zionism as a concept long existed as did the concept of the inferior but tolerated and second class albeit protected Jewish minority in Arab lands. Zionism beget European Jewish immigration into the ME the economic wherewithal of whom which then beget some resentment which was capitalized upon into Jew-hatred for political gains. That Jew hatred beget a more militant Zionism in response which beget a stronger Jew hatred and so on.
“Judeopathy” is a new word to me. Is it an attempt to rationalize with some sort of pseudo-science related to the science of mental health in order to justify hatred?
But the part that is more interesting to me is the “humiliation” part.
The feeling of humiliation comes from within, and results from internal stresses on one’s own view of the world.
I think it was in this thread that the nature of the humiliation of Muslims cam from having to work with, and especially for, people whom they dominated prior. There is nothing wrong per se with having to work for a Jewish boss, or along side a Jewish peer. People do it all the time without feeling humiliated. The feeling comes from the world view of the humiliated in this case.
There are no allegations of systemic attempts at putting people down to cause this humiliation the feeling arise strictly out of an unwillingness to treat others as equals. Carrying it now is simply extending a grudge against a perceived injustice for the same reason: it is evidence of an internal world view that is out of whack with treating people fairly and as individuals.
This is not unique to Muslims, in the US, we have many major and minor cases of the same phenomenon. Historically some whites might feel the same humiliation at having to work with or even for blacks, so they lash out. Presently, at least where I live, some whites feel humiliated at not being qualified to do the jobs even the lowly illigal immigrants are qualified for, and so they lash out.
There is no justification for any of this, not least of all by attaching a science-y term to it.
Really, people don’t use words or phrases you don’t know in order to confuse you or for neferious purposes. It just means Jew Hating.
Agreed. The antipathy to the Jewish immigrants in those early days was not so unlike any anti-immigrant populism, including that addressed against Muslims today in Europe and in some portions of the US, just complicated by the fact that the “lowly” were actually doing the hiring and that the movement expressed its disapproval with violence which was met in kind.
I know what it means, by breaking down the parts like I learned in 2nd grade or so.
It has some sort of pseudo-Greek scientific thing going on. It sounds a lot better then simply saying “Jew Hating”, just like “homeopathy” sounds a lot better than “medicine that doesn’t have even a single molecule of the active ingredient”.
If there is a pathology being described, fine. Show me the science.
But otherwise, it sounds troublesome to me to be making a scientific term for “Jew Hating”. Under what circumstances is it not acceptable to simply say “Jew hating” or “anti-Semitism”, but need to fall back on “Judeopathy”, and when I see that circumstance, I will use the word.
One advantage of it over “anti-Semitism” is avoiding the word-play that some get into declaring that Arabs are Semites too. Yes, we all know that anti-Semitism was specifically coined as a synonym for Jew-hating, but that doesn’t stop those people.
And yes, it does imply that Jew-hating is a sickness, as Dershowitz used it:
This touches on an earlier bit of commentary. Much like people can claim “I hold a habitually anti-[group] narrative, but I accept no blame and it’s someone else’s fault” people can, have (and still do) argue that Jews cause, or at least are the primary cause of people hating Jews. A rather absurd game of blaming the victim, but some people eagerly engage in it.
One of Damuri’s earlier wikicites stated:
It’s not much of a surprise, then, that someone might argue that Jews somehow brought anti-Semitism upon themselves by trying to achieve self determination.
Just like we had a poster recently argue, via an inversion of history, that Jews often hated and despised their “host” countries and actively tried to subvert their culture. And that that was somewhat understandable, except of course nobody was stopping the Jews from fleeing en mass (in most cases), and so their antipathy towards their tormentors might not have been excusable.
That Jews cause/deserve/merit/enable racism against Jews is a popular argument in those who don’t like Jews. I’m curious if there is any deeper nuance than a cocktail party gloss whereby Israel caused anti-Semitism.
Nobody mistakes “anti-Semitism” for referring to anyone but Jews.
Yes, not all Jews are of Semitic origin, and not all of Semitic origin are Jews. But no one uses “anti-Semitic” to refer to anyone but Jews. All Jews.
“Judeopathy” is not more clear on this point. It still sounds pseudo-scientific, as your Dershowitz quote shoes. And Dershowitz is an attorney and a pundit, not a scientist. His claim of sickness or virus notwithstanding, he is using a metaphor. One should not be forced to use a metaphor by one’s enemies when there is a perfectly good term that means precisely what Dershowitz wants to say.
He especially knows this, and is savvy enough to reclaim the word. I don’t know why he didn’t, unless he wanted to sell books or something.
You’re right, but it’s also a common dodge among anti-Semites.
“I’m not an anti-Semite, Arabs are Semites and I don’t hate them!”
I disagree with DSeid’s argument that “Judeopathy” is somehow better to use; anti-Semites will find another spurious objection, just like people who hate gays claim that “homophobia” doesn’t apply, since they aren’t afraid of gay people.
Having “one advantage over” does not equal “somehow better” … “Jew Hater” is clearest yet. But it is often nice to have some synonyms - I do like me a good thesaurus!
not- - “no one”? I have heard it done and on these boards.
Meh, nitpicky. Other than the potential for avoiding stylistic rigidity, I don’t think judeopathy has any real advantages, and having to explain how you’re using it may be a potential negative.
