Given that putz! is a direct personal insult, it is not permitted to be hurled at other posters in a thread outside the BBQ Pit.
Please do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Actually, it is very much anti-semitic to say that or anything similar unless you very carefully outline your position to indicate that you are simply condemning all religious belief and this phrase happens to be your current target.
If one chooses to oppose the phrase as “laughable” or “absurd,” then one had better demonstrate that one regards all religious belief as equally laughable or absurd.
If one chooses to identify the phrase as “a crime against humanity” or “racist,” one is very much indulging in anti-semitic bigotry based on a (typically, but not necessarily, deliberate) distortion of the meaning of the phrase.
It might actually be a burden rather than a priviledge to be chosen, but please, Israel’s occupation of palestinian land is founded on a belief that the land was given to them by god. And when we’re talking about the religious and not the religion itself, we must consider how the religion actually is interpreted, not how it should be interpreted. Sure, many or even most jews might be humble about “being chosen”, but it is a problem that too many in power aren’t. It seems quite obvious to me that Gaarder’s beef is with the state of Israel, and not the jews. I believe that if you read the text with this in mind, and try to be overbearing about the parts that could be considered antisemittic (I truly believe they’re not intended to be), it won’t be so hard to swallow.
And Rune: Third largest newspaper.
exactly
However, I have never heard the phrase “Chosen People” used by anyone who was claiming a “right” to the land. (There may be a few clowns in the splinter parties way out to the extreme Right of where Likud took its stand who associate the two ideas, but it is very clearly NOT part of any mainstream belief either within Judaism or among Israelis.)
Only in the minds of those who have already distorted the phrase.
Nonsense. Gaarder explicitly attacks Judaism in the article, not simply Israel.
The “chosen people” concept = a crime against humanity:
Israeli [Jews] = sadists, like their sadistic God:
Judaism = an “archaic” “war religion”:
Judaism = evil for rejecting enlightened, “humanistic” Christianity:
How could anyone, even those totally opposed to Zionism, not find this wholly hateful Jew-hating garbage?
Moreover, the relationship between the religion and political Zionism is pretty tangental. You may be surprised to know that many if not the majority of political Zionists who actually founded the state were socialist-leaning athiests.
First, you might be surprised to learn that the majority of Israelis either view themselves as secular, or traditionalists without being observant. The Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox may swing their votes in the Knesset in a rather powerful block, but they do not speak for most Israelis, at all.
While there are certainly a small percentage of nutters in Israel and around the world who want a return to the geographical boundaries of biblical times, it is tremendously disingenuous and/or ignorant to claim that is what motivates more than a splinter of Zionists.
If you are suggesting that Zionism is a religious movement, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong. It was a movement fueled by, among other things, rising levels of European anti-semitism and the emerging concept of nationalism.
[
](Israel - ORIGINS OF ZIONISM)
Why are you repeating this anti-semitic canard, and to what purpose?
Being ‘chosen’ means being obligated to observe all the mitzvot. This is not a concept of superiority, or elitism, but obligation. “Chosen” means chosen to receive God’s law in a time when monotheism was pretty much unheard of, nothing more.
I have no idea what you’re getting at talking about Jews who are “in power.” Can you cite any examples that Jews “in power” support their actions by claiming that they are part of some elite race?
Are you talking about Israelis, or Jews the world over who are ‘in power’?
Again, I have to wonder what you’ve been reading. On preview, Malthus nailed this one in much more detail already.
I’d like to touch on one point, even though he covered it.
What people, exactly, holds the concept of the “chosen people?” It is not an Israeli concept, but it is a Jewish concept. So obviously he was talking about the Jews, and not the Israelis.
Moreover, he clearly states his racist intent, as he is discussing Jews as a fungible group. How else could one “laugh at this people’s fancies and weep over its misdeeds?” The Jews, as a group, have done anything? We have ‘fancies’ and ‘misdeeds’? The crimes of some schmuck at some point in time fall on my head because I’m also a Jew?
What purpose, exactly, does ignoring individuality in order to slam an entire group serve? How can you pretend that while talking about a “people” he is not conflating them, and talking about a “people” rather than citizens of a specific nation?
“We laugh at the Black race’s fancies, and weep over their misdeeds.”
Sound good that way?
So, in other words, if you simply ignore what he actually says and the aspersions he casts on all of Judaism as a “people”, on our religion, on our God, etc… then, yeah, it’s not at all hard to swallow that he’s not casting aspersions on the Jews as ‘a people’, on our religion, on our God, etc…
QED.
I’ll admit I was in error bluntly stating that the occupation of Palestine is founded on religion, and without a cite. However, I’m eagerly awaiting any other reasons as to why Israel is so keen on reclaiming a portion of land with such a striking resemblance to the one they where promised by the god they’re deeply culturally linked to, if not religiously. Any good reasons why jews (secular) can’t share Israel with Palestinians, and I’ll change my position accordingly.
Also, why is it jews always seem (seem) to be shouting anti-semite whenever anyone criticizes them? For example, the Israeli ambassador to Norway. I’ll try to stay on topic, but if there ever was a rant, it was her attack on the caricature mentioned in that article. I hope the article speaks for itself, though. The ambassador to Sweden, IIRC, vandalized a sculpture criticizing the Israeli government a few years ago. These are ambassadors! On the warpath from the first second!
I truly believe Gaarder neither is an anti-semite, nor wanted to look like one. Neither am I. I am, however, repulsed by Israeli treatment of Palestinians and Libanese, and getting impressions of a culture that raises children like this most certainly doesn’t help.
I’ve no doubt jews, even Israeli jews, are mostly decent, like the rest of us, but you do have a serious PR problem. I suggest you start by taking criticism as just that, not anti-semitism. “We” don’t hate you, but your politics do disturb us.
What?
You’re using the present tense, and Israel isn’t attempting to claim any land now.
So you’re awaiting reasons why something that isn’t happening… is happening?
Palestinians are members of the Knesset, have Israeli citizenship, were offered a state alongside Israel by the Partition Plan, etc…
You really should start looking up cites before you make claims.
Your article doesn’t use the word anti-semite. Nor does it provide a picture of the cartoon. Nor does it give any substantial background, so it’s hard to say anything about it. I’d also add that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.
And, they (seem) to “always” be saying that for the same reason that Zionism (seemed) to be religiously based to you.
Or, are you asking why Jews cry anti-semitism when people launch rhetorical attacks at the Jews as a people? Does that really need an answer? I gave an example switching “Jews” for “Blacks”, but you seem to have ignored it.
If, however, you were just mangling some text, and you meant to ask why some Jews cry anti-semitism when Israel is criticized? Then, yes, some do claim anti-semitism when Israel is criticized. And sometimes, like in the article linked to in the OP, that criticism of Israel is indeed anti-semitic. But some =/= all, and sometimes =/= all the time.
Far more common is the lament of folks who haven’t gotten their facts straight before making claims, who will attempt to invalidate any disagreement with their position by claiming that criticism of Israel is “always” met with claims of anti-semitism.
OMG! Ambassadors on the warpath! From the first second! (whenever that was, exactly.)
And yet, you ignore all the detailed analysis of various anti-semitic quotes in his article. Because you don’t want to believe he’s an anti-semite. Even though he says anti-semitic things.
An argument not exactly brimming with intellectual honesty.
The culture does?
And here I thought that parents raised children. :rolleyes:
Care to elaborate on what exactly you see as the problem with that picture? What is wrong with the ‘culture’ that allows children to write messages on shells that are about to be used to defend their country against an enemy that’s been attacking them for years?
Oh, “we” do, eh?
You mean that you hold a negative impression of Jews as a whole, because of “our” bad PR?
Considering that its only your strawman that all criticism of Israel is responded to with claims of anti-semitism, I think “we” are ahead of the curve on that one.
Ah yes, Jewish politics.
Do elaborate on those, if you could.
I wouldn’t know if they are doing it right now, but I thought everyone agreed Israel occupies more now than they were promised in 1948. But I’ve tried not to make claims beyond my first post, which I admited was too rash, and I’ve asked for your version. Why is Israel bigger now than 60 years ago?
It’s a bad article, but the best I could find in a hurry, because I thought that caricature was almost as well known as the Gaarder article, and I tried not to digress. The cartoon criticized Israeli killings of palestinians (IIRC, I think this was before the Lebanese mess started), and likened the Israeli prime minister to a Nazi. I really don’t see what’s wrong with implying Israel is doing the same to a people now as the Nazis have done to “them”. The cartoonist might be misunderstanding the situation (I can’t see he does), but he most certainly has the right to that opinion and the reference to nazism should be safely within the right to free speech, though the Israeli ambassador claimed otherwise. She even claimed it bore witness of ignorance of the genocide, which to me sounds like a grave underestimation of what is the prime cartoonist in Norway’s second largest newspaper.
I wrote seem (seem), because I’m well aware it’s just that. However,
Ambassadors really should be more… diplomatic in their rhethoric. Likening criticism with nazism is not good pr! Even if they are right and we really are nazis and anti-semites, they are in our country to build relations with us, and believe me, none of these ambassadors made themselves popular in these cases.
As with your example with blacks, no it doesn’t sound good, but then again, I sincerily doubt Gaarder really meant all jews as a race. He was angry with the Israeli government for Libanon, and he chose to write in a “prophetic” style. You really shouldn’t take everything he wrote litteraly, I’m quite sure that was not his intention.
Because there is a difference between being angry, wanting to provoke and having a meaning between the lines, and wanting to be taken litteraly on every count.
What exactly is a culture if it doesn’t shape people?
I’m quite simply disgusted by children rejoicing in killings.
Well, you’re not exactly making yourself popular with the conflict in the middle east. And whether it’s true or not, to a whole lot of people on this planet, Israel looks like a state oppressing a people it needn’t. So either, Israel’s got bad PR because they’re evil, or they’ve got bad PR because they can’t explain to the rest of the world why they’re good.
It would so kill you if I did, wouldn’t it? Anyway, I bet you know I was refering to the arabs. I’ll wait for a reply to my first question in this post before I elaborate on that. Can’t promise much, though, I guess you’ve guessed this isn’t exactly my area of expertise. I’m just giving my opinion, and hopefully, if I’m wrong, you’ll correct it for me.
Gaarder, all right. I was expecting Gunter Grass
YelimS, if you can’t see that Gaaaardner’s rant condemns Judaism as a religion and Jews as a people, rather than Israel as a country, then there’s no point in arguing with you, since you’re unable to read. Read what he wrote and try to tell me he’s not an Jew-hater. No intellectually honest person could do so.
Oh, well, I don’t think he much likes judaism, but religions should definately be open to critique. If he sees Israel as a nation founded on a religion he dislikes, he should say what he feels about that, too. If that’s wrong, he can be told so.
Now, criticizing Israel and even judaism is not the same as criticizing jews in general.
I’m not alone in reading him like this, either. Check out the link I provided, quite a few reactions have been translated.
Criticizing Israel can be accomplished without ever once criticizing Judaism. Once one decides to make open attacks against the religion, one is a fair target for cries of anti-semitism–and backpedaling to say “Oh, I didn’t really mean to criticize Jews” looks to (this non-Jewish) observer as though he is more upset that he got caught in his anti-semitic tirade than that he is upset that the issues got “confused.” He is a writer. He has absolutely no excuse for claiming that words he wrote should be ignored for the words he now claims he should have written.
As to people agreeing with him, they come in many varieties. There will be those who agree with his criticism of Israel and are willing to tolerate his criticism of Judaism as long as the anti-Israel message is published. There will also be people who are anti-semitic who will agree with him for their own reasons, some of whom will pretend to be not anti-semitic and others who will simply indulge their anti-semitism.
It would’ve been limited to Mandate territory if the Arabs had agreed in 1948. It would’ve been limited to 1948 territory if the Arabs hadn’t been about to launch a war in 1967. And most if not all of that land would’ve been given back if the Arabs had negotiated rather than responded with the Three Noes.
This is a very rough and ready answer, for more detail, look at any of the threads decidated to this topic. We’ve done it to death, both here and in the Pit.
Well, because it’s ignorant and dishonest, to start with.
You can’t see a difference between attempting to wipe out an entire group of people, and not attempting to wipe out an entire group of people?
According to your sparse cite, she claimed it might have violated some European law or laws. I don’t know enough about the laws in question to comment further.
Can you re-write that sentence, please?
I have no idea what you’re getting at.
Well, debating your mistaken impressions isn’t much of a debate. Instead of saying how things seem to you, why not find out how they really are? For instance, why not read any of the Israel threads on this front page? How many people have been called anti-semites in them?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Perhaps this is based on that sentence above I couldn’t puzzle out?
He wrote it, he meant it, he retreated from it later under fire.
If he didn’t mean to talk about Jews as a “people”, then he shouldn’t have done that. But he did mean it, he’s just a coward.
Or do you think he was laying crimes at the feet of the Jews, as a people, was a mistake? He meant something else? Faced with your denial (and his, after the fact) and his own words…
Prophetic? You mean, racist and ignorant? From claiming that Israel was founded on religious principles to bashing Judaism and the “Jewish people”? I don’t buy ‘prophetic’ writing. Bombastic, inflamatory, stupid? Yeah… but not like a prophet.
He wrote it, without a hint of sarcasm. He meant it.
You are claiming that the clear meaning of his words isn’t there because you don’t want it to be. What, exactly, was the meaning between the lines of saying that the Jews, as a people, deserved condemnation?
So in any culture, will there be 100% agreement on any given issue, behavior, or attitude? Will there be numerous sub-cultures? From pacifists to hawks and everything in between? Is it fair to ascribe the actions of a few families to the entire culture at large?
Were you conflating individual actions with Israeli culture in general?
“We” aren’t, eh?
You might want to stop trying to dig your way out of that hole.
“You Blacks aren’t exactly making yourself popular, what with all the crime, and drugs, and gangsta rap.”
I am me. Regardless of what some guy who happens to be a Jew does. Regardless of what some Israelis do. I’m still me. Just me. The fact that “we” are all lumped together and the crimes of one are ascribed to us all is a racist forumalation, nothing more.
“You know how dumb the average guy is? Well about half of 'em are even dumber than that!”
No, but I’d probably get a chuckle.
It’s funny enough that you think you can conflate Jewish people all over the world, funnier that you think you can define their myiad of political views, and even funnier still that you don’t realize the inherent ignorance of individual actions you’ve demonstrated and the fallaciously fungible formulation you’ve constructed.
There’s an old expression “If there are two Jews in the room, there are three opinions.” Dreaming up a unified political philosophy is impossible. We’re not all Zionists. We’re not all left wing or right wing, socialists or anarchists or drug addicted slackers. We’re people, just people, and we run the spectrum like anybody else.
And, you will find, if someone is attacking all Jews under the guise of a strawman ideology that they’ve ascribed to us, valid cries of anti-semitism will indeed follow.
So go for it, tell me all about my politics. And my father’s. And my mother’s. And my two brothers’. And my grandparents’. And my great unkle’s. And my cousins’. And their cousins’. Tell me about the divisions between the Russian members of my extende family, and the Israeli members of my extended family. Tell me about how my father was raised without one word on Judaism as a religion, but was taken out to a special dinner on his 13th birthday, and then nothing else was ever said. Tell me about his mother who was the child of people who settled Richon L’tzion. Tell me about my mother, whose father hates organized religion but whose mother, a survivor of Ha Shoah, sent her to religious camp and school as a child. Tell me about my mother’s mother, who watched the Nazis shoot her younger brother right in front of her, who found her mother’s body after she had hanged herself, who then served as a nurse for the British army after she escaped Germany.
Tell me all about all the Jews I am related to, their varied, personal, fluid, changing beliefs. Tell me about all the Jews I’ve ever known. Tell me about the Israelis who refuse to serve in the IDF. Tell me about the Israeli girl I grew up with back on Long Island who invoked the Right of Return so that she could serve in the IDF. Tell me about the Ultra-Orthodox who don’t even consider many of the rest of us to be Jews unless we have Jewish mothers. Tell me about my mother, and her work at ARZA. Tell me about my unkle, the socialist writer. Tell me about the secular Israeli Jews.
Tell me about “our” politics.
Do you see the problem yet?
No, you weren’t. The “you” and “your” pronouns clearly refer to Jews.
Why not do some research and then come back with your own opinion? It’s kind of off topic for this thread, in any case. If you feel like it, search any of the recent GD Israel threads. If you still need other links to some decent threads with good debate, I can most likley provide them.
Then why not fight your ignorance and debate with an informed opinion?
If it’s not your area of expertise, what value do your posts have?
I’m not trying to be hostile, but maybe you should ask yourself that question… there’s a difference between coming to a thread and saying you don’t know anything and asking for information, and coming to a thread, making statements, and then falling back on it ‘just’ being your opinion. And an uneducated opinion at that.
Hopefully, you’ll read some before posting again. To be honest, I am sick to death of refuting the same points, again, and again, and again. It’s like fighting a swarm of gnats with a sledgehammer. I cite the facts, point out where someone is wrong, and then five posts later there’s another error to clear up, and ten posts after that someone repeats the first error.
I’m tired.
I’m tired of proving that, no, Jews didn’t just plunk down in Israel in 1948.
I’m tired of proving that, no, Israel didn’t drive all the Palestinians from their lands.
I’m tired of proving that, no, Palestinians didn’t own all the land.
I’m tired of proving that, no, Israel hasn’t refused to ever negotiate.
I’m tired of those and a dozen other half-truths, untruths, and out and out fantasies. I’m just damn tired.
I am honored that people like Alessan view me as something of a go-to guy for clearing up these mistakes. I’m honored to have gotten a few emails from posters whose names I don’t even recognize, but who congratulate me on my performance. I’m honored, but I’m damn tired.
Please read some of the other threads on the subject.
Ahhh, he hates the sin, not the sinner.
Riiiiiight.
But yes, there are certain valid criticisms of the various sects of Judaism. (You do realize that speaking of Judaism as one unified religion is hopelessly counterfactual?) Jews debate those points of theology all the time.
But certain things, like the deliberate and willful misstatement of what “the Chosen People” actually means, and using certain religious actions to slam the Jewish “people”, well…
And be told that he’s not only ignorant, inflamatory, and flat our wrong, but that his ignorant ranting is based on racism.
If someone doesn’t even know enough about Zionism to recognize it as a secular force, and instead spouts off about how evil Israel is because it’s based on an ‘archaic’ ‘war religion’, what then is his agenda?
Even his backpedaling “apology” is bullshit. He takes issue with how religion is used in Israeli politics? Well, then, that certainly shouldn’t indict Israeli society as a whole, since the majority of Israelis are either secular or traditional without being observant.
And the use an Orthodox Jew might put his faith to is most likely rather different from a Reconstructionist Jew. Or a secular Jew.
What religion do Jews follow?
If one follows an ‘archaic war religion’, what does that say about them?
What… it’s okay to be a Jew, as long as one isn’t Jewish? Maybe the Jews would be okay, and Israel would too, if they all followed Christianity?
Thanks, FinnAgain for your concise summation of why this article is unquestionably anti-Semitic.
IRL (here at Oxford University, a rather well known institution of higher learning) I have to avoid talking about Israel (and, with some people, Judaism) because the level of ignorance is so high that it is simply too dispiriting. People, educated, otherwise intelligent people, casually say ‘well of course the Jews stole the land in Israel’ or ‘Jews are so secretive, it’s no wonder people have conspiracy theories about them’ (yes, really). I try my best, but often I have to give up.
I would not be surprised if ‘good old fashioned’ anti-Semitism such as Gaarder’s becomes socially and politically acceptable across Europe within a generation. Regardless of what happens in the Middle East. Scares me, but I think it reasonably likely.
- Daphne
Thanks much, and here I thought I spilled much too much ink.
About the sentence you wanted rewritten, it seemed like she was trying to hard to miss the point of the cartoon. But if the cartoonist really is as far off as you claim, that could have been reasonable.
And about how “jews” seem, I realize (of course) it’s more important how they really are, but I think, when criticizing Gaarder you should be aware that the media here in Norway is generally quite leftist and supportive of Palestine, and it’s hard to realize an anti-Israeli (not against the people, but how Israel is ruled) position isn’t the informed one. Really hard. I’ll read up on the conflict here on the board, but you should know what Israel looks like for a Norwegian, and that the papers criticizing them are otherwise legitimate.
I meant, and should have wrote, that I was referring to the treatment of arabs, not arab politics. As you’ve pointed out, I might have been in error, but that’s definately not how it looked like before.
And if he believes (in error) that Israel as a nation is doing something bad, why not criticize it? Of course there’s people in Israel who opposes the government, give both Gaarder and me some credit. We should be allowed the shortcut, like saying Germany made a mistake 70 years ago, instead of listing every nazi that was bad, and excusing those who opposed nazism or those who were lured into it.
I still hold that criticizing religion is every bit as legitimate as it can get. Respect people for having beliefs you dislike, but if opinions are allowed to be hidden behind religion (even if that’s their origin), that’s a dangerous situation. Everything should be open for critique.
Anyway, I’ll give you credit for a well-written post, and appologize if I’ve hurt any feelings or made myself look like an anti-semite. But please, give me the credit of believing me when I say I’m not, and read my posting while remembering I’m only misinformed and frustrated. Ok?
And also, I know there’s a search function, but if you remember a particularily good thread about Israel and Palestine (mainly, but Libanon is also of interrest), would you care pointing me to it?
Osama bin Laden has a number of criticisms of the actions of The West (a few of them actually legitimate in regards to propping up the Saud family).
Osama bin Laden also has a personal objection to much Christian belief.
Is it legitimate for bin Laden to conflate his two beliefs, condemning The West (including Scandinavia) because they are “Christian”?
If Gaarder wants to criticize Judaism, he is welcome to do so. If we wants to criticize Israel, he is welcome to do so. However, Judaism and Israel are not the same thing, so criticizing one by criticizing the other is a deliberate confusion of two separate things. Beyond that, he offered no criticism of Judaism. He provided no structured discussion of the origins of the religion, its beliefs, its treatment of persons within or without its domain, its logical errors, or its contradiction by other systems of belief. THAT would be a criticism of Judaism.
What he did, instead, was to criticize Israel, then fill his criticism of that secular state with a series of inflammatory passages in which he simply dismissed or insulted Judaism without bothering to support his claims with evidence. He merely assumed that his readership would agree with all his calumny and littered his tirade with anti-Jewish sentiments rooted in thousands of years of persecution bolstered by a few recent phrases. Whatever criticism of Israel he might have presented has been overwhelmed by his anti-semitism. If he had a desire to criticize the Jewish religion, then he picked the worst way to do it, simply hurling unfounded (if often widely believed) epithets while failing to support his claims. (And, as I have noted, it was a stupid conflation, to begin with: it would be like a condemnation of Norwegian whaling practices littered with snide remarks about Lutheranism–they have no genuine connection.)