You did address it.
[QUOTE=You]
Can you point to a post on this thread that was based on that premise?
[/QUOTE]
Then you decided you didn’t want to anymore.
[QUOTE=Me]
It was strongly implied when you asserted that anti-Semitism is “widespread” on the left.
[/QUOTE]
A reasonable interpretation of your statement is not a “strawman”.
No. Saying or showing that “anti-Semitism is widespread on the left” says or implies nothing about the right.
Where else might one find a point of reference to help define your usage of the term “widespread”, then? My Little Pony fans? Guns And Ammo readers? Males aged 18-34?
Mississippi 1866, huh? I see you’ve brought a nice little dog whistle of your own.
Oh, please. Obviously any historical parallel I choose could be read as me saying the Palestinians are right and the Israelis are wrong. But that wasn’t my point at all, as the context should have made clear. My point was that integrating a population that is pretty fucking pissed and wants reparations doesn’t necessarily spiral into genocide and anarchy.
I don’t think Mississippi in 1866 is a good analogy. In Israel/Palestine, the the very same people (or their descendents) have been, in some cases, living in camps waiting to get the land back - land on which other people have been living since 1948. The rhetoric with which they have lived has stressed a full “return” to the status quo ante - which can of course only be achieved if the people currently living there were to … leave. However, there is no-where for them to go.
An equivalent would be to, say, re-create East Prussia as it was prior to the end of WW2 - turfing out the people currently living there. It is hard to see how this could happen without war. The Palestinians have tried war and it didn’t work, even with the backing of a goodly portion of the Arab world - and now, the Arab world is more divided and weaker than it has ever been.
Integrating a population that is “pretty fucking pissed” and has a long history of deliberate and purposeful blowing up buses, restaurants, holiday parties, discos, and schoolchildren to get what it wants is guaranteed to spiral into genocide and anarchy.
What do you mean by “widespread”? 1% of the left? 10%? 50%? 95%? I haven’t seen anything that suggests it’s more than a small fraction of the left, at least in the US.
But, as relevant to whether BDS supporting the right of return makes them anti-Semitic, I think the question is whether a right of return is theoretically possible without destroying Israel. Obviously, in reality, Israel holds all the cards and will never let it happen.
I don’t know what percentage of Israeli-occupied land we’re talking about returning to Palestinian refugees if UN Resolution 194 were ever actually carried out. If we’re talking about 5% or 10%, that strikes me as a monumental problem but not so inevitably violence-inducing so as to be prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism. If we’re talking about 25% or 50%, then I would be more easily persuaded that return is impossible without massive violence, and therefore calling for return is tantamount to calling for destroying Israel.
I personally haven’t accused anyone of being an anti-semite. I have, however, accused people of being anti-Israeli, and frankly, the difference between someone wanting to hurt me because I’m Jewish and someone wanting to hurt me because I’m Israeli, well, it’s six of one or half a dozen of the other, you know?
I would estimate at least 10-15%, conservatively. What percentage of the US left are college campuses? Or how about “Entrenched anti-Semitic views” very rare among whites and Asian Americans, common among blacks and Latinos” - with which side of the political spectrum do those two groups identify?
I don’t think it is simply a matter of percentages. In the ME, it appears to be widely understood (among both Israelis and Palestinians) that the full “right of return” is not a matter of refugees simply accepting some sort of land compensation and then settling down to become Israeli citizens like the current Arab-Israeli population, but rather a wholesale return to the status quo ante bellum.
I think some of the disconnect here is that the phase is interpreted - as you appear to interpret it - in one way by moderate and liberal observers far from the scene, and quite another by the people actually involved - that is, liberal supporters reasonably conclude that a “right of return” is simply a (rational) matter of compesation, something that can be worked out, and then the nation of Israel go on as before (but with the “problem solved”) - whereas Israelis and Palestinians alike perceive the same phrase totally differently, as referring to the status quo ante bellum 1948, meaning that the “right of return” automatically and necessarily means Israel must cease to exist as a nation and its people leave or vanish.
Given this disconnect, it is easy to see why people living in Israel think those supporting a “right of return” simply want them eliminated. No amount of “boycotting” could possibly be effective under those conditions - you can’t be “boycotted” into committing suicide. OTOH, many of those supporting a “right of return” in NA think it is simply an issue of compensating Palestinians - an arguably reasonable thing to do - and have no idea why Israelis react so harshly towards it.
First link doesn’t work for me. The second is interesting and troubling, and I’d be interested to see whether black conservatives (and Latino conservatives, of which there are many more [and Latino Americans had a higher rate of anti-Semitism than black Americans]) are more or less likely to hold anti-Semitic views. But considering that the second link puts the number of Americans with anti-Semitic views as about 12%, and you estimate 10-15% of the American left, I see no reason to believe that anti-Semitism is any more widespread on the left than on the right.
Bernie Sanders: “I’m not a great fan” of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Does that make him a Self-Hating Jew, then? I’m sure many Israeli Jews feel the same way about Netanyahu for the same reasons.
If one were to offer the view that the base of the Republican Party has a similar distaste for American blacks, based on the same level of citation, you would not object?
Malthus: Got it. Thank you for the explanation, which also helps me understand Alessan’s comments better.
I posted that it is widespread on the left. I didn’t say anything about the right. The link I gave you, though, does suggest that it is more widespread on the left, since the two groups in which anti-semitism is much more prevalent identify massively with the left.
In which case, we have the responsibility to outreach and correct their failings. Do the Israelis have a similar obligation to the “Palestinians”? Or is that “different”, somehow?
You two seem so confused about the meaning of ‘strawman’ it might be best if you simply didn’t use the phrase anymore. A strawman is a disingenuous argument put forward by one debater on behalf of another, for the simple purpose of attacking it. It is not an actual position held by the second debater, and it is usually a position held by no one at all. But it does usually have the property of being easily argued against.
That is, of course, not what’s happened here. Instead, in the OP, and then later in post #5, I summarized a couple things that Terr actually said, and then I summarized my understanding of Terr’s argument, and I specifically asked him for clarification. Now, you may think I misunderstood his argument (though his own unwillingness to explain, instead deciding to simply refer me to a 40-page PDF, isn’t exactly convincing), but misunderstanding one’s argument is not the same as making a strawman.
In short, what I am doing is the opposite of making a strawman. I am making an earnest attempt to understand what Terr’s argument actually is.
Blacks, yes. “Latinos”, not so much.
It would help if you were more precise with your claims instead of using terms like “massively”, which to me would be >> 50%. Something like 75% at least. I don’t think that is accurate for Latinos.