Why do people hate Jews?

[DSeid]

MadSam observes

In the Ukraine there are obviously Jews born and non Jews born there.

The Jew who is born there is generally referred to as the Jew. The Non Jew is a Russian (Ukranian)…thusly if there are 10 native born Russians in the Ukraine in a room, there are 9 Russians and a Jew.

Why this exists, I do not know…I have had a great many young and old Ukranian friends who tell me this is true. Any comment?

The history of Jews and antisemitism in the Ukraine is long and sordid. The massacre at Babi Yar, in which 34,000 Jews and Romani were murdered in a fortnight, was only part of a long tradition that had followed a period of Jewish integration into Ukrainian society.

The Cossacks, meanwhile, wanted to free the Ukraine from Polish domination — and sought to rule the Ukraine. In 1648, the Cossacks, led by Bohdan Chmielicki, began a series of campaigns by instigating the uprising of the Cossacks against the Jews.Chmielicki told people that the Poles had sold them as slaves “into the hands of the accursed Jews.” Angered by this notion, the Cossacks massacred tens of thousands of Jews during 1648-1649, in a war that would later be considered among the worst of that time period.
Many Polish Jews fled the country, but most were brutally murdered. The massacre was devastating — both in numbers and effect. According to Jewish chronicles, the death toll reached approximately 100,000, and nearly 300 Jewish communities were destroyed. Cossack cruelty was so great that many Jews preferred to flee to captivity under Crimean Tartars, to be sold as slaves.

As to Abe’s claim that Jews tend to be particular clannish and insular, and that such is an antecedent to antisemitic beliefs … Tom, it may be an innocent belief on his part, but it is nevertheless one based on nothing more than a popularly held stereotype kept alive by those with bad intent. The vast majority of Jews, in America and elsewhere, are far from insular or clannish; on the contrary they are secular and integated to the point that many traditional Jews fear for the future survival of the religion. German Jewery immediately prior to HaShoah was highly assimulated into German society. (It an interesting and ironic aside that Klezmer is having a revival in Germany today, when few German Jews would listen to it back in the day, much preferring German opera houses.) Your point that Jews have maintained a particular cultural identity that is “other” even while intergrated into various societies, is valid, and no doubt that has provoked suspicion, as we have both pointed out. But that is not insularity or clannishness.

Abe’s other point about the role of the Israeli conflict in modern antisemitism is at least debatable. I’d point out this line from his own cite:

Foxman also said “the number of violent anti-Semitic attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions” have increased in the United States.

“We believe that September 11 and the Mideast conflict have clearly had an impact,” he said. “As these life-altering events have transformed us as a nation, they have also triggered the anti-Semitism that was already there but buried beneath the surface.”

My take is that the Mideast conflict allows the antisemite a thin veneer … hiding his hate speech amidst those who honestly (correctly or not) believe that Israel is more at fault in the current conflict than not. And trying use the conflict to incite others to a more general distrust of Jews overall.

[Jackmannii]

@tomndebb

…one might look at your posts and draw the conclusion that you are claiming that no one ever notices when the Jewish kids don’t come out for sports practice on Saturday, that yarmulkes are invisible, that when the gang gets together after work on Friday, no one notices that the Jewish guy never stays in the winter when it gets dark earlier, and that no one notices when all their Jewish co-workers take time off in September…I will attest that people do notice Jews in their midst, regardless whether the Jewish worker keeps to himself or is the most gregarious member of the staff.

“Gimme a break” indeed. From which of my posts are you deriving the conclusion that I’ve intimated that Jews are so perfectly assimilated into society that no one notices they’re there? Where do you get this stuff??

Can you visualize the difference between “not exactly like everyone else”* and “they keep to themselves - they’re clannish, you know.”?

And on the other hand, we have your ludicrous dancing around words to the effect that since Abe didn’t say “Jews never want to join society”, he is not claiming that Jews are more “insular” than any other ethnic group (his use of the word “tribalism”, by the way, was very classy (not).
This sort of argument by seething exaggeration is far below the standard of debate I’ve seen you set in other threads.

Sometimes, when it is made abundantly clear that certain stereotypes and slurs are offensive to members of an ethnic or religious group, the correct response is to drop them from one’s vocabulary, not to continue their use or to retreat into denial.

*as if that were possible. :rolleyes:

[tomndebb]

From which of my posts are you deriving the conclusion that I’ve intimated that Jews are so perfectly assimilated into society that no one notices they’re there?

I haven’t, which is why I said that someone else might draw that conclusion–particularly if they have followed your practice, to date, of attaching a meaning to some words while ignoring others and going on the attack instead of seeking some clarification.

You made a single passing reference that Jews might be identifiable as a separate group; the rest of your arguments have been attacks on Abe’s statements in a manner that suggests that you have not actually understood his posts with no real exposition of your own indicating why the Jews, in particular, have been the targets of such hatred for so long a period. Abe was addressing a single historical moment (the last half century) and has been quite clear that he is not addressing the whole sweep of history.

If Abe comes back and says that Jews just stick to themselves, you will have been vindicated. I do not agree with everything Abe has posted; I have simply asked that we seek a bit of clarification.

[Abe]

@tomndebb

I haven’t, which is why I said that someone else might draw that conclusion–particularly if they have followed your practice, to date, of attaching a meaning to some words while ignoring others and going on the attack instead of seeking some clarification.

You made a single passing reference that Jews might be identifiable as a separate group; the rest of your arguments have been attacks on Abe’s statements in a manner that suggests that you have not actually understood his posts with no real exposition of your own indicating why the Jews, in particular, have been the targets of such hatred for so long a period. Abe was addressing a single historical moment (the last half century) and has been quite clear that he is not addressing the whole sweep of history.

If Abe comes back and says that Jews just stick to themselves, you will have been vindicated. I do not agree with everything Abe has posted; I have simply asked that we seek a bit of clarification.

Tom has hit squarely on the head that nail you insist on refusing to even look at, Jack, much to the detriment of your digits. And notice that you yourself in this thread commented on how groups that were discriminated against historically tend to draw in on themselves, before managing to contradict yourself. Without going further into this ridiculous argument where you seem intent on nitpicking points without good cause (I am reminded of our hallowed death penalty discussion), I will bring up the example of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, who (in part as a result to decades of discrimination by the central government of FYR) have developed an increasing insularity and even outright hostility to their fellow Serb Kosovars, to the point that the region has pretty much been ethnically cleansed of Serbs. Not to say that the cases of Kosovar Albanians and Jews are equivalent (or even that Jewish populations are hostile in the way K-Albanians have become), particularly since the Kosovar situation is obviously geographically restricted, but you asked for examples, and there’s a shining one.

[Abe]

@Jackmannii

And on the other hand, we have your ludicrous dancing around words to the effect that since Abe didn’t say “Jews never want to join society”, he is not claiming that Jews are more “insular” than any other ethnic group (his use of the word “tribalism”, by the way, was very classy (not).

What’s rather less than classy is that you appear desperately intent on focusing on a few specific words without addressing the general context, and repeatedly drawing whatever conclusions will allow you to continue to attack a non-issue. For example, I do not use “tribalism” as a term solely applicable to jews – and hence particularly offensive to you here – but as one that covers the fundamental behaviour of the entire human race. I have argued along these lines on these boards for years, primarily in reference (curiously enough) to Arabs (including what I have called on these boards the “clam effect”).

What’s more, I was using the term “tribalism” to discuss discrimination against populations of Jews – not by them. You appear to be excessively sensitive to specific issues.

Sometimes, when it is made abundantly clear that certain stereotypes and slurs are offensive to members of an ethnic or religious group, the correct response is to drop them from one’s vocabulary, not to continue their use or to retreat into denial.

Sometimes it pays to debate openly without ascribing unfairly to other posters whatever ulterior motives or positions you find it personally satisfying to attack.

[Abe]

This has got to be the highest density of outrageous misinterpretations I have seen in quite some time. I have a few more minutes to dedicate to what appears to be an active desire to assume anti-jewish sentiment and bias in my prose.

@DSeid

As to Abe’s claim that Jews tend to be particular clannish and insular, and that such is an antecedent to antisemitic beliefs …

Where have I expressed such a claim? Can we please exercise a little closer reading rather than jump the gun on wording you may consider ambiguous just because Jackmannii issues unsupported veiled accusations? Here is yet again what I have written that has been misinterpreted, to all appearances quite deliberately:

“Both Jews and Americans however are forced to bear the consequences of the policies of their political/spiritual homeland, and here the relative cohesiveness and insularity of Jewish culture exacerbates the problem of collective judgement by third parties”

I never even thought the word “clannishness”, much less posted it, nor did I claim that Jews were “particularly” anything at all (notice the use of the word “relative”, emphasized in later clarifications). And my unequivocal mention of “collective punishment” should at the very least suggest that an anti-jewish agenda is precisely not what I am communicating here.

Then, when Jack was haranguing me and working himself up into a righteous indignation, we get this exchange:

Jack manages to simultaneously object to and agree with my paragraph reposted above by saying: “Every group that has been the target of murderous bigotry tends to hang together to some degree for protection, even as inevitable assimilation occurs. There’s nothing uniquely Jewish about it.”

I replied: “Relative to other ethnic grups, Jews are cohesive and insular, for whatever reasons you wish to posit.”

So, I agreed with Jack who (even though he didn’t seem to realize it) was agreeing with me, and even granted him the latitude of “whatever reasons you wish to posit”. If he believes Jews tend to hang together because they have been the “target of murderous bigotry” for longer than practically any other group, I’m not contesting it, that wasn’t the scope of the discussion as I saw it. I think it may be more complex than that, but I don’t think it’s a necessarily incorrect account.

Then I said: “Anti-jewishness has nothing whatsoever to do with such assessments, since from the origin the study of the problem is (or ought to be) ethnically and religiously neutral.”

Which, in case anyone needs further translation, means that discussing these matters or putting forward tentative explanations has nothing at all to do with anti-jewishness regardless of the touchiness of the issue, which was a suggestion to chill out already and address the meat of the matter as opposed to look for insults where none actually exist. But Jack had the ball by now and was running furiously with it, unstoppable except by abject apologies.

Abe’s other point about the role of the Israeli conflict in modern antisemitism is at least debatable. I’d point out this line from his own cite:My take is that the Mideast conflict allows the antisemite a thin veneer … hiding his hate speech amidst those who honestly (correctly or not) believe that Israel is more at fault in the current conflict than not. And trying use the conflict to incite others to a more general distrust of Jews overall.

That would seem a selective interpretation dependent substantially on a considerable degree of pro-Israeli bias (i.e., the apparent assumption that Israel is not at fault in its hardline stance, and that objections to the contrary are of little substance and must therefore rely on unreasonable and widespread prejudice; in fact, I have argued elsewhere that Israel and the Palestinian movement are equally entrenched in the current morass, and neither is the clear moral superior with sanction to act as it pleases). At any rate, even assuming your particular and subjective take of ADL information as presented in one isolated snippet, I note 1) that it does not contradict anything I have said, quite the contrary, and 2) that I have used the word “trigger” (as did the ADL, which you point out) along with the word “cause” since my first full post in this thread (post 28), and well before excessive touchiness reared its ugly head.

Israeli policy, then, is a trigger and quite possibly cause of anti-jewish sentiment in the US (and, though I don’t have data handy, globally). This is a pretty clear fact already supported by reputable cite. It is the same fact that Jack originally objected to, putting forward the highly fallacious argument that it can’t possibly be true because Israel didn’t exist prior to the last half century. That has already been addressed, but I really have to wonder at Jack’s level of irritation since he insists on such a flawed argument.

I have a hard time believing that Tom is the only poster who managed to comprehend my posts and my supporting evidence.

[Sevastopol]

Hey Abe I understood you, it seemed cogent and reasonable argument

Juan Cole has a timely column, posted December 14.

Have Arabs or Muslims always Hated Jews?

Israel is a close ally and friend of the United States, and we should defend it from its enemies. But when Ariel Sharon sends American-made helicopter gunships and F-16s to fire missiles into civilian residences or crowds in steets, as he has done more than once, then he makes the United States complicit in his war crimes and makes the United States hated among friends of the Palestinians

The negative mail I got on this issue goes like this:

' *Oh really, all the times they hated and killed Jews before 1948, what was the excuse then? They collaborated with the Nazis, was Israel to blame for that? They have always hated and oppressed the Jews . . . *

These are the Orientalist premises of the Zionist Right and its American fellow travelers. The reason my comment was so challenging is that it didn’t partake of these premises. The premise is that there is an “eternal Arab” or “eternal Muslim” that is defined as essentially fanatical and intolerant and full of hatred toward Jews. These are universal characteristics of this race, and unvarying over time.

Of course, if it were true that “Arabs” or “Muslims” partook of this eternal character, then it just wouldn’t matter what Israeli hawks do to them. Kill civilian Arab children with helicopter gunship fire? So what if that upsets the Arabs? They are already fanatical and hate-filled, so it just doesn’t matter. You can’t throw a glass of water into the ocean and thereby cause the tides to rise.’

Living as a minority in any society is seldom a picnic, but in fact Jews before the Napoleonic emancipation were substantially better off living in Muslim societies than in Europe.

So it just isn’t true that all Muslims have always hated Jews. In Islam, Jews were considered a “protected minority.” They were not equal citizens with Muslims, but then there was no idea of citizenship or of equality in the modern political sense in any medieval society. Jews were in normal times assured of life and property. There were episodes of intolerance and even persecution, but they were not the norm.

DSeid do you perceive how the ‘hated jew’ theme may also serve another end. Equal in concealment to your theme of tacit antisemitism? As is usually the case with Juan C, it is worth reading the entirety.

As far as the Ukraine goes, don’t look at me, it’s just a name.

Jackmanni you are right to repudiate the repulsive stereotype that Jews act clannishly or with a priority for solidarity in preference to other civic virtues. For example it requires the most extraordinary perversion of the imagination to conceive of, oooh say four jews turning nastily in unison on the most innocuous, comment, even should such comment occur in a BBQ Pit thread.

[Rune]

Abe:
You think Jews are hated because of Israel much like Americans are hated because of the US. What I don’t get is how you can say, that this is not precisely “victimhood based on externalized loci of control” and “they hate us because we exist”. If Jews outside Israel as a group are hated because of Israel then that in fact must amount to hating Jews for being Jews - for existing.

Apparently you agree much anti-Semitism is irrational. But how can irrational hatred be anything but “victimhood based on externalized loci of control”. Since it’s irrational there’s not a whole lot they can do to alter it. And don’t all irrational hatred boil down to hatred for existing?

And still there’s the matter of chicken & egg. Of whether Israel’s faults breeds anti-Semitism, or whether anti-Semitism breeds unproportional criticism of Israel. Or whether some people cloak their naked anti-Semitism in the acceptable form of critique of Israel.

[oh_s]

Everybody needs someone(s) to bitch about.
Give a bigot what he wants and he will still bitch about something even if it’s only how often the garbage gets picked up.
If Hitler did finish his final solution he would have just moved on to another group.
Why the jews cop the most is thru religon. The poor bastards can be blamed for everything. Twas a jew who ate from the forbiden fruit & now we don’t see Eden. Twas a jew who built a huge boat then shut the door when the flood came. They cost all those lives with the parting of the red sea.They lost the ark of the covenent, they nailed christ to two bits of wood. they cause no end of wars, everytime we go out to slay them the cheeky buggers fight back. Hitler even blamed them for the sinking of the Titanic, when asked how are they at fault his reply was "goldbergs, builderbergs,…Icebergs.
If there were no jews it would be Arabs if not them we will go out of our way to find fault somewhere. blame the commies or the socalists. There’s over 4billion people on this planet it can’t that hard to find someone to hate.
It’s your fault my kids are ugly.
I was taught at school how to avoid ever being labeled as racist. I hate everybody equally I don’t play favourites.
Sorry for being so cynical but I can assure you that if there were only 2 people on this planet they would argue, introduce a third person and 2 will pick on 1. This kind of shit is never ending. Ask yourself this, there is bound to be someone in your own family that you honestly believe would be vastly improved by sudden death, if not then they already are dead and you can blame them for that.
Just be polite, brush your teeth and smile a lot & you’ll be alright.

[Abe]

@Rune

Abe:
You think Jews are hated because of Israel much like Americans are hated because of the US.

My take on this position should be pretty clear by now: the recent hardline policy of Israel is a contributing factor to the rise in anti-Jewishness, just as the recent hare-brained US policy is a contributing factor to the rise in anti-Americanism. You’ll notice this is different from the simplified rendition you provide above.

What I don’t get is how you can say, that this is not precisely “victimhood based on externalized loci of control” and “they hate us because we exist”. If Jews outside Israel as a group are hated because of Israel then that in fact must amount to hating Jews for being Jews - for existing.

Completely different things. By victimhood based on externalized loci of control I mean literally the resort to the classic “they just automatically hate us” meme, as I explained previously. If Jews outside of Israel are hated by some for being Jews because they are very indirectly affiliated with Israel, this is not an automatic prejudice but a form of collective punishment arising from a clear and existing trigger (i.e. “we hate the Israeli hardline policy and therefore we hate all jews”, c.f. example I provided of Muslims post 9/11). There is some sort of reasoning involved because a trigger and/or cause may be readily identified and discussed. The automatic victimhood so beloved by a few, on the other hand, involves unconditional hatred no matter what and is itself rather racist, as Sevastopol points out, because it often assumes a hostile stereotype of the unchanging murderous Arab or whatnot.

Apparently you agree much anti-Semitism is irrational. But how can irrational hatred be anything but “victimhood based on externalized loci of control”. Since it’s irrational there’s not a whole lot they can do to alter it. And don’t all irrational hatred boil down to hatred for existing?

I already addressed these points in my previous replies. The reasons for hatred may be irrational, but that does not mean they are without causality (which appeared to tick off some posters who mistook “cause” for “justification”). I argued that even something as established and familiar as racism against blacks has its causes and triggers, no matter how foolish (a minority of people argue these racist traits may be biologically hardwired, but even in that case there would still be a cause for racism). In the case of discrimination against Jews, several good arguments have been made to identify some of the contributing factors throughout the ages, and one I mentioned in passing was tribalist tendencies to view “others” as potentially dangerous. Perhaps you could examine the factors, I haven’t done so in any real detail other than show that a recent one (Israeli policy) really does exist.

And still there’s the matter of chicken & egg. Of whether Israel’s faults breeds anti-Semitism, or whether anti-Semitism breeds unproportional criticism of Israel. Or whether some people cloak their naked anti-Semitism in the acceptable form of critique of Israel.

But this is a train of thought that leads nowhere. The latter item, if taken categorically, suggests that criticism of Israel must arise from anti-semitism: this is one of the silliest items that occasionally get bandied around on these boards (its loose semantic equivalent is the just as silly US line that criticism of the government is unpatriotic, or similar crap). If not taken categorically, the statement is of very limited value because we know it is common for people to use whatever is at hand to validate their prejudices. Oscar Wilde even made a joke out of it, something about “it is always gratifying to have one’s prejudices confirmed” (quote from memory and no doubt inexact).

I posted some research indicating that the recent rise in anti-semitism was explicitly linked to Israeli policy. This is not a chicken and egg situation at all. This is an instance of a group that is already hated by some being hated more as a result of actions and positions (even though several members of this group may have nothing whatsoever to do with it, but that’s what collective punishment is – it is also one of the tactics being criticized in the Israeli policies in question). That’s why I used the term “exacerbate” in previous discussions. I don’t at any point suggest that the state of Israel is THE reason people hate Jews. It is merely a contributing factor. And it’s illogical, just as it is illogical to hate Muslims for what Al Qaeda did, as I argued earlier. But, logical or illogical, rational or irrational, these triggers and causes exist.

[DSeid]

Abe,

You persist in the claim that Jews are relatively “cohesive and insular” compared to other ethnic groups. This is a stereotype without basis in fact despite your stubborn belief in it. A stereotype utilized by others than you for less benign purposes.

Which other ethnic groups do you believe are so much less insular than Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Blacks? American Indians? Irish Catholics? Italian Americans? Fundamentalist Christian? WASP? And on what, other than stereotypes, do you base that assessment?

Many ethnic groups have maintained an individual identity as part of another culture, especially in America. Jews have often been less insular than most.The difference is only that the Jews have been doing it for nearly two thousand years in many different cultures.

[Jackmannii]

I gave Abe the benefit of the doubt the first time with this comment:

You may not be aware of this, but statements about “the relative cohesiveness and insularity of Jewish culture” come uncomfortably close to a couple of the staples of of anti-Semitism down through the years (“They keep to themselves, they don’t mix”*). Every group that has been the target of murderous bigotry tends to hang together to some degree for protection, even as inevitable assimilation occurs. There’s nothing uniquely Jewish about it.

His response was to repeat the offensive stereotype and expand on it (the claim, still wholly unsupported, that Jews are uniquely insular among ethnic groups).
Even now he is sticking stubbornly to this line, apparently believing that requests that he recognize the long history of a demeaning stereotype and stop resorting to it, constitute demands for “abject apologies”.

You do not get to decide which terms should be offensive for members of a given ethnic group, while others are fair game for you to use if they conveniently prop up a line of argument.

No “abject apologies” are needed. If you don’t have the facts to support your claims (hint: look at job, housing and intermarriage statistics), stop making them, as they are causing offense and doing damage to your position.

@Rune

And still there’s the matter of chicken & egg. Of whether Israel’s faults breeds anti-Semitism, or whether anti-Semitism breeds unproportional criticism of Israel. Or whether some people cloak their naked anti-Semitism in the acceptable form of critique of Israel.

@Abe

The latter item, if taken categorically, suggests that criticism of Israel must arise from anti-semitism: this is one of the silliest items that occasionally get bandied around on these boards.

Far from being “bandied about”, this is virtually non-existent on these boards (here’s your chance to hunt down more invisible cites), or for that matter in the national media or in any influential forums.

We all know that many criticisms of Israeli policy, from Jews and non-Jews alike, have nothing to do with anti-Semitism and are never linked to it. Anyone who’s spent time on the SDMB and is familiar with some of our banned and otherwise departed posters, or who sees the swill spouted by “racialists”, knows damn well that the more extreme, unbalanced and vitriolic Israel-bashing gets, it increasingly correlates with bigotry.

I would refer Abe back to the ADL site for more evidence about this, but it turns out he only thinks the ADL is trustworthy if it seems to support a particular argument he is making.

Psst! DSeid, when’s the next Secret Tribal Meeting? We need to plan which poor slob to gang up on next.

[Rune]

@Abe

Completely different things. By victimhood based on externalized loci of control I mean literally the resort to the classic “they just automatically hate us” meme, as I explained previously.

Then I misunderstood you, because I thought you (by: “victimhood based on externalized loci of control”) meant victimhood based on forces outside their control or happening at places outside their control (and you hence the negation implied partial responsibility).

@Abe

I already addressed these points in my previous replies. The reasons for hatred may be irrational, but that does not mean they are without causality (which appeared to tick off some posters who mistook “cause” for “justification”).

Well I agree to an extend, but when you hate a Jew outside Israel for faults to do with Israel, the ultimate cause may have to do with Israel, the proximate cause is because he’s a Jew – because he exists. Also by your reason one can argue people are racist because some races are inferior to others, while the traditional reasoning would be they are racist because they are ignorant. Similarly one could say that anti-Semitism is partly fostered by Israel, but that is merely the proximate cause, the root cause is really ignorance.

Anyway Hannah Arendt too argued for real world concrete (historical) reasons for anti-Semitism. I’m curious, anyone got some comments on her?

@Abe

But this is a train of thought that leads nowhere. The latter item, if taken categorically, suggests that criticism of Israel must arise from anti-semitism: this is one of the silliest items that occasionally get bandied around on these boards (its loose semantic equivalent is the just as silly US line that criticism of the government is unpatriotic, or similar crap).

But pointing to irrational cause lead nowhere either. It’s just an explanation. And I did not mean “categorically” that’s the reason I used the “unproportional” qualifier. It has been argued a pre-exiting anti-Semitism exacerbates critique of Israel.

I don’t think the Wilde quote fits.

[Abe]

@DSeid

You persist in the claim that Jews are relatively “cohesive and insular” compared to other ethnic groups. This is a stereotype without basis in fact despite your stubborn belief in it. A stereotype utilized by others than you for less benign purposes.

There is sufficient basis for this stereotype without the need for any stubbornness on my part, though I get the feeling that you, like jack, are trying to shoe-horn me into a particular position. Still, one more attempt.

Three main issues seem to me particularly relevant here, though this treatment is by no means exhaustive. First, the fact that the term Jew is unique in describing a member of an ethnic group as well as of a world religion, making the distinction between Judaism and Jewish culture rather difficult --even secular Judaism, which though strictly speaking not religious, is founded solidly on a religious tradition-- arise from Judaism as well as the dynamics of Jewish culture. Other particular groups may be strongly associated with a religion, but do not necessarily identify along such lines: for example, Italo-Americans may be overwhelmingly Roman-Catholic, but these sets overlap and are not nearly as equivalent as Judaism and Jewish identity; no Italo-American will identify himself as Roman Catholic rather than of Italian stock.

Secondly, and this has been mentioned by others here, since the very early days of Judaism Jews rejected attempts to be assimilated in Greek and Roman host cultures, and established the long-standing trend (later enforced) of living in separate communities relatively isolated in order to practice their religion. This, and the power and wealth of specific Jewish communities (among other factors, including religious rhetoric and revisionism), eventually contributed to the establishment of codified prejudices against Jews in the early Christian empires. And from there we launch into the various problems of the Middle Ages, and the political, religious, social, and economic stress in relations between Jews and their non-Jewish hosts. These are the ages of accusations of sorcery, fear of groups who dressed differently, the blood libel, usury, and so forth, from which relief was provided by the rise to dominance of Islam in Spain (under which Jews enjoyed a “Golden Age”).

Thirdly, as Jack himself pointed out but has since glossed over, systematic discrimination of a group often results in a contraction. To a degree we see it happening today with more impoverished and somewhat less protected groups such as Muslims; the recent controversial ban against “overt religious symbolism” in French public schools was largely targeted to engineer deeper integration of sizeable insular Muslim immigrant communities; this move could work astoundingly well as easily as it could backfire.

None of this suggests, as has been routinely claimed here, anything about “clannishness”, which I consider rather a different matter from the relative insularity of different identities among host cultures. But there are clear Jewish cultural, religious, and historical characteristics that 1) may provide triggers or leverage for discriminatory attitudes and 2) do contribute to perceptions and stereotypes (as there are in Islam and other religions/cultures for goodness’ sake). And, as I said in one of the first posts here, perception is equally as important as reality when addressing discrimination – in reality blacks are not inferior to whites and are not the descendents of an accursed Biblical character, but the perception was rather less benign (and systematically amplified by tribalistic tendencies). None of this in any way assaults the argument that Jewish sub-cultures have attempted some exercises of greater integration (and some have not).

I leave it there with a piece that caught my eye by Pierre Birnbaum, talking simultaneously about integration and distinction in France:

http://www.shma.com/nov02/pierre.htm

In many ways, one can say that French Jews invented a model of Diaspora Jewish life in accordance with the French model of a strong, universalist state. Although condemned by some Zionist thinkers and accused of serving a nation-state that reduced their identity, they managed, in reality - as did their non-Jewish co-citizens - to preserve for the most part their inner identity, their culture, their collective memory, their values, and their specific ways of socializing. Loyal to their country and deprived of any territorial “niche,” they managed to maintain a specific collective conscience while avoiding the formation of a nation within a nation as they had before the Revolution.

But nowadays, thanks to the decline of the state, the return to civil society, and the decentralizing process, many French Jews have recreated an “imaginary community” within society - a “domicile” within a nation. From this emerged a grass-roots community based on the visibility of specific political and communal structures and accompanied by the emergence of signs of a relative Judaisation of the public sphere: Jewish festivals and rallies, Hebrew writing on stores, kippah-wearing, and the symbolic delimitation of religious spaces. One must ask if the Jewish community is purposefully distancing itself from the state, putting into question the traditional vertical alliance with the authorities. The integration of French Jews could then be transformed into systems of negotiation or horizontal conflicts to the detriment of vertical ties to the state.

[DSeid]

Abe, some education for you on the “insularity” of ethnic Jews.

Jews

Population Changes: Assimilation
Secular Jews tend to marry late and have smaller families with wide acceptance of birth control [1] (http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=84256). When granted political, economic and religious freedom, many Jews, probably the majority, choose to adopt the ways and religions of their host nations, abandoning many vestiges of their own ethnicity and religion, and then frequently choose to marry non-Jews. In the United States, the 2000 National Jewish Population Survey [2] (http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=60346) has shown that close to 50 percent [3] (http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=83911) (and possibly up to 75 percent according to some calculations) of America’s Jews presently marry non-Jewish partners. These figures are probably also true for the Jews of Europe today. Most non-Jewish spouses do not convert to Judaism, surveys show. This phenomenon is known as intermarriage [4] (http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=83913), and is the leading cause for the shrinkage of almost all Jewish populations in Western countries since World War II. Some Orthodox Rabbis have used the controversial term Silent Holocaust to describe the loss of Jews to assimilation, intermarriage, conversion to other faiths and abortion. Ironically, many anti-Semites present as a key evidence for their claims the “lack” of Jewish assimilation.

Again, what is different is that in most of European history Jews were the only “other” ethnicity in most European countries. You were, say, a Polish Catholic, or a Jew … except for the few Romani who were also despised. An Anglican or a Jew. No matter how secularized and integrated you were.

BTW, yes, Islamic hatred of Jews is being fueled by the conflict. But. It is also fueled by the need for Arab leadership to keep their populations united against an outside evil, lest they recognized the tyranny under which they live. And the specific libels are recycled European lies.

[DSeid]

So, Abe, short version-you cannot name all of these other ethnicities that are so much less insular than Jews?

Greek and Roman assimilation was by military force and dispersal into slavery. Yes Jews maintained their religion and culture within other societies even when highly integrated into the society. Relatively more than other ethnicities? Only than those that no longer exist as an identity at all. That French quote is telling. The French view of secularism is the denial of individual heritage. The criminalization of individual belief. Sorry. Maintaining a heritage is not insularity.

[Abe]

@Jackmannii

I gave Abe the benefit of the doubt the first time

I’ll let you know if I ever need your benefit of the doubt, Jack, though I would advise you not to wait for that moment. You may see my response above for an elaboration of previous arguments, and hopefully an end to this gnashing of teeth you are exposing me to.

You do not get to decide which terms should be offensive for members of a given ethnic group, while others are fair game for you to use if they conveniently prop up a line of argument.

Let me clarify: particularly after your objections already discussed and dissected, I am not especially interested in what terms you may find offensive, since you have repeatedly demonstrated that it hardly takes very much. I’m discussing an issue here that others have appeared able to understand without too much of this gnashing of teeth – I am not pandering to delicate sensibilities.

No “abject apologies” are needed. If you don’t have the facts to support your claims (hint: look at job, housing and intermarriage statistics), stop making them, as they are causing offense and doing damage to your position. Far from being “bandied about”, this is virtually non-existent on these boards (here’s your chance to hunt down more invisible cites), or for that matter in the national media or in any influential forums.

Here is a thread on these boards talking about national media and influential forums discussing precisely the issue of characterizing as anti-semitic those who would dare criticize (or even make observations about) the policies of Israel: Is Emory University weakening the word “anti-semitism”? All three of your requests rolled into one.

I could bring up examples of the occasional tendency of prematurely jumping to conclusions of anti-semitism when honest discussion is attempted, but you already seem to be demonstrating that point for me in this thread.

The point about intermarriage etc. is a good one, but remember that is a recent trend of history, and statistics for it rely on US demographics (which has the largest diaspora population of Jews, as you well know). I should also point out that there is no shortage of voices from some Jewish quarters decrying this integration of Jewish people and subsequent decrease in religiosity (see the “J2K problem”).

I would refer Abe back to the ADL site for more evidence about this, but it turns out he only thinks the ADL is trustworthy if it seems to support a particular argument he is making.

Ah, yet more vain attempts to establish my position to your advantage. Keep trying, or, if you want to be more productive, next time ask for clarification if you’re not clear on something – such as your misunderstanding of the use of the word “tribal”, or any of the other items I have already pointed out in your posts.

[Jackmannii]

@Abe

…as Jack himself pointed out but has since glossed over, systematic discrimination of a group often results in a contraction.

Yeah, right. I really glossed over that one (glance up all of two posts before yours and see the first quote, repeated in response to one of your distortions). For the last time, while members of any group subjected to discrimination will band together for protection, you have provided nothing to support your claim that Jews are more prone to this than any other group.

@Abe

To a degree we see it happening today with more impoverished and somewhat less protected groups such as Muslims…

So, while you argue that a less protected group like Muslims will band together for safety, Jews (who supposedly are less threatened) are more insular. Does this line of “reasoning” really make any sense to you?

None of this suggests, as has been routinely claimed here, anything about “clannishness”, which I consider rather a different matter from the relative insularity of different identities among host cultures.

“Why yes Alice, words mean exactly what I want them to mean and nothing more.”
Dance around it all you like; what remains is that you’re clinging for dear life to an offensive and false stereotype.

A prime rule of debate is that when you’ve dug yourself a deep hole, throw away the shovel.

[Abe]

@DSeid

Abe, some education for you on the “insularity” of ethnic Jews.

Thanks for the education, but I briefly mentioned the “silent holocaust” in my previous post (nicknamed by some the J2K problem). For the rest, it seems your argument relies on taking in absolute terms every claim I make, whereas I try to emphasize the greyness of the grey area. Are you arguing that a historically recent trend showing an increase in integration somehow negates millennia of relatively isolationist trends, voluntary or enforced as the case may be, and the ensuing cultures of anti-semitism? Not to mention the other factors I cited, including codified state and religious discrimination that forced Jews to live a particular existence quite distinct from their hosts?

Again, what is different is that in most of European history Jews were the only “other” ethnicity in most European countries. You were, say, a Polish Catholic, or a Jew … except for the few Romani who were also despised. An Anglican or a Jew. No matter how secularized and integrated you were.

Aha. And why is that?

BTW, yes, Islamic hatred of Jews is being fueled by the conflict. But. It is also fueled by the need for Arab leadership to keep their populations united against an outside evil, lest they recognized the tyranny under which they live. And the specific libels are recycled European lies.

Such sweeping statements. Strange, given that you attempt to paint me as guilty of that particular sin.

So, Abe, short version-you cannot name all of these other ethnicities that are so much less insular than Jews?

Pretty much most of them, since very few other similar number of people have been discriminated so systematically, but again a historical lens may show different trends from recent times (not that that matters much when it comes to perceptions, which linger far longer than facts). It is on the other hand easy to identify the groups that are more insular, such as the Roma, which are probably off the insularity scale.

Greek and Roman assimilation was by military force and dispersal into slavery.

A rather categorical interpretation. There were other developments that were possibly more relevant. Rome, for example, was a syncretic empire, assimilating customs and religions as it conquered them, rather than destroying them. Judaic monotheism and Roman polytheism were deemed incompatible, and Jews rejected the Romans, contributing to all sorts of problems since, well, this is Rome we’re talking about.

Yes Jews maintained their religion and culture within other societies even when highly integrated into the society. Relatively more than other ethnicities? Only than those that no longer exist as an identity at all. That French quote is telling. The French view of secularism is the denial of individual heritage. The criminalization of individual belief. Sorry. Maintaining a heritage is not insularity.

Your treatment of the “French quote” isn’t anywhere near sufficient to dismiss it with mere sweeping statements. And continuation or even amplification of a heritage certainly contributes to insularity. Though, again, you appear intent on asking me to demonstrate something I am not in fact arguing.

[Abe]

@Jackmannii

Yeah, right. I really glossed over that one (glance up all of two posts before yours and see the first quote, repeated in response to one of your distortions). For the last time, while members of any group subjected to discrimination will band together for protection, you have provided nothing to support your claim that Jews are more prone to this than any other group.

Nor do I have to, since that is not my contention. I have however provided reams of arguments highlighting that Jewish culture and religion were indeed separated and isolated to certain extents from those of the host nations. Are you done wasting time yet? Would you like to pull out of context more quotes you don’t appear to understand, so I can show again that your interpretations rely primarily on an eagerness to misinterpret?

Let me repost (also for the benefit of Dseid) something Tom stated to you in rather plain language very difficult not to understand:

@Tomndebb

Alternatively, one might look at your posts and draw the conclusion that you are claiming that no one ever notices when the Jewish kids don’t come out for sports practice on Saturday, that yarmulkes are invisible, that when the gang gets together after work on Friday, no one notices that the Jewish guy never stays in the winter when it gets dark earlier, and that no one notices when all their Jewish co-workers take time off in September. As someone who has scheduled projects around the availability of Jewish workers (and listened to the sometimes good-humored, sometimes silly, and occasionally offensive remarks of their co-workers), I will attest that people do notice Jews in their midst, regardless whether the Jewish worker keeps to himself or is the most gregarious member of the staff.

I agree that claims that “Jews are clannish” or that “They don’t want to be like us” generally emanate from people with a desire to hate (or at least shun) Jews. However, pretending that there is nothing that makes Jewish society visible within the larger community fails on many grounds and I would posit that they do tend to demonstrate a “cohesiveness” (even when they can be as fractious as anyone else).

Now, please.

@Jackmannii

So, while you argue that a less protected group like Muslims will band together for safety, Jews (who supposedly are less threatened) are more insular. Does this line of “reasoning” really make any sense to you?

Well, today Jews probably enjoy more institutionalized protection in many states than any other group. I certainly don’t see organizations as powerful or influential as the ADL working specifically for Muslims or Christians in the US. The most similar might be institutions dedicated to protecting the rights of blacks. In both cases (blacks and Jews) the groups being specifically protected suffered considerable atrocities. Christians and Muslims, rather less so. Which would explain why “anti-semitic” is a horrible (and convenient) label, but “anti-Muslim”, “anti-Christian”, “anti-white” etc. are rather less so.

“Why yes Alice, words mean exactly what I want them to mean and nothing more.”
Dance around it all you like; what remains is that you’re clinging for dear life to an offensive and false stereotype.

At some point you might actually have to resort to real arguments instead of your characteristic nitpicks and focus on quotes out of context. This is becoming even worse than the death penalty thread, and that was bad enough.

A prime rule of debate is that when you’ve dug yourself a deep hole, throw away the shovel.

Sure, but I’m not digging at all, you’re furiously shovelling a trench all around me without much discernible effect, at least that I can see.