Anti-Semitism = Anti-Zionism?

[mulligan59]

Quite the contrary. The notion is born out in reality and history. The Church didn’t say make this up. It simply acknowledged the fact that historically, the majority of antizionists were antisemites.

No. The use of the term was simply adopted by jew haters to make their hatred of jews appear scientific. They stole the word and made it into something else. And your argument here is exactly why they use the word.

This argument is really silly. Did anyone ever hear a critic of Israel say: “No, I don’t hate Jews, I’m just anti-semetic”? I’ve only ever heard the term “anti-semite” used by the defenders of Israel to accuse her critics. However even if the origins of the term were as alleged above, it does not invalidate the factual observation that “semite” (a race) and zionist (a political ideology) are two distinct things. Therefore opposition to either, are two distinct things. It is axiomatic. Then to be a “Jew”, that is one who accepts the Old Testament, but denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is a third and distinct thing. Let’s discuss things for what they really mean.

 

[Valke2]

When the Church discusses the use of the term “anti-zionism” it is not referring to its use by fringe jewish groups.

 

[Valke2]

This argument is really silly. I’ve only ever heard the term “anti-semite” used by the defenders of Israel to accuse her critics. However even if the origins of the term were as alleged above, it does not invalidate the factual observation that “semite” (a race) and zionist (a political ideology) are two distinct things. Therefore opposition to either, are two distinct things. It is axiomatic. Then to be a “Jew”, that is one who accepts the Old Testament, but denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is a third and distinct thing. Let’s discuss things for what they really mean.

You keep parroting the defense that many anti-semites make.

 

[Valke2]

Antisemitism is a form of xenophobia, is prejudice against or hostility towards Semites, or people of the Middle East, the most common expression of which is Judeophobia, “fear of Jews,” in western cultures whose predominant Semitic subpopulations are Jewish.
**
This prejudice or hostility is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. While the term’s etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it has been used mainly to refer to hostility toward Jews since its initial usage.**

“Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews.” Lewis, Bernard. “Semites and Antisemites”, Islam in History: Ideas, Men and Events in the Middle East, The Library Press, 1973.

“Anti-Semitism”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2006.

Johnson, Paul. A History of the Jews, HarperPerennial 1988, p 133 ff.

Lewis, Bernard. “The New Anti-Semitism”, The American Scholar, Volume 75 No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 25-36. The paper is based on a lecture delivered at Brandeis University on March 24, 2004.

^Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Stimulus Books, first published 1965, this edition 2004.

 

[mulligan59]

You keep parroting the defense that many anti-semites make.

Gee, and here I thought I was thinking on my feet. Look, I do not dispute the connotation of the term “anti-semitism” in the modern lexicon. But I never did. I replied to your previous statement, in which you had countered my contention that “anti-semitism” was a fraudulent concept, by saying that it wasn’t fraudulent because it wasn’t invented by Jews but by “anti-jews”, in order to somehow mask their anti-jewishness.

The implication of you assertion would be that it is somehow better to say; “Gee, it’s not Jews I’m against, I just hate all semites!” Who would think that position would somehow be exonerating?

I think you are cleverly trying to change the subject and defeat a premise that was never made. The original question concerns the equivalence of anti-semitism (the connotation conceded, though still fraudulent in its true meaning) and anti-zionism.

In the end, to assert that anti-zionism is the same as an illegitimate animous towards all Jews, is to say that Israel, the State, can never do anything wrong. Then by definition, and by logical extension, that Jews can never do anything wrong, and therefore any criticism is defacto evidence of illicit animousity. There is no other logical, truthful, conclusion.

I suspect that next, you’ll accuse me of evidencing my own bias, by calling you “clever”.
.

 

[Valke2]

In the end, to assert that anti-zionism is the same as an illegitimate animous towards all Jews, is to say that Israel, the State, can never do anything wrong. Then by definition, and by logical extension, that Jews can never do anything wrong, and therefore any criticism is defacto evidence of illicit animousity. There is no other logical, truthful, conclusion.

I suspect that next, you’ll accuse me of evidencing my own bias, by calling you “clever”.
.

No. You are redirecting the argument. No one said that one can’t disagree with Israel politics without being antisemetic. What was said is that often one masks their antisemetism by pretending to be against Israel politics only.

Moreover, one can easily disagree with an Israeli policy without being veiwed as an anti-zionist. What is often the case and what the earlier posts were addressing, is that people who hate jews often couch their hatred in terms of being “anti-zionists”.

I suppose you can argue this point but I can’t see how unless one is willing to ignore the way things are.

 

[mulligan59]

No we musn’t ignore the way things are. The way they are is that we cannot read hearts and minds. We can only judge (and we are obligated to judge) based on outward manifestations. It stands to reason that one who is truly “anti-semetic” (meaning one who means to harm Jews) would necassarily be anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. Otherwise he would be at war within himself, his anti-semitism would be without form. But the converse is not necassarily true at all, as thankfully you have just agreed.

However, another way that “things are”, is that the defenders of an Israeli action or position, use the very supposition that you put forth (he is only against Israel to mask his anti-semitism) to discount what may be a valid, or at least a sincerely held argument, and in essence, to avoid having to answer it. It is the classic ad-hominum deflection. Let’s just defame the messenger, rather than try to address his message. I see and hear it all of the time. Arguments never are allowed to even become substantive. Rather the critic is simply deemed a creep, hiding his true “hatred” behind a false pretense, and is shouted down.

If an argument has merit, why care about the motivation of the one who makes it? If the Devil tells the truth (as he often does, a good liar must be truthful most of the time), it is no less true.

 

[paskauskas]

This argument is really silly. Did anyone ever hear a critic of Israel say: “No, I don’t hate Jews, I’m just anti-semetic”? I’ve only ever heard the term “anti-semite” used by the defenders of Israel to accuse her critics. However even if the origins of the term were as alleged above, it does not invalidate the factual observation that “semite” (a race) and zionist (a political ideology) are two distinct things. Therefore opposition to either, are two distinct things. It is axiomatic. Then to be a “Jew”, that is one who accepts the Old Testament, but denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is a third and distinct thing. Let’s discuss things for what they really mean.

Very good point and observation that a race and a political ideology are two different things.
If I am against mafia I am not necessary against Italians. Italians never accuse the people opposing mafia anti-Italians.