What is antisemitism?

[OneSheep]

She’s a frosh representative who was bullied into it.

She may have been “bullied into it”, but I see her perspective as very open and accepting, generally speaking. It is true that the comments she made might possibly “energize” people who are truly antisemitic, especially the “hypnotized” and “B’s baby” comments because they are also stated by antisemitic individuals, which she has no intention (in my reading) of siding with. That said, I think that the apologies were genuine and appropriate. Humility goes a long way, I think, though at least one poster on this thread says that she “continues” to make a-s statements, and uses the 2 apologies as evidence.

Some people will not change an accusation of antisemitism no matter what the accused person says or does to dispel that label.

This isn’t about “the Jews,” by the way. It’s about elitists in power, both here and in Israel, who have made unwise and even egregious decisions. A good number of Jewish people - these folks, as just one example - are critical of the Israeli government; fortunately, they aren’t being denounced as “anti-Semitic” for it.

I thank you for this comment, and I thank you for the rest of your response. I think we are pretty much on the same page. I’m a long-time member of/donor to JVP.

Did you see my last question to Rabbi?

We both agreed that antisemitism was largely a psychological matter. I didn’t get a chance yet to ask him, but I’m also wondering if he’s in the same school that I am in seeing that the psychology involved here is not “abnormal”, but normal psychology, that our tribalism is very natural, and it is behooves all of us to be aware of these normal psychological phenomena that make all bigotry occur.

What do you think of the question (in that post)?

 

[DeoVindice1863]

You didn’t apply the same logic, you just think you did because he was unable to continue explaining and debating before reaching the post limit and being suspended. It’s easy to congratulate yourself for winning a debate when your opponent is unable to respond due to a post limit then suspended. I would attempt to correct how you didn’t apply the “same logic” but there’s no point in putting in the effort because the post would undoubtedly be deleted then I would be suspended. It’s impossible to have any serious discussion about this on this forum because it will be stifled then people like you will pat themselves on the back and claim victory.

 

[DeoVindice1863]

Is it racist for Israel to stay Jewish or Japan to stay Japanese? How is it racist for people to want to be the majority in their countries? And even if it is “racist” who cares? It’s morally right, whites deserve to have their own countries aka Europe and America.

 

[DeoVindice1863]

I see people throw around words like racist a lot but they never say right or wrong, true or false. They just label something racist then end the debate.

 

[OneSheep]

Is it racist for Israel to stay Jewish or Japan to stay Japanese?

It depends on a person’s definition of racism. It’s not really a matter of “staying” a certain way, but how the individual views their own value in terms of race, right? Is any race more superior?

How is it racist for people to want to be the majority in their countries?

Well, this is how racism is defined:

Definition of racism​

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b : a political or social system founded on racism

3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So, according to the above definition, if laws are made that discriminate based on race, then that would fall under “racism”. If a nation discriminates who may immigrate based on race, that is racism. If a political system favors a particular race, that is racism. Does all that follow from the definition?

Do you have a different definition?

And even if it is “racist” who cares?

The people discriminated against care, and so do the people who care about those discriminated against. For example, the native people in America would not be considered “white”, and if the US were a “white” nation, they would be unfavored on their own native soil. I care about our native American people.

It’s morally right, whites deserve to have their own countries aka Europe and America.

That would depend on your definition of “moral”, right?

When you use the word “deserve”, that had more to do with entitlement, doesn’t it? Entitlement is not necessarily moral. For example, a native American person might consider himself entitled to have a certain piece of property because the property was part of their tribal history, but it would not be moral for him to take the land away from the current owner, correct?

Back to the topic, though: what is your definition of antisemitism?

 

[DeoVindice1863]

Entitlement? They deserve it because it’s theirs. When your ancestors build up a country and fight and struggle and develops it for many many generations with the intention of leaving a better future and a nice country for their children, it is immoral to give up your country and allow your culture to be destroyed. American Indians would, of course, apply just to North America and not Europe, but it looks like there’s no problem there, as the United States has allowed them to remain there since the late 1800’s with the end of America’s “Indian Wars”. The issue comes from allowing other groups to immigrate in such large numbers that they overtake the native populace through immigrating and outproducing the locals. And before some random brainwashed person comes here, let me put this out there: I don’t care about names or words so people can call it “racist” or whatever other made up things they want, but it has nothing to do with race, but culture. Imagine if Italians started moving into certain parts of France in large numbers and keep coming and coming. Over time, more and more neighbourhoods, indeed, even whole towns are now comprised solely of Italians. These Italians insist on speaking Italian and have all their signs, menus, business cards, etc. in Italian. They also demand that schools provide an education for their children in Italian. Many of them don’t even speak good French and don’t seem to care or want to make the effort. They also demand that ballots be bilingual in French and Italian so they can vote for the candidates they want and outvote the native French in their own cities and regions. Imagine too that through outreproducing the French, Italians will come to be the majority in the areas of France they occupy, or perhaps even all of France. The Italian politicans speak Italian in their official capacities regularly and neglect the French so they can just appeal to other Italians. They know pretty soon they’ll be the majority anyways. Pretty soon France, or at least this part of France, will basically be “Greater Italy” and occupied by Italians with a piece of paper that says they’re “French”. Would anybody want this to happen? Would the native French appreciate this happening? No normal one would, because France should be French and it is fine for Italians to be Italian, as long as they do it in Italy and don’t colonize France. The same thing would apply if the hypothetical was the opposite with French going to Italy or any other groups of countries. Look at how Iran and Saudi Arabia don’t want a lot of refugees from other Muslims and in the case of Saudi Arabia other Arabs (Iran is not Arab, they have their own ethnicity). It destroys diversity by making it so you don’t know which country you’re in because everyone looks the same. That’s the opposite of diversity and the opposite of multiculturalism, because ultimately it destroys diversity and creates a monoculture where everyone is a mass consumer wearing the same clothes and eating at the same food chains instead of each country having their own unique clothing, music, language, and food.

 

[DeoVindice1863]

As a matter of fact, if I recall, the Eastern European countries had a problem with “Russianization” in the past and I believe some of the Baltic states were worried about large numbers of Russians moving there and “Russifying” them (AKA destroying the native identity and culture). That clearly was not about race. And let’s not forget the Scottish and Irish resentment in the past over English domination and English culture overtaking them. Those are just a few historical examples of many. As to your question, I think I have already more or less answered it if not necessarily directly. I think anti-Semitism is basically applied to anybody who says anything against Israel, Judaism, or Jewish roles in society, or even raises questions about this. Just like how I mentioned “Homophobia”. Notice that when Catholics or non-Catholics alike are opposed to Homosexual lifestyles and Homosexual marriage, it doesn’t matter how loving and kind and charitable you are or what reasons you give, many people will just call you “Homophobe”, “Anti-Gay”, and a “Bigot” and consider that the end of the discussion. I see a clear parallel there in labeling someone to delegitimize or even potentially demonize them and belittle what they think. My opinions on Israel to put them out there too is that now that the Jews are there, they should be allowed to remain because I can’t see any realistic or logical way to make them leave, so I think there should be a two state solutions where Jews can have Jewish lands and live among there own and the Palestinians can have Palestinian lands and live among their own and hopefully that would relieve the tension in that region and lead to less violence and hatred in the long run. But historically, I feel Israel was somewhat imposed on the Arabs already living there who did not want that State to be created, so if this were a hundred years ago, I would say don’t create Israel. But that is obviously a non-issue now since it is there, so at this point it should be allowed to exist and be independent, but Palestinians should also be able to enjoy this.

 

[DeoVindice1863]

By the way, the fact that what happened to the AmerIndians happened to them seems to show how it’s not a good thing when foreigners flood your land. The Indians got driven out and their culture was replaced and they were driven to the verge of extinction. This is exactly what will happen to us and is happening now. And look at what the Han Chinese are doing to the Tibetans in Tibet.

 

[Cruciferi]

A Dominican Teddy Bear

 

[blackforest]

Apologies - I found and responded to one post buried among 350+ and missed your discussion with the Rabbi. I feel reasonably caught up, though. Getting to the question you posed . . .

If this were the case, whenever people spoke badly about anyone’s dignity, (i.e. “they are evil”) we could see the opinion as not only an illusion, but words that run contrary to our theology/anthropology.

What do you think?

I can’t shed the insight that the Rabbi probably could, but if I understand you correctly, you’re observing how black-and-white thinking, governed largely by the tribalism to which you alluded, appears to govern the Israeli-Palestinian question. If this is what you’re expressing, then I completely agree with you.

As news media and popular culture portray it, it sounds more like we’re discussing a rivalry like Yankees vs. Red Sox than a much more nuanced and historically complex struggle over power, territory, and cultural identity. I’m convinced that the religious aspect is mostly a guise.

Back to the topic, though: what is your definition of antisemitism?

I’ll have to spend some more time formulating my own conceptual definition. It would somehow encompass a fear or hatred of Jewish people or their faith.

Keep in mind that our Catholic faith commands us to admonish the sinner, i.e. call out a wrong or injustice when we see it. It doesn’t make us bigoted to speak out against evil, such as Israeli troops commanded to shower explosives on schools, hospitals, and refugee camps.

 

[Psalms62]

Characteristics​

here | My Jewish Learning were considerable differences between the immigrants from European countries and those from Asia and Africa. The survivor population was usually older and contained fewer children. On the other hand, the Jews from developing countries in Asia and Africa tended to have a large number of children but a smaller elderly population. The European immigrants were generally better educated. Neither group however, resembled the profile of pre‑state immigration: a significantly lower percentage of the post‑1948 immigrants were in the primary wage earning group (only 50.4% in the 15‑45 age group as compared to 66.8% in earlier immigration waves) and consequently fewer could participate in the work force of the new state. The newer immigrants had less education: 16% of those aged 15 and above had completed secondary education as compared to 34% among the earlier settlers. Women, especially among the immigrants from Asia and Africa, tended less to work outside the home. The professions of the new arrivals were also different than those of their predecessors: few had engaged in agriculture and most had been either small craftsmen (tailors, cobblers, carpenters, smiths) or traders and peddlers.

Effects on the Israeli Population​

First and foremost, the mass migration led to a steep rise in the Israeli Jewish population. Not only was the population doubled within a short period of time, but the high fertility rate of many of the newcomers led to continued population increase in the years ahead. This growth was significant both with regard to the ratio between Jews and non‑Jews in Israel and to the demographic role of Israel in the Jewish world. Secondly, due to the large percentage of immigrants from Asia and Africa and to their higher fertility rate, the mass migration led to a change in the ethnic composition of Israeli society. An indication of this trend can be seen in the rise of the proportion of foreign‑born Israelis who were born in Asia and Africa. In November 1948 this proportion stood at 15.1%, but by the end of 1951 it had risen to 36.9%.

Thirdly, the new state now had to deal with a considerable population that to a large extent lacked agricultural or modern professional skills, or the same degree of modem education as the veteran population. Moreover, due to an under‑representation of that age group that could best adapt vocationally to new social and economic conditions, it was difficult to quickly integrate the new population. One of the most important social issues in Israel resulted from the difficulties involved in absorbing the new immigrants.

 

[Psalms62]

Hi Meltzerboy2,

A point about education among Jewish groups and where the immigrants came out from.:

How have Middle Eastern Jews fared in their
immigration to and acculturation in Israel?

Mizrahim were discriminated against in a variety of ways including in education, housing, and access to positions of power from the earliest days of the state.
On arrival, some underwent humiliating experiences such as being sprayed with DDT. The Ringworm Children documentary highlights the tens of thousands of mostly North African children received high doses of radiation for ringworm, resulting in deaths and long-term effects including seizures, infertility, and
cancers. While the government eventually acknowledged its effects, compensation has been
minor. The kidnapping of Yemeni children to be adopted into Ashkenazi families in Europe, the U.S., and Israel is barely acknowledged. Yemeni parents were told their children died but never received proof, leading to decades of suspicion and protest. While some children have been reunited with their birth parents, thousands of cases remain unresolved.

Mizrahim were often placed into Ma’abarot (transit camps) for months or years, then settled in
peripheral ‘development towns’ and city peripheries on former Arab villages, and they were allowed to start agricultural Moshavim, many of which occupied strategic locations as well.

---

I have to agree with one of the posters not all Jewish groups are similar to one another so when discussing antisemitism you have to ask the question- Are we discussing antisemitism as a whole group or which Jewish groups are you referring to? Ashkenazi Jews from Europe or Sephardic Jews which includes Mizrahi Jews: Jews from Arab countries or east of them and with a background of Arabic, Persian or other languages of the Middle East and Asia.

 

[Psalms62]

). At the Paris conference of 1951, the topic of the “Arab” Jewish refugees was raised, in particular, the dispossession of Jewish assets left in Iraq. Israel demanded that a link be created between the Jewish exodus and the Jewish assets left behind in the Arab states and that of the Palestinian refugees, but nothing came of the discussion .

As a result, the State of Israel saw no alternative but to pass its own law regarding the use of absentee assets. This enabled the government to use the assets of the Palestinian refugees to help resettle and support its own Arab Jewish refugees.

---

In January, 2019, the Israeli government finalized its research on the dispossession of Jewish refugees from Arab lands and will reportedly seek more than $250 billion from Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen and Iran for the value of property and assets left behind. For comparison, the Palestinian Authority seeks $100 billion for similar compensation.

The Forgotten Jewish Refugees From Arab Lands | HonestReporting

Much has been written about the Palestinian refugees, but little attention has been paid to nearly one million Jewish refugees forced to flee their

honestreporting.com

Love has also been expressed as being the selflessness of mankind (Louis Jacobs, Greater Love Hath No Man). Humans have the capacity to self-sacrifice in the interest of others, as every life is valuable and unique. When one risks his or her own life to save another, it is seen as an act of piety and an act of love and justice which “advocates the most excessive altruism…” (Greater Love Hath No Man). In order to be selfless then, one must be able to “attach moral value to the individual as such, without any distinction between the self and the other.”[8]

We are trying to define antisemitism, and now people are saying that my questions were antisemitic.

Do you find my questions antisemitic? They are about human nature, what naturally happens when humans have certain experiences.

The question you’re asking is based off of Love of Neighbor: The answer about antisemitic is how we treat each other as human beings - as a whole. When you single out a particular group then it becomes selective (if that is understood)

The Jewish tradition finds validity to the idea of love as well as the acts that supplement it. These acts are centered on ideas widely associated with love in many different traditions such as kindness, respect, compassion, and empathy. There is inherent value to every soul because they are human. Rabbi Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman states, “The conscience can be said, then, not to be the speaking of the voice within but rather the hearing of the quiet voice of the other, this voice, just as clearly as one’s “own,” must remind us to see each child as our own, each journey and each need as fundamentally shared.”

 

[DeoVindice1863]

Most people labeled “anti-Semitic” do not fear or hate the Jewish people. If you actually listen to them, you would find they don’t:
Call for violence against Jews
Call Jews inferior or subhuman
Support the Holocaust
etc.
The MSM just puts out propaganda about people they label “anti-semitic” and “racist”, but when you listen to them yourself you find they never try to cause violence. And what’s wrong with a hatred of Judaism? It’s a false religion, why should I love it? Do you love Islam, Satanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, Wicca, Asatru, Confucianism, Shinto, Animism, Rastafarianism, Black Hewbrewism, the Nation of Islam, Zoroastrianism, Magick, New Age, Mormonism, Jehovaism, etc.? If someone can “love the sinner, but hate the sin” then why couldn’t one “love the religious person, but hate the religion”? It’s hard to love things that are wrong, but that doesn’t mean you have to hate the people who believe and/or love the things that are wrong.

 

[DeoVindice1863]

And I hate to break it to everyone here, but I’ve seen some pretty rude stuff attacking Catholicism or Christianity in general coming from Jews, be they in Israel or in the United States. I remember an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” where Larry David (Jewish main character in the show and one of the producers of Seinfield) peed on a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary, yet there was no outcry from the MSM about anti-Catholicism. This stuff only works one way. Christianity, Whites, and Southerners are the only people it’s ok to insult. If any other group had things said about them on TV or in the MSM the way we do, there would be outrage not just nationally but internationally across the First World. Imagine if instead of Larry David peeing on the BVM’s Image, it was a so called “Christian” peeing on the Koran or a Star of David. Imagine the outrage! The show would be immediately banned and the people involved in it blacklisted!

 

[Beryllos]

Yeah, but… it’s the Christian way to not let ourselves be caught up in outrage and retribution. Instead of saying “This guy is gonna pay for doing that,” it’s better to say “This guy has problems. How can we help him?” and, in that way, be at peace.

 

[blackforest]

. And what’s wrong with a hatred of Judaism? It’s a false religion, why should I love it? Do you love Islam, Satanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, Wicca, Asatru, Confucianism, Shinto, Animism, Rastafarianism, Black Hewbrewism, the Nation of Islam, Zoroastrianism, Magick, New Age, Mormonism, Jehovaism, etc.?

So you either love a religion or hate it? Do you really thinks it’s that black and white?

I don’t love or hate Judaism. It’s a fascinating religion and not one that I practice.

remember an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” where Larry David (Jewish main character in the show and one of the producers of Seinfield) peed on a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary, yet there was no outcry from the MSM about anti-Catholicism.

It’s ultimately for the Man Upstairs to judge, but I’d hardly consider Larry David a paragon of devout Judaism.

 

[OneSheep]

When your ancestors build up a country and fight and struggle and develops it for many many generations with the intention of leaving a better future and a nice country for their children, it is immoral to give up your country and allow your culture to be destroyed.

I’m trying to figure out how this works for native Americans. They spent hundreds of years developing and defending their territory/nations. Was it immoral for them to give up their country?

American Indians… but it looks like there’s no problem there, as the United States has allowed them to remain there since the late 1800’s with the end of America’s “Indian Wars”.

They gave up the vast majority of their land to another culture, though, and most aboriginal nations lost all of their land that they had “fought for”, and were moved to land that belonged to others.

The issue comes from allowing other groups to immigrate in such large numbers that they overtake the native populace through immigrating and outproducing the locals.

Yes, that is what Europeans did in America. I think you are recognizing this as immoral.

But let’s shift to the modern context, shall we? Does being around white people feel more secure/comfortable to you than being around, for example, Latinos?

I think anti-Semitism is basically applied to anybody who says anything against Israel, Judaism, or Jewish roles in society, or even raises questions about this.

So let me try to clarify this.
definition of antisemitism according to the DeoVindice1863 dictionary:

antisemitism: Saying anything against, or asking questions about Israel, Judaism, or Jewish roles in society.

First of all, let’s clarify. Does that definition actually say anything about how the “antisemitic” speaker feels toward Jewish people? For example, I could say something against my own mother, perhaps, like a criticism, but that does not mean I don’t love her. Based on your definition, then, could the person actually love and respect Jewish people, but still be labeled antisemitic?

Most people labeled “anti-Semitic” do not fear or hate the Jewish people. If you actually listen to them, you would find they don’t: Call for violence against Jews, Call Jews inferior or subhuman, Support the Holocaust

Okay, now you are talking about how people are labeled. That is not the question I asked, though. Let’s back up a little and tackle the question again.

Let’s look at the dictionary definition, and then you could tell me if you agree or disagree with it, how you would modifiy it, etc:

antisemitism: discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.

Dictionary.com

Does that definition work for you, or does it fall short?

 

[OneSheep]

And what’s wrong with a hatred of Judaism?

The problem is that psychologically when we “hate” another religion, the hate naturally carries into followers of that religion unless the person’s conscience is formed in such a way to reject such hatred. And even if a person, by conscience, rejects hatred of the followers, what happens is that the hatred is merely repressed, and the “seeds” of the hatred are still there.

Consider for a moment, this article about the document Pope Francis signed at an inter-religious gathering in Abu Dhabi:

Pope Francis to world’s religious leaders: We build the future together or there will be no future

“There is no alternative: We either build the future together or there will not be a future,” Pope Francis said frankly in an important keynote address to participants at the high-level inter-religious meeting in Abu Dhabi on Feb. 4. “Religions, in particular, cannot renounce the urgent task of...

www.americamagazine.org

The document says: “We resolutely declare that religions must never incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility and extremism, nor must they incite violence or the shedding of blood.”

You see, if we hate other religions, even if we don’t hate the people of other religions, then we do indeed incite “hateful attitudes”. Yes, a person can have the discipline, for example, to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, but that discipline addresses the natural human reaction to hate the sinner right along with the sin! The same goes for religions. If we incite hate of a specific religion, we are reaping hatred. Some people may have the discipline to “love the person of the other religion, hate the religion”, but some people may not. Have you heard “you reap what you sow”?

And then, what is there to actually hate about another religion? Can you actually name something?

Do you love Islam, Satanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, Wicca, Asatru, Confucianism, Shinto, Animism, Rastafarianism, Black Hewbrewism, the Nation of Islam, Zoroastrianism, Magick, New Age, Mormonism, Jehovaism, etc.?

I love all the followers, and I see God in every one of their religions (not sure some of those are really “religions”, but the same applies). For example, every one of those religions and movements values forgiveness and reconciliation, which is exactly what God wants for us. Can you see, then, that it is simply impossible to limit the activity of the Holy Spirit? There, in those other religions the Spirit is there, helping people to shed their prejudices, anger, and hostility.

Do you not see this?

Bottom line: We are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. People of other religions generally love their religion and culture, and would not agree with their religion being called “false”. The person calling their religion “false” sets themselves up as the judge of their whole ideology, and people identify with their religions and ideologies. So, when I judge liberalism or conservatism, I set myself up as the judge of the followers who identify with the ideologies. Is that “doing unto others as I would have them do unto me”?

If a person disagreed with Catholicism, would it be charitable for him to say that the religion is false?

 

[OneSheep]

The Jewish tradition finds validity to the idea of love as well as the acts that supplement it. These acts are centered on ideas widely associated with love in many different traditions such as kindness, respect, compassion, and empathy. There is inherent value to every soul because they are human. Rabbi Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman states, “The conscience can be said, then, not to be the speaking of the voice within but rather the hearing of the quiet voice of the other, this voice, just as clearly as one’s “own,” must remind us to see each child as our own, each journey and each need as fundamentally shared.”

That’s really beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing it. I started to bold the parts I liked the best, but ended up needing to bold the whole thing.