What is antisemitism?

[tafan2]

yes, I have been formatting it “anti-Semitism” because if I leave out the “-” or put in a lower case S, my browser corrects it the other way, and I have been too lazy to change it. In general, I believe gracepoole was making the mostly the same point as I am, although I was not able to easily find the link she offered earlier. I think anti-jew would be most clear. I do not necessary like anti-Judaism, since it implies only a bias against the religion, which antisemitism is not (just fixed my browser dictionary). The common term for bigotry against jews in antisemitism , so we have no need to redefine the word.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

…yet did not feel the need to look at the Jewish side of the issue?

I think her position would be that the pro-Israeli (I’m not going to say “Jewish side” because I don’t think that’s accurate or a good term to use here) position is not something she “needs to look at.” If you live in the US, it’s everywhere. It’s the default position. If you criticize Israel, you are–as we are discussing here–automatically accused of being “anti-Semitic.” (Perhaps not by 100% of the population, but by a significant percentage.) I don’t think Omar is concerned with “offending” anyone. She’s concerned with expressing her position, which is a small minority position in the US. Of course I don’t know her thoughts, I am just speculating.

Having said that, I agree she could have stated her position in a more nuanced way. However, the argument against THAT is that on this thread we now have 429 comments! In other words, is there a way she could make her position clear without being accused of anti-Semitism? Probably, but she would have had to write a book, not a tweet or a letter to the editor.

If I had been her, I wouldn’t have brought the issue up out of the blue. I would have kept quiet until an opportunity arose–for example the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem or the US recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Then I would have used arguments that have more to do with international law than the Arab-Israeli dispute. But you could say that about any advocate of any position–Black Lives Matter, Me Too, etc. It’s hard to separate yourself and your identity from a cause.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The common meaning of anti-Semitism is anti-Jewish, period. We all know that’s what we mean.

If everyone here is agreed on that term and it’s meaning, fine with me.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Identifying people as “Semites” and capitalizing it gives it credence where none should be given, hence the shift away from “anti-Semitism.” Of course, as with all language there is denotation and connotation. And the connotation of the term continues to be anti-Jew.

No argument from me, but the problem is that it is the common term, even though different people define it differently. I agree with tafan2 that “anti-Jewish” is more accurate and preferable to “anti-Semitic.” If you look at "anti-Semitic in the Google Ngram viewer (it gives the historical frequency of terms from 1800 on) Google Ngram Viewer you can see the first recorded use is just before 1880, and it peaks in usage in 1942–no surprise. It has been trending upwards ever since 1957, and it’s almost back to it’s 1942 peak. “Anti-Jewish” has a longer history, but is a MUCH less popular term and has been declining in usage.

You could get into similar debates about terms for African Americans, feminists, alt-right devotees, socialists, etc. I don’t delight in such debates.

 

[OneSheep]

I think anti-jew would be most clear.

Yes, I agree.

Let me be clear, she could have made the same positions clear without any tint of anti-Semitism to cross my mind. But her wording showed that she did not even feel the need to respect the Jewish perspective enough to understand how they can be offended.

Well, we can’t know everything. She did write a letter, which I linked in post 415, outlining her position, but I do understand that once one judges a person, it is difficult to change one’s mind. A person has absolutely no control over what may trigger or “tint” judgment in someone else’s mind.

Ilhan Omar has been judged by JDL and many in Congress as antisemitic. Our Gospel calls us not to judge, but to understand and forgive.

What is ironic in your statement is that you have criticized her because you perceived that she did “not even feel the need to respect the Jewish perspective enough to understand how they can be offended”. Well, take a look. This is what I might ask myself: Did I feel the need to respect Ilhan’s perspective enough to understand how she might be offended? Did I learn more about her? Did I read her letter? Did I respect that she was telling the truth in her letter, giving her the benefit of the doubt, which we are called to do by our Gospel? This is what is called being charitable, correct?

Or do you know her so well that you can judge her without equivocation? You see, these are the problems arise with the Kafka fallacy; it begins with someone setting themselves up as the judge of the other. Next, the person judged can do absolutely nothing to convince the judge that he has misjudged.

 

[OneSheep]

In other words, is there a way she could make her position clear without being accused of anti-Semitism? Probably, but she would have had to write a book, not a tweet or a letter to the editor.

Once a person has judged, the judge has to want to understand and forgive. The judged person could write volumes and dedicate their life to service, but if the judge is set on holding something against someone, the judge remains imprisoned by resentment.

The prodigal son’s father reaches out to the older brother, trying to assuage his resentment. Does the older brother listen, or does he not? We can pray for the older brothers.

If I had been her, I wouldn’t have brought the issue up out of the blue.

I’m not sure she did bring it up out of the blue. At least one of the tweets was a discussion between her and Glen Greenwald, who has been far more critical of Israel’s policies than her, but AFAIK has not been accused of antisemitism.

 

[tafan2]

@OneSheep, what part about “I am willing to accept her apology” do you not understand?

 

[tafan2]

I think her position would be that the pro-Israeli (I’m not going to say “Jewish side” because I don’t think that’s accurate or a good term to use here) position is not something she “needs to look a

That wasn’t what I meant, she obviously knew the pro-Israeli side of the argument. I was referring to the words she used and not looking at the way those words are interpreted by Jews.

Admittedly, I was not clear.

 

[OneSheep]

what part about “I am willing to accept her apology” do you not understand.

I’m referring to the rest of the sentence. Does the rest of the sentence confirm your willingness, or does it express a judgment?:

I am willing to accept her apology, just not willing to chalk up her statements as merely anti-Israeli policy positions.

So, if you are not willing to accept that her statements are “merely anti-Israeli” (which, according to her, they are not, but against Israeli policy) then what are you saying? What are you accepting?

I think what you meant to say was “I accept her apology, I don’t like what she said, but I understand that she was trying to help the cause of Palestinians. I accept her statement indicating that she has no desire to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment. She obviously did not know that what she said might have that effect.” This gives her the benefit of the doubt, right?

Does that sit well with you, or do you hold her statements against her?

 

[tafan2]

No, by now I think I have been clear. I had no problems (as far as this thread’s subject is concerned) with her statements about Israeli policy. I have said more than once, being critical of Israeli policy is not anti-Semitic.
But if you use words and phrases in your criticism of that policy in reference to Jews, you should have enough respect for Jews to at least understand how they interpret those words and phrases. One can give her the benefit of the doubt with regards her ignorance, but not with regards the lack of respect once she used the phrases despite her ignorance.

And one can accept her apology as sincere and move on.

 

[Psalms62]

Yes, it is inexcusable to see people waiting to get into Israel only to be sent back to their death.

?? What does that mean?

Exodus 1947 was a ship that carried 4,500 Jewishimmigrants from France to British Mandatory Palestine on July 11, 1947. Most were Holocaust survivors who had no legal immigration certificates for Palestine. The ship was boarded by the British in international waters, killing three of those on board and injuring some ten. The ship was taken to Haifa where ships were waiting to return the Jews to refugee camps in Europe.[1]

 

[Psalms62]

During 1948, the Jewish people from the Arab territories and in Europe needed a place to live. Who isn’t aware of this?

No, it is the same shoe but on a different foot …it sure wasn’t, was it? You are staring at a reflection of the same magnitude. The Exodus is on both side of the coin…no different

Al-Nakba

Why Did Palestinian Jaffa Fall More Quickly Than Jerusalem in 1948?​

New and pioneering work sheds light on these similar yet different cities in their war against the Jewish community and the State of Israel.
On all sides, the extensive literature dealing with the defeat of the Palestinian Arabs in their war against the Jewish community and the State of Israel in 1947-1948 excels in controversy, accusations, self-righteousness and often the denial of the other side’s legitimacy. This is characteristic of writing focusing on conflicts between two national movements. What’s sometimes missing in our case is an analysis of Arab society and the reasons for its collapse in the face of the challenges it faced.

*****************Same article (continue)

…“Radai has produced an account in which the abundance of details does not obscure the view of the general course of events. He also avoids the judgmental trap, leaving it to the intelligence of the reader to draw conclusions. Moreover, Radai understands that in every war, however just, there are neither absolute saints nor total demons, and that the historian’s role is to try his utmost to step back from the warring sides.”

 

[OneSheep]

But if you use words and phrases in your criticism of that policy in reference to Jews, you should have enough respect for Jews to at least understand how they interpret those words and phrases.

I think you may have noticed that the comments that were criticized did not make reference to Jews, they made reference to politicians who have monetarily benefited from being pro-Israeli-settlement. She made reference to politicians who operate with an unbalanced view of the situation.

In seeing that you are using the word “should”, are you saying that all people need to make every effort to see who is going to be offended by words before criticizing? For example, I do not refrain from criticizing Israeli government practices, nor do I refrain from criticizing Saudi government practices, Moroccan government practices, and for that matter, US government practices.

Many of those practices involve people being motivated by money. Sure, ideology is part of the equation, but with AIPAC-sided politicians making 5 phone calls to get their campaigns funded, and non-AIPAC politicians having to make 50,000 phone calls to get the same amount of money, the ideology is so easily adhered to. And when it comes down to it, the truth hurts! Politicians referred to by Ilhan took offense, and so be it. I’m not going to stop saying the truth just because it hurts when it comes to abortion, Aipac, guns, environmental destruction, or any number of important issues. Are we on the same page there?

I am not advocating deliberately hurting people with words, only saying that the truth should not be sugar-coated.

One can give her the benefit of the doubt with regards her ignorance, but not with regards the lack of respect once she used the phrases despite her ignorance.

That statement is actually a bit confusing. When Jesus was being crucified, He was not ignorant of what was on the minds of his persecutors, He clearly saw that they did not know what they were doing. He understood their actions in light of their lack of awareness. We can understand that all people do not know what they are doing when they sin; they are blinded by desire or resentment.

What makes sense then is that Ilhan’s comments can be understood (and forgiven, as Jesus did) in light of the fact that she did not know how some of the comments would be received. We can say “she did not do her homework”, but neither did the crowd who hung Jesus. People are not omniscient, and it is impossible to know what category of knowledge we are missing, even in the age of Google.

And one can accept her apology as sincere and move on.

And move on, reconciled? And move on, having forgiven?

 

[tafan2]

And move on, reconciled ? And move on, having forgiven?

reconciled? She and I had no previous relationship beyond being members of the same society/country. That relationship was certainly not severed or damaged by what she said. So there was no need for a reconciliation.

Forgiven? She did nothing against me, nothing that harmed or offended me personally. So there is really no need for my forgiveness.

Move one: as in, I felt her apology was sincere, it certainly lacked the obfuscations that many of her defenders use, which helps a lot. So she made a mistake and we move on to the political issues at hand. Her politics being really the only thing I am concerned with.

In general, I have no desire to turn important words like reconciliation and forgiveness into flowery sentiments by misapplying them.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The ship was taken to Haifa where ships were waiting to return the Jews to refugee camps in Europe.

That’s not exactly “sent back to their death.”

 

[OneSheep]

Forgiven? She did nothing against me, nothing that harmed or offended me personally. So there is really no need for my forgiveness.

The truth: you are stating exactly the guidelines that everyone, including Christians, have been accustomed to, based on the behavior of those in modern US media.

Of course, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. You did not ever hold anything against her, you never judged her as antisemitic, you never felt anything negative against her.

But the truth is that we see it, hear it, and read it every day in the media, people who do indeed hold something against a person when the other has made a comment that they react to. People are judging others, holding their words and actions against their dignity. You can hear the resentment in their voices. We heard plenty of it from congressmen who accused Omar.

This is not a Christian approach, but it is very human, very natural. We naturally resent comments that go against our values, and the person making the comment is also resented, there is a “holding against”.

Jesus calls us to the supernatural:

New International Version
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Mark 11:25

Yes, Jesus advocated sentiment, the sentiment of love, the sentiments of mercy, the sentiment of forgiveness.

Almost every time I watch the news, I end up needing to forgive someone!

 

[tafan2]

The truth: you are stating exactly the guidelines that everyone, including Christians, have been accustomed to, based on the behavior of those in modern US media.

I do not think my guidelines for forgiveness is based on the behavior of those in modern media. That actually seems a really weird idea, I never would have guessed I would have to explain my criteria for forgiveness is not based on modern media. I have always been taught to forgive those who trespass against me.

**[2840] Now - and this is daunting - this outpouring of mercy cannot penetrate our hearts as long as we have not forgiven those who have trespassed against us. Love, like the Body of Christ, is indivisible; we cannot love the God we cannot see if we do not love the brother or sister we do see.136 In refusing to forgive our brothers and sisters, our hearts are closed and their hardness makes them impervious to the Father’s merciful love; but in confessing our sins, our hearts are opened to his grace.

(boldness add by myself)

To the extent that those in modern media forgive those who trespass against them, I think that is a good thing. I suppose their behavior may be based on the same ultimate source as what I strive to do. If two people do the same thing, one’s behavior is not necessary based on the other’s behavior.

Mathew 18:21-22, Mathew 6:14-15, Luke 17:3-4, Colossians 3:13 all address who we are to forgive, all refer to those who sin against us.

 

[OneSheep]

those who have trespassed against us

Mark 11:25 clarifies “trespassed against us”. It has to do with a “holding against”

Do you see how important this is to this thread?

People hold something against Jews. They hold their political positions, wealth, banking practices, etc. etc. etc. against them. Even Christians who do this “holding against” this can say “they did not trespass against me, but they are simply bad people, I don’t need to forgive them” or something like that. This is antisemitism!

Jesus calls us to understand and forgive anyone we “hold something against”. What does this mean? It most certainly means that we are to understand and forgive entire groups of people we hold something against.

What does this also mean? It also means that if we hold something against people who are prejudiced against Jews, Latinos, black people, anyone, we are also to understand and forgive them. It doesn’t mean that we don’t speak out against prejudice. It does mean, though, that we do such criticism/speaking out with forgiving hearts. This is “let peace begin with me”.

It is forgiveness, mercy, not condemnation, that are the foundation of the Kingdom.

Mathew 18:21-22, Mathew 6:14-15, Luke 17:3-4, Colossians 3:13 all address who we are to forgive, all refer to those who sin against us.

Yes, and none of these are contrary to Mark 11:25. Thanks for adding those! I especially liked Colossians 3:13, its use of the word “grievance”. This is what we hear and see in the media, unforgiven grievances.

 

[tafan2]

Fair enough, if “holding something against someone” applies to how I feel about Omar’s original statements with derogatory terms pertaining to jews, “moving on” should be clear that I don’t at this time. Here is a suggestion: lets “move on” past this Omar stuff. Its been debated ad naseum on this thread already. Early on I was smart enough to not participate.

OTOH, on your example of how this pertains to this thread, that is rather problematic:

People hold something against Jews. They hold their political positions, wealth, banking practices, etc. etc. etc. against them. Even Christians who do this “holding against” this can say “they did not trespass against me, but they are simply bad people, I don’t need to forgive them” or something like that. This is antisemitism!

Jesus calls us to understand and forgive anyone we “hold something against”. What does this mean? It most certainly means that we are to understand and forgive entire groups of people we hold something against.

People who are anti-Semitic (my browser went back to autocorrect I see), should forgive the Jews for these things they hold against the Jews. Great, except it is woefully inadequate. If I say, I forgive “jews for there political positions, banking practices,m etc” and even if I am very sincere. I am being downright anti-Semitic in my forgiveness. I am literally saying that they, as a group, have really done something which requires my forgiveness. This is an argument you are making that I find extremely unsettling. The solution to antisemitism is for the anti-Semites to forgive the Jews? No the solution is for them to abandon and renounce the stereotypes they hold against the jews!!! Once again, you are walking a very fine line in my opinion.

 

[OneSheep]

If I say, I forgive “jews for there political positions, banking practices,m etc” and even if I am very sincere. I am being downright anti-Semitic in my forgiveness. I am literally saying that they, as a group, have really done something which requires my forgiveness.

It is not something they have done that is the issue. All of us do things that offend others. What is at stake is that the viewer’s resentment has been triggered, that something the other has done or said has violated their conscience in some way. All of us are capable of inadvertently violating the conscience of the other. The resentful person does not think “Oh, this person/group has done something that I am going to resent”. Resentment is not a feeling that comes from the objective mind, it comes from the gut. It is a gut reaction, and people have gut reactions. We all do, whether someone else judges them as “right” or not.

I am being downright anti-Semitic in my forgiveness.

Yeah, the word “Jews” there has a touch of stereotyping. I think the speaker has more work to do, coming to see that Jewish people are no different in terms of their humanity, their capacity to do both right and wrong.

The solution to antisemitism is for the anti-Semites to forgive the Jews?

Yes, to forgive those they hold anything against. If the Nazis had done this, we would not have had the holocaust. The Nazis had grievances. It doesn’t matter whether I think their grievances were valid or not; everyone thinks that their own grievances are valid. The important part is to understand and forgive, not to judge other people’s grievances.

the solution is for them to abandon and renounce the stereotypes they hold against the jews!!!

Yes, this is also important, and it comes through awareness. We all are capable of forming stereotypes, and with awareness we can come to understand and see all people as having the same nature, all beautiful in the eyes of God.