What is antisemitism?

[OneSheep]

I never said I saw good in the destruction of people, unless they were fighting in the defense of the Nazis, and in that case it would be necessary.

Yes, this is what I am saying. We see good in the destruction of people we see as evil, and when that destruction is in the context of war, it is a “socially acceptable” destruction, a destruction that can be considered by a “good person”. Do you see what I’m saying? I’m not singling you out, I am talking about a human phenomenon.

Let’s say I fear “the government taking away my gun”, especially if that gun gives me a sense of security facing “the evil government”. I might look at some leader of an anti-gun movement as a threat. My mind resents the leader because of what he is doing “he is evil because he does evil” (evil being the push to take away my gun.) By our nature, it is going to occur to me that the leader should be punished, and the now dehumanized leader has no value and is expendable (this is not deliberate, but automatic, and happens in the subconscious). Next, maybe I hear about a death threat against the leader and think “that would be just fine with me”. That thought occurs because my conscience says “he is wrong, he needs to be punished!” This would be a very natural thing happening in a human mind.

Now, what is also natural is the conscience reacting to its own thoughts. When that thought of “seeing the good in his destruction” comes up, the modern, healthy adult conscience will recoil at the thought. “Thinking that he should be destroyed is wrong!” or “Thinking that the leader’s destruction is good is wrong!” As a result, the thought and motive are repressed, and denied as soon as they come up. What happens subconsciously is “I did not think that, I should not think that, it is wrong.” The thought is banished before the person is even fully aware of it.

Since the thought of destruction itself is unconscionable, the mind “saves” me through the process of denial. “I am still a good person, that thought did not happen.” The fear and resentment remain in the individual, not addressed, not “brought to the light”.

And this is what I am thinking occurred in German society, and in all likelihood it is occurring in our society today. Whenever and wherever there is a resented outgroup, and there are prejudiced people in power (i.e. the Nazis) persecution of the perceived “evil people of no value” can escalate to genocide. As long as the fear and resentment are there, it is a genocide waiting to happen.

And actually, it is happening in the Philippines, right?

 

[OneSheep]

Do you enjoy being so disingenuous?

You are believing my words are disingenuous.

Your gut is reacting, right?

You see, just a couple posts ago you stated the grievance of attributing statements to you that you did not say, and then I provided your statements. Then, you responded by clarifying what you meant in those statements. Now, you are attributing my own words to lack of sincerity.

A wonderful old Italian Sister I know once said, as she held her hand like a pistol, pointing: “Look what happens when I point like this! There are three fingers pointing back at me!”

We all do it, tafan2. We blame one another for faults we ourselves carry. This is exactly what de Mello was talking about in the “illusion” quote I provided.

In edit, I must add this, because this thread is about antisemitism. This is a very important aspect of normal human psychology that leads to the negative outlook of antisemitism. We attribute the parts of ourselves that we repress (resent, deny) onto the outgroup. “Those people” are greedy, power-hungry, immoral, selfish, lying, etc. But guess what? We have all the same human capacities and motives as “those people”!

I had to look up the parties under the Knesset and the function and powers:

While I appreciate all the effort you went to, I’m not understanding what those two posts have to do with this thread. Can you summarize what you are trying to share, and how it pertain? I am not saying that they don’t, I’m just trying to figure out how to weave it in here.

 

[OneSheep]

Readers, do you hold something against Jewish people, or any group of people?

Look at my last post. Can you painfully admit that you have three fingers pointing right back at you? I am not blaming you, I am speaking from the experience of having had some prejudices (bigotry) myself!

Matthew 7:3-5 New International Version (NIV)

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Confession: I’ve been such a hypocrite many times! Let’s take ownership of our hypocrisy! (And work on those planks, of course)

 

[niceatheist]

First of all, the grievances aspect was largely for PR. The Nazis themselves believed in some pretty specific racial theories. Their desire to kill Jews and Roma, and to subjugate Slavic people’s, wasn’t based on some sense of injustice, but on the view that Aryans were the pinnacle of human development, and that other races were either subordinate, or were vermin.

 

[tafan2]

Your gut is reacting, right?

Would you please stop trying to psycho-analyze my responses? It is quite annoying, and I certainly do not think you have any skill what-so-ever at it.

I have explained 2 or 3 times what I meant by the Nazis needing to be destroyed. You continue to misrepresent it, here is the latest:

Yes, this is what I am saying. We see good in the destruction of people we see as evil, and when that destruction is in the context of war, it is a “socially acceptable” destruction, a destruction that can be considered by a “good person”.

I never said I see good in the destruction of people we see as evil, even in the context of war. I said that if people were going to fight to defend Nazism, their subsequent deaths were justified, it being a just war. Never did I say their destruction was good, never did I say anything about “Socially acceptable” (whatever the heck that means in the context of just war theory?). Never did I talk about destroying people, I referred to killing them (in a just cause).

Let me be clear. I put zero value in your theories of forgiveness, and understanding, and recommendation Anthony Mello, etc. That is no knock on Fr. Mello BTW, I know little of the man.
So you can have the last say, tell me all of my weaknesses and pshycological and spiritual problems. It doesn’t matter. The Nazis had to be destroyed, and any argument with that, in the slightest, is anti-Semitic. A point I never thought I would have to defend on CAF.

 

[Psalms62]

While I appreciate all the effort you went to, I’m not understanding what those two posts have to do with this thread. Can you summarize what you are trying to share, and how it pertain? I am not saying that they don’t, I’m just trying to figure out how to weave it in here.

Because you posted on the illegal settlements in the west bank. The knesset made the decision on the settlement but they are not all Jewish groups who were for or against it. The remarks made in your post is exactly my question - what does that post have to do with antisemitism considering how one becomes a part or member? And quoting:

“The Knesset is the house of representatives (the parliament) of the State of Israel, in which the full range of current opinions are represented. Nevertheless, parties that reject the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People, its democratic nature, or that incite racism may not participate in the elections.”

Question and based off the last note, “or that incite racism may not participate in the elections.” Is antisemitism a form of racism?

 

[OneSheep]

Would you please stop trying to psycho-analyze my responses? It is quite annoying, and I certainly do not think you have any skill what-so-ever at it.

You are interpreting my question about whether you are having a gut reaction as a psychoanalysis.

Not sure “gut reaction” is a psychoanalytic term, but I’ll accept that you’ve had an adverse reaction to my question. My apologies, I did not intend your annoyance.

I have no such “skill” whatsoever.

I never said I see good in the destruction of people we see as evil, even in the context of war. I said that if people were going to fight to defend Nazism, their subsequent deaths were justified, it being a just war.

If the “just” is good, then their destruction is part of the good, if it indeed served justice. The people who destroyed Nazi fighters, as the Nazi fighters themselves, were all well-intended. They all (both sides) strove to serve justice, to defend what they saw was right, or had some other good intent.

This is not psychology, it is observation.

Never did I say their destruction was good, never did I say anything about “Socially acceptable”

Of course not. You said it was justified, and I assumed you think that justice is good. I made an error. I was making the observation that people think that it is socially acceptable to kill Nazis in battle, but not, of course on the street when not in battle or some position of defending oneself.

Still, it can be observed that people do naturally wish the destruction of enemies or people we find hold negative value. This is not “psychoanalyzing you”. This is an observation of human nature.

Never did I talk about destroying people, I referred to killing them (in a just cause).

Please try to take a step back and see how confusing that statement is. Killing is destroying, whether or not it is seen as “just” by an individual or society.

Try to imagine that the Nazis saw that killing Jews was for a “just cause”. Yes, the Nazis were blinded by their resentment, but they saw what they were doing as “just”. People can be blind, tafan2.

 

[OneSheep]

Let me be clear. I put zero value in your theories of forgiveness, and understanding,

Yes, you have made that clear. I repeat, the Nazis would probably agree with you on this. If that gives you another gut reaction, so be it.

The Nazis had to be destroyed

In just war, the oppressor must be stopped. If there is no alternative to killing, then such destruction is the last resort. I think we can agree that the continuation of war was justified if it was the only route to saving those people held in concentration camps.

There are modern Nazis, must they also be destroyed?

Do you see what I am getting at? Neo-Nazis are a group of people. Yes, their antisemitism is based on falsehood and goes against everything about the Gospel, but they are still people. Would you promote condemning them as the primary approach, or would you promote educating them in what is true? If so, is part of that truth in the value of understanding and forgiving one’s enemies, loving and forgiving those against whom we have a greivance? Tafan2, we can’t “talk them out of” their resentment, right? What we can do is encourage them to understand and forgive. And of course, we can condemn all bigotry as hurtful.

So you can have the last say, tell me all of my weaknesses and pshycological and spiritual problems.

You have all the same weakness and psychological conditions that I do, and you appear to resist understanding and forgiving.

I have no “theories” about understanding and forgiving. I am restating the Gospel. I repeat, we are all called to understand and forgive people, even if they are holding on to antisemitic prejudice. I also repeat that such understanding and forgiving is not to replace educating the prejudiced in what is true.

 

[OneSheep]

Because you posted on the illegal settlements in the west bank. The knesset made the decision on the settlement but they are not all Jewish groups who were for or against it. The remarks made in your post is exactly my question - what does that post have to do with antisemitism considering how one becomes a part or member?

I’m still confused. I did not ask how someone can be a part or member of the Knesset. We can let it go, though. I must have missed something.

Nevertheless, parties that reject the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People, its democratic nature, or that incite racism may not participate in the elections.

Ironically, that statement in itself can incite racism or prejudice. In stating that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, are they implying that it is not the state of Christian or Muslim people, of all its citizens?

If I remember right, there was more to the statement from the Knesset that softened it, something that at least encouraged embracing diversity of religion in Israeli society.

Question and based off the last note, “or that incite racism may not participate in the elections.” Is antisemitism a form of racism?

Well, yes, I think it has the same prejudice toward an “other” as a group. Do you agree?

 

[Psalms62]

I’m still confused. I did not ask how someone can be a part or member of the Knesset. We can let it go, though. I must have missed something.

Ruling on the settlement according to requirements of each members duty to the law. You haven’t been keeping up on the hearings. How can you bring this subject into play when those who are members are of mixed groups and yet argue the fact that the laws were unequal toward one group verses another? There are requirements to those held seats, without prejudice on either side. However, as in the reading, recognizing each other as a statehood. Again, and its been pointed out about the settlemen - even parrelled to King Solomon decision on the fate of a child. The argument was who was the natural mother.

 

[Pattylt]

@onesheep…what is your opinion on God ordering the Jews to kill the Canaanites? Do you see any similarities here?

 

[Psalms62]

Ironically, that statement in itself can incite racism or prejudice. In stating that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, are they implying that it is not the state of Christian or Muslim people, of all its citizens?

If I remember right, there was more to the statement from the Knesset that softened it, something that at least encouraged embracing diversity of religion in Israeli society.

Are you categorizing all Jews as being the same or is the implication there. This was a homeland for the Jewish people but the country houses many people of diverse backgrounds and keeping within their own community’s laws even from a non Jewish background perspective. The symbol of the country is Jewish with the Star of David as it flagship. However, underneath - it is very diverse and must remain so, to held as a democratic society. That is the perfect sentiment to say that it is a Jewish homeland as well as an identity of a homeland. However, there are some groups that are split in the divisions in Israeli society – not only between Israeli Jews and the country’s Arab minority, but also among the religious subgroups that make up Israeli Jewry. Ashkenazi Jews , Sephardi Jews , Mizrahi Jews , Beta Israel , Cochin Jews , Bene Israel , Karaite Jews , and many other groups.

Again, that is a bias statement to make or to say that it is a state and homeland for the Jewish people. Perhaps as many subdivision groups make it so. However, there are countries that are more inclined to be more of Muslim descent or Christian whether you listed it with a different country and title. The laws that are enforced make that determination - as for example, " In the course of Islamization campaigns, several countries (Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, and Yemen) inserted Islamic family and criminal laws into their penal codes, which were otherwise based on Western models. Sharia law was interpreted by independent jurists , based on Islamic scriptural sources and various legal methods. In the late 20th century, there were Islamic revivals that called for full implementation of sharia law (Turkey for instance), including hudud corporal punishments, such as stoning, which in some cases resulted in traditionalist legal reform.

 

[Psalms62]

(continue)

Some countries with Muslim minorities use sharia-based laws to regulate marriage, inheritance and other personal affairs of their Muslim population - that are being implemented here in the United States. Even though we are a democratic society I think you could say that with the different sub (non Christian groups) the laws (even within are own society) can be pushed to the extreme when trying to exercise the laws. How can a determination be made when there is such a conflict with our laws verses the religious laws? Many groups (even more subgroups) that (perhaps-are not of either origin) have laws within their own community that have entered into our own from Africa or India, even Mexico. We house many diverse societies within our country but we still have the main tenant/thought to the laws being Christian based. Again, however, we are losing ground on this thought of the law by taking down the The Ten Commandments monument. See the argument for the reasons of removing the “Decalogue” - Why remove the Ten Commandments? and then view, " No Religious Test Clause" Whether you like it or not anything can be made to look as if it is something that seems prejudice but in turn it can restructure the entire society like ours.

So why should we look at one and not the other? Are Christian, Jewish and Muslim (and some that are “not” from either religious categories) all democratic in there execution of law? and communities?

 

[OneSheep]

Ruling on the settlement according to requirements of each members duty to the law.

I know enough to know that the Arab Israeli members were outraged, as were Palestinians not allowed to return. The UN and the rest of the world still find the settlements illegal and immoral.

Again, that is a bias statement to make or to say that it is a state and homeland for the Jewish people. Perhaps as many subdivision groups make it so. However, there are countries…

The difference with those other countries is that they did not form as nations with enormous populations of non-Muslim people. And while if those were modern democracies they would have laws and language more inclusive of other religions, the difference also is that those nations are not confiscating land and resources from people of different faith, and then turning around and using the land and resources for people of their own faith tradition, as Israel is doing.

If the Palestinians were Jewish, then the confiscations, lack of right to return to their property in Israel, and other persecution would not happen. Granted, there have been Muslim nations that banished Jews in retribution for what Israel did to their native Muslim population, but two wrongs don’t make a right. And the difference for us Americans is that we do not provide billions of dollars in aid per year to those Muslim nations, while we do Israel, but if people complain about it here, they are labeled as antisemitic. So far though, no one who has posted on this thread agrees with labeling people that way.

All the above said, it behooves all of us to remember that what the Israeli Jewish people want most is safety and autonomy, which are things that we all want.

 

[OneSheep]

@onesheep…what is your opinion on God ordering the Jews to kill the Canaanites? Do you see any similarities here?

I do see that all genocide involves seeing some “other” as less than human, so yes, the Israelites must have had some resentment, along with the accompanying perception of Canaanites as less than human in some way (blocked empathy) in order for them to have the mental state to kill. In stating this, I am knowing that I am just as capable of such blindness.

When people are in despair, they are often blind. That despair could have been because the Israelites were lacking in resources, and then they worked up an illusion of justified slaughter.

I am quite certain that they believed God wanted them to kill the Canaanites, who Israelites definitely pre-judged as worthy of destruction. I cannot second-guess what they heard from God when their tribe may have been in a state of becoming extinct.

Do you see similarities also?

 

[OneSheep]

Their desire to kill Jews and Roma, and to subjugate Slavic people’s, wasn’t based on some sense of injustice, but on the view that Aryans were the pinnacle of human development, and that other races were either subordinate, or were vermin.

Do you have support for that statement, that such Aryan view preceded any resentment that the German (and other populaces) felt toward Jews and Roma? Even if this were true, plenty of ethnicities, even Jewish people, have in their doctrine something about their own being “the pinnacle”, but these did not lead to genocide, right? (with some exceptions, i.e. the above post) Are you saying that the desire to kill them was attributable to the ingroup sense of superiority alone?

Can you think of any war or genocide in which the perpetrators or defenders were not operating with a sense of correcting injustice?

Let’s put it this way. Let’s say you, as some other race/ethnicity, are raised from childhood being told that Jews and Roma were less than human, just like that, no grievances (or perceived grievances) involved. Let’s say, then, that you had the opportunity to experience some kindness from one of those people, and you came to observe that they were just as human as you are. Would you believe the precepts you were raised with, or would you reject such precepts? And then, if you did not reject the precepts, would you want to kill the outgroup? If so, why?

First of all, the grievances aspect was largely for PR.

First?! For Public Relations? It was grievances on the part of some Iraqi people that was used to motivate the US public to attack Saddam Hussein’s regime. It is grievances against Gazans and other Palestinians that is motivating some Israelis to confiscate more land and now claim confiscated lands as part of the Israeli nations. It is grievances against Israelis that motivates Gazans to lob bombs at their enemy. It is grievances from Israel against all her enemies that motivates Americans to support sending billions of dollars to Israel to protect herself and billions to Egypt to police their own against attacking Israel.

Calling this “Public Relations” is a bit of an understatement, right? Grievances move people to act, they stimulate people’s desire for justice.

 

[Psalms62]

Then read what I wrote. Not all Israeli Jewry are in an agreement with the settlementYou can not put the blame on all - that is being bias)

*Noting: Mandelblit declined to defend the Regularization Law in Court; He informed the government well before the law was passed that the law is unconstitutional and that it violates Israel’s obligations under international law. Mandelblit’s decision created a peculiar situation: the Attorney General’s office, which normally defends the government’s position in the courts, filed a brief opposing the law and urging the court to strike it down. The government had to retain private counsel for these proceedings, who submitted their own brief. The Knesset’s legal advisor filed yet another brief, arguing (very briefly) that the law should be upheld primarily on the ground that it raises non-justiciable political questions. 28 legal scholars filed an amicus brief in which they conclude that “The Regularization Law is unprecedented in Israeli law… It constitutes a grave violation of a long line of fundamental principles of Israeli constitutional law and international law that cannot be justified” (my translation).

 

[Psalms62]

the difference with those other countries is that they did not form as nations with enormous populations of non-Muslim people. And while if those were modern democracies they would have laws and language more inclusive of other religions, the difference also is that those nations are not confiscating land and resources from people of different faith, and then turning around and using the land and resources for people of their own faith tradition, as Israel is doing.

…
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in 2017, 65.6 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide because of persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations alone.

Middle East and North Africa: 2.739 million

Africa: 4.413 million

Europe: 4.391 million

Asia and the Pacific: 3.830 million

Refugee crisis - Wikipedia​

---

> Sinai Is Returned to Egypt

April 25, 2018

Refugees united nations website​

add on

quote=“OneSheep, post:523, topic:542366”]
All the above said, it behooves all of us to remember that what the Israeli Jewish people want most is safety and autonomy, which are things that we all want.
[/quote]

Including myself when I read the Aleppo codex and how some people had to prove what was taken from them while crossing the borders. Not everyone is in an agreement with the settlements.

 

[Psalms62]

The highest percentage of refugees and land confiscation was Afghanistan

 

[OneSheep]

Then read what I wrote. Not all Israeli Jewry are in an agreement with the settlementYou can not put the blame on all - that is being bias)

Yes, of course. There is a large portion of Israeli Jews opposed to the settlements.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

Yes, the UN tries to stay on top of all that, as far as I have heard. Just a reminder, we are discussing antisemitism in the context of US society. Our nation, as far as I know, only gives billions of financial aid to one of the countries where people are forcibly displaced: Israel. Our country does give some support to Morocco, at least that I’ve heard, where they, like Israel, are confiscating lands from people in an area they occupy. Having refugees is not the same as government-sanctioned taking of resources and land. The Syrians, for example, can return to their homes, from what I understand.

And unfortunately, the rules for nations that occupy lands are stricter and under more scrutiny than the rules for how governments can treat their own citizens.

The highest percentage of refugees and land confiscation was Afghanistan

Was that carried out by the government we support there?