vile slander...especially when the one crying slander is being dishonest about it.


I hope that helps.

I think that's fascinating.

....look so bad that the only solution to the problem is a Final Solution.

Those three "D's" are in no way an indicator of anti-Semitism. Israel is a country, not "the Jews". This new definition is both stupid and dangerous, as it legitimizes actual anti-Semitism.

I will try to illustrate this with two statements: "Let's bring down the murderers of the IDF!" and "Let's bring the Jews to the gas!". According to a correct interpretation of the two statements, one is clearly anti-Semitic and the other has no indication that it's anti-Semitic at all. With the new BS definition, both are connected to anti-Semitism and on equal footing, so to speak. By removing the distinction between Israel and "the Jews", actual anti-Semites are given a platform and can disseminate their hatred by pointing out that "the Jews" and Israel is the same thing.

It must be pointed out that criticism of Israel can never in itself be an indicator for anti-Semitism. It's logically incorrect to say that a statement critical of Israel is more likely to be anti-Semitic than a positive one. If anything, universities should adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that specifically excludes the 3 D's and any reference to the "new" anti-Semitism.

This is just neo-con idiotry that must not be allowed to take hold. Fortunately people at universities often hold university degrees, or are trying to get one, so they are intelligent enough to see through this scam.

Let's take a country like Iran. That's a popular topic today.

What if we completely make up shit & exaggerate the situation, unfairly demonizing their leadership with ridiculous allegations - in order to portray Iran as a rabid frothy mouthed Nazi, Apartheid, Genocidal state that murders all firstborn non-Muslims & orders clitorectamies for all females over 3 years old . That's demonization, but so what - we're human rights advocates. We have people's best interests at heart.

Nothing wrong with that, right? It's legit criticism?

Let's further hold Iran to standards required of no other nations in a similar situation, and then act against Iran for daring to not live up to those higher standards that no other nation is held accountable for. Because we're all caring humanitarians.

You don't see a problem with that? That's legit criticism in your view?

Lastly, let's say Iran has no right to exist. We can write one article after the next making our case. Hold rallies. Send flotillas that serve no humanitarian purpose. After all they're a Nazi, Apartheid, Genocidal state that beheads more people on a daily basis than ISIS. Say buh-bye to Iran. Good riddance. It's best for world peace. A couple hundred thousand dead, but hell, it's for a good cause. After all, we care for the downtrodden and poor.

You believe this kind of delegitimization is legit criticism?

It's a completely separate thing. Most negative statements don't reveal racist intent by themselves. for example if someone says "- I don't like Netanyahu", this dislike could be for many other reasons than anti-Semitism. If someone said instead "- I don't like Netanyahu, the f****y Jew", the terms used to express dislike are clearly expressions of anti-Semitism harbored by the speaker. The examples you provided about Iran, are not clearly racist in intent, as the connotations are derogatory but it's not clear who or what the target is.

In a way, you are barking up the wrong tree when you use yardsticks in the form of expressions that don't in themselves connotate anti-Semitism to determine whether anti-Semitism may be present. It simply doesn't work that way.

Interestingly, anti-Semitism is often quite easy to sniff out. It's almost as if people who have feelings of antipathy towards Jews can't help themselves - they just have to blurt it out.

Be clear about the motivations of anyone espousing such views about Iran and its Muslim leaders.

The fact remains though, that I can't clearly determine racist intent from your examples.

...of anti-Arab racism:

I reminded you of this yesterday:

towards people.

You can't get away with making statements that infer that Palestinians as a group would be bloodthirsty. But if your examples about Iran were made about Palestine or Israel, they still wouldn't reveal racist intent.

Here it is in #38 and #41...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134107787#post38

How is that worse than arguing that the IDF and most of Israel's leaders are evil? That Zionism is racist? Especially given the fact that Israel's mainstream Jews support the IDF, elect Israeli officials, and are Zionists themselves?

Is that not an attack on Jews?

The inference that Zionism, the IDF or Israeli leaders would be "the Jews" is your own, and if true, negative statements about them would of course be strong indicators for anti-Semitism. However, Zionism, the IDF and Israeli leaders are not "the Jews", so therefore your argumentation doesn't stick.

Conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is wrong, and the idea of "illegitimate" criticism as an indicator of anti-Semitism doesn't work.

....demonized Arabs. IOW, hate.

You have a different standard when it comes to Israel.

Why?

==========

You also said Zionism is racism. But most Jews are Zionists. Therefore, we're all racists. What other way is there to interpret this?

==========

So fine, Palestinian nationalism is racism too. Anyone advocating for it is racist. Same logic, right?