Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence

Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. more....

***********************************************************************

A 'fine' example of anti-Semitism in a mainstream source gussied up to be "criticism" of Israel.

Categorizing a characteristic onto an entire group is bigotry. Bigotry directed at Jews is called anti-Semitism.

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

You don't see that is bigotry? Claiming the Jews are the biggest players in a culture of violence which will end the world? Sounds like a modern version of the "Protocols."

I am guessing you think anti-Semitism is limited to calling Jews "kikes" and vandalizing Jewish homes, houses of worship, and cemetaries. However, anti-Semitism extends far beyond those examples. Yours is a fine example of allowing anti-Semitism to be excused as legitimate.

en masse for things their states do?

and would you be so sensitive then? I fricking doubt it.

It also shows that you are aware that when it happens to Muslims it is a bad thing (which it is), but not so when it happens to Jews. Very interesting.

and I consider that to be disgusting and bigoted. It's utterly evil when e.g. people use the actions of Muslim governments as an excuse for prejudice against Muslim asylum-seekers in Europe. But that doesn't make it right to collectively blame the Jews for things either. ALL bigotry is evil!

Well, what about the following statements:

(1) 'it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.'

This implies not only that the Jews *should* move on and forgive, but that the world is justified in feeling angry with the Jews (as a collective group) if they don't. If similar things were said about the Native Americans or the Australian Aboriginal peoples, then I would regard it as racist. In fact, sometimes things not too dissimilar are said about African Americans (re slavery) and I do find that racist.



(2) 'We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players)'

It would be wrong to say, with all the available competition, that *Israel* was the biggest player; but would not necessarialy be antisemitic. But to imply that 'the Jews' in the world as a whole are the biggest players in a culture of violence - that crosses the line! Note that he says "Israel *and* the Jews"; and note also that the majority of the world's Jews do not live in Israel. So this goes well beyond criticizing Israel.

I didn't respond within 4 hours, you haven't responded in over 24 hours. So, can you see that the article is anti-Semitic or not?

are even more militant - and you'd think they'd know best. They don't have a Germanic Jew complex.

"...eventually going to destroy humanity"?

Yet another example of someone willing to excuse blatant anti-Semitism and pretend it is simply an article about criticism of Israel.

and you explicitly included people of French descent outside of France as collectively responsible; and implied that the world would be justified in collective anger against them for failing to forgive their enemies sufficiently - then, yes, you would be. I *do* consider the Right as anti-French when they imply that the French are by nature cowards who are prone to surrender, and that they should be grateful to the Americans to this day for 'rescuing' then from the Nazis. What is being said here about the Jews is even worse than that.

this seems to be prime example of what 19th century leftists would have called 'Birth, not Worth', This idiot's views are only being given the time of day because he has a famous ancestor and a famous name. Someone not called 'Gandhi' would never have got such rubbish printed, certainly not in a respectable newspaper.


'Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?'

Well, possibly. It could apply equally to that other I/P conflict - India/Pakistan - or to very many conflicts in the world.

'Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.'

Well, this may be a good general description of the world - but how on earth are 'Israel and the Jews' the biggest players???? And when anyone refers to "the Jews" - or indeed any ethnic group - in this monolithic way, they show themselves to be idiots, influenced by a nasty agenda.

'Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.'

Now THAT is a really nasty paragraph. Firstly, Jewish identity is not locked into the Holocaust experience, and it is worth remembering at this point that over half of Israeli Jews are of non-Europaean, mostly Middle Eastern, descent. Secondly, it is inappropriate for one individual or group to *demand* that another individual or group should 'forgive and move on', and worse to essentially *threaten* them for not doing so. I am sure he'd be the first to agree that it would be absolutely disgusting for an Israeli or other non-Indian to write "It seems to me that the Indians today not only want the British to feel guilty, but the whole world must regret the colonial oppression of the Indians. The world did feel sorry for the episode when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns to anger." Yet he seems to think it OK to say it of the Jews. (Note: I am not saying that the Israelis and Jews should NOT 'forgive and move on' - and many have done so; merely that it is wrong to threaten them for not doing so.)

were still treating native Americans the way they treat Palestinians? Or how about China going into Tibet?

If he hadn't mentioned "Jews," then the article would be quite different. It wouldn't be anti-Semitic. It would be inaccurate hyperbole in certain places. However, he interchanges "Jews" and "Israel" and even goes as far to blame both as the biggest contributors to the downfall of humanity. It is a shame that anti-Semitism gets a pass here, at a supposed liberal site, because people are unfamiliar with what anti-Semitism is. The government (even the citizens) of Israel should not be immune to legitimate political criticism. Inserting their religion into the equation is not needed, but even then, it may not be anti-Semitic. It is when it is applied to the 'whole' of Jews, that a line is crossed.

Here's a little test:

"We have created a culture of violence (the Blacks are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

Racist? Yes or no?

"We have created a culture of violence (the Muslims are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

Islamaphobic? Yes or no?

"We have created a culture of violence (the Arabs are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

Anti-Arab (racist)? Yes or No?

"We have created a culture of violence (the homosexuals are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

Homophobic? Yes or no?

it would be appropriate.

Spin it anyway you want, you are trying to justify an anti-Semitic POS.

in fact I've signed petitions and written letters about it. (And in fact I've also written to the Israeli government about actions that I didn't approve of - of which there are plenty!)

But supposing someone wrote an article about China where they said:

'We have created a culture of violence (China and people of Chinese descent are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.'

wouldn't you say that was going beyond criticizing Chinese government actions and was anti-Chinese?

"the key players are Israel *and Jews*"

The equivalent for China would be if someone not only attacked China, but included Chinese-Americans, and other ethnic Chinese people in other countries, in the attack.