We just had another one of those infamous “let’s ban everyone that we don’t like” diaries. As always they try to expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include a broad range of issues that they don’t want discussed. All these issues revolve around Israel rather than the Jewish religion or the Jewish ethnicity. The term “anti-Semitism" has become politicized. We need to restore its true meaning.
http://www.dailykos.com/...!
Anti-Semitism is an important word used to describe an abhorrent behavior; it should not be used to further someone’s political agenda. It has a rather simple definition; “discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.” We all should be able to agree on that. Israel or Zionism is not part of it. That definition is from here;
http://dictionary.reference.com/...
Let us agree what is not anti-Semitism.
1) Condemnation of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Israel is just a country like any other. It should be subjected to criticism like any other country. Its human rights record is worse than most any other country. It does not have a “right” to be a “Jewish State” any more than any other country has a right to cleanse its unwanted population.
2) Questioning Israel’s “right to exist” is not anti-Semitic. It has no more “right to exist” than any other country. Countries come and go (USSR, Yugoslavia, Rhodesia, etc). If a country's government serves its people reasonably well then it may continue to exist, otherwise it will likely be replaced. Many countries in the Middle East are dealing with this issue right now including Israel. The people of a country have the right to rebel against an unjust and oppressive government. That includes those people who have been disenfranchised by that government. You can hardly make the claim that government of Israel is a just government of all the people of Palestine.
3) Condemnation of Zionism is not anti-Semitic. Zionism, an insane ideology, concocted by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. The idea that a group of Europeans could invade a country and make it their own is firmly rooted in that century’s colonial ideology. Zionism’s bigotry is also very much a 19th century thing. I wonder what Herzl would think today knowing the harm that Zionism has done to both Jews and to Zionism’s victims. Of course discussing Zionism in even in the harshest terms is not anti-Semitic, it is just an ideology. Ideologies come and go.
4) Violence against Israel. Anyone, even obliquely, justifying violence against Israel is banned. Of course, someone rationalizing Israel’s violent treatment of the Palestinians is OK. It leads one to ask, is it OK to overthrow a government with violence? There are plenty of examples of that going on today, do we condemn them? We Americans did it 200 years ago. Why does Israel get a pass?
5) The use of sources that some consider anti-Semitic. This is a tough one. Many of these sources are from people directly brutalized by Israel. They do not have the luxury of viewing the situation from a distance. They are not likely to take “Israeli sensitivities” into account. Do we discount their words because they may not be careful with their language? Do they have nothing of value to say?
There it is. Condemning a country or an ideology is OK. Condemning a people for their religion or ethnicity is not. Let us keep that division in mind when using the word anti-Semitism.
I not saying that we will not continue to have heated discussions about Israel, we will. I am saying that we should reserve the accusation of anti-Semitism for actual cases of, “discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.” It is an important word and should not be debased.
OK, here we go. Will a little honest talk get me banned?