The respectability of antizionism has fallen over the perpetrators of antisemitism offering them a free pass to attack Jews just as long as they proclaim their love for Palestine while attacking the “Zios”, the “Zonazis” or “the Israel lobby” and never using the word Jew.

Jew hatred is a strange beast. Most of the time even when it stares people in the face those staring back see nothing more than a figment of their imagination dismissed as easily as any other. Even when a victim of that beast points to it and screams out its presence those who turn their heads and look see nothing. They then invariably turn their attention to the accuser to pour scorn and ridicule upon them.

It’s as if the Jew is in the wrong for forcing people to turn and look at a monster they refuse to see....

...Whatever your thoughts on the matter they are actually utterly irrelevant. Whether you’re an antisemite or an antizionist or a bloody martian you don’t tell Jews what we’re allowed to find offensive to our people. We tell you. And it’s time you started listening, regardless of whether or not you really, really want Palestine to be free, think Hitler was right or constantly lecture Jews that it isn’t antisemitic to be antizionist.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dont-define-my-antisemitism/

There is one poster in particular on this board who likes to mention that Arabs are Semites every time accusations of anti-semitism arise, though s/he never claims that anti-semitism doesn't exist, but still feels compelled for some reason to point that fact out.

It's not logically correct to automatically assume that any argument that is critical of Israel may be grounded in anti-Semitism. No argument critical or positive about Israel are anti-Semitic in themselves, and it's only possible to assume they're anti-Semitic if they show signs of actually being anti-Semitic. What the author of the OP proposes amounts to automatic assumption of guilt unless proven innocent.

The OP is pure sophistry.

....who smear Jews for calling out BDS style anti-semitism, claiming that Jews are making such accusations against BDS trolls in bad faith.

Simply put, neo-nazi pro-hamas racists don't get to tell Jews what we're allowed to find offensive.

Therefore, it would be better if the accuser actually could show evidence of anti-Semitism to back up the accusation. What it boils down to, is that unfounded accusations are always unfounded, regardless of what the author of the OP thinks. There's no way to make unfounded accusations well-founded by calling people neo-nazi pro-hamas racist BDS trolls...

Last edited Wed Mar 9, 2016, 06:36 AM - Edit history (3)

....typically ignore, for obvious reasons:

Check out the very first example...

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

That one is so non controversial and really a no-brainer. Think Nazis...

However, BDS trolls find ways to aid & justify Hamas' fascist & religiously inspired genocidal agenda. It's virtually impossible to point to outspoken BDS'ers vocally opposed to Hamas murdering innocent random Jews. They all support this "resistance".

EU drops its ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism
Source: Times of Israel, December 5, 2013


Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-drops-its-working-definition-of-anti-semitism/

There's no way to classify a statement negative of Israel, Israelis or Jewish symbols as being possibly more anti-Semitic than a positive one.

Personally, I use two definitions of anti-Semitism that when combined, include everything I would consider anti-Semitic, and everything that's not is excluded. Never failed me so far:

Anti-Semitism is a form of racism directed against Jews

Anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews

If we compare my definition, with the dropped EUMC "working definition", some differences will show: First of all, I consider anti-Semitism to be a form of racism and nothing else - if it's not racism, it can't be anti-Semitism. The EUMC "working definition" includes vilification of Israel and Israelis, which isn't racism. The only real effect of using the EUMC "working definition" is that in addition to all the cases of anti-Semitism that are included in my definition, there will be other cases, all of them connected to Israel and Israelis. None of these new cases of anti-Semitism connected to Israel and Israelis would be anti-Semitic by my definition.

For me, the EUMC "working definition" is just a cheap Zionist trick to smear criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. It's also dangerous, because if the difference between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel becomes blurred, it waters down the seriousness of anti-Semitism, and gives legitimacy to real anti-Semitism (as in directed against Jews).

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

That one is so non controversial & such a no-brainer.

But BDS'ers find ways to justify & defend Hamas' fascist, genocidal, religiously inspired murdering of random Jews. They call this legitimate resistance.

How is that NOT racist to the core? Riddle me that one. It cannot be more clear than that.

Your example of anti-Semitism is no good for a definition because it doesn't go to the heart of what constitutes anti-Semitism. Strictly speaking, it's conceivable that a call for "aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion" may not be anti-Semitic. For example calling for the killing of all infidels, which presumably would include Jews, wouldn't be anti-Semitic in itself, but it would be anti-Semitic according to your example. It's also quite bad that your example uses hyperbole: "radical ideology", "extremist view of religion" - does this mean that calls for killing Jews in the name of moderate ideologies and moderate religions are OK?

No, I think I'll stick with my own definition of anti-Semitism, it works for me, and it makes me completely immune to the notion of the "new anti-Semitism" which pops up sometimes here on DU and elsewhere.

So remember:

Anti-Semitism is a form of racism directed against Jews

Anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews

In their media, schools, political institutions - they constantly incite hatred & call for the murdering of all Jews. That's in the Hamas Charter, FFS!

There are literally dozens of videos I could show that explicitly demonstrate this.

Am I to understand that you don't believe that's antisemitic? Or that aiding, justifying and supporting this murderous ideology (as BDS clearly does in the name of resistance) is not antisemitic Jew hatred?

Seriously?

Any sane, rational person would see that Hamas' attitude towards Jews is easily as bad as that of the Nazis or KKK. And that anyone aiding, justifying or supporting KKK, Nazi actions vs. Jews is without question a Jew hater.

So BDS'ers who support Hamas' Jew hating ideology - and actions against random innocent Jews - are just as bad as folks who support the KKK or Nazis against Jews. After all, BDS supports Hamas' ideology against Jews, as well as their actions.

How am I wrong?

I don't think you'd have a problem calling anyone racist for supporting the murder of random Palestinians (lets say by Arab hating Kahanist terrorists). How's that for an ideology? Close enough in this case. So why the double-standard?

so that the definition will include anything you want.

It's not a very good idea to go from a definition to an example, and then use that example as a definition. Calling Jews "apes and pigs" within the context of your example is of course anti-Semitic according to my definition as well as the (defunct) EUMC working definition. However, this doesn't mean that calling Jews apes and pigs in other contexts is necessarily anti-Semitic, nor should it be used as a definition. For example, calling a person a "smelly pig" or a "big ape" doesn't magically becomes anti-Semitic just because that person happens to be Jewish. It seems perhaps like a stupid example, but the EUMC working definition and the proponents of the idea of the new anti-Semitism are doing exactly that, but with sneakier argumentation that isn't so obvious.

Do you agree or disagree that supporting or justifying Hamas' ideology, which calls for & acts upon murdering random innocent Jews they dehumanize as apes & pigs, is about as racist & vile as Jew hating antisemitism possibly gets?

Most of its victims are Palestinians, and it's primarily an oppressor, not an anti-Semitic terror group. That being said, it's clear that Hamas is an anti-Semitic organization, and that it espouses some form of liberation theology with the goal of "freeing" all of Palestine by any means necessary.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore, so I'll just state my position: The OP is crap, and the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism is crap.

Last edited Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Hamas is easily as bad as the worst, insane militant KKK'ers and neo-Nazi skinhead Jew haters.

Easily, without question. Hell, they make the KKK'ers & neo-Nazis look good in comparison. Hamas doesn't just dehumanize Jews and end it with rhetoric or just a few street fights. They're openly attacking Jews & hoping for mass casualties. The KKK and neo-Nazis don't do that.

Now why does BDS support the racist Jew haters of Hamas? It's because BDS is also a Jew hating movement. It's that simple. And when they call out Jews for being racists, that's not just incitement but projection of their own hateful racism.

How am I wrong?

==================

And what's with the fear in calling out BDS for what it is?

I don't get it.

Yes, they are dedicated to killing all Jews, not just in Israel but outside of Israel too.

Glad we agree they're antisemitic.

Now how about people who support Hamas & support their violence against Jews.....are they antisemitic too?

People who support Hamas may or may not be anti-Semitic, depending on whether they're themselves anti-Semites, and the purpose of that support. The CIA supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and that doesn't make make the CIA a Jihadist group.

It's not possible to support them without being antisemitic in the extreme.

The CIA used the Mujahideen as a proxy to get at the USSR. There's really no parallel except for certain groups of people who support the KKK or Nazis. It's impossible to support either of those groups without being racist or bigoted, same as Hamas.

Then compare that to Hamas.

Once you do that, consider people whose goals WRT Israel are the same as Hamas. You know who I'm talking about. So being that you acknowledged Hamas is antisemitic, those with the same goals as Hamas are also antisemitic.

not seen as less corrupt than Fatah?

I know it would be much easier if the I/P conflict was driven primarily by anti-Semitism, but it isn't, so there's no use believing it. Hamas is supported by Iran, but it's not necessarily because of anti-Semitism. Iran supports proxies in the Middle-East in ways that don't involve Israel directly as well, like in Syria. Even if Israel weren't a Jewish state, but just another enemy, then it would make sense for Iran to support groups that opposed Israel anyway. It's a tough neighborhood, you know.

...than supporting the KKK or any neo-Nazi outfit. You'd never give the same benefit of the doubt to Jewish supporters of the KACH or Kahane movement, now would you? Kindly explain another reason Jews would support KACH other than for racist reasons.

Get real already.

To answer you, more than 75% of Gazans support stabbing attacks on Jews, so yes they support Hamas for attacking Jews.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-young-palestinians-support-attacks-on-israelis-poll/

And I'm not even talking about Palestinians supporting Hamas, but rather BDS holes and antizionists who support Hamas for no other reason than that they oppose Jews.