Alan Dershowitz on Antisemitism vs. Criticism of israel

[Skeptic]

It is obvious that not all criticism of israel is antisemitic. It is equally obvious that a lot of it is: merely replacing "jew" with "zionist" or "israeli".

What is the difference? Many people thought about this--we had a similar discussion on this forum on the distinction between the two offered by Natan Sharansky. Here is Alan Dershowitz, in his new book "The Case for Peace", about the difference.

It should be empasized that this list is not intended as necessary and sufficient conditions, i.e., it is not intended that a criticism must fit ALL of the conditions below to "really" count as legitimate or "really" be antisemitism. Also, it is definition by example--it is not intended to mean that there are no borderline cases or exceptions, but to give typical cases. As Dershowitz says, there are "factors that tend to indicate" one or the other type of criticism, not absolute definitions.

Legitimate criticism of israel:

1). Directed at specific policies of israel, not at the legitimacy of its existence.
2). Degree and level of criticism vary with the change in israeli policies.
3). Criticism is comparative and contextual.
4). Criticism is political, economic, military, etc., rather than ethnic or religion.
5). Similar to criticism raised by mainstream israeli dissidents.
6). Levelled by people who have history of comparable criticism of other nations with comparable or worse records.
7). Designed to bring about change in israeli policies.
8). Part of a more general criticism of other nation's policies.
9). Based on objective facts, rather than name calling or polemics.
10). Critic subjects his own nation to comparable criticism for comparable faults.

Antisemitic criticism of israel:

1). Employing stereotypes against israel that were traditionally employed against "the jews." For example, israeli leaders drinking Palestinian blood, hooked nosed, etc.
2). Comparing israel / its leaders to the nazis, Gestapo, SS, etc.
3). Characterising israel as "the worst", when it is clear this is not accurate.
4). Invoking anti-jewish religious symbols or caricaturing jewish ones.
5). Singling out only israel for sanctions due to policies that are widespread among nations, or demanding that jews be better or more moral than others because of their history as victims (when every other groups is allowed, if anything, to use their past victim status as excuse).
6). Discriminating against jewish israelies as such, without regard to their personal views or behavior.
7). Emphasizing and stereotyping certain characteristics among supporters of israel that have been traditionally used for antisemitic attacks, i.e., "pushy" American jews, jews who "control the media", "control financial markets", etc.
8). Blaming all jews, or "the jews", for israel's faults or imperfections.
9). Physically or verbally atacking jewish instititutions as protest against israel.
10). Stereotyping jews as fitting into being "neo-conservative", "zionists", "Sharon supporters", etc.
11). Accusing jews--and only jews--of having dual loyalty.
12). Blaming israel for the problems of the world; exageerating the influence of israel on world affairs.
13). Denying, minimizing, or trivializing the holocaust as part of a compaign against israel.
14). Denying israel, and only israel, positions in international organizations.
15). Blaming the jews, or israel, rather than the antisemites for antisemitism or increase of anti-jewish attitudes.
16). Taking extreme pleasure in israeli failures, imperfections, or troubles.
17). Falsly claiming all criticism of israel is immediatelly and widely condemned by jewish leaders as antisemitism, despite the lack of support for any such accusation.
18). Denying that even core antisemitism--racial stereotyping of jews, comparisons to the nazis, desecrating synaogues, holocaust denial--qualifies as antisemitic.
19). Seeking to deligitimize israel precisely as it moves towar peace.
20). Circulating wild charges against israel and jews, i.e., being responsible for Sept. 11th, the 2005 tsunami, etc.

As it applies to this forum, I can say we can clearly see that the critics of israel fall into two camps. I would say that of those who regularly participate in the "israstine/"palirael" threads, about a third support israel, a third are critical of israel in the non-antisemitic sense, and a third are antisemitic.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...snip...

Legitimate criticism of israel:

1). Directed at specific policies of israel, not at the legitimacy of its existence.

...snip...

Why isn't criticism of Israel’s legitimacy not a "legitimate" criticism?

In the UK there is criticism of the UK's right to exist, would that also be considered to be illegitimate?

I just don’t see how criticism of the �legitimacy of its existence� of Israel to exist is necessarily illegitimate or as this list would call it anti-Semitic.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
Why isn't criticism of Israel’s legitimacy not a "legitimate" criticism?

Why would it be?

Originally posted by Darat
In the UK there is criticism of the UK's right to exist, would that also be considered to be illegitimate?

Under what circumstances would you consider a declaration that the UK had no right to exist legitimate?

Originally posted by Darat
I just don’t see how criticism of the �legitimacy of its existence� of Israel to exist is necessarily illegitimate or as this list would call it anti-Semitic.

I think it's a pretty good guideline. For example, I could sit here all day and criticize individual policies of France, but I'd be dismissed pretty quickly if I condemned France's right to exist.

Ditto for the United States. Criticizing that nation is popular, but saying it doesn't have a right to exist? Even the kooks like Ward Churchill don't go that far.

[Skeptic]

In the UK there is criticism of the UK's right to exist, would that also be considered to be illegitimate?

Yes. I would certainly say that, for instance, Hizb al-Tahrir, the British-based Muslim party whose ultimate goal is the replacement of King & Country in England with Sharia' law and a Chalifate, is necessarily illegitimate, for similar reasons.

Also, you are confusing definition by example with definition by necessary and sufficient conditions. If I claim you have no right to live, is it logically necessary that I hate you? Well, no--it could be that a alien from outer space forces me to choose between killing you and the horrific death of everybody on earth (yourself included). But we're not interested in logically necessary and sufficient conditions--we are interested in good diagnostics.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Why would it be?


I would rather hear why it isn’t since that is the premise on the list.

Originally posted by Mycroft

Under what circumstances would you consider a declaration that the UK had no right to exist legitimate?


Quite a few groups have quite a few reasons, a few legal political parties have it as one of their principles that they campaign on.

Originally posted by Mycroft

I think it's a pretty good guideline. For example, I could sit here all day and criticize individual policies of France, but I'd be dismissed pretty quickly if I condemned France's right to exist.

Ditto for the United States. Criticizing that nation is popular, but saying it doesn't have a right to exist? Even the kooks like Ward Churchill don't go that far.

Do you have any reasons to support the premise of the list or can you explain why a position that holds Israel’s "legitimacy" in question is necessarily anti-Semitic?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Yes. I would certainly say that, for instance, Hizb al-Tahrir, the British-based Muslim party whose ultimate goal is the replacement of King & Country in England with Sharia' law and a Chalifate, is necessarily illegitimate, for similar reasons.
[/b]

Can you please then give those "similar reasons"?

Originally posted by Skeptic

Also, you are confusing definition by example with definition by necessary and sufficient conditions. If I claim you have no right to live, is it logically necessary that I hate you? Well, no--it could be that a alien from outer space forces me to choose between killing you and the horrific death of everybody on earth (yourself included). But we're not interested in logically necessary and sufficient conditions--we are interested in good diagnostics.

I am interested in why it is necessarily anti-Semitic argument to argue against the legitimacy of Israel. Can you please give me the reasons that support that premise?

[Skeptic]

Not to be a wise-ass, but seriously: think about why Hizb al-Tahrir is not really "leitimately criticizing" England when it says it must be destroyed, its population converted to Islam, and become part of the Chalifate. Then you'd have some idea about why it's not "legitimate criticism" to say israel should not exist.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not to be a wise-ass, but seriously: think about why Hizb al-Tahrir is not really "leitimately criticizing" England when it says it must be destroyed, its population converted to Islam, and become part of the Chalifate. Then you'd have some idea about why it's not "legitimate criticism" to say israel should not exist.

I can understand that some criticism of the legitimacy of Israel’s existence is anti-Semitic however that is not my question, from the list that you posted it appears to state that any and all criticism of Israel’s legitimacy is anti-Semitic. I am interested to understand the reasoning that supports that conclusion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Darat
Why isn't criticism of Israel’s legitimacy not a "legitimate" criticism?


States exist because of their ability to exist, not because of their legitimacy. Failure to recognize this is a form of delusion.

In the UK there is criticism of the UK's right to exist, would that also be considered to be illegitimate?

Not so much illegitimate as delusional, but yes. In the case of Israel, though, that delusion is much more common than in regards to basically any other country (you say it exists regarding the UK, and that may be true, but it's fringe enough that I never hear of it). It cannot be based upon any objective criteria, because every stated reason applies to other countries, often much more so, that never get the same attention. So I, for one, am left with the conclusion that this particular delusion comes mostly from antisemitism, the age-old cannary in the mine-shaft of stupidity.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Darat
I can understand that some criticism of the legitimacy of Israel’s existence is anti-Semitic however that is not my question, from the list that you posted it appears to state that any and all criticism of Israel’s legitimacy is anti-Semitic. I am interested to understand the reasoning that supports that conclusion.

Take a stab at it yourself, Darat.

Give me your best guess as to what could possibly lead someone to the insane conclusion that wanting the jewish state--AND ONLY THE JEWISH STATE--destroyed and illegitimized is evidence of hatered of jews.

Take a wild guess.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
States exist because of their ability to exist, not because of their legitimacy. Failure to recognize this is a form of delusion.


But that isn't what the list is saying.

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Not so much illegitimate as delusional, but yes. In the case of Israel, though, that delusion is much more common than in regards to basically any other country (you say it exists regarding the UK, and that may be true, but it's fringe enough that I never hear of it).


You cannot consider it a fringe in the UK, in just one region around 18% of the votes in the last general election went to a party that has the dissolution of the UK as one of its principles. (And more votes were cast for other parties that also hold that principle.)

However that still doesn’t address why any criticism of Israel’s legitimacy to exists is an anti-Semitic criticism.


Originally posted by Ziggurat

It cannot be based upon any objective criteria, because every stated reason applies to other countries, often much more so, that never get the same attention. So I, for one, am left with the conclusion that this particular delusion comes mostly from antisemitism, the age-old cannary in the mine-shaft of stupidity.

You may be correct, however that is not what the OP was stating, it states that criticism of Israel’s legitimacy to exist is anti-Semitic, I still do not understand why.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Take a stab at it yourself, Darat.

Give me your best guess as to what could possibly lead someone to the insane conclusion that wanting the jewish state--AND ONLY THE JEWISH STATE--destroyed and illegitimized is evidence of hatered of jews.

Take a wild guess.

What has this to do with the OP and the question I have been asking? I was and am asking for reasons why any criticism of Israel’s right to exist or legitimacy is necessarily anti-Semitic.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Darat
I can understand that some criticism of the legitimacy of Israel’s existence is anti-Semitic however that is not my question, from the list that you posted it appears to state that any and all criticism of Israel’s legitimacy is anti-Semitic. I am interested to understand the reasoning that supports that conclusion. Well, as Skeptic said in the opening post, "it is not intended to mean that there are no borderline cases or exceptions, but to give typical cases." So there can be cases where one questions the legitimacy of Israel as a nation but such criticism is not anti-Semetic.

As to why it belongs on the second list instead of the first, consider the map below:

http://www.science.co.il/images/maps/Arab-Countries.gif

Substantially all of those countries were once European colonies, many were part of the old Ottoman empire and substantially all of them found their current borders as the result of post-colonial line-drawing. There are exceptions. Now. Imagine someone looked at that map and said, "the red one. That's not a legitimate country. The green ones, fine, OK, but that red one isn't legitimate." It's difficult, at the very least, to conclude that there is a reason for that conclusion other than anti-Semitism, no? If one looked at that same map and said, "Pretty much none of those countries is legitimate, including that little red one" one might easily come to a different conclusion about that person, in line with Skeptic's proviso.

[UserGoogol]

I think focusing on Israel as a "jewish state" is a somewhat myopic way of looking at things. Israel is more than just a place for Jews to live in. It is a democratic nation-state which was formed in a somewhat complicated proccess and which has done all sorts of things since being created. Any of those things could be looked at as a source of illegitimacy without mentioning that the country happens to have a lot of Jews in it. Of course, some arguments might still be wrong, or even bigoted (for example, you could argue that democracy is stupid or that only Muslims should be allowed to run countries in the Middle East) but being wrong, bigoted and anti-israel is not the same as being anti-semitic.

Also, claiming Israel's illegitmacy can be done in different ways. Saying "Israel was founded illegitimately and should be razed to the ground" is quite distinct from saying "Israel was founded illegitimately, but what country isn't a little illegitimate these days?" The person saying the later statement is far less likely to be anti-semitic than the former.

EDIT ADDITION:

Manny: Yes, but: (a) Anti-semitism is not the only reason to be stupid. Never underestimate the ability for people to be stupid. (b) The list does not say it's only antisemitic to argue that "only" Israel's existance is illegitimate. It says that arguing that Israel is illegitimate is in general anti-semetic.

[Darat]

Originally posted by manny
...snip...

Substantially all of those countries were once European colonies, many were part of the old Ottoman empire and substantially all of them found their current borders as the result of post-colonial line-drawing. There are exceptions. Now. Imagine someone looked at that map and said, "the red one. That's not a legitimate country. The green ones, fine, OK, but that red one isn't legitimate." It's difficult, at the very least, to conclude that there is a reason for that conclusion other than anti-Semitism, no? If one looked at that same map and said, "Pretty much none of those countries is legitimate, including that little red one" one might easily come to a different conclusion about that person, in line with Skeptic's proviso.

Don’t get me wrong I think most of the criticism I've heard or read that argues against the legitimacy of Isreal's existence is anti-Semitic (or at best hypocritical) however that isn’t what the OP states.

On the "legitimate arguments" list it specifically excludes any argument that might be made against the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. I.e.

1) Directed at specific policies of israel, not at the legitimacy of its existence.

Then on the anti-Semitic side it states:

19) Seeking to deligitimize Israel precisely as it moves towar peace.

So it clearly states that if you criticise Israel’s legitimacy then you are anti-Semitic, and so far no one has stated why this is the case.

(Edited for words and numbers.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Darat
You cannot consider it a fringe in the UK, in just one region around 18% of the votes in the last general election went to a party that has the dissolution of the UK as one of its principles. (And more votes were cast for other parties that also hold that principle.)

Wow. The UK is in much worse straights than I imagined. I'm really sorry to find this out. That's really disturbing news.

However that still doesn’t address why any criticism of Israel’s legitimacy to exists is an anti-Semitic criticism.

I guess on that question I'm not overly concerned with the answer. Antisemitism certainly dominates criticisms of Israel's legitimacy, and if I happen to apply the wrong label to the idiocy of a few individuals, I'll get over it. And any criticism about any state's "legitimacy" is pretty much always stupid because that's basically never the relevant quality for states.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Wow. The UK is in much worse straights than I imagined. I'm really sorry to find this out. That's really disturbing news.



Why? Surely it's just part of having a society that values the right of the people to self-determination?

Originally posted by Ziggurat

I guess on that question I'm not overly concerned with the answer. Antisemitism certainly dominates criticisms of Israel's legitimacy, and if I happen to apply the wrong label to the idiocy of a few individuals, I'll get over it. And any criticism about any state's "legitimacy" is pretty much always stupid because that's basically never the relevant quality for states.

I don't in general terms disagree... but it's the OP that I was curious about and I haven't got past the first item on the list yet... :)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by manny
Now. Imagine someone looked at that map and said, "the red one. That's not a legitimate country. The green ones, fine, OK, but that red one isn't legitimate." It's difficult, at the very least, to conclude that there is a reason for that conclusion other than anti-Semitism, no?

It's reminiscent of a Holocaust apologist claiming the 6 million Jews thing is obviously made up, or Rush whining about the African American McNabb. Whatever the value of the argument on the surface, what's behind it seems rather obvious.

[American]

About every item you list is a non sequitur; definitions of "acceptable" and "non-" are emphatically declared to one's convenience.

The basics of every code and dogma are pure B.S. - you accept them in their baselessness as intrinsically moral or ethical, the Word of God even... but there is no justification for them beyond feelings and emotion.

All that Alan has done is establish a framework that glorifies his own arguments and belittles all contrary views from the start.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Darat
Why? Surely it's just part of having a society that values the right of the people to self-determination?

Somehow I don't think that's the driving force behind this desire to disintegrate the state. Sounds more like some combination of immigrants who don't approve of British lifestyle and values (in which case what are they doing there) and a sort of petulant, teenage kneejerk anarchist sentiment. What, really, are the grievances that would call for the dissolution of the UK? I'm going by your post, since I'm unaware of this phenomenon, but as you describe it at least, this isn't even the same as, say, a Northern Ireland constituency which wants to split off from the UK. This sounds more like a "screw it all" approach.

So I'm all for self-determination, and if it ever got to a majority feeling that way then I don't think it's worth trying to hold it all together anymore. But that doesn't mean it's not a mistake to want such a thing. The UK has quite a lot to be proud of in its history and traditions, and wanting it disolved seems an awful lot like an attempt to throw that all away, with no clear idea of anything better (but possibly an intention of something much worse) to put in its place.

[RandFan]

Sorry to be so far off topic but isn't the question of legitimacy a logical non starter? I'm not personally convinced that Israel's start was legitimate. But to what end does one ask such a question? Unless one hopes for or expects Israel to be destroyed then why ask the question at all? It's been how many years and Israel has been how successful at war and survival? I don't see the Israelis leaving Israel and I see no rational to suppose that Israelis are going to pack up and leave so why the question in the first place? Will the leaders suddenly come to their senses and find somewhere else to go? And while we are on the subject, how many nations are legitimate? I love and respect mine but I'm not convinced that it is historically legitimate and I see zero value in questioning the history of America beyond a search for the truth and a historical perspective. Let's face it, if Americans suddenly came to the conclusion that historically our claim to a nation was on shaky grounds we wouldn't do anything about it. What the hell is there to do about it? Hell, for that matter we could question the legitimacy of the tides but I don't think the question will solve anything. They are still going to roll in. And America and Israel and the UK will continue to be nations.

If one is simply seeking the truth and poses the question in an historical context without any assumptions as to whether or not Israel should remain or the impact of the answer on policy then I can see the purpose of the question. Beyond that, if the question of legitimacy has no practical purpose then I would think it reasonable to question the motivations of such a question in the first place?

[UserGoogol]

Most political debates are pointless.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
Most political debates are pointless. Well then perhaps you have come to the right place. Welcome to the Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues forum. If you really are so cynical perhaps you should consider a different forum. My daughter hangs out at www.mylittlepony.com. They don't have any pointless debates there.

[RandFan]

By the way, don't take me too seriously. I'm on the 4th level. (http://members.tcq.net/scotts/humor/levels.html)

[Skeptic]

Tell me, Darat--when you talk about a party that got 18% "for dissolution of the UK", do you mean a party that's for complete independence for Scotland and Wales... or a party that's for making the British Isles into part of a a Muslim Chalifate? Those are two completely different things, naturally.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Somehow I don't think that's the driving force behind this desire to disintegrate the state. Sounds more like some combination of immigrants who don't approve of British lifestyle and values (in which case what are they doing there) and a sort of petulant, teenage kneejerk anarchist sentiment. What, really, are the grievances that would call for the dissolution of the UK? I'm going by your post, since I'm unaware of this phenomenon, but as you describe it at least, this isn't even the same as, say, a Northern Ireland constituency which wants to split off from the UK. This sounds more like a "screw it all" approach.


Originally posted by Skeptic
Tell me, Darat--when you talk about a party that got 18% "for dissolution of the UK", do you mean a party that's for complete independence for Scotland and Wales... or a party that's for making the British Isles into part of a a Muslim Chalifate? Those are two completely different things, naturally.

Does it really matter why or who? If most folks want to split up, regardless of the reasons or potential outcome, why shouldn't they?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by shecky
Does it really matter why or who? If most folks want to split up, regardless of the reasons or potential outcome, why shouldn't they?

Let's just ask Mr. Lincoln about that one.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Let's just ask Mr. Lincoln about that one.

Lincoln's biggest accomplishment was consolidating power in a centralized government. I'm not particularly interested in his thoughts on the matter.

Maybe the Colonies should never have declared independence? Perhaps India would have been better off had it continued under British rule? Perhaps troubled couples should be compelled to stay together despite how miserable they are?

If folks don't want to remain together, why should they not split up? Should they not be able to make that decision for themselves?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
Why isn't criticism of Israel’s legitimacy not a "legitimate" criticism?

In the UK there is criticism of the UK's right to exist, would that also be considered to be illegitimate?

I just don’t see how criticism of the �legitimacy of its existence� of Israel to exist is necessarily illegitimate or as this list would call it anti-Semitic.

Because deligitimization of the state of Israel doesn't do anything towards changing policy you think is wrong nor moving anyone towards a peaceful resolution.

What it does do is prepare people to accept the eventual destruction of Israel, which is the only purpose it serves.

In theory it's possible to question the legitimacy of Israel without being anti-Semitic, there are some people who are against all forms of nationalism and nation-states, but even among these people they seem to focus on Israel as being the only among all 200+ nations in the world that should surrender its identity. Do they maintain plausable deniability? They think so, but they would be more convincing if they thought their grand utopian dreams should begin somewhere else.

[Skeptic]

Lincoln's biggest accomplishment was consolidating power in a centralized government. I'm not particularly interested in his thoughts on the matter.

The point is that as he damn well knew, in real life, the result of "people wanting to split up the nation, what's the big deal?" is civil war with thousands or millions of dead.

Tuchidides said it best: civil war is worse than "regular" war as much as "regular" war is worse than peace. And he was right.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Lincoln's biggest accomplishment was consolidating power in a centralized government. I'm not particularly interested in his thoughts on the matter.

The point is that as he damn well knew, in real life, the result of "people wanting to split up the nation, what's the big deal?" is civil war with thousands or millions of dead.

Thousands or millions of dead may the cost of trying to forcibly hold a union together.

Unions aren't necessarily forged or dissolved by violence. That they may or may not be resolved by peaceful means isn't the issue. Rather, it's the right for people to determine their own government.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I would say that of those who regularly participate in the "israstine/"palirael" threads, about a third support israel, a third are critical of israel in the non-antisemitic sense, and a third are antisemitic.

My perception is that you get hammered with requests to back up these constant sightings of anti-semitism but they always seem to end up like Elvis sightings...

For example...I have never seen people ranting about jews being bloodthirsty backward savages on these forums, I have never seen anyone saying that Jews are full of genocidal hatred of Arabs... but I have seen those sort of words used on Palestinians...So from your perception, among all these anti-semites are there any anti palestinian racists at all? What proportion of the pro-israeli posters are racists? Half? Like the numbers you claim for posters that criticize israel?

[demon]

Thanks for that, I needed a laugh. Dershowitz really is a loony, isn't he?
.. it was supposed to be satire, wasn't it?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Somehow I don't think that's the driving force behind this desire to disintegrate the state. Sounds more like some combination of immigrants who don't approve of British lifestyle and values (in which case what are they doing there) and a sort of petulant, teenage kneejerk anarchist sentiment. What, really, are the grievances that would call for the dissolution of the UK? I'm going by your post, since I'm unaware of this phenomenon, but as you describe it at least, this isn't even the same as, say, a Northern Ireland constituency which wants to split off from the UK. This sounds more like a "screw it all" approach.


I'm assuming the vast majority of the people voting for this would be people who could trace their ancestors back many, many generations, even to before the creation of the UK. And I wasn’t thinking about the calls in Northern Ireland for the dissolution of the UK however now you mention it that's a good example of the problem I have with the OP statement. In NI there has been a long terrorist campaign that has used terror, including the deaths of many, many innocent people to try and force a dissolution of the UK however that does not mean that any and all arguments for the dissolution of the UK can be dismissed as terrorism.



Originally posted by Ziggurat


So I'm all for self-determination, and if it ever got to a majority feeling that way then I don't think it's worth trying to hold it all together anymore. But that doesn't mean it's not a mistake to want such a thing. The UK has quite a lot to be proud of in its history and traditions, and wanting it disolved seems an awful lot like an attempt to throw that all away, with no clear idea of anything better (but possibly an intention of something much worse) to put in its place.

Well the people campaigning for it believe it would be for the best, some of them have put forward some of their arguments here (recent threads the UK general election threads), personally I don’t find their arguments convincing but I don't believe they shouldn't be able to put these arguments forward.


(Edited to add a very important "n't"!)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Tell me, Darat--when you talk about a party that got 18% "for dissolution of the UK", do you mean a party that's for complete independence for Scotland and Wales... or a party that's for making the British Isles into part of a a Muslim Chalifate? Those are two completely different things, naturally.

Why are they different things? Both wish the end of my country as it is now, they wish to change the rules and conditions I live under, they wish to remove certain rights that I now enjoy.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Because deligitimization of the state of Israel doesn't do anything towards changing policy you think is wrong nor moving anyone towards a peaceful resolution.


You contradict yourself further on when you give a possible example of someone whose criticism of Israel as a state could be part of their overall aim of removing all states.

Originally posted by Mycroft
What it does do is prepare people to accept the eventual destruction of Israel, which is the only purpose it serves.

You stated this as if it is a statement of fact, however like the OP you do not provide any support for this.

Originally posted by Mycroft


In theory it's possible to question the legitimacy of Israel without being anti-Semitic, there are some people who are against all forms of nationalism and nation-states, but even among these people they seem to focus on Israel as being the only among all 200+ nations in the world that should surrender its identity. Do they maintain plausable deniability? They think so, but they would be more convincing if they thought their grand utopian dreams should begin somewhere else.

Do you have any support for your claims?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darat
Why isn't criticism of Israel’s legitimacy not a "legitimate" criticism?

I've ignored the sequellae from this, because it is useful to get back to basic principles.

First of all, this is only one in a list of things that tend, empircally, to be associated with anti-semitism. Most logical arguments (and don't get me started on illogical argument) involve directed graphs of prior and posterior statements of connections. It is provably false that all such directed graphs can be reduced to a list. Therefore, all such lists can only be viewed as heuristics.

Logically, though, questioning Israel's legitimacy requires challenging the legitimacy of the UN. Because the UN gave Israel a birth certificate and has also declared that borders since 1950 or so should not change. Therefore, anyone who questions Israel's legitimacy for existing must necessarily be opposed to the UN, and any further statements by said person based on the legitimacy of UN statements qua UN statements is bogus.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is obvious that not all criticism of israel is antisemitic. It is equally obvious that a lot of it is: merely replacing "jew" with "zionist" or "israeli".

The burden of proof is on you to show that this is true, not on other to show that they don´t think like that.

What is the difference? Many people thought about this--we had a similar discussion on this forum on the distinction between the two offered by Natan Sharansky. Here is Alan Dershowitz, in his new book "The Case for Peace", about the difference.

It should be empasized that this list is not intended as necessary and sufficient conditions, i.e., it is not intended that a criticism must fit ALL of the conditions below to "really" count as legitimate or "really" be antisemitism. Also, it is definition by example--it is not intended to mean that there are no borderline cases or exceptions, but to give typical cases. As Dershowitz says, there are "factors that tend to indicate" one or the other type of criticism, not absolute definitions.

Legitimate criticism of israel:

1). Directed at specific policies of israel, not at the legitimacy of its existence.
2). Degree and level of criticism vary with the change in israeli policies.
3). Criticism is comparative and contextual.
4). Criticism is political, economic, military, etc., rather than ethnic or religion.
5). Similar to criticism raised by mainstream israeli dissidents.

What´s that supposed to mean? Do people have to toe some official "acceptable criticism of Israel line"?


6). Levelled by people who have history of comparable criticism of other nations with comparable or worse records.

So people have to prove themselves criticizing other nations before they are allowed to criticize Israel?


7). Designed to bring about change in israeli policies.
8). Part of a more general criticism of other nation's policies.

Sorry, but in a discussion about the policies of Israel, I critcize the policies of Israel, not the policies of other nations. That´s what discussions about the policies of other nations are for.


9). Based on objective facts, rather than name calling or polemics.

Do you agree to apply that criterium to your own criticism of those you disagree with, instead of calling them names?


10). Critic subjects his own nation to comparable criticism for comparable faults.

Again, a discussion about Israel is a discussion about Israel, not a discussion about other nations.


*snip*
As it applies to this forum, I can say we can clearly see that the critics of israel fall into two camps. I would say that of those who regularly participate in the "israstine/"palirael" threads, about a third support israel, a third are critical of israel in the non-antisemitic sense, and a third are antisemitic.

And of those who support Israel, about half are reasonable people and the rest are quite the opposite. Are you going to start threads to criticize that latter group, too?


Once again, you have shown that you require those who wish to criticize Israel to jump through hoops before they are graciously allowed to voice their opinions. Why is it that you never require those you agree with to meet the same criteria? Why isn´t your own criticism of the Palestinians (if your rants can be called that) subject to the same prerequisites?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
And of those who support Israel, about half are reasonable people and the rest are quite the opposite. Are you going to start threads to criticize that latter group, too?

That's a glut market. There is already quite a large number of people who regularly start threads criticizing people who support Israel and would never in a billion years allow the merest though of a glimmer of an idea of starting a thread to criticize those who criticize Israel to make the most meagre attempt to contemplate crossing their minds.

[Cleon]

Ah, once again, another essay on why criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic unless it's expressed.

[demon]

Cleon:
"Ah, once again, another essay on why criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic unless it's expressed."

Of course, what do you expect from him?
Dershowitz is a plagiarist, a peddler of false history, a supporter of torture and a human rights advocate who flagrantly upholds Israel's right to oppress millions of people if its (his) terms are not abided by.

[Skeptic]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about both Dershowitz's and Sharannsky's list. Both do not claim that in every single case that somebody fits any criterion on their "antisemitic" list, this is proof of antisemitism. They claim, rather, that the more of these criterions one fits, the more deeply and obviously one agrees with their criterions, the more likely it is that one is an antisemite.

The David Irving example is actually a good example. If you look at any single criticism of israel / jews or praise of Germans / Nazis by Irving, it's possible that it is "real" criticism or praise and not a sign of antisemitism. But he is obviously an antisemite, since he fits so many of the "criterions" on both Dershowitz's and Sharanksy's lists that it is absurd to believe it is all a coincidence. Indeed, as the judge said, the point is not that "jews should be immune to criticism" or that "historians do not make mistakes", but that when Irving makes one of his hundreds of mistakes, it is almost invariably to make jews look bad.

This is, in this forum, similar to "The Fool"'s and demon's protestations. It is true that no single criterion on Dershowitz's or Sharansky's list prove somebody is an antisemite--and neither of them claims it does. But since both "the Fool" and "demon" fit most of the "tends to be antisemitic" list and none of the "tends to be legitimate" list, the evidence is rather conclusive.

Anyway, for Darat: the difference is that one side (independent Scotland) wants to deny you the right to, at most, use tax revenues from Wales in London; while the other wants to deny you the right to freedom of religion, press, election, assembly, and anything and everything that does not fit with Sharia law. It would only allow you the right to convert to Islam, leave the place, or pay the jizyah humiliation tax and submit to official second-citizen status. It would deny even more, of course, to your wife.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon
Cleon:
"Ah, once again, another essay on why criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic unless it's expressed."

Of course, what do you expect from him?
Dershowitz is a plagiarist, a peddler of false history, a supporter of torture and a human rights advocate who flagrantly upholds Israel's right to oppress millions of people if its (his) terms are not abided by.

Demonizing your ideological opponents?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by epepke
That's a glut market. There is already quite a large number of people who regularly start threads criticizing people who support Israel and would never in a billion years allow the merest though of a glimmer of an idea of starting a thread to criticize those who criticize Israel to make the most meagre attempt to contemplate crossing their minds.

The problem is, Skeptic is - as usual - blasting away at those who criticize Israel, this time with an attempt to shift the burden of evidence about anti-semitism those the accused. On the other hand, I never see him criticize anyone who supports Israel.

[Darat]

Attempts are being made via sophistry to derail this thread to discuss individual Members personal problems with other Members. This is a warning, any further attempts will result in sanctions being applied.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
There seems to be a misunderstanding here about both Dershowitz's and Sharannsky's list. Both do not claim that in every single case that somebody fits any criterion on their "antisemitic" list, this is proof of antisemitism. They claim, rather, that the more of these criterions one fits, the more deeply and obviously one agrees with their criterions, the more likely it is that one is an antisemite.


That is not true - the list clearly states that an argument that Israel as a nation is "not legitimate", is not legitimate, it does not state that only certain arguments are not legitimate it states that all such arguments are illegitimate.

i.e:

1). Directed at specific policies of Israel, not at the legitimacy of its existence

and

19). Seeking to deligitimize Israel precisely as it moves to war peace.


Originally posted by Skeptic
...snip...

Anyway, for Darat: the difference is that one side (independent Scotland) wants to deny you the right to, at most, use tax revenues from Wales in London; while the other wants to deny you the right to freedom of religion, press, election, assembly, and anything and everything that does not fit with Sharia law. It would only allow you the right to convert to Islam, leave the place, or pay the jizyah humiliation tax and submit to official second-citizen status. It would deny even more, of course, to your wife.

You do not address why it is only right (as implied by your words above) for certain groups to seek the dissolution of the UK, not others.

[demon]

Mycroft:
"Demonizing your ideological opponents?"

That`s rich coming from you in the light of your recent antics.

As far as Dershowitz goes, it`s not "demonizing", I`ll always play the ball instead of the man where he is concerned. There`s just too much ball to play with, that`s his fault, not mine.

[demon]

"Skeptic":
"This is, in this forum, similar to "The Fool"'s and demon's protestations. It is true that no single criterion on Dershowitz's or Sharansky's list prove somebody is an antisemite--and neither of them claims it does. But since both "the Fool" and "demon" fit most of the "tends to be antisemitic" list and none of the "tends to be legitimate" list, the evidence is rather conclusive."


Given Dershowitz's proven lack of principle, his deep complicity in support of Israeli actions, why would his list be any more important than a P.W. Botha list delineating what "anti-Afrikaaner" is?

Get me a list from someone with a proven track record of even-handedness and of compassion and humanity and I'll give it a squiz.

Your description of The Fool and me is laughable.

[Skeptic]

That is not true - the list clearly states that an argument that Israel as a nation is "not legitimate", is not legitimate, it does not state that only certain arguments are not legitimate it states that all such arguments are illegitimate.

Yes, that's right--it says such an argument is not legitimate. Which it isn't.

But neither Dershowitz or Sharansky say that everybody who offers such an argument is an antisemite; rather, they say, the more of the list they gives of antisemitism "signs" (and fewer of the legitimate criticism "signs") one has, the more likely it is that one is an antisemite.

So they are explicitly NOT saying that everybody who makes that argument is an antisemite. They are just saying that the argument is illegitimate, which it is, and that--apart from its illegitimacy--it tends to (strongly) correlate with antisemitism, as do the other arguments they offer as evidence of antisemitism.

Which is, in fact, the case.

(1) Directed at specific policies of Israel, not at the legitimacy of its existence

(puzzled look)

Either I am misreading you, or you are misreading Dershowitz, or I misstyped what he says--but (1) here is precisely the kind of argument Dershowitz says IS (usually) legitimate and NOT evidence of antisemitism.

I would certainly agree with you that if (1) was "evidence of antisemitism" for Dershowitz, then Dershowitz would be saying in effect that all criticism of israel is antisemitism. But not only is he not saying that, he is saying the exact opposite.

Am I missing something here?

You do not address why it is only right (as implied by your words above) for certain groups to seek the dissolution of the UK, not others.

Look, Darat, if you cannot see the difference between a "dissolution of the UK" which means minor changes in sovereignity and/or taxation and a "dissolution of the UK" which means turning it into an Islamic Sharia theocratic thug-ruled dark-ages hellhole, I have no answer for you.

It's one of those differences which speaks for itself, and rather loudly, at that.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is obvious that not all criticism of israel is antisemitic.A breakthrough moment. Now we're making progress. It is equally obvious that a lot of it is: merely replacing "jew" with "zionist" or "israeli". There are anti-semites who are pro-zionist. How much pro-zionism is expressed by anti-semites? It seems obvious to me that a lot of it is. Do you really think Christian fundies have the Christ-killers best interests at heart? Do you think Balfour and Churchill weren't motivated by a desire to see the back of British Jews?

Apart from the lunatic fringe I see no evidence that "a lot" of anti-zionism conceals anti-semitism. The idea that "The Jews" are a separate race with specific characteristics is embraced by zionists, rejected by most normal people.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic


This is, in this forum, similar to "The Fool"'s and demon's protestations. It is true that no single criterion on Dershowitz's or Sharansky's list prove somebody is an antisemite--and neither of them claims it does. But since both "the Fool" and "demon" fit most of the "tends to be antisemitic" list and none of the "tends to be legitimate" list, the evidence is rather conclusive.


ok big fella....you claimed it....start from the top of the list and give a single example to back up each claim. If I fit most of these criteria as you claim...this should be an easy task.

Please don't let fear of failure prevent you from at least attempting it. As fast as you come up short on each claim of my racism you simply generate another claim of my racism....another thread....another try....another failure...getting boring.

waiting in anticipation (of silence).