Antisemitism in 3-D

[mrbaracuda]

Interesting article I found here.

Antisemitism in 3-D

Differentiating legitimate criticism of Israel from the so-called new anti-Semitism.
By Natan Sharansky

[...]

The 3D test, as I call it, is not a new one. It merely applies to the new anti-Semitism the same criteria that for centuries identified the different dimensions of classical anti-Semitism.

DEMONIZATION

The first D is the test of demonization.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

The second D is the test of double standards.

DELIGITIMIZATION

The third D is the test of deligitimization.

I wonder if I should carry it over to some of the Israeli / Palestianian threads. Oh oh oh!

 

[GreyICE]

Gah. I was hoping this would be somehow useful, but it turned into the usual witchunt for anti-semitism. It presents a grand total of four examples. Two of them are generalizations. This leaves two examples that are specific.

Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross.

Gee, I dunno, maybe it's because they refused to change their symbol to the international red cross symbol?

Or maybe it's because they agreed to change their symbol and instantly became members (2006 calling...)? Double standard. Yeah...

To remember the 3D test I suggest we recall those 3D movies we enjoyed as children. Without those special glasses the movie was flat and blurred. But when we put on our glasses the screen came alive, and we saw everything with perfect clarity.

Huh, you applied this test to two specific examples, and you arsed up one of them. So where do we sign up for this latest witchunt? Do we get to have fun and immediately label everyone antisemitic if they don't include a denouncement of Palestine in every paragraph of their post about Israel? That's the usual policy in these matters.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Gee, I dunno, maybe it's because they refused to change their symbol to the international red cross symbol?

Or maybe it's because they agreed to change their symbol and instantly became members (2006 calling...)? Double standard. Yeah...

Well, the Jews / Israelis just wanted to have a part of the cake. My guess is, the strong anti-Semitism during that time when they proposed the use of the "Magen David Adom" prevented them. Although I understand objections.

But not everyone was comfortable about the red cross emblem. The armies of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) preferred a Muslim crescent rather than a Christian cross. So the red cross or a red crescent could be used, or even a composite banner (see also Crescent Cross). Later, Persia (now Iran) preferred their national identity of a red lion and sun. So in 1929, to avoid offending Muslims and Persians, the Diplomatic Conference agreed the emblem as a red cross or a red crescent or a red lion and sun. (The latter has since fallen into disuse and Iran has officially been using the red crescent since 1980.)

From this site. Sounds more like Arab and predominantly Muslim countries were against it:

Two hundred and thirty seven countries voted to admit Magen David Adom, 54 voted against the move and 18 abstained. The motion was adopted in a vote after Arab and Muslim countries rejected all the compromise proposals aimed at reaching a consensus.

In mid-September 2005, Switzerland, the depository of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, finally convened a preliminary meeting of the signatory countries to the Geneva Conventions to discuss when to hold the Diplomatic Conference. At the September 2005 meeting, of the 120 nations in attendance, 30 countries were against holding such a conference (all but one of the countries were Arab or Muslim, and none actually opposed the text of the Additional Third Protocol accepting a new neutral emblem, but expressed concern about the timing) and 60 countries were in favor of holding a conference expeditiously.

(ETA) Source.
So far, for me it fits the bill. The bill being anti-Semitism.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, the Jews / Israelis just wanted to have a part of the cake. My guess is, the strong anti-Semitism during that time when they proposed the use of the "Magen David Adom" prevented them. Although I understand objections.

That was a beat up. The ICRC didn't want every single religion or country having it's own symbol. Modern concepts of branding want there to be simple, clear symbols that make it easy for people to identify a product. For historical reasons we had a cross and a crescent moon, but the ICRC realised that such symbols were only going to lead to resentment. (And they did too, didn't they).

If Israel had had it's way, every other country would have been entitled to use whatever symbol it wanted too. We could have wound up with India using a swatstika (since it was India where the swastika was lifted from).

As it is, Israel is now a part of the ICRC, and a compromise has been reached.

 

[The Fool]

Interesting article I found here.



I wonder if I should carry it over to some of the Israeli / Palestianian threads. Oh oh oh!

I encourage you to get right into this one Mr Baracuda. You may wish to use the fine search facilities of this site to look at the threads created the last time Mr Sharansky's views were used in this way. It may help you avoid falling in the same holes.

 

[mrbaracuda]

That was a beat up. The ICRC didn't want every single religion or country having it's own symbol. Modern concepts of branding want there to be simple, clear symbols that make it easy for people to identify a product. For historical reasons we had a cross and a crescent moon, but the ICRC realised that such symbols were only going to lead to resentment. (And they did too, didn't they).

No it wasn't "a beat up". I said I can understand objections, but to have Muslim majority countries and Islamic countries stand out to even prevent meetings reeks of anti-Semitism on their part, which would be nothing new.

If Israel had had it's way, every other country would have been entitled to use whatever symbol it wanted too. We could have wound up with India using a swatstika (since it was India where the swastika was lifted from).

Lifted from? I hope you're not suggesting I don't know that. Anyway, I haven't delved into the subject, might do tomorrow but to simple dismiss it with "If Israel had had it's way, every other country would have been entitled to use whatever symbol it wanted too." while it looks more like the MDA / Israel was trying to reach an agreement but those Muslim majority / Islamic countries were actively preventing them on more than one occasion is a shallow assessment in my opinion.

 

[GreyICE]

No it wasn't "a beat up". I said I can understand objections, but to have Muslim majority countries and Islamic countries stand out to even prevent meetings reeks of anti-Semitism on their part, which would be nothing new.

The meetings weren't prevented. They took a long long time to happen.

UN moves at a glacial pace: Business as usual
UN moves at a glacial pace (but Israel is involved): Antisemitism

Lifted from? I hope you're not suggesting I don't know that.

The swastika is not a Nazi symbol, originally. It dates to prehistoric times, but is used in Hindu, Buddhist, and various Japanese sects. It probably predates Hitler by at least 3000 years.

Oh wait, I suggested someone was wrong about something involving Israel. I'm probably antisemitic.

Anyway, I haven't delved into the subject, might do tomorrow but to simple dismiss it with "If Israel had had it's way, every other country would have been entitled to use whatever symbol it wanted too." while it looks more like the MDA / Israel was trying to reach an agreement but those Muslim majority / Islamic countries were actively preventing them on more than one occasion is a shallow assessment in my opinion.

Or an accurate assessment.

Bill O'Reilly has his war on Christmas, and Jews have their antisemitic witchunt. No one has convinced me that they're any different. Are there a few antisemitic people out there? Sure, as many as genuinely want to destroy Christmas.

Religion causes woo, and this persecution complex is just another in a long line of examples. Israel loves the excuse. Don't criticize us too harshly, or you're antisemitic. And the Muslims love it, criticize their backwards culture, and you're anti-Islam. And the Christians love it, it fuels their lovely persecution complex.

Too bad all of them are a few cards short of a full deck. This is just one more lovely example.

 

[Rufo]

mrbaracuda, I suggest you read some more of the information in your first link regarding the ICRC. It explains a lot of what other posters are trying to get across.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I encourage you to get right into this one Mr Baracuda. You may wish to use the fine search facilities of this site to look at the threads created the last time Mr Sharansky's views were used in this way. It may help you avoid falling in the same holes.

Oh yes, I should have searched. Meh, thought I just throw it out there believing it was new. I mixed things up; that's what you get for having 10 pages+ open at the same time. If anyone wants to merge.. maybe with this one. Don't know what you are on about with "falling in the same holes", but coming from you, it doesn't surprise me to hear such a thing.

Like Mycrosoft said in the aforementioned other thread about this, "his criteria for making this distinction is worth looking at". I don't have to be a friend of Sharansky to find the things he mentions interesting. After all, if I'm not mistaken it's not him who created this so called 3D-Test. And after reading a bit into the thread, Fool, maybe you should read it again to avoid failling in the same holes over and over again.

In conclusion I'd like to quote Earthborn out of the linked thread:

As long as we don't use the test for Sharansky's purpose, and instead use it to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate criticism, it is a useful tool. I agree with Cleon that it is a rather subjective tool, but I do not think that is enough justification to abandon it completely. It just means that we shouldn't treat it like a scientific measuring device, but as a thumbrule it is somewhat useful. It will not give us any objective answers, but may help in formulating a subjective judgement of someone's argumentation: "I think this is unfair criticism because it demonises/delegitimises/uses a double standard."

I agree that other things have to be taken into account. In some cases though..

 

[mrbaracuda]

The meetings weren't prevented. They took a long long time to happen.

UN moves at a glacial pace: Business as usual
UN moves at a glacial pace (but Israel is involved): Antisemitism

Add a "tried" and be happy with it. I'm tired.

The swastika is not a Nazi symbol, originally. It dates to prehistoric times, but is used in Hindu, Buddhist, and various Japanese sects. It probably predates Hitler by at least 3000 years.

You don't say!

Oh wait, I suggested someone was wrong about something involving Israel. I'm probably antisemitic. Or an accurate assessment.

[...]

Religion causes woo, and this persecution complex is just another in a long line of examples. Israel loves the excuse. Don't criticize us too harshly, or you're antisemitic.

Your point? It's not like I can't call BS on them if I see it. Or others.
I don't know where this is coming from, but I didn't say Sharansky's viewpoint or the 3D-Test is top-notch and shouldn't be attacked or couldn't. If I didn't want others' input on this I wouldn't put it up for discussion.

That said, when you encounter people comparing the "Palestinians", or Arabs living in the British mandate called Palestine at the time to Aborigines and the Israeli settlers to the settlers of Australia, including themes like "poor Palestinians didn't know what money is, just like the Aborigines" etc, you got to wonder what motivation lies behind it, if any. Not saying it has to be anti-Semitic, but it might be as well.

 

[mrbaracuda]

mrbaracuda, I suggest you read some more of the information in your first link regarding the ICRC. It explains a lot of what other posters are trying to get across.

I understand the objections some might had, as in 70 years ago. In case you missed it, here it is again:

Well, the Jews / Israelis just wanted to have a part of the cake. My guess is, the strong anti-Semitism during that time when they proposed the use of the "Magen David Adom" prevented them. Although I understand objections.

I haven't evaluated the page you are referring to yet and would rather stick to the Anti-Defamation League for now. Seeing how the Muslim majority / Arab / Islamic states are using their powers in the UN in certain ways when it comes to issues with Israel for example, it's not unsubstantiated to think similar motives - those of anti-Semitism - might have been at work here, too. Because let's face it, anti-Semitism hasn't been rampant in the Middle East only since Israel was established but long before that and is fueled by Islam for example.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic. If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people have a right to live securely in their homeland.

Um, aren't Palestinians included under "other peoples"? Isn't that a double standard? We get to kick other people out of their homeland, but you can't kick us out, it's anti-Semetic.

 

[Rufo]

I understand the objections some might had, as in 70 years ago. In case you missed it, here it is again:

I haven't evaluated the page you are referring to yet and would rather stick to the Anti-Defamation League for now. Seeing how the Muslim majority / Arab / Islamic states are using their powers in the UN in certain ways when it comes to issues with Israel for example, it's not unsubstantiated to think similar motives - those of anti-Semitism - might have been at work here, too. Because let's face it, anti-Semitism hasn't been rampant in the Middle East only since Israel was established but long before that and is fueled by Islam for example.

First, I wasn't the first to refer to the page - you were. That's why I suggested it, since you might count it as a credible source of information.

I can't say I have an in-depth knowledge of the exact process either, as it appears to have been quite complex, but essentially my impression is that the ICRC has not allowed any symbols other than the red cross, red crescent and more recently red chrystal. Many other religious symbols have been suggested, but denied, including those used by Hinduism, which is a far more prominent religion than Judaism.

While I agree that this might be a bit unfair (why draw the line after Islam and Christianity?), it is especially suggested as a "double standard" which displays antisemitism. If the alledged explanation on part of the ICRC is that Judaism is not prominent enough as a religion to get to use its symbol for the purposes of that organization, and other religions are treated similarly on the same grounds, it seems not only wrong, but actually stupid to use it as an example of double standards.

And yes, I am aware of the blatant anti-semitism in many parts of the Muslim world. Much of it is of the what the article calls the old kind, the kind you don't need to look very deep to recognize.

When it comes to the new kind, I believe it's very important to be able to recognize it, even if it might be hard. I also believe the article fails in doing so. Miserably.

 

[GreyICE]

Add a "tried" and be happy with it. I'm tired.



You don't say!



Your point? It's not like I can't call BS on them if I see it. Or others.
I don't know where this is coming from, but I didn't say Sharansky's viewpoint or the 3D-Test is top-notch and shouldn't be attacked or couldn't. If I didn't want others' input on this I wouldn't put it up for discussion.

That said, when you encounter people comparing the "Palestinians", or Arabs living in the British mandate called Palestine at the time to Aborigines and the Israeli settlers to the settlers of Australia, including themes like "poor Palestinians didn't know what money is, just like the Aborigines" etc, you got to wonder what motivation lies behind it, if any. Not saying it has to be anti-Semitic, but it might be as well.

You call them like you see them. Bill O'Reilly calls them like he sees them. I'm sure if there's a phrase anything like "I call em like I see em" the crazy clerics in Iran say it all the time.

What's the problem with what you said?

Not saying it has to be anti-Semitic, but it might be as well.

There it is.

Now what pernacious influence does this have. Well, lets rephrase.

"When you look at encounter people comparing Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet Gulags, including themes like "condemned innocents" or "torture by soldiers you got to wonder what motivation lies behind it, if any. Not saying it has to be anti-American, but it might be as well."

Oh hey, look, we've seen exactly this line of reasoning before. A particular ideology attaches itself to some concept that is widely considered bad, and uses it to bludgeon its opponents. Any harsh criticisms can be answered with a simple implication (flat statements are so gauche) that the source has to justify that he is not anti-American.

States always try to wrap themselves in some greater ideology. Israel has grabbed onto the tattered remnant of the Divine Right of Kings, and is desperately clinging to it to justify anything. You think not letting Palestinians marry Jews is wrong? You antisemite! How dare you question the Divine Right of Kings... err... Israel!

Guess what? It's a nation. It was founded partially because some powerful people in the British empire thought it was a really good idea if they got their own special place to practice their woo, and partially because some other woo practitioners in the British empire thought that the Jewish woo was much worse than their woo, and they wanted them gone, and the rest pretty much just wanted as many powerful crazy people out of their country as they could get. So the British empire took a bit of the Ottoman Empire, which it got in World War 1 and declared it a woo-sanctuary, where a bunch of crazies could be safe from the other lunatics.

Unfortunately woo festers if you lock it all up like that (see: Puritans, the Middle East, pretty much any cult compound, the deep south) so let it sit and get nice and rotten for nearly three quarters of a century, and you have Israel.

All you people checking under bushes for Antisemitism are just trying to scare people into shutting up. They are trying to claim that one particular branch of irrational thought (antisemitism) is opposing them, so they're really rational.

The problem is, that's poor logic. Just because you're arguing with a lunatic doesn't mean you're not an inmate of the asylum.

 

[JoeEllison]

Um, aren't Palestinians included under "other peoples"? Isn't that a double standard? We get to kick other people out of their homeland, but you can't kick us out, it's anti-Semetic.

Shhh... the real complaint is any standard, fair or not, that doesn't favor Israel. No surprise, really. I think it would be anti-semitic to claim that they are the only nation to hold themselves to a different standard, or that they do it because they are Jewish, instead of attributing it to human nature and recognizing that pretty much anyone in power does the same thing, to some degree or other.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Shhh... the real complaint is any standard, fair or not, that doesn't favor Israel. No surprise, really. I think it would be anti-semitic to claim that they are the only nation to hold themselves to a different standard, or that they do it because they are Jewish, instead of attributing it to human nature and recognizing that pretty much anyone in power does the same thing, to some degree or other.

Ever heard of the term "God's chosen people" from that crowd?

DR

 

[JoeEllison]

The argument presented in the OP, BTW, is one that I've most often heard from the sorts of people who accuse Israelis and American Jews who disagree with the more extreme elements in Israel of being "self-hating Jews", as though there is only one correct viewpoint, and any deviation from that viewpoint is anti-semitic by default.

Personally? As an atheist and a "mutt" without any sort of cultural identity, I don't have a stake in any sort of religious or racial conflict. I think people are mostly decent if given half a chance to be. I also think that when I say that the loss of any innocent life is a tragedy, and someone else says that it is less tragic when one of "them" dies, whichever "them" they might be referring to, that person has no right to accuse me of anything.

 

[Mycroft]

I encourage you to get right into this one Mr Baracuda. You may wish to use the fine search facilities of this site to look at the threads created the last time Mr Sharansky's views were used in this way. It may help you avoid falling in the same holes.

You mean those holes you fell into, right?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42177

 

[mrbaracuda]

I can't say I have an in-depth knowledge of the exact process either, as it appears to have been quite complex, but essentially my impression is that the ICRC has not allowed any symbols other than the red cross, red crescent and more recently red chrystal. Many other religious symbols have been suggested, but denied, including those used by Hinduism, which is a far more prominent religion than Judaism.

I'm aware of that and also share the RCRC's thoughts on what they termed as "symbol profilaration", but fact is attempts to get this issue resolved seem to have mainly been hampered by Muslim majority / Arab countries.

While I agree that this might be a bit unfair (why draw the line after Islam and Christianity?), it is especially suggested as a "double standard" which displays antisemitism. If the alledged explanation on part of the ICRC is that Judaism is not prominent enough as a religion to get to use its symbol for the purposes of that organization, and other religions are treated similarly on the same grounds, it seems not only wrong, but actually stupid to use it as an example of double standards.

Sharansky doesn't go into detail about this issue and it's not supposed to be a matter of religion. First and foremost it's a humanitarian aid / emergency medical services just like the red cross or crescent; just with a different logo being used there. Unfortunately, and I say this because you know how much Israel is loved in the area, the Shield of David which poses tensions and problems. The way I see it, he mentions it because the countries which kept voting against not only the third protocol but conventions didn't do this because they feared the "symbol profilaration", but because they had and have a religious bias most likely culminating in anti-Semitism, even if not openly expressed, although other things play a part, of course.

Seeing that two thirds of 120 nations (and not only there when it came to voting for or against steps towards a resolution) were for holding the 2005 convention alone, and the one third against it mainly Muslim, you got to wonder why they'd vote against it, when it's about acceptance of not only Israel's humanitarian aid / emergency medical services organisation but also, and more importantly, a new, neutral emblem and therefore the resolution of a problem that had been there for quite some time; with the other proposed symbols for example.

 

[Rufo]

I'm aware of that and also share the RCRC's thoughts on what they termed as "symbol profilaration", but fact is attempts to get this issue resolved seem to have mainly been hampered by Muslim majority / Arab countries.

Sharansky doesn't go into detail about this issue and it's not supposed to be a matter of religion. First and foremost it's a humanitarian aid / emergency medical services just like the red cross or crescent; just with a different logo being used there. Unfortunately, and I say this because you know how much Israel is loved in the area, the Shield of David which poses tensions and problems. The way I see it, he mentions it because the countries which kept voting against not only the third protocol but conventions didn't do this because they feared the "symbol profilaration", but because they had and have a religious bias most likely culminating in anti-Semitism, even if not openly expressed, although other things play a part, of course.

Seeing that two thirds of 120 nations (and not only there when it came to voting for or against steps towards a resolution) were for holding the 2005 convention alone, and the one third against it mainly Muslim, you got to wonder why they'd vote against it, when it's about acceptance of not only Israel's humanitarian aid / emergency medical services organisation but also, and more importantly, a new, neutral emblem and therefore the resolution of a problem that had been there for quite some time; with the other proposed symbols for example.

Believe me, I am completely on your side when it comes to that the organization should have worked out a neutral emblem before. And I'm not ruling out that Muslim nations played an important part in delaying the solution. What I'm questioning is Sharansky's use of it as an example of "double standards" displaying anti-semitism, because it is not double standards. Magen David Adom wanted to use its own emblem, and was denied that. Other, non-Israeli, non-Jewish organizations wanted to use their own emblems and were denied that. The reason for the difference as I understand it was that other organizations changed their symbols to approved ones, while Magen David Adom refused to do so. If others had refused, there is nothing to suggest they would not have been similarly treated. It simply is not double standards.

There are similar problems with the other 'D's in the article. The author makes a good point with the concepts, but fails to apply them in a good way himself. I find it rather disappointing, since it proves within their very presentation that they can easily be applied incorrectly. I'll get back to you on why exactly I disagree with his other sentiments.