Antisemitism in 3-D

Tripe.

The first D is the test of demonization.

<snip>

For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz -- comparisons heard practically every day within the "enlightened" quarters of Europe -- can only be considered anti-Semitic.

<snip>

DOUBLE STANDARDS

The second D is the test of double standards.

<snip>

Similarly, today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively. In other words, do similar policies by other governments engender the same criticism, or is there a double standard at work?

It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored.

<snip>

DELIGITIMIZATION

The third D is the test of deligitimization.

<snip>

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.
Click to expand...

Criticism of Israel isn't anti-semitism anymore than criticism of Cuba is anti-hispanicism. The UN does criticize China, Iran, Cuba and other countries named. Questioning the origin of Israel and legitimacy of that act is no more inherently racist than questioning the forming of the Republic of Texas. It only becomes racist when people argue that Texans or Israelis deserved to be wiped out.

Even though article is factually in error, the thrust of its argument should still be refuted. Antisemitism is racism directed at Jews and Israel is not synonymous with Judaism. There definitely are antisemites who hate Israel. The proliferation of copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Muslim countries springs to mind. There are also non-racists who are appalled when Israel acts like a gun totting bully.
 
Last edited:
Israel will soon have an Arab majority. Won't that be interesting! Does it remain a democracy? Does it self-destruct?
Does it matter?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Even though article is factually in error, the thrust of its argument should still be refuted. Antisemitism is racism directed at Jews and Israel is not synonymous with Judaism. There definitely are antisemites who hate Israel. The proliferation of copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Muslim countries springs to mind. There are also non-racists who are appalled when Israel acts like a gun totting bully.
Click to expand...
You had to know that the thrust of the argument was going to be flawed by the fact that it began with an appeal for moral absolutes, a sure sign of trouble. It is the same sort of thing that leads people to claim that people who disagree with Bush's administration hate America. Conflating criticism of the behavior of a government with hatred of the country is already a flawed premise, and to extend it to include racism is ridiculous, but pretty obviously self-serving for supporters of that government.
 
Father Dagon said:
I thought that this thread was about those computer games...
Click to expand...
Oh God, don't remind me. I guess it comes with open source engines, but damn did Genesis3D have bad luck with all those scary people using it.

I guess we should just be happy they lack resources to make anything of decent quality.
 
mrbaracuda said:
Maybe there's a 3d version of this somewhere. :covereyes
Click to expand...
No, but in the meantime, the sick ****s who enjoyed that can spend some time on this piece of trash, and its sequels. And if someone happens to want to bomb away Israel without all that outright racist stuff, they have this piece of propaganda to waste their time on.

As I said - poor, poor Genesis3D. :(
 
mrbaracuda said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are aware they were admitted without problem when they changed their symbol, right?

Given that, and given that your hypothesis was that they weren't admitted because of antisemitism, how do you reconcile the hypothesis with the observed evidence?

Observation: They're still Jewish, and in Israel
Observation: They changed their symbol
Observation: They were admitted

The conclusion I would draw would be that the symbol, not the Jewish-ness (is that a word) was the problem. You drawing the conclusion that it was secretly antisemitism seems baseless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom