AIPAC's new definition of "anti-Semitism"

[EoinMag]

It's a great example of an association fallacy i.e. some anti-semites oppose Israel's policies, therefore anyone who opposes Israel's policies is an anti-semite. Having said that, a lot of antisemitism is pretty sneaky so it's hard sometimes to figure out if someone's opposition to Israel is really about the country's policies or is driven by antisemitism. I agree with the thrust of Greenwald's piece, though, that using the accusation to stifle legitimate debate is counter-productive and just plain wrong.

Let's get real for a moment, would we even be still speaking of anti-semitism if the Israelis were not the greatest threat to world peace? Do you really think that pure anti-semitism is that strong outside of organised white supremacy groups and the likes? Who'd really give any more of a crap about the jews than any other nation if they were not acting as the bullies of the world and picking at the festering scab that is their occupation of Palestine? I'd posit that no one would give a crap and we'd rarely hear about them. The Israelis are the happy instigators of a lot of the real anti-semitism anyway, what with their campaigns to prove to the diaspora that they are not wanted in their host countries and should go to Israel, their spiritual home.

I'd happily forget about them tomorrow as with any religious group, if they'd just shut up about being Jewish and about people hating them and about their theft of other peoples land which they falsely claim as their own.

[seabhcan]

"suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse".

Wow.

[L'Chaim]

Criticism of Israel is in itself not antisemitic. In fact criticism of any government is very important. But when someone, like in the OP link, equates Israel with apartheid then you would have to wonder what is the motive behind doing that. Their arguments against Israeli policy should be strong enough to stand on their own merits without that type of equating. It's the same with equating Israeli government policies with the policies of the Nazis. If your arguments are good then you don't have to do that. Doing that is at best lazy and probably based in antisemitism. Singling out Israel for international sanction, out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East, is antisemitic and not saying so is dishonest. By all means people can argue against the settlements and argue against Israeli security policies, and argue against Israeli responses to acts of terror and war, but look at how they phrase their arguments and use false comparisons and you can see where many of their views are based. A lot of it does draw on bigotry and classic hatred of Jews.

If someone calls for the destruction of Israel I know their beliefs are based in antisemitism. Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination is antisemitic. Holocaust denial is antisemitism. Supporting, excusing and rationalising racist terrorism against Jews is antisemitism.

[EUrJokingMeRight]

meh

[seabhcan]

I've been saying for years that Ireland should get into this game. We should set up our own AIPAC - American Ireland Public Affairs Committee - and start declaring certain thought crimes to be 'anti-Irish'.

I can think of quite a few 'anti-Irish' thoughts I'd like to ban.

1. Suggesting Ireland needs a second bailout.
2. Suggesting Ireland had a bailout
3. Suggesting Irish GDP growth will be less than 10% next year
4. Suggesting Ireland won't win the 6 nations

All are clear examples of 'famine-denying' anti-Irish sentiment, that has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse.

[EoinMag]

Criticism of Israel is in itself not antisemitic. In fact criticism of any government is very important. But when someone, like in the OP link, equates Israel with apartheid then you would have to wonder what is the motive behind doing that. Their arguments against Israeli policy should be strong enough to stand on their own merits without that type of equating. It's the same with equating Israeli government policies with the policies of the Nazis. If your arguments are good then you don't have to do that. Doing that is at best lazy and probably based in antisemitism. Singling out Israel for international sanction, out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East, is antisemitic and not saying so is dishonest. By all means people can argue against the settlements and argue against Israeli security policies, and argue against Israeli responses to acts of terror and war, but look at how they phrase their arguments and use false comparisons and you can see where many of their views are based. A lot of it does draw on bigotry and classic hatred of Jews.

If someone calls for the destruction of Israel I know their beliefs are based in antisemitism. Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination is antisemitic. Holocaust denial is antisemitism. Supporting, excusing and rationalising racist terrorism against Jews is antisemitism.

Why, in your mind do comparisons with history have no place in the discussion, why are they automatically anti-semitic?

[seabhcan]

It's the same with equating Israeli government policies with the policies of the Nazis. If your arguments are good then you don't have to do that. Doing that is at best lazy and probably based in antisemitism.

You are constantly making comparisons between Iranian government policies and the policies of the Nazis. If your arguments are good then you don't have to do that. Doing that is at best lazy and probably based in anti-Iranianism.

[L'Chaim]

Why, in your mind do comparisons with history have no place in the discussion, why are they automatically anti-semitic?

But people who do say Israel is an apartheid state or a Nazi state never define their arguments. They never prove what they allege. They use bait and switch tactics. They usually throw out those terms as stand alone terms to apply to Israel. It uses those terms to associate Israel with two other systems that were crimes against humanity. The terms apartheid and nazism were used to delegitimize the regimes of South Africa and of nazi germany. Using those terms to apply to Israel is an attempt to deligitimize Israel......and that is antisemitism. If someone's arguments are strong enough they don't use false comparisons and they don't try and hide the basis of their arguments behind incorrect terms

[BlueNovember]

Criticism of Israel is in itself not antisemitic. In fact criticism of any government is very important. But when someone, like in the OP link, equates Israel with apartheid then you would have to wonder what is the motive behind doing that. Their arguments against Israeli policy should be strong enough to stand on their own merits without that type of equating. It's the same with equating Israeli government policies with the policies of the Nazis. If your arguments are good then you don't have to do that. Doing that is at best lazy and probably based in antisemitism. Singling out Israel for international sanction, out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East, is antisemitic and not saying so is dishonest. By all means people can argue against the settlements and argue against Israeli security policies, and argue against Israeli responses to acts of terror and war, but look at how they phrase their arguments and use false comparisons and you can see where many of their views are based. A lot of it does draw on bigotry and classic hatred of Jews.

If someone calls for the destruction of Israel I know their beliefs are based in antisemitism. Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination is antisemitic. Holocaust denial is antisemitism. Supporting, excusing and rationalising racist terrorism against Jews is antisemitism.

So it's not fair/anti-semitic and an unworthy argument to draw comparisons,uncomfortable as they may be? A strong military power organising the deliberate ghettoisation of a disenfranchised indigenous people.....Warsaw,West Bank or Soweto.Or 1960's Derry,for that matter. It's not anti-semitic,it's just plain WRONG.
By the way,aren't Palestinians Semites too? So we can add hijacking as well.

[EoinMag]

But people who do say Israel is an apartheid state or a Nazi state never define their arguments. They never prove what they allege. They use bait and switch tactics. They usually throw out those terms as stand alone terms to apply to Israel. It uses those terms to associate Israel with two other systems that were crimes against humanity. The terms apartheid and nazism were used to delegitimize the regimes of South Africa and of nazi germany. Using those terms to apply to Israel is an attempt to deligitimize Israel......and that is antisemitism

I thought anti-semitism was about hating jews?
Google Define: Antisemitism
Definition for antisemitism:
Web definitions:
anti-Semitism: the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I see no mention of Israel?

Are you indeed also conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism?