How far will the boycott go?

I will miss all the Chicken Soup...

Israel has been good to me, so I'll be good to Israel.

Over to the rest of you -

Last edited by Sammy Ambrose (2010-06-29 03:01:27)

I believe that criticism which centres on the Jewish nature of Israel is likely to be anti-Semitic. There seems no good reason to identify the religion of Israelis as a relevant factor in the situation. If religion is relevant at all, it is only because of the horrendous anti-Semitism of most Arab regimes. Even amongst those countries who are formally at peace with Israel, the level of anti-Semitism in newspapers and, most appallingly, in school textbooks, is horrifying. There is no excuse for so-called 'enlightened' Europeans to pursue that line of argument or, indeed, to ignore the anti-Semitism in the Arab world.

I believe that criticism which centres on the right of Israel to exist is anti-Semitic. Granting even for one moment (which I don't normally) that Israel is right up there with the pariah states of the world it is noteworthy that not a single critic calls for the abolition of Iran (currently denying election results and assassinating internal opposition), Sudan (currently killing its minority groups), Sri Lanka (has just wiped out almost its entire minority population) or China (no elections, people with beliefs disagreeable to the State jailed without trial). The lack of proportionality has no explanation other than a dislike of Judaism.

I believe that discriminating against Israel is anti-Semitic. Calls for boycotts are a prime example of such discrimination. There are no such calls against the States listed above. Yet, on any rational analysis, those countries behave far more unpleasantly to their minorities and perceived enemies than Israel, which does not eliminate internal enemies, kill minority populations or refuse legal remedies to those oppressed by the State. That being so, it is difficult to see why Israel should be so singled out, save that it is a Jewish state.

It is sometimes suggested that such a stance is justified because Israel is a democracy and must be judged differently. Such an argument does not survive even cursory analysis. Firstly, and granting the premise, since when did a democracy falling short of its own ideals justify a call for the abolition of a State? Never. Secondly, the argument only gets off the ground if you refuse to allow States themselves to label their own systems. Iran calls itself a democracy. The only reason not to hold it to the same standard as Israel is because those advancing this rubbish say 'well, that's what Iran says, but they're lying really'. Logically, a State's misrepresentation in this regard should call for more criticism, not less.

I believe that criticism which calls for the reconstruction of Israel as a non-Jewish state is anti-Semitic. The same arguments apply as above. No other state is told what it must and must not be. I hear not a single call to deny the legitimacy of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Abu Dhabi, Indonesia or Oman (all Islamic states) or the UK, Ireland, or the Vatican (all Christian States).

It is also troubling that people who raise any or all of these points are so deaf to basic fairness, upon which the rebuttal of their stance depends. That inability to accept a simple argument resting on the familiar premise that like cases should be compared together, suggests an unpleasant and sinister determination to assert something known to be untrue. People who deliberately lie or who reject simple propositions are unlikely to be arguing from a position of good faith.

It is a feature of such bad faith that there is an intense search to find a Jew who agrees with the stance adopted. That very fact demonstrates how important religion is to the people denying Israel's legitimacy. It rests on an unstated assumption that all Jews hang together. That assumption is ridiculous and no one would make it about Christians or Atheists. Those who make it about Muslims would widely, and properly, be regarded as racist. Moreover it demonstrates a knowledge that what is being said is questionable and a belief that Jewish support can make acceptable what would otherwise be unacceptable. If a proposition needs a Jew to ok it then it isn't correct - no real argument should depend on the religion or belief of its supporters. As a matter of fact, the best estimate is that 95% of Jews support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.

Finally I believe that those who criticise Israel and allow anti-Semitic tropes to creep into their discourse urgently need to rethink and reframe their arguments. Such language is not, necessarily, indicative of anti-Semitism but if it is repeated after the offensive nature of what is being said has been brought to the attention of the person saying it, then it begins to cross the boundary.

Far too often - and here I do hold up Kingstonian as an example - such a challenge does not provoke any thought or contemplation. Instead what happens - such is the eagerness not to admit that the boundaries of civilised debate have been exceeded - is that the language becomes more and more extreme. Jews are reviled for preventing free speech (usually in the context of holocaust denial). They are said to control whole nations, leaders of countries, industries, churches and charities. The implicit accusation behind all such assertions is that Jews pursue only their own interests at the expense of others. That is anti-Semitic: substitute 'blacks', 'Muslims', 'Anglo-Saxons' for Jews and it is clear.

To go down this route is to descend into an imaginary world where great forces battle for power, never once acknowledging that they exist. For little men who cannot come to grips with their own inability to make the world recognise their own innate brilliance, that can be a comforting fantasy. For normal human beings, it is risible. People do not behave that way.

Moreover, there are about 6,800,000,000 people in the world: there are about 13,000,000 Jews - about 0.2% of the total. Excluding Antarctica, the world land mass is about 44,100,000 square miles. Israel (including the Golan but excluding the West Bank) occupies 8,522 square miles or 0.1% of the total. Interestingly, half the world's Jews live in Israel, so its Jewish population and its land mass are precisely in sync. Israel is the world's 151st largest country (out of 233). It is, for example, smaller than Djibouti and the Solomon Islands (although bigger than Lebanon).

Criticism of the government or the policies of the government of the State of Israel is not anti-Semitic. I am, for example, firmly of the view that there should be a Palestinian State, on the West Bank and in Gaza and that settlements in the area of that State should either be dismantled or the inhabitants told that they are now to be citizens of Palestine. I believe that the blockade of Gaza should be lifted and replaced with the prohibition on the passage of military equipment, with the UN and/or selected aid agencies made responsible for ensuring that these prohibitions are not breached by any convoy under their auspices. I believe that collective punishment of those in Gaza for electing Hamas (in any event a mistake that - according to recent polls - over 66% of them realise was a mistake) is wrong, but that if Hamas chooses to launch missiles into Israel neither Hamas nor the world can then properly complain if that military act elicits a military response. Arguments about proportionality (never made in respect of other conflicts) are irrelevant because they fail entirely to recognise that the whole question is dependant only on whether Hamas decided to launch an unprovoked attack. Such attacks are so disproportionate as to justify sufficient response to end them.

What differentiates my criticism from the Earl of Moron and his fellow travellers is not even necessarily the substance of it. It is that my criticism is based on questioning policy and fairness. It does not even slightly rest upon a doubt that Israel has the right to exist, as a Jewish state, determining its own interests and acting to secure them, with a right to defend itself which is absolute and not bounded by 'proportionality', which is a way of saying how many dead Israelis are acceptable - where the answer is none, as it would be in Britain, Australia, France, the USA, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Sorry to be so long, but Anti-Semitism is dangerous. History shows that the Jews are the canary in the coalmine. There has never been a regime which persecuted Jews and restricted its persecution to Jews. The world understood that lesson in 1945. What seems to me to have happened since then is that people have begun to seek to comfort themselves with the belief that the holocaust could not possibly simply be wickedness but must have a reason. Israel, unsurprisingly imperfect, is seized on as supporting that view by showing that Jews can be wrong. For those who cannot tolerate victims having power or who need to see victims as having power, Israel being wrong is rapidly transmuted into Israel being wicked and evil. In truth it is not so, and pretending that it is makes nothing any better.

I don't understand why we hold to a higher standard those countries that have demonstrated a higher morale stature.  If standards vary subjectively from one country or one person to another, they're not standards.  Israel is an island of civilized, Western rationality in a sea of theocratic, racial barbarism.

I don't understand why the Palestinian refugees are not offered citizenship by Jordan, Syria, and maybe Egypt (depending on their location).  Pretty much anywhere in the world, this would happen after a couple generations.  The only reason I can come up with why they don't is that they want to maintain a state of civil war within Israel.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anti-semitism.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/200201140009

Last edited by formby (2010-06-29 10:38:21)

I know the entire strength of THE RED EAGLE CLAN, a very secretive society of radical chumash indians. I could expand this dialog into their grievances if the forum would allow. But this thread is about Israel. So lets not go there, or the 6 counties ( loyalists call it northern Ireland, republicans the 6 counties) less the thread lose all focus. Hell, sometimes I lie awake late into the night, wondering if
the frozen mummy Oetzi discovered on the italian/austrian border was victim or initiator of that conflict.
Every human conflict is unique in all but the one sad factor of human suffering;chumash,irish,chinamen, jew: It's a simple equation of people suffering for rather base reasons at the end of the day.

Yes, the plastic paddies like plastic scousers suffer from a strange misty eyed nostalgia and longing to return back to the homeland.  Oddly, few of them actively seek to live on those shoes.  Indeed, its surprising how many plastics carry with them personal memories of the Great Famine or how at family gatherings they will point at some ageing female relative from an obscure branch of the family tree and say all doey and dewy eyed whilst supping some lager beer 'that's aunty Midge, she's the last of us still living on Scotty road.'  As if Scotty road had been anything other than bombed out slum with a spit and saw dust pub on each corner.

A quick step back by all for the sake of adulthood?