Skip to comments.Anti-Semitism Claims Are Made Too Often
Posted on 10/18/2014 4:37:44 PM PDT by Enza Ferreri
No-one doubts that there will be people who hate Jews.
The most obvious example is devout and observant Muslims, who are commanded by their religion to do so. They are also ordered to hate Christians, but for some reason the latter injunction doesn't evoke even a fraction of the emotion inspired by the former, despite the fact that an infinitely higher number of Christians than Jews suffer the consequences of this today.
Incidentally - this is not relevant to the rest of the article -, I've found what I consider a better way to distinguish between Muslims of various degrees of radicalism. Rather than the self-contradictory expression "moderate Muslims", invented by the West for tactical (read "cowardly") reasons and not used by the Islamic world, I prefer to call "devout and observant Muslims" the Mohammedans who are usually referred to as "militant and extremist", with the implication that those of them who are not covered by this description are not Muslim in the truest sense.
Going back to the main topic, the reason why Islamic Jew-hatred provokes much more indignation than Islamic Christian-hatred is not difficult to understand. It's because anti-Semitism is - or rather has become - another buzzword of the politically-correct language of today's ideological orthodoxy. According to this prevailing dogma, being against Christians does not even remotely approach the same level of sinfulness as attacking Christians.
Accusations of anti-Semitism, without reaching the absurdity and scope of charges of Islamophobia, have nevertheless something in common with them. They say: there is a protected group here, designated as victim, that shouldn't be messed with, or else.
This is not healthy, as it doesn't really distinguish real Jew-haters from people who simply have criticisms to make which, as in the case of Islam or Muslims, may be directed at Judaism or Jews.
This is something I have observed over time, but a particular direct experience of it brought it home to me more forcefully.
It all started with the short post "Wrong to Have Animals Killed in War" I wrote on this blog a couple of months ago, prompted by the news of an Israeli military dog killed in a Gaza blast who saved her handler's life.
This elicited two responses which - although one is anonymous - I think came from the same people, as they are worded almost identically.
The first you can see on the post page as a comment:
time I took my Jewish support away from LIbertyGB there were dogs used in WW2 the Isola da [sic] Elba is over-run with homeless cats they eat live animal sushi in Japan but look...can we talk about all this instead of being enemies?The next day an email was received by my party Liberty GB from two Jewish ladies who were supporters, asking: "Can you please remove this blog?"
The rest of the email is a repetition of the above comment, and ends with: "Why pick on us Jews, clearly singled out?"
Now, one can disagree with my opinion. I have been involved all my life in the movement for animal equality, and I know we are a minority. But no-one can say that my post was anti-Semitic.
Predicting that in these days of heightened sensitivities about anything somebody could - wrongly - read it that way, I wrote (and this is the whole of my comment, the rest of the post being two lines of news):
I have to say that I consider immoral to have dogs or other animals take part in military operations - be it Israeli or any other - as they cannot give their consent.The "non-anti-Israel" disclaimer is one fifth of the entire text.
I didn't scour the annals of war history to find an apt anti-Semitic episode I could exploit in order to express my hatred of Jews, as these ladies seem to believe. The reason why the post was about an IDF (Israel Defence Forces) canine is simply because it's seeing that news item that inspired it. If I had spotted a similar event in the context of any other army I would have written the same, mutatis mutandis.
What is sinister about these responses is their demand of the removal of my blog, whatever that meant. I'm not sure if these ladies actually know how these things work, but it's immaterial. The spirit of strict censorship - anything we don't like must be removed - is there in full view.
Also unpleasant is the remark "the Isola da [sic] Elba is over-run with homeless cats". Since I am Italian, it looks like a clear tit-for-tat and ad hominem attack. They can be excused for not knowing that I am a lifelong animal activist, but not for neglecting to try to find out something about the context before launching themselves into indictments for anti-Semitism.
Just browsing my blog would have shown them that I've written in support of Israel several times, and would have displayed my animal-rights credentials.
It's a small thing, you may say, and I would agree, if it were not indicative of a much wider and greater phenomenon, of which I was reminded when I read the following in Takimag:
He [American Congressman Jim Traficant] also gained infamy (along with Patrick Buchanan) for opposing the deportation to Israel of John Demjanjuk, whom Traficant insisted had been misidentified as notorious concentration-camp guard Ivan the Terrible.Since Patrick Buchanan is the author of a book I'm reading with great interest, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, that made me curious to find out more.
It turned out that the case of Ukrainian John Demjanjuk, first sentenced to death by an Israeli court for being the infamous "Ivan the Terrible" guard in Treblinka, the German concentration camp, and years later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Israel because Ivan Marchenko had been established as the real "Ivan the Terrible", is very interesting.
In the clearly not anti-Semitic Kyiv Post, Ukraines English-language newspaper, lawyer Andriy J. Semotiuk writes:
While I was not immersed in the case, over the years I became increasingly alarmed by the legal deficiencies that were evident in the prosecution of his case in the United States, then in Israel and finally in Munich.I don't want to reproduce here all the story of Demjanjuk and his case, which you can follow by reading the links.
Gitta Sereny, an Austrian author of Jewish descent who investigated and wrote extensively about the Third Reich's extermination camps and is another unlikely anti-Semite, had this to say:
From the start of the trial I was concerned that a man was being tried whose identity was in question. My friend Albert Spiess, the German prosecutor of the Treblinka trial and the trial of Franz Stangl, commandant of Treblinka, considered the identification procedure that had been applied in Israel and which produced the identification of Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible to be unacceptable. He had told the Israelis, who had invited him to testify at the trial, that he would have to say so in court, at which point the invitation, not surprisingly, was withdrawn.So, Buchanan and Traficant, who as the Takimag article says gained "infamy", were right all along: Demjanjuk had been misidentified as "Ivan the Terrible", and the latter was finally found to be another man, Marchenko.
That didn't save Buchanan and Traficant from being accused of anti-Semitism over this episode.
I repeat what I said earlier: anti-Semitism, like anti-Christianity, exists. But it is bandied about too often and too often wrongly.
The kind of defensiveness that leads to imputations of Jew-hate whenever there is a disagreement is too similar to "Islamophobia" for comfort, and doesn't help to isolate and address the real anti-Semitism as it confuses the latter with so many "cry wolf" false alarms.
Muslims killed 3300 Americans on 9/11. Jews did not.
Sorry, there is a mistake.
Where I say: “According to this prevailing dogma, being against Christians does not even remotely approach the same level of sinfulness as attacking Christians.”, it should read:
“According to this prevailing dogma, being against Christians does not even remotely approach the same level of sinfulness as attacking Jews.”
Mostly said by anti-Semites.
I never said they did. I’m not comparing the two groups, if you read my article.
If you say anything against a Jewish position, you’re an “Antisemite”. Just like if you don’t support special ‘rights’ and ‘free stuff’ for Black people, you’re a “racist”.
I have nothing at all against Jews. Honestly, I’m not even entirely sure what a ‘Jew’ is.
I just call’em the way I see’em.
You proved my point.
And if you criticise Muslim doctrine or behaviour you’re an Islamophobe.
All these are aspects of the same problem.
I’m sure that’s what you think. What a surprise.
I’m not comparing Muslims with Jews. I’m comparing accusations of Islamophobia or racism against anyone critising Muslims with accusations of anti-Semitism against anyone criticising anything to do with Jewish people.
Then how to explain the surge of more American Colleges who encourage Pro-Palestinian Speakers on campus, including those who physically assault and verbally threaten any Jewish speakers, or anyone against the ‘fighting’ methods of Hamas?
Seems to me, those radicals are in the upswing, and their perspective gets unquestioning support from most the media, much to our national detriment and shame. In the Bay Area of California, a pro-Pal. movement has twice succeeded in interfering with a cargo ship offloading it’s supplies, because most the supplies were Israeli manufactured. I say the Jews in America need to speak up more loudly now, press charges when warranted now, before they get treated as the Jews in France do now.
BTTT for later discussion
The odd thing is that most American Jewish people voted for radical lefty Obola. The dems are the party of race haters. Everyone knows this. The dems are socialists and the neo-nazis are socialists. So they even hook into white racists. The whole diversity of racists have specialized race hate doctrines against Jews. It’s sick. But Jewish intellectuals support this non-sense.
Then, tie it all together into something that espouses truthful common sense instead of circular rationalization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.