Anti-Semitism - Hate Hits the Mainstream

LA Times ^ | 12/17/01 | ABRAHAM COOPER

[veronica]

-SNIP-Ominously, the Abu Dhabi series reflects the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism across the Arab world. Saudi Arabian and Egyptian TV are debating whether to air a 30-part miniseries, "Horseman Without a Horse," which is based on the debunked canard "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," an early 20th century hoax by the Russian czar's secret police that purported to reveal a Jewish plan to dominate the world. The book, a virtual prescription for genocide, has been invoked by every Jew hater from Adolf Hitler to Louis Farrakhan. THE REST HERE ...

[Ridin' Shotgun]

Kach and Kahane Chai From: Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2000.

United States Department of State, April 2001.

Comments on the content of the material should be sent to the U.S. Department of State

Description: Stated goal is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Kach (founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane) and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means "Kahane Lives" (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), were declared to be terrorist organizations in March 1994 by the Israeli Cabinet under the 1948 Terrorism Law. This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosque--Goldstein was affiliated with Kach--and their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Palestinian gunmen killed Binyamin Kahane and his wife in a drive-by shooting on 31 December in the West Bank.

Activities

Organize protests against the Israeli Government. Harass and threaten Palestinians in Hebron and the West Bank. Have threatened to attack Arabs, Palestinians, and Israeli Government officials. Have vowed revenge for the death of Binyamin Kahane and his wife.

Strength

Unknown.

Location/Area of Operation

Israel and West Bank settlements, particularly Qiryat Arba' in Hebron.

External Aid

Receive support from sympathizers in the United States and Europe. ~~~~~~ Oops ~~~~

[TopQuark]

I know what the definition of anti-semite is, and I know it is an incorrect use of the word Semite when applied to Arabs hating Jews. There are several misunderstandings here, Lumberjack. You are correct describing the "original" meaning of the word "Semite," as it denotes a group of people.

The word "anti-Semite," by its linguistic construction, means "against Semites," and this is the threatment of it that you pursue. This is a mistake, however, because this one word "anti-Semite" has not arisen as a linguistic negation. Nor has it arisen in science at all.

It came about as part of the centuries old issue, which eventually received the name of the "Jewish problem." Those who were antagonistic to the Jews became known as anti-Semites. The educated class liked it a little more than anti-Jew because it sounded... well, more educated. This, moreover, was accurate because Jews were the only Semites with whom Christians were in contact in the hinterland of Europe. To sum up, the word "anti-Semite" is not, in its usage, a negation of Semite; it is one word with the aforementioned meaning.

Incidentally, I noticed in the 1980s that a lot of Arabic literature and the invited pundits on television always made this very point with great pride --- they could not be anti-Semitic because they themselves are Semites. I do not know who the first sophist among them was to attain this oratory achievement. Nonetheless, you as well as these other protagonists miss the point I just described.

Further, languages evolve and vary be locale. There many familiar examples of completely different meanings given to the same English words and expressions in the U.K. and the U.S.: such as "rubber," "to know some up," etc. Observe that nobody talks about the Americans being wrong in their usage; the dictionaries refer instead to "American English." The upshot is this: even if anti-Semitism formally meant the opposition to Semites rather than Jews, given that this is how it is universally used, who are you to declare this usage wrong?

I also know that many if not most people call all facial tissue Kleenex as well, but hey, they must be right since they call it that, right? Absolutely, this is another typical example of the evolution of the language. Another one is xerox, which has even become a verb.

There are even dictionaries that define "Kleenex" as any facial tissue or "soft absorbent paper". Exactly, I have just explained why.

But in the media, they are still required to NOT use the word Kleenex unless specifically referring to the trade brand of the company that manufactures Kleenex. This is because the product they sell is advertising. They do not want to step into the gray area wherein they appear to be promoting that brand. This is a legal matter that has nothing to do with the language.

Now granted, anti-semite is not a trade name. But is an incorrect usage of the word semite, period.

You win. Words are inconsequential. Its all how we define them at the moment, subject to change at any time, for any reason. You win. From my standpoint, this is neither a game nor a fight. Words do have meanings and the usage thereof has consequences. It is just helpful, before digging in your heels, to investigate the subject broadly. Contrary to popular opinion, the web resources are not a substitute for education.

[rmlew]

So Kach and its successors caused the anit-semetism of WW2?
Lets think about this. Kach was founded in the 1980's.
You have it backwards. If anything, Kahanists are a reslut of European and Arab anti-Jewish actions.

The same holds for modern political Zionism.
This movement is only 100 years old and was founded after the it became clear that Anti-semetism was alive and well in Enlightened liberal countries like France, as well as backwards ones like Russia. The idea was to have a Jewish state in what is now Israel.

[constitutiongirl]

Sure, if you're using the English definition of 'anti' and not the Italian one.

[Ridin' Shotgun]

Which post are you referring to? Where do you see (in any of my posts) any connection between Kach and the second world war.

The idea was to have a Jewish state in what is now Israel.

And according to Kach, it was supposed to follow the 'biblical borders', not British or UN mandated borders.

[Cachelot]

Although I could challenge many of the points you make, I will satisfy myself (for the moment)

Oh bother. Must you? Here?? Where's the vice squad when you need it..

[nopardons]

BRAVO ! WELL DONE. : - )

[Ridin' Shotgun]

A somewhat longer answer is that killing is what we do best, most people enjoy it.

Would you care to expound on this statement a little? Are you, perhaps, referring to Lord Moyne and his ilk? Or just any old body who gets in the way of 'progress'?

[Ridin' Shotgun]

A somewhat longer answer is that killing is what we do best, most people enjoy it.

And perhaps you could tell me a bit more about the murder of czar Nickolas, as well.

[dell Arpa]

Are you this much of a jerk in real life, or just on the web? When has he made any statements that even come near to justifying him being called Nazi?

If anyone is disrupting this thread, I'd be guessing its you.

[Lumberjack]

Ok Nazi boy, why don't you discuss the article. We all agree that you are pretty good at disrupting the thread. With gene therapy I think there may be hope for you yet.

My what an offensive statement. If you had bothered to read the posts prior to yours, you would have seen that I did in fact discuss the article. Further, if you had bothered to read the posts prior to yours, you would note that I am pro-Israel and 100% opposed to racisim or religious persecution. But you didn't bother, you just came in and, if I'm not mistaken, made a personal attack. Is this the only method you know of to address people? Does it make you feel "cool"? Please, inform the viewing audience why you think ad hominem attacks benefit you, while in fact, in light of my previous posts, they simply make it appear that you haven't bothered to read any of my replies, but rather wish to engage in attacks for attacks sake.

[AppyPappy]

It seems that the Brits have not let the Jews take control of their political system and their media. Whose political system and media DO they control?

The Jews control the US government and media? You are nuts.

[PA Engineer]

Well aggrieved one, I have taken the time to compile every post of yours before #95. For the life of me I cannot see where any of them are on topic. You were very successful though at disrupting the tread as a newbie along with a couple of your sidekick stormfront friends. I have decided to list them here to give you the benefit of the doubt as to where I may have missed your on topic post.

Post #2 Not directed at you, but at the author of this and other articles like it. Arabs, by definition, cannot be anti-semitic. Semites are peoples of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews and Phoenicians. For an Arab to be anti-Semitic would be the same as a white person being anti-Caucasian. Sorry, but I really do expect people in the media to at least recognize basic word definitions. Call me a dreamer.

Post #7 That definition is incorrect Veronica. I've other dictionaries that state the exact phrase that I've quoted in my original post. Besides, I happen to have studied history, and can tell you that all Semitic people are supposedly the descendents of Shem (which includes both Arabs and Jews), hence the source of the word Semite (Shem/Sem). What you give is the "common" usage of the word, much in the same way people say "Kleenex" when they mean any facial tissue. Yeah, there I go again, expecting words to have meaning.

Post #16 Thanks for implying that I'm a liar Veronica. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/disc.pl?term=semite You are now free to be as abusive of the language as Clinton, which appears to be your wish. Sorry to have intruded on your "living, breathing" definitions.

Post #21 Israelis and Palestinian Arabs are genetically identical, therefore Anti-Semitism is not racism, but religious hatred and discrimination. Thank you.

Post #24 Doesn't the Bible also alude to them as the descendents of Shem?

Post #26 Wow, sorry to offend you with expecting a word to mean something. Please, feel free to abuse the language in any way you see fit. Don't let me and all us rigid "word-ists" stop you, ok?

Post #29 Genetically similar, but that means nothing. Croats, Serbs and so-called Bosinaks are of the same ethnic group. So then you would feel comfortable labeling them as "anti-slavic"?

Post #32 You're right, how foolish of me to state in the open that those in the media should use words correctly. The next thing you know, I'll be expecting Congress and the Supreme Court to follow the wording of the Constitution, under the evidently false notion that words have meaning. It is no wonder the Democrats and Socialists are able to subvert this nation so easily. Its not that words are used incorrectly, but that so many people get upset when you request that those in official publications use words correctly.

Post #35 I'm not in the media and typing at a fast rate. I only suggested that those in the media use words correctly. I'm sorry that this offends you.

Post #42 Funny! I'm waiting for all these "words have no meaning" folks to poke at a Democrat or Clinton in a future post for improper or incorrect use of the language. They rail when Clinton mouths the Elastic-Depends-On-How-You-Define-The-Word-Is-Lie-Of-The-Day, but for the life of me, I do not know why, given their attitude on this. All I suggested was that *THE MEDIA* use words correctly. I wasn't aware that this was an offensive request.

Post #47 I know what the definition of anti-semite is, and I know it is an incorrect use of the word Semite when applied to Arabs hating Jews. I also know that many if not most people call all facial tissue Kleenex as well, but hey, they must be right since they call it that, right? There are even dictionaries that define "Kleenex" as any facial tissue or "soft absorbent paper". But in the media, they are still required to NOT use the word Kleenex unless specifically refering to the trade brand of the company that manufactures Kleenex. Now granted, anti-semite is not a trade name. But is is an incorrect usage of the word semite, period. You win. Words are inconsequential. Its all how we define them at the moment, subject to change at any time, for any reason. You win.

Post #53 Didn't you see my post? You win. Words have no meaning, and are subject to change at the whim of the person using them. You win. Now please, go about your business proudly. I'll stop asking that the media use words correctly, especially since this concept offends you so much. You win, get it?

Post #61 The definition of anti-semite was, if I read your's and other's posts here, invented by German racists. How dare that I accuse Jew Hating racist precursors of the Nazi movement of using a word incorrectly. You win man, you win. Love, peace, joy dude. I'm sorry this small (and what I had thought inconsequential) quip at the media offends you so much.

Post #69 Apparently saying that a group of 19th century racists who incorrectly used a reference to Semites are wrong is offensive. Evidently this places me in the "brownshirt" category, according to these posts. I meant the original post as a small barb to the media, in passing as it were. I'm completely in agreement that many Arabs are anti-Jewish and that this is a bad thing. Some people seemed to take that remark personally, as if noting the fact that both Arabs and Jews are Semites is wrong, somehow.

Post #73 Hey man, you win. Peace, groovy, love, all that stuff. You win man. Dontcha getit? You win! Pat yourself on the back dude, you win! Feel better man? You win! Sorry for suggesting that a 19th century racist political party incorrectly used a reference to Semites, man, and that modern usage of the word is technically incorrect, you win! It was just a quip in passing at the media, but thanks for making it your crusade, man.. You da' man, you win!

Post #82 Thank you for at least approaching me in a civil manner on this. I agree, it is in fact meaningless. I made it as a barb towards the media and at the incorrect reference to Semites that the word antisemitism conveys. It was a quip, nothing more, and I didn't really expect an answer, let alone the "brownshirt","racist" and "leftist" references and inuendo people have been tossing at me. I think that people haters (where people = any given group picked as the scapegoat of the day)are ignorant and foolish, and that goes for the subjects of the original posted article. I've always found Arabic hatred of Jews foolish and stupid, regardless of what they label their hatred as. Again, thank you for the civility. Nice to see that people can still debate without resorting to foaming at the mouth mad dog tactics.

Post #84 Hey, you win too man. Semites are whatever you wish to call them, ok? You da' man, you win! If you would have bothered to read any of my posts condemning Arabic hatred of Jews, you wouldn't be making these remarks, but hey, why bother, right? You win. You all win. The 19th c. Jew hating German political party definition which incorrectly references Semites, which you cling to is right, ok? You win.

Post #85 I wasn't aware that Shem's children were a geographical and linguistic area as opposed to human beings. Thanks for the correction. Hey, you win too. Words have no meaning. I'll accept all of your definitions derived from a 19th century German Jew Hating political party. You win.

Post #89 Oldbie, I see civility is not a strong point with you. When you become my drill sergeant, you may address me in this way, otherwise, buzz off. Again, how could somebody who is against racism or religious persecution in any form be what you claim? I see that you still haven't bothered to read my previous posts where I state as much. I'm sorry if the long, complicated, polysyllabic words perplexed you. I shall attempt in future posts to use only simple, one syllable words for you, to avoid the obvious confusion you are experiencing.

Post #94 Thank you for the reasoned reply. I understand completely where you are coming from. Couldn't the argument be intelligently made that the continued use of the word antisemite by those opposed to racism/religious persecution only add fuel to the fire and further the cause of confusion originally intended by those who coined this word? IOW, why refer to this as antisemitism and not straight forward racism or intolerance, or the simpler and much more honest phrase Jew Hatred?

Post #95 I do hope you are paying royalties to Jesse Jackson for your splendid use of his "You don't agree with me ergo you are a racist" card. I also see you've not bothered to read any of my posts that do not directly reference yourself. Ok, let me make it simple in language you may understand (maybe not, but one must try nonetheless). Race hate bad. There, did that sink in, or was it too complicated a concept? Do you need clarification? Or would you rather throw out more of your name calling posts for a while? Please, whatever makes you happy, ok? Have fun with it! :)

All I see here is someone kicking the anthill. How about you?

[Lumberjack]

The amazing part about online discourse is the ability of individuals with an axe to grind to selectively post what they want and ignore what they want, thus making themselves appear correct. You neglected to mention #202, didn't you? Try reading that please, and get back to me with any intelligent comments you may have, if you wish. Otherwise, your accusations are wrong and your name calling boring.

[PA Engineer]

You response was to the posts up to #95. If I find any intelligence on your part I will be happy to have a conversation. You number is already up "Sedik". Mufi Mouk.

[Lumberjack]

You response was to the posts up to #95. If I find any intelligence on your part I will be happy to have a conversation. You number is already up "Sedik". Mufi Mouk.

Up to post 95? What are you talking about PA? I was responding to your latest post where you claim that I have not debated the issue. I have provided you with evidence that I have in fact addressed the issue, and you reply by launching yet further *PERSONAL ATTACKS* towards me. The fact that you chose to confine yourself to post 95 is your issue, and has nothing to do with your accusation other than provide conditions that you think will prove you right. To claim I haven't made a comment on addressing the article, then intentionally ignore post #202 is quire ingenious and very telling of your method of "debate".

Look, if you sincerely don't wish to look at the fact that I have addressed your accusations, that's fine. Those lurkers left reading this in fact know that I have answered your crude accusations and name calling with evidence. You can claim one thing all you want PA, but when I show you evidence to the contrary, where does it benefit you to continue this name calling? Does it make you feel important, somehow, to do these kinds of thing? Do you enjoy belittling innocent people, does it make you happy? I really am at a loss as to how to continue this conversation if you ignore everything I post contrary to your accusations and you continue to call names.

[PA Engineer]

The post you were responding to was a response from #95. Please spare us the innocent victimization sedik. Somewhere after 200 posts you feel you can undo your attacks, flames, sarcasm and whatever other posts you pass off as intellectual discourse. I think my compilation of you posts is more than adequate evidence to establish that your intent was to derail an important article on the rampant hatred within the arab world. What other reason do you have to explain you behavior up unto whatever post you claim makes you a lover of the Jewish people. Instead you run off screaming abuse to the moderators. Why are you here? What right did you have to derail the original post? You still have not denied that the only reason you were here was to kick the anthill. I believe my summary provides more than ample evidence which you have yet to refute. You protestations to the moderator and claims to being anything other than an anthill kicker is not substantiated by any gossamer of evidence on your part. Please take it your garbage and manipulations somewhere else.

[Lumberjack]

The post you were responding to was a response from #95. Please spare us the innocent victimization sedik. Somewhere after 200 posts you feel you can undo your attacks, flames, sarcasm and whatever other posts you pass off as intellectual discourse. I think my compilation of you posts is more than adequate evidence to establish that your intent was to derail an important article on the rampant hatred within the arab world. What other reason do you have to explain you behavior up unto whatever post you claim makes you a lover of the Jewish people. Instead you run off screaming abuse to the moderators. Why are you here? What right did you have to derail the original post? You still have not denied that the only reason you were here was to kick the anthill. I believe my summary provides more than ample evidence which you have yet to refute. You protestations to the moderator and claims to being anything other than an anthill kicker is not substantiated by any gossamer of evidence on your part. Please take it your garbage and manipulations somewhere else.

Well, who up and appointed you thread God? Last time I checked, I do not have to detail any explanation to you for any of my actions. Those who chose to address me did, and I specifically did not stop anybody else from posting whatever they wished on the subject of the original post.

And come to think of it, I do not have to "take my garbage and manipulations somewhere else" if I don't want to. You not only have no right to order me around, young'un, you have no power to do so either. Sorry, we live in a free country, bub, where you still don't get to dictate your whims to the masses. I'm sorry that this obviously upsets you so much.

As to the reason I included the Moderator in my responses to you. Well, you did engage in quite a bit of name calling, which is against forum rules. No, really, it is, just read them, ok? Jim states NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts. You were certainly engaged in personal attacks, as others here have pointed out. You've only yourself to blame. Try cleaning up your posts and responding like an adult if you want to be treated like one, ok?

My response was to your post which is numbered in the mid-low 200's. I gave you information which shows that I did in fact address the issue, and yet you still persist in ignoring it. Is it so horrible to you, to think that you might be proven wrong, that you have to cover up your missteps with personal attacks? That's really sad, friend.

As to the alleged "importance" of the article, it was an article about Arabian hatred of Judaism. This is news to you or something? Who, in fact, does not know this? Was I stopping some dew eyed waif from the hinterlands from making the discovery that Muslims hate Jews? Do you really consider the general population so dumbed down as to not have known that this situation existed prior to this post?

Anywho, I'll continue to post whatever I want, whenever I want, whereever I want, and you know what? Not a thing you can do about it.

Have a nice day! TTFN!