he other day a neighbor came by. He was troubled, he said, by the outbreak of anti-Semitism around the world. "I thought it pretty much ended after World War II. I guess I was being naive."Posted on 04/17/2002 3:40:09 PM PDT by mrustow
Anti-Semitism Lives
In a State of Denial
he other day a neighbor came by. He was troubled, he said, by the outbreak of anti-Semitism around the world. "I thought it pretty much ended after World War II. I guess I was being naive."
My neighbor is a good man, a sincere man, and I recognized his kind words as an invitation for me to talk about my own encounters with Jew-haters.
But I couldn't. The truth is, I'm 54 years old, I've been a Jew all my life and I have never met an anti-Semite.
On the contrary. My experience is that the world is full of non-anti-Semites.
For example: A lot of German politicians are very upset by the Israeli-Palestinian war. Fair enough. Norbert Bluem, the former labor minister of Germany, has even accused Israel of waging "a war of extermination."
Germany has a small Jewish community (most German Jews killed themselves during World War II), but that didn't stop the Jews there from launching vicious charges of anti-Semitism against various German statesmen like Free Democratic Party leader Guido Westerwelle.
"This is an outrage," Westerwelle replied. "One must be allowed to criticize Israel's military policy without being pushed into an anti-Semitic corner."
Westerwelle is right. These days, in Europe, the slightest criticism of Israel or Jews gets blown up into a charge of anti-Semitism.
For example: Last week, in Kiev, a mob of Ukrainians chanting "Beat the kikes!" chased two Jews into a synagogue, tossing one of them through a plate-glass window. As usual, the Jews portrayed themselves as victims. Ukrainian police put that slander to rest by declaring that the incident "had nothing to do" with anti-Semitism.
Or take the case of Tom Paulin, an Oxford professor and frequent contributor to the BBC. His only crime was telling an Egyptian newsweekly that American Jews in Israel "should be shot dead. I think they are Nazis and racists. I feel nothing but hatred for them."
Paulin was immediately attacked for this observation. Fortunately, he was able to clear his reputation by declaring himself "a life-long opponent of anti-Semitism."
Former French Prime Minister Michael Rocard has "fought anti-Semitism" since he was "very young." That's what he told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in an open letter. He brought this up after asking rhetorically in the letter if Israel is planning to kill "half a million" Palestinians.
Rocard then warned that Israel's war on terrorism would lead to what he evidently considers a justified "torrent of worldwide anti-Israeli-ism."
This, presumably, is much different from a torrent of worldwide anti-Semitism.
There are non-anti-Semites on this side of the Atlantic, too. Minister Louis Farrakhan is one. Just this week, Farrakhan declared that he has nothing against Jews. "What I'm 'anti' is the type of control that some interests of that community exercise over our community."
Farrakhan, Paulin and Rocard may not like every single Jew or support every last Israeli policy. Neither do Pat Buchanan, Edward Said, David Duke, Ramsey Clark, Gore Vidal, John Trafficant and the Saudi royal family, but does that make them anti-Semites? On the contrary, these men have taken the extraordinary step of publicly declaring that they don't hate Jews.
That's why I told my neighbor to relax. If people like these aren't anti-Semites, there's really no such thing anymore.
E-mail: zchafets@aol.com
Original Publication Date: 4/17/02
And since the fact that the name gets thrown around so casually is one reason why many good people will defend those labeled with it, it would be wrong and harmful to all to exacerbate the cycle by using their defending the "labelee" alone as a qualifier. You have to take into account how apparent the truth of the accusation was to the defender.
Exactimiento! Might I add, that many intellectual mischief-makers (e.g., Herbert Marcuse) have deliberately distorted the meaning of "tolerance," in order to bring us to such a pass.
Many conservative and moderate Jews worry that the ADL types will cause a back-lash. I think that is why you see people like him and other Jews trying to balance them out. I think Jews for the preservation of firearms has an article about this subject, btw.
All we can do is keep bringing fellow Jews to the conservative fold, and to hope that Americans have more morality, sense, and if nothing else, respect for the constitution, than to judge people before even knowing what they think.
I think that the number of Jews who cross lines to vote for Republican candidates ("Democrats for ...") is going to rise, but that it's going to be hard to bring a significant number of Jews out of the Democratic Party. The reason is the rise in anti-Semitism from writers who are either prominent or notorious, and who are conservative or libertarian, or are considered to fall in to those groups: Pat Buchanan (who no longer is either), Robert Novak, Charley Reese, Lew Rockwell, Joe Sobran, Justin Raimondo, et al. Granted, one could ask, "But what about the anti-Semites in the Democratic Party?" I didn't say this is rational. Since politically speaking, Jews have to choose their anti-Semitic neighbors, they will be tempted to stay in the Democratic Party, per the axiom, "The Devil you know, is preferable to the Devil you don't know."
I ask you to make your allegations now of prohibitions and official legal discrimination withing the governments of the United States, the Confederate States and the individual states. Please be descriptive, citing sources.
Excu-u-u-se me, but you have projected a whole heap of verbiage and insinuations onto my post. I said "institutionalized." Show me where I said, "legal." And if that still isn't clear to you, you don't know much American history.
So, that was their mistake in Germany! I always thought that their mistake in Germany, was in trying to assimilate, and then not fleeing quickly enough. An additional mistake, was in their "choosing" an American undersecretary of state who made it his business to ensure that as many Jews as possible died, by misleading them into thinking their visa applications would be processed in order, and accrdoing to the rules, when in fact he had decided to hold up, and eventually reject them all.
I don't know where you got your notions of German history from, but I can assure you that you are mistaken. The Jews of Germany did not adopt a high profile. However, some Jews were very successful, usually in business (for lack of other options), in spite of anti-Semitism. Are you suggesting they should have accepted failure, so as not to offend anyone?
Prior to the late 19th century, Jews were barred from most professions. Then, when the much ballyhoed, legal "emancipation of the Jews" took place, it was an "emancipation" from Judaism. A Jew who wanted to become a "civil servant" -- a much broader and more prestigious designation than in the U.S., which includes upper-level school teachers and administrators and college professors -- had to renounce Judaism, by converting to Christianity, and getting baptized. Then the "Jew's" career could take off. (A valuable source of the foregoing remarks is German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel's introduction to his work, Reformismus und Pluralismus. But I don't rely merely on Fraenkel. I lived in West Germany for five years, had have studied German history on and off, ever since.)
In America, the Jews have adopted a much higher profile. For one thing, their proportion of the population is about twice as high as it was in pre-Holocaust Germany. But what if it weren't any higher? Again, do you expect Jews to settle for second-class citizenship, so as not to offend? What do you call someone who is offended by Jewish success?
The funny thing is, I have sometimes myself wondered, if obnoxious neo-conservatives like Bill Kristol haven't fomented anti-Semitism. but then I remember the history of the Jews in America: back when the Jews were poor and powerless, they were openly hated, constantly abused, and relegated to second-class citizenship. Beginning in 1922, most Jews were kept out of private colleges and universities by anti-Semitic quotas, while mediocre Protestants were admitted. Brilliant Jews were blacklisted as professors (at private AND public universities), on the basis of their religion alone. High-profile law firms and organizations refused to hire Jews. Country clubs and many hotels were "restricted." (See A History of the Jews in America, by Howard M. Sachar.)
Today, the Jews maintain a higher profile, and they are welcomed by the same institutions that previously refused them entry. Now, what was that mistake you were talking about?
It's worked for a long long time. It's time it stopped.
To: HiTech RedNeck
I have no problem with Holocaust museums where ever they pop up. What I do have a problem with is even one tax dollar being used to develop them.
As with the Armenian holocaust and other acts of genocide, it's not the duty of our government to errect rememberances to something that took place on foreign soil, for which we had no responsibility.
I personally acknowledge the holocaust and am appauled by it's grim reality. But forcing the US taxpayer to foot the bill for museums is wrong.
38 posted on 4/17/02 4:48 PM Pacific by DoughtyOne
To: DoughtyOne
Who the hell ever "forced" the US taxpayer to pay for a Holocaust museum? I don't remember the Stern Gang holding hostages to demand it. These dollars were
appropriated by elected representatives of the people, and I bet that the American people largely approved and still approve of it. If you don't like it, write your
congressman. But don't make the contemptible suggestion that Jews "forced" taxpayers to build these museums.
90 posted on 4/17/02 11:25 PM Pacific by Southern Federalist
Who decides which people will pay taxes? Who determines how much taxes we will pay? Who forces us to pay those taxes? Who collects those taxes? Who determines how those taxes will be spent? Who spends those confiscated tax dollars?
Options: 1. The Federal Government of the United States 2. Jews
In the interest of brevity, I try not to insult people's intelligence when I make posts on the forum. I thought it was a given who the real culprits were when I wrote my comments to which you responded. When you figure this all out, I'd appreciate a retraction.
To claim that the Jews had provoked the Nazi persecution by being "high profile" is, in effect, to blame the victim. It is the same slander one finds in the writings of Streicher, Rosenberg, and Hitler -- and, more recently, Pierce.
"So the chief purpose of the word(Anti-Semitism) is not to deter great crimes against Jews -- it isn't likely to stop an Osama bin Laden -- but to prevent even the most minor verbal offenses against Jewish amour-propre. It conflates mere criticism with persecution. Many blacks, feminists, and homosexuals try to use "racism," "sexism," and "homophobia" to the same effect, but these words don't have nearly as much power to frighten."Guys, Yep. This type of commentary surely makes Sobran an anti-semite! < /sarcasm >
==================================
It is EXACTLY this sort of accusation that makes the word "anti-semite" the equivelent of "wolf,wolf,,,,". As have the words, ""racism," "sexism," and "homophobia"", as accusations become known much more for their incentive to shut people up than to identify actual racists, sexists, and homophobes, and zenophobe in relation to immigration matters. HOW is a discerning reader or listener to know the difference??
Or, IS the actual intent to CREATE the animosity the epithets allege?? Separation of one kind or another MUST be existant for socialism to exist. Peace and love, George.
Any system of entitlement is by its nature giving favor to one group or subgroup over another. The flip side of this favoritism is exclusion.
European socialism and Arab autocracies need some enemy or scapegoat to rally their masses. In the case of the virtually leaderless socialistic bureaucracies of Europe and the dictatorial Arab states, they have by happenstance come to share an unholy understanding that the hatred of the Jew can serve to keep the very differed forms of tyranny afloat. Hatreds are the fuel for tyrannies. Where freedom and democracy flourish, deep-seated hatreds will disappear.
There comes a point when, having been beaten about the head with the various superlatives that Jew, Blacks, Gays, etc use to identify whomever disagrees with their agenda, honest people simply have enough. In the case of the Jews, I think they have elevated the practice of victimology to a fine art.
I simply don't like most of the Jews I have been around due to their attitude, and I certainly don't agreee with their religious practice. I try not to do business with them, or otherwise associate with them. They wish to have a seperate, exclusionary culture, and I'm willing to accomodate that, but I've had enough of the name calling, and continous reparation demands by Jews.
If that makes me an anti-semite, I'll wear the label proudly.
Would you point me to your source on this? I am not disputing you, just need a good source for my own arguments elsewhere.
There are plenty of Jew Haters, though.
Do you really find the Sobran's article at #40 antisemitic?
I don't. I don't deny antisemitism exist. I deal with antisemitic undercurrents often, and with open antisemitism, the kind the author hilariously describes, -- occasionally, as I generally defend Israel and Jews on fora like this one. I understand that Sobran's article may be used by an antisemite. But "may be used" should not be the criterion of antisemitism.
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.