October 13, 2004

• NO SHIT! OMG that's fucking unbelievable...why not monitor every living person in the world? (except of course them atheists, they don't deserve the caring hand of the US or God)
• I propose we start a global "hot or not" website right now.
• I always think that tinyurl links are fake.
• @trey The original was over 140 characters so I had to truncate it.
• How about a report for treatment of Kurds, who don't have their own homeland?
• Anti-Semitism is awful, and is no doubt still an issue in some parts of the world (including parts of the United States to an extent). But a small part of me thinks that if this goes through some African government should issue a yearly report on how blacks fare in other countries. I suspect that the US might not do as well on that report.
• We (the rest of the world) should set up offices within our civil services to monitor how America is treating its native (American Indian), black, hispanic, gay, lesbian, and female populations. Then, at the turn of each year, we should get together with the US officials and compare the sizes of our motes/ beams. If we're treating "the Jews" (I, for one, don't even know religion of the people I interact with - let alone the details of their ethnicity) worse than they're treating the groups mentioned above, they can rightfully criticise us. However, if they're treating those demographic groups worse than we're treating "the Jews", then we can criticise them. Then we can write a book about it all, and sell the movie rights.
• And anyway, doesn't a governmental Office of Jewish Affairs sound more than a little sinister?
• You can be sure this has nothing to do with treatment of "The Jews," but rather attitudes toward Israel. "Anti-semite," in the US at least, has long been a codeword for "critical of Israel."
• In related news, "a secret Israeli report warns Israel's world image could fall as low as South Africa's during the apartheid era in the next decade".
• "erode our credibility by being interpreted as favouritism in human rights reporting". haahahaahhaaaah i hate to say it, but for some reason i saw that as 'rate my jew.'
• That's OK. I'll just rate them on their treatment of Arabs, child criminals, gays, atheists and people detained under the Patriot Act. Oh, and on their grotesque obesity quotient. Fair enough?
• Decani, I couldn't have said it better. Look at this State Department report on Turkmenistan: There were numerous, systematic violations of due process under the law, including arbitrary arrest and detention. The Government denied all charges of abuse but did not provide regular access to foreign citizens accused of participating in the plot or to other prisoners. Is the pot calling the kettle black?
• "Anti-semite," in the US at least, has long been a codeword for "critical of Israel." Weird. Here I have been, thinking all along that Anti-Semite meant "Jew hating". Thanks for the knowledge update.
• Thanks for the knowledge update. Oh come on. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that opinions about Jews are often unfairly confused with opinions about the behavior of Israel. Which is what I meant.

• that Anti-Semite meant "Jew hating".

  You're uniquely blessed, then, if you've never had a discussion along the lines of, say: "You know, the Deir Yassin and Sabra and Shatilla massacres are pretty black episodes in the history of Israel." "Anti-Semite!"
• Decani and rolypolyman (and others): The article says that the "jew rating" already goes on; its just behind closed doors of the State Department.
• I really didn't want to post anything and treat this whole thread as if it were a series of trolling responses to the FPP. But the one-sidedness of the discussion was really disturbing. You're uniquely blessed, then, if you've never had a discussion along the lines of, say: No, actually, other than a lot of complaining about this supposed attitude, I haven't heard that. It may happen, sadly, but I haven't heard it. But I have both overheard and been subjected to many of these kinds of discussions: "I'll see you guys at lunch next time, I'm out next week for a jewish holiday." "Oh, yeah, have a real nice holiday because all you people have a lot of explaining to do about how you treat the Palestinians." "'You people'? I thought we all worked at Initech together in the TPS Department."
• Hear, hear, el_hombre. Though this proposal does creep me out a bit, it's only because of the potential for the sort of backlash demonstrated here. There are still people alive who survived a wholesale systematic attempt at genocide by the Germans and abettted by anti-semites in Poland, Austria, France, etc etc. The ongoing presence of anti-semitic violence in Europe and the Arab world attests to the fact that special attention ought to be paid this most pernicious of ideologies. Do other groups deserve similar monitoring? Sure. Are Jews worldwide in a precarious position, I'd say yes. Does the U.S. government have a right to call the French and others on the carpet for the anti-semitic sentiments expressed routinely by their citizens? Absolutely. It's not a zero-sum game, folks.
• uncleozzy: Are you saying that Zionist or Jewish organizations tend to decry anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism? The problem is that people rarely hold strong positions on Israel without also holding some opinions on Jews as such; these may be positive or negative. People will sometimes use relatively valid criticisms of the actions of the government(s) of Israel to conceal or re-cast anti-Semitic leanings as advocacy for the apparently wronged party. Many European nations have sympathized with the Palestinians in the recent intifada because the predominant social ethos of Western liberalism tends to sympathize with perceived victims rather than aggressors, but it is interesting to note that Europe (I realize this is a gross generalization) has, of course, never had such sympathy for the Jews themselves.
• I realize this is a gross generalization Bordering on outright insult, yes. people rarely hold strong positions on Israel without also holding some opinions on Jews as such Huh? Whuh? Gubba-behuggle? Flerp? I'd suggest that a lot of people hold very strong opinons on Israel or the actions of the current Israeli state, while realising that the very idea of "holding a position on Jews" is a ludicrous one.
• I'd suggest that a lot of people hold very strong opinons on Israel or the actions of the current Israeli state, while realising that the very idea of "holding a position on Jews" is a ludicrous one. Count me as one of them.
• uncleozzy: Are you saying that Zionist or Jewish organizations tend to decry anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism? Yes and no. Even "anti-Zionism" is too strong a word for what some in the US will label as "anti-Semitism." And I don't just mean Jewish or Zionist organizations. It is simply not PC, in general, to talk about Israel in anything but a very positive light. At least not when I was in college. I'd suggest that a lot of people hold very strong opinons on Israel or the actions of the current Israeli state, while realising that the very idea of "holding a position on Jews" is a ludicrous one. Precisely.
• No Comment.
• Alright, I realize there have been some horrific events in Jewish history.......but why is the US all of a suddenn responsible for them? Wouldn't it be better if we took this energy and applied it to the UN or Amnesty International so that that the free world in general could protect the Jewish, along with all the other ethnic groups that need protection? And hey maybe we could try to fix our own probelms for once before we try to save the world, since the world might do better without us just now.....

• There are still people alive who survived a wholesale systematic attempt at genocide by the Germans and abettted by anti-semites in Poland, Austria, France, etc etc.

  Indeed, but there doesn't seem to be the same concern for homosexuals and hypseys, the former of which were re-imprisoned at the end of the war by the Allies. The present US administrtion seems curiously unconcerned about them, however. It's difficult to see as much other than a sop to an ally and some domestic groups, rather than a genuine concern for the well-being of an opressed people. And what flashboy said.
• Count me among the mofiers with strong views on Israel that do not translate to strong views on Jews. Any religion that would have John Stewart as a member is ok in my book.
• but why is the US all of a suddenn responsible for them Because we have the highest population of Jewish citizens of any country in the world. They are a huge constituency for many politicians and to pass up an opportunity to bring them over to the Republiban fold would be criminal. Yes, that last statement is very cynical, but since we seem to be tossing out the idea that all men (and women) are created equal, cynicism seems warranted.
• don't forget the disabled, mentally ill, communists and political dissidents. Just as an aside, according to this marvellous book the Holocaust was culturally more devastating to the Roma than to Jews. I don't mean that Jews had a better time, of course, but at least their culture and history and more than half of the Jewish population worldwide survived. For the Roma on the other hand, it was perilously close to their extermination - which has since been helped by ordinary people throughout Europe. We hear of the European Anti-Semitism, but there is silence when Roma are attacked, or killed. (more info here)
• I really didn't want to post anything and treat this whole thread as if it were a series of trolling responses to the FPP. I too wanted to pass by, but reading the thread I get this feeling of a grave injustice. Are we not guilty by saying things like "holding a position on Jews" of pandering to emotional biases? How can you have a position on Jews? In the same way you have a position on Catholics, Asians or the poor? Are these not people? To quote Billy Shakespeare "If you cut me, do I not bleed?" Have we sunk to the point in society where we want to be told what to think, rather than meet people and form our own opinion? What one is saying by having a position on Jews or any other group is that we don't need to deal with these as individual people.The same as the old - "I can't tell those(insert your ethnic group here)apart. They all look the same."
• People of the Jewish faith, or identity, are as diverse as any other group - there are Semitic Jews, European Jews, (Black) African Jews, and so on and so on. Even within ethnically distinct Jewish communities there are differences of opinion (what's that old saying 'Three Jews, five opinions'?) Ah, what do I know? I'm not Jewish. Some of my best friends are, of course, but I'm not. Hating any race ro colour or creed or whatever is silly. (I even gave up hating the Dutch. Curse them for being so bloody nice!)
• There are organisations who would say that statements against Israeli policy are statements against Judaism. I would cite them, but I don't really pay much attention to them because of this. In fact, one can think that Israel is an important country, who provided a place for refugees when the rest of the world shamefully turned their backs, and deserves the protection of the world for their continued existence (with the UN declared borders), and still believe that any country who grants citizenship rights based on religion and/or ethicity has serious policy issues. One can also believe that settlers who take other people's land based on religion/ethnicity are doing the wrong thing. I personally hold Israel to a high standard because I respect them as a free and democratic country, and I would like to see them take the moral highground in this affair. people rarely hold strong positions on Israel without also holding some opinions on Jews as such Well, I have an opinion on Israel, but my sole opinion on Jewish people is that I know one whom I would like to hold a strong position against me - but this is a family site.
• *snickers*
• I, for one, welcome our new Jewish overlords...
• no... sorry, jb wins...
• As a German, I'm all for this monitoring of the Jews. It would be so much easier, though, if they were all in one place. Maybe some sort of retreat, or camp, to... Godwinned! For those of you who don't hear accuasations of anti-semitism any time Israel is criticised, well, you don't spend much time on college campuses. With regard to Israel and the Occupied Territories, there are only two positions: Either you support terrorism or apartheid. You either are anti-Semitic or a racist biased against Arabs. This happens every single time there is any sort of lecture or panel discussion, as the screamers on either side simply shout down straw men of the other side. Think that Israel goes too far in oppressing Palestineans? You're hoping for the destruction of the Jewish people. Think that, well, suicide bombs are all that most of the organizations in Palestine have to offer, and that there aren't any real men of vision availible for negotiation? You're complicit in a Palestinean holocaust. Sorry. Ranting. This thing with the state department? Well, if it were any other administration, I'd trust them not to bungle it and turn it into a giant embarrassment.
• Fortunately, in modern western society, it's taboo to be an outright anti-Semite if you want to be taken seriously by most people. Unfortunately, there are still anti-Semites who want to be taken seriously. And so they need code-words to hide behind if they're going to talk publically. But... and here's the reason this becomes such a conversational minefield... you can only hide behind a code phrase if unbiased people are already using it to mean something perfectly innocent. "I hate the Jews," for example, is a pretty lousy code phrase, because nobody but an anti-Semite would say it. On the other hand, "I disagree with Israel's recent actions" is an excellent code phrase precisely because it's the kind of thing that a non-bigot might conceivably say. Now, if you are an anti-Semite, there is another advantage to using code words. Jewish people will eventually catch on to your use of the code phrase, and they'll start reacting defensively whenever they hear it. Which means that non-bigots who use the phrase may end up getting falsely accused of anti-Semitism. Which will make them less likely to believe it when somebody else is accused of anti-Semitism. Which helps the anti-Semites avoid the ostracism they deserve. The best way to break this cycle, I would argue, is for my fellow Jews to realize that criticism of Israel is not always a sign of anti-Semitism; and for my Gentile brethren to realize that sometimes it is. Given that, the best we can do is to try to talk about these hot-button issues thoughtfully and in-depth.
• Good answer, jacobw.
• Er...not answer. Comment.
• I agree with Jacobw. ANYWAY, you're all kinda off topic. I don't think the US should do that because, well, it sends this really weird "Big Brother" vibe to other countries. I think many of the Euro's in this board are right to say "well then let us tally your gays and blacks" because that's the same thing we're doing to them, and everyone knows how testy the political machine of the US can get when it's being questioned (whether by it's own citizen's -IE. the gays - or by other countries)... If the jews need protection across the globe, then it should be a world coalition the one that offers it, not the US. I mean, hello, who the fuck do we think we are?
• Meanwhile, within the US...