Post New

Maybe there's no point in dwelling, but I was just mulling something over yesterday.

"Anti-semitic", strictly speaking, should be discrimination against Semitic people. But this is where it gets tricky. I'm pretty sure not all Israelis are Semites. Certainly not all Jews are (e.g. Sammy Davis Jr was a black Jew...not Israeli, not Semitic; I believe Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism, but she clearly isn't Israeli or ethnically Jewish.). Not all Jews (ethnically) are Jews (religiously). I'm assuming the same holds for Israelis. At least some Palestinians ARE Semites, but perhaps not all of them.

Hitchens said that they Jews had the problem that they rejected BOTH the prophets/saviors of Christianity and Islam. And, for the Xians, were also guilty of deicide.

But I don't think it's that simple. Not all religious Jews are ethnic Jews, and vice-versa. Nor are they Israeli, necessarily.

Is there any point in making distinctions? Do the tiki-torch bearers hate Ivanka like they hate Netanyahu? Was Hitchens partially correct (I suspect he was)?

"Anti-semitic", strictly speaking, should be discrimination against Semitic people.

Only if you're an inveterate linguistic prescriptivist.

The etymology of the term anti-semitism derives from academic disputes between racists and critics within Germany and Austria in the late 1800's. But almost immediately after being coined, it quickly assumed its current meaning as a synonym for prejudice against Jews. Not "semites" - an even-then obscure and now largely obsolete linguistic category. Jews.

The "real" meaning of a word can change over time. Awful and awesome used to be synonyms - now they're antonyms (to a first approximation).

If you're anti-semitic, it means you are prejudiced against Jews. Not semites, not other people who speak semitic languages or who are descended from other groups that speak semitic languages. Jews. That's what the word means.

If you're anti-semitic, it means you are prejudiced against Jews.
***

So, Anti-Jewish. No different than Anti Black, Anti White, Anti Asian, whatever.

I still say we all should get a fancy name.

I'd want to be KnightRider.

Do the tiki-torch bearers hate Ivanka like they hate Netanyahu? Was Hitchens partially correct (I suspect he was)?

A lot of high ranking Nazi officers were Jews. Imagine their surprise when they discovered that, as they fought for Hitler, their families had been sent to the gas chambers. Then they themselves were fingered for execution by Himmler.

Imagine the look on Javanka's face as something like that happened to them by one of the orange rapist's "fine people" from the other side of the line.


https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/hitlers-...

Imagine the look on Javanka's face as something like that happened to them by one of the orange rapist's "fine people" from the other side of the line.
******



Here's to those, slowly learning - they've been Sheeple for Israel for all this time.

Oddly the Left is in the lead.

But, slowly, there's some good cracks on the right too.

It'll take time.

OK. If that's exclusively how it's used, then it is.

But then, who are the Jews? That was the second part of the mulling. Is it ethnicity? Religion? Nationality? In some ways, it is all three.

I gather you're an ethnic Jew. That doesn't mean you are a practicing religious Jew (though you might be). Nor an Israeli citizen (though you might be). The term "Jew" seems pretty broad in this context. As I said, Ivanka is a religious Jew.

Most of Israel's neighbors just want to see Israel gone. I don't think they care about Jews living in Florida (or anywhere that isn't where they live). European and American anti-semites probably don't know the difference between religious and ethnic, and just go for the hate. At least that's my guess.

Is it ethnicity? Religion? Nationality? In some ways, it is all three.

And more! It's cultural, political, genealogical, religious, ethnic...a whole mish-mosh.

Even has a whole wiki entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

Most of Israel's neighbors just want to see Israel gone. I don't think they care about Jews living in Florida (or anywhere that isn't where they live).

I suspect that's not universally true. I mean, they might not care about Jews living in Miami. But all of the Jewish communities that existed all throughout North Africa and the Middle East were destroyed in the 1940's and 1950's. Those were very large populations, I should point out - Iraq had one of the largest Jewish communities in the world after WWII, and many Ottoman and North African nations had received the Jews that were expelled from Spain back in the 15th Century. As has been pointed out a few times, about half of Israelis are descended from immigrants from those Muslim countries. If Israel becomes "gone," I don't think Iraq is going to allow the hundreds of thousands of descendants of the Iraqi Jewish community that was driven out between 1948-1953 to return. There is now a widespread (though also not universal) rejection of Jews being allowed to remain in Muslim countries.

If Israel becomes "gone," I don't think Iraq is going to allow the hundreds of thousands of descendants of the Iraqi Jewish community that was driven out between 1948-1953 to return. There is now a widespread (though also not universal) rejection of Jews being allowed to remain in Muslim countries.

Agreed. But prior to the creation of Israel, would they have been? Why were the villages destroyed? The annexation of land to create "Israel" p-o'd a lot of people in the region. It is my understanding (possibly in error?) that at least part of that animosity was "we don't want the Palestinians in our territory", but displacing them to create Israel meant they had to go somewhere. Was that why they were destroyed?

There's too much animosity built-up to expect that any nation in the region would accept the Jews/Israelis should we suddenly dissolve the nation of Israel. I expect the US would take some, probably a lot of Europe...Russia? Russia used to have lots of Jewish persons (not that they should go to Russia right now...Putin would use them as cannon fodder).

I'll check out your link shortly. Seems there's a wiki entry for almost every question!

Agreed. But prior to the creation of Israel, would they have been? Why were the villages destroyed? The annexation of land to create "Israel" p-o'd a lot of people in the region. It is my understanding (possibly in error?) that at least part of that animosity was "we don't want the Palestinians in our territory", but displacing them to create Israel meant they had to go somewhere. Was that why they were destroyed?

It's insanely complicated, but yes - tensions were already worsening in the area long before the creation of Israel. The Ottoman state was allied with Germany and the Central Powers in WWI, and they were worried that the Jews in the region would support the Allied Powers - and in particular the British. So the Ottoman started to clamp down on Jews in the area as early as 1915, and in early 1917 they drove all the Jews out of Tel Aviv and Jaffa (the ones that survived were able to return after the war under the British Mandate). The Balfour Declaration was issued, in part, in an attempt by the British to get Jewish support in the war effort. Which largely worked.

So after the Ottoman Empire collapsed with the end of WWI, and Britain took over, there were a lot of bitter recriminations that led to increasing hostility towards the Palestinian Jews. They were disliked by some because they had allied (in this part of the world) with the Allies in WWI, by others because they were cooperating with the British (as the governing colonial power). Because of that history and the pressures caused by Jewish emigration and zionism, the conflicts between Jews and Arabs started to really heat up. That was nearly three decades before Israel was created. Arguably, the first violent conflict between the two groups was the fighting at Tel Hai in early 1920 - barely a year and a half into the Mandate. Things only got worse from there. On top of that, you had the initial skirmishes in the uprising of the Palestinian Muslim population against the British - which really boiled over in the 1930's - and the Jews were now firmly allied with the Mandatory government.

Note that the British weren't just - or even primarily - hated over anything having to do with Palestine. The UK had promised a huge independent Arab state to the Arab leaders in the area in exchange for their support against the Ottomans, leading to revolts against the Empire throughout the region. When the Sykes-Picot Agreement was made public - revealing that Britain and France had agreed back in 1916 to carve the area up for themselves - the Arabs were outraged at the UK, and livid at many of the choices they and the French made in carving up the region.

With Syria and Lebanon and Transjordan (now Jordan) revolting against the French and British at the end of WWII, and Iraq pushing the British Mandatory government out in 1947, the whole region was well boiling even before the UN adopted the partition resolution.

Clarification requested.

You seem to be saying the Palestinian Jews are at least marginal allies to the British. But the British were contending with Jewish terrorists, and (I think) Menachem Begin spent time in a British prison for such actions. Doesn't sound like they were very chummy. The Mandate originated in 1920, and the Germans never conquered it. So the Brits had a continual presence in the region until 1948.

I wasn't aware of the French, but I knew it was a British protectorate (of sorts), as their colonial empire continued to shrink.

Thanks for posting that Albaby. Fleshed out some history and relationships I didn't know.

You seem to be saying the Palestinian Jews are at least marginal allies to the British. But the British were contending with Jewish terrorists, and (I think) Menachem Begin spent time in a British prison for such actions. Doesn't sound like they were very chummy. The Mandate originated in 1920, and the Germans never conquered it. So the Brits had a continual presence in the region until 1948.

I wasn't aware of the French, but I knew it was a British protectorate (of sorts), as their colonial empire continued to shrink.

Yes. Both happened. The mandate lasted decades - there were different phases.

The Brits courted Jewish support (really, any support they could get) during WWI. The Balfour Declaration in 1917 was a key part of that. So too were all the promises they made to Arab power brokers in the region (also in 1917) for an independent Arab state (not Palestinian - we're talking Syria and Iraq and Jordan and the north half of Saudi Arabia) after the war. The Arabs legitimately felt betrayed after the revelation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement carving up the area between Britain and France, not an independent state.

So, during the League of Nations interwar era you had Britain controlling the Palestinian and Transjordanian portion of the mandate, with France controlling the general area of Syria and Lebanon. This led to all kinds of political conflict with the Arab populations in those areas, which swelled into violent uprising by the late 1920's. But during the 1920's and 1930's, the Jewish population was working with the British towards fulfilling the (to them) promises of the Balfour Declaration to create a separate, independent Jewish state within Mandatory Palestine. That led to all kinds of violence between the Arabs and the Jews, of course - but also the Arabs fighting the Brits.

The decades pass, and by the mid-1930's the Arab population of Mandatory Palestine has engaged in open revolt. From 1936-1939, many thousands of Palestinians were killed or driven from their homes, while the British were devoting a lot of resources to quell the ongoing rebellions. For reasons you don't need me to explain, by 1939 the UK had determined that it just needed the fighting to stop. So they pivoted from the Balfour Declaration, and issued a new policy: the Jewish homeland would be part of an independent Arab state that encompassed all of Palestine (a one-state solution), Jewish immigration to the area would henceforth be restricted, and most important policy decisions would require majority Arab support. Like most things Chamberlain, this did not achieve peace in the area: the Arabs rejected it as insufficient to meet their priorities, and the Jews regarded it as a betrayal of the promises of Balfour. So everyone started to attack the Brits, seeking independence in the chaos leading into WWII.

So while the Jews eventually were fighting against the Brits, from about 1916 to 1940 they were viewed by the Arabs in the region as siding with the Brits against first the Ottomans, then the Arabs. So we were starting to get really unpopular in the area long before the actual partition.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.