Wouldn't it be more correct to call the Muslim, Asian and African opponents of Israel "anti-israelites" instead of calling them antisemitic? — Eros1982

Generally, yes, with local exceptions, such as the periodic resurgence of systemic discrimination in South Africa. However, many western Jews consider any criticism of Israel antisemitism, just as many Americans call any criticism of their foreign policy America-bashing. People are sensitive to blame for collective action by nations, ethnicities or religions with which they identify. While American's may protest against American injustice and Jews may censure Israeli misdeeds, they become defensive when outsiders do so.
These days, we tend to reach for facile labels without a second thought.

Here I need a little help now, cause I thought that the word antisemitism refers to systematic discrimination, prejudices and conceptions of the Jews that have prevailed in the Christian world the last 2000 years — Eros1982

It's not limited to the time or geographical region you assumed. This stuff is easy enough to Google.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism

It is hard in my view to trace systematic prejudices against Jews in the non-Christian world — Eros1982

Just read the timeline I cited.

Wouldn't it be more correct to call the Muslim, Asian and African opponents of Israel "anti-israelites" instead of calling them antisemitic? — Eros1982

It would be more accurate to call anyone who is anti-Israel "anti-Israel" if that's what they are, regardless of where they're from, and it would be more accurate to call someone "antisemitic" if they were antisemitic if that's what they are regardless of where they're from. The terms have different meanings.

Even if your historical analysis were correct that antisemitism began sometime in the 1st century and was limited to Christian nations (and none of this is accurate), your logic still dioesn't hold. By analogy, someone who hates black people is properly called a racist even if he's from a country that has no history of hating black people.

But the bigger question is what is your larger point? Are you simply trying to prescribe linguistic usage for pedantic reasons, or are you suggesting some substantive difference between the hate felt by modern day Christians antisemites versus Muslim ones so much so that a different term should be prescribed for each?

No.

:up:

Among semitic peoples, "anti-Jewish" makes more sense than "antisemitic". Criticism of Israel's "Greater Israel" policies is called "antisemitism" by apologists / propagandists for Israel but most of such critics are, in fact, principled "anti-Zionists"¹ (many of which are conscientious Israeli and non-Israeli Jews as well as non-Jews (like myself)). Colloquially the term "antisemitism" is used synonymously with "Jew-hatred" as a traditionally sectarian form of systemic discrimination (i.e. racism) against Jews and Judaism (i.e. slandered as the source of "conspiracies" to control or destroy all "Christian nations", etc).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450 ¹

Antisemitic is anyone who is against semites. That much is true as much as "blue chairs" means chairs that are blue, or 2+2=4 or the sky is blue. The reason is: otherwise, communication completely degenerates.
An Arab or Akkadian who is antisemitic must be self-hating — that is a deductive syllogism.

Some people are anti-Jewish (National-socialists) while other are anti-Zionist (Palestinians and some Jews), those two are related though different.

Since Christians and Europeans now are a minority in the Planet Earth, it makes sense, I guess, that the world antisemitic should not be applied to Asian, African and Arab critics of Israel — Eros1982

This does not make sense to me.

It wouldn't be more correct to confine the word antisemitic to the Christian and Western World, instead of using it for people who might live in Nigeria or Yemen? — Eros1982

Why? Nigerians are not semitic. It seems you just want to reserve a special word for a certain group in order to demonise them, specifically Europeans and Christians.

Why? Nigerians are not semitic. It seems you just want to reserve a special word for a certain group in order to demonise them, specifically Europeans and Christians. — Lionino

When you call someone antisemitic, I guess you somehow imply that either Jews do good things to that person or they do bad things to that person he still blames them, because this is what he was taught to believe all his life, he always despises them.

I hardly understand how people who do not know Jews at all (were taught nothing about them) can be labeled antisemitic just because for them Israel has come to mean: "Muslim murdering machine".

Calling people of different backgrounds antisemitic sounds to me like applying Western criteria to them. Since in the West it is hard to find people who hate Israel without quoting some far-right politician/author, we rightly confuse anti-Israel with antisemitic feelings in Western countries. But it is hard for me to call a Nigerian Muslim, to take an example, antisemitic, even if that person dreams the end of Israel. Insofar as the latter was taught to see the history of Israel from the Palestinian/Arab perspective, not from the European far right perspective, he better be called Anti-Israeli or even Jewish-hater, but not antisemitic.

I don't see much point in emphasizing that the entire Middle-eastern population is designated 'semites' by their one-time conquerors

A member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs. The name comes via Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem’, son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended.

Even if the term were not obsolete, most people who refer to antisemitism either are not aware of the inclusion of Arabic-speakers, or don't care: they just mean 'discrimination against Jews' either as an ethnic minority or as a religion, usually both, they never include the anti-Arab sentiment so prevalent today in various countries.
Of course, most of the people who throw around the term antisemitism rarely bother to make the fine distinction between criticism of a nation's actions - which does not in way include barring anyone from university or housing or golf-club membership, nor denying them employment opportunities and legal rights - and actual discrimination. Try to ask a Zionist or supporter: "Does the present state of Israel really have a right to be where it is, as it is? If so, by what moral authority?"

Even if the term were not obsolete, most people who refer to antisemitism either are not aware of the inclusion of Arabic-speakers, or don't care: they just mean 'discrimination against Jews' either as an ethnic minority or as a religion, usually both, they never include the anti-Arab sentiment so prevalent today in various countries. — Vera Mont

Exactly. It's in the usage.

"Antisemitism" is a euphemism. What it is a euphemism for is a bit hard to get your arms around because different contexts present the issue differently. The simplest reductive definition is something like "Jew hating," but even that definition misses much of the issue and obscures what is meant. (Who, after all, are the "Jews" and are they the same as the object of the "Jew hater"?) Engaging in the definition game is largely a waste of time and does not further understanding - the question is really "what is meant by antisemitism" if you are talking to a person using it or "what usage of antisemitism most informs the present contextual usage?"

Being "for" or "against" the "Jews" can be antisemitic if the agenda being advanced is antagonistic to Jews in one respect or another or reduces Jews to mere object (rather than agent). For instance, wanting to help Jews establish god's kingdom to bring about the second coming of Christ is usefully being understood as being antisemitic. Similarly, when Christians "adopt" "Jewish" practice in an effort to show Jews that Christianity is truly the spiritual successor to the Jewish people subsequent to the Christ, that is also an example of antisemitism.

A simple heuristic is that anytime you speak about (or react to) Jews or someone's Jewishness you are in ambiguous territory. There is generally a more precise way that you can speak (or react) that removes Jews or Jewishness from the conversation with no loss in substance. Obviously if you are talking about banning ritual slaughter of cows in the EU and you fail to account for Islamic or Jewish views on the subject, you would be missing a significant consideration in the conversation. Importantly, however, you must be careful to understand "Islamic or Jewish views" to refer not to Islam or Judaism writ large, but to a subset of people who happen to adopt a particular attitude about ritual slaughter. The linguistic convenience of speaking about groups of people (where knowledgeable people understand that you may be speaking of only a small portion of the group) must be understood for what it is - a convenience.

Israel (whatever you think about it) is far too complicated to be a helpful example of what antisemitism is or isn't. In some respects, merely discussing it is evidence of antisemitism unless such discussion is happening amongst people meaningfully effected by it. Some people will furiously insist that calling discussions of Israel antisemitic is just an unwarranted method of deflecting justified criticism (and sometimes it may be) of Israel, but that doesn't erase the intellectual structures which gave rise to a discussion of Israel rather than something else. Why is Israel an object of curiosity as opposed to anything else in the world?

I've used square quotes throughout this post in order to draw some attention to words that are used as if they mean one thing when they are actually used in a variety of contexts to mean different things (which are often contradictory). You must always consider the possibility of equivocation - people using the same word in different senses at the same time. Each of them may think they had a mutually intelligible conversation, but each of them may actually understand what was said in fundamentally different ways.

When you call someone antisemitic — Eros1982

I have never called someone anti-semitic because people who are antisemitic are usually also prejudiced against other racial groups, so I call them racist instead.

I have met many who are prejudiced against Arabs or prejudiced against Jews in particular. I call them prejudiced against Arabs and prejudiced against Jews, respectively.

I hardly understand how people who do not know Jews at all (were taught nothing about them) — Eros1982

So what? Many people in the west were taught nothing about the Jews too.

But it is hard for me to call a Nigerian Muslim, to take an example, antisemitic, even if that person dreams the end of Israel. Insofar as the latter was taught to see the history of Israel from the Palestinian/Arab perspective, not from the European far right perspective, he better be called Anti-Israeli or even Jewish-hater, but not antisemitic. — Eros1982

That applies to everybody because people who are against Israel are against Israel. The country of origin of someone does not change their feelings and what those feelings are called.

This whole thread is stupid. This is a philosophy forum and yet purposefully confusing oneself with very basic words and their definitions is deemed an interesting topic.

"Antisemitism" is a euphemism. — Ennui Elucidator

What?

a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

It sounds pretty bad to me. Especially when applied to someone who has never harmed, berated or done anything mean to a person who identifies as Jewish.

A simple heuristic is that anytime you speak about (or react to) Jews or someone's Jewishness you are in ambiguous territory. — Ennui Elucidator

In that case, speaking about any self-identified national, gender, political, ethnic or religious group puts you in ambiguous territory. So just never talk about any groups at all - or accept some degree of ambiguity.

Obviously if you are talking about banning ritual slaughter of cows in the EU and you fail to account for Islamic or Jewish views on the subject, you would be missing a significant consideration in the conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

So what? You're still entitled to an opinion about the practice itself. You don't have to talk to any Incas to consider child sacrifice distasteful. You don't have to take a medieval Muslim tradition
tradition into consideration when banning in France or Canada the murder of daughters who disobey their father's strictures.

Israel (whatever you think about it) is far too complicated to be a helpful example of what antisemitism is or isn't. — Ennui Elucidator

True. And yet, remarks about Israel, its leadership and activities are the fastest and most likely triggers for calling someone antisemitic - thus:

In some respects, merely discussing it is evidence of antisemitism unless such discussion is happening amongst people meaningfully effected by it. — Ennui Elucidator

Why does the same not apply to The US or Japan or India? In what way, and for what reason is Israel exempt from commentary?

The ways I can think of explaining "antisemitism" as euphemism are different levels of unpleasant, so perhaps a metaphor will work. It is the difference between picking the lesser of two evils vs the evil of two lessers. None of those words are good, rearranging them doesn't fix the problem, but we know there is a spectrum. "Antisemitism" is just nicer sounding than "Jew Hater" and has the added benefit of confusing people about who is actually being discussed.

And yes, you are right, speaking about any group puts you in ambiguous territory. Seems pretty simple. The question is whether there is sufficient intellectual warrant to speak in those terms and potentially be misunderstood.

Whether or not you are entitled to your opinion is neither here nor there, what is being discussed is whether it is useful to speak in terms of religion. If someone says, "I want you to stop cutting down my lawn because I like the way the grass feels between my toes" it is considered to be of less moral force than "I want you to stop cutting down my lawn because it is my property." Some conversations lend themselves to ethics based arguments (which include religious based ones even if you disagree) and pretending as if you are discussing individual ethics rather than communal ethics is more trouble than it is worth.

The same does apply to the US and Japan. When people who hate the US talk about the US in negative terms, it is a) evidence that they hate the US and b) might be true. Do you think Jews are the only group/people capable of being hated?

It might also be helpful to have a discussion about evidence more generally - one can have evidence for a false proposition just as one can have counter evidence for a true one. Think of it this way, either P v not P but not both is alleged to be the case. Symbolically we might represent P as T, not P as F, ~ to mean "is not evidence for" such that we get T, ~T, F, and ~F. With that out of the way, it is also useful to hone in on a definition of entailment and to what extent logical necessity is extensible to states of affairs where causality is stochastic. As some jurist once wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. . ."

That Israel does bad things is self-evident, but also insufficient to explain why it is the topic of conversation. It doesn't take a thesis to know that most people talk about Jews and Israel because they are antisemitic - you'd be hard pressed to come up with an alternative explanation. Indeed, the claim in the OP is along these very lines - that antisemitism is the type of Jew hating reserved to describe the Western fetishization of the Jews. The problem, of course, is that Jew hatred anywhere has come under the euphemism developed at a time where the only relationships of intellectual interest were the relationships of the Europeans to themselves and the people they were subjugating - it isn't even that they didn't care why the Chinese hate/hated Jews, it was that they didn't/don't care about why the Chinese thought about anything.

The logic stuff was a joke, but also a way of highlighting how judgments about a label work even in the absence of strict rules/definitions/standards/theory.

And yes, you are right, speaking about any group puts you in ambiguous territory. Seems pretty simple. The question is whether there is sufficient intellectual warrant to speak in those terms and potentially be misunderstood. — Ennui Elucidator

Which are "those terms"?

Whether or not you are entitled to your opinion is neither here nor there, what is being discussed is whether it is useful to speak in terms of religion. — Ennui Elucidator

Whether anyone is entitled to an independent opinion is very much here and also there. Freedom of speech is supposed to be fundamental to democracy. Whether any discussion of religion is 'useful' depends on what one wants to use it for. As a subject of discussion, all religions are eligible and fair game.

"I want you to stop cutting down my lawn" — Ennui Elucidator

Doesn't require any kind of justification. Defending your turf is a fundamental right also.

pretending as if you are discussing individual ethics rather than communal ethics is more trouble than it is worth. — Ennui Elucidator

Huh? How does the singularity or plurality of ethics affect a conversation?

The same does apply to the US and Japan. When people who hate the US talk about the US in negative terms, it is a) evidence that they hate the US and b) might be true. — Ennui Elucidator

But why do you think disagreement with some element of US policy or practice amounts to hating the US? This is exactly the prejudiced conclusion apologists use to shut down critical discussion - even among those who love their country more than the ones making the bad decisions.

Do you think Jews are the only group/people capable of being hated? — Ennui Elucidator

Everyone may be hated. And anyone may be discussed, their actions questioned, even criticized, without hatred.

That Israel does bad things is self-evident, but also insufficient to explain why it is the topic of conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

Maybe because it's in the news? Maybe because people are suffering and dying? Maybe because there is cause for concern regarding the direction in which events are going? Maybe because some people have questions about the leadership? If you talk about the weather or goldfish or a possible cure for Parkinson's or how to grow cabbages, you don't have to produce a "sufficient explanation". Again, I ask you, what puts Israel in a special category?

It doesn't take a thesis to know that most people talk about Jews and Israel because they are antisemitic — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, that's the one: the automatic defensive posture and labelling.
Seemed acceptable to talk about how they "made the desert bloom", when books were written about the valiant struggle and movies made about Israel's progress and successes.

Maybe because it's in the news? Maybe because people are suffering and dying? Maybe because there is cause for concern regarding the direction in which events are going? Maybe because some people have questions about the leadership? If you talk about the weather or goldfish or a possible cure for Parkinson's or how to grow cabbages, you don't have to produce a "sufficient explanation". Again, I ask you, what puts Israel in a special category? — Vera Mont

You say automatic defensive posture - I just point out the inexplicablity of its coverage given its relative importance. Why has anyone cared about Israel since 1900? Did anyone care about Palestine before?

For the Western audience, you can't just point to its coverage as reason for why you are talking about it as if that is independent of the Western antisemitism. It is covered because the West is antisemetic and when you talk about it, you are likely just acting out that antisemitism. Isn't your fault. You don't know any better. It is a system of antisemitism just as it is a system of racism.

Perhaps you don't believe in things like systemic racism. If so, at least you are consistent. If you do believe in such things, then ask yourself why seemingly "innocent" people who would never call themselves a Jew hater couldn't possible be motivated by antisemitism.

For the Western audience, you can't just point to its coverage as reason for why you are talking about it as if that is independent of the Western antisemitism. It is covered because the West is antisemetic and when you talk about it, you are likely just acting out that antisemitism. Isn't your fault. You don't know any better. It is a system of antisemitism just as it is a system of racism. — Ennui Elucidator

What? Talking about 1 of the 2 wars that could bring about world war 3 makes us antisemetic?

We need Lionino to come back here and tell you how dumb these arguments are.

I'm telling you that they might cause WW3 because of antisemitism. Not complicated, just not what you want to hear.

If that is what you said, then you need to rewrite your argument, because it makes little sense.

Don't follow. The West only cares about Israel because it is antisemitic. If the West didn't care about Israel, nothing that happens there would cause WW3. Which part of the idea is missing?

P.S. I will refer you to my initial post where I wrote the following. It specifically identifies the trouble with antisemitism and Israel, anticipates the retort, and states that antisemitism is a systemic issue.


Israel (whatever you think about it) is far too complicated to be a helpful example of what antisemitism is or isn't. In some respects, merely discussing it is evidence of antisemitism unless such discussion is happening amongst people meaningfully effected by it. Some people will furiously insist that calling discussions of Israel antisemitic is just an unwarranted method of deflecting justified criticism (and sometimes it may be) of Israel, but that doesn't erase the intellectual structures which gave rise to a discussion of Israel rather than something else. Why is Israel an object of curiosity as opposed to anything else in the world?

Did anyone care about Palestine before? — Ennui Elucidator

Yes. Lots of people did. They were generally shut down by pro-Israeli western governments and media.

t is covered because the West is antisemetic — Ennui Elucidator

Are you sure?

Foreign Secretary William Hague said Israel is a "friend and a strategic partner" of the UK in a speech to Chatham House today.

This cultural and political affinity is behind the U.S.’s current unconditional support for Israel, as well as the fact that the U.S. is seen in the region and beyond as deeply implicated in Israel’s actions.

the U.S. is by far the biggest supplier of military aid to Israel, contributing around $130 billion since its founding.

Israel and Canada have nurtured a friendship and partnership based on shared values since Canada voted in favour of establishing a Jewish state at the United Nations on November 29, 1947.

They don't look all that hostile to me.

You don't know any better. — Ennui Elucidator

Of course not!

The West only cares about Israel because it is antisemitic — Ennui Elucidator

I started to care about Israel when it became relevant in a conflict escalation that could lead to world war 3, before that I did not care.

nothing that happens there would cause WW3 — Ennui Elucidator

There are powers in the Middle East that have nuclear options, things can happen.

I care even more about Ukraine, are you going to tell me I hate Ukrainians now?

It is like plucking a leaf from a stream and claiming that it is wet because it was in the stream and not because of the water cycle. There is a system in which things happen even if a discrete moment seems explicable by more immediate things. It isn't that the water in the stream didn't make the leaf wet - it is just that there is water in the stream because it rained.

In any event, I already pointed out that things can look supportive of Jews (or Israel) and yet be antisemitic. So Canada and the US supporting Israel isn't all that impressive or informative. In fact, the more supportive they are, the worse it is. Kind of like the idea that the opposite of love isn't hate but indifference. They need to stop paying attention.

In any event, I already pointed out that things can look supportive of Jews (or Israel) and yet be antisemitic. — Ennui Elucidator

Facts, logic and history ain't gonna prevail against blind partisanship.

So, now that you have unloaded some more nonsense... do I hate Ukraine?

Right, so the way to respond to identifying systemic antisemitism is to go on talking about yourself. Do you believe in things like systemic racism? If so, what does evidence for that racism look like in your (or anyone's) daily living?

Oh, no. You won't bullshit yourself around this one. You claim I hate Jews because I am worried about the war in Isreal.

Do I therefore hate Ukraine?

Neither is thinking you have any idea what my motivations are in posting. I already gave non-Israel examples of antisemitism. Here is some non-Jewish stuff about benevolent racism/prejudice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_prejudice

Willful misreading isn't helpful. I said that the reason you are likely talking about Israel is because of systemic antisemitism. The reason you are talking about Ukraine (if you live in the US) is probably related to fearing Russia. If you live on the Russian border, it is a different story.

You wouldn't know what is happening in Ukraine if people didn't report about it. The question is not why you care, but why they reported.

So, answer the question. Do I therefore hate Ukraine?

This is petty, mentos. Do racists in the US hate black people? Your personal feelings are entirely aside from the system.

Your personal feelings are entirely aside from the system. — Ennui Elucidator

I am a person "in the west" so yes, I matter here.

Now answer... Do I therefore hate Ukraine?