- Hi Jeff...
-
- Below is a great article that ran alongside an article
by Abraham H. Foxman (National director of the Anti-Defamation League)
in Suday's LA Times. Foxman wrote an article "Jews Face a Widening
Web of Hate" which I found to be put into perspective quite well by
Mr. Neumann in his article, "A Minor Problem, Overblown." I
think you'll like this.
-
- To me, the publication of Neumann's opinion piece signifies
a significant turning point as it was on the front page of the Opinion
section of the Sunday LA Times. It is finally okay to stand up and say:
"Stop using the 'anti-Semite' label as a weapon."
-
- People are no longer willing to sit idly by and let the
term "anti-Semite" be used indiscriminately as a weapon towards
anyone who disagrees with Israel's policies. It has finally hit the mainstream
as being unacceptable. I think the term will begin losing it's power and
that it will soon lose most, if not all, of its ability to cause so much
harm.
-
- From the sound of Mr. Foxman's article which was also
rather "interesting," it appears that the ADL is not very appreciative
of people who have been increasingly "calling a spade a spade"
when it comes to Israel's policies. Foxman says some pretty wild things
in his article that I don't think the ADL would ordinarily say (although
their Web site www.adl.org does seems pretty "far out" and almost
conspiratorial), unless they were seeing a significant anti-Zionist trend
developing -- or unless, perhaps, they were in the middle of a fund drive.
I think Mr. Neumann's article does a fantastic job of making some of the
recent ADL assertions appear ludicrous.
-
- Foxman's article appears intent on helping to keep the
"anti-Semite" label alive and well as a potent weapon to be used
against vocal opponents of Israel's policies -- as well as intent on protecting
the term from losing its polymorphic meaning, by attributing recent acts
of violence to Mahathir Mohamad who recently proclaimed that the "Jews
rule the world by proxy." It appears Foxman, in his article, is trying
to draw a direct connection between Mohamad's proclamation and two synagogue
bombings in Turkey, as well as, to an act of arson which destroyed a Jewish
school outside of Paris.
-
- I don't know if this is the case or not, but I HIGHLY
doubt it, and I think that unless Mr. Foxman can prove such assertions,
he should kindly keep his mouth shut because he is only fomenting hatred
towards Muslims, which I believe would make him a hypocrite (and perhaps
guilty of a hate crime), especially as he belongs to an organization that
is, allegedly, supposed to be helping to STOP the spread of hatred, prejudice,
bigotry and defamation (hence the name "Anti-Defamation League").
Instead, it appears Foxman is making insinuations (defamations) he has
not backed up with any proof. Insinuations, which I feel can only bring
increased hatred towards Muslims.
-
- In fact, I find much of the content on the adl.org Web
site to be incredibly bigoted and hypocritical. I do not think the ADL
represents the Jewish people. I do believe, however, that the ADL represents
Zionists extremely well, be they Jewish Zionists or non-Jewish Zionists.
My criticisms of the ADL are not aimed at Jews. Not in the least. With
all sincerity, I have found the Jewish people (the majority of them) to
be one of the kindest and most loving people on the planet. At least this
has been my experience. The ones I have befriended have been extremely
kind and giving, treating me as they would their own family. In many ways,
they have been more kind-hearted and selfless towards me than many so-called
Christians I have known -- and I was raised Christian. My criticisms are
of the actions of the Zionists who seem to think they can commit no wrong
and who appear to have forgotten how to love others and treat others with
respect and kindness.
-
- Mr. Foxman's article is, to me, very shallow and would
be downright hilarious if there weren't so many people who, for some reason,
like to hang on every word from the ADL, as if the ADL represents some
type of moral authority. I think Mr. Foxman is "way out there"
with some of the things he says. To me, the article really does sound
like an ADL fundraising advertisement written with the intention of riling
up Jewish members in order to fill them with deep concern over "increasing
anti-Semitism," in order to fill ADL coffers with more donations --
so that the ADL can continue to "do it's job" -- protecting Jews
from "anti-Semitism." If not for those labeled anti-Semites,
where would the ADL be? I think it would be out of business and would
have no more power. It would be rendered meaningless. So, it appears
to me that in order to survive as an organization, the ADL needs to be
constantly pointing out (manufacturing) cases of so-called "anti-Semitism,"
even if such cases are not at all legitimate, but rather are merely well-founded
criticisms of Israeli policies.
-
- I found Mr. Foxman's article to be void of common sense
and reasonable conclusions, and found it to contain much of the same Zionist
hype and spin that I think many of us are used to seeing from the ADL.
However, I think it's great ad copy. I think he's a very good copywriter
who is skilled in stirring up emotions and in making himself sound like
a real authority on the issue of anti-Semitism. But, I think he's got
anti-Semitism all wrong, and that Mr. Neumann has pretty much hit the nail
on the head with his piece. You can read Foxman's article at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/,
but you'll need an LA Times login to access it.
-
- Anyway, my hat's off to you guys at rense.com and davidicke.com
for all your efforts in bringing to light the blithe misuse of the term
"anti-Semite." It is not at all an easy road you are traveling.
I can see just from visiting the ADL Web site, which appears to be an
extremist site, that you are likely drawing many unwarranted attacks.
You are no doubt putting yourselves out there as a lightning rod for those
who wield the power of the term "anti-Semite" as a weapon against
their opponents. I think the term will soon fall and will lose it's significance.
It must. It is being used to justify some pretty hideous behavior. People
aren't stupid. Perhaps a little slow, but not stupid. They are starting
to come around now, thanks to the courage of people like you who tell it
like it is.
-
- It appears things are really starting to come to light
and, from what I can see, the ADL sees this and doesn't like it at all.
Oh well!
-
- Read both articles. I think you'll be quite amused.
-
- Best regards, Peter
-
-
- A Minor Problem, Overblown
-
- By Michael Neumann Philosophy Department Trent University,
Canada 12-29-3
-
- TORONTO - Jewish and non-Jewish commentators alike have
deplored a recent upsurge in anti-Semitism. In Europe, journalist Andrew
Sullivan says, "Not since the 1930s has such blithe hatred of Jews
gained this much respectability in world opinion."
-
- Yet, Jews like myself and the Israeli journalist Ran
HaCohen feel quite differently. He writes: "It is high time to say
it out loud: In the entire course of Jewish history, since the Babylonian
exile in the 6th century BC, there has never been an era blessed with less
anti-Semitism than ours. There has never been a better time for Jews to
live in than our own."
-
- Why would a Jew say such a thing? What is anti-Semitism,
and how much of a danger is it in the world today?
-
- If both sides agree on anything, it's that the definition
of "anti-Semitism" has been manipulated for political ends. Leftists
accuse ardent Zionists of inflating the definition to include " and
discredit " critics of Israel. Zionists accuse the left of deflating
the definition to apologize for covert prejudice against Jews.
-
- It's a sterile dispute. Even in this age of intellectual
property, no one owns the word. But the definitional sparring does have
its missteps and dangers.
-
- The first tells against deflationists who claim that
anti-Semitism is really hatred of Semites (including Arabs), not just Jews.
This confuses etymology with meaning. You might as well say that, in reality,
lesbians are simply those who live on the Greek island of Lesbos.
-
- On the other hand, to inflate the definition by including
critics of Israel is, if not exactly incorrect, self-defeating and dangerous.
No one can stop you from proclaiming all criticism of Israel anti-Semitic.
But that makes anti-Semites out of Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu,
not to mention tens of thousands of Jews.
-
- What then prevents someone from concluding that anti-Semitism
must be, at least in some cases, justifiable, courageous, highly moral?
Is this a message any prudent Jew or anti-racist would want to encourage?
-
- Similar worries arise when Abraham H. Foxman, national
director of the Anti-Defamation League, tells us: "The classic canards
of 'Jews control,' 'Jews are responsible' and 'Jews are not loyal' continue
to be peddled in America. While anti-Semites have usually been on the fringes
of our society, today we find they and their views have made it into the
mainstream."
-
- Well, it might be anti-Semitic to hold Jews responsible
for everything, but it would, be bizarre to claim anti-Semitism whenever
Jews are held responsible for anything. In a survey conducted by Steven
M. Cohen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 87% of American Jews said
that Jews "have a responsibility to work on behalf of the poor, the
oppressed and minority groups"; 92% said that Jews are obliged to
help other Jews who are "needy or oppressed." What Foxman calls
an anti-Semitic canard is deeply rooted in traditional and contemporary
Jewish thought. A Web search will find dozens of rabbis attributing to
Jews, generally, not just responsibilities but collective responsibility.
-
- We hold groups responsible for things, good and bad,
all the time: The Germans started World War II, the French opposed us in
Iraq, the British supported us. The strongly pro-Israel columnist Jonathan
Rosenblum states, "The Jews have built an advanced, industrial state,
while the Palestinians have built nothing."
-
- Clearly, it is not just anti-Semites who attribute responsibility
to the Jews. And just as clearly, this is neither racist nor to be taken
literally. Rosenblum does not mean that every last Jew, including children
and the mentally disabled, built that state. He means that most adult Jews
made some contribution to it.
-
- If so, should definitional inflation be allowed to make
anti-Semites out of all those who hold Jews responsible for Israel's actions
and character? My childhood, in largely Jewish suburbs of New York and
Boston, was full of Israel bond drives and calls to support Israel. Can't
Rosenblum say that "the Jews," meaning a substantial majority
of adult Jews, have some responsibility for what Israel has become? And
can't Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch say that Israel has committed
war crimes and violated human rights?
-
- One might justly call it dangerous to conclude that Jews,
generally, have some responsibility for war crimes and human rights violations.
But to call it anti-Semitic seems just as dangerous, because in some loose,
though not unreasonable, sense, that conclusion is hard to escape. That's
why there are whole Jewish organizations, like Not in My Name, that exist
to enable Jews to dissociate themselves from Israel's actions.
-
- In short, you can't have it both ways. You can, if you
like, inflate the definition of "anti-Semitism" to capture even
Jewish political opponents of Israel. But you can't do this and keep "anti-Semitism"
as a term of intense moral condemnation. Nor will the inflationary gambit
successfully isolate the truly reprehensible anti-Semites.
-
- The best way to reserve "anti-Semitism" as
a term of condemnation is to define it as hatred of Jews, not for what
they do but for what they are. It is to hate them just because they belong
to a certain ethnic group. Foxman is right to suggest that you can be an
anti-Semite without expressing any racist sentiments: Many anti-Semites
confine themselves to expounding false claims about Jewish control. But
you can also, without harboring anti-Semitic hate, criticize Israel and
even the Jewish community for its failures. To suppose otherwise would
be to suppose an inexplicable wave of anti-Semitism among both American
and Israeli Jews, both of whom figure prominently among the critics.
-
- But the touchiest question is not what anti-Semitism
is, or whether it has increased. It is whether Jews are in significant
danger. Isn't that what matters?
-
- To put it personally: Anti-Semitism may be important
to me, but is it important, period? The answer cannot be dictated by "Jewish
sensibilities."
-
- My background certainly predisposes me to regard anti-Semitic
incidents with alarm. But time passes. Concentration camp survivors still
alive deserve sympathy and justice, but they are few. Myself, I'd feel
a bit embarrassed saying to a homeless person on the streets of Toronto,
much less to the inhabitants of a Philippine garbage dump: "Oh yeah?
You think you know suffering? My grandmother died in a concentration camp!"
-
- Criticism of Israel - and its Jewish supporters "
is not anti-Semitism.
-
- We should indeed guard against a resurgence of European
fascism, and Jewish organizations are oddly lax about this. The ADL, for
instance, did not comment on last month's electoral gains of Croatian nationalists
who trace their lineage directly back to some of Adolf Hitler's most savage
and willing executioners. But we Jews live not in the past but in a brutal
present that forces us to reassess our moral priorities.
-
- An appropriately stark reassessment might involve counting
up the dead and wounded in the ADL'S list of anti-Semitic incidents in
2002 and 2003. Its surveys include two Al Qaeda attacks. This is questionable:
Al Qaeda's war on the United States, Israel, the West and pretty much everyone
else seems independent of sentiment in the countries in which the attacks
occurred. Include these attacks and the number of Jews killed in that period
seems to be nine. Exclude them, and it falls to one, in Morocco. Jews hospitalized
or incurring serious injuries falls to about a dozen.
-
- On March 14, the BBC reported that the Honduran government
would investigate the killings of 1,569 street children in the last five
years. The killers may well be "police or army personnel," according
to Amnesty International, and there have been virtually no prosecutions.
Not even the alternative left-wing press gave the story any coverage. In
the Congo, 3 million have died in 4-1/2 years. Perhaps anti-Semitism is
not, after all, a high priority.
-
- Michael Neumann teaches philosophy at Trent University
in Canada.
|
