I suppose I should have seen it coming. Having written a piece for today's Independent about Nat Rothschild and the affair of the Corfu yacht, I took a call from a reader who is interested in the Rothschilds and wanted to talk. Fine. One of the privileges of a hack's job is that people invite you into their mental world, which is like being invited into the home. Except in this case, home was a dreary place with no exit.
The caller, who sounded reasonable at first, turned out to be a holocaust denier, with a very methodical mind. He approaches the question of whether Jews were massacred by the Nazis with lawyer-like scepticism, wanting to hear from witnesses, and to see forensic evidence; but as to whether the Bolshevik Revolution was financed and run by Jews - for that he needs no more hard evidence, because he has all the proof he needs. He has read it on a website.
A decade or more ago, it seemed as if anti-semitism had almost disappeared from British life, but for several years it has been creeping back. The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-semitism, reckons that 2007 was the worst year for violent attacks on Jews since they began recording; in 2008, the violence has been less, but reports of abusive behaviour are up.
I do not want to read too much into one crank telephone call, but I have a bad feeling that as the economy worsens and people feel more insecure and more in need of someone to blame, this blight could spread.
But the converse is also true.
Dennis McShane has been launching into print recently (The Guardian, The First Post) with pieces about "anti-semitism". In his Grauniad piece, McShame alleged that our dear British Foreign Secretary was being routinely pilloried with anti-semitic abuse in the Russian media, and by Russian politicians.
When McShame was confronted with this and asked to back up his miserable innuendo with quotations specifying who had made such remarks and where they could be seen in print or on film, Dennis suddenly went very quiet indeed.
There are two sides to the anti-semitic smear mullarkey, and Dennis McShane represents a very unacceptable face of one of those sides.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Thursday, 23 October 2008 at 04:29 PM
Dear Sir, one nut on the telephone and suddenly the UK has become anti-semitic? please use a little more research before you 'sound off'. Ms Jackie Smith has just been assuring us that violent crime is falling in the UK, yet The Community Security Trust tells you otherwise. What/Where are the facts for this claim, or for that matter those of Ms Smith, or is it just because its on your blog it must be the truth.Nat Rothschild may well be jewish, but thats nothing to do with the fact he is still a tosser.
Posted by: John Davison | Thursday, 23 October 2008 at 05:43 PM
Since when has anti-semitism been officially recognised as exclusively anti-Jewish? In real terms anti-semitism could equally relate to Jewish attacks on Arabs, physically or verbally; the Arabs, of course are themselves Semites.
As far as anti-semitism (the anti-Jewish element) is concerned, it would be incorrect to imagine it had disappeared from British life - it simply went underground while the more virulent anti-Jewish sought ways to continue their attacks in coded language.
Having said that, the ways in which law has been interpreted are not helpful to the Jewish cause.
In a free country, if a writer wants to publicly observe that the American and British governments are heavily unbalanced in terms of their Jewish content - and then go on to describe the decision to go to war in Iraq as being primarily in covert defence of Israel - it has to be seen as not unreasonable fair comment.
Not to allow open debate simply pushes the suspicion underground with all the additional problems that causes.
Posted by: Maurice Smith. | Thursday, 23 October 2008 at 06:52 PM
I feel that it is right and proper to criticise Jews when it is appropriate--like Israelis, who persecute Palestinians on a daily basis and steal their land--and those Jews who remain silent today--like many Christians and Gentiles, who remained silent during the persecution of the Jews, leading to the holocaust in the last century. Jews have a reputation for being exceptional in the Arts and Finance, but there is mischievous bunch, equally adept, who prey upon their gullible fellows, with assertions that, they are God's chosen people--and goad them to obtain Palestinian land by virtue of 4,000 year-old Abrahamic sayings of the Old Testament. This is diabolical nonsense and should be exposed as a land grab--no different than Europeans (Americans) taking land from the North American Indians, or California, Texas and New Mexico from the Mexicans. If anti-Semitism is creeping back, we should ask to what degree? Why? And if there is justification? No Jew, I suspect, is being persecuted to the extent of that endured by Palestinians today. Let them speak out against these acts of persecution. At all times, the innocent must be protected and no exceptions made. Thank the gods, I'm an atheist.
Posted by: Diogenes | Thursday, 23 October 2008 at 06:59 PM
The conspiracy theorists and closet "Oh so reasonable" Critics of Jews cannot contain their snide and irrelevant comments.
Nil desperandum! We Jews shall prevail,we have for 4000 years. Not only prevail but continue to succeed and contribute towards the welfare of the world.
Those that find this an irritant, Live with it!
Posted by: Jeffrey Marlowe | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:28 AM
anti-semitism (or anti-jewish feeling) is a blanket prejudice against jews. By definition, it needs no reason, because it is prejudice, and groups all jews together without regard for their individual characterstics, actions, or views.. so, contrary to what Diogenes says above, while it might be reasonable to disagree with or condemn some jews for their views or actions, that does not justify anti-semitism. Diogenes is on a slippery slope. Jews are no more homogeneous in their views than the rest of the UK population:some love Israel, some loathe it. Many of my acquaintance fight for Palestinian rights, while others feel justified in occupying Palestinian land. ie, jews are no worse, and no better, than any other group. Don't fall into the trap of stereotyping jews, or anyone else.
Posted by: Jane Allen | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:41 AM
According to Oxfords English Dictionary the word
Anti is a prefix that has two definitions 1:opposed to.
2:Preventing or relieving.
The Word Semitic is a noun defined as a family of LANGUAGES that includes Hebrew & Arabic.
The etymology(origin) of the word semitic according to the Oxford English Dictionary is Greek Sem coming from Shem one of the triplet sons of Noah (of The kings james bible)the other two being Ham or Kham and Japheth or Yapheth.
Ham or Kham means burnt black or black as in black skin and Common-Sense would dictate that from Ham means Burnt Black or Black Skin NOAH, and his triplet sons HAM,SHEM AND JAPHETH are Negroid or Nubian or Melenin Positive.
So from anti-semitic is truly defined it would be ANTI-SHEM or SHEM,S Family or Race Which we have now established with RESEARCH and COMMON-SENSE is NUBIAN OR NEGROID.
Ashkenazim Russians Jews(who are not the Tribe of YAHUDAH OR JUDAH) speak YIDDISH a hybrid of Russian,German and hebrew.
Sephardic Spaniard/oriental Jews(who are also not the Tribe of YAHUDAH or JUDAH speak a hybrid of Spanish,Portuguese and hebrew).
And finally according to The Best selling book in the world The Holy Bible which TEACHES two of the World,s most prominent Religions JUDAISM(Old Testement) and CHRISTIANITY(New Testement) The book of REVELATION CHAPTER 2 VERSE 9-11 and CHAPTER 9-10 REVEALS PROPHECIES about those who call themselves JEWS and are not JEWS of the TRIBE of YAHUDAH.
BLASPHEMING in the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as speak DISRESPECFULLY about GOD OR SACRED THINGS and the Etymological origin is Greek BLASPHEMEIN.
Free the Master Teacher Noble Reverened Dr Malachi Z York-el(www.heisinnocent.com)NOW.
Give Care And Take Care Wake Up Please.
Peace
Posted by: ANKH | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:58 AM
I,m wondering if there's a degree of self interest by Andy in the position he's taken. Why has no journalist ever questioned the story? Not that I blame him.
By the way why is there a news blackout on the two English guys convicted of thought crimes here, who fled and are now trying to get political asylum in U.S.A.?
Posted by: john | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 03:57 AM
Andy McSmith appears to be saying that, on its own, the fact that his caller "approaches the question of whether Jews were massacred by the Nazis with lawyer-like scepticism, wanting to hear from witnesses, and to see forensic evidence" is perfectly reasonable, as in fact it is. His only complaint is that the caller is inconsistent, lacking such commendable open-mindedness when it comes to "whether the Bolshevik Revolution was financed and run by Jews".
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 07:02 AM
It is just plain wrong for some people to embark on a pseudo-demographic etymological fallacy by applying, and using, the term antisemitism to a wider array of people groups and thereby dissipating the focus away from the Jewish people alone. Although such an approach may appear technically correct its reasoning is pure sophistry.
When Wilhelm Marr first coined the term 'antisemitism' it referred to one people group - the Jewish people. It was a term used to explain, justify and promote the assault on Jewish culture, Jewish life and Jewish people. That is the meaning of antisemitism and it describes a periodic, sometimes sustained antipathy against Jewish people. It may be true that such people, in a contemporary setting, are then inclined to also hate other people groups but the primary focus is the Jewish people. The Nazis were happy enough to establish a native Palestinian brigade some 65 years ago thereby establishing antisemitism as being anti-Jewish.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 08:03 AM
Whatever the dictionary definition of Semitic, the New Oxford Dictionary of English gives the following definition of anti-Semitism:
> noun [mass noun] hostility to or prejudice against Jews.
- DERIVATIVES anti-Semite noun, anti-Semitic adjective.
Posted by: Stephen | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 10:34 AM
Please Jane Allen, explain at which point in my contribution do you see a "slippery slope"? I think I was quite specific where I criticised Jews--you seem to be the one sliding into something more subjective.
Posted by: Diogenes | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 11:58 AM
The key word for Holocaust deniers/revisionists is 'EVIDENCE'. The evidence is so much in favour of the authentic, orthodox account that theories laden with attempts to undermine the statistics are usually ignored because the negative agenda is apparent from the outset.
There is no doubt that a certain number of people 'went missing'? Where did they go?
One of the ironic aspects of Nazi authoritarian retentiveness is the mass of records they preserved.
Of course one should aim at accurate data but what is the revisionist 'evidence' based on? My guess is that, given the kind of people they are, the first people to explode any myths regarding Shoah would be Jewish people themselves ... in order to preserve, accurately, the account of what DID happen.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 12:22 PM
Now that the BNP has focussed their efforts against Islam, I would have thought there would be declining levels of anti-semitism in the UK.
Against that there is the pernicious influence of the neocons on US foreign policy and alignment with Likud, which can be seen as evidence of disproportionate influence of zionist ultras.
Unfortunately, Israel's settler movement, unleashed by Sharon, has created facts on the ground, which mitigate against any solution other than the eventual expulsion of the remaining Arab population from the West Bank.
Obviously this stokes anti-semitism in the Muslim world.
Posted by: Chris | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 12:55 PM
IT saddens me tremendously that people, like some of those who commented above are able to paint a whole race with such a wide brush. I stand behind Jane Allen - we cannot judge an entire group by the same standards, if we were to do that then how would be deal with the atrocious behaviours that some of the Palestinians themselves do? like killing suspected collaborators without trial, the widespread murdering of homosexuals and other extreme behaviours towards women. And yes, of course there are terrible things that happen in Israel too, but you cannot ignore the extremely unbearable circumstances for both these people. Yes, there is certainly an unsolved problem between the Israel and the Palestinians, but if only people could expect of themselves what they expect of others, we may have a greater chance at solving this problem.
Posted by: Annie | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:07 PM
A message for David Scott A great wrong is the majority of people have not been taught in any educational institution about the etymology of words and not doing so has lead to an accepted practice of incorrect use of linguistics/language that has spread to many people being mis-informed,mis-lead, deceived and lied too???( Invest in a Etymological dictionary people and you will see and learn about the huge differences in a dictionary and an etymolgical dictionary)
Check it out for yourselves with an open-mind do not believe me.Wake up please people
Give Care And Take Care
Peace
Posted by: ANKH | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:11 PM
ANKH - I used to read etymological dictionaries as an eight-year old, sad eh?
... but that is not what etymological fallacy means. An etymological fallacy is when you try to derive the meaning of a word by etymology alone as in rendering 'nice' as meaning "not knowing".
The etymological fallacy employs a technique which is like a short-cut to literary or historical criticism, it is often used by orators to wrong-foot others in debate but, sadly, sometimes at the expense of true meaning.
Deriving the term 'antisemitism' but going solely to its components and then working back up from Shem/semite is one such example. Perhaps the original fault lies is the original European application of the word semitic but to then ignore as to how the word antisemitism came about where semitic meant Jewish is to override the truth that, however etymologically erroneous, the term antisemitic, in its primary and common usage, refers to hatred of Jewish people. All else, regarding the word, is either pedantic extrapolation or a subsequent attempt at a revision of the word ... and why? ... to try and undermine the anti-Jewish-ness of the historical expression of antisemitism.
What is Peace with truth? ... merely a sentiment!
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:35 PM
Rothschild is not alone, Deripska is also Jewish and the father of Peter Mandelson was a Jew, but this matter has nothing to do with Judaism.
The reason for the behaviour of Nat Rothschild is not the indiscretion of Osbourne in making public a private conversation, but rather that he has drawn attention to Deripska, a long standing business associate of Nat Rothschild.
Deripska was responsible for introducing Nat Rothschild to a variety of business opportunities in Eastern Europe and Russia that contributed to him accumulating considerable wealth.
Posted by: Manny Goldstein | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:46 PM
After reading Diogene's comments, I decided I wanted to respond. I'm an atheist, but I'm also Jewish, and I felt there were a few things that I needed to say.
I don't really subscribe to the belief in that Jews are God's chosen people, but what I do know is that for several thousand years there has existed a group of people with a distinct ethnic and cultural identity, with a long history revolving around the lands now called Israel and Palestine. Anyone who wants to dispute the fact that there was a Jewish presence in these lands has a pretty difficult time ahead of them - the archaeological evidence is pretty substantial.
On the other hand, the evidence for the Palestinian "nation" that was supposedly displaced is rather sketchy - we have the British Mandate of Palestine and a section of the Ottoman Empire, but these don't really count as nations. In fact, the current "nation" that people claim is being oppressed turned up around the 20th century. Many Jews, including myself, don't agree with the treatment of the Palestinians, but equally, we support the existence of a Jewish homeland.
I presume the "mischievous bunch" referred to is a codeword for "Zionists", the usual grimy slur used by those who want to criticize Jews under the cover of criticizing Israel. Zionism is the support of a Jewish homeland, and most "zionists" are Jews, so thus there's a new weapon to couch the same old anti-semitic garbage in. Indeed, "anti-Zionism" appears to have become quite fashionable. I've been involved in conversations before where all kinds of familiar sounding nonsense has been rolled out, and when this rot is challenged, usually the oh-so-shocked reaction is "Me? Anti-semitic? How dare you!", but well, if the shoe fits...
And as for "no persecution of Jews to the extent of the Palestinians", well, let me tell you, there's always an undercurrent there just below the surface. It can be in the form of a "joke" (of which there are many), or desecration of Jewish graves and synagogues, or even the new, trendy, "anti-Zionist" anti-semitism. And the Jewish people have endured enough persecution over the past thousand years, from Christian "love" such as the Inquisition, ending in the horrific events of the Shoah which took place all too recently. Israel acts as a buffer against these things, as a homeland for Jews to go to should there ever be the threat of persecution to that extent.
It might not be perfect, and indeed there is quite a lot wrong with what's going on in the modern Palestinian territories right now. But then, no-one in the West can adopt a holier-than-thou position. Many of us hate what has happened in Iraq, even protest against it, but still fund it via our taxes. Many Israelis have a similar feeling about what's going on in the Palestinian territories, and believe me, they hate the continuous fighting as much as we hate what happens in Iraq.
I hope I've at least managed to set a few things straight with this, but I feel that probably there will be the usual "Anti-semitic? How dare you!" response that comes from participating in these things.
Posted by: David Katz | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 01:56 PM
mea culpa, my blunder (in a rush to get out)":
Epithet should have read, 'What is Peace without truth? ... merely a sentiment!'
KInd of changes the meaning somewhat ,,, by about 180 degrees !!
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 03:03 PM
Why does the Independent insist on removing all posts that dare to suggest that growing anti-semitism may be largely caused by the muslim population? Are they so scared of newsagents and advertisers? Well, they won;t publish some cartoons about Islam or allow people to express reasonable views about just what is going on in the British muslim 'community'. So I assume there is a policy of cowardice in action at the Indy. Shame on you all.
The rise in anti-semitism in Europe is mostly because of the growing radicalisation of muslims in Europe. Why can one not express that view? There is plenty of evidence to back it up - just visit any Muslim bookshop. Mein Kamff is very popular in Arabic and is a best seeler in London apparently.
Posted by: Free Voice | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 04:09 PM
ANKH -don't know where you you got your doctorate from but nescius (interesting that you used the accusative case nescium) derives from ne scio (ne = not, scire = to know).
Oh the joy of having a Scottish education and the joy of having one's mother study Latin (in the 50's) and one's grandmother study Greek (in the 20's). So, a humble scottish MA topples a doctorate :-) ... What was that you said about 'EGO'?
Just dig a bit deeper and give and take the care you sign off with in your soundbites - otherwise I might take you as being a tad shallow.
Back to the main point though, 'antisemitism' primarily means anti-Jewish.
LOVE & PEACE,
Dave
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 04:51 PM
PS: ergo, 'not knowing' then comes to mean Foolishly Simple,Lazy,Ignorant
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 04:53 PM
Free Voice: It's been going on for generations (as I guess you know)
Have you seen http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/storobin_nazis.html?
YOu amy be interested in some extracts:
"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours."
-- Former Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini in his post-World War II memoirs.[1}
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures."
-- Adolf Eichmann`s deputy Dieter Wisliceny in his Nuremberg Trials testimony.[2]
On November 28, 1941 the former Mufti was officially received by Hitler, who agreed to establish a bureau for al-Husseini which was used to spread propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany, organize spy rings in Europe and the Middle East, and, most importantly, establish Muslim Nazi SS divisions and Wehrmacht units in Bosnia, the Balkans, North Africa and Nazi-occupied parts of the Soviet Union. After the meeting, the Mufti was also named SS gruppenfuehrer by Heinrich Himmler and referred to as the "Fuhrer of the Arab World" by Hitler himself.[14]
The largest Muslim Nazi SS unit was the 13th division, known as Hanjar. Husseini also encouraged the creation of smaller, less efficient units, including the Waffen SS divisions known as Skanderbeg (made up predominantly of Albanians) and Kama (made up mostly of Yugoslavian Muslims). Thus, Hitler`s Mufti organized or encouraged three out of 27 Waffen SS divisions formed before 1945 (eleven other SS divisions were formed in 1945, but most of these were of questionable caliber and accepted soldiers of questionable skill).
According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, al-Husseini "organized in record time" Croatian units that went on to massacre hundreds of thousands of Serbian Orthodox Christians. Jacenovac, the third largest death camp, where more than 200,000 people met their death, was run by Croatian Ante Pavelic with the aid of al-Husseini. In all, at least 800,000 Yugoslavian civilians were murdered by Pavelic's pro-Axis Ustaschi regime.[15]
Despite the relative inefficiency of the Hanjar division and the total incompetence of the other two divisions, it can still be said that the units established and encouraged by the "Fuhrer of the Arab World" played a significant role in the genocide. Tens of thousands of Jews outside Yugoslavia also perished when the Mufti argued against trading them for German POWs held by the Allies.
Support for Nazism was not limited to the former Mufti. "We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books . . . . We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism," recalled Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of Syria's ruling Ba'ath Party. [23] Indeed, a popular WWII song was heard in the Middle East featuring words: Bissama Allah, oria alard Hitler - in heaven Allah, on earth Hitler. Picking up the theme of the book, posters were put up in Arab markets and elsewhere proclaiming, "In heaven Allah is thy ruler; on earth Adolph Hitler." John Gunther of Inside Asia reported: "The greatest contemporary Arab hero is probably Hitler." [24]
Can anyone help work out whether what this website is reporting is true?
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 05:02 PM
typo: 'You may be interested ... '
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 05:11 PM
Oh, and one more ... just to put some aspects of the current conflict into perspective:
When the war ended, al-Husseini returned to the Middle East as a hero. On October 1, 1948, he was proclaimed the president of the government of All-Palestine. The government was fictional, however, because it did not control any land and was recognized by only a handful of Arab nations. In 1959 it was dispersed by its sponsor, Egypt.[22]
By that time, however, another member of the al-Husseini clan was planning terror. Around the same time that the All-Palestine government was disbanded, a man by the name of Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ar-Rauf al-Qudwah al-Husaini - better known as Yasir Arafat - was busy organizing Fatah, which would go on to become the main faction of the PLO.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 05:13 PM
John, I must have missed it - which contributor has claimed that the Palestinians "don't really exist"? That itself is another abhorrent revision/denial. If you're referring to David Katz's post then I think you're reading his view too skeptically (I may be wrong and David can answer for himself)
However, there are arguments (some dodgy, some valid) for arguing the case for/against a pre-existent Palestinian nation - which is not to deny its right to come into being. There is plenty of scope for discussion and investigation of the ethnic origins of the present Palestinians which, however, should not be used as a lever to mistreat them.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 05:35 PM
Clarification: 'That itself is another abhorrent revision/denial' means the claim that they don't exist ... not referring to your observation about another poster.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 05:37 PM
Allan: Yes antisemitism is slowly on the increase in Europe too ... and you're right, it's not 'just Muslims'
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 05:47 PM
see http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html
Is this real or some kind of hoax? ... here are a few extracts ....
WHAT THE QUR'AN REALLY SAYS
by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi
THE QUR'AN SAYS THAT ALLAH GAVE THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWS
AND WILL RESTORE THEM TO IT AT THE END OF DAYS
THE QUR'AN SAYS:
"To Moses We [Allah] gave nine clear signs. Ask the Israelites how he [Moses] first appeared amongst them. Pharoah said to him: 'Moses, I can see that you are bewitched.' 'You know full well,' he [Moses] replied, 'that none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth has revealed these visible signs. Pharoah, you are doomed.'"
"Pharoah sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]."
"We [Allah] have revealed the Qur'an with the truth, and with the truth it has come down. We have sent you [Muhammed] forth only to proclaim good news and to give warning."
[Qur'an, "Night Journey," chapter 17:100-104]
SHAYKH PROF. PALAZZI COMMENTS:
God wanted to give Avraham a double blessing, through Ishmael and through Isaac, and ordered that Ishmael's descendents should live in the desert of Arabia and Isaac's in Canaan.
The Qur'an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.
****************************************
MUSLIMS MUST RECOGNIZE THE STATE OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE
Is there any fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State?
I realize that a negative answer to the above question is taken for granted by popular opinion. My approach, however, is not based on popular opinion or the current political situation, but on a theological analysis of authentic Islamic sources.
Viewing the Jewish return to Israel as a Western invasion and Zionists as recent colonizers is new. It has no basis in authentic Islamic faith. According to the Qur'an, no person, people or religious community can claim a permanent right of possession over any territory. The Earth belongs exclusively to God, and He is free to entrust sovereignty over land to whomever He likes for whatever time period that He chooses.
"Say: 'O God, King of the kingdom (1), Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest; Thou endowest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest: all the best is in Thy hand. Verily, Thou hast power over all things.'"(2) [Qur'an 3:26]
From the above Qur'anic verse we deduce a basic principle of the Monotheistic philosophy of history: God chooses as He likes in the relationship between peoples and countries. Sometimes He gives a land to a people, and sometimes He takes His possession back and gives it to another people.
In general, we can say that He gives as a reward for faithfulness and takes back as a punishment for wickedness, but this rule does not permit us to say that God's ways are always plain and clear to our eyes, since His secrets are inaccessible to the human intellect.
Using Islam as a basis for preventing Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel is new. Such beliefs are not found in classical Islamic sources.
Concluding that anti-Zionism is the logical outgrowth of Islamic faith is wrong. This conclusion represents the false transformation of Islam from a religion into a secularized ideology.
Such a false transformation of Islam was in fact made by the late Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini. He is the one person most responsible, both morally and materially, for the repeated Arab defeats in their conflict with the Jews in Israel.
Husseni not only incited Arabs against Jews. He also encouraged the torture and murder of all Arabs who correctly understood that Arab cooperation with Jews was a precious opportunity for the development of the Land of Israel. Husseini ended his woeful life by putting his perverted religious teachings at the service of the evil and pagan Nazis.
After Husseini came Jamal al-Din 'Abd al-Nasser. Nasser based his policy on Pan-Arabism, hatred and contempt for Jews, and an alliance with the atheistic Soviet Union. Nasser's terrible choices were critical factors in maintaining Arab backwardness. Fortunately, most of Nasser's mistakes were afterward corrected by the martyr Anwar Sadat. (3)
After the defeat of Nasserianism, Islamic fundamentalist movements made anti-Zionism the primary feature of their propaganda. They presented the negation of any Jewish rights to the Land of Israel as rooted in authentic Islam and derived from authentic Islamic religious principles.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 06:30 PM
Laughing message for David Scott(you have been busy Dave sorry just got back from a radio show) Yes Nescium is an accsative of Nescius which is coming from Latin Ne=NOT Sci-re=To Know and the reason we used CASUS ACCUSATIVUS or an Accusative NESCIUM is because we was showing cause to our central points which was Etymology is just one Component of Linguistics and A Teacher or student of Knowledge Knows that Knowledge is INFINITE.
So you David Scott could well benefit from a reapprasial of the etymological dictionary you read when you were eight as the Two things that are Guaranteed in life is one:Death=We will die one day and Two:Change=Life is constantly changing.
And the only fallacy is an EGO which is in some kind of competion to topple ANKH and A Doctorate:) with a Masters degree and knowledge of Greek and Latin learned from Granny and Mummy which is good David(Laughing).
Yet when ANKH chooses to use the Ancient Cuneiform and Semitic languages which pre-date Latin and Greek
by Hundreds of Thousand of years we hope you ready David as ANKH is enjoying this game and it is only being ruined by the Indy removing ANKH,S Comment,s because we are waking up the people with our truthful comments(smile).
Back to our points about Linguistics.
Linguistics is composed of ETYMOLOGY(The study of the origin of words),PHONOLOGY(The study of sounds)PHONETICS(The Study of the propieties of perception and speech production),MORPHOLOGY(The Study of internal strutures of words and how words can and are modified),SYNTAX(The study of how words combine to form grammatical sentences),SEMANTICS(The study of the meaning of words which is lexical semantics and fixed word combinations and how these combine to form the meanings of sentences)
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS the analysis of language and it,s uses in texs as written or spoken and finally PRAGMATICS(The study of utterances and how they are used literally figuratively,or otherwise.
So the scientific study of language LINGUISTICS consists of ETYMOLOGY,MORPHOLOGY,PHONOLOGY,PHONETHICS,SYNTAX,LEXIS and SEMANTICS with it,s sub-divisions
STRUCTUAL SEMANTICS,LEXICAL SEMANTICS,PROTOTYPE SEMANTICS,STATISTICAL SEMANTICS.
PRAGMATICS APPLIED LINGUISTICS,HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS PSYCHOLINGUISTICS,SOCIOLINGUISTICS,LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY,COMPARITIVE LINGUISTICS,DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS,GENERITIVE LINGUISTICS,COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS,CORPUS LINGUISTICS,THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
and a HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS.
Now just ask yourselves why would the Indy want to remove
Truthful informative comments such as this one and others from ANKH if we was not telling the truth as you can see David Scott!(smile) Do not believe me check it out and Wake Up People(Laughing)
Give Care and Take Care
Peace
Posted by: ANKH | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 09:47 PM
My current view on Israel/Palestine is that there should be a two-state solution. This was the original intention of the UN's plan, and in my view it's the best one, as a single state solution would prove unworkable.
Under the UN plan, the Palestinians have an equal claim on nationhood since the withdrawal of the Mandate, it's just quite annoying when people question Israel's legitimacy based on the destruction of some hazily defined nation state when there was no sovereign nation overthrown at the time.
Posted by: David Katz | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 11:57 PM
The Ancient Egiptian Order(That which gave birth to the three (3) mono-theistic Religions of Judaism,Christianity and Islam and the Secret Lodges of European Freemasonary namely The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Right of Free-Masonary and The York Right of Free-Masonry and greek scolars such as Plato,Socrates and Pythagoras came to learn the Universal Sciences and learned a few Degrees came back to Europe and convinienly forgot to tell the truth to the masses about where they recieved Knowledge that has long been attributed to the Caucasian European GEWS=JEWS Greek-Hebrews, and Mongoloid Asian-Chinese and where all Races in fact came to find out Universal Right Knowledge) and also The Ancient Mystic Order Of Melchezidek the Order that the Jesus Christ of your New Testement And Aaron the brother of Moses of the Old Testement Was a Part of and Abraham who is the FATHER of Abramic Religions was initiated in to Check-Out Genesis Chapter Fourteen(14) Hebrews Chapter Five(5) and Chapter Seven(7) And The book of ACT,S in Chapter Seven(7) Tells you where Moses the Author or person who Started the Old Testement books of Genesis,Exodous,Leviticus, etc got ALL his WISDOM and POWER from and In The Koran it tells all Muslims in Surah Two Al Baqarah Verse 2-16 Verse 87-99 and verse 124-148 Surah 14 Ibrahim and Surah Sixteen Al Nahl verse 120-128 what and who to follow.
Also the first ever Country/Land mentioned in the Old Testement book of Genesis or is KISH OR KUSH in Chapter Two(2) Verses EIGHT-FIFTEEN(8-15) which is near the Garden of Eden according to Biblical information that would mean Africa or Nubia as is called in the British Museum in Russell Square London is the Continent where the land of Kish or Kush is located and in the book of Genesis this is where GOD according to The King James Bible choose,s to create the first Country/Land which ties/links in to the majority of Archaeological Evidence that points to all Human Life originating out of Africa and ties/links into some very interesting biblical information about Another African/Nubian Country Egipt where according to Genesis Chapter Twelve(12) Abraham went in a time of Famine also Joseph(he of Techni-coloured dreamcoat fame) and his brothers Prospered in a time of Famine and where According to the New Testement book of Matthew Chapter Two(2)An Angel of the Most High told Mary and Joseph to take the baby JESUS because HEROD wanted to kill baby Jesus. Plus Remember According to the book of Act,s:Chapter 7 verse 22 Moses got all his Wisdom and Power from.
So this lead,s to the Question,s Who is Really the God of the Bible,s or Allah of the Koran,s Choosen,ONE,S PEOPLE,LAND,COUNTRY or CONTINENT?? Check-Out Old Testament Numbers Chapter Twelve(12)Verse One to Fifteen(1-15) and New Testament Revelation chapter One(1)Verse Twelve-Eighteen(12-18).
Free the Master Teacher Noble Reverened Dr Malachi Z York-el(www.heisinnocent.com)NOW.
Check it out for yourselves with an open-mind do not believe me.Wake up please people
Give Care And Take Care
Peace
Posted by: ANKH | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 01:46 AM
In fact Diogenes has expounded a very real state of affairs, which, although not PC, has hit the mail on the head.
Israel has conquered and is hanging onto land that does not belong to it, to wit, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Sheeba farms area and notably East Jerusalem.
Gun toting Israeli settlers evily mistreat the indigenous Arab occupiers of this land and are happily protected by the Israeli army whilst the authorities turn a blind eye.
Situations like this will always provoke a backlash in those of us who believe that "might doesn't make right".
To attempt to tar those of us who speak up as "anti semites" is the time honoured Jewish tactic designed to quash all criticism of these evil acts.
Well done Diogenes!
Your acid words of truth are shared by many.
Posted by: Home truths | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 02:21 AM
David Katz you seem to have deliberately muddied your first contribution to fit your belief that we are all covert anti-semites. I know well enough, the history and folklore of the Jewish/Hebrew people and the millenia of persecution involved with this disparate people--and yes it is right to say they are not an homogenous people. What they do as a Country does give them a common badge for criticism--especially when that State is the Jewish State of Israel and for over forty years it has opposed UN resolution 242--to return to Israel's 1967 borders--but rather expand and grab further territory from Palestinians, as well as persecuting them to the point of destruction. Please take time out from your paranoia and compare those actions, which Israelis are currently undertaking against the Palestinian people, with those actions taken by certain uniformed members of the German people, back in the last century against Jews. What was loathsome then--is loathsome now--only the perpetrators have changed. Surely, you should be correcting the wrongs of the IDF and Israeli Government here--not winkling-out what may, or may not, have anti-Semitic nuances? Should we all shut up, simply because a minority of Jews in Israel do not share the ideology of their leaders and military? (Note: Sometimes I do not use obvious words because there is a censorship regime--but "grimy" my words are not).
Posted by: Diogenes | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 08:07 AM
Phil: "Dave Scott neatly omits any mention of Zionist collaboration"
wrong 'mens rea' Phil. I'd gladly explore that, thanks for pointing it out.
ANKH: You can dribble on all you want about linguistics in order to massage yourself.
If you can follow reason rather than get high on your own bluster the whole reason etymology was raised was because of the etymological fallacy in the use of the word 'antisemitism'. ( which this page is about) I have clearly delineated why I think the dissipated meaning is disingenuous. All else from you has been a smokescreen to cover for the fact that you blundered. None of your bluster has supported why antisemitism's primary meaning is not anti-Jewishness - you just gone sideways and made a lot of 'noise'.
No, I haven't 'been busy' - my mother was in the next room so it was easy to ask her. I'd also known the root of 'nice' before posting, but the example of nice was only an illustration - you attack the illustration and lose the argument.
Puh-leez look at your own ego - since you mentioned it in the first place.
I doubt you're laughing - it's just a mock tactic ... nice try, but you're as easy to read as a book!
Bye-eee
:-)
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 09:32 AM
David David David have thrown your toys out the pram because your reasoning and ego has been CRUSHED and found to be deeply flawed with the ommisson of FACTS
Laughing we have shown that anti-SEM is being used in the wrong context because of where the origin of the word has come from we have shown utilisng the science of linguistics our reasoning behind what you thought was an error. What you are calling dribble is Facts beyond any shadow of a doubt or SOUND,RIGHT,REASONING(smile)
And just as the game was highlighting how lousy your use of your MASTER,S is what do you do run back to MUMMY for some more HELP(Hey David get your mum to do your comments as she has a wiser head on her shoulders) Laughing Your EGO is also very very funny as well as crushed,bruised,smacked and flawed hope mum has enough wipes for you Dave-Laughing (as you really a baby Clown).Take Care and Give Care David
Peace
Posted by: ANKH | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 11:45 AM
What is it about anti-semitism that attracts loonies?
Posted by: Allan | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 12:01 PM
ANKH - you have not 'shown' anything, no proofs just bluster about your own supposed academic status. You have decontextualised the term 'antisemitism' and tried to rebuild it from false etymological principles and used the pseudo-academic noise to distract from the main debate. It is this undermining of the word antisemitic that is precisely anti-Jewish (therefore antisemitic) in its nature.
I have acknowledged that the word semitic may in its European context have been wrong to exclude people who were racially of semitic stock but who were not Jewish in its original usage. However, when Marr coined the phrase semitic meant Jewish, and therefore antisemitic still does mean, anti-Jewish in its primary instance and in the context of the lead article it means anti-Jewish.
The participation of the Arab League with the Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's indicates that neither the Arabs nor the Nazis saw antisemitism as being anything other than anti-Jewish.
Get over it and let's hear what you have to say about antisemitism in the UK.
As for the tirade of mockery: Is there something wrong with double-checking with a Latin scholar and graduate that I was correctly using the language? She happened to be visiting and was in the next room. Do you have a problem with educated women? Do you not consult people? I'm more surprised that my mother's MA managed to unhinge your (ahem) 'doctorate'.
As for the rest of your patronising bile and your careless use of the second person plural when referring to yourself indicates to me that you may not be what you claim to be. Perhaps you should see a real doctor.
PHIL: I've not had a chance to chase up your refs yet but, in respect of your comments, I was reminded of the Irish Republic enlisting some Nazi help in WW2, presumably with a view to loosening British influence, yet they didn't take it a stage further and form Nazi divisions. On the assumption that all's fair in love and war perhaps the Jews you mentioned were willing to play dice with a bigger enemy in order to get the Brits out - Machiavellian though that might appear ... kind of like us supporting unjust regimes in order to allay a bigger perceived, more immediate, threat.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 04:34 PM
The Bible Unearthed is a rather widely disputed book, and not really accepted as a mainstream view in current archaeology.
And I kind of expected the "Zionist" word to be rolled out. It's a wonderful little tool, isn't it? It covers a multitude of sins, and yet is a perfectly acceptable, politically correct code word for "Jewish". So we're to believe there was "Zionist", i.e. "Jewish" collaboration with Germany during WWII? That seems somewhat unlikely, doesn't it, given Hitler's views on the Jewish people?
@Diogene:
"If anti-Semitism is creeping back, we should ask to what degree? Why? And if there is justification?" - is there ever justification for racism? If I was to ask, for instance, "Is there justification for racism against African-Americans?" that would be rightly condemned. And as for anti-semitism, I've experienced it before. Sometimes, it just comes from ignorance - a workmate saying someone might "Jew me out of a seat" on a night out, for instance. Or the more deliberate example of people thinking it's funny to go and paper crude cartoons from various websites on a synagogue door "for laughs". It's most definitely alive in the UK.
A particularly interesting case is back during the Lebanon War. Many people decided to wander through London and other streets waving signs stating "We are all Hizbollah now". While I personally felt that the Lebanon war was a rather clumsy and overblown response, I felt that millions of these people either were ignorant (I hope they are), or they identified with the likes of Samir Kuntar, a brutal man who smashed an Israeli child's head open on a rock when faced with capture. This is the kind of thing that exists here - a low-key, hateful and ignorant attitude, which can easily manifest itself in every day life.
It means many Jews can't feel completely safe in the UK. I generally don't let the casual anti-semitism bother me, but when I see criticism with the codewords "Zionist" and other similar weasel words used, I feel obliged to defend Israel.
In fact, why criticise just Israel? Let's look at the broader picture, shall we? Iranian persecution of its Arab and Baha'i minority? The fact that freedom of religion is next to zero in Saudi Arabia? No freedom of expression in numerous surrounding countries? Syrian interference in Lebanon? As you can see, the entire area isn't exactly a shining beacon of democracy and civil rights.
Israel, for all its faults, is the one country where you can freely vote, criticise Israel or even challenge its existence - an interesting fact, some Haredi sects (e.g. Neturei Karta) do not recognise Israel's right to exist, believing it to be blasphemous - and yet these people aren't rounded up and imprisoned as they might be in some of Israel's neighbors. It is probably the only country with a truly functioning liberal democracy, and so to criticise it as if it were a brutal dictatorship is kind of hypocritical.
I actually wonder what the people who want "Palestine free from the river to the sea" actually expect, anyway? If the Jewish population of Israel decided to up stick and return "home" as it were, back to nations where they might face the same old problems, what do they expect? A liberal paradise, where freedom of speech and human rights are respected? I think the more likely outcome is that we'd end up with either a mini-Iran, or a country torn by civil war between Fatah and Hamas. Are either of these desirable? I think not.
I don't think Israel is above criticism. The settler movement is abhorrent, the country's rabbinate doesn't accept non-Orthodox weddings, and indeed we've just seen a PM going down for corruption. But I can say that most of the countries around Israel do far worse things. And to be quite frank, singling out a Jewish majority country for criticism over all others around it seems just that little bit anti-Semitic, don't you think?
Posted by: David Katz | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 05:19 PM
Yes Dave Katz, that's almost what I think - well said.
... and good to get the debate back 'on track'.
Do you know anything about the Stern gang collaborating? I'd not heard that one before but there be some references that Phil is aware of - whether veridical or not.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 05:36 PM
Dave: from Wikipedia,
Stern believed that the Jewish population of Palestine should fight, rather than support, the British in the War, and that militant methods were an effective means for achieving those goals. He was vigorously opposed to the White Paper of 1939, which sharply reduced both Jewish immigration and the ability of Jews to purchase land in Palestine. He believed that immigration to Palestine should be available to Jewish refugees fleeing from Europe, and that this was the most important issue of the day. It was over the issue of the British that Stern and his long-time friend David Raziel split. Raziel believed that the Yishuv should assist Britain in their fight against Nazi Germany; he was killed in Iraq in 1941 during a mission for the British forces. Stern believed that dying for the 'foreign occupier' who was obstructing the creation of the Jewish State was useless. He differentiated between 'enemies of the Jewish people' (e.g., the British) and 'Jew haters' (e.g. the Nazis), believing that the former needed to be defeated and the latter manipulated. To this end, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities, in order to enlist their aid in establishing the Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael, open to Jewish refugees from Nazism, in exchange for collaborating with Germany against the British Empire in the Second World War.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 05:38 PM
Dave, ... again from Wiki
Yitzhak Shamir, one of the trio of leaders of Lehi after Yair Stern's assassination, argued that Lehi never engaged in terrorism:
There are those who say that to kill Martin (a British sergeant) is terrorism, but to attack an army camp is guerrilla warfare and to bomb civilians is professional warfare. But I think it is the same from the moral point of view. Is it better to drop an atomic bomb on a city than to kill a handful of persons? I don’t think so. But nobody says that President Truman was a terrorist. All the men we went for individually — Wilkin, Martin, MacMichael and others — were personally interested in succeeding in the fight against us. So it was more efficient and more moral to go for selected targets. In any case, it was the only way we could operate, because we were so small. For us it was not a question of the professional honor of a soldier, it was the question of an idea, an aim that had to be achieved. We were aiming at a political goal. There are many examples of what we did to be found in the Bible — Gideon and Samson, for instance. This had an influence on our thinking. And we also learned from the history of other peoples who fought for their freedom — the Russian and Irish revolutionaries, Garibaldi and Tito.
Did Lehi kill civilians or were their targets just military?
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 05:41 PM
Dave - back to Wiki,
Contact with Nazi authorities
German cover letter from January 11 1941 attached to a description of an offer for an alliance with Nazi Germany attributed to Lehi.
In 1940, Lehi proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany. It offered assistance in "evacuating"[vague] the Jews of Europe, in return for Germany's help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine. Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig. Lubenchik told von Hentig that Lehi had not yet revealed its full power and that they were capable of organizing a whole range of anti-British operations.
On the assumption that the destruction of Britain was the Germans' top objective, the organization offered cooperation in the following terms: From the NMO side: full cooperation in sabotage, espionage and intelligence and up to wide military operations in the Middle East and in eastern Europe anywhere where the Irgun had Jewish cells, active and trained and in some places with weapons. From the German side, the following declarations and actions were demanded: (1) Full recognition of an independent Jewish state in Palestine/Eretz Israel (2) That the ability to emigrate to Palestine be conceded to all Jews, with no restriction of numbers, who, in leaving their homes in Europe, by their own will or because of government injunctions. For this purpose there was expressed a need to cancel any transfer plans of Jews to distant countries like Madagascar.
On January 11, 1941 a letter was sent from Vice Admiral Ralf von der Marwitz, the German Naval attaché in Ankara, depicting an offer to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich".[15][16] There are three possibilities as to how the offer reached the German Naval attaché in Ankara. One is that en route to Germany, von Hentig was delayed in Ankara and delivered his version of the offer orally to von der Marwitz and von der Marwitz wrote the letter using his words. The second is that Colombani (a general in French intelligence) invented the offer because of personal rivalry between himself and other Vichy officials: this rivalry is known from a paragraph in von der Marwitz' letter, "Colombani is of the opinion that his return to France is a consequence of co-operation of Conti with Minister Pierroton", or, third, that Colombani wanted the offer to fail: he had co-operated with the Mufti of Jerusalem in Lebanon in 1938-1939 and was also the one who took him in his car through Syria to the Iraqi border in 1939.
In any case, von der Marwitz delivered the offer, classified as secret, to the German Ambassador in Turkey and on January 21, 1941 it was sent to Berlin. There was never any response. Von Hentig would later say that he believed it was important to help the Jews establish a country. [17] [18]
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 05:43 PM
Dave Scott,
There is a large body of evidence to the fact that not only did the Jewish military groups Irgun, Stern Gang and Hagana kill large numbers of civilians but also of at least 3 Israeli Prime Ministers, Begin, Shamir and Sharon personally killing large numbers of civilians.
One of the most notorious terrorist killings was of Count Folke Bernadotte a UN peace envoy…
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israels-forgotten-hero-the-assassination-of-count-bernadotte--and-the-death-of-peace-934094.html
You will be aware that Dave Katz disparages The Bible Unearthed because it does not fit the Zionist paradigm (and just reading his comments he will disparage anything). This is how people like Mr Katz operate.
Let me leave you with a couple of recommended readings available from amazon…
“Jewish History, Jewish Religion” by Israel Shahak and “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe.
No doubt Mr Katz will have some choice words to describe these authors but I urge you to read these books and make up your own mind.
Regards,
Phil
Posted by: Phil Ishmael | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 07:13 PM
Let's look at the word "Zionism" shall we? As in its dictionary meaning, rather than codeword meaning.
Merriam-Webster defines this as: "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel".
So, right... let me get this straight. You would say that a group of people supporting the existence of a state that reflects their culture and values is a bad thing. I assume then, you're against Muslim support for Saudi Arabia? You're fervently against the Scottish independence movement? You argue that Ireland should have stayed part of the UK?
If the defintion of Zionist is "supporter of Israel's existence", then I am a Zionist, and a very proud one at that. I have family members living there, I work with Israeli academics, and I fully support the existence of a Jewish state. I don't want to "control the world", I don't want to "oppress working men" or indeed any of the other things that Zionists are accused of doing. I support the existence of a state where on Jewish holy days like Yom Kippur, Jews don't have to get time off work. I support the existence of a state where just for once, Jews are in the majority, and Jewish culture is celebrated.
You might wonder why an atheist cares about Yom Kippur - well, it's a cultural thing. Surely you would agree that if everyone had to organise time off to be with your family on Christmas Day it would be a bit off. And looking at these books, well, I suppose there is a case against Jewish fundamentalism. That would be the non-recognition of the Progressive Movement in Israel and such, but the implication that somehow those who hold to the Torah are racist - not true. It's a book of its time, and thus open to interpretation, and as a result it will occasionally say things that aren't in step with today's values.
As for Ilan Pappe... well, there is room for debate within Israel regarding the Palestinian situation, and I'm not going to criticise his right to free speech. I don't agree with his support for the AUT boycott though - I voted against that, and indeed it's quite curious that a union that claims it's against racism targets lecturers of one nationality. Indeed, when my branch of the AUT debated it, I remember listening to a speaker from the Socialist Worker's Party argue against his own party platform, in that it rejects racism...
And we haven't even scratched the surface of the motives of some of our "anti-Zionist" friends here - are we to assume that Israel is illegitimate, and thus in need to disestablishment? I kind of get the impression that someone's saying something like that...
Posted by: David Katz | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 07:37 PM
David the first rule of any Academic Discourse is to back up your statements/findings with evidence.
The evidence is found in the words or language used as this is how human beings communicate what ANKH has done david is to prove that the whole anti-semitic debate is presently flawed and wrong as the words used Anti-Semitic was not DEFINED from the viewpoint of ETYMOLOGY OR LINGUISTICS which the majority of people do not know or are not being made aware of.
Today people use the word WICKED or NICE to denote good things which is plain wrong or use the word BLACK to explain bad things like economic downturns or stockmarket crashes which is also wrong plain and simple.
The word Semitic or words Anti-Semitic are being used to describe as being against a Race of people(JEWS) and this is just plain and simply wrong
1:As scientifically there are only Three Races of people on the planet David Negroid,Mongoloid and Caucasoid in that order
2:Semitic Languages are not just exclusively Hebrew they are also Arabic so commonsense would dictate that from Anti-semitic is defined as anti-jewish then you have a good case in the anti-semitic debate for saying it should also be defined as ANTI-ARAB plain and simple
3:Semitic is today an adjective relating to JEWS or ARABS or Semitic is today a noun relating to a family of languages that includes HEBREW OR ARABIC(these definitions are according to the Oxford English Dictionary)and David that is pretty plain and simple
just because a man Wilhelm Marr coined a phrase does not make it right when you take it to LINGUISTICS or Etymology as you should know David from you have really been reading your etymological dictionary from eight years old.
4:Our Ancient ancestors have a great saying which makes a lot of sense in this debate
"From you do not start off with the right foot you will always be walking on the wrong path"
Your mother( bless her ) did not unhinge me quite the contrary she actually enhanced the debate that is why we said you should get her to post your comments as she has a wiser head on her shoulders(That would be a compliment to some or bluster to others depending on the state of your mind David-mmm That,s Funny Laughing) and as for your concern for our health it is and has been well taken care of by our spiritual Guide Dr Malachi Z York-EL(smile) and the best medicine Dave
Will always be RIGHT KNOWLEDGE FACTUAL INFORMATION and the best medicine of all TRUTH.
So do not mistake words of TRUTH for bluster that is just not logical and prove what we have written is wrong or not logical with evidence and the evidence is in the Oxford English Dictionary or even go in to wikipedia and type in SEMITIC so how can it be false or not genuine on as you say PSEUDO????Mmmm
(Just not logical as that is called evidence and accepted as such in UNIVERSITY OR COLLAGE and we have lectured in universities in MANCHESTER,EAST LONDON, AND NORTH LONDON to know this Laughing )
So in conclusion the Anti-Semitic Debate will continue to be GROUNDLESS because the words and language currently being used to describe being against JEWS started off on the wrong foot so will continue down the wrong path PLAIN AND SIMPLE David (laughing) Like we said logical Sound Right Reasoning which seems very difficult for most to comprehend David plain and simple
Give Care and Take Care
Peace
Posted by: ANKH | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 07:45 PM
Ankh, you were perpetuating the conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds control world Democracy via the global economy in another thread, and as a result I can't really take any of this seriously. And Malachi Z York-El is Dwight York, cult leader, currently resident in ADX, Florence, Colorado?
I can't see how his theories really relate to discussion of Zionism...
Posted by: David Katz | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 08:09 PM
OK Phil, I obviously need to do some more reading in order to preserve what I consider to be a non-partisan standpoint. However, from where I am at presently, there is nothing that eclipses the Shoah which, understandably/regrettably, spawned some very angry survivors. I have since read about Count Folke (who is described as antisemitic) and would offer the view that even one murder is more than enough - but if there is armed conflict, as there is in the world, I find a huge difference between a side which employs terrorist tactics to regain what it believes it owns (pertinent to both sides) and an ideology which is totally committed to the annihilation of another people group. I find the Arab-world's active support for, and lionising of, Hitler incredibly ignorant and distasteful and I have not encountered such a radical extermination among the Jewish community - yet concede that the rhetoric of some Ultras comes too close to that. However, I believe that it is possible for Zionists not to be Ultras and for Followers of the Qur'an to recognise, from their own 'holy book', the Land of Israel is the heritage of the Jews.
How this is then worked out by the respective protagonists is, hopefully, a matter of justice and reconciliation.
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 09:23 PM
ANKH - you've missed the point entirely. The use of the word semitic was not originally defined in the way you precisely define it according to your argument - which is why I said the term antisemitic, possibly grew out of a etymologically faulty meaning of semitic. However, that being the case the term antisemitic means anti-Jewish. To try and technically correct it after its established meaning is only to point out an etymological flaw. I KNOW what you are saying about the root meaning of semitic but the FAULT of the word antisemitic cannot be re-adduced to mean anything else because Wilhelm Marr meant it to mean anti-Jewishness, THAT IS ITS ESTABLISHED meaning - get over it, English is not a perfect language. According to the 'rules' of English and/or etymology a television should be called a transvision ... but it isn't, and the logically inconsistent rendition has remained.
At the risk of repeating myself, that is the point you have missed and you have barked up a wrong tree by hammering on about all the strands of linguistics etc. You have NOT added to the debate about antisemitism in the UK, you have laboured a term to satisfy a revisionist agenda which, as I have said, only gathers any kind of momentum, outside of obscurantism, by a lobby who want to undermine the term antisemitic as referring to Jewish people so as to lessen the impact of what happened to the Jewish people. I cannot believe that you cannot understand that unless you are trying to propagate an anti-Jewish point of view - in which case you shouldn't really be posting on this blog since your comments are unlikely to be helpful.
Wiki: Etymology and usage (of antisemitism)
Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also rarely known as judeophobia) is the prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group. The prejudice or hostility is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews.[1][2]
.....
However, the term antisemitism is specifically used in reference to attitudes held towards Jews. The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" (German: "antisemitische Vorurteile").[7] Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races." These pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was synonymous with Jewish, in contrast to its usage by Renan and others.
In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet "The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective." ("Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.") in which he used the word "Semitismus" interchangeably with the word "Judentum" to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish,or the Jewish spirit). Although he did not use the word "Antisemitismus" in the panphlet, the coining of the latter word followed naturally from the word "Semitismus", and indicated either opposition to the Jews as a people, or else oppositon to jewishness or the Jewish spirit, which he saw as infiltrating German culture.[8] In his next pamphlet, "The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit", published in 1880, Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus - antisemitism, derived from the word "Semitismus" that he had earlier used.
The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country.
So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the January issue of "Neue Freie Presse". The related word semitism was coined around 1885. See also the coinage of the term "Palestinian" by Germans to refer to ethnic Jews, as distinct from the religion of Judaism.
Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and anti-Semitic are not directly opposed to each other (unlike similar-seeming terms such as anti-American or anti-Hellenic). To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many scholars on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim) now favor the unhyphenated antisemitism[9] in order to emphasize that the word should be read as a single unified term, not as a meaningful root word-prefix combination.
The term antisemitism has historically referred to prejudice against Jews alone, and this was the only use of the word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice against other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."[1] Yehuda Bauer also articulated this view in his writings and lectures: (the term) "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to."[10][11] A similar point is made by Professor Shmuel Almog, of the Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who writes "So the hyphen, or rather its omission, conveys a message; if you hyphenate your 'anti-Semitism', you attach some credence to the very foundation on which the whole thing rests."[12]
In recent decades, some groups have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs or Anti-Arabism[citation needed], in the context of answering accusations of Arab antisemitism; further, some, including the Islamic Association of Palestine, have argued that this implies that Arabs cannot, by definition, be antisemitic.[citation needed] The argument runs that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, "anti-Semitism" should be likewise inclusive. However, this usage is not generally accepted[citation needed].
Posted by: Dave Scott | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 09:39 PM