Via email, a reader pointed me toward a paper by the Arab Women’s Solidarity Association that represents a different view of what we’ve been discussing recently, The Forgotten “–ism:” An Arab American Women’s Perspective on Zionism, Racism and Sexism [pdf], discussing Arab-American women’s experiences with political and racist stereotyping and their reflections on the effects of the Zionist movement. A preview:
In my university, there are blinders that equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. People assume that because I’m Palestinian, I am anti-Semitic and racist. Why not accuse me of anti-Zionism? The failure to distinguish a political stance from a racist stance makes it very easy to say someone is a racist or an anti-Semite if they talk about justice for Palestinians. If I’m going to try and get a job and I am criticizing the Israeli state and Zionism, the hiring committee thinks, ‘We’re not going to hire someone who’s racist.’ This is part of the Zionist discourse that presents Arabs and Palestinians as always anti-Semitic. How can we, as Semites, be anti-Semitic?
h/t Alexander
Similar Posts:
- Goodbye Goodbye by Constintina September 6, 2009
- “Heroes” Just for One Day by Sarah June 9, 2010
- I Can’t Believe It’s Not The Taliban by Sam August 6, 2008
- So not that I should be surprised that Andrew Breitbart would liken criticism to rape… by Jill January 12, 2011
- Let’s Talk About Sex by Jill May 1, 2007
I will read this when I get the chance. But this:
I have long thought we should replace the term anti-Semitic with Jew-hating and anti-Semitism with Jew-hatred. It is hard, though, given the history of the term. It is one reason why I tend to write antisemitism/antisemitic all as one word, to signify–even if I don’t always explain myself–that it is not about hatred of Semitic peoples. (I wish I could remember where I first saw someone do this, but I can’t.)
This was a good essay…Keep ‘em coming!
Lauren thanks for the link, but I think it’s really problematic to call this the opposite of what has been talked about in the other threads. I’ve felt the same way with the phrasing of the comments on those threads that what is needed is more Arab or Palestinian voices. I think those voices are really important. But David Schraub is an American Jew who supports Israel, there are many other views among American Jews and among Israelis. There are many anti-occupation voices among Israeli people. To see the opposite of an American voice of an American Jew who supports Israel as an Arab or a Palestinian, rather than anyone who identifies with the conflict ant opposes the Israeli state reinforces and buys-into the division of the sides or interests as Jews and Arabs.
Maia, good point, and my apologies. I’m learning as I go here.
I went ahead and changed the wording from “opposite” to “different” in the post.
Lauren – Great – also thanks for posting Natalia Antanova’s post it does a great job of looking at other ways to discuss the issues. \
this: “How can we, as Semites, be anti-Semitic?”
is a question that has long bothered me.
Thanks for posting this. At the same time, I should point out–like others mentioned on previous threads–that the word “Antisemitism” has generally been used to refer to anti-Jewish prejudice in particular. The historical language use is certainly clumsy, but a literal, etymological take on the word obscures the historical usage.
After reading more of this, I have to admit to feeling a bit sad and touchy. The authors seem to attribute all anti-Arab racism to “Zionism” and “Zionism” alone. (When anti-Arab racism certainly existed before “Zionism.”) As a Jewish woman, that and occasional broad uses of “Jewish” in this paper do make me feel alienated from the discourse. Partially, that’s my problem, but certain parts of that paper are also IMHO problematic.
From April Rosenblum’s The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere (www.thepast.info):
What bothers me about the “Arabs are Semites, too!” argument is that those who make it never offer another term for hatred targeted specifically at Jews. Yes, the term for anti-Jewish sentiment is inaccurate – but if we’re not allowed to have a term for our oppression, then that makes our oppression less real.
If Arabs can’t be prejudiced against Jews because they are both Semites, why can’t Jews shut down conversations about anti-Arab racism by saying “We’re both Semites so my racism towards you doesn’t count!” If no Semite can be racist towards another Semite, how can these same Arabs say Jews are racist towards them?
No one says these things because smart people know they are absurd. Likewise, Arabs who say “I can’t be anti-Semitic because I am a Semite” are ignorant about the true meaning of the phrase (illustrated well by Julie’s comment) or are trying to shut down the discussion.
Having read the first two pages of this article, they seem to quite ignorant about Israel and Zionism.
“Israel is a fundamentalist state built on on the biblical argument that Jews are the chosen people of Jehovah (God) and that Palestine is their promised chosen land where they were led by Moses three thousand years ago.” (page 4 of the pdf)
This sentence is completely wrong. It describes the mindset of the religious Zionist movement very well, which started in earnest with Gush Emunim after the Six-Day War in 1967. It is also true that Orthodox Jews have significant political power in Israel.
However, Israel is a secular state with a secular legal system that gives religion no place whatsoever in the laws and affairs of the state. This was slightly compromised by the appointment of the Chief Rabbi, but the Chief Rabbi has little real power.
Zionism was created as a secular movement and it was almost exclusively secular until the actual creation of Israel, which caused many of the more Orthodox groups to grudgingly accept the new Jewish state. Zionism was as much a rebellion against the passive Jewish religious establishment as it was against European anti-Semitism; Israel’s founding fathers, notably David Ben-Gurion, were fiercely secular and disliked religion. Many ultra-Orthodox Jews remain fiercely anti-Zionist; hence the Neturei Karta group, which marches with anti-Israel demonstrators in the U.S. Their views are more in line with the mainstream of the ultra-Orthodox than is commonly thought.
Yes, the term for anti-Jewish sentiment is inaccurate – but if we’re not allowed to have a term for our oppression, then that makes our oppression less real.
But its not true that various racial/ethnic groups have different words for their oppression. “Racism” which might have been at one point been seen as an oppression paradigm between whites and Blacks in the United States. And while, there are people who would defend that “racism” is only something that can happen between whites and Blacks–I do not believe its not the majority of people. And such a stance, in my opinion, unnecessarily attempts to define what a particular kind of oppression is “supposed to look like” and obscures those who do not fit that criteria’s very real experience of oppression.
As well, its more than likely that if the scope of what anti-Semitism means is accepted into popular usage that people who want to speak specifically to anti-Jewish would simply come up with a more specific term to describe what they mean–as new words and terms to describe oppression arise all the time. Hence now say “anti-Black Racism” or “Negrophobia” (though the later is mostly used in a historical context more often in my experience.)
In my mind this reminds me of the long problematic history of US based feminism and who gets to be defined as women. Historically, up until the late 19th century only those considered by the state to be “White” women held a protected status as women. This meant that only these “White” women had access to rape laws and other kinds of women–Black women for example–were not seen as women (or humans often) by the state or society and so what was done to their bodies was not rape and not illegal unless their (white male) “owner” had a problem with it. What was meant by the term “women” had to be (in my opinion) expanded because as it stood the easily distinguishable oppression of other kinds of women were being ignored.
Also I think about the debate in the 70s about what kinds of “women” get to be counted in the mission of feminism in terms of the cisgendered women versus transwomen and/or masculine women. Some feminists (and admittedly not all, and a lot less than makes me happy) believe that we must also include the oppressions that all kinds of women face
oops…clicked submit by accident.
Anyway…Some feminists (and admittedly not all, and a lot less than makes me happy) believe that we must also include the oppressions that all kinds of women face when fighting against sexism. And that including women from various points along the gender spectrum does not obscure the sexism that cisgendered women specifically.
What frustrates me about the whole line of thought around keeping anti-Semitism for Jewish people is that its that same kind of line of thinking that I have brushed up against when trying to bring discussion of anti-Semitism into discussions of anti-racism activism in the US. Anti-Semitism doesn’t fit under that umbrella because (apparently) it is either *really* about religious intolerance (which has nothing to do with race/ethnicity/nationality) or it’s only about Jews who are apparently all white.
I think that if we need to expand (as I believe we do) the scope of what racism means and what anti-racism activism should encompass to include a discussion of anti-Semitic oppression then “anti-Semitism” can afford to “grow” (or regrow as the case may be) as well.
of course anti-zionism is always anitsemitism (others have already called out the fake semantic game here)
I have found a good barometer of when anti-zionism is truly antisemitism is when it repeats ancient antisemitic canards almost verbatim, replacing the word Jew with the word zionist.
If someone claims that the zionists started the war in iraq, or the zionists control the goverment, or the media, or the banks, they are repeating antisemitism that is hundreds of years old, and just as the original antisemites tried to cloak their jew-hatred in scientific terms, they are trying to cloak it in political terms.
oops. i meant to say “is not” in the fist line of teh above post. I really should proofread
As I am neither Jewish nor Arab, I should probably be a little careful here. But I can sort of see where you are coming from, Sarah.
I do not mean in any way to deny the very real experiences of being silenced or accused of racism whenever they try to discuss their political views of Zionism that these women describe. Neither will I dispute all the prejudice and all the accusations of being anti-semitic they describe they are met with when they do nothing but just stating that they are of Palestinian origin. The experience of always having to start whatever you want to say about your own experiences or political ideas with a whole string of disclaimers before anyone is willing to even listen to you must be truly exhausting. I have experienced the same thing – but in very limited and totally different situations of course – and even then I have found it a difficult and exasperating experience. The fact that one of these women were compared to the KKK when she tried to say that she as a Palestinian sees the foundation of the state of Israel as a Jewish occupation of Palestinian land is truly shocking. This is a very real and virulent method of silencing and oppression. Anyone may passionately dispute her ideas if they disagree with her of course – but to compare her with the KKK? I mean, really!
But….
I, too, couldn’t help feeling that the writers of this paper were a bit too ready to attribute all the (very real, I’m sure) prejudice they were met with as Arab women to the propaganda and lobbyism of Zionists. That seemed to go a bit too far, too, and gave me a small “demonization vibe” in its own right. Which is not to say that I doubt the existence of demonization of the Arabs. I do believe this demonization is very real and has very hurtful consequences, both for the Arabs and for the rest of us.
A note…
There was an interesting post on Feministing about minorities and women and other sub groups having higher smoking rates and the like, with the author believing that oppression necessitates much of it…
Paranoia *is* the hallmark of violent subjugation. Rape Culture is used to prevent women from going where they want at any time, or taking on the authority they wish. And most women are stressed by having to *wonder* about certain events in her life. It’s the same for black people…In every interaction with a cop, we have to really worry about whether this is one of those people who are reasonably professional or whether we got one of the power-mad ones, forget leniency. We constantly have to worry about why we weren’t accepted for a position or passed over on a bonus or promotion. People who look MidEast often fare even worse in the post-9/11 world. And all of us who are succesful, like President-Elect Barak Obama, must be consumate about our appearance and voiced opinions at all times.
It is often the case that arabs with a high profile gets the Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson treatment. People who seems to be any way sympathetic to Arab opinion, like Juan Cole, face virulent attacks (or blackballing) on their future opportunities. Juan Cole had his job offer from Yale University retracted when the fundies and right-wing jewish people exerted tremendous pressure.
I can *really* understand some of the excesses in the paper, but the main body is accurate. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean someone’s isn’t out to get you, and there genuinely does appear to be a system to repress academic freedom when it comes to the MidEast–from MEMRI to Betty Friedan telling an activist they could only be their as women, and not Palestinian women…
It’s why I like to heckle in I/P threads. Those threads *always* bring a wave of rabid fenqqings.
Gogojojo brings up excellent points. I think I’d be less frustrated by the parsing of “anti-Semitism” if prejudice against Jews was more commonly acknowledged as part of the “racism” umbrella, and not just historically. (This does not mean that Jews who are “read” as white get a pass from acknowledging white privilege. It just means that oppression/privilege is a multi-layered system.) But when we get told by “progressive” activists that anti-Semitism (in the anti-Jewish) sense “isn’t that bad anymore” or “isn’t like racism at all,” the attempts to re-define the word rankle.
I think that we are mis-interpreting the intended meaning of the phrase “How can we, as Semites, be anti-Semitic?” in the OP.
I am not convinced that the authors intended to silence all Arab anti-Jew prejudice. I read that statement as trying to make themselves visible. They are Semites too, yet their Semitic identity is portrayed as less important than Jewish Semitic identity. Anti-Jew prejudice being labeled as “anti-semitism” has the effect of rendering the equally-valid Semitic identity of Arabs invisible.
I think by making this critique, the intent is not to hide, excuse, or make invisible anti-Jew hatred. I saw no denial that this exists. I think it is some Arab women who are trying to make themselves and their identities visible, which is a separate thing, and not an ominous thing.
And we happen to have one. It’s an accident of history, but saying that other groups don’t have their own terms doesn’t make the accepted definition of anti-Semitism any less real. Furthermore, anti-Jewish oppression doesn’t share the same traits as other types of oppression. We can’t call it racism, because it would be ludicrous for me – a blue-eyed, light-skinned white woman – to accuse a WOC of being racist when she said I must love money because I’m Jewish (true story). Now, I’m sure some people’s definition of racism would fit that situation, but I think most people would roll their eyes. If I said she was being anti-Semitic, however – well, virtually everyone in Western civilization knows what that term means, even if they don’t like it, so it would immediately make sense. It’s the only way I could accurately describe the broader social forces behind her comment.
If I’m misunderstanding you here, I apologize, but I feel like what you’re saying is that limiting the definition of anti-Semitism to anti-Jewish sentiment obscures Arabs’ experience of oppression. First off, Arabs can comfortably use the term “racism” and we can’t. (At least, as far as I know.) Secondly, who is “attempting” to define what anti-Semitism is “supposed to look like”? It’s only ever been defined one way. If Jews, Arabs, and Jewish Arabs want to get together and expand the meaning of the term to include all Semitic peoples, or get rid of it completely (I’ve always hated it, myself – it’s clunky, inaccurate, and inherited from a guy who hated us) – and use a new term, then I’m all for that. But no one is doing that. The feeling I get from these discussions isn’t “this term is wrong, let’s work on replacing it,” but rather, “Jews are hogging all the oppression.” I doubt that’s anyone’s intention, but it makes me feel like non-Jews are blaming us for a term we didn’t want and didn’t invent, but use because it’s the only widely-known term we have.
Or, to put it more succinctly: are there Arabs out there who are genuinely trying to lay claim to the term (ie, describing their oppression as anti-Semitic)? Because I only ever see the argument as a rhetorical flourish that ignores the real history behind the term and feigns ignorance about why we use it despite its inaccuracy.
I’ll be honest – I know you don’t mean to offend, but I’m really bothered by that comment. If we follow the analogy you’ve laid out, then what you’re saying is that Jews who use the term “anti-Semitism” are using it specifically to exclude Arabs from anti-racist/social justice work, and keep them in a subjugated position beneath us. We use the term because it’s the term we have. I really, really wish activist circles would accept this – or at least research the term before they interrogate it. Again: we didn’t make it up. We didn’t choose it over another, more accurate word. It’s the only term that describes myths of Jewish power, Jewish greed, Jews starting wars and causing the loss of wars, the blood libel, and all the other falsehoods that have been used to justify discrimination and violence against us.
A couple of alternate terms I know of are “anti-Jewish oppression” (still kind of clunky), “Judeophobia” (seems to only refer to the religion, but could possibly work), and plain ol’ “racism” (if we understand racism to be a system that works back and forth, and not just from the top down – a definition that most anti-racist activists reject). And like I said, if we want to work on replacing the term, then count me in. But I only ever see this argument as a “gotcha!” line when Jews talk about anti-Jewish sentiment. And, I reiterate, turning anti-Semitism into a semantics argument takes the focus off of how anti-Semitism operates and makes our oppression seem less real.
Jon: However, Israel is a secular state with a secular legal system that gives religion no place whatsoever in the laws and affairs of the state.
The Law of Return isn’t a law?
And it doesn’t determine exactly WHO the citizens of the country are? And therefore, who can vote, run for office, etc.?
“I am not convinced that the authors intended to silence all Arab anti-Jew prejudice. I read that statement as trying to make themselves visible. They are Semites too, yet their Semitic identity is portrayed as less important than Jewish Semitic identity. Anti-Jew prejudice being labeled as “anti-semitism” has the effect of rendering the equally-valid Semitic identity of Arabs invisible.”
Maybe they are trying to make themselves heard, but that isn’t a good excuse for misrepresenting the meaning of the term anti-semitism. They are trying to shut down discussion, and that paper had several inaccuracies. Moreover, I have never met or heard of a person who values their “Semitic” identity. White people don’t talk about their “Indo-European” identity. “Semitic” is a term no one uses to define themselves, so they are not trying to assert a special Arab “Semitic” identity – they are merely a group of people who want the Arab side of the story to be heard. Truth be told, it still isn’t heard enough in the media.
Guys I suggest reading the full essay before you respond to the quote. The quote is not from the authors of the paper themselves, it is a quote within the paper in a series in which women about their experiences. If you want to know how they think of this woman’s statement, the line after the quote is here:
Naila’s experience illustrates that even before she can express herself, the Arab American woman is positioned by Zionist myths as a racist and an anti-Semite solely based on her identity as an Arab.
Regardless of the problems with the semantic nitpicking, they are not attempting to deny the existence of prejudice against Jews, but are frustrated at the reasons people are so quick to assume that they are racist-that is simply because they are Palestinian. You can disagree with these views but I hardly think this is an attempt to “shut down” discussion as it is to initiate one and widen the parameters of debate.
Also I think this is a clearer statement to a similar effect:
Hanan Ashrawi once noted that when she identifies herself as a
Palestinian, it is as though she is automatically perceived by others to be
making a political statement, rather than conveying a simple fact about
herself. Perhaps the single most pervasive and insidious effect of Zionism
on my daily life is that it automatically places me in a contentious
relationship with those around me as soon as I voluntarily link myself to
my Palestinian origins. The Zionist influence on the U.S. media,
educational system, political institutions, and national psyche has made it
nearly impossible for me to view my Arab-ness and my Palestinian-ness
apart from the macro political debates that inform the Arab-Zionist
conflict as it is seen through Western eyes. As a result, I find myself on
the defensive, having to explain myself, before I am able to properly
situate myself within the surroundings into which I have been thrust.
having just read the paper, I’m pretty disappointed. apparently the zionists control the media, the us goverment, all progressive groups and teh oxford english dictionary.
so they’re arguing that there is a world-wide jewish conspiracy to silence and oppress them. the world-wide jewish conspiracy adn jews controlling teh world and being responsible for anything bad is classic antisemism.
which is sad, because there is legitimate critiques to be made about colonialism and racism in both israels history and present, but the authors of the paper fail to rise above old prejudices themselves.
i read the quote about semites to my sister, and she remarked, hearing it out of context, that the author could be arguing that as cousins, it is silly for Arabs and Jews to hate eachother.
I think re-claimed the term semite as common ground between jews and arabs could be interesting in terms of building peace. its unfortunate the authors of teh paper used it as a cheap semantic argument to silence conversation about the possibility that they are racist.
because if that’s they’re best argument that they aren’t antisemitic, they don’t have much to say for themselves.
Interesting controversy on this very topic about what Bill Moyers said about Gaza on his show Friday night. Read the back and forth between Moyers and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League here. There is also a link to the actual editorial by Moyers on that page so you can compare what Moyers said to what Foxman claimed Moyers said.
so they’re arguing that there is a world-wide jewish conspiracy to silence and oppress them. the world-wide jewish conspiracy adn jews controlling teh world and being responsible for anything bad is classic antisemism.
I would read the paper a little more carefully. First, they acknowledge Zionism as something enabled by British colonialism in the early 20th century, and embraced by the US and other Western powers as interests in the region grew and the necessity of oil became more crucial. They don’t say that Jews are what drives interest in various countries’ arming Israel. The US movement and is also described explicitly as made up of Jews and non-Jews. You can disagree with the rest of how they characterize the ideology and movement and its role in the Middle East, but I think you were oversimplifying with that bit.
I’m not sure why my comments regarding the quote in the original post that are stuck in moderation.
The law of return does not determine exactly who the citizens of the country are.
It is one aspect of Israeli immigration law. It *contributes* to the determination of the citizens of the country.
One way to immigrate to Israel is by showing Jewish descent.
One way to immigrate to Canada is by showing Canadian descent.
And so on and so forth.
The UK has an official religion. One way of immigrating to the UK is showing British descent. It doesn’t follow that the UK’s citizenship and therefore voters and elected politicians are all determined by religion.
It’s an especially spurious point since the law of return defines Jewish descent in contradiction to the religious definition of Jewish by descent.
Julie: What about just calling it bigotry?
I’m not sure why my comments regarding the quote in the original post that are stuck in moderation.
Nadia, it’s just one of those things that happens sometimes with automated systems. They’ll grab it out of the mod queue shortly.
One way to immigrate to Israel is by showing Jewish descent.
One way to immigrate to Canada is by showing Canadian descent.
Jewish =/= nationality.
We could, but then why not call everything bigotry? Why differentiate between racism and sexism?
Sure. It = religion. No, wait. It equals ethnicity. No, wait. It equals… what?
I’m not sure.
So I’m also not clear on what’s apparently self-evidently fine about granting citizenship based on the accident of where your parents happened to be born or to whom they happened to be born, but seriously problematic about granting citizenship based on… where your parents happened to be born and to whom your parents happened to be born.
By equating Jewish and Israeli (Jew is to Israel as Canadian is to Canada), Tara, you’re wilfully excluding entire segments of the population.
Your UK example disproves your own point. You don’t have to prove Anglo or Anglican descent to emigrate to England; you have to prove British descent, ie. descent from a British citizen.
Your conflation of religion and nationality in the Israel-Palestine conflict (compounded with many others’ conflation of same) does not help. (See, I can critique your position without setting up a strawman about whether it’s OK to give preferential treatment based on citizenship of parents.)
“…The Zionist influence on the U.S. media,
educational system, political institutions, and national psyche has made it..”
I did not take this to be a conspiracy of “Jews control the Media, Government, etc.” I took it as, generally speaking, there is a significantly higher *representation* amongst Jewish (and non-Jewish for that matter) Zionists in the media- pure and simple.
I don’t think this is because there’s some crazy network of sheisty Jews hell bent on World Domination (or any version of this type of anti-semitic nonsense)- but because they’ve simply been in the U.S. longer and as such are established in ways that recent Muslim Arabs (specifically) are not.
I see where you’re coming from, but I read it more as a critique of or a frustration with having more pro-Israel voices represented in the West than pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian voices.
One problem here is that people often use the word Zionist as a codeword for Jew. (For a really extreme far-right example, check out the writings of neo-Nazi David Duke – he seldom complains about Jews, only about “Zionists” and how they’re going to destroy world civilization.) So it’s often impossible to figure out what people actually mean when they say “Zionist”. If you were to rewrite the above sentence to say, “The influence of Christian Zionists and AIPAC on the U.S. Media, educational system, political institutions, and national psyche…” you’d have an argument that was still oversimplified, but workable. As it’s worded, though, the argument fits too well into myths that Jews control the media and the government.
When you take just that little bit out it does, Julie. But if you read the paper they do say that by Zionists they mean anyone who supports Israel whether Jewish or non-Jewish. So they did explain how they are using the term.
[...] is also a tangentially related post up at Feministe, “Distinguishing a Political Stance from a Racist Stance”, the discussion of which deals with the issues raised by the common use of the term anti-Semitism [...]
[...] is also a tangentially related post up at Feministe, “Distinguishing a Political Stance from a Racist Stance”, the discussion of which deals with the issues raised by the common use of the term anti-Semitism [...]
I didn’t mean to imply that they’re exactly equal. That’s the problem. ‘Jewish’ doesn’t exactly equal anything, neither religion nor ethnicity nor nationality.
Anyway, you’re mischaracterizing me.
The (non-Israeli) Jew is to Israel as the (non-Canadian) of Canadian descent is to Canada.
Ok, but practically what’s the difference? You are descended from a Briton by accident of birth and from a Jew by accident of birth. Your ancestor could have become British/Jewish through generations of descent or by immigration/conversion.
Oops, I forgot to end the blockquote in the last section, after the first paragraph. Sorry, I hope it’s still somewhat readable!
Donna – fair enough. I haven’t looked at the rest of the essay very closely.
Tara:
I have to say that I find this highly presumptuous and almost objectionable. To presume that because my forebears, who lived in various eastern European countries for who knows who many centuries, were Jewish that I am somehow connected in some kind of genetic way to the modern day State of Israel, which is a 20th century creation and bears precious little resemblance to the Israel–though I doubt that’s what it was called–that whichever of my far-far back forebears left for whatever reason (assuming that I am not Jewish because someone somewhere, okay two people somewhere, who never even set foot in the middle east converted, got married and had children) at least potentially essentializes genetics in a very, very frightening way. It is one thing for me to decide to claim Israel as “my” Jewish homeland (which I don’t); but it is quite something else for Israel–or for you as Israel’s spokesperson–to claim me in the way that you have done in this comment.
Quote: “How can we, as Semites, be anti-Semitic?”
The simple fact is, in English, the word anti-semitic, regardless of it’s etymology, refers to hatred of, or discrimination against Jews. Technically, it refers to that, and only that. It does not, even technically refer to Arabs. Since when does the meaning of a word have to be a slave to its literal linguistic origin?
And let’s just assume for a second, for argument’s sake, that the Jews are closely related to the Arabs. How does that change the fact that they have very real issues between them that thus far have not been resolvable?
Richard Jeffrey
I’m sorry, I don’t know what to say. I wasn’t trying to prescribe but describe. Canada will grant you citizenship, if you ask, if you show Canadian descent. It doesn’t matter if you feel Canadian or if you hate it or love it. Citizenship can be renounced, or never applied for. But I don’t think it’s offensive that Canada/wherever holds out an offer of citizenship, even to people who hate it and would never choose to use it.
Anyway, citizenship by descent isn’t proven by genetics. It’s proven by paper and sometimes oral tradition. It can be false and it can be falsified. That’s how it’s always been. I think I would also be wary of citizenship by genetic testing.
I love the ideal of open immigration that was once true in the United States. But as long as that’s not the case and governments are making determinations about citizenship, it seems to me that the citizenships you have available to you are mostly a question of accident of birth and I don’t see what’s so glaringly different about Israel to other countries. As far as I can tell, no one has a truly non-discriminatory immigration procedure.
Personally I’m not offended by any of the countries to which I could now apply for citizenship. I feel incredibly lucky, especially as the daughter of refugees without a ‘right’ to a home, to be eligible for several passports. I don’t feel that these opportunities confer any obligations on me unless I choose to take them.
I’m sorry. I guess I really don’t get it.
@Tara:
RJ’s saying that the Israeli right of return is only available to Jews, and not non-Jews who may have also historically occupied that area. This is different from your examples (Canada, UK), which offer return to anyone with recent ties, regardless of race or religion. Also, some families who choose to take Israel up on the right of return may literally not have genetic ties to the land any more recent than several millennia (sp?), whereas, following your example, you must have significantly more recent ties to return to Canada.
So there are distinctions there. Another distinction one could parse out is this: not all Jews would say they are, for example, Israeli-American. Unless they had recent ties to Israel, which many American Jews do not. They would probably say Jewish-American, or even 1/4th Russian, 1/4th Polish, 1/2 German Jewish-American, or whatever. I guess I’m trying to say there are plenty of Jewish people who do not call modern Israel their homeland because they don’t feel like they’re from there.
@Daisydeadhead: The Law of Return is not about religion specifically. The law of Israel is secular, but it does give preference to Jews on an ethnic level. The Law of Return is not a statement about religion. It absolutely favors Jews, but it does so on an ethnic rather than religious level. Jewish identity is more than religion anyhow.
I didn’t mean to say that Israeli law favors everyone equally, it doesn’t. I’m just trying to correct the inaccurate statement that Israel is “a fundamentalist religious state.” That claim is made on the second page of the paper, and it sets the tone of the rest of it. It creates assumptions for the entire article based on a factual inaccuracy.
@Sarah M, #25: I totally agree with you.
@Donna #40 – OK. Fair enough. I would argue that definition of Zionism – Zionism being the belief that Jews should have a Jewish state, rather than simply being someone who supports the actions of said state. I don’t support Israel’s offensive in Gaza or its ludicrous ban on Arab parties, so I might not qualify as a Zionist under their definition. However, I do support Israel’s right to exist because I believe Jews can and should have their own state.
Jon @ 50 – actually converts count as Jews under the Law of Return.
Too, Israeli law has elements of religion – there is no civil marriage, for example. Marriage must be approved by the appropriate religious authority (Orthodox, if you’re Jewish) or conducted abroad. This leads to a lot of Jewish or mixed couples getting married in Cyprus because they can’t marry under Orthodox law. There are also sex-segregated bus lines.
Idyllicmollusk,
I think it’s up to each individual to decide what their homeland is, and I don’t think anyone should feel obligated to consider Israel their homeland for any reason, whether they’re Jewish or not.
It is true that we’re talking about a different time frame than in relation to Canada. It’s not an exact analogy, for many reasons, including the fact that it was specifically designed in response to antisemitism, and thus actually used a a very non traditional definition of Jew.
But anyway, maybe it’s silly to argue. Non-Jews living in the territory at the time of the creation of the state did acquire citizenship, and it’s not like I’m even remotely opposed to making immigration easier according to whatever standards including historical geographical connections.
That’s a different critique though, to say that Israeli immigration law is not sufficiently open in this and that and that way. And that’s a different conversation. But saying that it’s not open enough to non-Jews is a whole different thing than saying it’s too open to Jews. And it’s saying that it’s too open to Jews, that somehow accident of birth is a fair standard for citizenship for many other countries but not for Israel/Jews, especially when full emancipation for Jews outside of Israel is such a new and precarious thing, that’s what bothers me, and that’s really what I’m arguing against.
I don’t want to sound like I’m insisting there are no differences. There are differences. I don’t think it should HAVE to be exactly the same as anywhere else. Because what makes everywhere else the right standard? I think similarity should be enough.
Where you have citizenship, it’s not a virtue, it’s luck. Where you feel cultural ties to, it’s also not in your power but in the power of the people who raise you and the culture you grow up surrounded by. So I don’t think it’s more unfair for someone to be denied citizenship because they weren’t born into a Jewish family than because they weren’t born into a Canadian family.
Sorry, I meant to delete the last two paragraphs, as they’re not really the point. This is what comes of posting after my bed time :(
Jon, I might be misquoting the paper anyway. I would have to reread it again. I do know that they did not conflate Zionism with Jewish people only though, that they did speak of Christian Zionists and others who are supportive of Israel. I’m not even totally sure if they meant only those who support Israel’s right to exist, and not necessarily the actions of the state, but I do think they meant both. They seem to think that Zionists in general are largely uncritical and unquestioning of Israel.
[...] of the paper to which this post refers is, “How can we, as Semites, be anti-Semitic?” Julie’s comment, I think, does a fine job of critiquing that question and how it is often used, so I am not [...]