Schön, dass ich in Dt. nicht allein bin mit meiner Meinung. Wenn nicht Hebräer Genozid verurteilen, wer dann? Der Staat Israel rekrutiert nicht nur massenhaft neue Hamaskämpfer, sondern auch massenhaft neue Antiisraeliten (alias "Antisemiten") unter denen, die nicht zwischen Staat und Volk Israel unterscheiden können.
Certo, ormai termini come genocidio, apartheid, vengono usati liberamente in funzione antisemita, lasciando da parte che la Corte di Giustizia non ha affatto determinato che si tratti di genocidio (un dettaglio che i “veri credenti” preferiscono ignorare per basarsi esclusivamente sui dati forniti da Hamas. La guerra in ambito urbano provoca vittime civili, non succede solo a Gaza, certamente ogni morte civile è un dramma e la guerra va fermata. Perché però nessuno chiede a Hamas di arrendersi e così fermare la guerra ?
Apartheid e genocidio sono usati qui in termini strettamente tecnici e legali. Sono soddisfatte le condizioni per sospettare Israele di entrambi. Un tribunale internazionale ha detto questo sul genocidio.
La maggior parte delle vostre affermazioni sui fatti sono semplicemente errate. Avete il diritto alle vostre opinioni, ma non ai vostri fatti.
ti contraddici da solo, dichiari che i termini sono applicati in maniera strettamente tecnica e legale, poi aggiungi che ci sono le condizioni per "sospettare" Israele, che è quello che ha detto il tribunale internazionale. Mi sa che ha raccontare fesserie sia tu ...
Thanks for your kind reply. Not sure, if I got you right.
Antisemitism is the idea that a so-called Semitic race (incl. Jews, Levites, Arabs, Palestinians etc.) is inferior and worth to be killed or at least dominated by a supreme race. "The Jew" (meaning all Hebrews) was deemed the most dangerous of all Semitic people by the Nazis.
There is no point in calling someone anti-Semitic because he supports one Semite and not the other. Even less, if he supports one Hebrew and not the other. The least, if he IS Hebrew. But pro-State-of-Israel (pro-SOI) people do all of these.
It can also be no anti-Semitism, if you condemn terrible crimes someone has done. It's a moral duty to do so. And a moral duty to do so notwithstanding the race or nation of someone. Even if the perpetrator was the PEOPLE of Israel (which is not the case, never was).
The use of pro-SOIs of the term is a misinterpretation of the term, at best.
People don't want to hear that, because the terrible fate of Hebrews in WW2, utilized by the term "anti-Semitism", is so handy in silencing critics abouts the most inhumane things. But that's not what it was invented for and it is disrespectful of the Semitic victims of the holocaust and all victims of any sort of holocaust.
Accusing SOI of Apartheid and Genocide often furthers anti-Hebraism (so-called anti-Semitism) by misunderstanding. Anti-Semites might even abuse that misunderstanding. That should be addressed.
But it can't be an argument to be silent about crimes. It's the perpetrator who is responsible for that problem, not the critics. If you want to call the one responsible for this furthering of anti-Hebraism an "anti-Semite", please, address the SOI.
It's just not true that no one asks Hamas et al. to make a ceasefire. Of course, it would be pointless to ask Hamas et al. to totally surrender to end the war. And Hamas et al. aren't currently decimating Israelis. Moreover Hamas et al. have proven to be ready for a ceasefire and for getting hostages back to their homes. State of Israel has proven the opposite. So the question, of course, mostly goes to SOI.
While the ICJ hasn't yet made a judgement about SOI committing genocide, I'm referring to sources such as the UN Human Rights Commissioner (HRC), Human Rights Watch or Amnesty Int'l together with the various reports about the situation (read e.g. the Israeli newspaper "HaAretz", 'The World').
E.g. the HRC has just stated: «By analysing the patterns of violence and Israel’s policies in its onslaught on Gaza, this report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met.»[1]
In HaAretz you could also read that, meanwhile, the SOI accepted some figures published by e.g. Hamas. Also how Israeli courts do that. So it's not just about Hamas'es data.
It actually makes me doubting the neutrality of the ICJ that they so willingly made a temporary order to Kyiv & Moskow for the purely theoretical possibility of a genocide with almost no real evidence for it.[2] But they hesitate to do the same w.r.t. SOI's deeds (in the case made by South Africa). But I haven't read the reasons, yet.
It's also weird how readily people now refer to the inavoidability of civil victims in urban fighting, while no one in the "civilized West" accepted that argument for Russia. Also now any "Whataboutism" (esp. "What about Holocaust?") seems to be justified, while the same (esp. "What about Holocaust?") was deemed a false thing w.r.t. Russia.
I think, it's becomming more & more clear that the leaders of the pro-Kyiv and pro-SOI side never were interested in saving people, but saving their power & money and genociding & dominating peoples they hate. It's them who are the racist and inhuman actors.
I could ask you, why aren't you asking the German administration to not put people in jail for their totally legitimate and non-Hebraophobic opinion. I actually hope, it goes w/o saying, that you support free speech and not incarcerating dissidents in a democratic society. But, as of yet, you have not explicitely stated it. – I have also not explicitely stated, that I'm condemning murdering and kidnapping innocent civilians or want Hamas et al. to do their part in ending the war. 😉
[1] 2024-03-25 | OHCHR | Country reports
«A/HRC/55/73: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 - Advance unedited version»
Generally I think that Antisemitism is a form of hate. Judenhass captures it better than Antisemitism which is loaded with ideological categories. Jews are not exactly semites though many Jews are and Arabs by and large are semites, which complicates the use of the term .
Israel has made a claim to a monopoly of Jewish identity and approaches all challenges to their claim of that monopoly with the charge of antisemitism. It often has little or nothing to do with hate of Jews or an opposition to semites. In fact, it is no more than chicanery.
So no, disliking one or other Jew or group of Jews does not make you a Jewish hater or an antisemite. In Germany the situation is particularly dire. The problem is indeed that the charge of antisemitism is merely used to silence critics including Jewish critics. So suddenly, Nature Karta become antisemites, which should be a reduction ad absurdum. But for people like our friend Carmine here are indeed a proof.
It is true that many anti-zionists are also antisemites, but not all are and this should be an obvious distinction.
I normally accept that anti-Semitism typically means hate of Jews, Jew means Hebrew, and Judaism means Israelism. But it becomes ridiculous when words like "anti-Semitism" are used against Semites or even Hebrews themselves. And of course, no one calls all demonstrants in Israel anti-Semites, except when they criticise war crimes or the like. It's such a joke.
Talking about jokes: It's funny when you read things like Jews are not allowed on the Temple Mount because only Jewish Priest (Kohanim) are allowed to go there.
It's that whole confusion about words and meanings that makes populistic agitation so much easier for all sides.
Nelle scuole palestinesi insegnano ad odiare gli ebrei (e l’Occidente), il 7 ottobre Hamas, civili palestinesi e addirittura insegnanti dell’Unrwa, sono entrati in Israele per uccidere, torturare e stuprare ebrei. Ed ora è il momento di grande notorietà mediatica degli ebrei che negano l’essenza ebraica di Israele. Una minoranza, ma molto popolare negli ambienti della sinistra antisemita, come se l’essere ebrei desse un valore particolare a queste opinioni, una forma di razzismo sostanzialmente (come quelli che dicono di avere amici neri, come se questo potesse dare un valore maggiore alle proprie affermazioni). Non che il governo israeliano non sia criticabile, tutt’altro, ma deve essere criticato per la sua politica, e per questo non è necessario essere ebrei.
Il punto è semplice, lo Stato ebraico ha il dovere di proteggere i suoi cittadini, per farlo bisogna eliminare Hamas, come farlo senza perdite per il popolo palestinese (che nella sua grande maggioranza sostiene questi criminali)? Si potrebbe chiedere a Hamas di arrendersi ma, stranamente, questa possibilità sembra essere esclusa, di fatto, da tutti quelli che invece fanno pressione su Israele. Eppure il problema e la ragione della guerra è proprio Hamas.
This article doesn't say the State of Israel isn't Jewish, it says Jewishness / Judaism is not the State of Israel.
The importance of Hebrews agreeing in condemning the State of Israel doesn't lie in a greater importance of their opinion, at all. They just help the pro-Semitic left in fighting back the non-sensical allegations of people who call them anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism is the hate of the (so-called) Semitic race. Hebrews condemning the State of Israel are Semites. Palestinians condemning the SOI are Semites. How can their non-Semitic supporters be anti-Semites?
Il termine antisemita nasce in ambito cristiano e si riferisce ai soli semiti che vivevano in Europa, gli ebrei. È un fatto storico e precisare che anche gli arabi sono semiti è pura stupidità, l’ antisemitismo nel mondo Occidentale fa riferimento agli ebrei, ed è quello che ha portato all’Olocausto (come mai nessuno ha informato i nazisti che il termine che usavano era sbagliato?). E poi cancellare un termine non cambia la realtà. Per concludere Israele è parte integrante di quello che tu chiami Jewishness / Judaism, non è un giochetto semantico basato su una mancanza totale di onestà intellettuale a cambiare la realtà.
In realtà questo è semplicemente falso. L'attacco al semitismo è stato intrapreso contro tutte le razze semitiche a nome della razza ariana in una disputa tra orientalisti su questioni riguardanti le famiglie linguistiche.
Il problema è che lei è un raccontatore di balle che non sa nemmeno fare i compiti a casa. Quindi, per l'ultima volta, ti suggerisco di andare a gridare contro le nuvole perché qui non sei il benvenuto.
You are right that anti-Semitism in 99,9% of cases meant Hebrews (called "Jews"). But it is no accident that the mid-age, Christian, religiously motivated anti-Semitism was called "anti-Judaism", not "anti-Semitism".
After the secularisation of Europe Hebraophobics needed a new way to justify their passion for the hating of Hebrews. They found it in the embedding of Hebrews in a so-called Semitic race that was allegedly distinguished from the Arian race by physiognomy and culture.
They didn't do it ALTHOUGH they liked Arabs, but BECAUSE they unified their formerly religious hate of Hebrews and Mohammedanians (remember the anti-Mohammedanian crusades). Or do you think, they would have used a group they liked so much to state that Jews are bad because they are part of that group? Even the Nazis tried to get rid of the word, because they didn't want people to think they hate Arabs.
Of course, the people aimed at with that notion in 99,9% of cases still were Hebrews and it was invented mainly for that reason. But as a racist term it was definitely referring to all Arabs. Hate of the Arab race was the justification for hate of Hebrews. You can't ignore that part.
And as of today, it's again hate of the Arab race – i.e. anti-Semitism or whatever you call it – that is the reason, why genocide of an Arab people is not taken that serious.
You could see that when a Western reporter at the Polish border was talking about how dramatic the Ukraïnian exodus was, after the Russian invasion, very much BECAUSE "they look like us", "blue eyes", "white skin" (roughly). It was bad because they (at least) looked like "us".
Killing Palestinians is not that terrible because they are just brownish Untermenschen.
Of course, for the moment, we'll forget about all the anti-Semitic pictures that showed the similarity between Hebrew and Arab noses to justify hate of Hebrews. For the moment, we support Hebrews, because they fight other inferiors. In Ukraïne the Nazis called that "Selbstreinigungsbemühungen" (or similarly).
The philo-Hebraic Arian of today don't want the term "anti-Semitism" to be recognized in it's full historical meaning, because he wants to continue anti-Semitic action without the people knowing that its just the same racism also the Nazis based their action on ("the Jew" as the most malign Semite). If we honored the literal meaning of the word and its true history, people would look quite different onto the Palestinians.
It's therefore clear why pro-State-of-Israels want (or are made) to ignore that as a purely grammatical issue. But be assured, if the Hebrew State was not a useful tool in furthering white supremacist interests in the Orient, they would instantly remember that Hebrews are just a sort of Arab. Just as they support (Nazi-)Ukraïnians or racists like Navalny although they like to have all Slavic people, esp. Russians (incl. Ukraïnians) dead or enslaved.
The West never was a friend of Hebrews nor did it fight the Nazis to save Jews. They use the Ukraïnians against their own interest to weaken Russia, they use the Israelis to weaken the Arab world, they use Taiwan to weaken China. But they hate all of them.
It's ironic how you are bragging about anti-Semitism in the face of a Hebrew author and saying I (!) am the one lacking intellectual honesty. And you don't even know whether I am Hebrew or not (and I won't tell you).
I may remind you how the pure fact that Selensky was a Hebrew was used as the main argument, that there can be no serious Nazi problem in the whole Ukraïnian administration.
Maybe you can tell me who's the anti-Semite in the following clip:
It's interesting how the killings he is talking about go unmentioned or severely less mentioned in the Western press compared with killings when they happen to be made by Hamas. – I'm not the one with an intellectual problem here.
Carmine is mostly an idiot with an ideological program. Antisemitism was not coined to attack jews but it associated in the ideas of semitic language groups. It also serves to to group Jews, who are local with lower mediterranean populations.
Carimne vomits nonsense with the zeal and self-satisfaction of the preacher. Antisemitism, in any case, never had a very precise meaning and is still a disputed term. People like Carmine would be happy to declare half of the Jewish population antisemitic if it does not line up with the Zionist program but the political daughter of Giorgio Almirante who promoted from La Difessa della Razza the deportation of Italian Jews to the gas chambers a just among the nations.
«When concepts become confused, the world is in disarray.» (Confucius)
We should not bother, Martin, to coin the term «anti-Semitism» ourselves as it was never properly coined by anyone else. It is a very good term to denote a linguistic group incl. Hebrews, Arabs and several historical peoples that spoke and speak a very interesting and nice language that is the root of so many parts of particularly Indo-German languages. It's obviously not good a term to be used to denote forms of racism as it was misused and confused so often. Especially the totally abhorrent misuse of the term by members of the Israeli gov't in an attempt to take advantage of the most systematic genocide in the known history to justify another one is a perfect time to get rid of this problematic use of the term. Historically, the Nazis aimed at Jews (as you related to it: «Judenhass»), though this included all Hebrews. As Carmine might have a point, this didn't include so much other Semitic language groups like the Arabs. Personally, I opt for «anti-Hebraism», «anti-Hebrews», «anti-Hebraist» people a.s.o. This, of course, relates to the People of Israel. If it's only about the State of Israel and/or its population I opt for «anti-Israeli».
Ripetere qualcosa di sbagliato molte volte non rende la cosa corretta. Il discorso sull'antisemitismo che include gli arabi non ha alcun senso, sono gli stessi arabi a riprendere gli stereotipi antisemiti europei e a farli loro (il naso di un certo modo, i famosi blood libels, etc.). In Europa antisemita ha un significato ben preciso e ha portato alla Shoah dove nessun arabo è stato messo nei forni, anzi gli arabi di Palestina erano dichiaratamente alleati dei nazisti e come loro antisemiti. La pretesa poi che sia l'Occidente ad avere la responsabilità dell'attacco russo all'Ucraina o che Israele sia lì per indebolire il mondo arabo, mi dispiace ma sono solo fesserie - popolari in una certa area ideologica che è dichiaratamente antiamericana a prescindere - e che non ha riscontro nella realtà dei fatti. Inoltre, preciso che il fatto tu sia ebreo o meno è del tutto irrilevante, e non ha alcun interesse per me. E sei tu ad avere un problema intellettuale, e piuttosto serio, i Naturei Carta negano direttamente l'esistenza di Israele, come i terroristi di Hamas, tra l'altro tu devi vivere in un mondo parallelo perché in realtà si parla quasi solo esclusivamente dei morti causati da Israele. Per inciso, il sionismo religioso è piuttosto recente e ha poco a che vedere con il sionismo che ha portato alla creazione dello Stato di Israele, un movimento basato su una visione secolare (derivata dall'illuminismo ebraico Haskalah) e socialista. Del genocidio in corso sui curdi da parte della Turchia, di quello degli armeni da parte degli azeri (sostenuti dai turchi), delle centinaia di migliaia di morti in Siria da parte di Assad (sostenuto dai russi), dei morti drusi a causa di Hezbollah (sostenuti, come Hamas, dall'Iran), etc., nessuno ne parla. Come tu possa onestamente dire che non sia così mi lascia piuttosto perplesso in relazione alla tua onestà intellettuale.
L'unica altra fonte di tante assurdità e inesattezze in un solo paragrafo è il materiale del Ministero degli Affari della diaspora. Si tratta di assurdità e propaganda. Non tollero questa mezza riscrittura razzista della storia per sostenere la distruzione di massa dei civili. Ti invito ad andare a scrivere queste sciocchezze da qualche altra parte o sarò felice di bloccarti.
Blocking people is a dangerous thing. Often, it doesn't block their ideas from propagating nor does it help them to change their mind, but rather helps them to change the mind of others to the disadvantage of the blocker. As I was blocked by so-called democrats (without giving a reason, but most probably for denouncing State of Israel's apartheid) I'm biased, but I'd like to hear from Carmine after the ICJ condemns Israel for genocide. Or what we can say to him, if it doesn't.
You are right, Carmine, I'm not talking much about all the other crimes. (Which exist.) But the problem with this comes from YOUR side. It's your side with a total lack of one half of the story. This includes the idea of repeatedly accusing the other side of ignoring half of the story. It's your side – not mentioning half of the crimes. It's your side – not mentioning, that you are not mentioning half of the crimes while you are accusing me of not mentioning half of the crimes. Indeed, I react on your non-mentioning by mentioning what you forgot to mention and not mentioning what you overly mentioned a 1000 times before. Maybe you can agree that we should treat all sides with the same right, prosecute all crimes equally and not ignore the crimes of the Ukraïnians, the Russia-Russians, the Palestine groups, the State of Israel, the Unitedstatians and so on. This way, however, you would surely find out how wrong you are. Or you admit that you are mostly interested in persecuting/haunting only one side.
Obviously, we are 3 people with significantly different ideas of the term «anti-Semitism». Obviously, the term was misused in a lot of ways over the centuries (and especially by the current government of Israel), detrimental to the one or the other of its potential meanings. Obviously, it's literal meaning («against the offspring of Shem») is not meant by it's users, 99% of the time. Even a usage of one party in a very precise manner while others use it differently doesn't make things better, but worse. So what are you talking about? To make it clear: I'm not denying any of the horrible consequences of it's meanings or usages. But you ARE denying the horrible consequences of its current misuse in Gaza and Ukraïne. The consequences of saying, on the one hand, anti-Semitism is bad. But, on the other hand, by not talking about obvious anti-Arabism and anti-Russism saying these two are ok. The main problem with 6M Hebrews killed in the Shoa is not 6M Jews killed in the Shoa, but 6M (plus almost 30M more) of our fellow human beings killed in the Shoa. And that's my problem as it happens/happened in Gaza, Israel, the Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, Yugoslavia, all over America and a lot of other places. But that seemingly isn't your concern – unfortunately.
And what are you talking about anti-Americanism again in the face of a supporter of an American author? Additionally, my closest family is full of Unitedstatian descendants which I wholeheartedly love, farther parts of my family live in the US (and share a lot of my basic views), I support the de-occupation of America, the end of the ongoing silent genocide of native Americans, the de facto ongoing enslavery of kidnapped-descendant, negrine Afro-Americans (plus their restitution and compensation) and suppression and killing of Euro-American Latino-Americans. I have much the same view as many American and esp. Unitedstatian political groups. And you associate me with anti-Americanism? That's the same as saying anyone protesting against a state policy is against the people (not the policy) of this state. That's faschism, viva il Duce!
It may be fine, that there is a State of Israel. But it's historically understandable and no crime to be of another opinion about this. Your argument is just another cheap, boring phrase from Western AgitProp, and it's a lie. It's even totally normal that the victims of a criminal State of Israel are seeing this totally different. I totally understand their feelings. To dishonestly weaponize this point against oppressed, haunted, terrorized, tortured, murdered people is inappropriate and inhuman.
And yes: I'm living in a parallel world and it's growingly crowded here. Used to be very cold and harsh. Gets more and more comfy, nowadays, and I love it. «Ti invito ad andare a» venire. :-)
Schön, dass ich in Dt. nicht allein bin mit meiner Meinung. Wenn nicht Hebräer Genozid verurteilen, wer dann? Der Staat Israel rekrutiert nicht nur massenhaft neue Hamaskämpfer, sondern auch massenhaft neue Antiisraeliten (alias "Antisemiten") unter denen, die nicht zwischen Staat und Volk Israel unterscheiden können.
In der Tat
Certo, ormai termini come genocidio, apartheid, vengono usati liberamente in funzione antisemita, lasciando da parte che la Corte di Giustizia non ha affatto determinato che si tratti di genocidio (un dettaglio che i “veri credenti” preferiscono ignorare per basarsi esclusivamente sui dati forniti da Hamas. La guerra in ambito urbano provoca vittime civili, non succede solo a Gaza, certamente ogni morte civile è un dramma e la guerra va fermata. Perché però nessuno chiede a Hamas di arrendersi e così fermare la guerra ?
Apartheid e genocidio sono usati qui in termini strettamente tecnici e legali. Sono soddisfatte le condizioni per sospettare Israele di entrambi. Un tribunale internazionale ha detto questo sul genocidio.
La maggior parte delle vostre affermazioni sui fatti sono semplicemente errate. Avete il diritto alle vostre opinioni, ma non ai vostri fatti.
ti contraddici da solo, dichiari che i termini sono applicati in maniera strettamente tecnica e legale, poi aggiungi che ci sono le condizioni per "sospettare" Israele, che è quello che ha detto il tribunale internazionale. Mi sa che ha raccontare fesserie sia tu ...
Thanks for your kind reply. Not sure, if I got you right.
Antisemitism is the idea that a so-called Semitic race (incl. Jews, Levites, Arabs, Palestinians etc.) is inferior and worth to be killed or at least dominated by a supreme race. "The Jew" (meaning all Hebrews) was deemed the most dangerous of all Semitic people by the Nazis.
There is no point in calling someone anti-Semitic because he supports one Semite and not the other. Even less, if he supports one Hebrew and not the other. The least, if he IS Hebrew. But pro-State-of-Israel (pro-SOI) people do all of these.
It can also be no anti-Semitism, if you condemn terrible crimes someone has done. It's a moral duty to do so. And a moral duty to do so notwithstanding the race or nation of someone. Even if the perpetrator was the PEOPLE of Israel (which is not the case, never was).
The use of pro-SOIs of the term is a misinterpretation of the term, at best.
People don't want to hear that, because the terrible fate of Hebrews in WW2, utilized by the term "anti-Semitism", is so handy in silencing critics abouts the most inhumane things. But that's not what it was invented for and it is disrespectful of the Semitic victims of the holocaust and all victims of any sort of holocaust.
Accusing SOI of Apartheid and Genocide often furthers anti-Hebraism (so-called anti-Semitism) by misunderstanding. Anti-Semites might even abuse that misunderstanding. That should be addressed.
But it can't be an argument to be silent about crimes. It's the perpetrator who is responsible for that problem, not the critics. If you want to call the one responsible for this furthering of anti-Hebraism an "anti-Semite", please, address the SOI.
It's just not true that no one asks Hamas et al. to make a ceasefire. Of course, it would be pointless to ask Hamas et al. to totally surrender to end the war. And Hamas et al. aren't currently decimating Israelis. Moreover Hamas et al. have proven to be ready for a ceasefire and for getting hostages back to their homes. State of Israel has proven the opposite. So the question, of course, mostly goes to SOI.
While the ICJ hasn't yet made a judgement about SOI committing genocide, I'm referring to sources such as the UN Human Rights Commissioner (HRC), Human Rights Watch or Amnesty Int'l together with the various reports about the situation (read e.g. the Israeli newspaper "HaAretz", 'The World').
E.g. the HRC has just stated: «By analysing the patterns of violence and Israel’s policies in its onslaught on Gaza, this report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met.»[1]
In HaAretz you could also read that, meanwhile, the SOI accepted some figures published by e.g. Hamas. Also how Israeli courts do that. So it's not just about Hamas'es data.
It actually makes me doubting the neutrality of the ICJ that they so willingly made a temporary order to Kyiv & Moskow for the purely theoretical possibility of a genocide with almost no real evidence for it.[2] But they hesitate to do the same w.r.t. SOI's deeds (in the case made by South Africa). But I haven't read the reasons, yet.
It's also weird how readily people now refer to the inavoidability of civil victims in urban fighting, while no one in the "civilized West" accepted that argument for Russia. Also now any "Whataboutism" (esp. "What about Holocaust?") seems to be justified, while the same (esp. "What about Holocaust?") was deemed a false thing w.r.t. Russia.
I think, it's becomming more & more clear that the leaders of the pro-Kyiv and pro-SOI side never were interested in saving people, but saving their power & money and genociding & dominating peoples they hate. It's them who are the racist and inhuman actors.
I could ask you, why aren't you asking the German administration to not put people in jail for their totally legitimate and non-Hebraophobic opinion. I actually hope, it goes w/o saying, that you support free speech and not incarcerating dissidents in a democratic society. But, as of yet, you have not explicitely stated it. – I have also not explicitely stated, that I'm condemning murdering and kidnapping innocent civilians or want Hamas et al. to do their part in ending the war. 😉
[1] 2024-03-25 | OHCHR | Country reports
«A/HRC/55/73: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 - Advance unedited version»
UN symbol: A/HRC/55/73
https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5573-report-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-palestinian
[2] «Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)»
https://icj-cij.org/case/182
Generally I think that Antisemitism is a form of hate. Judenhass captures it better than Antisemitism which is loaded with ideological categories. Jews are not exactly semites though many Jews are and Arabs by and large are semites, which complicates the use of the term .
Israel has made a claim to a monopoly of Jewish identity and approaches all challenges to their claim of that monopoly with the charge of antisemitism. It often has little or nothing to do with hate of Jews or an opposition to semites. In fact, it is no more than chicanery.
So no, disliking one or other Jew or group of Jews does not make you a Jewish hater or an antisemite. In Germany the situation is particularly dire. The problem is indeed that the charge of antisemitism is merely used to silence critics including Jewish critics. So suddenly, Nature Karta become antisemites, which should be a reduction ad absurdum. But for people like our friend Carmine here are indeed a proof.
It is true that many anti-zionists are also antisemites, but not all are and this should be an obvious distinction.
Naturei Karta aren't anti-semite, they are only just a fanatical religious group with a very narrow minded (like all fanatics) vision of judaism
I normally accept that anti-Semitism typically means hate of Jews, Jew means Hebrew, and Judaism means Israelism. But it becomes ridiculous when words like "anti-Semitism" are used against Semites or even Hebrews themselves. And of course, no one calls all demonstrants in Israel anti-Semites, except when they criticise war crimes or the like. It's such a joke.
Talking about jokes: It's funny when you read things like Jews are not allowed on the Temple Mount because only Jewish Priest (Kohanim) are allowed to go there.
It's that whole confusion about words and meanings that makes populistic agitation so much easier for all sides.
Nelle scuole palestinesi insegnano ad odiare gli ebrei (e l’Occidente), il 7 ottobre Hamas, civili palestinesi e addirittura insegnanti dell’Unrwa, sono entrati in Israele per uccidere, torturare e stuprare ebrei. Ed ora è il momento di grande notorietà mediatica degli ebrei che negano l’essenza ebraica di Israele. Una minoranza, ma molto popolare negli ambienti della sinistra antisemita, come se l’essere ebrei desse un valore particolare a queste opinioni, una forma di razzismo sostanzialmente (come quelli che dicono di avere amici neri, come se questo potesse dare un valore maggiore alle proprie affermazioni). Non che il governo israeliano non sia criticabile, tutt’altro, ma deve essere criticato per la sua politica, e per questo non è necessario essere ebrei.
Il punto è semplice, lo Stato ebraico ha il dovere di proteggere i suoi cittadini, per farlo bisogna eliminare Hamas, come farlo senza perdite per il popolo palestinese (che nella sua grande maggioranza sostiene questi criminali)? Si potrebbe chiedere a Hamas di arrendersi ma, stranamente, questa possibilità sembra essere esclusa, di fatto, da tutti quelli che invece fanno pressione su Israele. Eppure il problema e la ragione della guerra è proprio Hamas.
This article doesn't say the State of Israel isn't Jewish, it says Jewishness / Judaism is not the State of Israel.
The importance of Hebrews agreeing in condemning the State of Israel doesn't lie in a greater importance of their opinion, at all. They just help the pro-Semitic left in fighting back the non-sensical allegations of people who call them anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism is the hate of the (so-called) Semitic race. Hebrews condemning the State of Israel are Semites. Palestinians condemning the SOI are Semites. How can their non-Semitic supporters be anti-Semites?
Il termine antisemita nasce in ambito cristiano e si riferisce ai soli semiti che vivevano in Europa, gli ebrei. È un fatto storico e precisare che anche gli arabi sono semiti è pura stupidità, l’ antisemitismo nel mondo Occidentale fa riferimento agli ebrei, ed è quello che ha portato all’Olocausto (come mai nessuno ha informato i nazisti che il termine che usavano era sbagliato?). E poi cancellare un termine non cambia la realtà. Per concludere Israele è parte integrante di quello che tu chiami Jewishness / Judaism, non è un giochetto semantico basato su una mancanza totale di onestà intellettuale a cambiare la realtà.
In realtà questo è semplicemente falso. L'attacco al semitismo è stato intrapreso contro tutte le razze semitiche a nome della razza ariana in una disputa tra orientalisti su questioni riguardanti le famiglie linguistiche.
Il problema è che lei è un raccontatore di balle che non sa nemmeno fare i compiti a casa. Quindi, per l'ultima volta, ti suggerisco di andare a gridare contro le nuvole perché qui non sei il benvenuto.
You are right that anti-Semitism in 99,9% of cases meant Hebrews (called "Jews"). But it is no accident that the mid-age, Christian, religiously motivated anti-Semitism was called "anti-Judaism", not "anti-Semitism".
After the secularisation of Europe Hebraophobics needed a new way to justify their passion for the hating of Hebrews. They found it in the embedding of Hebrews in a so-called Semitic race that was allegedly distinguished from the Arian race by physiognomy and culture.
They didn't do it ALTHOUGH they liked Arabs, but BECAUSE they unified their formerly religious hate of Hebrews and Mohammedanians (remember the anti-Mohammedanian crusades). Or do you think, they would have used a group they liked so much to state that Jews are bad because they are part of that group? Even the Nazis tried to get rid of the word, because they didn't want people to think they hate Arabs.
Of course, the people aimed at with that notion in 99,9% of cases still were Hebrews and it was invented mainly for that reason. But as a racist term it was definitely referring to all Arabs. Hate of the Arab race was the justification for hate of Hebrews. You can't ignore that part.
And as of today, it's again hate of the Arab race – i.e. anti-Semitism or whatever you call it – that is the reason, why genocide of an Arab people is not taken that serious.
You could see that when a Western reporter at the Polish border was talking about how dramatic the Ukraïnian exodus was, after the Russian invasion, very much BECAUSE "they look like us", "blue eyes", "white skin" (roughly). It was bad because they (at least) looked like "us".
Killing Palestinians is not that terrible because they are just brownish Untermenschen.
Of course, for the moment, we'll forget about all the anti-Semitic pictures that showed the similarity between Hebrew and Arab noses to justify hate of Hebrews. For the moment, we support Hebrews, because they fight other inferiors. In Ukraïne the Nazis called that "Selbstreinigungsbemühungen" (or similarly).
The philo-Hebraic Arian of today don't want the term "anti-Semitism" to be recognized in it's full historical meaning, because he wants to continue anti-Semitic action without the people knowing that its just the same racism also the Nazis based their action on ("the Jew" as the most malign Semite). If we honored the literal meaning of the word and its true history, people would look quite different onto the Palestinians.
It's therefore clear why pro-State-of-Israels want (or are made) to ignore that as a purely grammatical issue. But be assured, if the Hebrew State was not a useful tool in furthering white supremacist interests in the Orient, they would instantly remember that Hebrews are just a sort of Arab. Just as they support (Nazi-)Ukraïnians or racists like Navalny although they like to have all Slavic people, esp. Russians (incl. Ukraïnians) dead or enslaved.
The West never was a friend of Hebrews nor did it fight the Nazis to save Jews. They use the Ukraïnians against their own interest to weaken Russia, they use the Israelis to weaken the Arab world, they use Taiwan to weaken China. But they hate all of them.
It's ironic how you are bragging about anti-Semitism in the face of a Hebrew author and saying I (!) am the one lacking intellectual honesty. And you don't even know whether I am Hebrew or not (and I won't tell you).
I may remind you how the pure fact that Selensky was a Hebrew was used as the main argument, that there can be no serious Nazi problem in the whole Ukraïnian administration.
Maybe you can tell me who's the anti-Semite in the following clip:
"Rabbi addressing Quds Day rally in NYC"
https://youtu.be/I6vKx02boxg
It's interesting how the killings he is talking about go unmentioned or severely less mentioned in the Western press compared with killings when they happen to be made by Hamas. – I'm not the one with an intellectual problem here.
Carmine is mostly an idiot with an ideological program. Antisemitism was not coined to attack jews but it associated in the ideas of semitic language groups. It also serves to to group Jews, who are local with lower mediterranean populations.
Carimne vomits nonsense with the zeal and self-satisfaction of the preacher. Antisemitism, in any case, never had a very precise meaning and is still a disputed term. People like Carmine would be happy to declare half of the Jewish population antisemitic if it does not line up with the Zionist program but the political daughter of Giorgio Almirante who promoted from La Difessa della Razza the deportation of Italian Jews to the gas chambers a just among the nations.
«When concepts become confused, the world is in disarray.» (Confucius)
We should not bother, Martin, to coin the term «anti-Semitism» ourselves as it was never properly coined by anyone else. It is a very good term to denote a linguistic group incl. Hebrews, Arabs and several historical peoples that spoke and speak a very interesting and nice language that is the root of so many parts of particularly Indo-German languages. It's obviously not good a term to be used to denote forms of racism as it was misused and confused so often. Especially the totally abhorrent misuse of the term by members of the Israeli gov't in an attempt to take advantage of the most systematic genocide in the known history to justify another one is a perfect time to get rid of this problematic use of the term. Historically, the Nazis aimed at Jews (as you related to it: «Judenhass»), though this included all Hebrews. As Carmine might have a point, this didn't include so much other Semitic language groups like the Arabs. Personally, I opt for «anti-Hebraism», «anti-Hebrews», «anti-Hebraist» people a.s.o. This, of course, relates to the People of Israel. If it's only about the State of Israel and/or its population I opt for «anti-Israeli».
Ripetere qualcosa di sbagliato molte volte non rende la cosa corretta. Il discorso sull'antisemitismo che include gli arabi non ha alcun senso, sono gli stessi arabi a riprendere gli stereotipi antisemiti europei e a farli loro (il naso di un certo modo, i famosi blood libels, etc.). In Europa antisemita ha un significato ben preciso e ha portato alla Shoah dove nessun arabo è stato messo nei forni, anzi gli arabi di Palestina erano dichiaratamente alleati dei nazisti e come loro antisemiti. La pretesa poi che sia l'Occidente ad avere la responsabilità dell'attacco russo all'Ucraina o che Israele sia lì per indebolire il mondo arabo, mi dispiace ma sono solo fesserie - popolari in una certa area ideologica che è dichiaratamente antiamericana a prescindere - e che non ha riscontro nella realtà dei fatti. Inoltre, preciso che il fatto tu sia ebreo o meno è del tutto irrilevante, e non ha alcun interesse per me. E sei tu ad avere un problema intellettuale, e piuttosto serio, i Naturei Carta negano direttamente l'esistenza di Israele, come i terroristi di Hamas, tra l'altro tu devi vivere in un mondo parallelo perché in realtà si parla quasi solo esclusivamente dei morti causati da Israele. Per inciso, il sionismo religioso è piuttosto recente e ha poco a che vedere con il sionismo che ha portato alla creazione dello Stato di Israele, un movimento basato su una visione secolare (derivata dall'illuminismo ebraico Haskalah) e socialista. Del genocidio in corso sui curdi da parte della Turchia, di quello degli armeni da parte degli azeri (sostenuti dai turchi), delle centinaia di migliaia di morti in Siria da parte di Assad (sostenuto dai russi), dei morti drusi a causa di Hezbollah (sostenuti, come Hamas, dall'Iran), etc., nessuno ne parla. Come tu possa onestamente dire che non sia così mi lascia piuttosto perplesso in relazione alla tua onestà intellettuale.
L'unica altra fonte di tante assurdità e inesattezze in un solo paragrafo è il materiale del Ministero degli Affari della diaspora. Si tratta di assurdità e propaganda. Non tollero questa mezza riscrittura razzista della storia per sostenere la distruzione di massa dei civili. Ti invito ad andare a scrivere queste sciocchezze da qualche altra parte o sarò felice di bloccarti.
Blocking people is a dangerous thing. Often, it doesn't block their ideas from propagating nor does it help them to change their mind, but rather helps them to change the mind of others to the disadvantage of the blocker. As I was blocked by so-called democrats (without giving a reason, but most probably for denouncing State of Israel's apartheid) I'm biased, but I'd like to hear from Carmine after the ICJ condemns Israel for genocide. Or what we can say to him, if it doesn't.
You are right, Carmine, I'm not talking much about all the other crimes. (Which exist.) But the problem with this comes from YOUR side. It's your side with a total lack of one half of the story. This includes the idea of repeatedly accusing the other side of ignoring half of the story. It's your side – not mentioning half of the crimes. It's your side – not mentioning, that you are not mentioning half of the crimes while you are accusing me of not mentioning half of the crimes. Indeed, I react on your non-mentioning by mentioning what you forgot to mention and not mentioning what you overly mentioned a 1000 times before. Maybe you can agree that we should treat all sides with the same right, prosecute all crimes equally and not ignore the crimes of the Ukraïnians, the Russia-Russians, the Palestine groups, the State of Israel, the Unitedstatians and so on. This way, however, you would surely find out how wrong you are. Or you admit that you are mostly interested in persecuting/haunting only one side.
Obviously, we are 3 people with significantly different ideas of the term «anti-Semitism». Obviously, the term was misused in a lot of ways over the centuries (and especially by the current government of Israel), detrimental to the one or the other of its potential meanings. Obviously, it's literal meaning («against the offspring of Shem») is not meant by it's users, 99% of the time. Even a usage of one party in a very precise manner while others use it differently doesn't make things better, but worse. So what are you talking about? To make it clear: I'm not denying any of the horrible consequences of it's meanings or usages. But you ARE denying the horrible consequences of its current misuse in Gaza and Ukraïne. The consequences of saying, on the one hand, anti-Semitism is bad. But, on the other hand, by not talking about obvious anti-Arabism and anti-Russism saying these two are ok. The main problem with 6M Hebrews killed in the Shoa is not 6M Jews killed in the Shoa, but 6M (plus almost 30M more) of our fellow human beings killed in the Shoa. And that's my problem as it happens/happened in Gaza, Israel, the Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, Yugoslavia, all over America and a lot of other places. But that seemingly isn't your concern – unfortunately.
And what are you talking about anti-Americanism again in the face of a supporter of an American author? Additionally, my closest family is full of Unitedstatian descendants which I wholeheartedly love, farther parts of my family live in the US (and share a lot of my basic views), I support the de-occupation of America, the end of the ongoing silent genocide of native Americans, the de facto ongoing enslavery of kidnapped-descendant, negrine Afro-Americans (plus their restitution and compensation) and suppression and killing of Euro-American Latino-Americans. I have much the same view as many American and esp. Unitedstatian political groups. And you associate me with anti-Americanism? That's the same as saying anyone protesting against a state policy is against the people (not the policy) of this state. That's faschism, viva il Duce!
It may be fine, that there is a State of Israel. But it's historically understandable and no crime to be of another opinion about this. Your argument is just another cheap, boring phrase from Western AgitProp, and it's a lie. It's even totally normal that the victims of a criminal State of Israel are seeing this totally different. I totally understand their feelings. To dishonestly weaponize this point against oppressed, haunted, terrorized, tortured, murdered people is inappropriate and inhuman.
And yes: I'm living in a parallel world and it's growingly crowded here. Used to be very cold and harsh. Gets more and more comfy, nowadays, and I love it. «Ti invito ad andare a» venire. :-)