The overuse of blood libel accusations

Post Reply New Topic

Hmm, not sure I fully agree with this.

I do agree that Twisty's initial remark did come across as echoing the usual pro-Israel "anti-Zionism is antisemitism" line, equating the defense of Palestinian rights with hatred of Jews. Twisty later said that that wasn't what he meant, and I agree with you that he should provide the further clarifications you've asked for.

However, even if there are no Jew-haters currently here, I would like to encourage everyone here to read up on Traditional anti-Jewish tropes and debunkings thereof, so that we can all be better prepared to recognize Judaeophobic tropes when we see them and avoid being fooled by them when they do occasionally show up here on WP.


Agreed.

Sort of offtopic but related:
Since this thread thread has gone into the anti zionism is not antisemitism territory what I have noticed in Jewish spaces is that almost uniformly in the wake of recent attacks they are saying that you can’t credibly say anti zionism is not antisemitism anymore and you can’t credibly say a whole bunch of other terms and phrases are not antisemitic either.

You can’t separate anti-Zionism from antisemitism — and we must stop pretending you can
A lot of times as in this case these are cases where the attacks are being used to attempt to validate what the author already believes. This is not always the case.


Rabbi Cosgrove Sermon “Free Palestine - No More”

There are instances in the first part of the sermon where you will reasonably conclude the man is a sheep spewing out AIPAC talking points. Hopefully by the end of the sermon you will realize despite your differences with him that is not the case.

The recent attacks have not changed my mind that anti zionism is not automatically antisemitism and that “Free Palestine” does not automatically mean slaughter all the Jews” etc. These attacks are all the more reason not to make conclusions based on emotion.

We all understand that these expressions are used as coded Jew hatred all too often. That has been and will be discussed in other threads.

I would like to expand upon something the Rabbi was talking about towered the end of the sermon. Over the last decade or so we have been lectured to or educated depending on your point of view to take into consideration how language might traumatize members of groups based on their history. For example I personally do not see much of a difference between “colored people” and “people of color” but people of color for the most part do find the former offensive. The idea is just because I don’t understand is no reason to offend them.

In conclusion saying things like “Globalize the Intifada” is not automatically antisemitism but is extreme tone deafness.

Just something to put the sermon of rabbi Cosgrove Sermon “Free Palestine - No More” into some perspective.


Peter Beinart is the author of

Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning

Personal Note:
For those who don’t know I am Jewish. Unlike most Jewish Americans I did not lose family in Holocaust. I am here because of my grandparents and great grandparents did escape the pogroms that were mentioned.

I have little trouble calling October 7th a pogrom. A valid reason why it does not fit into the definition is that many of Hamas’s victims were not Jewish. This is one of those situations that is literally true but misleading. The targets were not only Jews but anybody who associated with the Jewish State. While all anti zionism is not antisemitism, Hamas’s variation sure is.

The reasonableness of an action should not preclude whether the action fits a definition.