I do not equate being anti-Israel and/or anti-Zionist with anti-semitism. In fact, I think that accusing non-racists who disagree with Israel of being anti-Semites is morally wrong. It also backfires in the form of the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. Now when there really is someone antisemitic if we point to him, people will not listen. But I'll try anyway.
Victorino de la Vega's Middle East Memo is full of antisemitic references. He has a big picture of a beast eating a child, calls the deaths in Qana Israel's "massacre feast" (Matza from children's blood, anyone?), calls a Saudi cleric who opposes Hezbollah Pontius Pilate (read: he won't stop the Jews from killing the Lebanese just like Pilate didn't stop the Jews from killing Jesus). He keeps calling Israel's leaders Yahweh's sicaries, as if this is some religious war, where the Jews (or Jewsies, as someone said on the Memo's comment section) are the bloodthirsty villains.
Criticism is fine, even necessary. Phrases like Bushmert and Tex-Aviv are fine. I may not like them or agree with them, but it's legitimate. The anti-Semitic overtones are not acceptable.
Tags: Antisemitism, Blogging, Israel, Middle East
Farewell to Steve Silberman
2 days ago
“It's only fair to give you a chance to respond to this post”
ReplyDeleteWell…eh…thanks for giving me the opportunity to refute your abusive accusations!
Your systematic use of the worn-out concept of “anti-Semitism” is quite ridiculous: it’s precisely because of people like you (and other fools emulating Prokofiev’s proverbial Peter) that words end up loosing their original meaning.
You remind me of a character named Walter Sobchak [played by John Goodman in Joel Coen’s masterpiece “The Big Lebowski” a.k.a. “The Dude’s Adventures”] who says:
“I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT...
Also, Dude, ‘chinaman’ is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please […] Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary”
;))
FYI, I’m a complete agnostic and I condemn all forms of REAL intolerance and bigotry, be they ethnic, religious, or social.
Or, as in the case of the state of Israel, all of the above combined!
For the record, I only believe in Athens’ humanist philosophy and Rome’s rational-legal polity, which constitute the bedrock of our civilization.
I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for rightwing white supremacist ideologies, nor for radical Islamic fundamentalism, a sinister Middle-Eastern school of thought based mainly on the first five books of the Bible (a.k.a. The Pentateuch or “Torah”) and the bigoted Talmudic Law of Babylon…
e-man,
ReplyDeleteyou have demonstrated a complete failure to "get the point" on my blog. I am a Jew, and I blog about my experiences encountering opinions (often Jewish/Zionist) that shock me and disturb me. If any of my responses seem anti-semitic, well, you can blame certain forms of Judaism for their own foibles.
Now, how the hell does that make me an anti-semite? A broad spread-shot statement like that deserves no response. This response is a gift to you -- I'm giving you the opportunity to prove yourself. Give me evidence, e-man, if you're such a wonderful student.
Or are you just trying to get free advertising on my blog, regardless the circumstances?
BTW -
Do you think mirroring Ha'aretz aka Zionist Reactionary Digest and plugging the same bullshit hawkish apology makes your blog special? You ape every Zionist propagandist I've ever met.
Besides, Israelrules.blogspot.com and david zarnett have already taken the task, and they do a much better job with a wider audience, I might add. So have all these people.
If I were you, I would not be provoking skirmishes with me or Dr. V or god-knows-who-else you bothered today with your inappropriate alarmist name-calling. In the words of Voltaire, "It is necessary that we cultivate our own garden."
« It is necessary that we cultivate our own garden»
ReplyDeleteI love this.
As François-Marie Arouet would have said: always listen to Central Texas’ swirling dervishes for they shoot straight and speak the truth…
:)
I didn't accuse you of being an anti-semite, Behemoth, and I don't think that you are. I accused Victorino and gave specific arguments. If you don't agree, feel free to tell me why my arguments are invalid. For instance, you don't agree that there's something anti-semetic about the picture of the beast eating the little child?
ReplyDeleteFor instance, you don't agree that there's something anti-semetic about the picture of the beast eating the little child?
ReplyDeleteSaturn Devouring His Son
Oil on plaster transferred to canvas, 4' 9 1/8" x 2' 8 5/8"; Prado, Madrid
You half-wit.
Isn't it funny how anticipating hatred from another person is the biggest pretext for an individual's genuine hatred?
Even if it's a painting taken from a different context (like Roman mythology) in the context of that particular post it can be seen as having a totally different meaning.
ReplyDelete"You half-wit"
How very mature of you...
"Isn't it funny how anticipating hatred from another person is the biggest pretext for an individual's genuine hatred?
Who do you think I hate? Victor? The Lebanese? Arabs?
"Your systematic use of the worn-out concept of “anti-Semitism” is quite ridiculous: it’s precisely because of people like you (and other fools emulating Prokofiev’s proverbial Peter) that words end up loosing their original meaning."
I've said it myself - too many people have used the term before, so now it's like crying wolf.
How do you see the Pilate reference? "Yahwe's Sicaries"?
you don't agree that there's something anti-semetic about the picture of the beast eating the little child?
ReplyDeleteEven if it's a painting taken from a different context (like Roman mythology) in the context of that particular post it can be seen as having a totally different meaning. ”
No.
I don’t agree.
As my old compadre el Tejano Central said earlier this is NOT IN ANY WAY an “anti-Semitic” work of art.
And the “innocent victim” in the painting is clearly an adult i.e. NOT a “Lebanese baby”.
Clearly, Chronos/Saturn is not depicted as a “Semite” whatever that means, but as a tormented old man devouring his victim, and, first and foremost, being devoured by fear, prejudice, hate…
This is what our Greek masters taught us (see my earlier comment).
This is what Francisco de Goya meant.
And, if you knew the history of the Iberian Peninsula (or say of 19th century European art…), you would know that Francisco Goya was actually a leading progressive mind who courageously condemned the despotic reign of king Ferdinand VII of Spain- the reactionary monarch had restored anti-Semitic legislations after the defeat of Napoleon’s Grande Armée…
“ How do you see the Pilate reference? "Yahwe's Sicaries"? ”
I’ll tell you how.
As SECULAR rhetorical symbols, which have become part of our shared cultural heritage.
These characters appear in many Pagan as well as Christian Roman history books: they have moved away long time ago from 1st century Palestine/Judea into what is usually called Classical culture.
Now, let me ask a question:
Why is it that when say some libertine “Infidel” Western poet insults the Philistines of the world, we never hear a word of complaint from Hamas or the PLO?
Why is that when some bigoted rightwing American fascist criticizes “decadent Hollywood Moguls”, we always hear the Anti-Defamation League but never CAIR’s “homegrown Mohammedan lobby” or the Pakistani embassy in Washington?? After all, it is their sacred Islamic Califs who are being “insulted”, associated with cinematic sin, pornography and what have you!
In other word, why the double-standard?
Cordially,
V.
PS You seem to be a decent person. In a way, I’m kind of sorry we had to go through this bitter exchange…but you started it, and I’m the rancorous type- must be my (partly) Lebanese genes or something!
:))
Quote: "I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for rightwing white supremacist ideologies, nor for radical Islamic fundamentalism, a sinister Middle-Eastern school of thought based mainly on the first five books of the Bible (a.k.a. The Pentateuch or “Torah”) and the bigoted Talmudic Law of Babylon…"
ReplyDelete1. Since when is radical Islam based on the Torah and Talmud and not the Quran and Hadith?
2. What's bigoted about Talmudic Law?
3. Are you calling Judaism a sinister school of thought?
1. Since when is radical Islam based on the Torah and Talmud and not the Quran and Hadith?
ReplyDeleteSee Point N°2 below.
2. What's bigoted about Talmudic Law?
A lot.
Like the harsh criticisms of heathens and other “ignorant” gentiles
Death penalty for apostates and adulterers
The “moral” and “spiritual” inferiority of women.
The “imposture” of Yesu(s) the “wicked crook”…etc.
All these “divine truths” were later rephrased into “legitimate” (“Sahîh”) Islamic a-Hadith by Imam Al-Bukhâri.
Of course, The Anti-Defamation League will say that “In distorting the normative meanings of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers frequently remove passages from their textual and historical contexts. Even when they present their citations accurately, they judge the passages based on contemporary moral standards”
But that argument is lame for if a legal norm is truly part of an old-fashioned cum reactionary “historic context” why not abandon it altogether?
How can we persuade ultra-conservative Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to cancel the most intolerant elements of Sharia’a Law if we don’t purge the Talmud of all bigoted rules in the first place?
3. Are you calling Judaism a sinister school of thought?
No.
Why should I?
I’m just condemning some overtly racist and misogynic regulations found in the Old Testament and the Talmud of Babylon.
Contemporary Judaism in itself represents much more than the ancient Scriptures in question.
In Israel, Europe and North America, many liberal, modernist and secular Jews actually reject these old-fashioned legal norms.
On the other hand, tens of millions of Protestant (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists) and Islamic fundamentalists (e.g. Wahhabis) the world over still believe these legal norms to be the “unalterable word of God” …
2. What's bigoted about Talmudic Law?
ReplyDeleteSomeone didn't pay attention in Hebrew school.
How did this become a theological debate?! I'm not a big fan of religion myself.
ReplyDelete"Clearly, Chronos/Saturn is not depicted as a “Semite” whatever that means, but as a tormented old man devouring his victim, and, first and foremost, being devoured by fear, prejudice, hate…"
I didn't say Goya's painting is anti-Semitic, but in the context you put it there's an anti-Semitic subtext. It's always easy to say "oh no, showing this person as devouring children (and it is a child, not an adult - after all Chronos ate his kids right after they were born) is okay because it is Saturn, not the Jews he's representing in this particular context".
"I’ll tell you how.
As SECULAR rhetorical symbols, which have become part of our shared cultural heritage.
These characters appear in many Pagan as well as Christian Roman history books: they have moved away long time ago from 1st century Palestine/Judea into what is usually called Classical culture."
Look at Judas Iscariot - he has become, in a way, a secular symbol of treason, but still with a strong anti-Semitic subtext. Pilate isn't that different.
"Now, let me ask a question:
Why is it that when say some libertine “Infidel” Western poet insults the Philistines of the world, we never hear a word of complaint from Hamas or the PLO?
Why is that when some bigoted rightwing American fascist criticizes “decadent Hollywood Moguls”, we always hear the Anti-Defamation League but never CAIR’s “homegrown Mohammedan lobby” or the Pakistani embassy in Washington?? After all, it is their sacred Islamic Califs who are being “insulted”, associated with cinematic sin, pornography and what have you!
In other word, why the double-standard?"
Racism towards Arabs and Muslims is unacceptable. I believe the ADL attacks such statements as well. That Jews respond more to anti-Jewish statements than other racist statements isn't a double-standard, since they don't think the latter kind of racism is okay or any more acceptable than anti-Semitism. Why don't muslim groups respond? For one thing, I think they do. But if they don't - ask them why, not me.
I have to admit I was wrong. I'm not retracting my accusations, just saying there was no point in posting them...
Criticism is fine, even necessary. Phrases like Bushmert and Tex-Aviv are fine. I may not like them or agree with them, but it's legitimate. The anti-Semitic overtones are not acceptable.
ReplyDelete==
Fair enough too! I don't want to be scared off expressing a p.o.v. that may risk me getting tagged an anti-Semite if it is simply legit crit. Who wants to put up with that crap? I have my biggest disagreements with my best friend, but it makes for a robust friendship.
That Jews respond more to anti-Jewish statements than other racist statements isn't a double-standard, since they don't think the latter kind of racism is okay or any more acceptable than anti-Semitism. Why don't muslim groups respond? For one thing, I think they do. But if they don't - ask them why, not me.
ReplyDelete==
It may have something to do with Egypt 3000 years ago, Babelon 2500 years ago, Rome 1000 years ago, the forced european diaspora, and then on and off persecutions though the ages from the french pope 1000 years ago in persecuting the albeginsians and the jews and mulsems that co-existed peacefully with them in Langedoc to the english in the 1500s persecuting english jews, and in russia and germany more recently, the last one on an sickeningly industrial scale. With that in my mythology and history, I would be a little sensitised to potential persecution as well. But I think some Jews do turn victiumhood into an industry, and these people don't do the broader Jewish peoples any favours - boy who cried world and all that jaz