Writing Free Palestine in a busy area of London is not anti semetism. There's some examples here that aren't nice, but if out of their hundreds of events of 'anti semetism' one of the worst ones they pick out is protesting genocide then they have no credibility.
I think people who single out hate and dehumanization and violence in one spot have tunnel vision. Hate and violence is all bad. Hate is incredibly popular in drawing a crowd, but overall it is better to criticize all hate like Martin Luther King Jr. did. MLKJr would emphasize not just hate from white to blacks in USA, but all hate in the human brain in general. Too many people want to use hate as an organization tool, weaponize gangs of hate over something or another, and I'm sick of all the crossfire. With social media, it's everywhere.
This is a very serious problem. However addressing it requires context that I don't think the article provides.
First, this study was conducted by the Community Security Trust, and you can find the full report here. It's worth reading.
Thankfully, if you check page 23 we can see that murder or extreme violence were at zero. Less fortunately, they count 266 assaults and 305 threats. The vast majority of incidents -- over 4,000 -- are speech.
The Haaretz takes great pains to insist that the rise in antisemitism occurred in the week after Hamas' Oct. 7 attack but before the Israeli counter attack. I think the case they make is very thin, since I suspect the window of time is too small for reliable statistics, and this kind of attribution is notoriously subjective. Regardless, it strikes me as an attempt to dispel the obvious fact that Israeli policy fuels antisemitism around the world. To pretend otherwise is absurd.
Overall, I find it enormously frustrating as a Jewish father that many of my Zionist friends appear unwilling to reconcile the fact that for better or worse, combating antisemitism cannot be pursued while simultaneously deligitimizing criticism of Israeli crimes against humanity as pure hate speech. Additionally, we cannot operate from a starting assumption in which we believe we're entitled to and capable of achieving widespread public goodwill irrespective of the actions of Israeli leadership, the Israeli military, and western allies. That's not something that is possible.
Is it fair that all Jews must bear this burden? As an anti-zionist Jew, I get to be the first to say, "No, it's absolutely fucking not fair that I have to deal with this." And I also get to be the first to say to Zionists, "If you think it's unfair, that do something about it: stop conflating Zionism with Judaism and then complaining when gentiles get confused. Stand up against war crimes when they are perpetrated by people insisting that they speak on behalf of Jews."
I have this issue with friends. Frankly, we shouldn't need to be threatened to speak up against atrocities. But with our own safety jeopardized as well, what the hell reason is there for us to run defense for fascists like Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich? Let's protect Muslims AND ourselves by making clear: they don't speak for us.
Absent that, it's hard to take concerns about antisemitism from people who won't do that seriously. If you cared, you join me in trying to actually do the obvious first step to improve this terrible situations for world Jews.
What about antisemitism before 1947? If the present rise in antisemitism is rooted in Israeli governmental policy, then before there was an Israeli government, by that logic there should be no cause for antisemitism. Yet, we all know too well how untrue that statement is.
If the present rise in antisemitism is rooted in Israeli governmental policy, then before there was an Israeli government, by that logic there should be no cause for antisemitism.
I don't think the premise you opened with there holds water.
Historically it's not unusual for there to be rises in something everpresent, that are triggered by events.
@philo I don't think I did. You're conflating the existance of antisemitism with the rise (increase) in antisemitism.
What is "it" in this sentence: the existence or the rise:
blaming Israel for it now
I don't think there's anything in @andrewrgross's post to suggest they think that antisemitism is a modern phenomenon created by Israel. That would be a very peculiar position.
One last try before I write you off. Antisemitism exists regardless of the existence of Israel. there have been many rises in antisemitism throughout history ALL BEFORE 1947 so Israel's governmental policy can't be blamed. They all had differing causes though. If the cause can be random, how can you blame a government when it is obvious the cause is something much deeper.
There's a lake in my town which exists (antisemitism).
The reason it exists is it is fed by a stream (deep-rooted cultural antisemitist sentiment as a cultural practice that uses desire to scapegoat, etc).
However, events such as storms, droughts, human water use (crusades, nazism, nakba) have caused this lake to rise higher or lower over the years.
To acknowledge that events contribute to the rise or the fall of the water level is not the same as claiming that the events are the cause of it existing per se.
The reason it exists is it is fed by a stream (deep-rooted cultural antisemitist sentiment as a cultural practice that uses desire to scapegoat, etc).
Wait, what part of this seems flippant? That seems to me like a succinct and accurate characterization of the enduring presence of antisemitism since antiquity. I don't see anything dismissive about this.
Von den Juden und ihren Lügen {On The Jews And Their Lies) is a little 65K word book that will show you how trite that statement is. BTW, if you didn't know. that little tome was written by the father of the protestant reformation Martin Luther and it was used as a major means of justification for the holocaust. So cultural, no, that doesn't cut it. Nice try though but it falls way short of the mark.
If you think someone is making light of a serious situation and you want people to know that, I think you should say it in words. Speaking for myself, I'm not making light of anything, and that characterization seemed respectful. I'm not sure what part you read as glib or jokey, and your response when asked to clarify seems needlessly cryptic.
I do this sometimes, all of my arguments have been countered, but I'm so sure I'm right. I'm probably just phrasing it wrong or thinking too slow, yeah thats it.
If I don't realize what I'm doing I'll go spend the next hour trying to solve the puzzle of "what I could have said to win the argument".
Hopefully they come back and think on it again when they are less defensive.
If the present rise in antisemitism is rooted in Israeli governmental policy, then before there was an Israeli government, by that logic there should be no cause for antisemitism.
I'm not sure if I should take these seriously. I don't think observing that Israeli policy has implications for how people view and behave towards Jews suggests that antisemitism was created several years after the Holocaust happened.
Would the inverse be true? Does the existence of antisemitism in prechristian times suggest that the blood libel conspiracies couldn't have any influence on antisemitism in medieval Europe?
I want to point out for context that in 2019, the American Jewish Electorate survey found that a quarter of American Jews considered Israel to be an apartheid state, and 22% of American Jews thought that the treatment of Palestinians constituted a genocide. That was where American Jews were half a decade ago.
That should have been a huge canary in the coal mine. When the survey results came out, the established Zionist institutions insisted it was some sort of error in the way the data was collected. What that was telling us is now clear: the Likud party's leadership was able to maintain support among political leaders, but they'd already overdrawn our store of goodwill YEARS ago. Oct. 7 just brought this all back into the news, and now we're dealing with a loss of reputation that had been building slowly for years.
That doesn't account for the rise in antisemitism we've seen in the last four months, but I think it contributes heavily to the loss of allies who previously served as a crucial bulwark against antisemitism.
I’m not sure if I should take these seriously. I don’t think observing that Israeli policy has implications for how people view and behave towards Jews suggests that antisemitism was created several years after the Holocaust happened.
You missed the point Andrew. I'm saying antisemitism existed prior to 1947. Therefore its existence (and also its rise) can't be squarely placed on Israel
Would the inverse be true? Does the existence of antisemitism in prechristian times suggest that the blood libel conspiracies couldn’t have any influence on antisemitism in medieval Europe?
Show me an example of any actual acts of pre-Christian antisemitism.
I think this is taking us way off topic, but I'll answer.
First, I think you're making a key logical misstep. This isn't actually relevant, but it's bugging me:
If antisemitism existed prior to Israel, than Israel cannot be responsible for its invention. Logically sound.
If antisemitism existed prior to Israel, than Israel cannot be responsible for its rise. Logically unsound.
This is separate from the fact that I don't actually think Israeli policy fosters antisemitism. My working theory is that most antisemitism exists for other awful reasons, but is held at bay by the high cultural standing of Jews, the strength of our social ties to allies, and the protections afforded to us by democratic, multi ethnic societies. Israel's actions damage all three, which erode the foundations of our defenses.
Second: The story of Esther; The story of Hanukkah; the destruction of the first temple; the destruction of the second temple. And on and on and on.
Like... I'm sorry but what? Did you think we were just having a good time for thousands of years and then people started persecuting Jews in the common era? That makes no sense dude. What does your Sedar look like?
I think part of the problem is that for the longest time antisemites had to rely on complete lies to push their propaganda, which mostly worked best when there was a crisis that could be blamed on "the Jews". The current actions of the Israeli government does two things: firstly it causes valid criticism of these actions and secondly it allows antisemites to use this valid criticism to push their antisemitic views but this time having to lie less (note that there are still lies involved and blaming the entirety of the Jews for anything the Israeli government does is obviously bullshit).
So I agree with you: The actual reason for a rise in antisemitism is not the Israeli government. But the current actions of the Israeli government help antisemites push their views. These two things often get conflated into the statement "Israel is causing antisemitism".
Well, that's the rub. Lighting candles or throwing water onto people's foreheads isn't Judaism nor Christianity.
I believe that very many people, who claim to be either Jewish or Christian, do not have the fundamental knowledge of their own faith traditions. To be even more specific, they have no clue what the core of their faith tradition teaches.
I've been studying academic biblical scholarship for around thirty years, so that is why I can speak to this issue. I could go on and on about this subject matter and I may make some in-depth posts about it in the future.
I suppose reading the article before commenting may help. The rise in antisemitism came BEFORE Israel did anything after Hamas' attack. But if you meant the Hamas attack was an attempted genocide I sincerely apologize but you are wrong, it was just a cowardly attack as all terrorist attacks are.