The Guardian allows Uri Dromi - a former IDF spokesman - to present Israel's version of the use of various weapons in Gaza. By this stage of the story, this is no longer enough to exonerate the Guardian from the accusation of fomenting antisemitism and being antisemitic in their editorial line and ethos, though as I've said in the past, the Guardian is indeed better than the worst Jew haters in the Arab world: they live in a democracy and still go through the motions of allowing multiple voices.
The readers of CiF, however, have no such compunctions. If you want to plumb the cesspool of Western Jew hatred, the comments at Comment is Free is a fine place to start.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"If you want to plumb the cesspool of Western Jew hatred, the comments at Comment is Free is a fine place to start."
Thanks, but No thanks. I have really had enough of that by now.
Perhaps you can explain something in a future blog post. I'm curious as to why you call the Guardian anti-Semitic versus anti-Israel. I'm not challenging the assertion -- in fact I'm inclined to agree. But I would appreciate if you could explain the reasoning behind it, as it is part of a debate I am hearing more often. The opposing viewpoint appears to be "One can be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic..."
D. Smith,
You can certainly criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. BUT, first, read Dr. Lozowick's post on judenstaatrein a couple of posts down and second, the majority of criticism of Israel is for conduct which is far less onerous than conduct of other countries. And the other countries are never criticized. The point is that Israel is held to a different standard than anyone else. The reason for that is based in bigotry. When one doesn't like Jews generally, the criticism of a Jewish state is then justified by saying that one is merely criticizing the actions of Israel when his true desire is the destrucion of Israel and Jews.
Joe5348
Actually, Dr. Smith, your own formulation provides the answer. One can criticize Israel without being antisemitic, but one cannot BE anti-Israel or anti-zionist without being antisemitic.
That would be like saying "I'm anti-Vatican but I'm not anti-Catholic". It would be an absurd statement that could only be supported by silly rationalizations, which is what one sees in these situations.
So the only question left is whether the Guardian is in fact anti-Israel or is only a critic of Israel.
The anti-Israel comments are unusually vitriolic and dismiss any alternative point of view. They don't want to hear any suggestion that Israel really isn't as bad as all that. So, if they're anti-Israel comments they're from people who really don't like Israel - not its actions: the country itself.
I guess you could say that there are people who dislike France or Germany without being anti-French or anti-German except by derivation: they dislike Quebecois because they associate them with France; Alsatians because they associate them with Germany. I think it's clear that the commentators' associations run the opposite way: they sarcastically write things like "oy veh" and "mazaltov" to associate Israel's actions with Jews as a whole.
But let's suppose that the obsession of these commentators doesn't flow from 2,000 years of antisemitism but is really based on the fact that they have chosen to detest Israel for reasons other than Israel's national identity. I can't think of any reason for this, but let's suppose. Would this be any better? Should we think any more highly of someone who is obsessed with hating France than of someone obsessed with hating Francophones? I don't think so.
Dr. Lozowick,
Today, Juan Cole is complaining that the Guardian is not sufficiently anti-Israel because it published this piece.
Joe5348
Dr. Lozowick,
Today, Juan Cole is complaining that the Guardian is not sufficiently anti-Israel because it published this piece.
Joe5348
Post a Comment