Yes, I would prefer to do away with "antisemitism" and focus on things like defamation and incitement--which could be adjudicated, and which there is plenty of. I've significantly minimized my use of the term, but find I can't do away with it altogether--there are certain kinds of claims, like, e.g., that Jews working in the towers were told to stay home on 9/11, that are so singular and monstrous that they require a special term.
The problem I have is the very word "antisemitic." At this stage, it can mean pretty much anything, and it is used to defend the kind of corruption that you point out in the article.
If I think it is stupid for America to be spending millions of dollars to help Israel, I am an "antisemite."
If I, as a Catholic, believe that the Mosaic Law does not save and that the Talmud contains blasphemous language about important figures in Christianity, I am an "antisemite."
If I point out how the Holocaust has been used as a victimary narrative to justify everything from allowing transvestite men into women's restrooms to mass immigration and thus seek to question the assumptions of this narrative, I am somehow "downplaying the Holocaust" (despite questioning neither historicity nor the injustice of Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews) and am thus an "antisemite."
Yes, I would prefer to do away with "antisemitism" and focus on things like defamation and incitement--which could be adjudicated, and which there is plenty of. I've significantly minimized my use of the term, but find I can't do away with it altogether--there are certain kinds of claims, like, e.g., that Jews working in the towers were told to stay home on 9/11, that are so singular and monstrous that they require a special term.
Placing Jews at the center of the world's narrative (as the current meme has it, "only Jews do things"). And it's bad because it's false, delusional and incitement to violence.
I don't think the article you put out is serious, then, as most serious commenters on Jewish influence believe "only Jews do things" or put them at "the center of the world's narrative." It goes without saying that if you try to refute a position that nobody believes in, you refute nobody.
I think there are much stronger arguments against antisemitism, but a failure to acknowledge that some Jewish people are doing bad things only exacerbates it. And using facetious arguments to "debunk" them only fuels them. The recent debacle with Douglas Murray is a good example. He goes on Joe Rogan's podcast and chastises him for having on people espousing bad views, bad views he can neither articulate nor refute.
Obviously, if I point out that American Zionists exercise a considerable part of our foreign policy with regards to the Middle East, pointing it out is not antisemitic (you sarcastically ask, "What is the "Jewish interest" in American China policy, for example?" Well, look at what Donald Trump's administration is doing, and, at the very least, those Jews are very interested in doing whatever he's been doing right now).
Antisemitism is wrong because it dehumanizes Jews by making the entire race a scapegoat. Antisemites point to the behavior of corrupt Jews in the government and claim that this says something about my Jewish neighbor across the street. It points to broad trends in Israel and claims that they represent Jews in America, or vice versa. It is not wrong to criticize Jewish behavior or Jewish culture. People do it all the time with the behavior and cultures of other ethno-religious groups.
If you think that some of these criticisms are wrong-headed, then take a look at them and then show why it's wrong. And if they cannot refute you except by making accusations of ethnic self-interest, then you have decisively disproven them (for the accusation cuts against them greater than it does you).
I am a fan of your work, and I hope to continue talking about this at greater length. I would like to hear more of your takes on this topic. Personally? I think that the sooner Jews and non-Jews can come together as friends, the better. Friendship cannot be built on lies and snarky quips but on trust. And I think there has been a lot of lost trust between Jews and other groups, which feeds into antisemitism.
Exercising influence is not wrong, though. The point of asking what is the Jewish interest in, say, China policy, is to make the point that the influence of pro-Israel and Jewish groups is very specific, targeted and limited--and part of webs of influence including lots of other groups and interests. (And you seem to think that question is not worth asking but what, in fact, does Trump's current China policy have to do with Jews, Jewish interests or Jewish influence? Nothing at all that I can see. He's working on a much bigger canvas.) I don't see any reason to believe that Jews behave badly more often or more egregiously than anyone else. I don't know of anyone who claims that criticizing Jewish individuals or Israeli actions is in itself antisemitic.So, if I try to figure out what, exactly, people are accusing Jews of it's very hard to put my finger on it. Most people making such accusations do create a kind of virtual world in which only Jews are doing things--not, for example, the US defense establishment, which also has interests. Nor do I think relations between Jews and others have changed recently, so I don't see any break-down in trust. Other than some online right-wingers the only point of conflict is with leftists and, in particular, pro-Palestine leftists, increasingly informed by Muslim activists who are not so interested in distinguishing "antisemitic" from "anti-Zionist." But if people just did propose a different US policy approach to Israel or the Middle East more generally I wouldn't call that antisemitic--unless, at the end of the argument we find an insinuation that "Israel owns Congress" or "Trump is a puppet of Netanyahu," or whatever--which is pretty common.
One thing I would like to do is shift the Jewish community from left to right, which is a question of disentangling certain ethnic traditions in the US in particular (Jews are not particularly leftist elsewhere), especially, and unbelievably, going back to loyalty to FDR. But the leftist Jews won't stay Jews for more than a generation or two, while observatn Jews will increase their proportion of the population--and they are not leftists.
The question is not worth asking because it's aimed at a straw man. I know of no commentator about Jewish influence in Congress who goes around saying that Israel/Zionism is distorting our policies regarding the Chinese. The problem they point out is that our policies regarding Israel are not in line with what is good for America but what is good for Israel -- and these are not always aligned. So for you to ask, "What is the Jewish interest in China policy?" is facetious on its face.
You say that you "don't know of anyone who claims that criticizing Jewish individuals or Israeli actions is in itself antisemitic." The United States Department of State defines as "antisemitism" as: accusing any Jewish citizen of having greater loyalty to Israel or his own people than the United States, comparing Israel's policies to Nazi Germany's in any way, claiming the Jews killed Jesus (which is something that the Gospels depict as having happened), or in any way 'denying' the Holocaust (which they define very broadly). These are listed alongside calling for violence against Jews or blaming Jews as a people for the actions of Jewish individuals or groups as being paradigmatic examples of antisemitism.
I remember you once wrote about racism something to the effect that if something is racist but true, then what is the use of the word in question? We can apply it to antisemitism as well. I think both words are attempting to describe real phenomena, but their definitions have been expanded to justify censorship and discredit ideas that go against victimary narratives.
Our areas of agreement, though, I think it would be first to tell you that any person who obsesses over Jewish influence in Congress, however much it exists, is going to be dreadfully annoying to deal with, and I wish you my condolences if you've ever talked ot such people. I consider myself lucky not to have come across people who have such a conspiratorial and irrational view of Jews.
I think your endeavor to shift Jews to the right wing has merit. That said, one snag in your plan might be how these converts aggressively gatekeep the right wing when they shift over. We've seen this in Gentile converts to more right-wing ideas - in many cases, it's caused by such people still being essentially left-wing. However, even longstanding members of the right can fall victim to this impulse. A recent example is Douglas Murray on the Joe Rogan podcast. Demanding that one censor or dismiss those who are "antisemitic" or "woke right" without being able to articulate why they should be dismissed only fuels the resentment and reinforces antisemitic narratives, which will be an obstacle to your goal.
In my opinion, having Jews who can talk honestly with Gentiles about ethnic issues as equals would go a long way to mitigating such resentment. And certainly, if Gentle right-wingers become less suspicious of Jewish right-wingers, I think that will go a long way to lessening the purchase of antisemitism on the right, making it a welcoming place for Jewish people.
Yes, I would prefer to do away with "antisemitism" and focus on things like defamation and incitement--which could be adjudicated, and which there is plenty of. I've significantly minimized my use of the term, but find I can't do away with it altogether--there are certain kinds of claims, like, e.g., that Jews working in the towers were told to stay home on 9/11, that are so singular and monstrous that they require a special term.
The problem I have is the very word "antisemitic." At this stage, it can mean pretty much anything, and it is used to defend the kind of corruption that you point out in the article.
If I think it is stupid for America to be spending millions of dollars to help Israel, I am an "antisemite."
If I, as a Catholic, believe that the Mosaic Law does not save and that the Talmud contains blasphemous language about important figures in Christianity, I am an "antisemite."
If I point out how the Holocaust has been used as a victimary narrative to justify everything from allowing transvestite men into women's restrooms to mass immigration and thus seek to question the assumptions of this narrative, I am somehow "downplaying the Holocaust" (despite questioning neither historicity nor the injustice of Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews) and am thus an "antisemite."
Yes, I would prefer to do away with "antisemitism" and focus on things like defamation and incitement--which could be adjudicated, and which there is plenty of. I've significantly minimized my use of the term, but find I can't do away with it altogether--there are certain kinds of claims, like, e.g., that Jews working in the towers were told to stay home on 9/11, that are so singular and monstrous that they require a special term.
The answer is to properly define what we're talking about when we talk about a thing.
What is "antisemitism"? And what makes it bad?
Placing Jews at the center of the world's narrative (as the current meme has it, "only Jews do things"). And it's bad because it's false, delusional and incitement to violence.
I don't think the article you put out is serious, then, as most serious commenters on Jewish influence believe "only Jews do things" or put them at "the center of the world's narrative." It goes without saying that if you try to refute a position that nobody believes in, you refute nobody.
I think there are much stronger arguments against antisemitism, but a failure to acknowledge that some Jewish people are doing bad things only exacerbates it. And using facetious arguments to "debunk" them only fuels them. The recent debacle with Douglas Murray is a good example. He goes on Joe Rogan's podcast and chastises him for having on people espousing bad views, bad views he can neither articulate nor refute.
Obviously, if I point out that American Zionists exercise a considerable part of our foreign policy with regards to the Middle East, pointing it out is not antisemitic (you sarcastically ask, "What is the "Jewish interest" in American China policy, for example?" Well, look at what Donald Trump's administration is doing, and, at the very least, those Jews are very interested in doing whatever he's been doing right now).
Antisemitism is wrong because it dehumanizes Jews by making the entire race a scapegoat. Antisemites point to the behavior of corrupt Jews in the government and claim that this says something about my Jewish neighbor across the street. It points to broad trends in Israel and claims that they represent Jews in America, or vice versa. It is not wrong to criticize Jewish behavior or Jewish culture. People do it all the time with the behavior and cultures of other ethno-religious groups.
If you think that some of these criticisms are wrong-headed, then take a look at them and then show why it's wrong. And if they cannot refute you except by making accusations of ethnic self-interest, then you have decisively disproven them (for the accusation cuts against them greater than it does you).
I am a fan of your work, and I hope to continue talking about this at greater length. I would like to hear more of your takes on this topic. Personally? I think that the sooner Jews and non-Jews can come together as friends, the better. Friendship cannot be built on lies and snarky quips but on trust. And I think there has been a lot of lost trust between Jews and other groups, which feeds into antisemitism.
Exercising influence is not wrong, though. The point of asking what is the Jewish interest in, say, China policy, is to make the point that the influence of pro-Israel and Jewish groups is very specific, targeted and limited--and part of webs of influence including lots of other groups and interests. (And you seem to think that question is not worth asking but what, in fact, does Trump's current China policy have to do with Jews, Jewish interests or Jewish influence? Nothing at all that I can see. He's working on a much bigger canvas.) I don't see any reason to believe that Jews behave badly more often or more egregiously than anyone else. I don't know of anyone who claims that criticizing Jewish individuals or Israeli actions is in itself antisemitic.So, if I try to figure out what, exactly, people are accusing Jews of it's very hard to put my finger on it. Most people making such accusations do create a kind of virtual world in which only Jews are doing things--not, for example, the US defense establishment, which also has interests. Nor do I think relations between Jews and others have changed recently, so I don't see any break-down in trust. Other than some online right-wingers the only point of conflict is with leftists and, in particular, pro-Palestine leftists, increasingly informed by Muslim activists who are not so interested in distinguishing "antisemitic" from "anti-Zionist." But if people just did propose a different US policy approach to Israel or the Middle East more generally I wouldn't call that antisemitic--unless, at the end of the argument we find an insinuation that "Israel owns Congress" or "Trump is a puppet of Netanyahu," or whatever--which is pretty common.
One thing I would like to do is shift the Jewish community from left to right, which is a question of disentangling certain ethnic traditions in the US in particular (Jews are not particularly leftist elsewhere), especially, and unbelievably, going back to loyalty to FDR. But the leftist Jews won't stay Jews for more than a generation or two, while observatn Jews will increase their proportion of the population--and they are not leftists.
The question is not worth asking because it's aimed at a straw man. I know of no commentator about Jewish influence in Congress who goes around saying that Israel/Zionism is distorting our policies regarding the Chinese. The problem they point out is that our policies regarding Israel are not in line with what is good for America but what is good for Israel -- and these are not always aligned. So for you to ask, "What is the Jewish interest in China policy?" is facetious on its face.
You say that you "don't know of anyone who claims that criticizing Jewish individuals or Israeli actions is in itself antisemitic." The United States Department of State defines as "antisemitism" as: accusing any Jewish citizen of having greater loyalty to Israel or his own people than the United States, comparing Israel's policies to Nazi Germany's in any way, claiming the Jews killed Jesus (which is something that the Gospels depict as having happened), or in any way 'denying' the Holocaust (which they define very broadly). These are listed alongside calling for violence against Jews or blaming Jews as a people for the actions of Jewish individuals or groups as being paradigmatic examples of antisemitism.
I remember you once wrote about racism something to the effect that if something is racist but true, then what is the use of the word in question? We can apply it to antisemitism as well. I think both words are attempting to describe real phenomena, but their definitions have been expanded to justify censorship and discredit ideas that go against victimary narratives.
Our areas of agreement, though, I think it would be first to tell you that any person who obsesses over Jewish influence in Congress, however much it exists, is going to be dreadfully annoying to deal with, and I wish you my condolences if you've ever talked ot such people. I consider myself lucky not to have come across people who have such a conspiratorial and irrational view of Jews.
I think your endeavor to shift Jews to the right wing has merit. That said, one snag in your plan might be how these converts aggressively gatekeep the right wing when they shift over. We've seen this in Gentile converts to more right-wing ideas - in many cases, it's caused by such people still being essentially left-wing. However, even longstanding members of the right can fall victim to this impulse. A recent example is Douglas Murray on the Joe Rogan podcast. Demanding that one censor or dismiss those who are "antisemitic" or "woke right" without being able to articulate why they should be dismissed only fuels the resentment and reinforces antisemitic narratives, which will be an obstacle to your goal.
In my opinion, having Jews who can talk honestly with Gentiles about ethnic issues as equals would go a long way to mitigating such resentment. And certainly, if Gentle right-wingers become less suspicious of Jewish right-wingers, I think that will go a long way to lessening the purchase of antisemitism on the right, making it a welcoming place for Jewish people.