The government continues its silence on Israel’s killing of a further nine Palestinians on Friday at the Gaza border, including journalist Yasser Murtaja who was wearing a press vest when shot by an Israel Defence Force sniper. Nothing from Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, no feeble expression of concern from the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is notionally committed to press freedom around the world; the normally frequent tweets from Australian ambassador Chris Cannan about how wonderful Israel is, strangely paused.
Nor was there any comment on Israel Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s insistence that “There are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip. Everyone’s connected to Hamas, everyone gets a salary from Hamas.” It’s only 18 months since Julie Bishop was boasting of meeting with Lieberman to discuss “bilateral cooperation”.
Any sympathy for the plight of Palestinians isn’t a vote winner, and actually worse than that: it could — for any politician who was prepared to say something — potentially risk themselves as being perceived as being antisemitic.
You can be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic (especially as Semitic refers to a region/ethnicity, not a religion). Heck, I personally know of *hundreds* of Jews-inside & outside of Israel-who are deeply opposed to the Occupation of Palestinian land, & the ongoing oppression of Palestinians by Israeli extremists.
The history of antisemitism, defined as hostile actions or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group, goes back many centuries, with antisemitism being called “the longest hatred”.[1] Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:[2]
Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was—at least in its classical form—nuanced, in that Jews were a protected class
Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism
Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the new antisemitism
Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: “ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries”.[2]
In practice, it is difficult to differentiate antisemitism from the general ill-treatment of nations by other nations before the Roman period, but since the adoption of Christianity in Europe, antisemitism has undoubtedly been present. The Islamic world has also seen the Jews historically as outsiders. The coming of the scientific and industrial revolution in 19th-century Europe bred a new manifestation of antisemitism, based as much upon race as upon religion, culminating in the horrors of the Nazi extermination camps of World War II. The formation of the state of Israel in 1948 has created new antisemitic tensions in the Middle East.
anti-Semitism (n.)
also antisemitism, 1881, from German Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite.
Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try Hermann Adler’s Judaeophobia (1881). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the “Athenaeum” of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature. Jew-hatred is attested from 1881. As an adjective, anti-Jewish is from 1817.
In addition to Martin’s comment (and it ought to be anti Jewish and not antisemitic – see previous posts on this topic) Julie has her instructions; not in so many words but like a sub editor for Murdoch she (and the department) know(s) “which way is up”.
Interesting that the Kurds are “in”, even with Donald, but the Palestinians are “out”. Of late the country has been banging on about Myanmar. Consistency in politics? Its almost a contradiction.
Interesting to observe that even Crikey “vets” (embargoes) comments regarding Israel (as of 90 seconds ago). On the one hand I am flatted but, on the other, as with the Dept Foreign Affairs, we can’t be to careful with this matter can we?
Hmm, how can I state the bleeding obvious without being ‘anti-semetic’ towards one of the most xenophobic cultures on this planet? Nup,…, got nothin to say.
“Hmm, how can I state the bleeding obvious without being ‘anti-semetic’ towards one of the most xenophobic cultures on this planet? Nup,…, got nothin to say.”
Have you been to that “xenophobic” country? Thought not. Israel is the most diversely cultural country in the world.
One of the few countries besides Australia and the US that took in Vietnamese refugees. Airlifts entire communities of black Africans and assimilates them. Russian, Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, Moroccan, Lybian, Egyptian, Philipino, Chinese, Tunisian, Spanish, French, German, Polish, Scandinavian, Greek, Italian, Indian, Seiks, Copts, Bahi, Kurds, Yemenite, all these communities and more are represented in Israeli culture and you call Israel Xenophobic?
Someone got bit by the big ignorant monster. Big talk from a very little mind.
Israel has become the Germany of the 1930s.
The tendency of Palestinian supporters to go straight for the most offensive comparison doesn’t alleviate the general suspicion, even from people like me who were protesting “Sharon the Butcher”‘s action in Lebanon before this became a popular left-wing cause, that there’s an awful lot of genuine anti-Jewish sentiment gleefully hiding beneath the cloak of respectability.
“I’m not anti-Jewish, I’m anti-Zionist” has a definite tendency to sound like “I’m not a racist, but…”.
You have only to look at the reporting of the actions of the likes of George W Bush, or Berlusconi, or Trump. The warmonger, or the corruption, is attributed to the leader, not to the entire people. When it’s Israel, instead of going after the corrupt war criminal Netanyahu, the criticism is almost unanimously aimed at the people of Israel. I find it hard to reconcile that fact with the criticism all being entirely above board.
What a complete load of utter nonsense. The Zionists are a particular POLITICAL MOVEMENT, they’re not an ethnicity. So your attempts to relate that to being anti-Jewish is a lot of bunk. I oppose the ongoing, deliberate theft of Palestinian Land, in contravention of International Law, that Zionism stands for. Look up the term Ersatz Israel, & tell me that it doesn’t sound disturbingly like Hitler’s Greater Reich plan from the 1930’s.
Also, note that the person who posted this comment says “Germany of the 1930’s”, not “Germany of the Holocaust Period”. The comment is obviously made to act as a warning of the path that the Israeli leadership is currently headed down.
Lastly, I bet if you told the average Israeli how much those unproductive Jewish Settlements are costing the nation, they’d probably oppose them too.
“Ersatz Israel”?
Not an inaccurate concept but I think that you meant ‘Eretz Israel’, which is their “Promised Land, from the Great River (Nile) to the Euphrates”, as in the Passover pledge, “next year in Jerusalem”.
Sorry, yes. I spelt it wrong. It is still a concept all too similar to the Greater Reich of 1930’s Germany….& definitely impacts Israel’s policies towards its neighbours.
So, you think that extremely provocative expansionism, thumbing the nose at International Law & murdering innocent civilians who get in the way is *nothing* like Germany of the 1930’s? If so, then you’re either blind or slightly ignorant. Not sure which. Your entire argument just comes across as apologist BS to me. Indeed, you sound like a “Concern Troll” to me.
Working Definition of Antisemitism…..
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states:
“With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia, the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
This definition has been adopted by The Australian Government as well as The US, The UK, The EU, Canada as well as many other institutions and political parties including the Britsh Labour Party.
Some of the examples regarding Israel, the only Jewish State are……
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Racists, xenophobes and bigots do not get to define antisemitism.
In large measure the content of your post illustrates the issue. In point of fact the “a” word pertains to the geographical region from Lebanon to Morocco. The “h” word has also been hi-jacked not withstanding the proceedings of Stalin an Mao here the instance in Germany/Poland remained in single figures of the unit (millions).
Second point is that there are some subscribers who make a distinction between the political movement of the 1890s and the current inhabitants of the created state in ’48.
Following on, it might have been anticipated that there would be some consistency between the Kurds and those who even the UN has found in their favour (not that it did much good). Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the UN would create such a state nowadays.
The most annoying aspect of the discussions on this topic is the evident lack of reading – indeed utter disinterest in reading authoritative sources. On a good day I might include Henry K. but only up to a point.
An understanding of Ottoman rule, the British Mandate and the work of Horowitz, Oz (i.e. Amos) Khaladi and Roger Owen would be a start. For popular culture there are an increasing list of female writers from the region. My advice to anyone is flick through a few of the mentioned and then post (and here I include an employee or two of Crikey).
The flaw in your argument is that you call Zionism a political movement. The proper definition of Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to practice self-determination in their ancestral homeland of Israel. That is it. It is not a political movement or a philosophy. It’s a belief and a basic human right. Reading something into what is not there does not make it comparable to Nasizm or Socialism or Fascism. The cries of the anti-ism brigade forget about Buddhism etc and tar any ism with the same brush. I am Jewish and I believe in Zionism, as most Jews do.
Another point is that the UN did not create the Stae of Israel. The UN does not create states, it not that kind of organisation. The UN did not allow Israel to be. It did not give the Jews permission. All the UN did, was to agree with a consensus.
“The most annoying aspect of the discussions on this topic is the evident lack of reading”, your words, pity you don’t take your own advice.
Israel did not happen because of the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because there was no Israel.
Israel exists and a lot of people don’t like that fact. Israel has been fighting for its existence for over a hundred years. You would think that some people would just accept that reality. The world stood by while millions of Jews were killed in Europe. Now that is Israel exists, people are trying to stop it from defending its citizens.
To all those that have an ill-informed opinion on Israel. It’s time to let Israel alone. If you don’t wish to assist, get out of the way because you are not helping. To all those that use the Palestinian course as an excuse, you’re not helping, you’re making it worse.
My advice to you is take your own advice and get educated. You are not as well informed as you think you are.
LOL. Demanding that Israel obey international law & its various treaty obligations is *not* racist or antisemitic.
BTW, murdering people inside of occupied territory-land they illegally settled-is not defence, it is murder. Claiming the land is part of Israel is no different to Hitler Claiming Poland & Austria were part of Germany.
Marcus Hicks – Thanks for proving my point.
Can you cite the International laws that Israel is breaking? Can you prove the occupation? Where is the proof Israel has stolen land? Show me how Israel has broken treaties or any international laws. Just saying it doesn’t make it true. You have to be able to prove your claims. Not just repeat tropes.
This is the problem with those that think they know it all. It is a very complicated subject and generalisations are not evidence. Anti Israel tropes are not conclusive proof of anything. Assumptions based on misleading quotes are not history.
Get back to me when you understand the true history and nuances of the conflict, without relying on propaganda to do so.
As for what laws Israel is breaking: they invaded & continue to occupy the western portion of Jordan, what is known as The Left Bank. The movement of populations into an occupied territory is a direct violation Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Their use of collective punishment against the Palestinian People is a violation of Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Their refusal to allow the return of the Palestinians they drove out in 1947-1948 is a violation of Article 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Israel is also in violation of 30 separate UN resolutions, including Security Council resolutions 478 & 479-both of which declare the annexation of the West Bank & Golan Heights a violation of International Law.
Regarding the recent topic of “Peterson” you criticised a post citing a lack of tolerance : 8 Oct. 12:12. Then there is the remark about me taking my own advice. Well, mate, I *did* provide references yet you provided nothing. Now to the specifics.
If Zionism was not a political movement then just what kind of movement was it. Zionism has NO support from Orthodox Jewry. It wasn’t for Grunion to provide a State as far as they were concerned. Moreover, the Zionists considered almost anywhere from NW Australia to Uganda for a location.
The construction of Israel most certainly DID occur via the UN – along with the British “opting out” Just read the history and associated declarations. Read Grunion’s speech on the point.
The influence of the National-Socialists occurred on account of Versailles AND the hyper-inflation of the 20s; the two not being entirely independent.
Without WWI there would have been no League or (later) the UN. Your explanation as to the cause of the State coming into existence is just plain weird.
It seems to me that you have paid a subscription with expectation of picking fights. You seem about as interested in a a discussion as Netanyahu is in discontinuing the settlements (which have been declared illegal by the way).
As to your question (9 Oct 12:33) Wikipedia will do fine along with my references. There are others. However, as to “stolen” – with auspices of the
UN its a moot point – hence the remark (in my original post) of the process being untenable nowadays.
Last point : Having spent a bit if time in the region I can say that Passover appears as a damned odd irony for those with a sense of history and whom had relatives in Germany in the 30s.
“Marcus Hicks
October 9, 2018 at 1:20 pm
As for what laws Israel is breaking: they invaded & continue to occupy the western portion of Jordan, what is known as The Left Bank. The movement of populations into an occupied territory is a direct violation Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Their use of collective punishment against the Palestinian People is a violation of Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Their refusal to allow the return of the Palestinians they drove out in 1947-1948 is a violation of Article 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Israel is also in violation of 30 separate UN resolutions, including Security Council resolutions 478 & 479-both of which declare the annexation of the West Bank & Golan Heights a violation of International Law.”
Jordan invaded Israel with 4 other Arab countries the day after Israel declared independence. They occupied East Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Judea (west bank) and ethnically cleansed Jews, burnt synagogues and they occupied Judea for 18 years until Israel liberated it in 1967.
Jordan never created a Palestinian state in that time and let the Arab population suffer in refugee camps.
In the peace talks with Israel, Jordan relinquished all claims to the occupies territories.
If Jordan relinquished the land in a peace agreement, how can Isreal be the occupier?
Learn this history and stop making claims based on propaganda and tropes. All you do is show ignorance for the real history.
By the way, UN resolutions are mear suggestions. They hold no legal weight, do not constitute international law and are mostly ignored by every member state. Just last year the UN made a resolution against the Australian Government about Naru, It was ignored.
So, as I asked you, cite the international laws that Israel in breach of. Cite the breaches of the Geneva convention. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it fact. Prove it! I know you can’t. So until you can properly discuss this very difficult topic, shut up and learn something.
“The tendency of Palestinian supporters to go straight for the most offensive comparison” – Arky, this is a bit hard to swallow when every Israeli supporter (and there are far more of them) go straight to the Hitler comparison for anyone who doesn’t support them 100%.
There are plenty of Jews who don’t identify with the policies of Israel or even consider it their home or representation – especially given their behaviour. So you a completely wrong when you state you can’t separate Judaism and Zionism which has no religious basis. In many cases Israel makes a poor reflection on Jews as a whole through its racists, aggressive and apartheid practices – one that many try to distance themselves from.
I have, “winner again!”, another embargoed comment (by Crikey) that conveys much the same thing but I have taken a different approach to you, Cruuze.
Your generalizations are great. Every Israeli supporter goes straight to Hitler, eh?
I don’t identify with the policies of Israel or consider it my home either, but I know history, and history says people find ways to demonize the entire Jewish people while pretending that’s not what they’re doing. I have no problem attacking Netanyahu, Lieberman and co for their awful policies. Arrest them as war criminals, please. Sharon was a war criminal too. Attack them. Going after the entire state of Israel, as the “anti-Zionists” tend to do, well, I don’t agree with that at all anymore than I think America should be disbanded for its treatment of Native Americans or Australia should be disbanded for its treatment of Indigenous Australians.
More apologist garbage there. Nobody is comparing *all* Jews to Hitler. Heck, not even *all* Israelis. By contrast, Israel & its boosters (like you) are quick to label *all* non-Jewish critics of Israeli policies as “anti-Semitic” & all Jewish critics of Israeli policies as “self-hating Jews”.
None of Israel’s critics, to my knowledge, have demanded that Israel be disbanded-in spite of its numerous crimes against humanity & violations of international law-but have demanded that the Right of Return for Palestinians be officially recognised & that all settlements in the West Bank be dismantled (as they directly violate International Law).
Marcus Hicks
Zionist Fascists?
Yes. Zionists are extremists with a strong Fascist bent. Just look at how the Jewish Settlers behave in the West Bank to see how Fascist they are.
Zionists living in Israel actually aided the Nazis during the war, in return for a promise that they’d be given Palestine. All this whilst their Jewish brethren were being exterminated in Europe. Heck, many Jews fleeing Europe were actively turned away by the Zionists already living in Palestine.
Well, that’s not antisemitic at all. Just repeating balled faced lies and tropes in not helping your argument.
Your knowledge is extremely limited Marcus Hicks. Your comments come straight from Palestinian propaganda.
How did Zionists aid the Nazis? Do you realise how utterly stupid that comment is? When WW2 was in action, the Zionists were already well on their way to attaining statehood in Palestine. However, they didn’t have it yet. The Jews from Europe that were turned away from Palestine were turned away because of Britain.
Your assertations are easily debunked but you insist on spouting utter rubbish. Britain was in charge of the Mandate for Palestine during the war, not any Zionists. It was the Brits that aided the Nazi murder of Jews in Europe and say anything is else is malicious.
The perils of over-generalising Arky. Firstly, “The tendency of Palestinian supporters to go straight for the most offensive comparison” suggests that there are less “offensive” comparison that “ought” to be made with the “most offensive” deserving to be ignored. Not a well thought through statement at all Arky.
Moreover, just what history have you read concerning the region from circa. Bonaparte’s occupation of Egypt (1798). What were the effects of Ottoman occupation and what was the significance of the Arab revolt? Then add the history of Zionism. I, for one would be interested. The least comprehension of the foregoing would prevent you a degree of embarrassment regarding your post. In particular there is a very great distinction to be made between Jews, the Jewish faith and Zionism. Those who do not comprehend the distinction comprehend nothing.
Your thinking, on this point also seems rather confused. Who, for example has been criticised for locating war criminals (of any war)? Yet Israel has a history of kidnapping for its own purposes (e.g. nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu also known as John Crossman) to say noting of the dalliance over a former principal at a (Jewish) girls school in Melbourne about a decade ago.
If you want “complicated” regarding Israeli government behaviour read a biography of Australian-Israeli Ben Zygier (who, in his 30s, toped himself – or was he pushed) in an Israeli (suicide-proof) slammer. Less complicated, only a few years ago, was (to identify one incident) the event of Israeli warships in INTERNATIONAL waters attacking and boarding the two vessels that were delivering medical aid the occupied territory of Gaza.
What you have written, last paragraph, is also a matter of perspective. Do you know any Argentinians. Do you known any one from the Falklands Islands? I happen to know both. What was their respective perspectives as to Britons thirty odd years ago (indeed nowadays)? Point made ?