The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Some forms of criticism of Israel can indeed be antisemitic > Comments

Some forms of criticism of Israel can indeed be antisemitic : Comments

By Ahron Shapiro, published 31/5/2013

From the Prime Minister down Australian politicians deserve praise for adding their names to the London Declaration.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Unfortunately a Jewish state cannot be a democracy. A Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist state cannot be a democracy either. To be fully democratic a government must not discriminate among its citizenry on a religious or ethnic basis. A Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist state must discriminate or its designation as a state attached to a particular religion is meaningless.

To be a democracy a nation must have separation of religion and state whether it is in Israel, Australia or anywhere else. In Australia there are chaplains in the public schools and government support for religious schools. Like Israel Australia considers itself a democracy even though it isn't.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Since the public school chaplains are hired on the basis of their religious beliefs this is a religious test for office and a violation of 116.

Antisemitism is horrible. Nevertheless Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. A state must be for all its people and treat them all equally under the law.
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 May 2013 10:31:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

When Israel declares itself a 'Jewish state' it never referred to religion, but rather to making it a home for the Jewish nation, hence '116' does not belong in this discussion.

Now why insist on democracy when you just said yourself that Australia isn't (nor any other country really)? We tend to want democracy in order to ensure that our individual and sub-group freedoms are not trampled on - but is this truly the case? A democracy like any other regime can oppress its people, in this case a 51% majority may cause the other 49% to bite the dust. Even separation of religion and state is not strictly a requisite of democracy.

In Israel, you have a case of a group of people whose majority want to live in a certain way: be it democratic or not is none of your business.

ANY group of like-minded people that owns a contiguous piece of land should be able to have sovereignty over that land if so they wish, where they can exercise their unique way of life. In Israel however, there are two problems: The first is that the Jewish-owned land is not contiguous, as it contains pockets of land belonging to (or taken away from) local Arabs. The second is that the Israeli Jews themselves are not like-minded and have no common way of life.

Those who want a Jewish state must therefore converge into a smaller area (or areas) where all the inhabitants agree on a clearly-defined Jewish way of life. They could even be democratic there if they so choose, without contradiction.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 31 May 2013 12:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You asked why I insisted on democracy. I didn't insist on democracy. It is Israel that has decided to call itself a democracy. If you call yourself a democracy then you should be one. Israel can be a democracy or a Jewish state. It can't be both. That is what I insist on.

'116' belongs in this discussion since it is in my opinion essential to democracy.

We disagree. I think separation of religion and state is a requisite of democracy.

You wrote: "ANY group of like-minded people that owns a contiguous piece of land should be able to have sovereignty over that land if so they wish, where they can exercise their unique way of life."

The above is irrelevant since no group of any size are all like-minded. In Israel as in any other country there is a tremendous difference in opinions.
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 May 2013 1:55:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<We disagree. I think separation of religion and state is a requisite of democracy.>>

Care to explain why?

I think that if for example 'the will of the people' is to have all shops closed on the Sabbath and to not demand welfare-recipients to accept job-offers that require work on the Sabbath, then that is perfectly democratic (regardless whether I personally agree or not with this style of democracy).

<<The above is irrelevant since no group of any size are all like-minded.>>

I know, I wrote so myself, but the principle is important in the general case, indicating that IN THEORY there is no inherent contradiction in having a Jewish and democratic state. In practice, conditions in Israel are very different.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 31 May 2013 2:26:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course Israel is a democracy. Its citizens vote and governments change. I assume this change happens on a local as well as on a national level, although the national level is what makes it into the world press.
Israel is also a thief. It is building its democracy on the homes and bones of the Palestinians who lived there before.
Neither of the above statements is anti-Semitic. Neither mentions any race or creed but are simply statements of fact in reference to one of the many nations in existence in the world today.
Posted by halduell, Friday, 31 May 2013 3:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Democracy in my opinion includes the protection of the minority from interference by the government except where such interference is vital to the survival of the nation. One of the areas that government has no business interfering with is a person's religious belief or lack of religious belief. It works in the other direction also. It is not legitimate for a religious body to use the government to promote its religious agenda.

If we do not have the separation then those with an opinion differing from that which the government endorses is subject to oppression by the government.

The right of an individual to disagree with 'the will of the people' must be protected or we will not have a decent society. Totalitarian societies are great for expressing 'the will of the people' and crushing those who disagree with it. I think we have a basic disagreement which no amount of discussion will resolve. We seem to be treading the same path again. We both disagreed with the views of David Singer. You wanted him shut up. I didn't. The fact that a great majority of people disagrees with an individual's views is no reason to shut that person up. Individuals must be protected from the 'will of the people' in my view. Possibly not in yours.

The protection of those with minority viewpoints is not only necessary in religious beliefs but for dissenting opinion in general.
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 May 2013 4:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<Democracy in my opinion includes the protection of the minority from interference by the government except where such interference is vital to the survival of the nation.>>

This is called 'liberalism', not 'democracy'. Democracies may be more liberal or otherwise, just like any other rule.

<<One of the areas that government has no business interfering with is a person's religious belief or lack of religious belief.>>

That's obvious, but religion is so much more than belief: belief is cheap - religion means PRACTICE!

<<You wanted him shut up.>>

No. Not publishing one's articles every other week is not shutting them up, there's nothing wrong with protecting one's own eardrums. Singer is free to create his own blogs and forums; he may comment here on other people's articles; he may start a 'general discussion'; or he can also publish his ideas in professional lawyer's forums where they are more likely to be appreciated.

<<Individuals must be protected from the 'will of the people' in my view. Possibly not in yours.>>

Certainly in my view as well. I would do anything to protect Singer had his religious practices or way of life been under threat, but it is not my duty to invite anyone into my own home.

<<The protection of those with minority viewpoints is not only necessary in religious beliefs but for dissenting opinion in general.>>

I agree of course, but protecting viewpoints and dissenting opinions is cheap. The crux of the matter and the big test is when those viewpoints call for actual practice, for an actual alternative way of life.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 31 May 2013 5:14:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

We still disagree. You wrote: "protecting viewpoints and dissenting opinions is cheap." I don't think it is cheap at all. Many people have been murdered for their expression of dissenting opinion. Rather than being cheap I think it is precious and essential.
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 May 2013 5:39:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Expressing viewpoints is one thing, imposing them on others is something else. A viewpoint expressed in Germany was that Jews should be identified genetically and murdered, and that Aryans should also be defined genetically and had the right to seize Lebensraum by force in other people's territory. Views of that type are contemptible and attempts to act on them turned out to merit and require their exceedingly costly suppression.

Fortunately Zionist views don't run to hunting and murdering people for the wrong genetic makeup. But they have done, and do, run to seizing and holding people's territory by deadly violence. Thus a viewpoint morphs into a crime. Those prepared to meet this violence with violent retaliation are not doing it to suppress views but to put a stop to a crime.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Friday, 31 May 2013 10:43:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The creator of the Muslim faith expressed a viewpoint in Arabia that Jews should be identified and murdered if they did not convert to Islam. He also advocated that Muslims should ethnically cleanse Arabia of Jews and Christians. This man also advocated a policy of Lebenstraum, encouraging Muslims to expand by military force.

The Jewish victims of this ethnic cleansing have returned to claim the land that they have lived upon for 3,700 years. They are returning the complement to the Muslims, although they are far more humane to their Muslim minorities within their lands, then the Muslims ever were to their minority Jews in theirs.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 1 June 2013 8:40:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Can we communicate anything except our disagreement?

I wrote: <<Democracy in my opinion includes the protection of the minority from interference by the government except where such interference is vital to the survival of the nation.>>

You wrote: This is called 'liberalism', not 'democracy'. Democracies may be more liberal or otherwise, just like any other rule.

What I call democracy you call liberalism. I don’t regard a rule which does not protect the minority democratic. We define democracy differently.

I wrote: <<One of the areas that government has no business interfering with is a person's religious belief or lack of religious belief.>>

You wrote: That's obvious, but religion is so much more than belief: belief is cheap - religion means PRACTICE!

Here we disagree again. In a free society we can say almost anything. We cannot do almost anything. An example is polygamy. We are free to advocate polygamy. We are not free to practice polygamy.

You wrote: Certainly in my view as well. I would do anything to protect Singer had his religious practices or way of life been under threat, but it is not my duty to invite anyone into my own home.

Here we disagree again. You wanted to prevail on Graham Young not to invite Singer into olo, his home. I would not want to tell Graham Young who he could invite into his home.

I wrote: <<The protection of those with minority viewpoints is not only necessary in religious beliefs but for dissenting opinion in general.>>

You wrote: I agree of course, but protecting viewpoints and dissenting opinions is cheap. The crux of the matter and the big test is when those viewpoints call for actual practice, for an actual alternative way of life.

Here we disagree again. I don’t think we have any obligation to allow practice. Female genital mutilation, genocide, polygamy, suttee and burning dissenters at the stake are all practices accepted in other traditions than ours. We don’t have to allow any of them.

In a democratic society we can say almost anything, but we cannot do almost anything.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 1 June 2013 10:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"When an international organ is used to single out Israel for censure on human rights while at the same time overlooking far more clear-cut and egregious examples from other countries, that is, by definition, bias, though not necessarily antisemitism. However, when this bias is repeated and reinforced with regularity, it is reasonable to raise the question whether antisemitism may be a motivation."

Is Israel "singled out" for censure on human rights? Would Israel like to compete with other countries for the position of most egregious? It could compete very well on scales of Human Rights Abuses, Genocide, Racism, and the flouting of United Nations declarations.

Let us be clear that in talking about Israel we are not talking about the many hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout the world who abhor racist Zionism and who are obviously not antisemitic.

We should speak out against evil wherever it happens and not be threatened by labels such as 'Jew haters'.
Posted by Stan1, Saturday, 1 June 2013 5:55:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<You wrote: "protecting viewpoints and dissenting opinions is cheap." I don't think it is cheap at all. Many people have been murdered for their expression of dissenting opinion. Rather than being cheap I think it is precious and essential.>>

Free expression of ideas is valuable, no doubt, but for a regime to allow it is cheap RELATIVE to allowing people to live their own life.

A democratic regime can thus cheaply afford to allow people to yell as much as they like: "let the dogs bark, my caravan will move on anyway; let them scream - all they'll get is hoarse throats".

<<Can we communicate anything except our disagreement?>>

Sure and we do. We agree for example that free speech is precious and essential; we agree that we don't like Singer's articles; and though we did not agree on the name of the principle ('democracy' or 'liberalism') we seemed to agree that minorities should not be interfered with by government... except that I'm no longer sure about it. It seems that you are happy for minorities to believe and say what they like, but then it stops when it moves from speech to actions.

<<Here we disagree again. In a free society we can say almost anything. We cannot do almost anything. An example is polygamy. We are free to advocate polygamy. We are not free to practice polygamy.>>

Yes, I agree that we disagree. I don't find any moral justification that allows the state to limit the number of people you marry.
(neither is it the state's business to register or recognise your marriages). Mind you, I do not advocate polygamy...

Re Singer: I accept Graham's sovereignty in his home, but why can't we, his guests, express our feelings to him?

<<I don’t think we have any obligation to allow practices X, Y & Z>>.

Sure, but what you propose is to explicitly DISALLOW them and persecute those who do. This is violence and the only possible justification for violence is self-defence. The state may only defend on behalf of those who authorise it to defend them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 1 June 2013 11:48:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You have effectively and coherently restated our disagreements.

The state uses violence to prevent people from doing what they will.

In the cases I mentioned - "female genital mutilation, genocide, polygamy, suttee and burning dissenters at the stake" People doing what they will causes harm to others. In those cases I believe the violence is justified.

If you don't then we continue to disagree. I see no point in continuing to hammer at each other.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 2 June 2013 6:17:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Looking at the cases I mentioned polygamy may or may not cause harm to others. In cases where the US government interfered with the polygamous arrangements of some Mormons it did not prosecute them for polygamy. It prosecuted the Mormons for rape as some of the wives were young girls who had little choice in the matter. Polygamy only is prosecuted under law where a legal marriage exists, and one of the marital partners goes through the legal formality of another marriage without the dissolution of the first. De facto polygamy where all the participants are freely consenting adults is not prosecuted.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 2 June 2013 6:48:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
About the statement in the article that Hanan Ashrawi's organisation MIFTAH published an article that promoted blood libel:

MIFTAH didn't actually publish the article. Rather, it was posted as a link. MIFTAH quickly deleted the article, the posting of which it attributed to a junior staff member, rejected the blood libel and apologised.

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=25950&CategoryId=2

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=25956&CategoryId=2
Posted by fungus, Sunday, 2 June 2013 9:50:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<In the cases I mentioned - "female genital mutilation, genocide, polygamy, suttee and burning dissenters at the stake" People doing what they will causes harm to others. In those cases I believe the violence is justified.>>

Violence can be justified only in self-defence.

For an act to be in self-defence, three conditions must be met:
1) It must be in order to avert harm.
2) The harm must be considered as harm by the 'harmed' person.
3) The harm is against oneself.

How one may defend oneself can vary, and one of the legitimate options is to form or join a 'mutual-defence' group such as a state.

A mutual-defence group is authorised to take any actions which any of its members could morally do.

A mutual-defence group is not authorised to take actions which none of its members may morally do.

So the fact that an act causes harm to others is insufficient to permit a state to prosecute the offender: another condition must also be fulfilled, which is that one or more of the offended has authorised the state to act on their behalf, or at least that they would be likely to authorise the state to act on their behalf have they had a chance to do so.

Genocide and burning dissenters at the stake most likely fall within those parameters.

Polygamy does not if all partners enter it voluntarily, without coercion.

Suttee does not if the widow voluntarily sacrifices herself and no coercion is involved.

FGM (and MGM) is difficult to classify, requiring a broad discussion which tends to involve religious and metaphysical elements. Unless you insist, I think that this would take us too far away from the topic, from which we already strayed quite a bit.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 3 June 2013 1:51:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I have noted your comments.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 June 2013 8:39:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy