Ran, On the substance of this, I have to defer to Prof Hazkani. I can pass this on to him if you'd like. On the question of whether I'd host an academic who came to contrary conclusions, it is true that I am guilty of the human tendency to seek out and amplify evidence that confirms my preconceptions. But I've tried to counteract that by seeking out guests who disagree with me, and we've had quite a few, as you know. Honestly, the biggest problem I face isn't my willingness to invite people who hold views that are closer to yours than mine. It's their reluctance to accept my invitations. But I keep trying. In fact, your comment has reminded me to invite Benny Morris.
Sure, pass it on to professor Hazkani and while Benny Morris would be interesting, considering how many people on this site often write about sending the Jews back to Europe or how the Mizrachi Jews live under the thumb of Ashkenazi Jews Guy Abutbul-Selinger whose Haaretz piece I enclosed earlier would be a revelation about the changes in Israeli society. One example, Mizrachi women now earn more than Ashkenazi women. The reason: Mizrachi women did the immigrant thing getting tech knowledge while the Ashkenazi next gen went into the humanities. Funny.
Here's some quotes from Fatima Mohammed, whom Peter seems so eager to defend.
On May 8, 2021, Mohammed tweeted: “terms like left-wing Israeli just make me laugh. Allah yl3nhm kuluhum ya rab [May Allah curse them all, oh God.]”
On the same thread, Mohammed tweeted: “may every Zionist burn in the hottest pit of hell.”
On June 8, 2022, Mohammed tweeted: “Zionism has no place in cuny. Attempts to silence us only make us stronger."
Mohammed retweeted a June 16, 2021 tweet that said: “‘second nakba is coming’ yea the israeli nakba when y’all leave to brooklyn.”
Mohammed retweeted an August 27, 2021 that said: “having an american flag in your bio/location is adjacent to having the israeli to me you are all t£rr0r1sts to me 🤣.”
Mohammed started her speech by saying [00:29:43]: “So, I come to you all today with a very, very short message, and that is: glory to the martyrs, glory to the resistance, glory to Palestinian men fighting on the land. Glory to each and every single person throwing the stones.”
Mohammed went on to say [00:16:42]: “If you're part of an institution, if you're part of a school, demand! Demand that Palestine is in the curriculum. Demand that you are not funding this genocide. Demand that Zionist professors are not welcomed on your campus! Demand that Zionist students are not in spaces where Palestinian students are, because Zionism is a threat! Zionism is a genocidal threat to us!” [There's your commitment to free speech, eh, Petey?]
This person obviously loathes "Zionists" aka 95%+ of Jews and has for years, yet rather than being ostracized for hate speech, was welcomed and platformed by CUNY. And yet Peter Beinart and the rest of the left have no issues with anything she's said or has said in the past. Then they wonder why "mainstream Jewish organizations" are concerned about anti-Semitism on the left. This is exactly why. Apparently they can't see the forest for the trees.
I don't agree with all of her statements that you quoted (assuming the quotes are accurate), but you need to understand that the rage of the oppressed has to be evaluated differently than the hatred of the oppressor.
Whether or not you agree with her statements or believe them to be justified is completely irrelevant, except insofar as it reveals insights into your character as well as hers. What she said was clearly far beyond mere criticism of Israel and "mainstream Jewish organizations" are perfectly justified in responding to her hate, despite the whining of Peter Beinart and those like him. Anything else you wanted to discuss?
Anti-Semitism on the left is definitely not an equal problem to anti-Semitism on the right. They're not equal in a number of ways. You're comparing apples to oranges.
One of those ways is that the left is supposed to be the party of morality and human rights and anti-racism. The party, nowadays, of microaggressions and consent and speech is violence. So when American Jews, who are mostly on the left because they're told the left is the side who cares about minorities, see left wingers defending things like Palestinian terrorism and people like Louis Farrakhan and Rasmea Odeh and Leila Khaled, their reaction is "what the heck is going on here?"
The consequences of saying anti-Semitic things are different between the two sides as well. Ilhan Omar says Jews control Congress with their money, she's put on the cover of Rolling Stone. Rashida Tlaib says that thinking about the Holocaust gives her a calming feeling, she's put on various government committees. Linda Sarsour goes to watch a Louis Farrakhan speech and professes how much she likes him on social media, she's one of Time's Most Influential People. Joe King says a bunch of anti-Semitic stuff, he's stripped of his committee assignments, loses his next election, and his political career ends.
Left wingers are also on the side of identifying dogwhistles. They know, beyond a shadow of a doubt and I agree with them, that when Trump says "bad hombres" he means Mexicans. When he says "thugs" and "welfare queens" he means black people. And yet, somehow, when a law students says "Zionists are fascists", suddenly there's no issue and they're "only talking about Zionists, not Jews" so everything is fine and you're the bad person if you don't like it.
American Jews know the right wingers suck. They know the right wingers are Islamophobic, transphobic, racist, misogynist and the rest. That's why American Jews are mostly on the side of the left. So why aren't some people on the left on the side of them?
I object to this statement: “American Jews, who are mostly on the left because they're told the left is the side who cares about minorities...” American Jews are not pushed around by things they “are told” like mindless victims. They are an active force in the Democratic Party, which is precisely why AIPAC and other pro-Zionist groups want to sway them back to the pro-Zionist crowd. That many of them stand for justice under such pressure speaks of the courage and clarity of mind and morals of many American Jews.
That's not the only reason American Jews are on the left, but certainly they are there because the Democratic party is supposed to care about minorities. If the Dems were like the Republicans who hate minorities, it's unlikely American Jews would support the Dems.
"The pro-Zionist crowd" includes the vast majority of Democrats, like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. It's not a question of "back."
You’re making sweeping statements about "the Jewish law students at CUNY" based off of one statement by "CUNY's Jewish Law Students Association." Before you continue that line of thinking, you might be interested in knowing that the Jewish Law Students Association at CUNY is open to any student, not just Jewish students, and includes as a member Fatima Mohammed herself.
You're making a whopper of an assumption that a students association that is open to any members, including radical anti-Zionists, and that has endorsed BDS, is the kind of association that the Jewish law students at CUNY would in general join. There's no actual evidence that this organization reflects the views of the Jewish law students in general. None whatsoever.
This is peak irony from Peter Beinart. You and the rest of the fringe anti-Zionists have been flipping out for decades about the state of Israel claiming to act and speak for the Jewish people because your extremist views aren't represented. But now here you are, taking at face value the views of a group that appears to be Jewish in name alone represents the Jews at CUNY Law, probably because the group says something you agree with it. A page from the JVP playbook to the letter. Spare us the hypocrisy and the intellectual dishonesty. No one is fooled.
He never said “this organization reflects the views of the Jewish law students in general.” You’re doing the same thing you accuse him of doing. He is saying that there ARE Jewish law students there, and a decent number of them, who defended her against these spurious accusations. Of course you entirely missed the whole point that antisemitism is a form of racism/xenophobia just as any other and is not a “special” or unique case utterly unlike any other.
Someone concerned about antisemitism and the freedom of speech of Jews in general, as with all people, should applaud pointing out that criticism of a democracy does not constitute hatred of the residents of that democracy or their ethnicity. Of course, if demonization of Palestinians is your thing, I’m speaking to a wall.
What he said, exact quotes "the Jewish students at CUNY Law School defended this speaker, Fatima Mohammed, and in fact, they had previously even endorsed BDS themselves."
"the CUNY Jewish law students embrace of Fatima Mohammed"
"the very Jewish students at CUNY Law School were embracing and endorsing what Fatima Mohammad was saying."
And his evidence is the organization in question. So he is speaking about the Jewish students as a group, as if they act as one mind and speak with one voice. No reasonable person can interpret that as anything other than what I said. You are engaging in a semantic and pedantic argument; nobody is convinced. It's not my fault your idol Beinart said something so obviously wrong and stupid; don't blame me for calling him out.
And actually I don't think that's Beinart's point at all. Maybe you need to read the column again?
Don't kid yourself. The truly dangerous antisemitism is coming from the left. This is not to dismiss neo-Nazis and other wackos from the far right. They must be rooted out and stopped. However, it is the antisemitism supported by college professors, BLM, women's movement, et.al. -- liberal organizations, largely ignored by the media -- that is poisoning a generation. Polite antisemitism takes the form of being anti-Israel -- and it is made especially easy when organizations like "Jewish Voice for Peace" and "religious" Jews like Peter Beinart -- lead the charge and make it easy to avoid the charge of being called an antisemite.
Think about it: when there is a right wing attack like the attack at Tree of Life Synagogue -- everyone, both conservative and liberal -- condemn it. But, when there is left wing anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic protests including preventing pro-Israel speakers appearing on college campuses, it is ignored or even supported by the left.
Separate, but related, is political antisemitism. Jews vote for Democrats 80% of the time. In this highly polarized environment, where liberals vs conservatives feels like Civil War, conservatives are unhappy with Jewish voters, especially when they see that their own attitudes toward Israel often more supportive than Jews themselves.
You’re conflating Israel with Jews. And that’s not surprising since Israel is formulated as the homeland for Jewish people. But when blatant injustices are committed by the state of Israel, the problem is it can NEVER be held accountable because the identification of Jews with Israel in the minds of Zionists supersedes the freedom of thought necessary for ANY democracy, rather it creates a strait jacket or thought police, and thus forces immoral and unjust complicity in criminal behavior we must all accept without question because Netanyahu or whoever is Jewish. So Jews can’t choose their form of government or even adhere to basic principles of justice??? Without being slandered viciously and attacked? Seriously??
Regarding political antisemitism in the US, one of the most bizarre aspects of US foreign policy debate over the last 30 years in my view is how fetishized and distorted Israel as a topic has become in the American consciousness.
On the right, you have Christian Zionists, hardline pro-war national security hawks, blood-and-soil ethno-nationalists, and anti-Islam neo-crusaders all for various reasons professing to love Israel more than liberal American Jews do, but it’s not borne of any kind of sincere affection for or connection to the land and people living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
I mean, George W. Bush’s position on Israel—in the peak of the Second Intifada—was closer to that of Obama and Biden than to the modern over-the-top pro-Israel RW popularism of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or any other GOP contender, at a time when Israel’s security outlook and unconditional US government support for it is stronger than at any point in its history.
The political Overton window on Israel has shifted so far to the right, that Reagan’s Israel policies from the 80’s— not to mention the views of those of us who adopted and maintained liberal pro-Israel (but not uncritically so) positions in the Oslo days—look comparatively left-wing today in retrospect.
For its part, I think the American left has moved in solidarity with the Palestinian side to adopt the binary narrative wholesale to see Israel as a uniquely evil country. A view for an American thousands of miles away that, I think, lacks perspective. That’s also a kind of fetishism, but a lesser one and one that arose in reaction to and frustration with the marked right-wing shift in de facto US policy over the years
Peter, I think your entire piece is one large strawman. I've never heard anyone say that anti-Semitism on the right is equally prevalent and problematic as anti-Semitism on the left. You don't actually cite anyone who says that either, preferring instead to simply say unnamed "establishment American Jewish organizations". It's undisputable that anti-Semitism on the right is worse both in act and in popularity than anti-Semitism on the left. I've never heard anyone, much less the so-called "establishment Jewish organizations", say otherwise.
I think the issue is that when these mainstream Jewish organizations want to talk about anti-Semitism on the left, you and the rest of the far leftists treat that as proof that those organizations don't care about anti-Semitism on the right. Anytime the left is criticized, the refrain is always "what about the right?. Which is ironic, since the right is supposed to be the scum of the earth while the left are always virtuous, moral and anti-racist. I think those Jewish organizations want to talk about anti-Semitism on the left because the left is supposed to be the side of equality and human rights etc. But you don't want to do that, so you're trying to change the subject to anti-Semitism on the right.
TL;DR, I've never heard anyone say that anti-Semitism on the right is "an equal problem" to anti-Semitism on the left.
"I've never heard anyone say that anti-Semitism on the right is equally prevalent and problematic as anti-Semitism on the left."
Dennis Prager has been saying this for years. Gil Troy has written about it. Surely you hear as I do from others who denounce "anti-Semitism on the left", with very few such denunciations including some comparison such as "though it's not as prevalent or problematic as anti-Semitism on the right."
I didn't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with denouncing anti-Semitism on the left. Just that when the headline is "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE LEFT", the natural question that one wants to hear answered in the story is, how does that compare to anti-Semitism on the right?
That's not the natural question I want to hear. If I'm reading an article about anti-Semitism on the left, I want to learn about anti-Semitism on the left. Surely the reverse wouldn't be true, if I'm reading about the alt right, Proud Boys, etc., I wouldn't also expect to hear about anti-Semitism on the left.
"If I'm reading an article about anti-Semitism on the left, I want to learn about anti-Semitism on the left."
But I'm not talking about "an article about anti-Semitism on the left"; I'm talking about an article with a *headline* blaring "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE LEFT". Such an article calls out something it labels "THE LEFT". Everything I'm saying here is about people calling out anti-Semitism on "THE LEFT" when they specifically use the *word* "LEFT". If it's addressing a broad general audience that isn't particularly attuned to anti-Semitism and includes people who identify as both left-wingers and right-wingers, then I would expect it to say even if only in brief mention how anti-Semitism is usually considered a problem only on THE RIGHT side of the political spectrum, if you are correct about that.
"Surely the reverse wouldn't be true, if I'm reading about the alt right, Proud Boys, etc., I wouldn't also expect to hear about anti-Semitism on the left."
The reverse of an article with a headline blaring "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE LEFT" is not an article "about the alt right, Proud Boys, etc."; it's an article with a headline blaring "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE RIGHT", using the *word* "RIGHT". Again, if it is addressing a broad general audience that isn't particularly attuned to anti-Semitism and includes people who identify as both left-wingers and right-wingers, then I would expect it to say even if in only brief mention that anti-Semitism has always been a problem particular to THE RIGHT side of the political spectrum, which by implication would mean that it's not as prevalent on THE LEFT.
He's likely referring to the dangerous statement by ADL head, Jonathan Greenblatt, last year where he equates anti-Zionists w white supremacists: "So that SJP, JVP and CAIR – these groups epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked." https://www.adl.org/remarks-jonathan-greenblatt-adl-virtual-national-leadership-summit
Created quite a stir, and I believed he slightly walked back some of his comments a few weeks later when a white gunman raided a supermarket in a Black neighborhood in NY.
If you say so. If ADL staff are resigning over it, then it's all the more dishonest for Peter to ascribe Greenblatt's views to "American politicians and establishment American Jewish leaders" as a whole.
A very revealing study which, naturally, all pro-Israel Zionists will either ignore or claim that it is itself anti-semitic. Because even clear evidence of the Zionists' anti-semitism is anti-semitic. It, of course, blows another hole in the hull of HMS Zionist Labour as captained by Sir Keir Starmer, the establishment politicians' politician here in the UK. His unashamed affinity with the racist project that is Zionism is based on nothing that anyone should be proud of, and his relentless attacks on his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn (no knighthood for him) as supposedly anti-semitic are likewise as hollow as an Easter egg.
As a pro-Israel Zionist, I'm not going to do either. The study doesn't really disprove anything beyond Peter's strawman. If anything, it's nice to see yet more evidence that even the United States isn't safe for Jews, and thus the need for a Jewish state continues to exist.
The word “strawman” has itself become a strawman. “All lies in jest when a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Paul Simon. Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, there isn’t a totally safe haven for anyone without lots of $ these days.
You don't have to call it a strawman. Call it whatever you want. Regardless of what you call it, Peter is arguing against a point no one is making. No one besides him is saying anti-Semitism is an "equal problem" on the left and the right.
Most left wingers who are antisemitic aren’t really left wing they are Putin and Assad supporters. Examples are people like roger waters who is heavily against ukraine.
Professor Beinart and Professor Hazkani. I listened to the interview and as is often the case I learn from these interviews. I benefit from Professor Beinart’s access to various individuals often Palestinians and others. And I thank Professor Beinart for hosting these meetings. But I see many problems with his, not to mention others here, opinion laden yack vs. doing the research to get at the facts.
My primary question to Professor Beinart is this: If this book detailed the reverse would you have interviewed Professor Hazkani or simply ignored it.
Did you know the leader of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA), Fawzi al-Qawuqji, spent WWII in Nazi Germany? Did you ever see the emblem of the ALA? (Arab Liberation Army - Wikipedia). There on the first page is the emblem. it features a star of David with a dagger thrust through it. All their military equipment had this emblem. And you think the Jewish soldiers, many if not the majority of whom in 1947-49 were Holocaust survivors, should ignore this symbolism.
While Professor Hazkani did not find genocidal statements among the Arab members of the Arab Liberation Army. Such statements were made by others mostly higher up. The most controversial one was by the Egyptian Diplomat Abdel Rahman Hassan Azzam. His quote was recently tracked down to an Egyptian newspaper Akhbar-el Yom on October 11, 1947: "Personally, I hope the Jews do not force us into this war, because it would be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...".
Not to give the wrong impression about Azzam, he condemned an anti-Jewish riot in Cairo in 1945 where Jewish shops and a synagogue were destroyed. And yes, as Hazkani recklessly implied, comparable to the gas chambers and ovens living as a Jew in the Arab world was benign. Just the occasional anti-Jewish attacks and official 2nd class citizenship as a dhimmi.
Returning to Azzam who became the Secretary General of the Arab League in 1945, the Jewish Agency saw him as a someone they could negotiate with, and several leaders of the Jewish Agency met with him in England just before the 1948 hostilities to see if they could broker an agreement. Azzam met with Abba Eban, who would become the new state’s foreign minister, David Horowitz, who would become the governor of Israel’s banks, and John Kimche a well-regarded reporter. Azzam explained to them that there was no option but war. In other words, there were efforts to bridge the gap between the Arabs and Jews for fear worse could occur.
Given that Azzam personally thought the Jews would lose its understandable why he would reject a peace overture. I wonder if the likes of Azzam, the Mufti Hajj Amin and Fawzi al-Qawuqji, Jew haters, had not been the decision makers for the Palestinians whether the Nakba could have been avoided.
Generalizations …when have you ever seen any generalization able to characterize a group of 16 million worldwide…facts change my mind not vitriol or hysteria
What you're saying may be true of the US, but my own experience growing up and currently living in a Muslim-majority society, and following the situation in the UK, is that this pattern does not generalize. The US has less Muslim influence, but where that influence is greater a Muslim-driven left-discourse-appropriating antisemitism becomes more widespread. That's the kind that mostly uses dogwhistles where 'Jew' is replaced by 'Zionist' or something, and that is obsessed with Palestine but in a way where prejudice against Jews gets expressed in the process or is part of the motivation for their obsession. In the UK a study (that I've linked you to before, twice) showed a positive correlation between negativity toward Israel and antisemitism, and both things were found to exist more among Muslims than other groups studied.
This does not mean, obviously, that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. It's not. It also doesn't mean that there's more antisemitism on the left than the right, but just that the pattern in the US does not obtain everywhere in the world.
So glad to see this study. The last year or so (at least in my community) progressive Jewish community has been seeing a slew of speakers making the rounds training us to mobilize against rabid, violent anti-Zionists. And yet how many weeks go by btwn mass shootings here by real, admitted white supremacists? The equation of anti-Zionists with antisemitism, and the further equation to the "photo inverse of the Extreme Right" (ADL's Greenblatt in May 2022) is such a crock of shit, and so dangerously distracts from the real ppl who actually want to kill us. But the real "threat" of anti-Zionists is that uplifting the voices and stories of Palestinians, and encouraging others to engage in deep listening and empathy, pierces through the thin armor of Zionist rhetoric every time.
They clearly show that antisemitic attitudes are far more common on the left than the right, but what about acts of antisemitism? I wish their paper had taken that into consideration. I wonder what percentage of antisemitic hate crimes/incidents of bias involve just criticism of Israel? In April, a synagogue in Seattle was vandalized with the word “apartheid,” a phrase that appears to read “Israel has lied,” and a face with “Im [sic] still here” written underneath. According to the JDA definition this would likely be considered an antisemitic attack because it seems to hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct; however, this feels significantly less antisemitic to me than the last time this synagogue was vandalized 6 yrs ago with the phrase, “Holocaust is fake history”. Anyway, I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of antisemitic hate crimes/incidents of bias involve just criticism of Israel, and then to apply the JDA definition to just those acts to see what percentage the JDA would consider antisemitic, and then to find out if the perpetrators of just those acts were on the left or the right.
Until we're clear on who a Jew is, antisemitism, even its own definition will remain a problem: Is Jewishness a race or a religion?
For example when a black or native American Jew criticizes Zionism, are they antisemitic? Are the black Hebrew Israelites Jews or not?
The idea that the Jews should have Israel will/may pose a challenge to Jewish converts because none of their ancestors suffered the Holocaust. What would motivate them to clamor for a safe haven in Israel? If they identify as Jewish but criticize Zionism, are they antisemitic?
Also, if we're honest, Zionism and its attendant antisemitism definitions are racist, even imperialistic. Zionism has always been pushed by the white western Jews.
Not interested in answering the bad faith questions of bigots, thanks. Try cracking a book on the subject. Or maybe Peter can answer you, since he's such an authority on Jews.
I will take a shot at this. Race? Nonsense. The Jewish people are just that a people who have a shared history and religion. Another way is to say that the Jews are an ethnic group.
Now, it is also true that the people who don't like Jews might say 'the Jewish race" etc. Give it up on race there is no such thing. Just because some people have different skin colors or other externally visible features does not mean what flows in their veins is different or what goes on in their brain is different.
An ethnic group tied to religion and history? If that be the case, can secular Jews be real Jews if they dont practise Judaism?
Are all Jews Semites?
Semite[Merriam W] : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
History is not clear if Ashkenazic Jews are indigeneous to Israel. Their claim is founded on theology. Can converts who are not from the region be real Jews? Are the black Hebrew Israelites real Jews? Who's the arbiter on who's Jewish or not?
We have some who identify as Jewish American as opposed to White American. Looks like using Jewish is a race in this case.
I think once you read a book on modern genetics, for example Who We are and How we got here by David Reich you will stop asking these questions because this book will render them meaningless.
In particular race will go away.
He refused to discuss Jews in particular because he says there are already numerous studies. All of whom concluded that whether you are Ashkenazic or Mizrachi your gene pool had its origin is the Middle East.
For those who insist on indigeneity may I remind you that the Arabs are indigenous to Arabia.
But really don't get worked up by these labels your head will clear up after you read this book.
I pose the questions because the claim on Israel is based on it, that their descendants were displaced from Palestine. Historians and theologians are still not in agreement on this issue.
Again, until we're clear on who's a semite (Jew??) or not, it'll be hard to define antisemitism.
"He refused to discuss Jews in particular because he says there are already numerous studies. All of whom concluded that whether you are Ashkenazic or Mizrachi your gene pool had its origin is the Middle East."
A group of people whose gene pool has a common origin in some location is exactly the customary notion of what a "race" is. There are only 5 or 6 of them in the U.S. government classification, a classification that is extremely popular nowadays with most Americans who situate themselves anywhere on the left side of the political spectrum, but genetic testing services like 23&me are convincing people of the reality of even more racial categories. I get it, you will say that they're misinterpreting those genetic reports, but I'm just saying that this is the effect.
Ran Kohn, what is the difference between a "race" and an "ethnic group"? A hundred years ago it was pretty common for people to talk about, say, the English or Scottish, German or Italian "races", whereas today we call them ethnic groups. In his famous letter opposing the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the Jewish cabinet minister Edwin Montagu said that Jews from different countries may be "of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race", in contrast to his assertion that "there is not a Jewish nation." Here in context he seemed to be using the term "nation" for "ethnic group." He thought of himself as a "Jewish Englishman."
On race vs. ethnicity I enclose this: “Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist and paleobiologist at The Pennsylvania State University, who is known for her research into the evolution of human skin color. "Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture."
On the issue of race there is the following from David Reich that I recommend highly for people who don’t have the interest to read his book (not an easy book to read): Opinion | How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
I disagree with what Nina Jablonski says in that quote about how "Race is understood by most people." Most people understand a "race" as a collection of people who are related by descent, who share a gene pool. That is the basic understanding of "race". This common descent does *result* in similarities in physical attributes, though it makes sense to the average person to say that someone who might have some physical attributes of one "race" is "really" a member of a different "race" (or mix of "races") based on ancestry. Common descent could also result in shared behavioral attributes, but that's not as clear-cut, and is not how "race" is *defined* by the average person. And cultural attributes? All I have to say there is that it is perfectly consistent with what I'm calling the average person's understanding of "race" to say that a child of one "race" can be raised by a family and community of a different "race", and the child will *not* have the cultural attributes of his or her own "race".
I think you said here that you live in the U.S. How do you fill in forms that ask you for your "race"? If you regularly choose "decline to state", how would you fill it in if you changed your mind and chose to state? I'm not actually asking you for an answer like "White" or "Black" or "Asian", but what approach you take to coming up with an answer. Such as, maybe select all of them, because your ancestry, like everyone else's, is so mixed if you go back far enough?
A lazy and inaccurate reversal. Being Zionist does not by definition stand in contradiction of Palestinian rights (real rights, not the demands they think are rights). Being anti-Zionist stands in direct contradiction of Jewish rights.
To clarify, do you mean that Jews have a right to live in Palestine by virtue of being Jews, but Palestinians do not have a right to live in Palestine by virtue of being Palestinians -- it's just a demand that they think is a right?
Both groups have the right to live in Palestine. To be Zionist and Palestinian nationalist. Neither has the right to deprive the other group of the right to live in Palestine. To be anti-Zionist and anti-Palestinian nationalism. Agreed?
Winters, I don't understand how all five sentences you've written are connected.
But with substitutions from your second sentence, your third sentence asserts that neither Zionists nor Palestinian nationalists have the right to deprive the other group of the right to live in Palestine.
But Zionists *do* deprive Palestinian nationalists of the right to live in Palestine.
My "We're not anti-Palestinian, we're just pro-Zionist" was partly a joke, because the Zionists who deprive Palestinian nationalists of the right to live in Palestine only say the second half, and not the first half. How often do you hear someone promoting Zionism and including the words "we're not anti-Palestinian"?
Ran, On the substance of this, I have to defer to Prof Hazkani. I can pass this on to him if you'd like. On the question of whether I'd host an academic who came to contrary conclusions, it is true that I am guilty of the human tendency to seek out and amplify evidence that confirms my preconceptions. But I've tried to counteract that by seeking out guests who disagree with me, and we've had quite a few, as you know. Honestly, the biggest problem I face isn't my willingness to invite people who hold views that are closer to yours than mine. It's their reluctance to accept my invitations. But I keep trying. In fact, your comment has reminded me to invite Benny Morris.
Sure, pass it on to professor Hazkani and while Benny Morris would be interesting, considering how many people on this site often write about sending the Jews back to Europe or how the Mizrachi Jews live under the thumb of Ashkenazi Jews Guy Abutbul-Selinger whose Haaretz piece I enclosed earlier would be a revelation about the changes in Israeli society. One example, Mizrachi women now earn more than Ashkenazi women. The reason: Mizrachi women did the immigrant thing getting tech knowledge while the Ashkenazi next gen went into the humanities. Funny.
Here's some quotes from Fatima Mohammed, whom Peter seems so eager to defend.
On May 8, 2021, Mohammed tweeted: “terms like left-wing Israeli just make me laugh. Allah yl3nhm kuluhum ya rab [May Allah curse them all, oh God.]”
On the same thread, Mohammed tweeted: “may every Zionist burn in the hottest pit of hell.”
On June 8, 2022, Mohammed tweeted: “Zionism has no place in cuny. Attempts to silence us only make us stronger."
Mohammed retweeted a June 16, 2021 tweet that said: “‘second nakba is coming’ yea the israeli nakba when y’all leave to brooklyn.”
Mohammed retweeted an August 27, 2021 that said: “having an american flag in your bio/location is adjacent to having the israeli to me you are all t£rr0r1sts to me 🤣.”
Mohammed started her speech by saying [00:29:43]: “So, I come to you all today with a very, very short message, and that is: glory to the martyrs, glory to the resistance, glory to Palestinian men fighting on the land. Glory to each and every single person throwing the stones.”
Mohammed went on to say [00:16:42]: “If you're part of an institution, if you're part of a school, demand! Demand that Palestine is in the curriculum. Demand that you are not funding this genocide. Demand that Zionist professors are not welcomed on your campus! Demand that Zionist students are not in spaces where Palestinian students are, because Zionism is a threat! Zionism is a genocidal threat to us!” [There's your commitment to free speech, eh, Petey?]
This person obviously loathes "Zionists" aka 95%+ of Jews and has for years, yet rather than being ostracized for hate speech, was welcomed and platformed by CUNY. And yet Peter Beinart and the rest of the left have no issues with anything she's said or has said in the past. Then they wonder why "mainstream Jewish organizations" are concerned about anti-Semitism on the left. This is exactly why. Apparently they can't see the forest for the trees.
I don't agree with all of her statements that you quoted (assuming the quotes are accurate), but you need to understand that the rage of the oppressed has to be evaluated differently than the hatred of the oppressor.
Whether or not you agree with her statements or believe them to be justified is completely irrelevant, except insofar as it reveals insights into your character as well as hers. What she said was clearly far beyond mere criticism of Israel and "mainstream Jewish organizations" are perfectly justified in responding to her hate, despite the whining of Peter Beinart and those like him. Anything else you wanted to discuss?
Which statements do you agree with?
I'd be interesting in learning the answer to this question as well.
Anti-Semitism on the left is definitely not an equal problem to anti-Semitism on the right. They're not equal in a number of ways. You're comparing apples to oranges.
One of those ways is that the left is supposed to be the party of morality and human rights and anti-racism. The party, nowadays, of microaggressions and consent and speech is violence. So when American Jews, who are mostly on the left because they're told the left is the side who cares about minorities, see left wingers defending things like Palestinian terrorism and people like Louis Farrakhan and Rasmea Odeh and Leila Khaled, their reaction is "what the heck is going on here?"
The consequences of saying anti-Semitic things are different between the two sides as well. Ilhan Omar says Jews control Congress with their money, she's put on the cover of Rolling Stone. Rashida Tlaib says that thinking about the Holocaust gives her a calming feeling, she's put on various government committees. Linda Sarsour goes to watch a Louis Farrakhan speech and professes how much she likes him on social media, she's one of Time's Most Influential People. Joe King says a bunch of anti-Semitic stuff, he's stripped of his committee assignments, loses his next election, and his political career ends.
Left wingers are also on the side of identifying dogwhistles. They know, beyond a shadow of a doubt and I agree with them, that when Trump says "bad hombres" he means Mexicans. When he says "thugs" and "welfare queens" he means black people. And yet, somehow, when a law students says "Zionists are fascists", suddenly there's no issue and they're "only talking about Zionists, not Jews" so everything is fine and you're the bad person if you don't like it.
American Jews know the right wingers suck. They know the right wingers are Islamophobic, transphobic, racist, misogynist and the rest. That's why American Jews are mostly on the side of the left. So why aren't some people on the left on the side of them?
I object to this statement: “American Jews, who are mostly on the left because they're told the left is the side who cares about minorities...” American Jews are not pushed around by things they “are told” like mindless victims. They are an active force in the Democratic Party, which is precisely why AIPAC and other pro-Zionist groups want to sway them back to the pro-Zionist crowd. That many of them stand for justice under such pressure speaks of the courage and clarity of mind and morals of many American Jews.
That's not the only reason American Jews are on the left, but certainly they are there because the Democratic party is supposed to care about minorities. If the Dems were like the Republicans who hate minorities, it's unlikely American Jews would support the Dems.
"The pro-Zionist crowd" includes the vast majority of Democrats, like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. It's not a question of "back."
You’re making sweeping statements about "the Jewish law students at CUNY" based off of one statement by "CUNY's Jewish Law Students Association." Before you continue that line of thinking, you might be interested in knowing that the Jewish Law Students Association at CUNY is open to any student, not just Jewish students, and includes as a member Fatima Mohammed herself.
You're making a whopper of an assumption that a students association that is open to any members, including radical anti-Zionists, and that has endorsed BDS, is the kind of association that the Jewish law students at CUNY would in general join. There's no actual evidence that this organization reflects the views of the Jewish law students in general. None whatsoever.
This is peak irony from Peter Beinart. You and the rest of the fringe anti-Zionists have been flipping out for decades about the state of Israel claiming to act and speak for the Jewish people because your extremist views aren't represented. But now here you are, taking at face value the views of a group that appears to be Jewish in name alone represents the Jews at CUNY Law, probably because the group says something you agree with it. A page from the JVP playbook to the letter. Spare us the hypocrisy and the intellectual dishonesty. No one is fooled.
He never said “this organization reflects the views of the Jewish law students in general.” You’re doing the same thing you accuse him of doing. He is saying that there ARE Jewish law students there, and a decent number of them, who defended her against these spurious accusations. Of course you entirely missed the whole point that antisemitism is a form of racism/xenophobia just as any other and is not a “special” or unique case utterly unlike any other.
Someone concerned about antisemitism and the freedom of speech of Jews in general, as with all people, should applaud pointing out that criticism of a democracy does not constitute hatred of the residents of that democracy or their ethnicity. Of course, if demonization of Palestinians is your thing, I’m speaking to a wall.
What he said, exact quotes "the Jewish students at CUNY Law School defended this speaker, Fatima Mohammed, and in fact, they had previously even endorsed BDS themselves."
"the CUNY Jewish law students embrace of Fatima Mohammed"
"the very Jewish students at CUNY Law School were embracing and endorsing what Fatima Mohammad was saying."
And his evidence is the organization in question. So he is speaking about the Jewish students as a group, as if they act as one mind and speak with one voice. No reasonable person can interpret that as anything other than what I said. You are engaging in a semantic and pedantic argument; nobody is convinced. It's not my fault your idol Beinart said something so obviously wrong and stupid; don't blame me for calling him out.
And actually I don't think that's Beinart's point at all. Maybe you need to read the column again?
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Sincerely, the Left.
Don't kid yourself. The truly dangerous antisemitism is coming from the left. This is not to dismiss neo-Nazis and other wackos from the far right. They must be rooted out and stopped. However, it is the antisemitism supported by college professors, BLM, women's movement, et.al. -- liberal organizations, largely ignored by the media -- that is poisoning a generation. Polite antisemitism takes the form of being anti-Israel -- and it is made especially easy when organizations like "Jewish Voice for Peace" and "religious" Jews like Peter Beinart -- lead the charge and make it easy to avoid the charge of being called an antisemite.
Think about it: when there is a right wing attack like the attack at Tree of Life Synagogue -- everyone, both conservative and liberal -- condemn it. But, when there is left wing anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic protests including preventing pro-Israel speakers appearing on college campuses, it is ignored or even supported by the left.
Separate, but related, is political antisemitism. Jews vote for Democrats 80% of the time. In this highly polarized environment, where liberals vs conservatives feels like Civil War, conservatives are unhappy with Jewish voters, especially when they see that their own attitudes toward Israel often more supportive than Jews themselves.
You’re conflating Israel with Jews. And that’s not surprising since Israel is formulated as the homeland for Jewish people. But when blatant injustices are committed by the state of Israel, the problem is it can NEVER be held accountable because the identification of Jews with Israel in the minds of Zionists supersedes the freedom of thought necessary for ANY democracy, rather it creates a strait jacket or thought police, and thus forces immoral and unjust complicity in criminal behavior we must all accept without question because Netanyahu or whoever is Jewish. So Jews can’t choose their form of government or even adhere to basic principles of justice??? Without being slandered viciously and attacked? Seriously??
Regarding political antisemitism in the US, one of the most bizarre aspects of US foreign policy debate over the last 30 years in my view is how fetishized and distorted Israel as a topic has become in the American consciousness.
On the right, you have Christian Zionists, hardline pro-war national security hawks, blood-and-soil ethno-nationalists, and anti-Islam neo-crusaders all for various reasons professing to love Israel more than liberal American Jews do, but it’s not borne of any kind of sincere affection for or connection to the land and people living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
I mean, George W. Bush’s position on Israel—in the peak of the Second Intifada—was closer to that of Obama and Biden than to the modern over-the-top pro-Israel RW popularism of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or any other GOP contender, at a time when Israel’s security outlook and unconditional US government support for it is stronger than at any point in its history.
The political Overton window on Israel has shifted so far to the right, that Reagan’s Israel policies from the 80’s— not to mention the views of those of us who adopted and maintained liberal pro-Israel (but not uncritically so) positions in the Oslo days—look comparatively left-wing today in retrospect.
For its part, I think the American left has moved in solidarity with the Palestinian side to adopt the binary narrative wholesale to see Israel as a uniquely evil country. A view for an American thousands of miles away that, I think, lacks perspective. That’s also a kind of fetishism, but a lesser one and one that arose in reaction to and frustration with the marked right-wing shift in de facto US policy over the years
Peter, I think your entire piece is one large strawman. I've never heard anyone say that anti-Semitism on the right is equally prevalent and problematic as anti-Semitism on the left. You don't actually cite anyone who says that either, preferring instead to simply say unnamed "establishment American Jewish organizations". It's undisputable that anti-Semitism on the right is worse both in act and in popularity than anti-Semitism on the left. I've never heard anyone, much less the so-called "establishment Jewish organizations", say otherwise.
I think the issue is that when these mainstream Jewish organizations want to talk about anti-Semitism on the left, you and the rest of the far leftists treat that as proof that those organizations don't care about anti-Semitism on the right. Anytime the left is criticized, the refrain is always "what about the right?. Which is ironic, since the right is supposed to be the scum of the earth while the left are always virtuous, moral and anti-racist. I think those Jewish organizations want to talk about anti-Semitism on the left because the left is supposed to be the side of equality and human rights etc. But you don't want to do that, so you're trying to change the subject to anti-Semitism on the right.
TL;DR, I've never heard anyone say that anti-Semitism on the right is "an equal problem" to anti-Semitism on the left.
"I've never heard anyone say that anti-Semitism on the right is equally prevalent and problematic as anti-Semitism on the left."
Dennis Prager has been saying this for years. Gil Troy has written about it. Surely you hear as I do from others who denounce "anti-Semitism on the left", with very few such denunciations including some comparison such as "though it's not as prevalent or problematic as anti-Semitism on the right."
I don't read Dennis Prager, but I'll take your word for it.
" Surely you hear as I do from others who denounce "anti-Semitism on the left", "
And what's wrong with denouncing anti-Semitism on the left? Why are qualifiers needed?
I didn't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with denouncing anti-Semitism on the left. Just that when the headline is "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE LEFT", the natural question that one wants to hear answered in the story is, how does that compare to anti-Semitism on the right?
That's not the natural question I want to hear. If I'm reading an article about anti-Semitism on the left, I want to learn about anti-Semitism on the left. Surely the reverse wouldn't be true, if I'm reading about the alt right, Proud Boys, etc., I wouldn't also expect to hear about anti-Semitism on the left.
"If I'm reading an article about anti-Semitism on the left, I want to learn about anti-Semitism on the left."
But I'm not talking about "an article about anti-Semitism on the left"; I'm talking about an article with a *headline* blaring "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE LEFT". Such an article calls out something it labels "THE LEFT". Everything I'm saying here is about people calling out anti-Semitism on "THE LEFT" when they specifically use the *word* "LEFT". If it's addressing a broad general audience that isn't particularly attuned to anti-Semitism and includes people who identify as both left-wingers and right-wingers, then I would expect it to say even if only in brief mention how anti-Semitism is usually considered a problem only on THE RIGHT side of the political spectrum, if you are correct about that.
"Surely the reverse wouldn't be true, if I'm reading about the alt right, Proud Boys, etc., I wouldn't also expect to hear about anti-Semitism on the left."
The reverse of an article with a headline blaring "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE LEFT" is not an article "about the alt right, Proud Boys, etc."; it's an article with a headline blaring "ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE RIGHT", using the *word* "RIGHT". Again, if it is addressing a broad general audience that isn't particularly attuned to anti-Semitism and includes people who identify as both left-wingers and right-wingers, then I would expect it to say even if in only brief mention that anti-Semitism has always been a problem particular to THE RIGHT side of the political spectrum, which by implication would mean that it's not as prevalent on THE LEFT.
He's likely referring to the dangerous statement by ADL head, Jonathan Greenblatt, last year where he equates anti-Zionists w white supremacists: "So that SJP, JVP and CAIR – these groups epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked." https://www.adl.org/remarks-jonathan-greenblatt-adl-virtual-national-leadership-summit
Created quite a stir, and I believed he slightly walked back some of his comments a few weeks later when a white gunman raided a supermarket in a Black neighborhood in NY.
Peter wrote an entire piece about one statement from over a year ago? Pretty pathetic if true.
Um this was actually pretty huge and controversial, and ADL staff have actually been resigning over it for the last year. ->Google it
If you say so. If ADL staff are resigning over it, then it's all the more dishonest for Peter to ascribe Greenblatt's views to "American politicians and establishment American Jewish leaders" as a whole.
A very revealing study which, naturally, all pro-Israel Zionists will either ignore or claim that it is itself anti-semitic. Because even clear evidence of the Zionists' anti-semitism is anti-semitic. It, of course, blows another hole in the hull of HMS Zionist Labour as captained by Sir Keir Starmer, the establishment politicians' politician here in the UK. His unashamed affinity with the racist project that is Zionism is based on nothing that anyone should be proud of, and his relentless attacks on his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn (no knighthood for him) as supposedly anti-semitic are likewise as hollow as an Easter egg.
As a pro-Israel Zionist, I'm not going to do either. The study doesn't really disprove anything beyond Peter's strawman. If anything, it's nice to see yet more evidence that even the United States isn't safe for Jews, and thus the need for a Jewish state continues to exist.
The word “strawman” has itself become a strawman. “All lies in jest when a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Paul Simon. Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, there isn’t a totally safe haven for anyone without lots of $ these days.
You don't have to call it a strawman. Call it whatever you want. Regardless of what you call it, Peter is arguing against a point no one is making. No one besides him is saying anti-Semitism is an "equal problem" on the left and the right.
Most left wingers who are antisemitic aren’t really left wing they are Putin and Assad supporters. Examples are people like roger waters who is heavily against ukraine.
Professor Beinart and Professor Hazkani. I listened to the interview and as is often the case I learn from these interviews. I benefit from Professor Beinart’s access to various individuals often Palestinians and others. And I thank Professor Beinart for hosting these meetings. But I see many problems with his, not to mention others here, opinion laden yack vs. doing the research to get at the facts.
My primary question to Professor Beinart is this: If this book detailed the reverse would you have interviewed Professor Hazkani or simply ignored it.
Did you know the leader of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA), Fawzi al-Qawuqji, spent WWII in Nazi Germany? Did you ever see the emblem of the ALA? (Arab Liberation Army - Wikipedia). There on the first page is the emblem. it features a star of David with a dagger thrust through it. All their military equipment had this emblem. And you think the Jewish soldiers, many if not the majority of whom in 1947-49 were Holocaust survivors, should ignore this symbolism.
While Professor Hazkani did not find genocidal statements among the Arab members of the Arab Liberation Army. Such statements were made by others mostly higher up. The most controversial one was by the Egyptian Diplomat Abdel Rahman Hassan Azzam. His quote was recently tracked down to an Egyptian newspaper Akhbar-el Yom on October 11, 1947: "Personally, I hope the Jews do not force us into this war, because it would be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...".
Not to give the wrong impression about Azzam, he condemned an anti-Jewish riot in Cairo in 1945 where Jewish shops and a synagogue were destroyed. And yes, as Hazkani recklessly implied, comparable to the gas chambers and ovens living as a Jew in the Arab world was benign. Just the occasional anti-Jewish attacks and official 2nd class citizenship as a dhimmi.
Returning to Azzam who became the Secretary General of the Arab League in 1945, the Jewish Agency saw him as a someone they could negotiate with, and several leaders of the Jewish Agency met with him in England just before the 1948 hostilities to see if they could broker an agreement. Azzam met with Abba Eban, who would become the new state’s foreign minister, David Horowitz, who would become the governor of Israel’s banks, and John Kimche a well-regarded reporter. Azzam explained to them that there was no option but war. In other words, there were efforts to bridge the gap between the Arabs and Jews for fear worse could occur.
Given that Azzam personally thought the Jews would lose its understandable why he would reject a peace overture. I wonder if the likes of Azzam, the Mufti Hajj Amin and Fawzi al-Qawuqji, Jew haters, had not been the decision makers for the Palestinians whether the Nakba could have been avoided.
Generalizations …when have you ever seen any generalization able to characterize a group of 16 million worldwide…facts change my mind not vitriol or hysteria
What you're saying may be true of the US, but my own experience growing up and currently living in a Muslim-majority society, and following the situation in the UK, is that this pattern does not generalize. The US has less Muslim influence, but where that influence is greater a Muslim-driven left-discourse-appropriating antisemitism becomes more widespread. That's the kind that mostly uses dogwhistles where 'Jew' is replaced by 'Zionist' or something, and that is obsessed with Palestine but in a way where prejudice against Jews gets expressed in the process or is part of the motivation for their obsession. In the UK a study (that I've linked you to before, twice) showed a positive correlation between negativity toward Israel and antisemitism, and both things were found to exist more among Muslims than other groups studied.
This does not mean, obviously, that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. It's not. It also doesn't mean that there's more antisemitism on the left than the right, but just that the pattern in the US does not obtain everywhere in the world.
So glad to see this study. The last year or so (at least in my community) progressive Jewish community has been seeing a slew of speakers making the rounds training us to mobilize against rabid, violent anti-Zionists. And yet how many weeks go by btwn mass shootings here by real, admitted white supremacists? The equation of anti-Zionists with antisemitism, and the further equation to the "photo inverse of the Extreme Right" (ADL's Greenblatt in May 2022) is such a crock of shit, and so dangerously distracts from the real ppl who actually want to kill us. But the real "threat" of anti-Zionists is that uplifting the voices and stories of Palestinians, and encouraging others to engage in deep listening and empathy, pierces through the thin armor of Zionist rhetoric every time.
They clearly show that antisemitic attitudes are far more common on the left than the right, but what about acts of antisemitism? I wish their paper had taken that into consideration. I wonder what percentage of antisemitic hate crimes/incidents of bias involve just criticism of Israel? In April, a synagogue in Seattle was vandalized with the word “apartheid,” a phrase that appears to read “Israel has lied,” and a face with “Im [sic] still here” written underneath. According to the JDA definition this would likely be considered an antisemitic attack because it seems to hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct; however, this feels significantly less antisemitic to me than the last time this synagogue was vandalized 6 yrs ago with the phrase, “Holocaust is fake history”. Anyway, I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of antisemitic hate crimes/incidents of bias involve just criticism of Israel, and then to apply the JDA definition to just those acts to see what percentage the JDA would consider antisemitic, and then to find out if the perpetrators of just those acts were on the left or the right.
Important and excellent.
Until we're clear on who a Jew is, antisemitism, even its own definition will remain a problem: Is Jewishness a race or a religion?
For example when a black or native American Jew criticizes Zionism, are they antisemitic? Are the black Hebrew Israelites Jews or not?
The idea that the Jews should have Israel will/may pose a challenge to Jewish converts because none of their ancestors suffered the Holocaust. What would motivate them to clamor for a safe haven in Israel? If they identify as Jewish but criticize Zionism, are they antisemitic?
Also, if we're honest, Zionism and its attendant antisemitism definitions are racist, even imperialistic. Zionism has always been pushed by the white western Jews.
We're not transphobic, we're just against gender affirming care.
We're not homophobic, we're just in favor of traditional marriage.
We're not racist, we're just in favor of voter ID laws and cracking down on crime.
We're not anti-Semitic, we're just anti-Zionist.
Nice answer but does not
answer my question: is
Jewishness a religion or race? Let's start there.
Not interested in answering the bad faith questions of bigots, thanks. Try cracking a book on the subject. Or maybe Peter can answer you, since he's such an authority on Jews.
I will take a shot at this. Race? Nonsense. The Jewish people are just that a people who have a shared history and religion. Another way is to say that the Jews are an ethnic group.
Now, it is also true that the people who don't like Jews might say 'the Jewish race" etc. Give it up on race there is no such thing. Just because some people have different skin colors or other externally visible features does not mean what flows in their veins is different or what goes on in their brain is different.
An ethnic group tied to religion and history? If that be the case, can secular Jews be real Jews if they dont practise Judaism?
Are all Jews Semites?
Semite[Merriam W] : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
History is not clear if Ashkenazic Jews are indigeneous to Israel. Their claim is founded on theology. Can converts who are not from the region be real Jews? Are the black Hebrew Israelites real Jews? Who's the arbiter on who's Jewish or not?
We have some who identify as Jewish American as opposed to White American. Looks like using Jewish is a race in this case.
I think once you read a book on modern genetics, for example Who We are and How we got here by David Reich you will stop asking these questions because this book will render them meaningless.
In particular race will go away.
He refused to discuss Jews in particular because he says there are already numerous studies. All of whom concluded that whether you are Ashkenazic or Mizrachi your gene pool had its origin is the Middle East.
For those who insist on indigeneity may I remind you that the Arabs are indigenous to Arabia.
But really don't get worked up by these labels your head will clear up after you read this book.
I pose the questions because the claim on Israel is based on it, that their descendants were displaced from Palestine. Historians and theologians are still not in agreement on this issue.
Again, until we're clear on who's a semite (Jew??) or not, it'll be hard to define antisemitism.
"He refused to discuss Jews in particular because he says there are already numerous studies. All of whom concluded that whether you are Ashkenazic or Mizrachi your gene pool had its origin is the Middle East."
A group of people whose gene pool has a common origin in some location is exactly the customary notion of what a "race" is. There are only 5 or 6 of them in the U.S. government classification, a classification that is extremely popular nowadays with most Americans who situate themselves anywhere on the left side of the political spectrum, but genetic testing services like 23&me are convincing people of the reality of even more racial categories. I get it, you will say that they're misinterpreting those genetic reports, but I'm just saying that this is the effect.
Ran Kohn, what is the difference between a "race" and an "ethnic group"? A hundred years ago it was pretty common for people to talk about, say, the English or Scottish, German or Italian "races", whereas today we call them ethnic groups. In his famous letter opposing the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the Jewish cabinet minister Edwin Montagu said that Jews from different countries may be "of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race", in contrast to his assertion that "there is not a Jewish nation." Here in context he seemed to be using the term "nation" for "ethnic group." He thought of himself as a "Jewish Englishman."
On race vs. ethnicity I enclose this: “Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist and paleobiologist at The Pennsylvania State University, who is known for her research into the evolution of human skin color. "Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture."
On the issue of race there is the following from David Reich that I recommend highly for people who don’t have the interest to read his book (not an easy book to read): Opinion | How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
I disagree with what Nina Jablonski says in that quote about how "Race is understood by most people." Most people understand a "race" as a collection of people who are related by descent, who share a gene pool. That is the basic understanding of "race". This common descent does *result* in similarities in physical attributes, though it makes sense to the average person to say that someone who might have some physical attributes of one "race" is "really" a member of a different "race" (or mix of "races") based on ancestry. Common descent could also result in shared behavioral attributes, but that's not as clear-cut, and is not how "race" is *defined* by the average person. And cultural attributes? All I have to say there is that it is perfectly consistent with what I'm calling the average person's understanding of "race" to say that a child of one "race" can be raised by a family and community of a different "race", and the child will *not* have the cultural attributes of his or her own "race".
I think you said here that you live in the U.S. How do you fill in forms that ask you for your "race"? If you regularly choose "decline to state", how would you fill it in if you changed your mind and chose to state? I'm not actually asking you for an answer like "White" or "Black" or "Asian", but what approach you take to coming up with an answer. Such as, maybe select all of them, because your ancestry, like everyone else's, is so mixed if you go back far enough?
Or, "We're not anti-Palestinian, we're just pro-Zionist."
A lazy and inaccurate reversal. Being Zionist does not by definition stand in contradiction of Palestinian rights (real rights, not the demands they think are rights). Being anti-Zionist stands in direct contradiction of Jewish rights.
To clarify, do you mean that Jews have a right to live in Palestine by virtue of being Jews, but Palestinians do not have a right to live in Palestine by virtue of being Palestinians -- it's just a demand that they think is a right?
No, that's not what I mean.
Both groups have the right to live in Palestine. To be Zionist and Palestinian nationalist. Neither has the right to deprive the other group of the right to live in Palestine. To be anti-Zionist and anti-Palestinian nationalism. Agreed?
Winters, I don't understand how all five sentences you've written are connected.
But with substitutions from your second sentence, your third sentence asserts that neither Zionists nor Palestinian nationalists have the right to deprive the other group of the right to live in Palestine.
But Zionists *do* deprive Palestinian nationalists of the right to live in Palestine.
My "We're not anti-Palestinian, we're just pro-Zionist" was partly a joke, because the Zionists who deprive Palestinian nationalists of the right to live in Palestine only say the second half, and not the first half. How often do you hear someone promoting Zionism and including the words "we're not anti-Palestinian"?