Hunting Guido Sohne

Now, the question could be asked, are they antisemitic? Well, I don't know, though I personally think the answer is no. But that doesn't matter. We should keep the discourse as intelligent and civil as possible, which means debating, not insulting.

I found a lot of their comments tremendously offensive and insulting. And I think it's the height of hypocrisy for others to demand that people like me scrub our comments of anything remotely insulting in response.

The fact is, if these people have a right to voice their opinions about how Jewish lobbies are shutting down debate, the rest of us have the right to call such opinions antisemitic. It's not hunting or anything of the sort. Instead, those who want a "civilized" atmosphere in these discussions of Jewish power are simply trying to stifle debate. They don't want the ugliness of their own ideas shown to them. Most often, even, the idea that one should avoid antisemitism is received with further theories of Jewish power "stifling debate."

Guido was hardly the worst of those mentioned in this article. In fact, I appreciated his occassional desire to learn what antisemitism was so that he could avoid it. But he didn't. He was not willing to let go of what were bigoted theories of Jewish power. And, yes, that's antisemitism. To deny that is absurd. To try to keep people from pointing out the obvious bigotry of such statements is absurd.

And to blame the people who pointed it out is absurd. Could they (or "we" if you think I'm abrasive enough for inclusion) have been nicer in doing so? I'm sure they could have. But "should they?" is a different question, and "how should you respond further?" another question still. Asking us to be nicer without even bothering to listen is wrong. This is basic stuff that anti-racists say about every group, but which lots of people refuse to offer to Jews:

But what about the instances in which a Jew may claim that something is antisemitic and you disagree? Like with any other oppressed group, listen. As a person of color and as a gay man, if I claim a statement you made is racist or homophobic, I would hope that you would stop and ask why I saw it that way. It may be difficult to do this but you would not probably tell me to be quiet. The next time a Jew tells you that a criticism is antisemitic, ask what was antisemitic about it. Listen. We do this for other groups and Jews are deserving of no less respect.

And while it's hardly the Nuremberg Laws, that there is, in and of itself, discrimination. On the other hand, the more you listen to our concerns, the nicer you'll probably find us.

Ultimately, Guido left - he wasn't driven away - because he didn't want to listen any more.

if these people have a right to voice their opinions about how Jewish lobbies are shutting down debate, the rest of us have the right to call such opinions antisemitic.

Wait a second, doesn't it matter what they say? How they say it?

It should be perfectly valid to have an opinion that Jewish lobbies are shutting down debate. Even better if you can provide proof or examples. Saying that isn't anti-semitic.

Is it?

So what constitutes unbigoted criticism of Jewish power? You seem to want it both ways. the concept of antisemitism is too convienient and too loaded to actually mean anything any more, you've [whoever you think you are representing in using it] abused it to the extent that it's meaningless.
Once again So what constitutes unbigoted criticism of Jewish power? And when you say Jewish power do you mean Israeli power, Zionist power, religious power, or the global tribes power?

With rare exception, saying that is antisemitic. How can you make a claim that Jewish lobbies are shutting down the debate without making a claim about Jewish power? It's only a half-step away from the more obviously antisemitic "the Jews control the media," but it's hardly different in substance.

I don't want to speak against the Jews, but when one reads the Jewish press, Jewish publications, and Jewish defence organs, one cannot escape the conclusion that in criticising them, one invites instant rebuke and disapproval. In doing so, you are either a reactionary, an obscurant, or a member of the Black Hundred. Having monopolised the press, they've become so arrogant as to believe that no one will dare level such an accusation against them

The quote is from a prosecutor in a blood libel court case, and I hope we can readily agree that it's antisemitic. It occurred in the Ukraine in the early 1900s, which explains the reference to the Black Hundred, and also illuminates just how stereotypical and bizarre the claim was. The Jews of the area were being butchered left and right and hardly powerful enough to control the shape of the debate. But how is it different in kind from claims that Jewish lobbies are stifling debate? That "Jewish lobbies are stifling debate" fails to articulate a strightforward explanation of how such lobbies manage to do so (akin to "having monopolised the press") is hardly a point in favor.

But what I said was a simpler matter that doesn't really depend on the truthfulness of either claim. I merely argue that we cannot exclude charges of antisemitism if we are to include things that approach antisemitism in the "marketplace of ideas." There are various reasons to define the spectrum of legitimate debate differently. Certainly, one can hold the view that all ideas must be allowed as an alternative to the view that it's better to limit expressions of bigotry or insults. But if you hold that what is potentially antisemitic must be allowed within the spectrum of legitimate debate, you can't rightly exclude charges of antisemitism. To do so would bias debate in a perverse way.

But that is exactly what these calls for politeness do. They argue that it is perfectly acceptable to slander an entire group, but that it's disrespectful to respond directly. The offended group must dodge and evade reference to the original to avoid "personal attacks." The offended are required to miss the mark.

Once again So what constitutes unbigoted criticism of Jewish power? And when you say Jewish power do you mean Israeli power, Zionist power, religious power, or the global tribes power?

How often do you criticize black power, winsomecowboy?

Saying that Jews have monopolized the press is anti-semitic?

No, it's not. It's wrong, it's conspiratorial, it's paranoid, and it presents a false view of history, but it's not anti-semitic.

Anti-semitism is hatred of Jewish people simply because they're Jewish.

Just answer the question without recourse to slipperry sematic counterquestions. I'm not interested in your retorical gymnastics, nor am I impressed by cookiecutter evasion.
An example of non bigoted critisism of Jewish power from your humble opinion as the arbartator of antisemitism.

jeez I typed that in a hurry.

Dennis, I'd suggest you look into just what antisemitism is. Claiming that Jews control the press, or other societal institutions, is a common and even core element. From the birth of antisemitism, when Wilhelm Marr claimed that Israel was the strongest power in the world (in the late 1800s, many years before Israel existed), antisemites have made such claims. As put explicitly in the EU definition of antisemitism:

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Oluseye, I don't see how relative anonimity has any bearing. People choose to use their real names or not for various reasons, but we are all just personas here.

Claims of anti-Semitism can send one to jail.

Huh? And describe this a little more fully:

Criticising black power (black weakness morel ike) happens everyday I exist

winsome:

Just answer the question without recourse to slipperry sematic counterquestions

My point is that people don't criticize other groups that way. Oluseye seems to think they do, so I'll let him weigh in on that first.

I don't know. I've always thought of antisemitism as being pretty much the same as prejudice against any race/ethnicity/religion/whatever.

Bigotry is bigotry, you know?

And I don't see criticism of Israel's government/military as being any different than criticism of any other country.

Besides, there's a lot to criticize, just as there is with our government.

So don't answer my question, fine. Game over, you prevaricate for advantage. Good for you. You have neither the will or the authority to tell me or anyone what constitutes anti-semitic if all you have on one hand is the EEC definition and on the other some amorphous personal and hidden criteria of what constitutes "bigoted criticism of Jewish power"

I don't know. I've always thought of antisemitism as being pretty much the same as prejudice against any race/ethnicity/religion/whatever.

Every form of bigotry is different (though some are related). Bigots don't go around accusing Asians of being good dancers or blacks of being good at math? People accuse Jews of having power. You've heard the term "international Jewish bankers"? So much to deconstruct there, but it's worth pointing out that the stereotype is very different from anything you'd hear about blacks.

Yes, there is a lot worth criticizing about Israel. I do plenty of it myself, believe it or not (and, no, I don't mean from the right). But that's no justification antisemitic remarks. Better to learn what antisemitism is so that you can more effectively criticize Israel without being antisemitic. Yeah?

I've written a few articles in addition to some seeds toward that aim. Here's the most recent article related to that. Here's a recent seed worth reading. Here's a pretty important seed worth looking at, though it goes to a 32-page .pdf pamphlet. You'll notice that none preclude criticism of Israel. The pamphlet was actually written by someone who got started when antisemitism was interfering with her ability to do good work for the Palestinian cause.

Oluseye, I don't find any of your concerns compelling. For all of the purposes you describe our personas are the same as our real names (even for filing charges with the police). If you engage with ideas, it doesn't even matter if I'm an Israeli government bot.

Bigots don't go around accusing Asians of being good dancers or blacks of being good at math? People accuse Jews of having power.

That's not different. Just the specifics are.

A stereotype is a stereotype. Hatred is hatred. bias is bias.

I get the impression that if ignoblus had a picnic, and it rained, the rain would be anti-semetic.

You know, that's what I'm trying to find out. If this whole thing is misunderstanding, or if one side, or both, is just freaking nuts.

To claim that you have the same to lose being 'ignoblus' as Guido Sohne using his given birth names with which he conducts his IT business is puerile.

A more interesting reason, but I would suggest the answer to that is for fewer people to use their real names. There are other things to consider. What I don't find remotely arguable is that using your real name somehow provides for greater authenticity. Authentic what?

I get the impression that if ignoblus had a picnic, and it rained, the rain would be anti-semetic.

Perhaps becuase it's easier than actually engaging with anything I say?

Says the prevaricator.

That's not different. Just the specifics are.

A stereotype is a stereotype. Hatred is hatred. bias is bias.

You're right that those are both examples of stereotypes. But did you notice they're both examples of "positive" stereotypes? Who doesn't want to be a good dancer or good at math? Should we get into that?

What bigots say about Jews is that Jews have power. Jews control the banks, media, government... Whatever important societal institution you can think of, bigots have accused Jews of controlling it. Together with the related charges of conspiracy, that's the core of antisemitism. (That's the justification for discriminating against Jews and even genocide against Jews - Hitler claimed WWII was a defensive war.) What people say about Jews can't be neatly described as a stereotype - bigots like to treat Jews as a collective rather than as individuals - but that doesn't make it less dangerous. The point is that this is the history of antisemitism.

If you deny that claims of Jewish power are antisemitism, please read up on it. Read the EU definition. Or the Wikipedia page. The pamphlet offered above deals with it. (Or, if you really, really don't want to learn more, though I'd prefer you learn more, than please admit that you know nothing about the topic.)

Just don't tell me to shut up. You wouldn't do that if a gay person said something was homophobic, so how can you justify it here?

Yeah, those are positive stereotypes, but there are many negative ones too, about every/any race/ethnicity.

Tell me you've never heard words like lazy, dishonest, stupid, etc.

Hell, look at my name. I'm a drunk.

Right?

Just don't tell me to shut up.

I haven't. I wouldn't do that. I'm just trying to figure this out, and maybe get both sides to rethink whether they are over-reacting, or doing something to cause the other side to over-react.

Sure there are negative ones, but it isn't only the negative ones that should be troubling. There are negative ones about Jews, too. The more important point is that racism is a simplification based on race categories. The simplifications about Jews (viewed as a collective) aren't any less simplistic, wrong, or dangerous.

I haven't. I wouldn't do that.

You're right, you haven't told me to shut up. But isn't that what this article is about? And what I find more disturbing are the claims often seen that antisemitism is nothing but a cover or a smear campaign to discredit critics of Israel. Of course it's true that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, but that obvious claim gets treated as a license to be antisemitic. It should also be plainly true that it's very easy for criticism of Israel to be antisemitic.

Btw, it occurred to me that The Turner Diaries might make for a good example of antisemitism. It's an extremely influential book in the American far-right. Tim McVeigh was undoubtedly influenced by it in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (Yes, the worst case of domestic terrorism in the US was almost certainly motivated in part by antisemitism.)

The book is graphically violent. All non-whites, which include blacks and Latinos, are viciously depicted as being sub-human and bestial. Jews are depicted as conniving and manipulative puppet-masters who control the government, media and economy. Whites who do not support the race war are described as weak "race traitors" who must be terrorized into supporting it or else killed along with the non-whites.

The book depicts the hypothetical US of the mid-1990s as being a bleak, poor, decaying and oppressive society, with an economy on the brink of collapse, a government that has become a police-state, and a society that has taken multiculturalism and liberalism to irrational extremes (all of which is cast as the result of "Jewish domination"). This hypothetical America depicted in The Turner Diaries was a perhaps fanciful future extrapolation of the circumstances of the late-1970s that the author hoped would be ripe for future revolution.

I'd like to call attention to the obvious themes of Jewish power evident there. On the other hand, you could also read about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the famed forgery that's served as a blueprint for antisemitism since it's printing in the early 1900s. It purports to depict the notes from a meeting of the global Jewish conspiracy. Again, obvious themes of Jewish power.

Concern with Jewish power is the hallmark of antisemitism. Or, as Mel Gibson put it, "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

Ok, what about Israeli military power.

During last summer's war in Lebanon the big question that was constantly debated was whether Istael over-reacted. It had noting to do with religion or race...just a question of whether they went too far militarily.

Is that fair game?

Sure. I took a rather odd middle ground on that debate myself. Proportionality (the word of the day) has never been defined. Israel was much closer to any ideal of proportionality than any other nation in any other similar conflict. (Civilian casualties in Lebanon were fewer in proportion than Iraqi or Chechan casualties. Israel was not at all indiscriminate, as was so often suggested. Generally whenever anyone says "Israel is the worst..." that's just flat wrong.) So I took issue with some things that were said. But that didn't stop me from being opposed to the war on the grounds that it was disproportionate. For me, there just wasn't a way to conduct such a war that could result in few enough casualties to be worthwhile.

And I'll go one further: Israel is undoubtedly the stronger power in its dealings with the Palestinians. As such, Israel bears certain responsibilities for promoting peace that one could never reasonably ask of the Palestinians. No problems there at all.

But, there was also a lot of talk at the time about how Jews control US foreign policy. Remember Mearsheimer and Walt? That kind of stuff is not okay.

I agree with you on all counts.

You know, it's very possible that some people resort to that stuff not out of any real bias but because they've fallen for it themselves.

Would it be possible to show them where they're wrong, instead of using the charge of antisemitism?

Most of what I've seen is certain arguments being called antisemitic, not people. It's amazing some of the hoops even someone like Abraham Foxman will go through to avoid characterizing an individual as an antisemite. It's usually the other person who misquotes me long before I start calling such a person an antisemite.

Now, I don't see the point in avoiding the word "antisemitism" entirely. If an argument is antisemitism, I think it's appropriate to point that out so it becomes possible to talk about where such ideas come from and how they spread. I'm not going to quibble with someone else talking about "Jewish oppression" rather than "antisemitism," but it's just too disingenuous for me to ignore that some ideas have a long, ugly history.

And, considerations of what's more effective or whatever aside, it's a gross double standard to accept antisemitism as part of the debate while criticism those who point out that antisemitism. Regardless of who is more polite about it. You can't dress up a horse and take her to the prom.

I'm not saying you should ignore it, or not make the charge when it happens, and I'm not suggesting a double standard.

I guess my point is this. Like the debates last summer, this too seems to be about proportion. If someone says something mildly offensive, consider that they may not know better. They may have been convinced it was true, so convince them that it's not.

If someone, however is blatant about it, then by all means, a charge of antisemitism is valid.

If someone says something mildly offensive, consider that they may not know better. They may have been convinced it was true, so convince them that it's not.

That is, often enough, what I do. But - it's easier for you to recognize something as a personal attack than it is to recognize something as antisemitic - I think you have the proportionality backwards.

ignoblus said:

... if these people have a right to voice their opinions about how Jewish lobbies are shutting down debate, the rest of us have the right to call such opinions antisemitic.

Yes ignoblus, you have the right ... the right to be completely and utterly pig-ignorant in the way you label others and their opinions. Congratulations, welcome to free speech. The day you post a comment about your responsibilities I'll do naked cartwheels down mainstreet.

And from what I've read here there would be a pushback and we'll have a big mess on Newsvine.

pushback?

Of course speech comes with responsibility, but that's hardly one-sided. Everyone here who feels they have ever been unjustly or seen someone else unjustly accused of antisemitism has a responsibility to learn what it is. That way, they can have a better idea. I really appreciate the conversation with Dennis above, but do note it included comments from him like this:

Saying that Jews have monopolized the press is anti-semitic?

No offense Dennis - again, I appreciate that you would listen on a matter like this - but that's just ignorant.

And if I understand "pushback" correctly, if it comes to a major flamefest with antisemites on one side and people who are taking it personally on the other, which side would you be on, Oluseye?

Way to not answer the question.

Saying that Jews have monopolized the press is anti-semitic?

No offense Dennis - again, I appreciate that you would listen on a matter like this - but that's just ignorant.

Well, that's why it has the question mark. It's not a comment, I was really asking.

See, some people may say things like that because that's what they've always heard, and believe it to be true. Rather than calling them antisemitic for asking that question, wouldn't it be better to demonstrate that Jewish people haven't always monopolized the press?

You know, something along the lines of "that's a myth, and here's why..."

This is Newsvine. Use it to educate people. Get Smarter Here, and all that....

I think that's what I demonstrated that I could do, when someone is willing to listen. (And a willingness to listen is far more important to me than any initial ignorance.) But when people say that the Jews control the shape of debate, and that's something you see a lot, it is antisemitic. Their motivation might not be hateful (and that's always the case with stereotypes and even most racism), but that doesn't make something not antisemitic or racist.

OK, fair enough.

I received that email almost a month ago

I asked Mr. Sohne to clarify something for me in an e-mail.

I received the same e-mail that was posted.

My humble conclusion is that Mr. Guido should take a long rest because his Memo was like "one size fits all".

Any discussion of Israeli government policy by non-Israeli's or non-Jews is going to turn into a discussion of Antisemitism, with accusations flowing both ways. For that reason alone, I only discuss my views on Israeli government policy with my wife, who will at least kiss and make up when it's all over.

A long time ago, during a good conversation with GS he pointed me to this:
A simple, free FLICKR slideshow/geotagging tool that Guido designed some time ago

http://semaflickr.sohne.net/

I enjoyed Guido here and think it is a loss that he has left NV

Great resource, Chill! Thank you. This should be required viewing for just about everyone!

Yeah, but I don't think that was her intention.

The article was meant to be aimed at a certain group of people, probably the same people Oluseye is talking about.

He's not only being hunted on the Vine, but has had accounts on other sites shutdown in a concerted effort to silence him.

If one person hates you, it's probably not you. If everyone hates you... it's definitely not you?

They won't.

This is a coward's attack. It's one think to file an abuse reort with the Vine, but another entirely to chase someone beyond this site. That's vengeful and petty.

All I ask anyone to do is to stake something when they go after other people's reputations.

That's what I always try to do. That's what I've tried to do here.

If one person hates you, it's probably not you. If everyone hates you... it's definitely not you?

Not a good argument, but you knew that.

Oluseye Bassir:

When I go to parties and the bore walks over and starts regaling everyone with the same story, I have never seen the group shout him down and call him anti-Semitic.

Your parties are too tame.

You know, it seems like there's too many sets of cool kids around. Each Viney sub-culture can't be the cool kids, can they? I count four such sets alluded to in just the last 24 hours, always perjoratively.

Surya:

I agree completely with you. The possibilities for intelligent discourse are sullied and limited when you have individuals whose sole aim is to wreak havoc in the forum. At times, as Oluseye pointed out, the exchanges are wildly off-topic and reminiscent of playground scuffles or teenage gossip.

Also, I haven't seen this point brought up yet re: the term "anti-Semitism" but it's early on the east coast of America and I'm on my first cup of coffee. I may have missed something.

Ignoblus: I find the charge of "anti-Semitism", when levelled at critics of Israel, to be irresponsible in the worst way. As you pointed out, Jewish history is, in the main, is one of oppression. Because the experience of the Holocaust still resonates with most of us, the accusation is fraught with emotion. It's also a cheap attempt to silence criticism of Israel's policies. As I mentioned in my article, the tactics of the Israeli state have no more to do with the legacy of the Jewish people than the Bush administration has to do with America's Founding Fathers or the meaning of democracy.

I would also point out that the Palestinians have suffered their own history of oppression, although some refuse to acknowledge it. The double standard at play here is dangerous and, quite frankly, despicable.

Ah yes. The old argument that those who oppose you are subhuman. Animals. Nietzsche was absolutely right: the zealot ultimately becomes what he seeks to destroy.

Surya,

I had the same feeling when I joined the Newsvine that many people, all professionals, spent all their time seeding or writing to keep in/on the top of the leaderboard. I always wondering because my simple recipes takes about a couple of hours to translate and post because I like to create. My valid time is that I have several computers and being in the kitchen I post in between chores.

Another phenomenum that I found was the Deletion of posts, sheesh, I found complainers of the actual administration and they are dictators of their own articles or seeds, it made me upset the first time but later on I did not care and I abstein of voting for them. Let me clarify that I vote for everybody that I consider a good poster even when the subject is not my piece of cake.

Other childish tantrum was the - not in the subject - having a creative mind everything that I post for example is related and is not black or white.

To me this is an excellent media to practice English and I learned

Det:

I am definitely going to check out your recipes! They look yummy!

I find the charge of "anti-Semitism", when levelled at critics of Israel, to be irresponsible in the worst way. As you pointed out, Jewish history is, in the main, is one of oppression... It's also a cheap attempt to silence criticism of Israel's policies.

My God! Have you read a single word I wrote? Your response just isn't to me. It's to some mythical Jew you imagine in your head. I didn't even "[point] out, Jewish history is, in the main, is one of oppression." You even got me wrong on that! What I pointed to was that the form of oppression it takes involves complaints about Jewish power, but you don't respond to that at all. What I said about critics of Israel who get called antisemitic is that it's usually because they use antisemitic arguments about Jewish power. You can criticize Israel all you want, but the moment you start injecting antisemitic stereotypes into that discussion it obviously becomes antisemitic. My major point was that when a Jew says something is antisemitic, other people ought to listen to them (the same treatment people do offer other oppressed groups). But you provide no evidence here that you read a single word I said. You haven't responded to anything I wrote. You just repeated the same, tired, strawman arguments I had already addressed.

I'll tell you something else about the history of Jewish oppression. It's commonly involved active participation from the Left. That's how August Bebel dubbed it "the Socialism of Fools," and wrote to Friedrich Engels that he feared it was too late to stop what eventually became the Holocaust. Here's another interesting, example. That one's interesting because the Right wasn't even involved. It was entirely the Left pushing antisemitism.

Or - thank you Adipic Acid! - when you start to say things like, "Some people on Newsvine are mongrels," then you obviously have a problem. No one should be able to get away with saying something like this

Instead of censorship I try to point out the tactics they employ and let the other readers of the thread make up their own mind.

when they so obviously live in glass houses. And, yes, comparing your enemies to animals is one of the early stages of genocide.

How can you have this conversation without talking about antisemitism? You're trying to completely and utterly exclude one side of the debate.

I can see his point, ignoblus. Look at the title.

We know anti-semitism exists, and we now have a fair working definition. The question is whether Guido Sohne was treated fairly by those who opposed the things he said.

The question is whether Guido Sohne was treated fairly by those who opposed the things he said.

And doesn't that depend on what he said?

Of course, but that's not in evidence here.

Not much help. All of Guido's comments have been deleted.

The owner of the seed can restore them, at least, a couple of months ago I brought a couple back on a thread I owned.

Might've changed since.

We could bring Guido back from the dead against his living wishes.

An interesting conundrum for a libertarian, maybe Ted Williams, too.

His comments are visible to me, so maybe I will cut and paste some of them both there & here.

Here are comments 3.8 thru 3.16 from the above noted thread. I hope this provides a useful context.

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Perhaps all Israel really needs is a brave and competent leader. It may not be so bad after all, if the hard liners are part of a peace effort. After all, they will need to face the hard liners on the other side.
If only there could be real discussion and the hard liners on both sides see something in common to work towards, maybe this could work out. And with them inside the fold, the flak coming from the right as moderates try to work things out could perhaps be avoided ...
#3.8 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:01 AM EST

urbane gorilla
Guido, there seems to be a leadership vacuum. You seem to be hoping for this generations Sadat & Begin. Let's hope they emerge.
#3.9 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:04 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Apart from that, there also appears to be a dangerous lack of awareness that luck can change, that because things have gone on relatively well so far, that they will continue on the same way. That business as usual will work as usual.
What happens when there is a 'sea change' or 'inflection point'? Who pays? Unfortunately, it won't just be the loonies and that's a real shame, something extremely worrying.
#3.10 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:21 AM EST

urbane gorilla
a few comments ago, I cited an opinion piece from Haaretz on the ascendancy of Lieberman and Russian emigrés as Israel's new elite.
I forgot to post the link, so here 'tis:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/781515.html
#3.11 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:38 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Interesting article. It seems that Israel has its own internal schisms and conflicts resulting from the idealistic goal of integrating all Jews from all over the world, akin to a modern Tower of Babel. In chaos, the confusionists ascend ... and their sensitivities and conditioning probably will make them have an authoritarian bent. Do you have anything I could read about the internal dynamics of Israeli politics? I would like to move from thinking of Israel as a 'bloc' to understanding the goals of the various factions.
#3.12 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 9:15 AM EST

ignoblus
Guido, here is The Other Israel, which is more or less a page for Gush Shalom (led by Uri Avnery and Adam Keller). Gush Shalom means 'peace bloc,' and it is one of the more leftists parties in Israel. Sometimes I think Avnery isn't all that thoughful, but I respect him for his dedicated peace work. Mostly I find the site a source for some of the smartest criticism of Israel, which often goes into details of how various blocs in Israel view the conflict. Highly recommended. And although Avnery and Keller can be a bit too kind to antisemites in the West, they are never antisemitic even in their harshest criticisms.
Here is also a seed of mine (seed rather than article for reasons in the seed) regarding the weaknesses of Israeli civilian control over the military.
#3.13 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 9:44 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
Thanks, I will check them out. I also found this interesting ...

Tomorrow is the Heshvan 11 in the Hebrew calendar - the day Israel mourns Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. After 11 years, everyone knows: Not only was Rabin assassinated, his legacy was buried with him. Essentially, that legacy was his resolute attempt to find cracks in the wall of hostility surrounding Israel - to find them and force himself through the narrow opening, hoping to detect, beyond the wall, signs of a coming to terms with Israel's existence.

Rabin was determined that the mettle of both Israel and the Israel Defense Forces not be tested unless it was absolutely necessary. A general, and an expert on Israel's security, in uniform and as a civilian, he understood what Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Dan Halutz will never comprehend: You do not go to war - you never fight yet another war - unless you have no other choice, and only after you have investigated and exhausted all other possibilities. Source: Haaretz
#3.14 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 9:51 AM EST

Guido Sohne [Deleted]
ignoblus - Very significant seed there. As I now understand it from a brief reading and my usual lightning jumps to a conclusion, it is the same fundamental problem as with the US, which is that the military-industrial complex and its interests are more to do with permanent war and a constant arms buildup, than with the desire to achieve real peace. Since Israel is governed by quasi-military civilians and its defence establishment is so powerful, there needs to be a constant state of siege for the population to accept the continued necessity (and attendant expenditure/investment) in weapon systems, the military etc.
#3.15 - Wed Nov 1, 2006 10:15 AM EST

ignoblus

I wouldn't describe it in quite that way. First, it's a problem in all democratic nations (and totalitarianism is not an option for fixing it), though it presents itself differently in each different nation. That is, there are institutions that are more lasting than the political leadership. These institutions, which can be military or industrial or from the civil service, therefore, are able to have a greater impact when the political leadership abrogates its responsibilities. (In South Africa, I have come across the example of civil planning which continues many apartheid policies after the formal end of apartheid. It remains very difficult to challenge because they have good reasons for doing so if one looks at the problems from within their realm of expertise.) In the case of Olmert, it seems very much that he was unprepared to take his leadership role seriously enough to argue with the generals. Hopefully, he's learned his lesson and future leaders will also learn from this experience, but it is important that Israel move in a different direction.

Of course, there are also very many qualifications in the first couple quoted paragraphs in my seed. Israel still maintains civilian control (through several different institutions including the courts) over the military so long as the politicians are willing to use their powers. That is, actually, unlike a great many other societies where the military has actually taken control from the civilian leadership. So it's important not to overstate the problem. Israel (and many other nations) could potentially move dangerously rightward, but it is not there now. There are real problems, but we cannot give up the fight to keep Israel as fully democratic as it is.
#3.16

I see nothing objectionable there. Am I missing something?

Dennis:

Then we're missing the same thing.

I wanted evidence of "hunting."

Does anybody have any?

Dennis,

his remarks weren't deleted - he deleted his account, so his comments are only visible to the owner of a particular thread - me, in this case. They show up kind of greyed out. I cut and pasted them to show that, contrary to Guido's complaints, discourse about Israel has happened on a polite level here (at least on my threads; I am an unapologetic deleter).

As to hunting - you've got to be kidding me. Sounds a bit "legend in one's own mind" to me.

I didn't say they were deleted by the author, just that they were deleted. When the link was posted, I went there. No use.

But I've read those, and they're fine. Are they representative of Guido's usual commenting style?

Guido wasn't afraid to mix it up a bit if things got heated, and you could tell he was very passionate about international politics, but I found 99% of his comments to be very intelligent and thoughtful. He seemed very concerned about the underdog, which he seemed to consider the Palestinians to be. I don't think he was anti-semitic, but he was strongly opposed to the policies of the Israeli government, as he was with most of the policies of the present administration in Washington. He came off at times as very anti-American, and I think this angered many in the "America, love it or leave it" crowd.

I have a habit of quoting people with whom I'm discussing, so it's fairly easy for me to find a few examples of things he said. At times, as I said above, he was willing to listen. But he also said things like this:

All this bloodshed, the Iraq wars, the occurrence of 9/11, the devolution of the American democracy, and if we make the logical leap that behind this all, stands the issue of Israel's security and right to prosper

(Worth noting that even Jimmy Havok, who I hold in far less regard than Guido, felt the need to correct him on the implication that Israel was responsible for 9/11.) My feeling was that he didn't want to be antisemitic, but that he refused to give up on conspiracism or the sort of categorical thinking that underlies racism. "These people are like this. Those people are like that. etc." Here's a good example of that (though, unfortunately, I'm loathe to link to one of Keld's seeds):

If Islamic law is problematic, so is Jewish law, if not more so because we expect more from better educated and more evolved cultures.

In my final dealings with him, he seemed to grasp tightly to the idea that accusations of antisemitism are a conspiratorial tool to shut down criticism of Israel. One of the reasons that particular form of antisemitic conspiracism is so difficult to deal with is because it automatically makes any claim or evidence to the contrary immediately suspect.

As I've said before, I don't think Guido was a hateful person. I don't either think he was prone to paranoia. But he did have a tendency toward conspiracism and stereotyping.

I don't see it, ignoblus.

All this bloodshed, the Iraq wars, the occurrence of 9/11, the devolution of the American democracy, and if we make the logical leap that behind this all, stands the issue of Israel's security and right to prosper

I think what he's saying here is that 9/11, the ensuing wars, etc., may not have happened if America was not so closely tied to Israel as an ally. That American policies would have been different, and history may have been different. That could lead to the question of whether Israel's security is important enough to go through all of this from America's perspective, which is an issue worth debating.

If Islamic law is problematic, so is Jewish law, if not more so because we expect more from better educated and more evolved cultures.

Israel does have a more evolved culture than most Islamic states, does it not?

From the limited view of Guido on that last thread, I concur with Frank. He certainly was passionate. The history of conflict in the Middle East goes back centuries, most of it taking root before the US was even founded. So the US or Israel since its formation cannot alone be held responsible for the mess it is in our times.

But as Dennis says, recent history may have turned out completely differently if the West, and especially US politics, had deployed a longer term vision some 60 years ago. Surely time has come to go back to root causes instead of the blame culture that is so prevalent from all sides.

I suppose some context would help. I pointed out that Khamenei has described quite clearly what he (and Iran, and hence, Ahmadinejad) meant by the word "Zionists":

Today, unfortunately, the United States, its Congress and its government, are under the spell of Zionism in different financial, economic, cultural, political and propaganda arenas. The bulk of the propaganda organs of the world mass media, furthermore, are controlled by the Zionists. Most of the famous news agencies which you know of are controlled by them.

This is just antisemitic conspiracism, with the simple replacement of "Zionists" for "Jews." I don't think there's another way to read Khamenei's words, but rather than argue with my reading, Guido defended Khamenei's thesis by saying:

if we make the logical leap that behind this all, stands the issue of Israel's security and right to prosper

So he was saying that such antisemitic conspiracy theories are perfectly reasonable. You'll note that Jimmy Havok also read Guido's words in the same way:

Guido: I think the evidence for Israeli secret service implication in the WTC is slim to none. In this case, ignoblus is right.

As for,

Israel does have a more evolved culture than most Islamic states, does it not?

"Evolved" is a very judgmental and subjective term. In short, no, it's not true. One could reasonably say a lot of things there, but not the Israel is more evolved. More to the point, it's quite the generalization. He was fond of generalizations, and did not like the idea that anti-racism would mean giving them up. He focused instead on figuring out which ones were right.

On the first quote, I'm still missing information because it's out of context here. Khameini? I didn't see any reference to Iran in his original quote.

I guess I'll have to read the whole thread.

Israel does have a more evolved culture than most Islamic states, does it not?

"Evolved" is a very judgmental and subjective term. In short, no, it's not true. One could reasonably say a lot of things there, but not the Israel is more evolved. More to the point, it's quite the generalization. He was fond of generalizations, and did not like the idea that anti-racism would mean giving them up. He focused instead on figuring out which ones were right.

Your objection is to the word "evolved?" Judgmental and subjective?

OK, in my judgmental and subjective opinion, Israeli culture is more evolved than that of their muslim neighbors. The laws are more liberal, the technology is more advanced... in pretty much every way they are more progressive - more culturally evolved - than the other states in the region.

Now, you can argue that I'm wrong, and maybe I am. If I am, tell me why.

But how can that be antisemitic?

Hmmm. Well, I don't have to ask him because you just did, but I see your point.

If Guido isn't hateful, how can he be anti-semitic. Seems to me that hateful would be a prerequisite.

But on the larger issue, the question I have is what does a charge of antisemitism mean? I don't mean the definition, I mean the ramifications, legal and otherwise.

Anti-semitism is a crime in many places, so is an accusation of anti-semitism to be treated as an accusation of a crime, or is it just one guy's opinion? Perhaps we should choose to err on the side of caution here - if it's your opinion, that's fine, as you're entitled to it, but state it as such.

"I think that statement was anti-semitic because...." is a whole lot better than "You're an anti-semite."

True, but my advice above still holds true. Someone makes a hateful comment, call it a hateful comment. Tell them why you think so.

Attack the argument, not the person, right?

What if that premise is that the person is anti-semitic?

Here's my point. This is a serious charge. It shouldn't be taken lightly, by either side of the debate. It's better to not use the term, than to use it incorrectly.

Would you casually say "You're a paedophile!" ?? No. Would you just throw out an accusation of other crimes? I hop not. So you shouldn't call someone an anti-semite unless it is clear and obvious to reasonable people that they are. And by reasonable people, I don't mean one or five experts on what constitutes anti-semitism, I mean you, me, and the guy at the end of the bar.

Also keep in mind that even the most vile, hateful person can occasionally be right, and that not everything they do is hateful. Hell, Fidel Castro likes baseball a lot. So does George Bush. Even Charles Manson plays guitar beautifully.

We're all humans here, you know? If Guido Sohne felt strongly enough that the charge of anti-semitism could endanger his professional life - strongly enough to leave Newsvine - perhaps there's something to that.

So let's take it that seriously. If someone is antisemitic, say so. If you think they are, say you think they are. If it's a feeling, better to not say it.

And never resort to in out of a lack of any other argument, or a dislike for the person.

Is that not fair?

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable definition. I was addressing it's application on newsvine, though.

So, if someone violateds those provisions, call them an anti-semite, and cite that. If they don't, don't.

Huh? Yeah?

Well, there ya go.

He came off at times as very anti-American, and I think this angered many in the "America, love it or leave it" crowd.

I think what many forget is that not everyone on Newsvine is an American. People of different nationalities can have vastly different beliefs from what we Americans have been taught to believe. Just from having spoken to a friend from Sri Lanka who went to college in the U.S., I know that those outside the United States have a different view on the U.S. relationship to Middle East countries.

Besides, that's another term that egts thrown about too lightly. I've seen people called anti-American because they've criticised something Bush did.

That's just anti-somethingbushdid.

That's just anti-somethingbushdid.

I'm going to have to remember that one...

Dennis, re: #14.12

Are they representative of Guido's usual commenting style?

I'll just say that it was Guido at his best. Likewise ignoblus.

I'm reminded of something I learned in music school about writing criticism which could apply to any opinion piece. To paraphrase, first be a good reporter, and your opinion will show through.

I mean, ignoblus has said he doesn't think Guido is hateful, (ignoring his earlier statement that Guido is one of the worst), for me that's the common sense standard.

First, I never said Guido was one of the worst. But deteremining racism solely on how hateful someone is just isn't appropriate. The impact of a statement is all that really matter for determining whether a statement was racist. Intent is meaningful in determining how we respond to such a person, but not for determining whether a statement is racist. When the Christian right says homosexuality is "an abomination," but they go out trying to cure gays because they're so compassionate, do we argue that this isn't homophobic because the intent isn't hateful? Obviously no, so why the different standard for Jews? Second,

Your objection is to the word "evolved?" Judgmental and subjective?... But how can that be antisemitic?

I didn't say it was antisemitic. I said it was an example of Guido rejecting nuance in favor of categoricals. It is discriminatory to hold Israel to a higher standard than other groups, but my primary objection was that Guido was being racist toward Muslims.

For some less important details:

Khameini? I didn't see any reference to Iran in his original quote.

Guido's comment was in response to something I had written. I referenced Khameini. Guido was defending Khameini's antisemitic conspiracism as reasonable if one were to "make the logical leap."

I know ignoblus is an expert on all what has been deemed anti-Semitic, but we are more simple people, we need a simple standard of bigotry which you had mentioned before Dennis.

Oluseye, if you're going to argue against anything that could be construed as a personal attack, please watch your tone.

Anti-semitism is a crime in many places

No, it's not a crime anywhere. Several places have hate speech laws of various sorts, but the crime is not merely being antisemitic. Publishing antisemitic material, yeah. Saying something in an online forum, not so likely to get you prosecuted no matter how vile it is.

"I think that statement was anti-semitic because...." is a whole lot better than "You're an anti-semite."

As I've tried to point out more than a few times, I've rarely seen the comment "you're an antisemite" until long after the poster of antisemitic comments has protested being called an antisemite by someone who went out of their way to avoid calling the person an antisemite directly. You're quite right, Dennis, that it's a lot better to speak of someone's comments than their character in such cases. But the vast majority of anti-antisemites go out of their way to do that already. Take your comments up with some of the people who get "accused of antisemtism," and ask them if that's really what happened.

That brings up something else. A great many people, and I'm one, argue against using a hyphen in "antisemite." I'd be happy to explain why, but for now, you'll earn some respect from anti-antisemites by adopting their convention. It's also a good way to show that you're listening and soften the tone of the discussion.

Perhaps we should choose to err on the side of caution here - if it's your opinion, that's fine, as you're entitled to it, but state it as such.

Perhaps we should err on the side of caution and avoid potential antisemitism. We couldn't even agree on what's the side of caution. For me, sure it's my estimation, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be forced to be respectful to someone spouting neo-Nazi propaganda. I don't care if you agree with me, I'm going to express anger if I'm angry. And sometimes I can be very nice when I'm expressing my anger (and that would generally characterize my interactions with Guido), but I'm not going to be held to a standard of not getting angry at racist bs. I'm not going to be silenced on the matter out of (what I see to be) misplaced concerns for any bigot's feelings. As I argued above, such calls introduce a perverse bias into the discussion.

Now, having written more on less important issues, I'd like to remind people that I started with more important stuff. It would be better, I think, if we could concentrate on those first two points here. There are other parts of the discussion where the other points can be addressed. Start a new thread if you like.

Thanks for clearing all that up. It's difficult to understand all the nuances in something like this, especially if you're not very familiar with the debates that led to it.

That brings up something else. A great many people, and I'm one, argue against using a hyphen in "antisemite." I'd be happy to explain why, but for now, you'll earn some respect from anti-antisemites by adopting their convention. It's also a good way to show that you're listening and soften the tone of the discussion.

Cool. Thanks. I have never been sure (the spell checker isn't either). I've seen it both ways, with and without capitalization....

Perhaps we should choose to err on the side of caution here - if it's your opinion, that's fine, as you're entitled to it, but state it as such.

Perhaps we should err on the side of caution and avoid potential antisemitism.

Both, I would say.

I'm not going to be held to a standard of not getting angry at racist bs.

I wouldn't suggest that you should. You know me well enough to know that I detest racism in any form, I feel.

Besides, everyone is entitled to their anger. I'm only speaking of civility. I have a lot of both.

Here is one article on the hyphen. Here is an article that goes further, arguing for replacement with another term, but that's a minority view among anti-antisemites today.