should we address the casual antisemitism on MN?

[thedevilinmyshoes]

I rarely venture beyond my narrow range of interests on MN these days so I don't know if it happens a lot, or if a similar level of hatred is extended to other groups, but what I saw tonight was sinister (particularly against the current backdrop of a surge in antisemitic crime in UK). I wondered if we had an agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism or if people feel the issue is covered and handled well enough within the existing guidelines.

There are many different opinions towards Israel, towards Netanyahu, towards the conflict, among the Jews, but for some reason, you want to insist that 'all Jews agree on Israel'.

How odd.

I was obviously not saying that all Jewish people agree about everything - i.e. Not on the same side about everything but on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Still, kudos to you Cote, another thread about anti-semitism turned into Cote V the Zionists.

"If you believe that circumcision is genital mutilation, then of course you should state this view. If you go on to say that anyone who practises it is a child abuser, that is implicit anti semitism"

And what is implicit in saying anyone who practices CC to sleep train their baby is a child abuser?

I agree that it is incorrect to say male circumcision is child abuse but don't see what that has to do with antisemitism. Muslims and Americans practice it and get called 'child abusers'. Is that because of Islamophobia and anti-Americanism, or just that these people genuinely believe male circumcision is child abuse?

" another thread about anti-semitism turned into Cote V the Zionists."

I think you're confusing me with claig.

If you quoted my next sentence as well, it would be clearer:

It is perfectly normal of course that they would think of Israel's security and best interests as a priority. What I mean by "the other side" are those who don't - objective parties as well as Palestinians and their sympathisers.

Cote,

circumcision is traditionally a practice of Jews and Muslims. They believe it has religious importance. The fact that some others are circumcised for other reasons does not change this.

You are trying to dance on the head of a pin to defend anti semitism. Controlled crying has zero cultural significance. Again, I suspect you know this.

No, I still don't get it.

So your point was some Jews support Israel, some don't, some support Israel but not the Israeli govt, some sympathise with the Palestinians, some aren't interested in it at all?

That's kind of obvious, isn't it?

I can't find the post where Cote said that "all Jews agree on Israel" so I don't know the context, but it seems obvious to me that they don't. However, in my experience, Jewish people who stand out against the Israeli government's policy on Palestine get a very hard time from their co religionists. And every Jewish person I have ever met, whatever their politicial affiliations, has had, understandably, a very strong- you could say visceral- connection with Israel. Which must make not supporting the government's policies incredibly painful.

Are you sure that anyone who calls male circumcision "child abuse" is doing so because he hates the culture, though?

I have been on many circumcision threads (against those calling it abuse, FWIW) and the feeling I got was that they genuinely thought it was cruel and unnecessary.

"circumcision is traditionally a practice of Jews and Muslims. They believe it has religious importance. The fact that some others are circumcised for other reasons does not change this.

You are trying to dance on the head of a pin to defend anti semitism. Controlled crying has zero cultural significance. Again, I suspect you know this."

Just to be clear. If a religious faith, whatever it is, demands that its adherents do something that is harmful to others, then I will challenge it. I am not prepared to sit back and allow it to continue "because it's part of the culture"

Cote,

I am sure, on one level, that they did. However this mono focus on one issue when so many children are genuinely neglected and sbused (let's face it, Judaism is a very child centred culture in the whole) suggests a subliminal prejudice to me.

"Are you sure that anyone who calls male circumcision "child abuse" is doing so because he hates the culture, though?"

Until recently, infant male circumcision was part of the American culture too. Is it being anti American to say that is wrong? Oh, and yes, I think performing non medically required surgery on a person unable to consent and which has no benefit to the individual is abuse, yes.

"And every Jewish person I have ever met, whatever their politicial affiliations, has had, understandably, a very strong- you could say visceral- connection with Israel"

Yes, and that is why they are not "the other side" in the Israel-Palestiian debate.

It was not a terribly important point, Helmet. It's OK if you don't get it.

Bertrand,

It was for a very short period. And that was not cultural, it was based on medical opinion. Big difference.

" However this mono focus on one issue when so many children are genuinely neglected and sbused (let's face it, Judaism is a very child centred culture in the whole) suggests a subliminal prejudice to me."

People are capable of being concerned about more than one thing at once, you know. And people who are opposed to infant male circumcision are just as opposed to it when Americans do it. How does that fit into your "subliminal prejudice" theory?

Although I am against israel's policy on the Palestinians, I again think Jordan is at least equally to blame. There are zero people who seem to care about this, though. I wonder why.

Oh I see so 'every Jewish person has a strong visceral connection to Israel' and this automatically makes them on the 'other side' to the Palestinians?

Wtaf?

Can you tell me a bit more about how every Muslim or Christian feels or is it only the Jews you know whose 'side' they are on?

"You are trying to dance on the head of a pin to defend anti semitism."

What? No. I am NOT defending antisemitism Please take that back immediately.

You see, this is how people get called antisemites and antisemitism sympathisers/defenders.

A quick search of my posting history will show that I have always supported the cultural practice of male circumcision.

What I am saying is that I felt MNers who opposed me on circumcision threads and called its practice child abuse (like Bertrand) were doing so because they genuinely believe it to be cruel and unnecessary.

I can debate a cultural/religious practice without calling the other side racists, antisemites, and Islamaphobes - a practice you might like to emulate.

Still really not getting this bizarre "sides" thing.

Also Cote, I asked before - are there two sides (with these supposed 'objective' nations who apparently have nothing to gain or lose, spontaneously "siding with" the Palestinians) or three sides (where the "objective" folk are in a special unified category of their very own)?

I actually do think this is an important point, now it's been raised, because it implies Jew group-think. If you need me to explain what's wrong with that then I pretty much give up.

Helmet- that was a breathtaking bit of tabloid journal cut and paste. Here is what I actually said.

However, in my experience, Jewish people who stand out against the Israeli government's policy on Palestine get a very hard time from their co religionists. And every Jewish person I have ever met, whatever their politicial affiliations, has had, understandably, a very strong- you could say visceral- connection with Israel. Which must make not supporting the government's policies incredibly painful

Yes, why don't you "give up"? Thread has moved on and it's OK if you don't get it.

I was responding to cotes post.

No no cote I'm still fascinated that you have this insight into what Jews think and you know they are all on the other side of the Palestinians.

No, it's not OK to me, although thanks for the patronising reassurance.

I am asking because I find it troubling that you want to suggest all Jews are on one side (if only wrt Israel) and all right-thinking people are on the other. It's patently untrue and has all kinds of worrying implications - some of which are spectacularly relevant on a thread about implicit antisemitism.

"you want to suggest all Jews are on one side (if only wrt Israel) and all right-thinking people are on the other"

That is not what I said and there is no reason for your aggression.

Thread was talking about shutting down debate by accusations of antisemitism. Someone said Muslims are shutting down debate by preventing Jewish society talks. And I said that Jewish people talking among themselves is not where the real opponents are going to be found.

I am sorry if you found my wording so unreasonable that you two now have to continue harassing me about it, but that was it.