Perceptions of Regional Anti-Semitism

[UrsaMaior]

Edited by administrator -- This thread created by board moderators to contain posts from a sidebar discussion within the Iran Nuke thread. The first post squarely on that topic happens to be this one, from UrsaMaior.
---------------
Just for the record Mr. Owen you are probably aware of the fact that there were no antisemitic attacks in Iran since 1869 or so, despite the ramblings of some polticians here and there (which we all know how much they worth).

As of Turkey I wonder if Israel would leave the coming islamist takeover in Turkey without comment.

As of deterrence I share the views of those who say the only reason the public oppinion supports nukes that they hindered major military operations ever since they exist. (also see ALL participants' reluctance to use chemical weapons in WWII). I have serious doubts that any politician can be more desperate/crazed than Hitler in his Fuhrerbunker.

On the last note the mixed but rather positive view of the state of Israel will be seriously damaged if an attack on Iran (based on not so concrete presupmtions see 2003 attack on Iraq) would cause oil prices skyrocket.

[William F. Owen]

Just for the record Mr. Owen you are probably aware of the fact that there were no antisemitic attacks in Iran since 1869 or so, despite the ramblings of some polticians here and there (which we all know how much they worth).

I am pretty up to speed on the history of the Persian Jews. The substantial Iranian population I referred to was the one living in Israel. Beyond that I'm not sure what the significance of that fact is.

As of Turkey I wonder if Israel would leave the coming islamist takeover in Turkey without comment.

I can't see why Israel would worry about an Islamist Government in Turkey.

[UrsaMaior]

Sorry I misunderstood you about the persians.

As of islamists in Turkey, I concieve it as a threat since it is more likely to align with the jihadist ideology.

[William F. Owen]

Sorry I misunderstood you about the persians.

As of islamists in Turkey, I concieve it as a threat since it is more likely to align with the jihadist ideology.

No need to apologise. I should have been clearer!

I've had some long talks with the Turkish military on this, and they don't see a problem with "jihadists." They see a problem people who would hold Turkey back, socially. They point to Saudis and Gulf Arabs, as the example. The problem is, once the religious folks get a hold, the extremists are not far behind.

Muslims, unlike Christians, are not "naturally" anti-semitic. Modern Muslim anti-semitism has its roots in political doctrines aligned with National Socialism, and the attendant racial arguments are then used to support it.

Modern Muslim anti-semitism is a pure outgrowth of ancient Christian anti-semitism, using the same basic sets of arguments/beliefs, and found in modern Christian and secular anti-semitism.

Because Turkey was never occupied by a Christian power, and has modern secular tradition, I guess the same ideas never really took hold.

[UrsaMaior]

With all respect sir I have to refuse your "natural anti-semitism of christians" remark. Being a thinking, critical person AND a roman catholic I can see no "organic anti-jewish" behaviour coded in either the New Testament or the other sources of the church. But this is seriously out-of topic here. If you wish we can discuss it in private or in a seprate topic.

As of muslim antisemitism, ANY follower of islam should obey to the category ahl al-kitab. Modern muslim antisemitism, just like modern anti-imperialism is based on real policies than on some hokey religious reasoning to quote Han Solo.

I have yet to see any contended population which was divided along religious or ethnic lines (see Switzerland or Scandinavia).

[William F. Owen]

With all respect sir I have to refuse your "natural anti-semitism of christians" remark. Being a thinking, critical person AND a roman catholic I can see no "organic anti-jewish" behaviour coded in either the New Testament or the other sources of the church. But this is seriously out-of topic here. If you wish we can discuss it in private or in a seprate topic.

And with equal respect, while there may be no "organic anti-semitism", in the books selectively cited as a new testament, Christian behaviour on this a matter of historical record.

I may be wrong but I think it took about 1,000 years for a Pope to actually absolve the Jewish people of any wrongdoing in the death of Jesus. - which was apparently all part of G*d's plan. If only he'd told us!

Over the last 2,000 years Jews living under Muslim control were generally far safer than those living under Christian. I think the ultimate realisation of that fact can go without saying.

[Steve Blair]

I would caution everyone at this point to defer from discussions of "organic" behavior of any sort. In a culture where literacy was the great exception rather than the norm, and the distribution of information of any sort was tightly controlled, it was exceedingly easy for an elite to manipulate the behavior and attitudes of the masses who looked to them as leaders in many senses.

Thanks.

[UrsaMaior]

Wilf
Sir, I know the holocaust is still a burning wound for many. As is suppressing religion for many of us. We religious people were at least discriminated, but tortured and even killed only for being religious by the ruthless, atheist communists for 43 years. In many places they retained their power disguised as democrats with foreign, mostly russian help (e.g Hungary), which you are probably are also aware of. Of course their tools have changed. Instead of outright violence they cut back the economical support (the value transferred as only a fraction of the confiscated church wealth) violating interstate agreements with the Holy See etc.
So it is STILL an issue here, therefore if possible I would not go into discussion about whose pain is bigger, which you as a gentleman in similar circumstances probably understand.

[UrsaMaior]

In a culture where literacy was the great exception rather than the norm, and the distribution of information of any sort was tightly controlled, it was exceedingly easy for an elite to manipulate the behavior and attitudes of the masses who looked to them as leaders in many senses.

I would paraphrase your above sentence.

In these times, in these western cultures (note plural!), where thinking or even common sense was the great exception rather than the norm, the distribution of information of any sort was tightly controlled by an unelected few. So it was exceedingly easy for an elite of celebs and other "reliable and worthy" notables to manipulate the behavior and attitudes of the masses who looked to them as leaders in most senses.

To quote my signature, there is nothing new under the sun.

But now we are really out-of-topic.

One more thing to wilf.

I think there are serious paralells between 10th century Al-Andalus and the Age of Enlightment.

[bourbon]

Muslims, unlike Christians, are not "naturally" anti-semitic. Modern Muslim anti-semitism has its roots in political doctrines aligned with National Socialism, and the attendant racial arguments are then used to support it.

Would understanding the thinking in the above quote shed light on what would appear to be a preference of Israel and her supporters in the US, for Islamists of varying militancy over secular nationalist governments?

This is if someone were sincerely perplexed by this perceived preference and pattern, and struggled to understand why.

Over the last 2,000 years Jews living under Muslim control were generally far safer than those living under Christian. I think the ultimate realisation of that fact can go without saying.

How much of this was under Persian rule?

Didn't Cyrus the Great free the Jews from Babylonian Captivity, and helped to rebuild the Temple? History shows that Iran and Israel are natural ally, geography further shapes both nations strategic thinking, how much is this going to drive Iran's actions? Ideology will only take a regime so far, Ahmadinejad of course has kooky ideas, but will they trump conflicting historical and geographical realities?

Again, just what exactly is the Farsi idiom for to "wipe [something] off the face of the map"? Does such an expression really exists in Persian culture?

This is what confuses the heck out of me, I perceive a gap between rhetoric of the Iran threat and a historical and strategic reality that contradicts it. Any of this hold water?

[reed11b]

Outside from Iran, the law in the so-called moderate Kuwaite and SA are still extreme regarding Judaism. While in Kuwaite I saw a newspaper headline of a Bedouin who was converting to judaism in protest. The paper stated that the penalty for being jewish was death. Any country where being British can be legaly punished by death? Israel has very legitimate reasons for there choice of policy.
Reed

[William F. Owen]

Would understanding the thinking in the above quote shed light on what would appear to be a preference of Israel and her supporters in the US, for Islamists of varying militancy over secular nationalist governments?

This is if someone were sincerely perplexed by this perceived preference and pattern, and struggled to understand why.

The US does have a preference for Israel, in the same way the US has had a preference for the UK over other European nations. Understanding why this is the case is a useful exercise.

How much of this was under Persian rule?

Didn't Cyrus the Great free the Jews from Babylonian Captivity, and helped to rebuild the Temple? History shows that Iran and Israel are natural ally, geography further shapes both nations strategic thinking, how much is this going to drive Iran's actions?

All true. (not sure about the help with the 2nd temple- let me check! I just don't want the thing rebuilt any time soon!) Huge and very wealthy Jewish community in Persia, who have historically been safe, but I fear there are things afoot that trump that historical paradigm.

[William F. Owen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

Wikipedia is far from perfect but it is surprisigly even useful when it comes to Jewish History. Like wise there are some excellent books. I can recommend some to those who are interested.

The biggest challenge to educating people to anti-semitism is that most folks believe it started and end with the "Holocaust" (not a term I would use).

Few people are aware that men such as Henry Ford and Martin Luther, harboured a deep hatred of Jews, or that Jews are commonly reviled in English literature, from Dickens to Shakespeare, and a great deal more. There was and is a lot of it about, and it is not going away anytime soon.

As a personal aside, the most bizarre thing about anti-semitism, is how it is expressed. I have never seen an educated professional person say "black people are lazy and stupid" to a someone of African origin... but...I have experienced at least 4 people, in the last 25 years, tell me that Jews are lazy, evil, cunning, dishonest etc etc etc, while completely unaware of who they were speaking to. These were all so-called educated professionals. These days I can handle it, but the first man to mention it to me got a bit of a surprise.

[AmericanPride]

Wilf,

In your experience, does antisemitism have more of a religious/cultural character or ethnic/racial one? Do you think Judaism's unique (central?) role in Western political, economic, and religious development since the Roman Empire contributes to its vulnerability as a target for hatred?

It seems to me that racism in general is often a consequence (sometimes intended, sometimes not) of some willful policy aimed at addressing some perceived economic or political need which is addressed by identifying an "out-group". On a side note, this reminds me of a thought I had a few weeks ago: in what ways did the different forms of colonial administration by European powers contribute to the present "race relations" of their former colonies and their internal conflicts? I'm not familiar with the former Belgian, French, or Portuguese colonies as I am with the British and Spanish; but it appears that former British colonies (including the US) suffer more greatly from ethnic conflict than other former colonies. I considered that question after realizing that former British colonies and former French colonies in the Middle East have wildly different political characters which can be generally described as monarchist and republican, respectively. Thoughts?

[Jedburgh]

.....in what ways did the different forms of colonial administration by European powers contribute to the present "race relations" of their former colonies and their internal conflicts? I'm not familiar with the former Belgian, French, or Portuguese colonies as I am with the British and Spanish; but it appears that former British colonies (including the US) suffer more greatly from ethnic conflict than other former colonies. I considered that question after realizing that former British colonies and former French colonies in the Middle East have wildly different political characters which can be generally described as monarchist and republican, respectively. Thoughts?

Martin Thomas' Empires of Intelligence: Security Services and Colonial Disorder After 1914 covers that specific subject in a fair amount of detail for the Brits and the French in the Mid East and North Africa. Not just the ethnic aspect - as with British use of the Assyrian levies in Iraq, and the religious - as with the French in the Levant, but good discussion of exploitation of class, social and tribal fissures in both rural and urban environments in an effort to maintain control. Although the author does discuss contemporary exacerbation of prejudices and existing conflicts, he does not go into great detail on the long-term impacts post-indepence. But for someone with a good knowledge of more current regional issues it offers plenty of interesting connections.....

[AmericanPride]

Excellent. I'll definitely reserve that book for when I have an opportunity to read it.

[William F. Owen]

In your experience, does antisemitism have more of a religious/cultural character or ethnic/racial one? Do you think Judaism's unique (central?) role in Western political, economic, and religious development since the Roman Empire contributes to its vulnerability as a target for hatred?

My experience is that anti-semitism, like all forms of racism and bigotry, is based entirely on ignorance. Religion, ethnicity, and culture all play a role, but anti-semitism has evolved into an almost entirely political argument, and an extremely sophisticated and constantly evolving one at that.

What this means is that the vast majority of the worlds problems get traced back to "The Jews" except the words "The Jews" are rarely used.

As they say in Israel, "Elephants and the Jewish Problem?"

Judaism's unique role in Western political, economic, and religious development since the Roman Empire is purely a product of Jewish educational practices (teachings) and family values. They are no better or worse than others. They are merely more willingly and more consistently applied.

Why? Ask me in another 40 years, when I might understand it myself, but folks like Hitler, and Henry Ford certainly thought they knew.

[Adam L]

Judaism's unique role in Western political, economic, and religious development since the Roman Empire is purely a product of Jewish educational practices (teachings) and family values. They are no better or worse than others. They are merely more willingly and more consistently applied.

I hope nobody minds me jumping in here, but what I think greatly effected Judaism's role in Western development was that "Jewish educational practices (teachings)" required all men to be literate for religious reasons. This is something that did distinguish Jews from most communities throughout history.

Adam L

[AmericanPride]

I hope nobody minds me jumping in here, but what I think greatly effected Judaism's role in Western development was that "Jewish educational practices (teachings)" required all men to be literate for religious reasons. This is something that did distinguish Jews from most communities throughout history.

I was not aware of that. That goes far in explaining the relative success of Jewish communities in different countries.

[William F. Owen]

I hope nobody minds me jumping in here, but what I think greatly effected Judaism's role in Western development was that "Jewish educational practices (teachings)" required all men to be literate for religious reasons. This is something that did distinguish Jews from most communities throughout history.

Jump away. I wish there was more jumping.

Yes, you needed to be literate to study the teachings (and you can study all day, every day for life! It's a job!), but you are reading in Hebrew/"The holy language" -the issues of which are a whole other story.

So yes they were literate but not necessarily in the local language. Having said that, those that could read could probably read most of what was written at the time, so your point is largely correct. Medieval Jews probably had a better command of both written and spoken Latin, than 99% of folks at the time, and when reading the Bible was deliberately limited to just Priests.