Finally, Anti-Zionism IS Anti-Semitism

[ethics]

For years, I've been debating on here, and elsewhere, that the critics of Israel were getting away with their bashing of Jews because they were "simply" anti-Zionist. To me, (and apparently Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. before me), anti-zionism was always anti-semitism (in a jew bashing way).

I've also known that one day it will start to cross lines as to where the "anti-Zionists" would cross over the public light of Jew hating. I am not surprised that this apparent issue has unveiled itself in Norway.

Norwegian teacher Inge Telhaug was forced to remove a tiny Star of David necklace—because it might provoke the Muslims at the school.

Teacher told to drop Star of David (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=724262):

The principal of the school, Kjell Gislefoss, feels that the Star of David can also be interpreted as a political symbol for the state of Israel, and is afraid the star can provoke and offend students, for example immigrants from the Palestinian territories.

“The Star of David would be a symbol for one side in what is perhaps the world’s most inflamed conflict at the moment. Many have a traumatic past that they have escaped and then we feel that if they are going to learn Norwegian then they can’t sit an at the same time be reminded of the things they have traveled from,” Gislefoss said.

[Neo]

I've also known that one day it will start to cross lines as to where the "anti-Zionists" would cross over the public light of Jew hating. I am not surprised that this apparent issue has unveiled itself in Norway.

Norwegian teacher Inge Telhaug was forced to remove a tiny Star of David necklace—because it might provoke the Muslims at the school.

Teacher told to drop Star of David (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=724262):

[color=darkred]The principal of the school, Kjell Gislefoss, feels that the Star of David can also be interpreted as a political symbol for the state of Israel, and is afraid the star can provoke and offend students, for example immigrants from the Palestinian territories.

“The Star of David would be a symbol for one side in what is perhaps the world’s most inflamed conflict at the moment. Many have a traumatic past that they have escaped and then we feel that if they are going to learn Norwegian then they can’t sit an at the same time be reminded of the things they have traveled from,” Gislefoss said.



Your saying this is anti-semitism?

If so, why exactly?

[ethics]

Simple, the mere definition of anti-semitism should be enough:


Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.

[Stiofán]

I don't know, but perhaps it also reminds some of Norway's WWII collaborators of their own sorted pasts. I'm of Norwegian ancestry on my maternal grandfather's side. Things like this don't make me proud.

[Neo]

Simple, the mere definition of anti-semitism should be enough:


Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.


I can't believe you are seriously responding to my question by the statement above.

Please humor me with a direct answer. :)

Pretend I am the sixth grade. Explain it to me.

I know its late back East, so if you don't want to do it tonight I can wait until tomorrow.

[ethics]

You are not in 6th grade, I don't think I should be spoon feeding you.

[Neo]

You are not in 6th grade, I don't think I should be spoon feeding you.

You made an post that does nothing more that offer an example or situation that you imply is an example of anti-semitism. Except you don't explain why it is anti-semitism. I asked why you thought so.

Your "answer" to my first and basic question is totally non-responsive. In court it would be objected to as such and without exception stricken from the record. The court would then order you to answer the question.

I tried to follow up with a light-hearted attempt to let you know that you were not offering an explanation or supplying an answer of substance. You responded with, well you can call it whatever you want.

But this is not a court and in this forum you have the choice to be non-responsive. So be it. Apparently you do not want to participate. That surprises me. It is not like you.

Apparently the question will remain unanswered.

[ethics]

First, let me apologize for my tone. It was not wholly directed at you.

Second, and after some thought, I thought you have given me an opportunity to present my "case" like in the court room. So, with the thought that I am not a lawyer, never even watched law shows, he goes the following.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the following case is Keylin vs. Gislefoss, in which we will attempt to show you that what the principle of the school did was, in fact, anti-semitic.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am fairly confident that most of you know about Judaism. It is a vital part of many branches of Christianity, and even Islam. While Judaism is not the main, nor most important, the people who practice Judaism, the Jews, hold it very near their hearts.

On Tuesday, our client, Mrs.Telhaug was approached by her employer, Mr. Giselfoss, and was asked to remove the Star of David, due to the sensitive nature of the state of political environment of Israel and Palestinians.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Star of David was not born with the birth of modern Israel. Magen David, it's true name is an identity of Judaism a symbol for the practice. It goes back thousands of years ago, many thousands of years before the current political environment.

It is because of the history and what the Magen David symbolizes that we purport that what Mr. Gislefoss has asked our client, Mrs.Telhaug, to do was simply and basically rip her religion from her because it might offend the POLITICAL nature of the world today.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask how many of you today would be willing to give up your religious symbols that are in a very minor form of jewelry like a necklace and how many of you would not accept that this was a form of discrimination when you were asked to do that.

Our client was not spreading her beliefs of Judaism in her classroom, nor was she infusing Judaica in to her teachings. She merely was wearing a religious symbol, like a cross for Christians, a Crescent for Muslims.

[ShinyTop]

The act of discrimination must include more than just the removal of a symbol, religious or not. The discrimination must include that they are asking or demanding more of this person than others in similar circumstances. The safety of all students and the teacher should override the right to wear the symbol.

So to me, Matrix was asking whether or not similar requirements were placed on others in the school system. Given the rantings of the many Islamic clerics we read about I would think the cross should offend as many Muslims.

Naturally, Matrix can speak for himself and I apologize in advance if my attempt at interpreting his intent is misplaced.

Furthermore I would like to say on my own behalf that the PC of making a person remove their belief, be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or atheist should be anathema to all thinking people. A small, simple expression of your personal belief as long as it is not accompanied by inappropriate behavior should be allowed. I would question it, however, if he had or had not been wearing it before these students entered the school. The article indicates he not only had been wearing the symbol but it was usually hidden under a tee shirt.

It is truly sad the direction the EU is taking. It is sadder still because we are not far behind.

[Coot]

The head of the Education Association in Kristiansand, Heidi Hauge Uldal, called the school's decision "unacceptable". Uldal said her group did not want to go the way of France and forbid all religious symbols in schools, a topic that is currently becoming relevant in Norway as well.
I believe this to certainly be discriminatory and political, but I'm not quite sure it rises to the level of anti-semitism. Perhaps not enough information.

If the school does allow the Palestinian immigrant students to dress in accordance with Muslim requirements, for example, the headscarf for the girls, then yes I believe that would qualify the action to be both anti-zionist and anti-semitic.

[Copzilla]

The act of discrimination must include more than just the removal of a symbol, religious or not. The discrimination must include that they are asking or demanding more of this person than others in similar circumstances. The safety of all students and the teacher should override the right to wear the symbol.So then we would not have a problem telling a Muslim woman to remove her headdress, right? And when she refused, firing her?

[ShinyTop]

So then we would not have a problem telling a Muslim woman to remove her headdress, right? And when she refused, firing her?


By all means, if the head dress is going to inflame anybody it would have to be removed too.

Clear headed (no pun intended) Muslims should consider this an insult. Obviously the school system is saying that Jews can control their anger at the other side but that the Muslims are too primitive to handle it. I would love to have been a reporter when this was announced.

[ethics]

I'd like everyone to use the word "Jew" or "Jewish". We have many Muslim visitors and they might be offended due to the fact that there are many Jews (sorry last time, I swear) in Israel.

Slightly OT but this is pathetic (http://drdot.blog-city.com/read/393247.htm). The more things change, the more they stay the same. Certain :friggin: holes in Germany haven't learned shit from history.

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/31561/p/f/dr.dot_dec.14_2003.jpg

[joseftu]

That may be slightly OT, Leon, but it's an important post. Maybe it belongs in its own thread?

It gave me chills, and it's very important to show people (there are many) who say "anti-Semitism is a thing of the past." I came home from school with my face looking just like that a few times when I was a kid, courtesy of some classmates who thought I should "go back to Israel." Anti-Semitism is alive and well, all over the world.

[ShinyTop]

Not wanting to take anything away from Leon's or Joseftu's posts but I think our outrage is misdirected. Our outrage should be directed at all stupidity based on perceptions of somebody's religion, race, gender preference, hair color, size of chests, or veteran status.

I wonder how many whites and blacks were assaulted because of their skin color the same night in NYC.

How many atheists were not hired because the hiring authority does not approve?

How many women did not get hired for a traditional male job?

Every one of these instances is as stupid as the next. We need to educate people that everybody has a right to exist and that the only person ultimately responsible for their lot in life is themselves and taking out their frustration due to the above reasons is moronic.

If I weren't absolutely positive that it would be misused I would call for open season on the terminally moronic. Unfortunately the law protects the stupid among us as well as GA participants.

[joseftu]

Agreed. Bigotry is bigotry, and all of it should outrage us. Those who say "racism is a thing of the past" are just as wrong as those who make the same statement about anti-Semitism.

[Copzilla]

Agreed. Bigotry is bigotry, and all of it should outrage us. Those who say "racism is a thing of the past" are just as wrong as those who make the same statement about anti-Semitism.True, but this thread is about anti-Semitism. There are other threads about other forms of bigotry. This also deserves its due.

What this woman experienced is purely shameful. Amazing... A beautiful lady like that being slugged out because of bigotry. I don't get it.

[Sierra Mike]

True, but this thread is about anti-Semitism. There are other threads about other forms of bigotry. This also deserves its due.

What this woman experienced is purely shameful. Amazing... A beautiful lady like that being slugged out because of bigotry. I don't get it.
Well, I'm sure the French and the Germans have the answer!

SM

[Advocat]

Jumping back to Leon's orginal posting about the situation in Norway, I agree that the school's decision to ask the Star not be worn to be both political and a possible violation of her rights of free speech, but not necessarily anti-semetic... more information, as Coot said earlier, is needed.

The reason I'm not sure that it's anti-semetic is simple; to quote from the article: "Telhaug teaches immigrants Norwegian language and culture at the education center. Telhaug is not Jewish."

So she is not wearing a symbol of her religion; is it improper to ask a teacher of adults (if I understand the article correctly) to remove an item which may create dissent, provided it is not an item of personal faith? Personally, I can't understand why they aren't asking her to keep it hidden, rather than removing it. This makes me wonder if there have been complaints about her wearing it from students... has it already created tense situations in the classroom? Is it interfering with her teaching her assigned pupils?

And while, as Leon rightly points out, the Star is an ancient symbol of Judisim, it is also the official symbol of the country/government of Israel. This leaves me in the uncomfortable position of wondering how to tell the dancer from the dance, of the symbol of the religion from the symbol of the political entity (it would be legitimate to ask that a political symbol be removed), when both are essentially the same.

[jadjman]

I guess this relates to other "what's offensive?" issues.

Which point of view should be ultimately honored? On the one hand, it should be Telhaug's right to wear a religious symbol if he wishes... this seems to be a basic freedom (despite the fact that we're not talking about the USA here :-P)

On the other hand, maybe some of the muslims are genuinely offended. We've all heard examples of situations where the intent of some word(s) was not to be offensive, yet it is seen as offensive by some people nonetheless.

This is a toughy. Which one wins?

Nick

[Steve]

Pardon me if this sounds ignorant, but don't the Semites and the Semitic language family include Arabs, among many others?

If an Arab is anti-Semitic, isn't that a bit odd?

[David McDuff]

Pardon me if this sounds ignorant, but don't the Semites and the Semitic language family include Arabs, among many others?

If an Arab is anti-Semitic, isn't that a bit odd?


antisemitism, anti-semitism
\n, usu cap S 1: hostility towards Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination - compare RACISM 2: opposition to Zionism : sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.
- Webster's Third New International Dictionary


The attributing of all or part of one's own misfortunes,and those of one's country, to the presence of Jewish elements in the community, and proposing to remedying this state of affairs by depriving the Jews of certain of their rights; by keeping them out of certain economic or social activities, by expelling them from the country,by exterminating them etc.
- Jean Paul Sartre, from "Anti-Semite and Jew".


Attitudes and actions against Jews based on the belief that they are uniquely inferior, evil, or deserving of co ndemnation by their very nature, or by historical or supernatural dictates.
- from "Anti-Semitism: The Causes and Effects Of A Prejudice", by Crosser & Halperin.