Zone1 Dramatic Rise in Antisemitism in America

[Hector12]

Laws should be passed against boycotting Israel. The government should set the right example by buying products made in Israel at every opportunity.

 

[Coyote]

Wow. This was just about the nicest response you’ve given me, and I appreciate it.

The answer to how to handle rising antisemitism isn’t simple, of course. One cannot legislate attitudes, and I don’t think we should even try. Instead, I believe we should focus on where and why the rise is most prominent and make sure we don’t have policies that enable it.

I agree, you can’t legislate attitudes and if you do you risk giving them legitimacy, which is the conundrum.

1. Where much of it is coming from:


My sense, from personal observation, was that our children are developing antisemitic attitudes as the anti-Israel sentiment is spilling over into anti-Jew sentiment. (And as you note, sometimes the anti-Israel sentiment is a cover for antisemites in the first place.) Jewish boys in my county are being beat up in middle and high school, or being taunted with remarks about Israel.

The ADL survey shows this to be true, with the highest increase in antisemitism occurring in grade schools and universities.

I am curious about grade school and what is taught and I’d like hear from teachers currently teaching. You and were in highschool in the same era and general area. We’re you taught anything about Israel? In grade school, I don’t recall anything at all other than possibly as geography/culture of the Middle East. Not enough time to focus on it, most of the focus was American history, Greece, Rome, Europe I think. Highschool, we had certain mandated and then we choose either Latin America, Asia, Middle East or Africa. But we also had assignments in current events and world events.

A good teacher, imo, doesn’t provide “value” judgements but encourages class discussion, provides multiple sides and allows each individual to come to his or her own determinations.

I’m reluctant to impose legislative mandates on how something should be taught. It seems to me the general idea of not imposing one’s values into teaching is something that should be (and maybe is) covered in teacher education.

I think one approach (and maybe it is being done) could be to teach empathy by including an understanding of the culture/heritage/religion of our fellow Americans. I remember reading an outrage-article where a some people were outraged that grade school students were learning about other religions by acting out what a day in the life of an xxx would be. They called it indoctrination, but it isn’t. It’s yourself in another’s shoes. What is it like to be an Orthodox Jew on Shabbat? What is it like to be an observant Muslim who has to pray multiple times a day in a particular fashion? What is it like to be a Christian, lighting candles for advent? The more we teach our children to see each other as fellow humans on the starship Earth, the more likely they are to carry that forward into college or the work place.

Kids either learn from their teachers or their parents in grade school. Sometimes kids can influence the parents.

2. How it is being enabled, in part at least:

As you yourself noted, there can be (and often is) a correlation between anti-Israel attitudes and increasing hostility toward Jews. This is especially common at the school level, where young minds cannot distinguish between objections to current Israeli policy in specific areas, and general anger toward Israel and her Jews.

I agree with how you define the problem.

3. How to stop it:

We need to remove from teachers, including at the college level, the right to instruct about Israel and share their opinions about the conflict. (Educators, as you know, are primarily liberal and tend to support the Palestinian side.) There should be a law that classes on the subject cannot teach that one side is wrong and the other right.

This is where I don’t agree, and again, it’s legislating higher education and I oppose that because it politicizes complex subjects on the one hand, and would severely inhibit academic freedom and the ability teach without the constant fear of retaliation. At the college level, students are expected to have challenged and learn how to critically examine and defend them or not. Part of the problem, as I see it is that we have been trending away from “listening to a variety of viewpoints” to protesting those you don’t want to hear”, and I think colleges are waking up to this and starting to comedown on protests that threaten the safety of speakers or ability of others to hear them. (In fairness, sometimes the opposing view deliberately chooses extremists and provocateurs which isn’t right either). I tend to think the best approach is to make sure multiple views are heard when it comes to speakers and student groups have input there.

The other thing, imo, is to encourage interfaith fellowship and activities, particularly charitable work. If they are working side by side towards a common good, it’s hard to see the guy standing next to you as something evil.

The other thing colleges have to do is come down on hate and intolerance across the board, not just the minority-du-jour, but everyone, including invited speaker. OR…maybe better, set up a series of point/counter point talks so each said of an issue can talk.

Getting these changes means cultural pressure from students and the BOG…but it is possible without infringing on academic freedom.

Pie in the sky?

Similarly, there must be a law that no student can be prohibited from participating in any student function due to his or her support of Israel. One college disallowed a Jewish student from running for Student Body President unless she renounced her support of Israel; another college had “no go zones” where pro-Israel Jews were not allowed to speak. This type of thing MUST be made illegal, and I would like a law that would withhold federal funds from any school that doesn’t punish this.

I agree and I question the legality of such things (unless it is a private institution?).

I will continue next post….

 

[Coyote]

I believe in free speech, and love political arguments. All I ask when I encounter anti Jewish screeds on the internet is the opportunity to dispute them. Frequently I am not allowed to do that. I say that I admire Jewish intelligence, success, and prosperity. Then I point out that hatred of the Jews is based on resentment. This of course gets the Jew haters even angrier, because they know that it is true.

This might be where I part ways with you. I do not believe any race/ethnic group is more or less intelligent than any other (in fact objective measurements and definitions of intelligence are problematic, it is hard to both quantify and qualify). Too often the dehumanizing of a group begins with desparagenent of the intelligence of an entire group in comparison to the “superior” attributes of the dominant group. I’ve seen some of the ugliest things come out of such discussions that harken back to the days when eugenics was a popular idea.

We are individuals first, not groups.

Unfortunately, I am soon banned from anti Jewish websites. What should we do? What I would like would be a law forbidding websites from slandering the Jews unless they allow others to answer the slanders.

I don’t participate in sites devoted to anti-semitic, racist, Islamophobic messaging. You aren’t going to change any minds there nor even get a discussion that isn’t an attempted indoctrination based on standard “ism” talking points.

I dislike hate speech laws because they can be used to prevent people like Charles Murray and Professor J. Philippe Rushton from expressing their opinions. Hate crimes against Jews should be punished severely.

We don’t have hate speech laws, at least none that I’m aware of…they are just too dicey. Who decides what is or isn’t hate and against what groups? And then there is the issue free speech. How does that adage go? ”I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it?”


I don’t know what balance is. Normally, there is pushback, free speech in opposition. Kind of like the Westbrook Baptists were handled.

Hate crimes against ANYONE should be punished equally. I tend to agree with hate crime laws. The bar is set very very high as it should be. You can’t simply have an ABC person assault an XYZ person and claim it’s a hate crime against XYZ’s.

 

[Coyote]

Laws should be passed against boycotting Israel. The government should set the right example by buying products made in Israel at every opportunity.

Why?

Why just Israel?

Boycotts are an established and peaceful means of protest.

 

[Hector12]

Why?

Why just Israel?

Because I love Israel.

 

[Coyote]

Because I love Israel.

I love a lot of countries, particularly our own because we have the right of free speech and that includes the right to boycott. If the government chooses who we can and cannot boycott, then that certainly infringes on free speech.

 

[Lisa558]

I love a lot of countries, particularly our own because we have the right of free speech and that includes the right to boycott. If the government chooses who we can and cannot boycott, then that certainly infringes on free speech.

The problem is the targeted condemnation of Israel when there are horrible countries that barely get a boo. The United Nations is a prime example of this.

 

[Lisa558]

I love a lot of countries, particularly our own because we have the right of free speech and that includes the right to boycott. If the government chooses who we can and cannot boycott, then that certainly infringes on free speech.

To add as an example: Omar objected to boycotting Iran, because she said she didn’t want innocent people (Muslims) to suffer for policies of their government. At the same time, she cheers on BDS against Israel, where she apparently has no problem with innocent people suffering, if they are Jews.

This is the type of double standard I mean, driven by antisemitism.

 

[Coyote]

The problem is the targeted condemnation of Israel when there are horrible countries that barely get a boo. The United Nations is a prime example of this.

That is the case in any boycott that targets one country, cause, or company. Who decodes who can and cannot be boycotted, or protested against? The government?

 

[Coyote]

To add as an example: Omar objected to boycotting Iran, because she said she didn’t want innocent people (Muslims) to suffer for policies of their government. At the same time, she cheers on BDS against Israel, where she apparently has no problem with innocent people suffering, if they are Jews.

This is the type of double standard I mean, driven by antisemitism.

Isn’t Omar referring to sanctions? Those are at a national level, and much harsher than the boycotting of products by private citizens.

I don’t disagree with sanctions as a tool, but there has long been an ongoing moral debate on their value due to the effect on the ordinary citizen. Israel itself practices it towards the Palestinians. Sanctions are not the same citizen boycotts.

 

[Lisa558]

That is the case in any boycott that targets one country, cause, or company. Who decodes who can and cannot be boycotted, or protested against? The government?

My point is that it’s primarily against Israel - the one and only Jewish country. Where are all the kids on campus boycotting some of the countries with disgraceful human rights abuses? Why is it Israel, Israel, Israel?

 

[Coyote]

The problem is the targeted condemnation of Israel when there are horrible countries that barely get a boo. The United Nations is a prime example of this.

I would agree that it is lopsided, but it is lopsided in the other direction as well, in Israel’s favor, where condemnations are routinely struck down.

 

[Lisa558]

Isn’t Omar referring to sanctions? Those are at a national level, and much harsher than the boycotting of products by private citizens.

I don’t disagree with sanctions as a tool, but there has long been an ongoing moral debate on their value due to the effect on the ordinary citizen. Israel itself practices it towards the Palestinians. Sanctions are not the same citizen boycotts.

Again, you miss my point. Omar is concerned about innocent citizens when they’re Muslim, but couldn’t care less about innocent citizens when they’re Jewish.

As far as Israel boycotting Palestinian products, why in the world would they help fund terrorist attacks by people who vote for Israel’s destruction? That would be like me buying stuff off Farrakhan’s website.

 

[Lisa558]

I would agree that it is lopsided, but it is lopsided in the other direction as well, in Israel’s favor, where condemnations are routinely struck down.

They’re struck down BECAUSE of the lopsided approach. If criticism were applied equally and fairly, that would be an indication that antisemitism isn’t behind much of it.

And with that…I‘m off to Torah class. Shalom!

 

[Coyote]

My point is that it’s primarily against Israel - the one and only Jewish country. Where are all the kids on campus boycotting some of the countries with disgraceful human rights abuses? Why is it Israel, Israel, Israel?

I support the rights and recognition of both Israel and Palestine, to the same bit of land they are tied to. The problem is how to find a just and peaceful way for them to share it and that is ongoing.

I agree that the attention paid to this conflict is out of proportion to some others that seem to have gone to bottom of the stack. In my opinion, there are several reasons. One is anti-semitism. Opposing Israel’s right to exist gives anti-semites a “white washed” cause. They can claim it’s not about Jews, it’s about Israel. Opposing a nations right to exist is a far cry from opposing it’s policies and politics. But there are also people who support the Palestinian cause for self determination, recognition and rights and that is not anti-semitism. All have powerful, well financed special interest groups and that might be what keeps prominant. I also suspect that there is a lot of hidden anti-semitism around the world that finds a voice in this. They don’t care about the Palestinians as much as vilifying the Jews.

In the meantime…we ignore conflicts much more brutal that get very little attention: the women in Afghanistan, Myanmar and the Rohinga, the Syrian war, multiple conflicts in Africa spawning huge numbers of displaced people.

 

[alang1216]

Doesn’t matter. Why couldn’t we have a resolution condemning ONLY antisemitism after the Muslim’s antisemitic remarks? The Republicans wanted. Strong statement, but the Dems had to water it down.

OTOH, the Dems sure insist that the slogan should “BLACK lives matter,” and not watered down with ”all lives.”

Same concept, but different approach when Jews are concerned.

So we should only condemn hate speech if it is against Jews?

 

[Lisa558]

So we should only condemn hate speech if it is against Jews?

So only Black Lives Matter?

 

[Hector12]

So we should only condemn hate speech if it is against Jews?

Because the Jews do not deserve to be hated.

 

[alang1216]

lol another fake history promoting a cover up. The fact is the majority of Jews favored Muslims over Christians, and this included providing garrison troops and administrators in their conquests, and did so for at least 1,200 years. You can beleive the swill if you want, it just won't ever the big Pity Party invented for themselves and scaring their kids with Evul Xian Stories for many centuries. Most idiots like to pat themselves on the back pretending they 're enlightened, it's a lot easier than dealing with real history, especilly when your peer group has fashionably demonized Christians and whites as the Root Of All Evil N Stuff. Smoke some rocks and wallow in stupidity. The fact is Jews and their problems, same as most groups on Planet Earth, are largely self-inflicted.

Can you blame the Jews if they favored Muslims over Christians? Christians periodically expelled Jews from their countries while Muslims took them in. The first Christian Crusade was aimed at Jews. Christians created the first Ghetto. Anti-Semitism was in Christianity from its' very beginning and I wonder if it is you who can't deal with 'real history''?

 

[alang1216]

So only Black Lives Matter?

Was there a HR Resolution on BLM I'm not familiar with or are we mixing apples and oranges?