Misuse of the term, "Anti Semite"

[senojekips]

Almost without exception the term "Anti Semite" would have to be the single largest deliberately misused word on this forum, where it is almost without exception used as no more than a attempt to (unsucessfully) silence legitimate criticism of Zionist policy and actions. This is not only a problem here but is starting to be seen as endemic around the world in any criticism of the criminal actions of Israel, with Zionists leading the push in it's incorrect use.

By Paul Hershfield, CEIA-SC member

I was raised in a middle-class Jewish home in the San Fernando Valley, and while born a Jew, I hope, as my partner Yael says, to die a human being. So, much to the chagrin and suffering of my parents, I do not define myself as Jewish. This sets me up to be branded by the Zionists as a "self-hating-Jew," whatever that is. I suppose it's like "auto-anti-Semitism." Of course this epithet is meant to demolish my credibility as a person who can legitimately criticize Israel, leading inevitably to the preposterous idea that the only people qualified to do so are pro-Zionist Jews. Everyone has the right to criticize Israel, and doing so is not, in-and-of-itself, anti-Semitism.

The problem is that the definition of anti-Semitism has become whatever Zionists want it to be at any given moment, to fit their political agenda, which usually comes down to simply shutting up the opposition. Narrowly speaking, anti-Semitism is simply a hatred of Jews because they are Jews. How "any criticism of Israel" gets conflated with this is beyond me. Zionists and the apologists for Israel simply pick a meaning to suit their agenda:

Thankfully it's blatant and improper overuse is creating a world wide backlash which is making more and more people aware of the Zionists ultimate agenda, to the point where many Jews are now protesting it's improper use.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=35e_1265260129

It is being said that the term has changed meaning from, "one who hates Semites", to "anyone who criticises Israel or Zionist policies".

Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.

 

[-- Dusty]

When people talk Semite, it loses me. Are we talking culture, race, religion, politics....?

My understanding is that Semites, politically speaking are not Jews as a whole, but Communist Jews. So being anti-semite is, by those standards, ok in my book. But to hate anyone based on their religion, race, or culture, to me is beyond "wrong". I mean, unless you're married to them, who cares? If you're married to them, live with it or get a divorce!

How does someones religion bother me? It doesn't. If they want to be Jewish, go for it! If they wanna worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hey! Be! My! Guest! I want mine with meatballs and lots of fresh parmesian, thank you!

Unless they come to my front (or back) door "tracting" and wake me up, I couldn't care less.

 

[senojekips]

When people talk Semite, it loses me. Are we talking culture, race, religion, politics....?

My understanding is that Semites, politically speaking are not Jews as a whole, but Communist Jews.---snip---

Firstly it is not a political term, but one of ethnicity. Your understanding is wrong, you can very easily Google the term to find out more.

Sem⋅ite

  /ˈsɛm

aɪt or, especially Brit., ˈsi

maɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sem-ahyt or, especially Brit., see-mahyt] Show IPA –noun
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

 

[Del Boy]

Answer to post is simple. In reality, an anti-semite is a jew-hater, and these days Israel is used to beat Jews over the head .


As for Israel, the facts are carefully detailed here in this plain and easy to follow lecture. Reality that's all - it ain't rocket science :-

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

 

[senojekips]

The fact that the term Anti semite was first used incorrectly by Wilhelm Marr, and that it has been in common use, does not in fact make it correct, what he really meant was anti Jewish. Which in the context being discussed here is also usually incorrectly applied.

It was also previously quoted directly to you in another thread on this Forum, that this is the correct use of the word sourced from Encyclopaedia Britannica. They also stated unequivocally that the usage you attribute to the word was in fact incorrect. (although in common use by Zionists and their supporters*)

*My note.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Antisemitism ... revisited, by Robert Thompson, published March 15, 2005. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here we go again! The accusations of antisemitism seem to grow crescendo, coming always from those among the most ignorant of our fellow human beings who have never understood what a semite is. We have to face a blast from the Zionists who still try to persuade us that semite = Jew = Israeli = Zionist.The better educated around the world all know that the vast majority of semites speak Arabic, and that the very words "semite" and "semitic" have no racial connotation whatsoever, but relate to the structure of a group of languages, which also in our day include Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Maltese.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If the ignorant take the word "antisemitism" as having a racist meaning, and for this we can only blame writers in Central Europe, including Theodor Herzl, who used this term as a polite or tactful reference to enmity towards Jews. It is a "silly" word (to qualify it in language appropriate to courteous debate), since it is hard to understand how one can have bitter enmity towards a system of grammar and syntax.[/FONT]
​

Almost without exception this deliberate misuse is seen to be used by Zionists to silence legitimate criticism of their Nazi like tactics and war crimes.​

 

[-- Dusty]

Well, I stand by my detest for communists, no matter their religion.

I do not hate Jews, can't say I ever have; and now as it always has been, I choose to be picky about my hatred. If I were to hate anyone based on a group action, I'd be deleterious in my efforts if I were not to include hating all of humanity.

 

[senojekips]

I fail to see the connection?

 

[Del Boy]

Answer to post is simple. In reality, an anti-semite is a jew-hater, and these days Israel is used to beat Jews over the head .


As for Israel, the facts are carefully detailed here in this plain and easy to follow lecture. Reality that's all - it ain't rocket science :-

[URL]http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm[/URL]

Back to topic. The above quote says it all re. the truth.

Here is an important little more:-

" The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders." Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel."

Geert Wilders.

 

[rattler]

Back to topic. The above quote says it all re. the truth.

Here is an important little more: -snip-

Geert Wilders.

Ouch, and ouch!

Frankly, this far right (so far that the all other right wing politicians appear communists) politician has borrowed the Hitler layout and reversed it, but it is basically the same approach. Like Hitler trying to convince people that being Jewish was a Race (and not a religion) thingy in "Mein Kampf", Wilder expressively tries to make it clear that for him Islam is a totalitarian Ideology like fascism or communism and not a religion (some excerpts of his speeches, mainly from the one in Kopenhaguen):

In fact Islam is an ideology rather than a religion.

I have read the Koran several times now, and every time I come to the conclusion that the Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder and terrorism----snip-. Again and again I come to the conclusion that the Koran is not only a book of war, but that there is an inseparable connection between the Koran and Islam as such, and the atrocities committed by Muslims.

As a matter of fact, Islamic ideology shows striking similarities with communism and fascism. One could mention its anti-democratic character, the will to exercise total control over social life and the use of violence to subject dissenters. In fact, the Islamic ideology is totalitarian in character. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy.

...and so on, and so on... Secular states like Iraq (pre-war) are ignored by his view completely, and Turkey as one truly democratic state with Islam being the main religion also. Singapore? Well, that´s the guy.

It is a bit like having Himmler interpret the Thora, or Zawhiri the Bible. Google him, you will come up with stuff like this, even from normally considered conservative publications:

The Netherlands' Fearmonger: Geert Wilders' One-Man Crusade against Islam: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,660649,00.html

Wilders Causes Another Row. Pre-Captivity Stockholm Syndrome: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3946

Geert Wilders and the Fight for Europe: http://article.nationalreview.com/385864/geert-wilders-and-the-fight-for-europe/bat-yeor

Geert Wilders: I’m in favour of Romania and Bulgaria leaving the EU: http://www.euronews.net/2009/07/06/...avour-of-romania-and-bulgaria-leaving-the-eu/

Mr. Wilders Goes to Washington: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/mr-wilders-goes-to-washington/

I would not use him as a reliable source in a serious discussion over the words semite, anti-semite, palestina, palestinian, Islam, muslims or anything related, be it sociologically or politically focused.

Rattler

 

[Del Boy]

Certainly a man who knows his subject and speaks it with clarity.



Wiki:-
Geert Wilders (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈxeːrt ˈʋɪldərs] or [ˈʝeːʁt ˈʋɪldəʁs]; born 6 September 1963) is a Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom, a political party in The Netherlands. Born in the city of Venlo, raised as a Roman Catholic and having left the Church at his coming of age, Wilders attributes his politics to his support for what he calls 'Judeo-Christian values'. He formed many of his political views on his travels to Israel, as well as the neighbouring Arab countries. His early job at the Dutch social insurance agency propelled him into politics, where he worked as a speechwriter for the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. In 1996, he moved to the city of Utrecht, where he was elected to the city council and later to the House of Representatives of the Netherlands.

The references you quote are his particular fields and therefore his views are very relevant in today's world, and establish a well-founded warning. As an example, this speech on Europe's last stand and I am pleased to see that links have been posted by you here ; if he points out unpalatable truths, then so be it; makes uncomfortable reading, doesn't it. He wishes to speak for Freedom and democracy, unpopular subjects at present. Your personal translation of his stance does not appear relevant at all, when all the totalitarionism stems from those he accuses. But then, of course he commits the great sin of saying something positive about Israel!

His vews should not be dismissed for convenience. Rather than posting blog criticisms, you could easily have posted his speeches in full, at international levels, as they are all here on the net, openly available to all. They are deserving of careful attention from all.

I suggest that the only reason why you would not consider him a reliable source is that his views do not conveniently align with yours.

 

[Chief Bones]

Skinhead/Jew baiter jargon ...........

Unless you are a skinhead or a Jew baiter, I don't understand how any civilized person can misunderstand the meaning of anti-semite or anti-semiticism as used in today's modern society..

At it's most virulent, it means a person or group that has a hatred of anything having to do with Jews, their religion or their homeland (Israel).

P E R I O D !

Any other definition is just more of the same garbage/jargon/hatred that targeted the Jewish people during WWII ... that led to the attempted obliteration of them as a group/people from the face of the Earth.

Capiche?????

I am NOT Jewish ... but ... I for one will never forget the lessons of WWII (the holocaust) and will fight the hatred wherever I find it.

 

[senojekips]

Unless you are a skinhead or a Jew baiter, I don't understand how any civilized person can misunderstand the meaning of anti-semite or anti-semiticism as used in today's modern society..

Perhaps it is also true then that unless one is an idiot, has a second agenda or just jumped in without reading so much as the first sentence of my original post. nobody could mistake what I said.

Almost without exception the term "Anti Semite" would have to be the single largest deliberately misused word on this forum, where it is almost without exception used as no more than a attempt to (unsuccessfully) silence legitimate criticism of Zionist policy and actions.
---snip---

Capiche!!

I am NOT Jewish ... but ... I for one will never forget the lessons of WWII (the holocaust) and will fight the hatred wherever I find it.

Who said anything about hatred of Jews, I have many Jewish relatives who I get on with famously.

You would be better served to put away your broad brush and perhaps read the posts.

Do you also fight the "hatred" of the Palestinians by the Zionists?

There is in fact, a move afoot in Britain the have use of the term "Anti-semite bought under the Racial Hatred legislation as a result of it's continued deliberate misuse to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. Concerns are also being raised in the US. Source: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/New-Anti-Semitism-A-Reality-or-A-Misused-Concept

Having said all of that, all I can say, is that virtually all of the answers given thus far have proven my point precisely. Thank you!

 

[rattler]

Certainly a man who knows his subject and speaks it with clarity.

Wiki:-
Geert Wilders (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈxeːrt ˈʋɪldərs] or [ˈʝeːʁt ˈʋɪldəʁs]; born 6 September 1963) is a Dutch politician -snip-

The references you quote are his particular fields and therefore his views are very relevant in today's world, and establish a well-founded warning. As an example, this speech on Europe's last stand and I am pleased to see that links have been posted by you here ; if he points out unpalatable truths, then so be it; makes uncomfortable reading, doesn't it. He wishes to speak for Freedom and democracy, unpopular subjects at present. Your personal translation of his stance does not appear relevant at all, when all the totalitarionism stems from those he accuses. But then, of course he commits the great sin of saying something positive about Israel!

His vews should not be dismissed for convenience. Rather than posting blog criticisms, you could easily have posted his speeches in full, at international levels, as they are all here on the net, openly available to all. They are deserving of careful attention from all.

I suggest that the only reason why you would not consider him a reliable source is that his views do not conveniently align with yours.

You skipped the part that he currently is undergoing trial in the Netherlands for inciting hate: http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2459165.ece/Wilders_to_be_tried_for_hate_speech

This in the extremely tolerant Netherlands. We will see what the judges decide.

And, btw, I have no probs with someone saying anything positive about Israel, in Germany that is normal (as, by our history, in Germany it is taboo for politicians to critizise Israel), so this is not the reason for not wanting to consider him a serious source. My reason for the latter is that I feel he is indeed demonizing a religion in a demagogic and purposeful way to gain votes of uninformed people of the same type that would believe that the word "Jew" describes a race.

He certainly is not speaking for freedom as I (and most of our Western) laws understand the term and for which to define and establish as law it took centuries and a lot of dead people, the last 20 Millions in WWII.

As Chief Bones had it (and I agree fully with him):

I am NOT Jewish ... but ... I for one will never forget the lessons of WWII (the holocaust) and will fight the hatred wherever I find it.

This goes both ways.

Rattler

 

[Del Boy]

Yes Rattler, and I must make clear my last post in respect of his views on the Koran and Islam as a relgiion, on which matters I am not qualified. I have never attacked anyone's religion as such.

You will notice that I presented originally only the points he had made regarding anti-semitism and Israel, which I believe are pertinent.

Outside of my quote, all his other quotes were from your post; I would not have presented those personally.

I am with his case re anti-semitism and Israel. I share his concerns regarding European immigration and the Islamic Caliphate. I always respect the religions of others.

I absolutely endorse and applaud Germany's attitudes on this issue and have said so many times on these boards.

And as for Freedom, I am most concerned that we are in danger of losing ours through negligence, through ignoring the threats and aggressive aims of those who would impose upon us. I believe we must awake and defend those hard won freedoms.

Thank you for raising those issues ; I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my stance.

 

[-- Dusty]

No, I have not met a communist (per already removed inquiry), but that's not counting the local politicians.

As for skinheads and "jew-baiting", I guess the Jewish must be borderline on "god-like" when they can do the same thing to the Palestinians that Hitler did to them and they can get away with it and still get praised.

I don't really care what church people go to. I'm not gonna interfere. But I demand the same respect.

 

[senojekips]

As for skinheads and "jew-baiting", I guess the Jewish must be borderline on "god-like" when they can do the same thing to the Palestinians that Hitler did to them and they can get away with it and still get praised.

Aaahhh,..you see what I mean about people deliberately using misusing terms to bait and attempt to stifle legitimate comment.

 

[Del Boy]

Previous post;

What Hitler did to the Jews? Gassed and murdered millions.

 

[senojekips]

Previous post;

What Hitler did to the Jews? Gassed and murdered millions.

He also started out by driving them off their land, stealing their possessions, allowing his troops and citizens to steal from, beat, harass and murder their "enemy" without fear of incrimination. Later this "enemy" was confined to Ghettos (or is that Gazas?), where the inhabitants were subjected to refusal of medical assistance, overcrowding, starvation and curfews, guarded by troops with controlled entry and exit points where those inhabitants were subjected to humiliation, indiscriminate delays, gratuitous beatings and murder.

It all sounds very very familiar to me.

 

[Del Boy]

Conveniently forgetting that the Jews presented no threat of violence or genocide to Hitler's Germany. They were not attacking, slaughtering, bombing and shelling the Germans on a daily basis over a great period of time, and maintaining the threat of genocide throughout.

This is all in addition to the millions systematically gassed and otherwise murdered young and old, men and women, which is representative of Nazism, and dismissed so lightly in your post.

And Jews in Germany were not at war with Germans. The Germans did not need walls to defend their citizens from daily attack and bloody bombing; and you have it wrong - the first thing Hitler did to the Jews was to disarm them, down to, and including, their knives. Then he marked them with big yellow badges ; this to loyal German citizens. Oh that Hitler, he wasn't such a bad old chap after all, was he? Not like that Peres and his continual search for peace.

The Hitler regime, by the way, were anti-semites - that is, Jew-haters.
Precise and definite, accurate and clear - Jew Haters. No confusion with new-fangled nonsense, however it is twisted. No mis-use there, eh.

 

[senojekips]

We are getting way off topic here but I will answer this one last stupidly naïve statement.

If the Zionists had not stolen the Palestinian lands off their legitimate owners, the Palestinians would not had to defend themselves. you know it and so does everyone else who has access to world news and a few history books.

As a rather pleasant side effect, there would be no Hamas, or Al Quaeda and the likes, and we would not have the problem we now do with the Islamic world, all bought about as a direct result of certain countries supporting Israel's policies of theft and murder against the legitimate owners of Palestine.

The inconvenient truth is now biting us on the bum, yet some of us still have the nerve to whine, "Why do Muslims hate us"?

Notwithstanding all of the above, none of this gives The Israelis the right to commit Crimes Against Humanity (particularly against civilians) as recognised by the international convention of the same name.