Beware the humanitarian racist

[shira]

Among racists, the humanitarian ones hide their evil behavior best. This is why their racism often goes unnoticed so they can claim that they are level-headed and decent people.

Another type of racist, the "ugly" one, can be easily identified. He may, for instance, repeat the old colonialist statements claiming that Africans are like children, retarded or even subhuman. Such racists believe that people who cannot be held responsible for their acts should be treated as inferior.

The basic views of humanitarian racists are very similar to those of the ugly type. They may claim, for example, that most contemporary problems of African states result from the colonial period, even if these countries have been independent for many decades. This in fact means that Africans cannot be responsible for their actions. The humanitarian racist’s worldview is as distorted as that of the ugly racist. It is not stated explicitly, but only implicitly in his words.

The humanitarian racist’s conclusion differs, however, from that of the ugly racist. He or she considers that as the non-white or weak cannot be held responsible for their acts, one should look away as often as possible even if they commit major crimes. Ugly racists fortunately can no longer get articles published in mainstream media, but humanitarian racists unfortunately are welcomed by them.

more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4179427,00.html

[shira]

1. From OP. "A simple test"...

I have developed a simple test to recognize the humanitarian racists amongst those who de-legitimize Israel. One only has to ask these extreme critics of Israel a few questions or investigate their statements and publications.

<snip>

“Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous worldview that permeates Palestinian society, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?”

If one finds that these critics of Israel have remained silent or said little on any of these issues, they can be “outed” as humanitarian racists. One can apply this humanitarian racism test to politicians, church leaders, journalists, academics as well as to Jewish and Israeli critics of the Jewish state.

This simple test will also reveal the many humanitarian racists in foreign and Israeli human rights organizations. The European Union subsidizes several of the latter bodies. By doing so, it thus has become a supporter of racism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. If the answer is "often", you're probably a racist. If it's "not", the case is still open.

Anyone who talks about "the profoundly murderous worldview that permeates the PA and Hamas" is almost certainly a viciously bigotted racist (like the disgusting Mr Gerstenfeld).

"The profoundly murderous worldview that permeates Hamas" is more reasonable.

[shira]

6. It's a profoundly murderous (antisemitic) worldview permeating the PA and Hamas...

How is it possible for antiracists to remain silent in the face of the undeniably murderous antisemitic worldview that permeates the PA and Hamas? Anti-racists enable, excuse, or ignore one of history's most obsessive hatreds in the Palestinian territories.

Imagine pre-WW2 horribly rightwing fascist states like Germany, Austria, and Poland surrounding Israel spewing annhilationist antisemitism, routinely demonizing Jews, calling them inferior or subhuman, and calling for Israel's utter destruction.

Can you imagine any anti-racist not standing alongside the Jews denouncing these states?

[Crunchy Frog]

22. I guess it's pretty unthinkable that a people who have lived for decades under a brutal occupation

might harbor some strongly negative sentiments towards their occupiers.

If they can't love their occupiers and the conditions of their occupation then they must be just like NAZIs.

[shira]

28. You're assuming the PLO and other extreme Palestinian groups....

...were not antisemitic prior to 1967 and were not calling for attacks against Jews.

Second, you're basically arguing that Jews bring on antisemitism against themselves due to their actions. Are there any other racial, ethnic, or cultural groups you believe that bring on irrational hatred of themselves? Blacks, Arabs, Muslims, Women, Gays, Palestinians, etc..?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Palestinian hatred of Jews is, sadly, at least partly rational.

They have more than sixty years of being oppressed and mistreated by the self-proclaimed Jewish nation state to justify it.

Obviously, it *ought* to be focused against zionists of all races and religions, and to exclude anti-zionist Jews, and clearly in many cases it does, but given their experience it's not fair to condemn those who don't make that link. While it's not justifiable, it's certainly understandable, excusable and forgiveable.

As to other groups who have brought rational hatred on themselves - pretty much all the various participants in the Balkan ethnic struggles appear to have given one another legitimate cause for hatred, sadly.

[shira]

37. You'd have a point if this pathological hatred was rare prior to 1948...

The sad fact is that the first Palestinian leader was none other than the Mufti al-Husseini, a genocidal Jew hater par excellence. He not only hated Jews, he worked with Hitler, was in favor of the Final Solution, recruited for a Waffen SS unit, and was responsible for murdering many Jews.

It's beyond absurd (and outrageously dishonest) attempting to argue that the pathological, genocidal hatred espoused by Hamas and the PLO is unrelated to al-Husseini's brand of irrational Jew hatred.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. You claim that the PLO is genocidal and you have the gall to call other people racists? N.T?

[shira]

39. What the PLO calls legitimate resistance to occupation is nothing more...

...than the intentional murder of innocent Jews.

Prove me wrong.

Show me how this 'legitimate resistance' in reality targets "Israelis" and how the PLO encourages and rewards this "resistance" not only against Jews, but also the non-Jews of Israel.

I can show you mountains of evidence (video and written testimony) from the PA showing their issue is with Jews, not Israelis in general. What do you have?

And no, calling out PLO genocidal antisemitism for what it is is not racist or bigoted. It's disgusting to turn that accusation around on the accusers. You may as well call Blacks racists for having the gall to call out white racists for the pieces of crap they are. Maybe Jews are racists for having the audacity to call out WW2 era Nazis for the monsters they are. Utterly insane.

On edit...

Let's see if we can both agree that at the very least, Hamas is an antisemitic collection of psychotics who are very open about their aim to murder Jews.

Agreed?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. I suspect yes, no and yes, but don't know for sure.

Yes, I think it highly probable that almost all members of Hamas are antisemitic.

No, I think that almost none of them are psychotic.

Yes, one of the main activities of Hamas in the past has been the murder of Jews, including a hundreds of innocent civilians, and one of its sidelines at the moment is attempting (but currently almost invariably failing) to continue that.

Where I suspect I differ from you is in whether or not trying to persuade it to abandon that aim is feasible or worthwhile - I think a lot of members of Hamas view it primarily (but almost certainly not exclusively) as a means to an end, whereas my impression is that you think it's simply an end in itself?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. A better test: do you support Israel's continuing to grant special privilidges to Jews,

such as the so-called "law of return" and the right to automatically grant citizenship to one's spouse, which are denied to Palestinians?

If so, you may not be a racist, but by definition you're supporting racism.

[oberliner]

4. The Law of Return has nothing to do with race or racism

Jews of different races have immigrated to Israel and been granted citizenship under this law.

Two of the larger groups who have immigrated to Israel in recent years originally hailed from the former Soviet Union and from Ethiopia.

There have also been hundreds of thousands of immigrants to Israel since its inception from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Egypt, and the Sudan.

One would be hard pressed to find a more racially diverse group of immigrants than the population that has moved to Israel under the Law of Return.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Nonsense.

Are you saying that you think discrimination *against* Jews isn't racism?

I note that you remain completely silent in the face of the OP's claim that it is...

[shira]

8. The OP doesn't claim hatred vs. Jews is racism...

It argues that not holding Palestinians up to the same standards as other people is racist.

[oberliner]

18. "Nonsense" does not a rational argument make

Are you disputing the fact that immigrants who have moved to Israel via the Right of Return come from a variety of different races, countries, and ethnic backgrounds?

If so, I believe that there is evidence available to support my assertion.

If you are claiming something else, you are not doing so clearly.

With respect to your question, I do not think that discrimination against Jews is racism, but rather antisemitism - which means discrimination against Jews (regardless of their race).

[Shaktimaan]

33. that's absurd

First of all, Israel has been in a violent conflict with the Palestinians since Israel's inception. To ignore this and chalk immigration restrictions Israel has against Palestinians up to racism is profoundly dishonest.

Beyond this, Israel's right of return laws are not even based on whether or not someone is Jewish but around whether someone could be a target of anti-semitism. A very large percentage (perhaps over 50%) of Israel's immigrants in the recent past have not even been Jewish. Some were non-religious people descended from or related to Jews. (Israel only requires that a single grandparent be Jewish, the same standard the Nazis used, while the religion of Judaism requires a Jewish mother to qualify as being "halachically" Jewish.) Some were spouses of Jews, etc.

On a broader level, your key premise itself is flawed. You are equating Israel's granting of immigration privileges to Jews to discrimination against Palestinians. But this isn't the case. Discriminatory behavior is categorized as being something with negative effects that's applied to a specific group. The opposite, singling out a certain group for perks does not then imply that everyone unaffiliated with that group is a victim of discrimination. Your argument is reminiscent of those who insist that affirmative action is "reverse-racism" targeting whites and asians.

You would be on somewhat firmer ground by arguing that Israel RoR policy is unfair to Palestinians. That it very likely is. But Israel is under no obligation to be fair to non-citizens. I don't know of any country that is or even tries to be. Discrimination against Palestinians can only be shown by evaluating policy differences between citizens of Israel, which are obviously all entitled to equal treatment.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Well, it certainly does have alot to do with ancestry and bloodlines.

While I acknowledge that not everyone sees that as racism, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for some people to see racist elements in it. JMHO.

[holdencaufield]

9. Jus sanguinis

There are currently over two dozen countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific Island that allow immigration based on cultural identity -- the legal term for which is Jus sanguinis.

The only country that EVER gets singled-out for it is Israel. Any reason why that might be?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Care to provide some examples?

I know that e.g. Ireland discriminates in favour of people with ancestors from Ireland. The analogy to that would be Israel discriminating in favour of people with ancestors from Israel, i.e. the Palestinians.

Which nations discriminate on grounds of cultural identity - as opposed to "where your ancestors came from/what nationality they were", but still get accepted as legitimate democracies?

And are there *any* other nations that actively discriminate in favour of a foreign people and against the indigenous one?

[LeftishBrit]

11. 'Are there *any* other nations that actively discriminate in favour of a foreign people and against

the indigenous one?'

Well, there's the USA; several Latin American countries; New Zealand; Australia...


For that matter, about half of the Israeli Jews are indigenous to the region.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. "There for centuries" qualifies as indigenous in my book.

If I live to be 100, I'll be encouraging my great-grandchildren to support the settlements. I already think that Israel should continue to exist, even though it should never have been founded.

[LeftishBrit]

15. I think Israel, like the UK, USA, Australia, etc. should continue to exist, though it's questionable

whether any of them should have been founded. (Substitute virtually any nations; same applies!)

As for the settlements, I hope that they will cease to exist long before any of us are 100.

[oberliner]

17. I think the implications was that all of Israel is "settlements"

Alternatively, it could've been a typo.

[LeftishBrit]

19. My interpretation was a bit different

It was that once a group of people have been established in an area for several generations, even if they should never been there, getting rid of them would be worse than letting them stay. Hence, white New Zealanders should not have to leave the land to the Maoris; white Americans should not have to leave the land to the Native Americans; and Israel should continue to exist, even though in Donald's view all of these countries were illegitimate in origin. Currently the settlements are not in this category, but if they persist for another two or three generations, then they will be.

I am not saying that all this is my view; but it's how I'm interpreting Donald.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. That's pretty much exactly my view. N.T.

[shira]

12. WRT "Other nations that actively discriminate in favour of....

And are there *any* other nations that actively discriminate in favour of a foreign people and against the indigenous one?

There is no nation that is obligated by law to accept refugees from the WW2 era whose nation is still in a state of war against the country in question.

Therefore, all nations from the WW2 era "discriminate" (which really isn't the proper term here) against indigenous refugees in order to avert opening old wounds and bringing on more bloodshed. IOW, there's actually a humane reason for it.

You're also wrongly asserting that Israel's population is foreign and not indigenous to the area. Half the Jews there originate from the area and are just as indigenous as anyone else.

[holdencaufield]

16. Sure, here are some examples

The following countries either grant automatic or preferred citizenship to persons based on ethnicity or cultural identity.

Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Belgium, Czech Republic, China, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Lebanon, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Ukraine.

Are they all racist, illegitimate democracies, as you suggest? Do these countries have no right to exist?

As to a Jew being "foreign" to Israel... how would a Jew born in New York be more foreign to Israel than an Irishman who's grandparents were born in the USA? As for Arabs being "indigenous" to Palestine, the same argument could be made for Greeks, Romans, Franks, Turks, Byzantines, or Brits -- all of whom have, at one time or another been the lawful owners of that particular patch of sod. Arabs didn't start migrating to Palestine until the 7th Century CE, which makes Jews more indigenous to the area by a couple of millennium.

[Shaktimaan]

34. The problem with this argument...

aside from the fact that most Israelis and many Palestinians are from similar places, (why is an Egyptian Jew less qualified for citizenship than an Egyptian Palestinian, or the Jewish grandson of an indigenous resident of Hebron?), is that you are using prior oppression to justify continued discrimination. Jews were spread out all over the world because they were evicted from their original homeland and subsequently endured genocide, ethnic cleansing, expulsions, forced relocations and garden variety anti-semitism across the planet, over centuries.

To use this as an excuse for now questioning their legitimacy to immigrate to their homeland is to use injustice to legitimize further injustice. Your example about Ireland is not an apt parallel. People are not given preference merely because their families were once from there but because they identified themselves as Irish citizens, a qualification that Palestinians seeking return lack. A far better analogy would be India and Pakistan, as both also offer preference to those with ancestry. Like Israel, their Partition was accompanied by bloodshed as a hasty population transfer took place. People lost land, their possessions, family members and even their lives. But do we now expect either country to open their borders and offer preferential immigration status to the descendants of those who left? Of course not.

In Israel's case, the Partition was suggested because of the volatility of the two populations living in close proximity. Your argument ignores the fact of the 80 year old conflict split down these ethnic lines. Not acknowledging the relevant history in favor of viewing policies without any context is hardly a reasonable position from which to begin comparing them. You ask "what nations discriminate... etc?" A better question would be "What states do NOT discriminate against members of the nation they have been in conflict with for nearly a century?"

Israel was invented with the intent of bringing Jews from around the world there. For them to pursue policies that support this aim is hardly discriminatory. A future Palestinian state would almost certainly invite Palestinians living around the world to return via incentivized immigration policies that would not apply to former Jewish inhabitants that were thrown out in 1948.

Which nations discriminate on grounds of cultural identity - as opposed to "where your ancestors came from/what nationality they were", but still get accepted as legitimate democracies?

Any nations that fought a war that occurred between two indigenous groups. Or any nations that have a specific group they dislike for some reason. Plenty of Arab nations disallow Jews regardless of where their ancestors are from, for example. America doesn't allow communists or fascists even if they're descended from American Indians.

[holdencaufield]

35. There are still those...

... who don't understand that Jewish cultural identity (while as valid as any other cultural identity) isn't based on race.

[shira]

14. The Big Lie Returns: Antisemites and Antisemitism

The forthcoming edition of Commentary magazine carries an essay I’ve written on the recent contortions of contemporary antisemitism. The trigger was an episode that HP readers are certainly familiar with, and one that, by rights, should have resulted in a major scandal.

Yet it didn’t.

I’m referring, of course, to Chicago University professor John Mearsheimer’s endorsement of the latest book by the imbecilic Jew-hater, Gilad Atzmon. And I argue that the general indifference to Mearsheimer’s decision underlines a disturbing reality: that Jews don’t own the definition of the word “antisemitism”. In truth, they never have.

<snip>

My aim in writing this piece is to reclaim the antisemitism debate on the terms of those who still suffer from this ancient prejudice, together with that broader public who still understand the profound danger that antisemitism – whether open or clumsily disguised – represents. I end by saying:

As long as the adversaries and enemies of the Jews control the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, Jews will remain vulnerable to that most sacred of anti-Semitic calumnies: that they alone are the authors of their own misfortune.

http://hurryupharry.org/2012/01/24/the-big-lie-returns-antisemites-and-antisemitism/

[shira]

20. Guardian's Israel correspondent promotes agenda of radical anti-Israel NGO

On Saturday February 16th 2002, at around 7:45 p.m., an 18 year-old terrorist – wearing an explosive vest containing 25 pounds of nails for added damage – walked into a pizza parlour in the crowded shopping mall in Karnei Shomron and detonated his device.

Two teenagers were killed instantly, some thirty people (many of them children) were injured – six of them seriously – and one died of her wounds 11 days later. Rachel Thaler was 16 years old, Keren Shatsky and Nehemia Amar were both 15 when they were murdered.

One member at that time of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – the organisation which later claimed responsibility for that terror attack – is named Shahwan Jabarin.

Strangely, (at least according to Western standards) for someone involved with an organisation with such obvious disregard for the lives of either terror victims or the brainwashed teenagers sent to perpetrate terror attacks, he is today active in the field of ‘human rights’ NGOs as director of ‘Al Haq’ and a board member of ‘Human Rights Watch’. He also sits on the board of an organisation named Defence for Children International – Palestine (DCI-Pal).

more...
http://cifwatch.com/2012/01/24/political-activism-as-journalism-harriet-sherwood-promotes-agenda-of-radical-anti-israel-ngo/

[Jefferson23]

21. 29 November '11: Lift Travel Ban on Human Rights Defender

Shawan Jabarin Unable to Receive Award, Attend Rights Meetings

Israeli authorities in the West Bank should lift the travel ban imposed since 2006 on West Bank resident Shawan Jabarin, the director of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem said today. Israeli authorities violated Jabarin’s due process rights in imposing the ban and have not produced any evidence that would justify continuing to restrict him from travel, the groups said.

The ban has prevented Jabarin from leaving the West Bank to receive a prestigious human rights prize from the Danish PL Foundation, participate in a European Union forum on human rights, and attend a Human Rights Watch advisory committee meeting in New York City. Jabarin attempted to travel yesterday, but told the rights groups that Israeli authorities turned him back at the Allenby Bridge crossing with Jordan, citing the travel ban.

“The ban preventing Shawan Jabarin from traveling abroad to receive an award is emblematic of the arbitrary restrictions placed on Palestinian human rights defenders and civil society activists,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s interim MENA Programme Director. “It must be lifted, and the Israeli authorities must stop using unspecified security concerns to obstruct the work of Palestinian human rights activists.”

Israel, which controls all border crossings between the West Bank and Israel as well as Jordan, has prohibited Jabarin from traveling outside the West Bank since 2006, when he became director of Al-Haq, a leading human rights organization in the West Bank. Israel had allowed Jabarin to travel abroad eight times in the previous seven years.

The Israeli military previously claimed in court that Jabarin was an activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which Israel considers a terrorist organization, and that his travel abroad for even a limited period would endanger Israel’s security. However, Israeli authorities have not charged Jabarin with any crime or given him an opportunity to confront the allegations against him. The Israeli High Court of Justice has upheld Jabarin’s travel ban on security grounds, but did so based on secret information that Jabarin and his lawyer were not allowed to see or challenge.

“It is hard to believe any claim that Jabarin's travel to Denmark to receive a human rights award would harm Israeli security, the more so when any evidence is kept secret,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “While civil society groups recognize Jabarin’s courageous work, Israel is punishing him with a travel ban.”

Under Jabarin’s leadership, Al-Haq has frequently criticized rights violations by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Jabarin, for instance, last year confronted PA officials over allegations of torture on an Al Jazeera broadcast.

The Danish PL Foundation awarded its 2011 Prize for Freedom jointly to Al-Haq and the Israeli rights group B’Tselem. The Foundation was established in 1984 by Poul Lauritzen, a Danish businessman and member of the Danish resistance during World War II. Previous recipients of the foundation’s annual prize include a Turkish playwright, Polish Solidarity members, and human rights activist Moncef Marzouki, currently the interim president of Tunisia.

“I deeply regret that at this important occasion, held in appreciation of the struggle for human rights, I will stand without Shawan at my side,” said Jessica Montell, executive director of B’Tselem. “Shawan’s absence is an example of the ongoing severe violation of the freedom of movement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.”

In 2010, Al-Haq and B’Tselem were also jointly awarded the Geuzen Medal, an annual human rights prize given by a Dutch group that had resisted the Nazi occupation in World War II. Israel barred Jabarin from traveling to the Netherlands to receive the award.

The PL Foundation prize ceremony will be held in Copenhagen on November 29. Nina Atallah, the head of Al-Haq’s monitoring and documentation department, will try to travel to the prize ceremony.

Human Rights Watch will host a meeting of its Middle East and North Africa Division’s advisory committee, of which Jabarin is a member, in New York City on December 6 to discuss the organization’s work in the region. The advisory committee is comprised of independent human rights activists, legal scholars, journalists, and others from around the region.

On December 8 the EU-NGO Forum on Human Rights will convene EU states, institutions, and nongovernmental groups in Brussels. According to the invitation Jabarin received, the forum, organized by the European Commission and the European External Action Service, will discuss the implementation of the EU’s guidelines on international humanitarian law and its human rights strategy.

Article 12 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which the International Court of Justice and other legal bodies have determined applies to the occupied Palestinian territories, states that everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his or her own.

http://www.btselem.org/press-release/lift-travel-ban-human-rights-defender

[Crunchy Frog]

24. What a nice and facile way of labeling anyone you wish

as a racist or an anti-semite. And what a nice way of implying that many of the posters here, as well as progressive human rights activists in general, are racist anti-semites.

And finally, what a nice way to broad-brush large numbers of DUers and other progressive activists, while wiggling around the rules of the board so as to get away with it.

Nice job, Shira, and a fine example of some of your best work on this forum.

[shira]

26. Not anyone....

Just the most harsh Israel critics posing as humanitarians who (for example) deny, ignore, or minimize the profound antisemitism generated by the PLO and Hamas, leading to terror attacks and dead Jews.

[Jefferson23]

32. +1

[bemildred]

25. So I guess this guy is more the ugly racist type then? No hypocrisy for him?

I must say, given his c.v., I would have thought he could have come up with something better than this, e.g. "Ugly racists fortunately can no longer get articles published in mainstream media, but humanitarian racists unfortunately are welcomed by them."

One wonders whence comes this unfortunate welcoming of humanitarian racists by ugly racists? Are the humanitarian racists mere tools of the ugly racists? Useful idiots?

I suppose it could be a translation problem ...

[shira]

27. When humanitarian racists are welcomed by ugly racists....

Moazzam Begg and Shawan Jabarin are prime examples of ugly antisemites who welcome and are in turn embraced by organizations like Amnesty International and HRW.

[bemildred]

29. Shouldn't that be ugly racists being welcomed by humanitarian racists?

Let's get the story straight. Or does which is which not matter here?

Personally, I'll take HRW ahead of the guy that wrote this OP; he is a bigot defending bigotry with the most specious sort of arguments..

[shira]

30. It goes both ways...

I think it's funny you believe the author of the OP is a bigot, but Gilad Atzmon is not an antisemite in your opinion....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11342321#post64

I wonder how come to these conclusions.

[bemildred]

31. OK, Atzmon does go a bit over the top.

It's not that I want to defend him or his arguments. I don't think he is much of a threat though. Neither is this guy in the OP. Empty babble all around.