History's oldest hatred

[Behind the Aegis]

ANTI-SEMITISM is an ancient derangement, the oldest of hatreds, so it is strange that it lacks a more meaningful name. The misnomer "anti-Semitism" - a term coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr, who wanted a scientific-sounding euphemism for Judenhass, or Jew-hatred - is particularly inane, since hostility to Jews has never had anything to do with Semites or being Semitic.

Perhaps there is no good name for a virus as mutable as anti-Semitism. "The Jews have been objects of hatred in pagan, religious, and secular societies," write Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager in "Why the Jews?," their classic study of anti-Semitism. "Fascists have accused them of being Communists, and Communists have branded them capitalists. Jews who live in non-Jewish societies have been accused of having dual loyalties, while Jews who live in the Jewish state have been condemned as 'racists.' Poor Jews are bullied, and rich Jews are resented. Jews have been branded as both rootless cosmopolitans and ethnic chauvinists. Jews who assimilate have been called a 'fifth column,' while those who stay together spark hatred for remaining separate."

There was Jew-hatred before there was Christianity or Islam, before Nazism or Communism, before Zionism or the Middle East conflict. This week Jews celebrate the festival of Purim, gathering in synagogues to read the biblical book of Esther. Set in ancient Persia, it tells of Haman, a powerful royal adviser who is insulted when the Jewish sage Mordechai refuses to bow down to him. Haman resolves to wipe out the empire's Jews and makes the case for genocide in an appeal to the king:

"There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among . . . all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of other peoples, and the king's laws they do not keep, so it is of no benefit for the king to tolerate them. If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed."

Happy Purim...read on...

[Captain Hilts]

1. The Bible blames women for a whole lot of crap too. nt

[baldguy]

3. Starting with Eve.

But anti-Semitism is worse than misogyny - so that means the US has to give Israel $3 billion each year.

[aquart]

4. What an amazingly witless remark.

I'm impressed.

I'll just mention that at least three million of that pile of emaciated corpses were female. All ages. Which is why I don't have a complete medical history of the women of my family.

But be sure to save a few bucks if you can. So concerned about women as you are.

[baldguy]

5. I apologize for your inability to identify sarcasm.

[aquart]

2. I just want to point out that the book of Esther is biblical.

Jews wrote it for the benefit of Jews. As for Purim...oh, dear. The root is pur which means fire in indoeuropean but probably sacred fire with a Hebrew plural. So it was a bonfire or fire purification holiday which was rewritten to give political, emotional, and religious authority to the Jewish patriarchs.

So I would be very careful about claiming a history of anti-Semitism or Judenhass going back to biblical days. If I recall, history is written by the winners. Just as the story of Jesus's persecution by Herod and the Romans was NOT written by religious losers, but by the people who were imposing their own faith and customs on the Rome-conquered world.

If you want to hate us or love us, do it knowing what's real and what isn't.

[Ken Burch]

8. The Holocaust was loathesome. Every decent person agrees on that

And on the need to make sure nothing like that happens to anyone again.

That doesn't justify what the IDF does to Palestinians, since the Palestinians aren't acting out of a desire to wipe Jews off of the Earth.

Europeans committed that monstrous act, not Arabs. Only Europeans should have had to suffer for it.

The answer is to work for justice, not demand unquestioning support and military aid for one state, especially when that aid does nothing to compensate for the world's failure to protect and defend the Jewish and other victims of Hitler when it mattered.

[yurbud]

11. thank you

[yurbud]

12. If someone was the victim of a crime, we do not excuse their crimes as compensation

[GeorgeGist]

6. Nonsense begets nonsense etc. etc.

I believe it was the Jews who first wrote of God's hatred of man.

[Ken Burch]

9. Not likely.

The Greek and Roman deities didn't like the human race much either.

And you really need to shut the fuck up.

Antisemitism is never justified, any more than any other prejudice is.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Nope; virtually all religions have had gods who didn't like humans very much.

One has to have to have some explanation for all the bad things that happen to people, and often it's a god or several gods.

Antisemitism is a pretty old sort of hatred, but there's been plenty of others going back in time. What's somewhat unusual about antisemitism among serious forms of hatred is that its targets survived long-term as a group (though many individuals sadly didn't).

The Greeks and Trojans hated each other; so did the Romans and Carthaginians. Cato the Elder, a thoroughly nasty man, used to end every speech in the Roman Senate, with 'For the rest, Carthage must be destroyed!'. And neither Carthage nor Troy has existed for a long time.

[steven johnson]

7. Didn't the Egyptians Hate the Hittites First?

By order of Rameses, this poem was inscribed upon the walls of five temples, one of which was at Karnak. On these walls were also engraved enormous illustrations of the scenes of the poem, commemorating especially the exploits of the king .

"This is no man, this is he,
This is Sutek, god of hate,
With Baal in his blood;
Let us hasten, let us flee,
Let us save our souls from death,
Let us take to heel and try our lungs and breath."

The Victory of Ramses II Over the Khita, 1326 BCE

[Zynx]

38. But it does not still exist.

[morillon]

10. There are older hatreds

Hatred of outsiders in general. Hatred of those who have something you want and can't get. Hatred of the other, whoever the other is to you.

[yurbud]

13. would you consider it anti-semitic to say we should treat Israel the way we do our other allies?

and judge their actions based on our interests first instead of giving them a blank check for billions with no questions or conditions.

We don't put our cultural cousins Britain above criticism, or other countries we have close relationships with. When their actions hurt us, seem immoral, or even self-destructive, we tell them and even punish them in ways appropriate to the offense.

None of these common sense practices seem to apply to Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Red herring and has nothing to do with the topic.

[yurbud]

19. given that you frequently call people who criticizes Israel anti-Semitic, it's relevant

[Ken Burch]

20. Yurbud...don't bother....by the next post he'll just start repeating "strawman" over and over

It's just not worth it with this guy.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Unlike you, he didn't use them, just made something up...which you do too.

I can't help it you are so ingrained with a deep-seated bias all you can do is produce strawmen and personal attacks (like your above nonsense...BTW...no one was saying the Holocaust should be used as an excuse for the actions of the IDF, that is why it is a STRAWMAN!).

[Ken Burch]

25. No personal attacks. I was simply telling yurbud what to expect with you.

Your tactic is to argue by refusing to argue. And I just did an survey through your past posts on I/P, and discovered that you used the "s-word" on lots of people, without ever making any case to justify such a claim towards any of them. You do it to everybody. There's no way that EVERYBODY else's views could be nothing but "strawmen".

Also, it's the media that gets accused of "bias", not individuals. Individuals aren't expected to be neutral. I've never expected it of you. I have my views of things, views I've researched, views held without malice towards anyone. That isn't "bias".

And we're all pretty much on to you, Aegis, about why you keep going on and on about "antisemitism", as if it happens more than all other kinds of prejudice, as if its worse than all other kinds(a moral person sees ALL prejudices as equally noxious, rather than making an absurd claim that one has been more poisonous than the rest). You're arguing that the world should only concern itself with ONE prejudice, to the exclusion of any interest in any others. And you're arguing that this one group has had it worse than everybody else. That is a morally repugnant and reactionary argument.

The suffering of people of African descent, of gays(as you know)of Roma, of the First Peoples of this continent...all are just as deep as the suffering of the victims of antisemitism. All are JUST AS BAD. There's no reason at all to make the sort of distinction you make in this thread. And priveleging the suffering of one group doesn't do anything to lead us to a world where no one suffers.

All hate is equally damaging and equally wrong. What is necessary is a global struggle against all hate and all oppression, not the singling out of one group's suffering as if it matters more than all others.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Too bad. He is a different poster. HE didn't use your tired tactic.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, Burch, but you don't make the rules any more than I do. There is nothing stating if one presents a strawman, another poster is obliged to point how it is a strawman. That is simply a rule in your own mind and of your own design. I am very familiar with your tactics and nonsense, as well as your passive-aggressive style (often characteristic of those who use strawmen as an "argument"). Your failure to understand the logical fallacy known as a strawman is not my problem, but yours. Then again, you could never be wrong, therefore I have to be and that makes it alright in your small little world (that is an example of a strawman, do you know why?).

"Also, it's the media that gets accused of "bias", not individuals." This indicates, as I stated in another thread, you are not familiar with bigotry, nor are you familiar with "bias." 'Bias' is not a "bad or good" thing, it is how it is used, much like a gun.

"And we're all pretty much on to you, Aegis, about why you keep going on and on about "antisemitism", as if it happens more than all other kinds of prejudice, as if its worse than all other kinds(a moral person sees ALL prejudices as equally noxious, rather than making an absurd claim that one has been more poisonous than the rest). " And here you start back up with your predictable strawmen and personal attacks. The only thing morally repugnant and reactionary is your narrow-minded posts, especially in regards to me.

"The suffering of people of African descent, of gays(as you know)of Roma, of the First Peoples of this continent...all are just as deep as the suffering of the victims of antisemitism. All are JUST AS BAD. There's no reason at all to make the sort of distinction you make in this thread." A perfect example of your idiotic strawman attack. And because it is OBVIOUS you don't know what a strawman is I will break it down for you....

Strawman: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. source"

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." At no point in this thread have I said anti-Semitism is worse than any other form of discrimination or bigotry. Therefore your statement: "The suffering of people of African descent, of gays(as you know)of Roma, of the First Peoples of this continent...all are just as deep as the suffering of the victims of antisemitism. All are JUST AS BAD. There's no reason at all to make the sort of distinction you make in this thread." is not only a strawman, it a flat out lacking the merit of truth. You continue with yet another strawman: "You're arguing that the world should only concern itself with ONE prejudice, to the exclusion of any interest in any others." As I have made no argument to the subject of prejudice in this thread, this is again an "informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position" made untruthful be the very fact I have made no "position" statement. You conclude with the third strawman: "And you're arguing that this one group has had it worse than everybody else. That is a morally repugnant and reactionary argument.". Since I have stated nothing of the sort, it is not only untrue to say that is my position, it is the worst kind of strawman (IMHO) because you falsely state my position, something I didn't even do, you then attack my "position" as 'repugnant' and right-wing.

Now, you have it in PLAIN ENGLISH why I call your arguments strawmen...THEY ARE!

[Ken Burch]

29. I've never misrepresented your arguments.

You never actually MAKE an argument or express a coherent position. You just lash out at the rest of us, and surmises can be drawn from the lashings.

Your purpose in this thread is clearly to argue that antisemitism is worse than any other form of prejudice, and a logical extension of that purpose is also to set up the position that, because antisemitism was horrid, no one has the right to criticize the Israeli government for anything it does. YOu're purpose in all of this is simply to try to stop any real discussion about the Gaza War and the Occupation.

You don't think everyone else here GETS that about your tactics by now?

[Behind the Aegis]

30. You did it again!

I haven't "argued" ANYTHING except that your posts are passive-agressive strawmen, which I proved.

[Ken Burch]

31. Actually, no, simply stating a thing is not proving it.

If you're so sure what I've argued is straw, it should be simple for you to demonstrate the fact.

The fact that you don't(and probably can't)speaks volumes about your methods here.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. I did demonstrate it! MULTIPLE TIMES!

Your lack of comprehension is the issue. I defined the word, showed how your MULTITUDE of statements were examples of the definition, and therefore, PROVED your statements were strawmen.

Then again, I am not surprised you don't get it. Posters like you are the first to screech about any pro-Israeli poster making a connection to anti-Semitism, yet in a thread about anti-Semitism, you were the SECOND poster to introduce Israel and the first to "criticize" it. You conflated anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. BRAVO! The simple fact that this escapes you, as well as obvious proof you shovel straw, really speaks to your lack of "debatable-ity."

[Ken Burch]

34. you posted the definition of "strawmen"

You failed to demonstrate how anything I've posted met that definition.

As to antisemitism, everyone at DU, regardless of their views on Israel, OPPOSES antisemitism. The word is not the special property of those who identify as "pro-Israel". All Du'ers hate antisemitism(the ones who don't get banned almost instantly)even the ones who identify(as I DON'T, by the way)as "anti-Zionist".

Frankly, in these exchanges you sound like John Cleese in Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" sketch.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. And I posted how your remarks FIT the definition. Read it again!

"As to antisemitism, everyone at DU, regardless of their views on Israel, OPPOSES antisemitism." Hyperbolic and unprovable.

"The word is not the special property of those who identify as "pro-Israel"." Strawman. HERE'S WHY....NO ONE MADE THAT CLAIM! You created a FALSE CLAIM (anti-Semitism is special property) then tore it down with "All Du'ers hate antisemitism(the ones who don't get banned almost instantly)even the ones who identify(as I DON'T, by the way)as "anti-Zionist"." You cannot speak for "all" DU'ers, nor can you substantiate such a claim.

In very, very, very, very basic terms:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation ("The word is not the special property of those who identify as "pro-Israel".") of an opponent's position (I never took one!).

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition ("The word is not the special property of those who identify as "pro-Israel".) (the "straw man"), and refuting it (All Du'ers hate antisemitism(the ones who don't get banned almost instantly)even the ones who identify(as I DON'T, by the way)as "anti-Zionist".) without ever having actually refuted the original position (which does not exist).

And frankly, your posts are glaring examples of why people can't discuss I/P (well, yours and those who flat out lie).

ETA: Go back and read the thing in the pale green box, that is where your strawmen get set ablaze!

[Behind the Aegis]

23. posting untruths isn't helping you.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Umm....

'We don't put our cultural cousins Britain above criticism, or other countries we have close relationships with. When their actions hurt us, seem immoral, or even self-destructive, we tell them and even punish them in ways appropriate to the offense.'

Not when you've got a right-wing government, you don't. Bush led Britain (with Blair's full consent of course; I'm not implying American 'ownership of Britain' - it's a collaboration!) into an immoral, illegal, destructive, and self-destructive war in Iraq. And, insofar as our alliance facilitated the war, it no doubt hurt America as it undoubtedly did Britain - and of course Iraq by far the most of all. By contrast, France was reprimanded and to a degree punished, because its government *wouldn't* engage in the immoral and destructive and self-defeating war. I think Israel's been very much in a similar position to Britain, except that America probably holds even more of a lever over Israel than Britain. If the Bush government, hadn't *wanted* Israel to play the role of pawn, I mean strategic ally, against most of the Islamic world in general and Iran in particular, they would not have encouraged them to do so, and might have exerted financial and diplomatic pressure against it. And Israel might or might not have pursued the same policies anyway.

I hope that now there's a more liberal American government, the pressures will be more toward peace instead of war.

[Ken Burch]

21. Well, to be precise, it'd be our government that wouldn't criticise Britain

when that government was right-wing and Britain was its ally in an unpopular war.

Antiwar rallies in the U.S. were as critical towards Blair as they were towards Bush.

[LeftishBrit]

37. True...

and the same or more so here; the population here definitely weren't 'the willing', even if the government were.

But I assumed that Yurbud was referring to the government anyway - after all, it's governments that form alliances.

[The Second Stone]

15. Human hatred of the "other" is older than

Anti-Semitism, and in fact anti-Semitism is a form of it.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Agree

[bertman]

22. I'll second The Second Stone.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

36. What on earth is 'bannable' about that post, whether you agree with it or not?

[earcandle]

27. I hate this imbecile like addiction to stereotypes

Give it up already.

People are better classified as generous or greedy. These
religious and gender projections are impractical and cause not
only religious wars, but a lot of divorce and broken families.
 I would think we might figure that out by now.

If we classify folks as generous or greedy then it is easier
to praise and empower or to boycott and sanction based on
resources properly distributed or stolen.  Israel seems to
have forgotten to be generous and even gracious in asking to
share the land of the Philistines. Just because some white
fucks said they could doesn't give them the right to be greedy
about it.

I think Israel was put in place so that we could have a
military force in the middle east.  We have been giving them
zillions out of our budget annually for this purpose alone. 
So we are the perpetrators, while they (both sides) just die
for the budgets we give.  Pretty dumb. 

Bad planning all around, seems to me. 

As a culture, I really like the way the Jews reciprocate with
their wares amongst themselves, and the way they hold on tight
to family.  I don't have any beefs with either side.  I just
think they are props in a CIA game that just won't stop being
the beast. 

They should just lay down the arms and refuse to continue this
madness. Let the rich who profit from weapon sales starve
instead. 

[struggle4progress]

33. Esther is an interesting book

King Xerxes dumps Queen Vashti because she doesn't display herself as a beauty in public as he demands. Xerxes' commissioners then scour the country, seeking a new beauty to add to his harem as queen. The orphan Hadassah, raised by her cousin Mordecai, "wins" this contest, being chosen by Xerxes as the hottest babe; so she becomes queen. Worried for Hadassah, Mordecai meanwhile hangs around the gates, hoping for news of her, and learns of a plot to assassinate Xerxes, which he reports, saving the king's life. The noble Haman becomes Xerxes' favorite and demands everyone bow to him. Mordecai refuses. Outraged, Haman decides to kill Mordecai and everyone of his religion: he presents this plan to the king as a way to fill the royal treasury with seized property. The king tells Haman to kill the people and keep the money. Mordecai continues to sit at the gates, now clothed in mourning. When Hadassah asks through a messenger why he is upset, Mordecai lets her know of the decree and warns that not even she will escape. Haman builds a gallows on which to hang Mordecai. Hadassah asks Xerxes and Haman to come to a banquet the next day, so she can ask a favor of Xerxes. That night, Xerxes remembers that Mordecai saved his life, and in the morning he asks Haman to lead Mordecai around town, proclaiming that Mordecai is an man of honor. Afterwards, Haman is called to Hadassah's banquet. She exposes the extermination plan. Hadassah throws himself on Hadassah, begging for his life. Xerxes interprets this as an assault on the queen and has Haman hanged on the gallows, giving his confiscated estate to Hadassah, who gives it to Mordecai. Xerxes then issues proclamations granting rights to Mordecai's co-religionists, who then defend themselves from their enemies

I have no idea what historical facts, if any, lie behind this story. But it is a fascinating commentary on negotiating survival under the arbitrary rule of dictators. Xerxes is not a particularly good man: his attitude towards women is unenlightened, and he's unconcerned about the prospect of mass slaughter, for profit or otherwise. Mordecai essentially puts his entire life on hold, when his orphan cousin is snatched away as the king's concubine, essentially the victim of an institutionalized rape. Mordecai is entirely focused on Hadassah's well-being: he does not want to be involved in assassination plots. One must wonder how and why this fellow sitting at the gates of the powerful even learns about an assassination plot and exactly why he refuses to bow down to Haman. Similarly, it is a wonderful coincidence, that Xerxes happens to reread the chronicles recalling Mordecai's service at the most opportune moment, and one must wonder how that happened. But we are not told; we can only speculate; but everything is passed over in silence -- and in fact Keep your mouth shut is an explicit subtext early in the story. Outside the palace, Mordecai knows more about what happens than Hadassah, who is inside, knows. Haman, finally hanged on the gallows he built, is a cautionary tale about the favors of tyrants, much like the story of Perillus and Phalaris

[Zynx]

39. I have to confess that I find the responses to this editorial slightly puzzling.

[winyanstaz]

40. It is simply untrue that Pagans hate the jews...

Having studied various Pagan as well as many other religious, spiritual and atheist beliefs and traditions for over 40 years now, I can honestly say I have NEVER seen a single word regarding hating Jews..or anyone else for that matter in the Pagan belief system.
Pagan beliefs are not about hating but of love and healing and being in balance with the Earth. Do a little homework and you will find this out for yourself.
With all groups you may find a few that espouse hatred of one thing or another..but again this is the individual and NOT the group.
We can find good people or bad people in ANY race, sex, religion or group but that does not make ALL of that group just as evil as a few individuals.
Let us try to help make the change so that the Jewish people or any other race or group are not taught to be perpetual victims and that other groups or races etc are not taught to hate based on whatever reason.
Hatred is just wrong..no matter WHO does it or why.
We do not have to like evil hatred but we do not have to hate the evil ones among us. However, we do have to stop them from hurting themselves and others as best as we can.

[earcandle]

42. sounds good to me.

[chimpyisstillsatan]

41. atheists beg to differ nt