Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.

Hindus are another. You won't find very many outside of the Indian ethnic group (to the point that 'Indian' and 'Hindu' get used interchangably), for a number of reasons. Of course, far as I know there aren't any conspiracy theories that Hindus secretly control the world and all its money

Do Hindus have the same genetic similarities as Jews? And is there a separate 'Hindu' culture beyond that dictated by the religion? (so separate music, eating habits, and so on from their neighbours). If so, I'd love to know!

Well as a non-expert on Indian who is just familiar with Hinduism, the religion is innately tied to the culture and society of India (that's why Hinduism didn't spread throughout the world like Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam). Being Hindu is very much about being Indian as I understand it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.

So it's okay to distinguish between degrees of racism? Being "a little" racist is okay?

I think it's all over the top. We're his comments really 'staggering' and as one put it 'abhorrent and beyond disgraceful'? All seems a bit disproportionate but some people are on a hair trigger about comments regarding Hitler and Jews and very black and white in their interpretation (as in 'you're either with us or a bigot') - I really don't think Livingston is an anti-Semite or Hitler apologist.

 Ketara wrote:

 feeder wrote:


Romani, perhaps?

There's no shared religious aspect to being a Roma I'm aware of.

Depending on what part of the world they're in, the Romani do have distinctive religious practices (most are either Christian or Muslim), and they put their own spin on the faiths combining their own folklore and mythology with the traditional religious precepts. But Romani are I think a far less cohesive group that the Jews have been. Given the breadth of the Jewish Diaspora, it is something of a marvel that Jews have maintained such consistency as a group. Being the object of hated for centuries probably helped

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one.

What genetic type exactly?

Due to the fact that historically, Jews intermarry as opposed to breeding with the locals (who often wouldn't have had their sons/daughters breeding with a Jew!), there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.

So it's okay to distinguish between degrees of racism? Being "a little" racist is okay?

I wouldn't say it's okay, but there's a difference between someone who doesn't like Jews and Hitler. Is Ken Livingstone literally Hitler? No, I'd argue. A douchebag? Sure, but not a genocidal maniac.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.

So it's okay to distinguish between degrees of racism? Being "a little" racist is okay?

Now who's building a strawman? What part of "awful behaviour" are you having difficulty comprehending?

Mdlbuildr wrote:


So it's okay to distinguish between degrees of racism? Being "a little" racist is okay?

No one said it was okay. They said it is.

 feeder wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one.

Romani, perhaps?

Aye, that's another one though IIRC they're usually Christians. And they've certainly been discriminated against! Hitler destroyed quite a lot of them too, but they never had the power or resources to make the world aware and willing to help them in any way. Hell, even here we grudgingly gave them basic human rights less than a hundred years ago. Jews have been allowed to live where they want and practice whatever profession they want for much longer here in Finland. (Though I do recall some businessman was forced to sell his business during WW2 when our German allies made noise about it.) In Eastern Europe the Romani still live in poverty, often outside society with no access to schooling or social services.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I All seems a bit disproportionate but some people are on a hair trigger about comments regarding Hitler and Jews and very black and white in their interpretation (as in 'you're either with us or a bigot') - I really don't think Livingston is an anti-Semite or Hitler apologist.

There is a very specific historical reason for that hair trigger response.

Whether you think he is an Anti-Semite doesn't matter. What he says and has said is all that matters.

 LordofHats wrote:


Well as a non-expert on Indian who is just familiar with Hinduism, the religion is innately tied to the culture and society of India (that's why Hinduism didn't spread throughout the world like Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam). Being Hindu is very much about being Indian as I understand it.

That's probably the difference then. Jewish culture is in many ways separate from that of the country they happen to live in. You have separate dining tastes, music, a style of comedy, and several other such cultural elements that tend to be spread across Jews from several different places. It's not geographically localised in that way, and not usually shared by those who are not Jewish.

 Ketara wrote:
there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.

Are you talking about ancestry? This is in just about every religion.

Can you be more specific about which genetic markers you are referring to? It sounds to me like what you are talking about can be said about every religion if you go back far enough.

Christian Italians came from North or South Italy and some were related. Are they genetically similar?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.

Are you talking about ancestry? This is in just about every religion.

Can you be more specific about which genetic markers you are referring to? It sounds to me like what you are talking about can be said about every religion if you go back far enough.

Christian Italians came from North or South Italy and some were related. Are they genetically similar?

I'll chuck you across to the Wikipedia page. It should point to a few books if you're really interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins

 Ketara wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
there are certain genetic commonalities/markers across the Jewish population as whole of the sort you'd usually expect to find only within a limited local geographical locale. For example, 2012 genetic tests showed that the Jews of North Africa were close to European Jews, and had a common genetic ancestor.

Are you talking about ancestry? This is in just about every religion.

Can you be more specific about which genetic markers you are referring to? It sounds to me like what you are talking about can be said about every religion if you go back far enough.

Christian Italians came from North or South Italy and some were related. Are they genetically similar?

I'll chuck you across to the Wikipedia page. It should point to a few books if you're really interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins

Ah, okay. I consider that ancestry but I see what you mean. Thanks.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ketara wrote:

I'll chuck you across to the Wikipedia page. It should point to a few books if you're really interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins

Ah, okay. I consider that ancestry but I see what you mean. Thanks.

There are a few other aspects. In a nutshell, Jews tend to have more common genetic ancestry with jews from other countries, than they do their host countries. They've been transplanted as populations so many times, and the frum Jews marry out so rarely, that they don't tend to share the same genetic ancestors as any given national population. It's what's responsible for many appearance based Jewish stereotypes, it's because Jews tend to originate from similar stock wherever you go (and so are more likely to possess curly dark hair for example).

I'm not saying Jews are like the X-Men or anything.

We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?

The trick is to take politicians with strong opinions that infringe on a group's rights and remove them where they can do no harm.
This has been done for a limited time...

I am waiting for a certain USA Republican candidate to see a similar censure.

 Talizvar wrote:
We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?

We can, but don't count on the official Israel to do so. Their most important defense after the IDF is calling anyone disagreeing "antisemite".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.

Agreed. My quality of life improved immensely once I embraced this concept.

As a side-note, there are certainly other peoples that have historically been persecuted in similar manners. For example, prejudice against Romani is called Antiziganism.

Nice. That's just the kind of word needed to level up my vocab. Thanks.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?

We can, but don't count on the official Israel to do so. Their most important defense after the IDF is calling anyone disagreeing "antisemite".

Therein lies the major problem. The whoel debate is so emotionally charged. I do wonder why Livingstone decided to get involved given his experience. George Galloway walked into exactly the same trap last year. It's a tactical blunder to raise it, there was no need, everyone had moved on from talking about Shah. Livingstone rode into the debat with the grace,tact and poise of a drunk with a wrecking ball.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.

As a side-note, there are certainly other peoples that have historically been persecuted in similar manners. For example, prejudice against Romani is called Antiziganism.

So would prejudice against Palestinians be Antigizanism?

Talizvar wrote:We can establish here that we can disagree with Israel's foreign policies or some of their military actions without being anti-Semitic?

Spetulhu wrote:
We can, but don't count on the official Israel to do so. Their most important defense after the IDF is calling anyone disagreeing "antisemite".

We can do that except when Israel tries to defend itself it is either called excessive force or apartheid. That and the horribly one sided view of the media towards Israel and the way they report the "News" there.

The common reference is that if Israel's enemies would put down their weapons, there would be peace, but if Israel puts their weapons down there would no Israel.

Have any of you actually been to Israel?

As far as Palestinians and Gaza, where is all the billions of dollars given to them in aid? Oh yeah, it was used to build tunnels into Israel to kidnap soldiers. I forgot.

Why aren't the other Arab nations helping their brothers and sisters in Palestine? They don't want them either? No kidding!

Who are using their Women and Children as human shields when their rockets misfire? The Palestinians.

Who is helping the Palestinians wounded when their rockets misfire? The Israelis. Oh yeah!

Rockets aren't being fired from Israel into Gaza on a daily basis. They are fired from Gaza INTO Israel. By whom? The Palestinians.

Ffyllotek wrote:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/sam-kriss-the-right-has-an-anti-semitism-problem

Sorry it's vice news, but it's an interesting perspective.

My views on this (and this is the party I am a member of, and I am defo a Corbynite!):

I'm sorry to hear that, you have my sympathies.

Ffyllotek wrote:

1) People often share things on social media. Shah's post from four years ago was a bit silly but wasn't anti-semitic. It was anti-Israeli, which is not the same thing. Regardless, she apologised, very well I thought, and we should move on.

No, you don't get to claim this. The ones found so far are the ones she posted between August to September 2014, 8-9 months before being elected as a sitting MP. And it wasn't a one off retweet either. Posting things talking about the forced relocation of the Jews to the US or saying what the Nazi's did were "Legal" whatever that means, is antisemitic. If it were over 4 years or more, she may have been given the benefit of the doubt perhaps. But that close to being elected a sitting MP? She rightly got roasted for being exposed as the colossal bigot she is. Even more galling is the fact she was part of the Commons Antisemitism Inquiry!

Ffyllotek wrote:

2) There was a very good discussion on The Today Programme about anti-semitism vs anti-Israel. The poin was made that robust, strong, highly critical commens about Israels foreign and internal policies are fine and must be defended.

It should noted that criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic.

Ffyllotek wrote:

3) Ken Livingstone hasn't said something stupd in too long. What an idiot. Pointless comments coming at a itme when the right wing is looking to have a go at Labour and Corbyn is like walking into a bear pit. You might be technically right, you might me technically on the moral high ground, but it's still going to snap you.

Livingston is another colossal bigot and the fact that corbyn brought him back shows a spectacular lack of judgement and his naivety. Ken should have been gone long ago for being the dinosaur he is. Saying what he did on the radio and his comments about the Nazis and the Madagascar Plan was just unbelievable. In case you forget your history, the plan involved the forced deportation of the Jews with the view to them dying during the journey or when they arrived. The reems of aghast sitting Labour MPs shocked at Ken's caustic comments was refreshing considering the continuous uncovering of Labour antisemitism in recent months.

Ffyllotek wrote:

4) The reaction has been over the top but ber in mind there are elections next week. Everyone is nervous.

Let me ask you this: What would the reaction have been if someone high up in the Tory party said this such as Andrew Feldman?

Ffyllotek wrote:

5) Cameron and the Tories have been running a racist party for years. They have been running a racist, Islamophobic campaign for the mayor of London.

please tell me this is a joke. Proof please. I want to see entries from manifestos in recent years that have policies that specifically target minority groups in a racist fashion. And, posting random nutters from the depths of the membership doesn't count. I want people close to the top. All parties have fruitcakes such as David Ward or Lord Rennard or John Cherry.

Ffyllotek wrote:

The real racism in this issue is the Israeli backed apartheid in Palestine and the anti-Muslim rhetoric in the right wing papers. But that has been lost because of Livingstone's daft comments.

Nice deflection. This thread is about the rise of antisemitism in the Labour party not Israel and Palestinian relations.

Ffyllotek wrote:
I do wonder why Livingstone decided to get involved given his experience.

It's just the kind of "heroic stand" that will pull quality young totty at the next Labour cocktail mixer. You gotta get noticed.





edit: quote derp

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Now who's building a strawman? What part of "awful behaviour" are you having difficulty comprehending?

LMAO do you even know what a Strawman is??

Awful behavior is when my son gets mad at his little sister and swats her.

Being outspoken about being hateful isn't "awful behavior". It's racism.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
The common reference is that if Israel's enemies would put down their weapons, there would be peace, but if Israel puts their weapons down there would no Israel.

The thing is, Israel has the most powerful military in the immediate area and there's no one willing to stand against it. Everyone who tried has learned their lesson and, if not actually peaceful like Egypt, will at least not try again. Even the Hezbollah know they can't actually do anything to Israel. But at least the neighbors can't all be totally devastated simultaneously (without using the nukes Israel doesn't admit or deny they have) so they trust Israel will let them live if they let Israel live.

The situation with the occupied territories is something else entirely. The people there have nothing to say when Israel decides to build more settlements, once again deny them a new well or just, oh, the old extrajudicial "we didn't find the perp (to kill) but let's at least destroy his parent's home". It's a systematic campaign to slowly take over every valuable occupied area while getting rid of the people that already lived there by making life intolerable. Even islamic terrorists usually try bombs, but now you have Palestinian youths attacking Israeli soldiers with knives? How desperate do you have to be to try that?

Both sides are flawed IMO. The Palestinians do terror attacks because they have nothing else, Israel builds up a list until they can justify something heavy-handed in response. Quassam rockets are certainly nerve-wracking for the Israeli that have to run to shelters for them, but the answer is US built F-16s doing precision strikes. Compromises have been proposed but the stagnant leadership on either side will sabotage it. Hell, last time an Israeli Prime Minister, Yitshak Rabin, tried to get a peaceful solution an Orthodox Jew (acting alone, oh yes, we all believe he got through all the Israeli security measures alone) killed him!

I

Spetulhu wrote:
The Palestinians do terror attacks because they have nothing else...

Huh? Is that a justification for them running around the streets of Israel stabbing Israelis to death? Not just Jews to be clear.

There are many ways that the surrounding countries can help their brothers and sisters in Palestine. Why don't they? Why is it Israel's responsibility to help them at all, which they do anyway btw? They offer free health care to the women and children of Gaza and free access to Israel as a country without prejudice.

What would happen if an Israeli would enter Gaza. Yeah, he or she would be torn to pieces.

BILLIONS of dollars were given to the Palestinians in aid to help them settle. And not by their own people mind you. Their government took that money and poured it into terrorism and building tunnels. They want MORE help?

You know that the BDS movemnt forced Israel to close a Soda factory where 11 000 Palestinians were employed and now they are jobless, right?

The last time they tried to gang up on Israel, I think Israel won and is the reason it's borders expanded.

See 1948 Arab Israeli war.

I think there's groups on both sides that are quite happy with the current state of affairs and looking to keep it that way. Never mind other nations over/under the table involvement.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
The last time they tried to gang up on Israel, I think Israel won and is the reason it's borders expanded.

See 1948 Arab Israeli war.

I think there's groups on both sides that are quite happy with the current state of affairs, not to mention other nations.

And again in 1973. See the Yom Kippur War.

The Six Days war was pretty much the great ass kicking to end all ass kickings XD

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Now who's building a strawman? What part of "awful behaviour" are you having difficulty comprehending?

LMAO do you even know what a Strawman is??

Awful behavior is when my son gets mad at his little sister and swats her.

Being outspoken about being hateful isn't "awful behavior". It's racism.

You'll be able to show where I said I was OK with someone being racist then?