It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anti-semitic atmosphere. Why?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:57 PM
Hello forum goers.

I would like to discuss your opinions on the current state of affairs in regards to the current atmosphere of all Israeli criticism being categoricaly labeled anti-semitic that seems to be prevalent, and why you think this atmosphere exists.

I am reposting my opinion that was stated in this thread that unfortunately never had
a chance for good discussion.

My opinion on why we have this atmosphere is due partly to the attrocities of WWII,
and the enslavement of the Jews in biblical times. I'm sure most jewish folks hold some
sort of reservations to those facts. This fundamental reservation coupled with the extreme dichotomy of the human spirit all meshed with the 'with us or against us' mantra or dare I say dogma, of the first part of this century causes the more perfunctory
of us to choose sides. Unfortunately the conflict that we are berated with daily is semite vs. non-semite.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Unfortunately the conflict that we are berated with daily is semite vs. non-semite.

you might start with a little research on the subject. the word "semite" does not mean jew.

of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic

IOW, all those in the current conflict are semitic.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by snafu7700]

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:20 PM

The most widely spoken Semitic language today is Arabic (206 million speakers), followed by Amharic (27 million speakers), Hebrew (7 million speakers), and Tigrinya (6.75 million speakers). Semitic languages were among the earliest to attain a written form, with Akkadian writing beginning in the middle of the third millennium BC.

[I]Langages in Lebanon according to CIA World Fact book[/I]
Definition Field Listing
Arabic (official), French, English, Armenian

Semete vs non-semete?

Both Arabic and Armenian are Semetic languages, the french and english are leftovers from the times of colonization of the middle east.

The Jewish people aren't the only ones that suffered slavery and repression, they weren't the only ones who's land was taken and the people supressed and quite honnestly treated like animals by European country's.

All these arguments people always pull up for the Israeli's are a one sided view, but actualy go both ways.

While Jewish people worldwide make something of their lives and generaly are good bussinesmen and traders making a great living, the Israeli goverment just loves to play the eternal victim and use what the Nazi did to the Jewish people as an excuse for everything.

I wish people would see that "the Israeli" are not "the jews" and that the Israeli only represent 1/4th of the world population of Jewish people.
The other 3/4ths living all over the world are hardworking decent people that disagree with what the Israeli goverment is doing as much as anyone else.

Alot of them disagree to the extent that they refuse to go to Israel as long as these Zionist Cultists run the country.

Another group of Jewish people worldwide even say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist and is pure blashpemy because God expelled them out of the region and told them never to return there.

These generalizations of who the Jewish people are and virtual trademarking of the words semetic and anti-semetic to mean jewish and anti-jewish are vicious and misleading.

Everyone these days hates arabs, while they actualy are Semites too. More so then the Israeli people since they never left the region and a good deal of the Jewish people that came from Eastern Europe and Asia to settle in Israel are converted Jews, not bloodline Jews that came from the Middle East originaly.

[edit on 7/8/06 by thematrix]

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:32 PM
I know what semite means. No, not everyone in the conflict is semitic. I am not talking
strictly about the Israeli offensive. I am eluding to the the branding of anti-semitism of
folks who voice concern over Israeli policy. Just so happens their offensive is what is currently happening.

The conflict I speak to is the west/east conflict being pumped through the usual media outlets. This conflict has a christian vs. muslim undertone that undeniably worsens
the bi-polar phsychology of people lending people to believe that anti-israeli rhetoric
is indeed anti-semitic because they do not have the capacity to see any grey area.

Thanks for your response.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:47 PM
I was under the impression to be Semetic was actually a race, not a language family? Il look that up later.
If your asking why to be against Israel is to be anti-semetic it isnt, Israel has no law stating you must be Jewish, you can be anything you want to be it is a free society, and if another Jewish state was lobbing bombs or ubducting business men and soldiers then I would think Israel would attack them to. Some people confuse the issue because they 1) don't understand ME history that has led to these current conflicts 2) are fed so much American propaganda all wars in the ME must be soley about religion.

I hope your not using Subz thread as a form to boost discussion here because what he said is wrong on many levels, I don't see what your saying is at all like him, but a bad example to use still as he thinks people against Israel are actually morally superior.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:48 PM
Matrix, thank you for your response. Yes there is a great injustice to all peoples involved. All founded on poor education.
I am not speaking for the Israelies, Jews, nor arabs or armenians. Nor have I seperated, or conglomerated them in any way.
I am putting my opinion on why anti-israeli rhetoric is looked upon as anti-semitic, and
why is it so prevalent now?

I suppose to clarify my thoughts I could say that for now IMO the non-semites... most
western folk... support Israel now because of the common enemy..arabs and muslims.
The western world has IMO temporarily, rhetorically.. sided with the Israeli semites due
to our common enemy. But when that enemy is gone, some of the old divisions
between the christ believers(west) and non-believers(east, jews included) will resume and the anti-semitic air of today will recess to its' old level.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:53 PM
Rockpuck thanks for your response.

Your second point does not make much sense to me. The points in it don't mesh.
Could you restate it for me please?

But to reiterate, I have no desire to debate the current Israeli foreign policy.
But why now (lets define now as post 9/11) is anti-israel rhetoric branded as anti-semitic? I understand that it is not anti-semitic in itself, just why it appears to be so for many folk now?

:And also please keep the content of subz thread out of this one.

:Any of you have a opinion on why the atmosphere now? Or even if the atmosphere exists?

[edit on 7-8-2006 by nextguyinline]

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:54 PM
It's hardly news that "semite" refers to both Jews and Arabs.

However, the pro-Israel/anti-defamation lobby has co-opted the word, and has done for many years, appropriating its meaning so that most people think it refers only to Jews. A similar thing has happened to the word "holocaust", which, for these pressure groups, can only refer to Hitler's persecution of the Jews. The Armenian genocide of the early 20th century, for example, doesn't get a look in.

So using this word in its new and incorrect sense, it is true that as soon as one voices criticism of Israel hereabouts, the accusations of anti-semitism start flying. At the same time, I see a lot of people blaming Islam for all the world's problems.

And yet, I think we'd all agree that moderates in any religion try to be good people according to their principles and are, in general, peaceful, decent people.

I would seek to differentiate between the belief system and the geopolitical plays of various states and groups. For example, it's pretty obvious to anyone looking into the subject that one of the aims of the Israeli state has consistently to keep the Palestinian "state" weak and bantustanised, and to keep the Palestinians from adequate access to water resources. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with real estate.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I was under the impression to be Semetic was actually a race, not a language family?

it is a race....that was just the first source i could quickly find. and this guy is still using "anti-semitic" in the wrong context even after saying that he understands what semitic means. doesnt really make me want to listen to him.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:04 PM
Semetic languages are languages.
Semetic people are:

1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
1 b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:06 PM
snafu, i'm sorry your failing to see what I'm saying. I am not misusing the word anti-semitic. The initial argument was with my use of the word non-semite. See the difference? Which as I tried to explain in later posts the context of which it was used.

If people call you anti-semitic because you said something anti-jew and you then in turn
tell me I'm using the word incorrectly in my telling of the story, because the initial people who called you anti-semitic didn't know what they were saying was anti-arab,armenian,jew and so fourth is your problem, not mine.

Any opinion to the question posed in the first post?

[edit on 7-8-2006 by nextguyinline]

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:22 PM
Everyone understands your point, though now what do you call it if you can no longer use anti-semetic as a term for being against Jews? .. Is there a new word for that.

As for any opinion mine is stated above.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:28 PM
Well then

Maybe we should come up with a term that is applicable, and appropriate.
And of course, politically correct.

what word describes those who don't believe that Israel has a right to take out
an enemy, or enemies, who have been treating them as the "fish in a barrel" of the middle East?

Scuds, Suicide bombers, and bombettes. Randomly fired rockets. Targeted rockets.
Maybe they're tired of being picked off, one by one, day by day, year by year.

There must be a better term.
Supporters Of Liberal Israeli Decajonification.

The use of the term liberal here, is in no way related to a political leaning, or Party.
It is merely used to modify an amount, as in generously decajonified."

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Everyone understands your point, though now what do you call it if you can no longer use anti-semetic as a term for being against Jews? .. Is there a new word for that.

As for any opinion mine is stated above.

Perhaps you could make a new thread asking just that?

As a matter of fact you should, 'cuz you've brought nothing to my thread.
Better yet, go back to subz thread where logic and analytic thought is void.

Your post above reflects nothing of the question I asked.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:37 PM
Hi spacedoubt,

Any opinion on the question posed in the first post?

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:39 PM
I personaly have nothing against Israel defending itself against the people that launch rockets towards them and act as suicide bombers, but I do have everything against them for indiscriminatly bombing buildings and area's because there might be Hesbollah present there, not caring in the slightest if they murder 10 civilians to kill 1 Hisbollah soldier.

Quite a few people have stated that "Hesbollah is hidding among these civilians, blame them"

To that I have the following questions:

Whats standard procedure, moraly right and logical to do when a "terrorist" is hidding amongst civilians, or using them as human shields.

Do you:

A: Blow up the building, airplane or general area where this terrorist is hidding, no matter if you kill all civilians hes hidding behind.

B: Send in Special Ops teams to take out the terrorist, hoping that no civilians are killed in the crossfire.

The thing is, they don't give the slightest about Lebanees civilians and gladly kill heaps of them in area's, buildings, vehicules that might have Hesbollah soldiers in them, no matter if there actualy are.

As an answer to the original question, next to Israel being portrayed as being the poor mistreated, murdered, holocausted jewish people they are being attacked and killed by the evil Muslims/Arabs in the Middle East.

And thats how Christians find common ground with Israel, politics and Media have created the image of all muslims and arabs being the evil terrorists and poor lil Israel is stuck right in the middle of a bunch of extremist hethens.

[edit on 7/8/06 by thematrix]

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:45 PM
Matrix. How can I say this politely....

Get out of my thread if your gonna try to hijack it.

Are you tired? Can you read my thread. Do you see anything in my post about

"Whats standard procedure, moraly right and logical to do when a "terrorist" is hidding amongst civilians, or using them as human shields." -thematrix

I surely don't. Maybe I need the rest, but I don't really think so.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:46 PM

Sorry, got caught up in terminology.

I agree that the past, is determining our present state of affairs.
And the "underdog" perception of jews holds true to this day.
For some reason though, now that a jewish state has huge amounts of firepower, they are critically beaten, in mass media, because they, god forbid, have chosen to defend themselves.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:49 PM
Thank you spacedoubt

Perhaps others will follow suit and leave an opinion on the question asked.

I dont mind if you guys go off on tangents. Keeping this many strangers in line
is impossible, but I would like just a few sentences to a paragraph or more at least
of your opinion to my question to be included in your posts.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:25 PM
The story that the Israelis are poor helpless innocents simply "defending themselves" from those nasty Arabs is a gross distortion of the facts. Israel is essentially a western colony on what has been Arab land for centuries, and their hostility is not that hard to understand. Especially in Lebanon and the occupied territories where most of the people kicked out by the Israeli colonists ended up.

Even in this current crisis, it's presented as a defensive reaction by Israel, when in fact it's simply a massive escalation in a low intensity tit-for-tat campaign that's been going on since Israel's "withdrawal" in 2000. Israeli incursions into southern Lebanon have been routine for years, according to UNIFIL Israeli patrols were crossing the blue line on a daily basis.

Back OT it's not surprising, considering Israel's history and the history of the Jews in the 20th century, that their reaction to any percieved threat tends towards massive overkill. As for anti-semitism, leaving the semantic argument aside, it's important that people not identify too strongly the actions of the State of Israel with Jews in general. Most Jews on the planet don't live in Israel, despite the Israeli government's best efforts.

It seems a lot of Jews worldwide are voting with their feet, or rather abstaining with their feet. And I think they have the right idea... if the aim of the Jewish people is to ensure the Holocaust is never repeated, it seems to me congregating all the world's Jews in one easy-to-target region seems like a bad idea.

[edit on 8/7/06 by xmotex]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in