The anti Israel = anti semitism agenda

Status
Not open for further replies.

NVP

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,804
What am I missing with the following:


Israel have been pushing their anti-isreal=anti-semitism angle quite hardcore the past couple of years.

They have publicised a new definition of antisemitism and have managed to get governments to listen.

Now they promote the fact Jews in other countries get attacked and use it as a way of influencing that foreign country to retrain its police/teachers etc in the new definition, to push their agenda through right from the top.



But... What is this agenda? Is it to concrete Israel as its own permanent country? I thought that was already the case. Is it to make us feel less bad about Palestine? Doesn't matter how bad we feel no one with power cares enough to stop it.

So... Why? What am I missing? Or do I just need sleep?
 
Caracus2k said:
One thing often missed in this argument is that anti Semitism is often targeted at (known/openly) non religious Jews. 'Islamophobia' isn't generally directed at non religious people from Muslim majority countries or backgrounds unless by mistake.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...

I have regularly had anti Islamic things said to me through my life even though I am sikh, but this is apparently only by mistake. Whereas at a Jewish person it's malice, always?

h4rm0ny said:
forcibly sterilising Black immigrants
Click to expand...
Mandatory contraception is not the same a forcibly sterilising except when sensationalised.
 
Edit: in reply to @dowie

"They" was a reference to Israel, if you wish me to go deeper and say their governers/leaders just take it as implied like the rest of this threads contributors.

You are correct in your assumption and I was incorrect in my knowledge that they were based in Israel.

Thus, your insinuations after these facts are baseless and incorrect as it was ignorance of their HQ location rather than some general slur.


I am no racist sir, I am all for peace and love.
 
At the moment I concede as sleep is much more important, however I'm sure there will be some link to Israeli lobbyists.

I do get your point. But again, it was not antisemitic (yet).
 
Alright then dowie, sleep has been had so I'll be coming back at you today with something to blow the whole shebang wide open! ;) Bear with me brother.
 
EDIT: @Caracus2k

I was all about to fluster myself with paragraphs in response until I read your last sentence which clarifies it nicely, I simply need to ask "Why the distinction?"
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
Alright then dowie, sleep has been had so I'll be coming back at you today with something to blow the whole shebang wide open! ;) Bear with me brother.
Click to expand...
@dowie
I can find nothing more than articles regarding various Israeli Lobby groups affiliated with Israeli officials
who are pushing the IHRA definition on multiple governments. Unfortunately I cannot find a source I don't consider to have some possible bias.


We know many agencies across the world throughout history have used similar tactics to push their agendas so there is plausibility, and in this case the lacking of direct "contact" from their governing body with the IHRA definition feeds the potential for the same suspicions, ironically. And having these suspicions of a countries motives is not caused by an inherent racism, history has taught us to be suspicious of dubious actions by many countries.
 
dowie said:
This is again rather vague, it isn't clear what you're actually referring to and what is the issue you're to raise in relation to it?

Multiple governments are involved in the IHRA in the first place. I don't see an issue with a general notion of Israel trying to promote a definition of anti semitism in itself.

If you've got an issue with the definition then you might well have some good arguments against it etc.. Or if there is some specific instance where you think Israel has done something underhand with regards to this then that might be interesting. But there really isn't much hear to discuss or reply to with regards to what this thread is in relation to.

Of course it can no doubt generate some general discussion about anti semitism and/or Israel etc... but the title and OP is about an apparent agenda.
Click to expand...

There is no issue per say, simply curiosity of the current affairs.
It's no secret many oppose the definition of the IHRA so I didn't feel the need to clarify the particular point. And this thread wasn't initially about the disagreement with it, more the intentions of those pushing it who I related to the state of Israel rather than an independent group who may or may not be influenced by government backed lobbyists.


Edit - To simplify my standpoint: I can see the tactics in the media but I was unsure of the motives (and obviously incorrect regarding the source)

dirtychinchilla said:
It's funny that OP thinks the agenda is led by the anti-Israelis. Sorry OP, Israel created the agenda by linking their religion irrevocably to their political situation. There's no way around that.
Click to expand...
Say what now?
 
Last edited:
Oh sorry, OK once I've put my two boys to bed I'll try dig up some BBC articles but they're always on the front page.
 
Why cherry picking? Surely you're expecting me to provide the articles I originally talked about? That's what I meant by dig up, not just go hunting for dirt. If there were no original articles to Stoke my curiosity then there would not be this thread, so don't over think it.
 
Who sucked all the fun out of your life man?

The article prompted the post mainly because of the reaction to use these attacks to push the controversial definition officially onto public servants via retraining, the same thing happened elsewhere which is why it stuck out to me. Fear has form.


Enjoy the vagueness :)
 
I'm sorry but if you guys can't see how he's used a teams Jewish fan base as a link to the country of Israel and how that is racist then perhaps you need to be forced to go on a training course of some kind where they teach you modern thinking, correct thinking.



I think I'm serious.



Edit: Conflating. That's a good word.
 
That doesn't matter. If there were flags there and that is the context in which he was referencing then I don't see anything more than his personal bias towards it in his comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom