So what's with Trump declaring Judaism a race not a religion?

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical
So what's with Trump declaring Judaism a race not a religion?

i don't get how he can do this. anyone know if he can?

Bacchus

Well he can declare whatever he wants but it doesn't make it true

Ken Burch

Here's a good response to nonesense like Trump's "declaration":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RI8U9Wt4yI&feature=emb_logo

 

Unionist

Quizzical - he didn't declare Judaism a "race". That's not exactly what is reported.

quizzical

Unionist so what he declared Judaism a nation?

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

Unionist so what he declared Judaism a nation?

No, he didn't.

Unionist

Here's a fairly sober assessment from the New York Times, of all places: What That Executive Order Really Means

And it contains a link to the actual executive order text.

Looks to me as if it's all about adding some of the IHRA "examples" to the assessment of whether some speech or action is antisemitic - i.e., being too harsh on Israel must mean that you don't like Jews. Other than that, at least from what I can see, it is much ado about nothing.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I think there is an argument that Jews are a nation as well as a religion. I am not sure that I can say whether they are or not. Some Jewish people identify more with the culture than the religion.

My bigger concern is the blurring between Israeli nation and Jewish people in order to label any objection to the state of Israel's behaviour as antisemitism. The example is the claim that the boycott against Israel is a boycott against Jews generally.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think there is an argument that Jews are a nation as well as a religion. I am not sure that I can say whether they are or not. Some Jewish people identify more with the culture than the religion.

I identify with the culture. I'm an atheist. I'm a Jew. I'm a Quebecer. I'm a Canadian. Jews are NOT a "nation". What makes you say that?

Quote:
My bigger concern is the blurring between Israeli nation and Jewish people in order to label any objection to the state of Israel's behaviour as antisemitism. The example is the claim that the boycott against Israel is a boycott against Jews generally.

Yes, that's what I said - the IHRA "examples". The rest of the media speculation finds no support in the text of the executive order.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think there is an argument that Jews are a nation as well as a religion. I am not sure that I can say whether they are or not. Some Jewish people identify more with the culture than the religion.

I identify with the culture. I'm an atheist. I'm a Jew. I'm a Quebecer. I'm a Canadian. Jews are NOT a "nation". What makes you say that?

Quote:
My bigger concern is the blurring between Israeli nation and Jewish people in order to label any objection to the state of Israel's behaviour as antisemitism. The example is the claim that the boycott against Israel is a boycott against Jews generally.

Yes, that's what I said - the IHRA "examples". The rest of the media speculation finds no support in the text of the executive order.

I think that there is more of a shared history than just in the religion.

I think there is an argument for this. However if you allow this then you have in terms of identity three in a ven diagram where each is different: the religion; Jews as a national idenity; Israel. 

Using the definitions of nation I think you can make arguments either way. I am less certain about saying there is no nation here than making the point that if there is then it is not equivalent to the religion and certainly not the same as the Israeli political entity. Convenience lumping these idenitieis together in order to protect Israel from criticism risks increasing antisemitism for real.

lagatta4

But can't Jews be described as a people? Certainly not only a religion, as there are many atheist and agnostic Jews. In French there is a distinction between Judaieté ("Jewishness") and Judaïsme (the religion).

Jews as a "race" sounds like Nazi hate-speech, but "race" used to be used in the sense of people or nation, which is obviously unacceptable nowadays.

We must also keep in mind that Trump is utterly full of shit, and nothing he says makes sense.

josh

Unionist is right.  The initial concern was overblown.  The real concern is that this will lead to a chilling of pro-Palestinian speech and activities on campuses. 
 

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/12/after-trump-executive-order-gop-lawmaker-tries-to-get-georgetown-funding-yanked-over-anti-israel-pro-islamist-bias/

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta4 wrote:

But can't Jews be described as a people? Certainly not only a religion, as there are many atheist and agnostic Jews. In French there is a distinction between Judaieté ("Jewishness") and Judaïsme (the religion).

Jews as a "race" sounds like Nazi hate-speech, but "race" used to be used in the sense of people or nation, which is obviously unacceptable nowadays.

We must also keep in mind that Trump is utterly full of shit, and nothing he says makes sense.

This is my point -- I do not like to reference race as this is a construct and loaded in the ways you mean. But theya re a people with a shared history that goes beyond religion.

One aspect of nationhood is being associated with a geographical place. While this is historic and controversial, this is not absent despite most not being from there. This is true of other nations.

I do not see this controversy as clear enough to want to make an issue of. I think some Jews see themselves as a nation and some do not. But other words like people and there is less controversy but what is the difference and why does it matter?

I thin the greater objection is the idea that the Israeli state is the same identity as being Jewish. I have known a number of Jewish people who have very different views on this -- some seeing no difference and others furious with the idea of them being considered the same thing as they are definitely Jewish and not happy with the behaviour of the state of Israel. Again there are others who are broadly supportive of the state of Israel and totally opposed to the current politics and positions of its government. If you accept that nationhood is an identity an individual makes along with others, it is not surpising that not everyone has the same conclusion. That is why I am disturbed by the equivalence being claimed on behalf of everyone but not so much each individual's choice of their own identity.

Here in Canada we have a Quebec nation, Indigenous nations and a Canadian nation (and certainly others) -- we do not require all who can fit into one to choose to identify that way or to only choose one. How many people whose ancestors come from Acadia and now live in Quebec claim to be part of an Acadian nation, a Quebec nation and a Canadian one or any combination of the three? This does not mean that they would want to see them as equivalent even if some others might choose to see it that way.

Sean in Ottawa

I also think that a byproduct of oppression is an even stronger identity as a people. I am not advocating oppression but this is one of the responses to it. You see this in many different examples where people are or have been oppressed.

kropotkin1951

Here is what I found with a quick search. Thx Unionist for the post and links.

ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.

When I searched IHRA this is what I found. I bolded the parts I find vague enough to be used as a sword against BDS activists and others.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/full-text-ihra-s-workin...

I am afraid that calling Israel an apartheid state and pointing out the racist nature of many of its laws and policies that clearly treat Arabs as second class citizens could be found to be evidence of discriminatory intent. Any comparison of what the state of Israel is doing to the people living in the Gaza Strip to any NAZI actions is also clearly evidence of discriminatory intent under the IHRA guidelines. This is using human rights law as a sword to silence criticism of a apartheid state that in its actions resembles the government of Germany during the 1930's and '40's.
 

quizzical
Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am afraid that calling Israel an apartheid state and pointing out the racist nature of many of its laws and policies that clearly treat Arabs as second class citizens could be found to be evidence of discriminatory intent. Any comparison of what the state of Israel is doing to the people living in the Gaza Strip to any NAZI actions is also clearly evidence of discriminatory intent under the IHRA guidelines. This is using human rights law as a sword to silence criticism of a apartheid state that in its actions resembles the government of Germany during the 1930's and '40's.
 

Exactly. That's why progressive Jews - including those of us who belong to Independent Jewish Voices - have been campaigning, with some success, to stop institutions and governments from adopting the IHRA examples of antisemitism. Please join us in this necessary fight:

The IHRA definition of antisemitism is designed to silence criticism of Israel and of Zionism by equating this criticism with antisemitism.​ 

lagatta4

Thanks, Unionist. Then we get we cases from Argentina when the supposedly post-dicatorship regime sent condolences to the Israeli Embassy to the large number of Argentine Jews (and other people) murdered during the AMIA terror attack, as well as the dictatorship's specific targeting of Jewish Argentinians. I have friends affected by that, who are also strong opponents of how Israel has been treating Palestinians. European Nazis and collaborators killed their families, not Palestinians.

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am afraid that calling Israel an apartheid state and pointing out the racist nature of many of its laws and policies that clearly treat Arabs as second class citizens could be found to be evidence of discriminatory intent. Any comparison of what the state of Israel is doing to the people living in the Gaza Strip to any NAZI actions is also clearly evidence of discriminatory intent under the IHRA guidelines. This is using human rights law as a sword to silence criticism of a apartheid state that in its actions resembles the government of Germany during the 1930's and '40's.
 

Exactly. That's why progressive Jews - including those of us who belong to Independent Jewish Voices - have been campaigning, with some success, to stop institutions and governments from adopting the IHRA examples of antisemitism. Please join us in this necessary fight:

The IHRA definition of antisemitism is designed to silence criticism of Israel and of Zionism by equating this criticism with antisemitism.​ 

NDPP wrote:

Anti-Zionist Not Hate Criminal

https://twitter.com/JohnOCAP/status/1205985289379962880

"...The problem for me (and for many others who share my point of view) is that I do, indeed, believe that the 'State of Israel' is a racist endeavour' and that this is fundamentally and irretrievably the case...What I seek to win from you is an understanding that I am advancing a serious political point of view and whether you agree or disagree with it, there is no reliable basis for deeming me something akin to a hate criminal..."

Just imagine, we now have to justify a principled position against our own governments determined to advance the agenda of a foreign power,  Apartheid Israel and friends, and its 'AS' component. If South African apartheid had had a equally powerful and influential lobby/fifth column, Mandela would have died in Robben Island.