Robert Kaiser wrote:
"Rosa Williams"
<aprilrosanina(a)charter.net> writes:
In deference to SLR, who explained that for
historical reasons many feel the
term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
writings.
Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly I'm
disagreeing with. :)
It seems to me that many people just don't understand what the words mean.
"Anti-Zionism" is the position that Jews should be forbidden from being
allowed to have a safe and secure state of their own, but that other groups,
such as Arabs and Japanese, are allowed to have such a nation.
If my anti-Zionism is founded on the principle that it is wrong to base
the establishment of any state on religious beliefs, it is not
anti-semitism. I also believe that the separation of India and Pakistan
on religious lines was wrong. That being said, the bad post-war
geographysing by the British is an irreversibly done-deal. Israel and
Pakistan are now facts of life, whether I like it or not. I continue to
believe that both deals were wrong, and to that extent continue to
consider myself anti-Zionist.
Anti-Zionism
is most common among Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the Islamist movement, and various
anti-Semitic groups, as well as the official position of every armed Islamic
group that has publicly stated that it wishes to destory the state of Israel
by force, such as Hamas and Hizbollah.
This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" kind of argument. Anti-Zionism
was around before any of these groups were thought of
It is little wonder that nearly every
Jew in the world defines this position as anti-Semitic.
Who gave the Jews a monopoly on the definition of "anti-Semitic"
I count on one hand
the number of anti-Zionists I have met who are not anti-Semitic.
If I understand the situation correctly there are ultra-orthodox Jewish
anti-Zionists in Israel who believe that Judaism should have nothing to
do with the apparatus of the state. This allows them to be exempted
from Israel's compulsory military service.
And again, despite the odd persistence of this myth,
disagreement with the
policy of a particular Israeli government has *nothing to do* with
Anti-Zionism in the slighest. Israelis themselves disagree with each other -
often and loudly. This is not an anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israeli
position, in of itself. Using one phrase (disagreement with Israeli policy)
as a more polite euphamism for the other (Anti-Zionism) has misses the boat
entirely. These issues aren't even related.
On this I agree without any problem.
There is also a linguistic reality that we need to be
cognizant of:
Anti-Zionism has also become a catchword for antisemitism and has provided
antisemites with a convenient cloak behind which to conceal their hatred of
Jews.
So who made it a catchword? Jewish groups themselves are responsible
for the linguistic confusion. Anti-Zionists have always been careful to
distinguish the terms "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Semitic" This is a
fallacy of definition. It redefines "anti-Zionism" in such a way as to
make it more insidious than it really is.
It is well worth remembering the words of Dr. Martin
Luther King:
"... You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely
'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain
tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people
criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is G-d's own truth...Antisemitism,
the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of
mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionism
is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so." (From M.L. King Jr.,
"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review XLVII (Aug. 1967), p.
76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., This I Believe: Selections from the Writings
of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (New York, 1971), pp. 234-235.)
Without seeing the full context of the MLK quote, I would do better to
avoid commenting on it.
Now, as to real
anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all seem out of place to spend,
say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a historically important
person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important.
I agree. But what if the reason for their historical imporance has to do
with their anti-Semitism? Richard Wagner, for example, is not only famous
for writing music. He is just as (in)famous for his life-long preaching of
anti-Semitism, and his desire to exterminate the Jewish faith. It is a major
part of his faith, and historians of all stripes admit this. Many books have
been written about this. For this man, this particular topic is a major
issue.
Although I don't have the knowledge to comment on what Wagner's
anti-Semitic views really were, I can accept for the sake of this
discussion that they were indeed severe. So what? Most people who have
heard his music appreciate his music, and don't give a damn about his
anti-semitism. His anti-Semetism does not alter the value of his music.
The only people who perpetuate this memory of Wagner and his beliefs
are the anti-anti-semitic zealots. Without their help Wagner's
anti-semitism would long ago have fallen under it's own weight into a
well-deserved oblivion.
The key points
of a biographical entry, as I think of it, are to hit on a
person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.
I agree. And for Wagner, his anti-Semitism was an extremely important part
of his contribution to German culture. :(
Again, I can't see why so much importance is attributed to it.
In sum: if the
discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder of
the article, it should be reduced (and/or the rest of the article seriously
built up.) If it's discussed briefly, preferably with mention of the
historical context, that seems reasonable.
I hope that we all agree that we don't improve encyclopedias by deleting
information until all sections are of equal length. We improve them by
recruiting more writers to add more information on topics that require more
study and more detailed treatments.
Snow jobs that give disproportionat importance to a secondary aspect of
the subject do not improve an article.
Eclecticology