Guardian is anti-Semitic?

But it's unwise and even slightly racist to mention the holocaust as a "trauma" to the Jews and suggest that they should get sympathy because it happened. Most of the people who were in the holocaust are now either dead or 1000 years old.

That's the thing about racism - people assume that children are exactly the same as their parents simply because of their race. Jewish children can and do grow and assimilate in new countries and live different lives without having any direct "trauma" from the holocaust. They haven't been there. They haven't experienced it. They don't give a ****. They're separate entities.

I wasn't for one moment suggesting that all Jews are alike or think alike. And I wasn't suggesting that someone who happens to be Jewish must have certain characteristics because of his being Jewish.

What I was saying is that for a great many Jews (perhaps less so for completely atheistic ones with fewer ties to the Jewish community and its history) the history of our persecution is not far from their minds. Just this week all religious Jews spent the day fasting, mourning and remembering how we have been persecuted throughout most of the last 2,000 years. Given that that is the case, if someone feels they are wrongly accused of antisemitism, it would show some sensitivity and humanity to understand where that accusation comes from. On the other hand, it shows a certain level of callousness to dismiss the concerns out of hand and tell them to "get over it already"!

Like I said, in my mind its like telling the victim of abuse to "get over it" a couple of years after their abuse has finished. Except that here it is somewhat worse since Jews are still being murdered and mistreated across the globe for no reason other than that they are Jewish.

I would definitely join you in taking exception to the way UniOfLife has appealed for 'sensitivity' etc in regards to the Holocaust and made the 'abused child' analogy, even if his above analysis of the Guardian is spot-on. But I do think that Jewish history, and that particular episode, is vital to understanding the necessity of Israel in a slightly different way, in that Jews have learned an important lesson about the need to never again be completely at the mercy of others, and about the suicidal results of complacency and pacifism.

I happen have been brought up in one of the most orthodox communities in Israel (Bnei Brak) so I know all about the fasts and the remembrances. Tisha B'Av has nothing to do with the holocaust, it has to do with the destruction of the temples. It was over 1000 years ago, get over it. Most of the people I know who fast don't even care about the occasion itself but rather about showing off to other people that they managed to finish the fast. No one is attached to the temple because no one lived during its time. No one has any trauma from it.

If anything, they traumatize the kids by telling them that they SHOULD be shocked and saddened by anything that ever happened in Jewish history and to feel the past plights of their ancestors. It's sad that they have to do that really, and it's not good for the kids. They're stuck in the past and they don't look for the future (the religious Jewish people that is, not the secular ones).

You undermine your arguments by making statements that are only half-true. Tisha B'Av, you're right, was initially about the destruction of the temples. But it has also been the day when Jews remember our other persecutions. Have you never read the Kinnot? If it were only about the temples, then why are there Kinnot for the persecutions of the Crusades and the Holocaust and other major spikes of persecution. (Plus, while it is true that the temples were destroyed over 1,000 years ago, it is more true to say it was close to 2,000 years ago).

Now, your comments about "getting over it" are the comments typical of our generation - the so-called third generation. But our generation isn't in charge. Instead it is the second generation who are, and their attitudes are very different.

But let me ask you 2 simple questions because, after all, I might be wrong:

1) Are you a part of a Jewish community?
2) Do you feel, as a Jew, that you are as safe in the world as anybody else? (would you feel less safe if you were easily identifiable as a Jew?)

I don't want to get into the little details into what tisha b'av represents because it's irrelevant to my point.

1) I haven't been a part of the Jewish community since I became atheist and I couldn't live at my parents house anymore (they disowned me).
2) I have never felt safe being Jewish when there were many Muslims around that were quite obviously antisemitic (e.g. when I was living in London), but I feel safe in the university I'm at now and I befriended the few muslims that are present here (we have a lot in common, coming from the middle east). But that's still irrelevant. I support a Jewish state because I know many other Jews feel unsafe around the world, but today's threats have nothing to do with the threats that were present in 1945.

One might be inclined to comment on the dissonance here... If the purpose of a Jewish state is safety for its occupants, maybe the Middle East isn't the best place for it.

I don't want to get into the little details into what tisha b'av represents because it's irrelevant to my point.

1) I haven't been a part of the Jewish community since I became atheist and I couldn't live at my parents house anymore (they disowned me).
2) I have never felt safe being Jewish when there were many Muslims around that were quite obviously antisemitic (e.g. when I was living in London), but I feel safe in the university I'm at now and I befriended the few muslims that are present here (we have a lot in common, coming from the middle east). But that's still irrelevant. I support a Jewish state because I know many other Jews feel unsafe around the world, but today's threats have nothing to do with the threats that were present in 1945.

I agree. Too late for that though, it has millions of occupants.

Its only in your last statement that we disagree. I think it is completely absurd to suggest that hatred against Jews now has nothing to do with hatred against Jews in times gone by. Are we to believe that the reasons for antisemitism that were around for so long in Europe suddenly disappeared after 1945 and entirely new and unconnected reasons appeared? The very notion of it is ridiculous and it is flatly contradicted by reality.

This is why I say that the long history of Jewish persecution has an impact on the way the Jewish community and Israel reacts to things. Perhaps you do not feel any connection between that history and the current situation - but most do.

Don't get me wrong- I'm an atheist, a very vocal one, but my mother's family is your stereotypical New York Jewish one. Surgeons, laywers and bookkeepers, with the accent to go with it. I support the right of the Israeli state to exist, yet at the same time support the right of a Palestinian nation to exist (according to the principle of national self-determination).

Sorry, I should have phrased myself better. Of course historical antisemitism has an impact on today's antisemitism. I just hate it when Jewish people use it to justify so many wrong doings and try to get the sympathy card. Use valid arguments instead of crying about something that happened almost 100 years ago. It's no different to white supremacists who claim that whites rule (or should rule) the world because of historical events. It's stupid, look at the present instead.

Then you completely misunderstood what I was saying.

I was responding to someone bemoaning how they always get labelled as antisemitic when criticising Israel. First I pointed out that the claim is not true. Second I pointed out that if some Jewish people are very sensitive to antisemitism that is something that should be understood in the context of Jewish history and not dismissed immediately with a simple "get over it already" and certainly should not be turned around into something to further criticise Jews for.

Disagreeing with the politics of Israel is very different to being anti-Semitic, and yes there might be some columists who they should check out more carefully but sometimes their opinions are necessary for the purposes of the article. The Guardian is always very careful to distinguish opinion from fact.

What about all the pro-Israel American media that can be pretty Islamophobic?

I hate how we're not allowed to say we disagree with Israel without being accused of being anti-Semitic!

Disagreeing with the politics of Israel is very different to being anti-Semitic, and yes there might be some columists who they should check out more carefully but sometimes their opinions are necessary for the purposes of the article. The Guardian is always very careful to distinguish opinion from fact.

What about all the pro-Israel American media that can be pretty Islamophobic?

I hate how we're not allowed to say we disagree with Israel without being accused of being anti-Semitic!

You're allowed to disagree with Israel but expect to be called out on antisemitism when you deploy antisemetic tropes that allude to Jewish control of x or invoke Nazi comparisons etc - something which several Guardian columnists have down and something which the Guardian seems to have little problem with overall.

You're allowed to disagree with Israel but expect to be called out on antisemitism when you deploy antisemetic tropes that allude to Jewish control of x or invoke Nazi comparisons etc - something which several Guardian columnists have down and something which the Guardian seems to have little problem with overall.