Helena Cobban asked in an email yesterday-- apropos of the report that Netanyahu has called powerful Jewish aides to Obama "self-hating Jews"--which is worse: to be called an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew? Which calumny is more effective in preventing criticism of Israel? I say: to be called an anti-Semite. My reasoning:
(Mondoweiss)
And here's Helena Cobban's article
(Justworldnews)
"You can be sued for wrongly accusing someone of being an anti-Semite. I don't think you can be sued for calling someone a self-hating Jew."
ReplyDeleteWe are a litigious people :)
I posted this on Mondo -
ReplyDeleteWe are also a litigious people...lol One has only to look at how the twisting of accusations are used in an official and semi-official sense. Even governmental organizations can be twisted to stifle debate, hence the battle regarding academic freedom, see -
http://www.usccr.gov/campusanti-semitism.html
Note the definitive language -
"Campus Anti-Semitism reports that many college campuses throughout the United States continue to experience incidents of anti-Semitism, a serious problem warranting further attention. Anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated on many campuses that include traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation. For example claiming that the Jew are responsible for the killing of Christ or alleging that Zionism is racism."
This takes it one step away from a courtroom by defining antisemitism in an official government organization. The next step will be full fledged prosecution like the European arena.
It is derived from this link (above) -
ReplyDeletehttp://notinhisname.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-09_cy-2007_m-09_d-01_y-2007_o-0.html
Good article by Helen also. It is interesting to note how nations use their poor (respectively speaking) and destitute for their dirty work. The symbiosis of the settlers/idf is a good example.
ReplyDelete