Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Oh Wow; I'm not even sure if this post even warrants a reply :S That is an incredibly biased and inflammatory statement! :( You are just trying to provoke a reaction based on "apparent" statements by a minority; while I'm not refusing the notion outright that people are capable of making such statements that is NOT the end and all reason why those terms are confused together. You are apparently a first year student from your profile; anddd you are claiming first hand observation evidence from the incident at York.

Plus it is incorrect to accuse that "anti semitic's have infiltrated Israeli Apartheid week :S

Incorrect to assume so? It's you that are biased if you can't see what's going on.

BTW the York incident was well publicized and documented. I do not claim to have first hand observation of it, but I fail to see how storming the Jewish student union, and threatening jewish students, is not anti-semetic.

And it's an inflammatory statement to suggest that they are "apparent" statements: I have personally HEARD all of the statements mentioned (except number 4 as I pointed out) by people as a rational for being anti-zionist. I think it's fair to say that considering the huge number of anti-semetic attacks that occur every year in the western world that the perpetrators justify on anti-zionism, I fail to see how a reasonable person can't understand why some people (not myself) get scared and confused by these movements.

In fact why don't you propose your reason why the two are sometimes confused. Please, let's hear it. Is it a conspiracy by the "Israel lobby" (ps. If jewish groups are the "Israel lobby" than what are groups like the Canadian Arab Federation?) has cooked up?

And how about the "Zionism is Racism" motion that was (formerly) the policy of the UN. Certainly THAT wasn't a manipulation of the term racist by anti-zionist groups.

Listen for everyone people have to say about the "Jewish lobby/Israeli lobby" (I have heard them used interchangeably by some people) there is something that can be said of the other side doing something similar. In fact it's politics:

Remember: "Stephen Harper wants troops with guns in our cities" and "Paul Martin supports child pornography?"

Both sides do it equally, but when it sticks its usually because a significant number of people had reached the conclusion already before having it reenforced.

Awesome Trolling mate! Well done; The only question I have for you is "Why were you at York?"

p.s: I was talking it is incorrect to assume so for Apartheid week at Mac. York has a highly left wing political climate compared to mac; its apples and oranges! It is unfair to paint ALL Apartheid weeks with the same accusation because of what might have happened at York.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

As I said its hard to articulate a basic definiton of it since its all arbitrary you just said: "Anti-Semitic means you hate/are prejudiced against Semitic peoples, how is that not "that" bad?"

"Means" is the key word; It "means" according to one definition :S

p.s: You have to read the entire article to get what that quote was implying.

Edit: ahh soo I'll try another approach; What I was saying is that Its not "bad" to be called an anti-semitic IF we go by the popular but flawed/misappropriated definition of it! Because the popular definition isn't entirely correct.

The word was coined in 1879 from the Greek words "anti", meaning "against" and "Semite", meaning a descendant of Shem. Hence there is no race/religion/ethnicity involved to be exact concerning the Jews of Israel today. Because #1 & #3 are Social Constructs and #2 Has nothing to do with the original defintion at all. Popular Society has built up a definition that changes historically(vaguely explained in the wiki; but you can do more research on it obviously!)

As I said its all semantics; I'll just clarify again that it wasn't MY view of the term.

Actually, though the word's etymology suggests that it could be used to refer to all Semitic groups, when it was first used it was used exclusively to refer to Jewish peoples, and that's pretty much been the popular meaning since then.

Original meaning + popular meaning > Etymology

Its pretty similar with the word Nazi (ironically enough). While the word may be derived from National Socialist, those words don't reflect the true meaning of the term in either popular or original use.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Evidence?

Secondly my concern was with the apparent statements that these "anti semitics" make Jews make pastries etc etc....It is inflammatory in that sense that the next time we have Israeli Apartheid week people will start relating/being biased toward the whole event because of the apparent radical minority that is "in there". Plus there is no evidence that they are actually in there; so hence its still an unproven accusation.

Evidence of what? That's exactly what they said, perhaps you misunderstood it?

Your concern can be with whichever of the statements they've made but that doesn't mean they've never heard that or that Jew haters don't say those kinds of things. Regardless of the negative effects you feel them saying they heard that comment made will have on an event you feel is legitimate that doesn't make it inflammatory. People aren't here to post only things that won't cast Israeli Apartheid week in a negative light, they're presumably posting truthful accounts of racist comments they've heard.

Their commentary is exactly the same as everyone else's anecdotes on racist comments except that you think what they've said will cast Israeli Apartheid Week in a negative light so you've chosen to fight them on it.

Obviously you support events like Israeli Apartheid Week and you've chosen to take issue with only posts about racist comments that you feel cast an event you support in a negative light. This is highly biased, more so than anything you're accusing anyone else of. Just because non Antisemitic people support these events doesn't mean Antisemitic people don't also support them. There are always radicals in every group who ruin the reputation of others.

let me tell you something, I was present at every one of those events. The only racists there were those individuals spitting out full out zionism. Those individuals that blame the jewish people for the isreali-palestinian issue are naive. Judaism and zionism are very separate things and its unfortunate that the zionists tie themselves with the religion. Look up Rabbi Weiss, he speaks the truth regarding zionism and its relationship to Judaism.

Originally Posted by fasailuddin

The only racists there were those individuals spitting out full out zionism.

The only racists there were the people whose position on the issue you disagree with?

Funny.

I'm not saying that any Zionists at the event weren't racist, I'm saying that obviously you're not going to say anyone on your side of the issue is/was being racist.

Originally Posted by sew12

Evidence of what? That's exactly what they said, perhaps you misunderstood it?

Your concern can be with whichever of the statements they've made but that doesn't mean they've never heard that or that Jew haters don't say those kinds of things. Regardless of the negative effects you feel them saying they heard that comment made will have on an event you feel is legitimate that doesn't make it inflammatory. People aren't here to post only things that won't cast Israeli Apartheid week in a negative light, they're presumably posting truthful accounts of racist comments they've heard.

Their commentary is exactly the same as everyone else's anecdotes on racist comments except that you think what they've said will cast Israeli Apartheid Week in a negative light so you've chosen to fight them on it.

First of all who is "they". It is one individual who from is last post has revealed his biased stance on the issues; it is his accusation that the protesters at York used so and so statement. If I was so inclined I can make a similar statement for the Jews against Palestinians(I was an observer at a Peace studies Society/Faculty Talk last year at Mac where this happened) and hence create a co-relation that radical Jews have infiltrated the Israel Awareness week :S But I won't because being a social science student making such a co-relation would be a fail.

Plus as I mentioned you can't use behavior from York to paint any similar even somewhere else with the same picture and declare that Anti Zionism is being mixed with Anti Semitism because of the aforementioned reason. There is something majorly theoretically wrong with that!

He is trying to rile me up by asking me to respond with "Jewish lobby" accusations; when my concerns/approach is purely scientific on the co-relations he is making!

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Evidence?

Secondly my concern was with the apparent statements that these "anti semitics" make Jews make pastries etc etc....It is inflammatory in that sense that the next time we have Israeli Apartheid week people will start relating/being biased toward the whole event because of the apparent radical minority that is "in there". Plus there is no evidence that they are actually in there; so hence its still an unproven accusation.

With respect to the the quotes, I was talking about the anti-zionist movement in general.

But you can't deny that the blood libel (the particular story I mentioned about the pastries), is repeated by people associated with anti-zionism (even if not in this country). It may be guilt by association (and I don't fault you for it) but you have to understand if you're associated with something unpleasant it doesn't help your cause even if you have no control over it.

Hence SOME people will draw the conclusion that there is an overlap to some degree between anti-semites and anti-zionists. So all I'm saying is: Don't be shocked.

Just like i'm not shocked when people THINK that I'm, for example, anti-gay because I'm Christian. Sure it sucks, but I understand that my association, even indirectly, with people who make that view point a very strong part of their public persona, will lead some people to make that conclusion.

Originally Posted by arathbon

With respect to the the quotes, I was talking about the anti-zionist movement in general.

But you can't deny that the blood libel (the particular story I mentioned about the pastries), is repeated by people associated with anti-zionism (even if not in this country).

EXACTLY My point!

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

He is trying to rile me up by asking me to respond with "Jewish lobby" accusations; when my concerns/approach is purely scientific on the co-relations he is making!

I'm not trying to rile you up. I just want to hear WHY you think that some people equate the two?

your just jumping to conclusions, im sure if you were there you would agree. But whats the point you have your views and i have mine, there not likely to change, so theres no point in me arguing who is or is not racist.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

EXACTLY My point!

You completely ignored the rest of their post which addresses your concerned.

If you're associated with something you believe in that other more radical people also happen to be associated with it is going to cause some people to look on both groups as being the same. Not everyone picks apart every issue and is able to realize that just because non-racist A group and racist B group have a similar goal doesn't make A group racist as well.

Originally Posted by fasailuddin

your just jumping to conclusions, im sure if you were there you would agree. But whats the point you have your views and i have mine, there not likely to change, so theres no point in me arguing who is or is not racist.

Claiming that only people who disagree with your view are racist is just wrong though. You may hold a very legitimate, well thought out point of view on any given issue but that doesn't mean other people who hold a similar view point aren't also racist.

Originally Posted by sew12

You completely ignored the rest of their post which addresses your concerned.

If you're associated with something you believe in that other more radical people also happen to be associated with it is going to cause some people to look on both groups as being the same. Not everyone picks apart every issue and is able to realize that just because non-racist A group and racist B group have a similar goal doesn't make A group racist as well.

I never did; Guilty by association isn't really a scientific argument. Especially if used on people hundreds of miles away.

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

EXACTLY My point!

And if you read the rest of the point, it is exactly my point.

While it is clear to many the distinction, when these things happen, it gets muddled up. Not everyone has a deep understanding of the issues, and therefore I suggest that the overlap, however large or small, is publicly known and that an outcome of this is that some people will draw the conclusion that anti-zionism=anti-semetism.

I'm really trying to see if you have misunderstood what I have said. For the record I am saying:

1) Anti-Zionism=/= Anti-semetism

2) Some people do not realize 1

3) That, although a lot of the time it is beyond their control, the association of ant-semetic individuals with the anti-zionist movement has been established in the minds of many people.

4) That I figure the majority of the people who do not realize (1) do so because of (3).

For the record I am not saying:

1) You are anti-semetic

2) Anti-Zionism=Anti-semetism

3) Israeli Apartheid week (although I disagree with the comparison = anti-semetism

4) That people SHOULD automatically assume that an anti-zionist is anti-semetic


I hope this clears things up.