Thursday
31Jul2008
WHERE DOES THE HATRED COME FROM?
Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 08:10AM I see that there was a 9% rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK in the first half of 2008 compared with the same period last year, a charity has reported. Incidents involving Jewish students or academics and at colleges rose 88%. The question that is not asked is who is committing these acts of racist hatred? Is there a particular section within overall British society that hates the Jews with a vengeance? If so, why is the media so coy about detailing who the offenders are?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (84)
The most pernicious organised Jew-hatred in our societies outside of the mosques is in academia. When the two combine it is inevitable that attacks on campuses begin to rise exponentially.
DSD,
True. Why is academia so anti-Jewish? Too well edicated or just too ignorant.
Given the number of hate sites on the ever more easily accessible internet it is not surprising.Anti jewish hate is peddled by those sites in much the same way as this site peddles hate against Muslims.
Anti-semitism is a complete misonmer. There are other people apart from Jews who are semitic. Also many idiots instinctively link all Jews with Israel and believe all Jews support Israel, which is complelety ridiculous. There are many Jews who do not identify with Israel and are more than willing to criticize the zionist state. Yet also, many people who criticize Israel are immediately labelled anti-semities by supporters of Israel. Which is again ridiculous and thus is grist to the mill for those other idiots who believe to be a Jew is to be a zionist. One thing however, Jews are not a racist, so it is inaccurate to describe it as racism, sectarianism would be closer to the mark.
Submariner,
ATW may peddle it but not all of us buy it.
'Anti jewish hate is peddled by those sites in much the same way as this site peddles hate against Muslims.'
The difference being that Jews don't seek theological world domination; cause trouble wherever they live; treat women as second-class citizens; or drive planes into Manhattan skyscrapers.
Thanks for proving the Sub's point Andrew.
'Thanks for proving the Sub's point Andrew.'
Because the hatred is fully justified, I'm more than happy to prove such a point.
Now, attempt to justify why hatred of the creed of Islam is not justified. Then you can shoot your mouth off in a tit-for-tat fashion should you wish.
Actually I dont think ATW does peddle hate agaisnt Muslims, and I say this as someone who is against some of the site's accepted truths on Israel etc.
Individual commentaters are a different matter.
RS
A couple of things. I generally agree with the thrust of your comments but:
a) UK Jews are predominantly Ashkenazi - a pretty definable race I would say, so I think racism is a fairly accurate definition
b) Although Anti-semitism should encompase hatred against arabs, etymologically it really refers to the Jews as they were the only semites around at the time.
Also not sure how important hate sites are anyway. I would imagine you would have to be fully of hate in the first place to visit them
--Anti-semitism is a complete misonmer--
A completely meaningless comment. The term as it is used in English and related languages means "anti Jewish". Everyone knows this. It is never used in any other context. There is no confusion. So there is no need for any linguistic games here.
The koran peddles hate against non-muslims very effectively and clearly - these are the words of the muslims' god. Because the hatred is expressed with such clarity, then it can only be concluded that the attacks on Jews are carried out by muslims.
Andy, to label anti-judaic thoughts or actions as a form of racism is wrong. Jews are not a race. Ethiopian Jews for instance,share a religion with their white co-religionists, nothing else. David seems to believe Jewish people are a race, they are not. The fact that one ethnicity of Jews predominates the UK population still does not make it racist. They are being attacked because of their religion first and foremost, ergo, sectarianism.
Your also incorrect in regard of Jews being the only semites around at the time, many many peoples can the term semite be applied to, even to people who pre-date judaism.
Andrew, would the fact that Jews were responsible for Christs death, Jews were responsible for ethnically cleansing a people of their own land, Jews were responsible etc etc...make it ok to feel hatred towards Judaism? Would the fact christians carried out the Holocaust of jews, gypsies, handicapped people and homosexuals in the Second World War make hatred of christianity alright? No of course it wouln'dt. Its completely obscene and irrational, as is your tarring all muslims with the one brush. Grow up.
Allan
I'm sure many of them are, but lets not say all of them are. I've seen antisemetic crimes committed here ( harassing Hassidic jews, knocking their hats off or throwing snowballs at them ; graffiti, ) , and I'm sure they were committed in the UK before Muslims moved in in large numbers.
There's a long history of petty and not so petty antisemitism in all of the West that we should not forget.
Andy,
How moot it was how moot. Do you mean posters or commentators? I sometimes confuse the two but let's call those who initiate topics the posters.
In my time here at ATW I can honestly say I've never come across a post that said anything positive about Muslims, or Islam in general. While that fact doesn't constitute "peddling hatred against Muslims" it sure as hell comes close, given the sheer number of posts, old and new, that concerned Muslims.
Dawkins
There may have been no comments at all about Muslims had not some in their name blown up buildings in New York, subways and buses in London, trains in Madrid, and had their not been the honor killings in the west or efforts to import elements of a hateful legal system into the west.
When the Quakers and Buddhists start blowing up skyscrapers in our cities, expect to see a lot of stern criticism of the Quakers and Buddhists and their holy books, etc.
Dawkins, spot on. The proliferation of threads concerning muslims and Islam, is quite startling that i think the tag line of this site should perhaps read
'A dissenting review of Islam'
RS
Since such views are verboten in Iran and places like this, they may as well be heard here.
Christianity takes a beating in the West all the time, why can't Islam be subject to some criticism?
'When the Quakers and Buddhists start blowing up skyscrapers in our cities, expect to see a lot of stern criticism of the Quakers and Buddhists and their holy books, etc.'
Therefore Phantom you must have no beef with anti-christian views, sites etc in the middle east, seeing as its christians who are blowing up towns and villages there.
'Andrew, would the fact that Jews were responsible for Christs death, Jews were responsible for ethnically cleansing a people of their own land...'
Christ's death was 2,000 years ago. Muslims kill in the name of Islam TODAY. As for ethnic cleansing, Jews were displced from their rightful lands on at least three occasions throughout history (as you insist on being all historical).
As for Christians, we stopped killing in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago. Nothing done in WW2 was done in the name of Christianity so the analogy is entirely spurious.
Wake up!!!
Dawkins
Islam will be commended by non-Muslims when it gives us justification for such commendation. A trigger event of this magnitude is, alas, many decades and much bloodshed away.
There are no Christians blowing up anything in the name of Christianity in the Middle East
But you can go right ahead and criticize Christianity. Christians can take criticism, Muslims get all furious when they are subjected to it. Even a wee cartoon makes them stamp their feet and burn buildings down.
Phantom any religion should be subject to criticism. But vitriolic hate and ignorance is not the same as criticism.
Pointing out the "unerring" words of the false Prophet and the acts of those who adhere to his religion is neither hate nor is it ignorance.
Its a degree of moral scrutiny to a bad religion that is very long overdue.
'There are no Christians blowing up anything in the name of Christianity in the Middle East'
Really?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion
My point stands.
The (flawed) Bush did not initiate war over religion, in the name of religion, nor does he seek to convert anyone. The links are irrelevant.
Afraid your point just fell on its ass Phantom.
'But vitriolic hate and ignorance is not the same as criticism.'
I agree. Muslims have perfected the former, and we 'infidels' the latter.
I'm afraid you can't deal with any criticism of your new religion, RS.
RS,
Both of those quotes have been proven to be figments of some deranged liberal imagination...even if they were true they pale into insignificance when compared to some of Obama's recent utterances...
As Phantom said - the links are irrelevant.
Oh right so when individuals or groups invoke the name Allah to provide legitimacy to their cause, its the religion thats at fault. But when the leader of the western world inokes his God, its lies or insignificant. Nice double standards you guys operate. I like to see the positive things in people, and I thank the Arabs and Muslims for giving us Algebra, stellar astonomy, alogorithms (u know those things which make computers work) many centuries ago, whilst we westerners were covered in mud. You guys keep hating.
As the main writer here, just let me make it really clear that my site does NOT peddle hatred towards Muslims. However it does take issue with militant Islam in its every form and makes no apology for doing so. It does take issue with Islamic homocide bombers. It does not accept dhimmitude in any form. I see no reason to apologise for any of this but I will not let the site be misrepresented.
RS
The accuracy of the Bush quotes have been questioned.
Do you doubt Muslims see every word of the Koran as unerring? Even the really bad things?
I question many things that Bush has said or done. Do you have problems with anything that is in the Koran, or any aspect of any Muslim tradition? Can you speak to this without doing the moral equivalence hat dance by dragging in the Crusades, the Inquisition and Ryanair's excess baggage charges?
RS,
You criticise the Daily Mail and yet are quite happy to quote the Guardian - when most intelligent folk have even stopped using it as birdcage lining...
Phantom, each of the Abrahamic faiths have dodgy parts, which left open to interpretation lead us down a bad road. Im sure your aware of the parts of the koran, and bible which are, there are parts of the Torah which would give one a queasy stomach also. But you fail to recognise that not all muslims, just like not all christians and jews have the exact same interpretation of their holy book. Therefore to label the religion as 'BAD' is completely ignorant and provides succour to those who actually cause you to have such a view, namely the militant types.
Ernst, most intelligent folk don't keep caged birds.
RS
You were asked not to bring in extraneous baggage.
Allow me to repeat
Do you have problems with anything that is in the Koran, or any aspect of any Muslim tradition?
another question for extra credit
Osama bin Laden believes that he is a good Muslim. Is there any evidence that he is not?
---
I would never ever keep a bird in a cage. A bird in a cage is a very sad sight indeed. Like putting a child in solitary confinement for life.
I do take objection to the Wahabbi tradition of Islam.
"Would the fact christians carried out the Holocaust of jews, gypsies, handicapped people and homosexuals in the Second World War make hatred of christianity alright"
Your handle suits you. I know it was a while back, but some people remember it the other way round. It was the Christians that put an END to the holocaust, by invading and defeating Germany. I even spoke to one of these guys today, an 83 yr old tank commander. Great guy.
ps. Christianity isn't 'Abrahamic'.
Hitler despised Christianity and spoke approvingly of Islam
-----
“Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
“Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
RS,
Good work.
Andrew,
"As for Christians, we stopped killing in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago."
Most of you, anyway. The rest, well done! Have a biscuit. Is it a pity about the people who were burnt alive? Maybe next time you'll not be so cock sure in claiming knowledge of things you cannot possibly know.
"Nothing done in WW2 was done in the name of Christianity so the analogy is entirely spurious."
On the contrary, the analogy is excellent. They haven't gone away you know. The Christian organisations that did the killing are still here. Nor have they issued a new version of the Bible since.
It is as if the Nazi party was still around but had apologised for the Holocaust and had since turned its hand to good works in the third world and bake sales. All the while still wearing the same uniforms and claiming that 'Mein Kampf' was the best book ever written. Just overlooking the nastier parts, but still as arrogant and dangerous as ever, and worth keeping an eye on.
Phantom,
"Osama bin Laden believes that he is a good Muslim. Is there any evidence that he is not?"
If you believe your question is meaningful, then you must accept that the answer is yes. The evidence is all the Muslims who say he is not.
But your question is meaningless. There is no objective way to determine who is a 'good' <member of religion X> as the anglicans currently demonstrate so comically.
You may as well say: "David Vance believes that Abba is a good band. Is there any evidence that they are not?"
RS: You take exception to the Wahhabi sect...OK, that includes Osama bin Laden.
Do you also take exception to the radical fundamentalist sect of Shiites in Iran? - you know..the ones that are prone to beating a woman if she dare
show a little ankle?
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood? You know, the modern day movement pledged to the destruction of Western ways? Any exception taken there?
--"David Vance believes that Abba is a good band. Is there any evidence that they are not?"--
There is voluminous and irrefutable audible evidence that they are not a good band!
There is no issue on God's green earth that has been proven so conclusively. Even the laws of gravity have not been so proven.
I live my life in dread that they might someday start recording again.
---
Does the preponderance of evidence indicate that OBL follows the Koran? Or that he has gone against its dictates? That is how you tell whether he is a good Muslim or not.
That is the only proof that a Muslim can accept, or that I can accept.
Phantom,
"Does the preponderance of evidence indicate that OBL follows the Koran? Or that he has gone against its dictates? That is how you tell whether he is a good Muslim or not."
And the answer is yes to both. He has followed some and gone against others. The Koran, like the Bible, is contradictory.
And it won't do to claim that Muslims believe their scripture to be unerring (so do many Christians).
It's as if you have people at a restaurant trying to split the bill using their 'unerring calculators'. One guy says it comes to £23.45, another guy gets £42.51, and the third guy insists he didn't order the pork.
Sorry, it will do. I believe that the big majority of Muslims believe that the Koran is unerring- as Muhammad said it was.
I choose not to fall for the feint about (the spent force of) Christianity. I'm not speaking of Christianity.
We are back to the Koran, and I think that there is very skimpy evidence that OBL does not follow that document in the fundamental respects.
Phantom,
"Sorry, it will do. I believe that the big majority of Muslims believe that the Koran is unerring- as Muhammad said it was."
Doesn't alter the fact that it contradicts, is subject to massive interpretation (totally unconstrained by logic or facts), and thus they come to different conclusions.
Just as some Christians read the Bible and came away with the idea of burning witches and heretics, others did not. It's all still there. The fact that the conclusions reached are so radically different (indeed often completely absent from the text) coupled with the fact that it took more than 1000 years for the fashion to change is proof that these documents are clear as mud.
I can tolerate many opinions uttered here on ATW but something said earlier on this thread is disgraceful and intolerable and I must protest fiercely against it.
I refer of course to Phantom's comments about ABBA :)
Colm, my apologies about what I said elsewhere.
Charles
No problem. I think I know what you are referring too. If so, no need to apologise.
Thank you Colm. My heart is a tad lighter.
Charles
Glad to hear it. There is also the added pleasure that several people reading this exchange will be thinking "What are those 2 talking about" - we'll keep them in the dark ;)
But muslims actually do consider the koran to be the perfect and immutable word of their god. That's why there can be no reformation within islam: that which is perfect and immutable cannot be open to amendment and re-interpretation hence the clamour for sharia law.
BTW, I just loved RS's comment of 6.55pm. :-)