Aren't Arabs also "semitic people" [1]? (Since Ishmael and Abraham are also descendants of Shem...). In this case "antisemitic" would also mean "against Arabs"...
You are right, there are Jews who aren't Semites an there are Semites who aren't Jews. The term “anti-Semitism” came up near the end of the 19th century [1] when it was all the rage to find scientific-sounding words for whatever you do or sell. “Anti-Semitism” sells better than plain “hatred of Jews”. I for one wouldn't give racists the satisfaction of using their own choice for cloaking their prejudice and stupidity in pseudo-science but the term seems to have taken hold everywhere.
Sometimes words don't mean exactly what their etymology suggests. So I'm sorry but, objecting to using the world 'antisemitism' to refer to "anti-Jewish racism" comes across as trying to deny Jews the ability to describe their own oppression
Hanlon's razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Many or most people incorrectly assume that anti-Semitism has something to do with Semitic people because the words (but not their meanings) are similar.
Hard disagree. One of these (anti-Semitism) is far more common than the other (references to Arabs as "Semitic"). It's like saying that you've only heard of "negro" as a color. In a culture and a place (the United States) where that is absurd, assumptions of malintent and bad faith are a better heuristic.
I don't mean to imply that the word makes any sense in this context. However, if one chooses to complain about Israeli abuses of Palestinians, it is a fact that one will be called "antisemitic".
The point you bring up is an example of "fallacy of equivocation".
Yes, words are polysemic. In this case, 'anti-semetic' is seen as "anti-jewish". That's one sense of 'anti-semetic'. You can also add another sense of that word: "against speakers of Semetic language or people". This sense is not used when people use 'anti-semetic'.
In Europe, there has been centuries of discussion about jews: it was called "the Jewish question". Anyway, this anti-semitism started as a product of religious rivalry (which religion is True? Christianity or Judaism). Then extra features were added, etc.
Actually, "anti-semitic" is against "jewish" person (as a religion) and not against "israeli" citizen (as a nationality). The last one is called "anti-sionist"...
The fact that Israel is a nation "home for jews" doesn't help, as some people think that every critic against Israel politic is the mark of "anti-semitism" even if religion has nothing to do with. Sometimes it might be the indicator of "anti-sionism" and sometimes... just the indicator of political difference! After all, you can criticize any country for its politic without critizing the counrty "per se"
Moreover, a lot of people in Israel are not jewish but muslims.
"They" being "Israeli propagandists" as referenced in the previous comment.
What you're doing is exactly what we're talking about. Trying to shut down any criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitic bigotry. It's no different than the 50 Cent Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Army) dismissing all criticism of the CCP as sinophobia.
Clever. By labeling anyone who alleges antisemitism as an "Israeli propagandist" you can shut down any discussion of antisemitism without having to engage with whether there may be any bigotry or prejudice in play
But seriously, ask yourself if there is any way a Jew could tell you "Hey, what you're saying about Israel is kinda racist because XYZ" without you immediately dismissing them. (And maybe there is! I haven't gotten to know you in real life)
The opposite is a much more common occurrence. By reflexively labeling any criticism of Israel as "antisemitic", people shut down discussion without having to engage in the topics of settler colonialism or apartheid.
Frankly, this is one of the more frustrating aspects of my experience as a diaspora Jew: having to constantly point out that Israel != Jews in response to people who want to exploit my religious identity for their own ends.
> people shut down discussion without having to engage in the topics of settler colonialism or apartheid
The apartheid bit can and should be engaged and eventually solved with a Palestinian state beside Israel. The settelr colonialist bit is mostly said to try and ruin the Zionist state by dismantling Zionism. No one calls the U.S a settler colonialist country. No one demands California to be returned to Mexico (it's rightful owner btw) or that the Indians get the right to their lands back (so what if not many of them are left? if we wanna dismantle colonialism let's start with it's founders).
These are requirements specific to Israel. The hard left knows very well the chances of "one democratic state" surviving are close to zero, and that the endgame is immigration of most Jews out of Palestine, to become hated refugees everywhere they go yet again. But that's the hard left's plan, and not everyone like to engage with that.
People do talk about all of those things though? Israel and the US are both settler colonial states. Acknowledging that should be the start of a conversation about righting historical wrongs, not shorthand for a proscribed solution.
As a side note, it seems like you're using "hard left" as a smear, but most of the people I follow who engage on this topic are diaspora Jews who very much do not want to become "hated refugees".
> but most of the people I follow who engage on this topic are diaspora Jews who very much do not want to become "hated refugees
There are a lot of super progressive Jews out there that are vocal about Zionism needing to end. Sometimes it's ideological and sometimes it's just wanting to fit in within progressive circles and feeling good about oneself. I mean if Israel is a child killing apartheid state who in their right mind would want to be associated with it?
Many of them aren't really comfortable with the idea of being Jewish in general (definitely not in public), and they have a good reason since anti-semtiism is still alive even in the U.S, especially in progressive circles. Also, religion and progressiveness don't generally agree that well. They definitely won't be able to fit in progressive circles and say that Israel has a right to exist, it barely works now. Bernie Sanders is struggling with his Zionism, lots of progressives think he's pretty much a racist.
It's a complicated topic, but we can make a whole discussion about Jewish life in the diaspora and the challenges it brings.
This doesn’t cohere with my experience at all. Many vocal anti-Zionists I know are also vocally Jewish. In fact, I don’t know a single person who is uncomfortable being Jewish in public, and I haven’t seen many progressives calling Bernie Sanders racist (especially with regard to antisemitism). And the right in the US has a far worse antisemitism problem than the left.
> In fact, I don’t know a single person who is uncomfortable being Jewish in public
That sounds like a reach. Many Jews don't want to wear a Kippa anymore fearing anti semitism. That's confirmed in surveys. So for the atheist ones that's not a problem but I'm sure being vocally Jewish isn't that much fun.
I use the term hard left as opposed to center left. We can use progressive.
Its nice and easy to acknowledge things when there are no claims. The Mexicans are not claiming California back and even if they were no one would take that seriously. The Palestinians ARE claiming the land back, and are being supported by growing numbers. So this whole discussion about history becomes very consequential to Israel.
Do we even disagree about the settler colonialism bit? It seems like your hesitance there has to do with a potential conclusion, rather than whether or not that accurately describes the situation.
FWIW, I’m speaking in good faith about that being the start of a conversation about reparations (although not one that I want to have here and now). I’m not trying to go “GOTCHA! now Israelis need to GTFO” as soon as we acknowledge that shared understanding.
I think we disagree, or at least I don't agree fully.
Putting what the Americans or white Australians did with what happened in Israel and saying it's the same thing seems odd to me. It's not the same thing. There are similarities and vast differences.
Also, Arabs themselves are settler colonialists by that definition. They started coming to the region during the Arab/Muslim conquests in the 7th century. No one spoke Arabic in Palestine before that.
> No one calls the U.S a settler colonialist country
What? The US is the ur-example of settler colonialism. We are the end stage, the model for the ultimate fate of the original inhabitants under colonialism: decimated and pushed back into whatever worthless land none of the settlers wanted.
> or that the Indians get the right to their lands back
People do demand that, yes.
Personally, I would love to see Native American tribes given better land than the shitty deserts they've been stuck in, but two wrongs don't make a right; no one has a right to force people off of land they've been living on for decades or centuries just because their ancestors used to live there.
That means the British had no right to unilaterally carve Israel out of Palestine in the first place, and also that Palestine shouldn't get to force Israelis off of land they've been living on for nearly a century, however wrong their ancestors were to take it; nor does Israel have the right to keep taking more Palestinian land to build new Israeli settlements.
There will always be Arabs who won't be satisfied with anything short of total hegemony. They would have a lot less support, resources, and manpower if Israel would treat Palestinians as equals and stop air-striking innocent men, women, and children because they happen to be within the blast radius of a suspected terrorist. Killing innocents to achieve political goals is no better when Israel does it than when Hamas does.
Ok what I mean is no one is seriously asking to decolonise the U.S.
Its easy to want a few Indians get a few more acres. It sounds nice and costs you nothing. But what about settling real claims? Like some tribe wants Manhattan back? Or returning California to Mexico? Thats what Israel is asked to do. To basically destroy itself to fix some past wrong that wasn't really its fault to begin with (we don't have to start this argument but comparing Zionism with what Americans did falls short).
Taking this seriously would require differentiating between the various parties. Absolutely, indigenous Americans should be compensated for the recent theft of their lands. That compensation could take the form of return of land, or if the land's current use makes that impossible then we can print some money like we do for all our stupid wars.
Mexico, however, is also a colonial state. If we compensate them, soon someone will suggest that Spain should get a piece.
I don't know about others, but when I said "Israeli propagandists" I meant literally the Israeli government's official public relations, e.g. the people who did this: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/23/my-zionism-isra... I might disagree with random internet posters, but I wouldn't generally call them "propagandists".
> But seriously, ask yourself if there is any way a Jew could tell you "Hey, what you're saying about Israel is kinda racist because XYZ" without you immediately dismissing them.
I'd be willing to listen to their argument. It's gonna depend on what the initial statement was.
There are plenty of people who criticize Israel and are also antisemitic, and they often try to cloak it in reasonable-sounding arguments. That does not mean that all reasonable-sounding arguments against Israeli policies are automatically racist. If someone says "Israel is bombing Palestine again, you know how those Israelis are," that would sound like it could be a dog whistle. If someone says "Israel is bombing Palestine again, they're just perpetuating the cycle of violence," that seems reasonable enough--but I have seen more than a few people who would call even that antisemitic.
