New York New York
Israel’s foreign ministry has accused the New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani, of pouring “antisemitic gasoline on an open fire” after he reversed a recent order by the outgoing mayor, Eric Adams.
“On his very first day as @NYCMayor, Mamdani shows his true face: he scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire,” the foreign ministry said in a post on X.
Mamdani revoked an Adams-era order that adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which the previous administration said included “demonizing Israel and holding it to double standards as forms of contemporary antisemitism”.
Israel is not the same thing as being Jewish, but that’s not to say that hatred of Israel has no connection at all to hatred of Jews.
Israel is a political entity, a nation, one that is currently led by a far-right political apparatus that is unabashedly racist, and which is actively opposed by a large number of the citizenry under its present leadership.
Anti-semitism is a worldview, an ideology, that is held in deep disrepute — rightly — because it generalizes a heterogeneous group of people — those who identify as Jewish — as universally subhuman or evil. Antisemitism is almost superstitious in that it attributes negative forces to a group of people based on nothing but the almost-arbitrary line between who counts as Jewish and who doesn’t. The fact that the defining line between a Jew and a gentile is virtually impossible to police is just the beginning of a long chain of logical absurdities behind that reasoning.
But ironically, the Israeli state, as it’s seen by its current far-right leaders, actually works to empower antisemitism because it actively works to harden the fuzzy line between Jewishness and non-Jewishness, and, so it believes, between Israeli-ness and non-Israeli-ness.
The argument against anti-semitism in today’s climate rests largely on the fact that Jewishness is NOT synonymous with political alignment with the far-right Netanhayhu regime. Naturally, the Jewish extremists have sought to associate opposition to their strain of Jewishness with antisemitism as a concept because in the confusion around boundaries in the present political situation, that’s the angle that gets them the most clout.
It’s the exact same playbook as the Islamists who plotted to position muslim identity itself as synonymous with a legal right to segregate males and females and to discriminate against gays. We all saw the fallout when the Southern Poverty Law Centre took the position that liberal Muslims were the enemy: they framed moderate Muslims as active bigots for dissenting with, and therefore undermining, the hardline conservative Muslim movement. The uninspected assumption was that more hardline Muslims were more “oppressed” somehow. It was a strange chain of logic that they kinda sleepwalked into, which would not withstand serious scrutiny. (They paid millions in damages after facing lawsuits.)
Same shit with the activists who insist that far-right Israeli Netanyahu-ism is directly analagous to Jewish identity.
I now work in the Jewish neighbourhood in my city, and pretty much all of the Jews I interact with have nothing to do with the Netanyahu-ists. It seems so strange that in broader politics the far right have succeeded in co-opting my friends’ identities for their political goals. They don’t identify with that mess, and it appals me that they should face any kind of splashback discrimination because of it. They’re innocent.
I agree with the Jewish journalist Eric Alterman: the Likudnik foreign ministry should “mind its own business”.
https://bsky.app/profile/ericalterman.bsky.social/post/3mbhe4f3sgk2e
[…] a comment by Artymorty on New York New […]
Meanwhile, the editor of the right-wing magazine “Tablet” “liked” a post from far-right activist Matt Forney calling Mamdani voters “worthless biotrash”.
https://bsky.app/profile/michellegoldberg.bsky.social/post/3mbh64i337c2y
Quite alarming how this kind of talk has spread over the last decade, from “Mankind Quarterly” and Stormfront into mainstream US conservatism,
The trump virus.
Artmorty,
Says you.
If they were a homogenous group of people, would that be OK?
It’s actually pretty simple. If your mother was a Jew, you’re a Jew. And there are converts to the religion, but those are rare: Judaism doesn’t proselytize.
Not all Jews are religious, of course. Jewish culture is alive and strong.
What “strain of Jewishness” is that? If you’re talking about the war against Hamas, accusations of antisemitism against so-called Pro-Palestinians have nothing to do with any particular “strain” of Jewishness. They have to do with the lies that are commonly used by those who oppose the war, such as the ridiculous claim that Israel is committing “genocide”.
This makes no sense. Try substituting “blackness” for “Jewishnesd” here and see where that gets you (somewhere around Jim Crow and the “one-drop” rule, I’d say.)
I haven’t come across that, but ok if you say so. There’s a lot of crazy shit being said.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/06/19/the-munk-debate-is-anti-zionism-the-same-thing-as-antisemitism-a-video-well-worth-watching/
My good friend’s mother is a Jew, and he doesn’t identify as Jewish at all. Is that wrong? Does he have to go to unconversion school first, before he’s allowed to say he’s not Jewish? Does he have to be un-blessed by a Rabbi or something? Is it a one-way street? Some people can convert in, but no one can convert out?
But I think we’re arguing across each other here. My central point is that Israeli and Jewish aren’t the same thing. I never mentioned Hamas.(But now that you did, let me be clear: they’re terrorists, full stop.)
My secondary point is that Jewish isn’t as simple as many people say. And neither is Black, for that matter. You asked me to compare the two, and I say my point stands. Black/white, Jew/gentile… there’s an element of biology to them in terms of culture and heredity, but they’re not natural kinds. They’re ultimately cultural constructs.
(And that’s setting aside the endless problems that arise when we treat Jewishness as both a race and a belief… and a nationality. It can feel ike whac-a-mole: criticize the religious aspect and people shout “but it’s a race!” Analyze the (supposed) racial aspect and critics shout “but freedom of religion!” Criticize Israel and… etc, etc…)
And the fact that they’re cultural constructs — albeit ones with very real ties to material history — ultimately backs the claim that they shouldn’t be discriminated against. If there’s no fundamental difference dividing them from other people, there’s no fundamental difference that merits discrimination. That was my intention in highlighting the fuzzy lines around the groups.
There’s a lot of passion around identity wrapped around these concepts, so they’re not easy to discuss or debate without setting off strong opinions. It’s a sensitive topic, that I concede.
Your good friend doesn’t have to “identify as” Jewish, but if he ever changes his mind, he will be recognized as Jewish. And however he identifies, he can move to Israel if he wants to.
Meanwhile, if I wanted to “identify as” Jewish, I could — since “identifying as” something is purely subjective — but I would not be recognized as Jewish by Jews (and if I wanted to immigrate to Israel the process would be complex and I might not be accepted) unless I went through the conversion process. Them’s the rules, and seems to me they’re not particularly fuzzy.
“…the Israeli state…actually works to empower antisemitism because it actively works to harden the fuzzy line between Jewishness and non-Jewishness…”
I asked you to try substituting “blackness” for “Jewishnes[h] there, because even granting (for the sake of argument) your point that the Israeli state is dishonestly conflating all criticism of Israel with antisemitism generally, “hardening the fuzzy line between Jewishness and non-Jewishness” doesn’t “empower” antisemitism any more than “hardening the fuzzy line” between blacks and non-blacks empowered racism. The racism was already there. It’s the reason racists invented the one-drop rule. And it’s also the reason some people in the US with African ancestry tried to escape racism by “passing”.
Jewishness is a religion, a culture, and a population of people with a hefty bit of shared genetic (Middle Eastern) background (at least in the case of Ashkenazis and Sephardic Jews). I think our main disagreement is about whether or not accusations of antisemitism directed at critics of Israel are due, or primarily due, to the Israeli government trying to conflate Israeli policy vis-à-vis the war with Jewishness itself. There was a great deal of antisemitism in the Pro-Palestine movement.
“If there’s no fundamental difference dividing them from other people, there’s no fundamental difference that merits discrimination”
I certainly agree with you that antisemitism is wrong, and that we’re all basically just humans. Shalom.
Yes, there was *some* antisemitism in the criticism. Absolutely. And there was a whole lot of analysis that wasn’t remotely antisemitic. The UN is declaring war crimes against Israel’s government not because everyone hates the poor beleaguered Jews.
You skipped over the difficult analysis of that, and the part where Israeli policy might merit critique. That there is tribalism overriding rationalism. You might not know it, but you’re speaking very tribally all of a sudden. It’s uncharacteristic of you.
“thems the rules and it seems to me they’re not particularly fuzzy”
Well them’s rules don’t seem particularly sheltered from massive criticism, either. You mentioned the one-drop rule but you seem to be accidentally for it? or at least confused about the fact that it’s abhorrent. Generally, one doesn’t build arguments around it, other than to say that other people do — racist people. Let’s not legitimize that? Is someone a Jew because of one drop? Is someone Black because of one drop? I say no. You seem to say maybe? It’s incredibly important to acknowledge that racists act upon this supposed rule, but it’s generally acknowledged as a liberal mission to overcome them and their viewpoint about it.
How do we do that if we’re terrified to let go of our ethnic boundaries? Genuine question.
How about we don’t concede to “them’s rules” at all when it comes to law? How about we draw a hard line and allow cultural debates about identity and such to persist, but downgrade them to a tier below law and biology, and material reality. Be a Jew or a trans all you want, but let’s try to keep these kinds of cultural ideas out of the law books whenever we can. Let’s aim to make Black one of those downgraded categories, too, as soon as we can. Not yet, because it’s still very materially relevant. Blacks in the US face materially different treatment than whites. But the ultimate goal is to erase that. And that’s important to acknowledge.
Because that’s exactly the problem with trans: it’s an extension of gay rights after the gay rights movement ran out of runway. We need to learn to face when we’ve won, and to process it, and to back down. I think people of all religions — Jewish included — are sometimes afraid of integration.
In an ideal world, Jewish will not have any special attachment to it. Neither will gay or Black or trans. Legally, we will all be completely equal. The question is, do we want that or not? I think it’s subconsciously terrifying to some people, and I think they don’t want equality because it leads to integration. And that triggers tribal panic.
“The UN is declaring war crimes against Israel’s government not because everyone hates the poor beleaguered Jews.”
The UN is also pro-trans (supports self-ID, etc.) I don’t care what the UN thinks.
“You skipped over the difficult analysis of that, and the part where Israeli policy might merit critique”
So did you. You simply asserted that the country is led by an apparatus that is “unabashadly racist.” Arguing the point would get us into a very complex discussion, one I’m not particularly interested in having here. I posted a link to a blog post that discusses the question and contains links to a debate on the subject, in case you or anyone else is interested in another point of view.
“Well them’s rules don’t seem particularly sheltered from massive criticism, either”
Not sure why they’d merit criticism — I should think they’d have a right to their own rules. Their qualification happens to be matrilineal. But whatever.
“You mentioned the one-drop rule but you seem to be accidentally for it? or at least confused about the fact that it’s abhorrent”
What? You seem to have missed my point rather spectacularly, so I’ll try again:
Your claim was that “hardening [a] fuzzy line” “empower[s] racism.” I disagreed. I contended that the one-drop rule did not “empower racism.” I said that racism preceded and was the cause of the one-drop rule.
“It’s incredibly important to acknowledge that racists act upon this supposed rule, but it’s generally acknowledged as a liberal mission to overcome them and their viewpoint about it.”
It’s incredibly important to overcome racists’ viewpoints about race, period.
“How about we don’t concede to “them’s rules” at all when it comes to law?”
We don’t. We have anti-discrimination laws here in the US. I agree with those. I also think groups (such as Jews, and black people,) have a right to decide who’s a member of their group. I’m not a Jew. Rachel Dolezal isn’t black. I don’t understand your problem with this.
“Blacks in the US face materially different treatment than whites”
Yes. And Jews all over the world face materially different treatment than non-Jews. We can acknowledge these facts and also support integration and equality under the law and the principle of gens una sumus.
Oops, I see the WEIT link to the Munk debate doesn’t work. This one works for me:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x90mb3g
Please do not pretend this problem is a “US” problem. I have had a number of friends from around the world who told me about the awful treatment they received elsewhere; a few of them thought it was worse in Great Britain than here. I can’t speak to that, not being black and not having lived outside the US, and I don’t hear that from all my friends who meet those criteria, but it is at least the perception of some of them.
I have one friend from Ghana who went to college in England. He said he was stopped routinely because it was impossible for the police to believe a black man could afford a Honda Accord. He didn’t experience that here (but I, a white woman, was constantly being stopped when I drove a car that fit the ‘profile’ of a black man’s car. I am never stopped now that my car could be perceived as white and middle-class.)
This is not a US problem. It is not an English problem. It is a worldwide problem. People have tribal loyalties, and in spite of all our protestations of being an ‘intelligent’ species, we appear (at least most of us do) unable to overcome those tribalisms and accept people who aren’t ‘us’ as being equal.
iknklast:
Agreed, if ‘equal’ means ‘the same.’ As an Australian of mainly Scots-Irish ancestry, I can relate personally to that. But believing is the pathway to belonging, and in my lifetime a bloke by the name of Adolf Hitler caused an awful lot of trouble by telling the ‘Aryan’ Germans that they were superior to everyone else alive (the Japanese being awarded by him the status of what we might call ‘honorary Aryans’) and that Jews, however defined, were not, and were deservedly at the bottom of the world’s social heap.
Hitler was not the first politician to gain by appealing to the ego of each of his more gullible followers, nor will Donald Trump with his MAGA noise-making, be the last. In America, it was perhaps best seen in the 1984 contest between Ronald Reagan (slogan: “Make America great'”) and Walter Mondale (slogan: “Where’s the beef?”) Reagan appealed to the ego of the voter, and Mondale to the voter’s conscience; sort of.
Omar, definitely. I have long ago given up on my youthful belief that information and knowledge could give us all what we needed to live peaceably together. I believe we are stuck with tribalism, and the only answer is to do everything we can to neutralize toxic tribalism, while remaining okay with the idea of clustering together into tribes of stamp collectors, playwrights, or commenters on Butterflies and Wheels.
The main problem isn’t that we have more affinity for certain groups. It’s often how we define those groups, and the tendency to see our group as superior. I mean, seriously, are playwrights really superior to stamp collectors? Are commenters on Butterflies and Wheels superior to lovers of Nascar? No, we’re different, but we are all equally human and equally deserving of rights and dignity,
But our ape natures appear to be stronger in many cases than our theory of mind, and we tend to see our groups as ‘better’ than others. I suppose that’s natural. The thing is, most groups don’t act on that. I’vee never seen a group of playwrights pitching stamp collectors in ovens, or commenters on Butterflies and Wheels sending lovers of Nascar to concentration camps (since we are anonymous here, I could be wrong about that :-) Those with political power (or social power, often bestowed by large sums of money owned by such individuals) have a huge responsibility to avoid those tribalisms, but are just as subject to them as we are.
p.s. I’m glad to see you are not on the current bandwagon of failing to see the problems with the Ronald Reagan administration; I was flabbergasted when I started reading about how his administration was a time of peace and prosperity and that he united the nation. Mention recession, farm foreclosures, Iran-Contra, jailed Reagan officials, layoffs, RIFs, furloughs, rampant nationalism, and deregulation, and I get blank stares. The truth seems to have fallen down the convenient memory hole, and all anyone wants to remember is how ‘nice’ he was, always with a smile and a joke. Yeah…and behind that smile lay some truly horrific policies.