Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Anti-Semitic semantics


Socialist Alliance candidate, Pip Hinman, has sparked a debate in the comments section of her piece in the Drum which is all too familiar to those who follow these sorts of online debates. The article defends the stance of Marrickville Mayor and state Greens candidate Fiona Byrne on a boycott of Israeli goods and firms. The comments thread has been derailed by the ubiquitous debate on the definition of anti-Semitism. Without having to go through subscription sites like Macquarie, the first definition available from the online dictionary is this:



–noun a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.


Common usage of the term would support its general meaning as being applicable only to Jews. The confusion comes in when the word is broken into its constituent parts, which gives actual racists a semantic escape clause. The same online dictionary provides this definition of Semite:


–noun 1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. 2. a Jew. 3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

Therefore, by being pro-Palestinian precludes them from being anti-Semitic on the basis that the Arabs are Semites too. In the aforementioned comments thread, commenter GRAYAM made the following point:



Anti-Semitism is a word constructed in Germany in the late 19th century as a more acceptable substitute for Judenhass (Jew hatred).


Intrigued by that assertion, I looked up the etymology for anti-Semitism, and found this. It states:


anti-Semitism also antisemitism, 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite. Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.

It made no mention of Judenhass, so I looked further. I found this at another site which provides some more enlightenment:



The political writer Wilhelm Marr is credited with coining the German word Antisemitismus in 1873, at a time when racial science was fashionable in Germany but religious prejudice was not. This term was offered as an alternative to the older German word Judenhass, meaning Jew-hatred. The aim of the effort to rename "Jew-hatred" into Anti-Semitism, was to give "Jew-hatred" a more scientific basis, however, it was never intended to eliminate the concept of hatred towards Jews based on the Christian conspiracies and legends so popular with the general population. In his book, "The Victory of Germanicism over Judaism" (1879), Marr took up secular racist ideas of Arthur de Gobineau's "An Essay on the Inequality of Human Races" (1853, though direct influence is debatable). Marr's book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Anti-Semites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country.


German has provided the English language with many useful words which succinctly distil concepts. In the true fashion of the English language to import words from other languages and make them our own, I propose that Judenhass join Blitzkreig, Schwerpunkt, and Schadenfreude in the greater English lexicon. It is appropriate to disarm a deceptive word coined by a German racist with the use of the German word it replaced.



Thursday, July 1, 2010

Award winning Pallywood images


This photo was posted on The Australian's website with the caption:

1st prize General News Singles
Picture: Kent Klich, Sweden
Light enters through a hole in the roof of a house hit by a tank shell, in Tuffah, northern Gaza. The family that lived in the house had fled during Operation Cast
Lead, the Israeli attack on Gaza that began at the end of December 2008.
Mohammed Shuhada Ali Ahmed, 39, had gone back to fetch clothes for his children,
and was killed when the shell struck.

Now, it seems quite obvious that something has gone through the roof, but that something did not explode. There are no shrapnel holes in the walls and the TV and the furniture are still intact. The other glaringly obvious detail is that whatever came through the roof came straight down. Tanks are not howitzers. At a pinch, tanks can be used in an indirect role; that is, that the main armament is used in a similar manner to an artillery piece. Unfortunately for the claim made by this photographer, they are not capable of firing their main armament at a high enough trajectory to drop a round straight through the roof of a building leaving an impact crater directly under the entry hole. Now, it may well be that the place has been cleaned up since the incident happened, in which case they have done a bang up job of cleaning the place up and filling the holes in the wall with spak-filla. Of course, why they put a new TV in a room with no roof remains a mystery, unless whatever it was that came through the roof didn't contain any High Explosive and didn't kill anybody at all.


Update: Below is a picture from the same photographer's website, the same album that contains the photo above. It shows what a wall looks like when it has been hit by shrapnel. Notice a difference?

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Three genuine peace activists murdered

No, I'm not referring to the recent tragic news of the three Australian SF soldiers recently killed in a helicopter accident. Accidents will happen when machines and men are pushed to their limits in an environment of threat, and while their deaths are a tragedy, it is hardly worthy of the fury of speculation as to the future of Australia's commitment to the war in Afghanistan. If anything, it is slightly unbecoming for the deaths of three men whose commitment to the objectives of this war can hardly be questioned to be used as a catalyst for discussion of the abandonment of those same objectives. Their sacrifice ought to be honoured and serve as a reminder of the deadly seriousness of the endeavour and to steel the resolve of our leaders to see that their sacrifice was not in vain.


The three genuine peace activists I refer to in the title are the three UN Peacekeepers killed in a random action in the western region of Darfur on Monday. The peacekeepers were providing protection to civilian engineers when they were attacked. This latest attack takes the toll of UN Peacekeepers killed in Darfur to 27 since the UN took over the operation from the African Union in 2007.


In contrast to the agent provocateurs who committed suicide by IDF Commando on the Mediterranean several weeks ago, these genuine peace activists will go unmourned by the world media because they were killed by Islamic bandits and not teh evil Juice.