Peaceful uses

[greenilex]

Am I the only one to be disturbed by the news of a private Israeli moon lander on its way?

Is it anti-Semitic to distrust Netanyahu ‘s government?

I have read their aim of studying the moon’s magnetism. I just think control of the moon’s surface might eventually have political consequences.

Maybe that is just a conspiracy theory.

[Dave2002]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/spacex-launch-falcon-9-moon-landing-israel-lunar-elon-musk-rocket-a8791436.html

[Richard Barrett]

Am I the only one to be disturbed by the news of a private Israeli moon lander on its way?

Is it anti-Semitic to distrust Netanyahu ‘s government?

I have read their aim of studying the moon’s magnetism. I just think control of the moon’s surface might eventually have political consequences.

Maybe that is just a conspiracy theory.

Rather more worrying, surely, is Israel's possession for some decades of an arsenal of nuclear weapons whose existence the government refuses to admit to. I think "control of the moon's surface" is some distance from being anyone's objective at this time, even if anyone had the technology to make it possible.

[Bryn]

Am I the only one to be disturbed by the news of a private Israeli moon lander on its way?

Is it anti-Semitic to distrust Netanyahu ‘s government?

I have read their aim of studying the moon’s magnetism. I just think control of the moon’s surface might eventually have political consequences.

Maybe that is just a conspiracy theory.

Could you, perhaps, clarify the Netanyahu connection? I am no supporter of the terrorist founded Israeli state (as against the people of that country) but fail to see the immediate link of this non-profit, privately funded moon mission to the Israeli government or Netanyahu personally.

[Mal]

Russia, the US, and China have landed on the moon and there's no sign of them controlling the surface. What would that mean anyway? Sir Martin Rees has just released a neat video in the Guardian guessing at the future of space exploration in this century. This suggests private manned missions will amount to nothing more than a few "crazy explorers" taking on risky adventures, like Polar explorers. So if Israel ever get as far as a manned mission they would control the surface of the moon as much as Scott controlled Antarctica... so not at all...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Is it anti-Semitic to distrust Netanyahu ‘s government?

It might be useful to refer to the "Working Definition of Anti-Semitism" provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to answer any such doubts:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

[french frank]

I was a bit taken aback to hear that France had declared 'anti-Zionism' a form of anti-Semitism.

I suppose it does depend on the terms in which criticisms of the Israeli government are couched. Or, generalities may be banned but specifics are justified?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I was a bit taken aback to hear that France had declared 'anti-Zionism' a form of anti-Semitism.
I suppose it does depend on the terms in which criticisms of the Israeli government are couched. Or, generalities may be banned but specifics are justified?

It is a "Working definition", so I presume open for "tweaking" - the clause Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation works in both directions - to avoid criticising the actions and policies of an Israeli government whilst criticising any other government for the same/similar actions and policy is precisely "applying double standards".

[french frank]

It is a "Working definition", so I presume open for "tweaking" - the clause Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation works in both directions - to avoid criticising the actions and policies of an Israeli government whilst criticising any other government for the same/similar actions and policy is precisely "applying double standards".

That's right. It's a brave act to, ostensibly, brand anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. But I supect this has precisely been the problem for the Labour party (for the most part): some rather slipshod pronouncements which are deemed to cross the boundary.

[Serial_Apologist]

Of the subsections quoted by ferney, the two I have some difficulty with are these:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Would it be anti-Islamic to "accuse" a muslim of greater loyalty to Islam (a religion transcending national boundaries) than to their own nation? If not - leaving aside the possibly equally thorny issue of loyalty to one's own nation, and whatever that is supposed to mean - then why not apply the same standards to citizens of Israel?

The second clause is its own answer, especially now given that the Netanyahu government has prioritised Israel as constitutionally a Jewish state.

I have no problems with the remaining clauses.

[Serial_Apologist]

That's right. It's a brave act to, ostensibly, brand anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. But I supect this has precisely been the problem for the Labour party (for the most part): some rather slipshod pronouncements which are deemed to cross the boundary.

You're absolutely right, frenchie. It would be so good if this not in fact so subtle distinction were to be pointed out in news and political reports on radio and TV, given the overwhelming impression constantly fed to the public to the contrary, reinforcing the powerful largely unquestioned impression being fed from various quarters - even if it were to say, "this is one way of looking at antisemitism; others would on the other hand argue... etc etc". Tell me I'm antisemitic: in denying it I effectively admit it in the present climate - the classic Batesonian double-bond of damned if you do, damned it you don't.

For me it's wicked the way the left has allowed the terms of debate on this crucial question to be orchestrated by the far right, of all people.

It makes my blood boil.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Would it be anti-Islamic to "accuse" a muslim of greater loyalty to Islam (a religion transcending national boundaries) than to their own nation?

I think that by putting "accuse" in inverted commas, you've hit on why it might be considered an example of anti-semitism (and, indeed, anti-Islamist). What is the context of such an accusation? For what reasons - without evidence demonstrating significant greater concern for Israel/Islam than for their nations of birth & residence and to the detriment of those nations - would anyone make such accusations against an individual other than to create hostility and suspicion?

And I understood the "their own nations" to be an example of the sort of thing that an accuser would make - rather than the sort of language/terminology that the Association would itself use, because they are more fully aware of what you rightly describe as "the thorny issue of loyalty to one's own nation".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

For me it's wicked the way the left has allowed the terms of debate on this crucial question to be orchestrated by the far right, of all people.

It makes my blood boil.

[french frank]

For me it's wicked the way the left has allowed the terms of debate on this crucial question to be orchestrated by the far right, of all people.

It makes my blood boil.

It's certainly clear 'Cui bono' in all this, including as a result of the Labour party's obliging 'cleaning of the Augean stables'. Yet there are those within the party who are unhappy over things that have been said. Too many people these days open their virtual mouths and utter stupidities in emotional outbursts. And yet, and yet, how can one not feel emotional about the plight of the victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict? And how easy it is to point the finger of blame.

[Lat-Literal]

We would not have had an Israel if we had not have had a Germany. There appears to have been no difficulty in separating out the German people from their past leadership. Nor should there have been. German voters were choosing to vote for anything but the past. But recently, this has not been so. As the percentages for Alternative for Deutschland have increased, no one in their right mind would seek to link its people with its politicians. Yet. That yet is likely to be pertinent when it comes to Israeli politicians and Israeli voters.

For one reason why it has been too easy for many people to synchronise those two in the way that they have done is the manner in which Israeli voters - some but not all - have voted. To maintain that position of synchronising is not merely dubious on prejudicial grounds. It is now to risk a development in which the new far right in Germany is linked in people's minds to German people per se. You can't have one without the other and for all our sakes it is therefore best to have neither. Those who feel strongly about Israel might bear this in mind.

Next, Israel's regrettable position on Palestine is hardly new. The advent of widespread anti-semitism is very new. It was always around but it has risen in a way that I would never have expected to have seen. A significant part of this involves the yellow line syndrome. Bit by bit, prejudice and discrimination have been tackled with legislation on colour, creed, religion, race, nationality, disability, physical and mental, gender, sexual orientation and age. Many who support the new approaches to such things, rightly in my opinion, support them strongly.

But some behind their wish to be a combination of moral, right-on and law abiding have a human trait which they themselves cannot accept and hence see. That trait is an instinct to be prejudiced so with all of the areas I have mentioned yellow lined, that prejudice has simply transferred across to the Jewish street. Of course, some are prejudiced across the board and being anti-Semitic is a part of that phenomenon but that was the case in 1945 and 1979. It comes and it goes and is contained when it is in its own fringes by being so stereotypical.

Additionally, the new anti-semitism emerges from concerns about terrorism from so-called Islamists. One way that some try to resolve the tension between absolute condemnation of that terrorism and the fear of being beastly towards normal Muslim people is to over-compensate. That involves additional emphasis on the need not to upset normal Muslims combined with a spinning off of fury somewhere else. Normality is stretched to the limit. It can apply to a woman with a hobby of watching beheadings so that she isn't evil but just vulnerable.

The poor little thing. She wasn't that different to any other girl. It was all our fault anyway. And Israel's. And then there is the additional hatred of the corporate world which has done so many people so much harm while equally everyone has bought into it, not always through choice. Someone has to be blamed for that contradiction. It is fairly easy to go backwards into old nonsenses about "The Jews" running everything when it can't be criticised for being too black or too white. It has some lineage too. It is seen wrongly as a "safe" prejudicial space.

Are the Jewish people being singled out? From what has been said one would assume so. However, in that assumption one would be wrong. Clearly, the direct parallel is Russia which is permitted to be attacked at every turn. While in that process it is Putin rather than the Russian people who is mostly under fire, the latter are attacked, actually, by being presented as absolute nobodies under fixed elections which may or may not be wholly true. It is as if they don't exist and for some peculiar reason this is not considered to be a terrible attitude at all.