Dat is een ingewikkelde zaak.
Volgens mijn gevoel ben ik geen antisemiet. Dat betekent dat ik bij het ontmoeten van een joods iemand geen afkeer voel of negatieve verwachtingen heb.
Ik voel me redelijk verwant aan mensen die half of kwart joods zijn. Het zou mij niet verbazen als ik zelf ook een aantal joodse allelen in mijn DNA zou hebben.
Op school trok ik het meest op met een joodse jongen, en mij vrouw had op haar school precies hetzelfde.
Ik zeg het eerlijk zoals het is, en weet dat ik daarmee de mensen die echt een hekel aan joden heb, zal afstoten. Het is niet anders.
Voordeel heb ik er niet bij, want de mensen die zich als echt joods zien, hebben een grote afkeer van joden die kritisch zijn op het jodendom, dus zeker ook van mij.
Er zijn heel veel goede zaken gedaan in deze wereld door joodse mensen. Kunst, cultuur, wetenschap etc. etc. Ja zelfs in de financien zijn goede ideeën door joden ingebracht.
Een wereld zonder joden zou een verarming zijn.
Maar er zijn ook heel veel slechte zaken verricht door joodse mensen.
Er is ook erg veel leed door hen in de wereld gebracht.
En daar is sinds 1945 nauwelijks tegengas tegen gegeven.
Dat is veelal buiten de geschiedenis gehouden en buiten de media.
Daarom beschouw ik het als mijn taak om dat tegengas te geven.
Ik ben er voor de kritiek op de joden. Niet voor de positieve kanten. Dat laat ik aan U over.
Eigenlijk moet het totaal niet uitmaken of iemand een antisemiet is of niet.
Het enige dat telt is : zijn de bronnen juist. Is de stelling goed onderbouwd. Zijn de feiten correct.
Àls iemand iets slechts gedaan heeft, dan mogen zijn vrienden dat zeggen, en zijn vijanden. Het gaat er om: heeft hij wel of niet iets slechts gedaan, en zijn de bewijzen daarvoor overtuigend.
-----------------
Here is some comment from another blog about this subject, that might be relevant:
Michael said...
Given the direction of this particular thread, this is a good opportunity to review Walter Russell Mead's piece from about a year ago:
"The Hate That Dares Not Speak Its Name":
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/18/the-hate-that-dares-not-speak-its-name/
I respect Mead for at least giving a definition of the word "anti-Semite," which is a lot more than most people like him will do. Here it is:
"[A]nti-Semitism involves belief in any or all of the following ideas:
1. Jews are more clannish than other people and act in concert to support a specifically Jewish agenda.
2. Jews deploy extraordinary wealth with almost superhuman cunning in support of the Jewish agenda.
3. As a religious and national minority, Jews cannot flourish without attacking the traditional values of their host society. In every country Jews seek to weaken national culture, religion, values and cohesion.
4. Jews are not a national group or a people in the way that others are; they do not have the same right to establish a nation state that other peoples do.
5. Where Jewish interests are concerned, the appearance of open debate in our society and many others is a carefully constructed illusion. In reality, Jews work together to block open debate on issues they care about and those who resist the Jewish agenda are marginalized in public discussion.
These ideas are the five pillars of anti-Semitism; you don’t have to believe them all — any one will do."
So, I will now tale the test myself.
Item 1 - Disagree. Many people are clannish, and (at least in America), Jews are intermarrying with Gentiles to a large degree.
Item 2 - Disagree. There is no "Jewish agenda" as such. There is an Israel Lobby, but most Jews are more critical of Israel than the average American Gentile is. As Walt and Mearsheimer point out, the "Israel Lobby" is a diverse umbrella of different groups, whose agendas overlap but are not always identical.
Item 3 - I used to disagree, but now I am not so sure. As I said before, Calvinist Protestantism and Judaism are spiritual cousins, and much of what looks like "Jewish influence" in America is nothing more than a particular expression of the hustling, materialistic spirit that has always characterized America to begin with. So, in the case of America, I don't think that Jewish influence is a matter of "subversion." Thus, if we are speaking of America, I disagree. In terms of other countries, the case may be different.
Item 4 - To tell the truth, I am not sure how to answer that one. When I was a young man, I always assumed that Judaism was a religion like Christianity or Islam, and that anyone could convert of they wanted to. I have since learned that it is not so simple. Judaism is a religion AND the Jews are a people. So, I don't have a black and white answer to that question.
Item 5 - Partially agree. "Jews work together to block open debate on issues they care about and those who resist the Jewish agenda are marginalized in public discussion" - yes, but no more than many other people do. Argumentam ad hominem and arguments from intimidation seem to be a universal characteristic of public discourse nowadays. If the Israel Lobby has the power to shut down public debate, it is because that power is granted to it by others, due to the spiritual affinity I spoke about.
So, Mead would probably flunk me and call me a raving proto-Nazi for not shouting "Disagree!" to all five items. Too bad. I reserve the right to think for myself and to examine evidence, independently of control-freak, Thought Police Gauleiterslike Mead.
"The Hate That Dares Not Speak Its Name":
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/18/the-hate-that-dares-not-speak-its-name/
I respect Mead for at least giving a definition of the word "anti-Semite," which is a lot more than most people like him will do. Here it is:
"[A]nti-Semitism involves belief in any or all of the following ideas:
1. Jews are more clannish than other people and act in concert to support a specifically Jewish agenda.
2. Jews deploy extraordinary wealth with almost superhuman cunning in support of the Jewish agenda.
3. As a religious and national minority, Jews cannot flourish without attacking the traditional values of their host society. In every country Jews seek to weaken national culture, religion, values and cohesion.
4. Jews are not a national group or a people in the way that others are; they do not have the same right to establish a nation state that other peoples do.
5. Where Jewish interests are concerned, the appearance of open debate in our society and many others is a carefully constructed illusion. In reality, Jews work together to block open debate on issues they care about and those who resist the Jewish agenda are marginalized in public discussion.
These ideas are the five pillars of anti-Semitism; you don’t have to believe them all — any one will do."
So, I will now tale the test myself.
Item 1 - Disagree. Many people are clannish, and (at least in America), Jews are intermarrying with Gentiles to a large degree.
Item 2 - Disagree. There is no "Jewish agenda" as such. There is an Israel Lobby, but most Jews are more critical of Israel than the average American Gentile is. As Walt and Mearsheimer point out, the "Israel Lobby" is a diverse umbrella of different groups, whose agendas overlap but are not always identical.
Item 3 - I used to disagree, but now I am not so sure. As I said before, Calvinist Protestantism and Judaism are spiritual cousins, and much of what looks like "Jewish influence" in America is nothing more than a particular expression of the hustling, materialistic spirit that has always characterized America to begin with. So, in the case of America, I don't think that Jewish influence is a matter of "subversion." Thus, if we are speaking of America, I disagree. In terms of other countries, the case may be different.
Item 4 - To tell the truth, I am not sure how to answer that one. When I was a young man, I always assumed that Judaism was a religion like Christianity or Islam, and that anyone could convert of they wanted to. I have since learned that it is not so simple. Judaism is a religion AND the Jews are a people. So, I don't have a black and white answer to that question.
Item 5 - Partially agree. "Jews work together to block open debate on issues they care about and those who resist the Jewish agenda are marginalized in public discussion" - yes, but no more than many other people do. Argumentam ad hominem and arguments from intimidation seem to be a universal characteristic of public discourse nowadays. If the Israel Lobby has the power to shut down public debate, it is because that power is granted to it by others, due to the spiritual affinity I spoke about.
So, Mead would probably flunk me and call me a raving proto-Nazi for not shouting "Disagree!" to all five items. Too bad. I reserve the right to think for myself and to examine evidence, independently of control-freak, Thought Police Gauleiterslike Mead.
