[Wikipedia-l] On Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and Richard Wagner

Fri Dec 13 01:55:36 UTC 2002

Robert Kaiser wrote:

>"Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> writes:
>
>>In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel the
>>
>>term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
>>Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own writings.
>>
>>Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly I'm
>>
>>disagreeing with. :)
>>
>
>It seems to me that many people just don't understand what the words mean.
>"Anti-Zionism" is the position that Jews should be forbidden from being
>allowed to have a safe and secure state of their own, but that other groups,
>such as Arabs and Japanese, are allowed to have such a nation. 
>
If my anti-Zionism is founded on the principle that it is wrong to base 
the establishment of any state on religious beliefs, it is not 
anti-semitism.  I also believe that the separation of India and Pakistan 
on religious lines was wrong.  That being said, the bad post-war 
geographysing by the British is an irreversibly done-deal.  Israel and 
Pakistan are now facts of life, whether I like it or not.  I continue to 
believe that both deals were wrong, and to that extent continue to 
consider myself anti-Zionist.

>Anti-Zionism
>is most common among Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the Islamist movement, and various
>anti-Semitic groups, as well as the official position of every armed Islamic
>group that has publicly stated that it wishes to destory the state of Israel
>by force, such as Hamas and Hizbollah. 
>
This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" kind of argument.  Anti-Zionism 
was around before any of these groups were thought of

>It is little wonder that nearly every
>Jew in the world defines this position as anti-Semitic. 
>
Who gave the Jews a monopoly on the definition of "anti-Semitic"

>I count on one hand
>the number of anti-Zionists I have met who are not anti-Semitic.
>
If I understand the situation correctly there are ultra-orthodox Jewish 
anti-Zionists in Israel who believe that Judaism should have nothing to 
do with the apparatus of the state.  This allows them to be exempted 
from Israel's compulsory military service.

>And again, despite the odd persistence of this myth, disagreement with the
>policy of a particular Israeli government has *nothing to do* with
>Anti-Zionism in the slighest. Israelis themselves disagree with each other -
>often and loudly. This is not an anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israeli
>position, in of itself. Using one phrase (disagreement with Israeli policy)
>as a more polite euphamism for the other (Anti-Zionism) has misses the boat
>entirely. These issues aren't even related.
>
On this I agree without any problem.

>There is also a linguistic reality that we need to be cognizant of:
>Anti-Zionism has also become a catchword for antisemitism and has provided
>antisemites with a convenient cloak behind which to conceal their hatred of
>Jews. 
>
So who made it a catchword?  Jewish groups themselves are responsible 
for the linguistic confusion.  Anti-Zionists have always been careful to 
distinguish the terms "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Semitic"  This is a 
fallacy of definition.  It redefines "anti-Zionism" in such a way as to 
make it more insidious than it really is.

>It is well worth remembering the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:
>  "... You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely
>'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain
>tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people
>criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is G-d's own truth...Antisemitism,
>the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of
>mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionism
>is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so."   (From M.L. King Jr.,
>"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review XLVII (Aug. 1967), p.
>76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., This I Believe: Selections from the Writings
>of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (New York, 1971), pp. 234-235.)
>
Without seeing the full context of the MLK quote, I would do better to 
avoid commenting on it.

>>Now, as to real anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all seem out of place to spend,
>>
>>say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a historically important
>>person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
>>lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important.
>>
>I agree. But what if the reason for their historical imporance has to do
>with their anti-Semitism? Richard Wagner, for example, is not only famous
>for writing music. He is just as (in)famous for his life-long preaching of
>anti-Semitism, and his desire to exterminate the Jewish faith. It is a major
>part of his faith, and historians of all stripes admit this. Many books have
>been written about this. For this man, this particular topic is a major
>issue.
>
Although I don't have the knowledge to comment on what Wagner's 
anti-Semitic views really were, I can accept for the sake of this 
discussion that they were indeed severe.  So what?  Most people who have 
heard his music appreciate his music, and don't give a damn about his 
anti-semitism.  His anti-Semetism does not alter the value of his music. 
 The only people who perpetuate this memory of Wagner and his beliefs 
are the anti-anti-semitic zealots.  Without their help Wagner's 
anti-semitism would long ago have fallen under it's own weight into a 
well-deserved oblivion.

>>The key points of a biographical entry, as I think of it, are to hit on a
>>person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
>>contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.
>>
>I agree. And for Wagner, his anti-Semitism was an extremely important part
>of his contribution to German culture.  :(
>
Again, I can't see why so much importance is attributed to it.

>>In sum: if the discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder of
>>
>>the article, it should be reduced (and/or  the rest of the article seriously
>>
>>built up.)  If it's discussed briefly, preferably with mention of the
>>historical context, that seems reasonable.  
>>
>I hope that we all agree that we don't improve encyclopedias by deleting
>information until all sections are of equal length. We improve them by
>recruiting more writers to add more information on topics that require more
>study and more detailed treatments.
>
Snow jobs that give disproportionat importance to a secondary aspect of 
the subject do not improve an article.

Eclecticology