I like the article and the general tone, however....
You say Islam is not an antisemitic religion but go on to mention several people quoting it in a way that looks awfully like it is. I know you would want to avoid the wider implication, but isn't it more likely that the Qur'an and Hadiths can indeed legitimately be interpreted in an anti-semitic fashion, but that most Muslims simply deal with the cognitive dissonance and try their best to ignore those bits in the same way as lots of other bits of any religion that contradict eachother and clash with modern sensibilities?
This is true in the same manner that Christianity, for much of its history, was anti-Judaism which interpreted broadly results in antisemitism.
So Islamic scripture talks about the Jews - we need to remember that a substantial part of the Arab population was Jewish in Mohammeds time so he is talking about actual people in Arabia - and some modern Muslims interpret the commentaries about 7th century Jews in Arabia as a stricture directed at modern Jews.
I thought Christians stole Jerusalem - Kingdom of Jerusalem, Crusades, Knights Templars and I think at one point part of the Angevin Empire. And odd to report, I distinctly remember references to it and it being Jewish in accounts and reports of the Roman occupation of Judea (clue in name), and the Bible accounts of thousands of years ago - whereas the World didn’t benefit from Islam until the 7th Century AD.
Given the whole article, and what those of us who have been paying attention over the years, how do we differentiate non-antisemitic criticism of the IDF, or indeed anything Israel does, from antisemitic criticism?
My start point is it is antisemitism until proven otherwise. (I am not Jewish)
I like the article and the general tone, however....
You say Islam is not an antisemitic religion but go on to mention several people quoting it in a way that looks awfully like it is. I know you would want to avoid the wider implication, but isn't it more likely that the Qur'an and Hadiths can indeed legitimately be interpreted in an anti-semitic fashion, but that most Muslims simply deal with the cognitive dissonance and try their best to ignore those bits in the same way as lots of other bits of any religion that contradict eachother and clash with modern sensibilities?
This is true in the same manner that Christianity, for much of its history, was anti-Judaism which interpreted broadly results in antisemitism.
So Islamic scripture talks about the Jews - we need to remember that a substantial part of the Arab population was Jewish in Mohammeds time so he is talking about actual people in Arabia - and some modern Muslims interpret the commentaries about 7th century Jews in Arabia as a stricture directed at modern Jews.
This is good until your last sentence, which seems to equate any criticism of the IDF with antisemitism.
I see how that might be a take. Might try and rephrase it.
Don’t. It’s fine as it is.
I thought Christians stole Jerusalem - Kingdom of Jerusalem, Crusades, Knights Templars and I think at one point part of the Angevin Empire. And odd to report, I distinctly remember references to it and it being Jewish in accounts and reports of the Roman occupation of Judea (clue in name), and the Bible accounts of thousands of years ago - whereas the World didn’t benefit from Islam until the 7th Century AD.
There is a lot of wilful ignorance abroad.
Given the whole article, and what those of us who have been paying attention over the years, how do we differentiate non-antisemitic criticism of the IDF, or indeed anything Israel does, from antisemitic criticism?
My start point is it is antisemitism until proven otherwise. (I am not Jewish)
There are plenty of difficult cases, but also some easy ones. There is a large Israeli peace movement. They cannot all be self-hating Jews.