Should Jews carry the same responsibility as non-Jews, for discouraging antisemitism?

[Sherlock Holmes]

If a non-Jew makes public statements that could lead to persecution of Jews then we must condemn such statements.

But if Jews who make statements that could also lead to persecution of Jews? shouldn't those statements be condemned too?

An example is the former campaign manager Matthew Brodsky who posted on Twitter that Israel should carpet bomb and drop napalm on Irish peacekeepers. The same person also posted

"I hope every one of those useless POS Irishmen are blasted to bits"

Such remarks surely endanger Jews living in Ireland or close to Irish communities.

 

[rosends]

If a non-Jew makes public statements that could lead to persecution of Jews then we must condemn such statements.

But if Jews who make statements that could also lead to persecution of Jews? shouldn't those statements be condemned too?

An example of the former campaign manager Matthew Brodsky who posted on Twitter that Israel should carpet bomb and drop napalm on Irish peacekeepers. The same person also posted

"I hope every one of those useless POS Irishmen are blasted to bits"

Such remarks surely endanger Jews living in Ireland or close to Irish communities.

View attachment 1026260

it is not a simple question for a few reasons. One is that since there is (as recent posts have shown) no agreed upon definition of anti-semitism. I like one definition and would use that when deciding if what anyone (Jew or not) says is problematic.

The next problem is regarding who gets to decide what will "lead" to anti-Semitism. I walk outside with a skull cap on and someone could see my existence as leading to anti-Semitism and so I should have to hide my identity. Part of the problem is that hatred is irrational. This Brodsky guy made a hateful and evil statement but it wasn't a function of his Judaism, nor does his Judaism have anything to do with it (at least no connection is apparent in the posted material). As such, anyone who thinks to criticize him because he is Jewish is taking an unrelated fact and letting it drive the response. People can therefore be driven by ANYTHING any Jew does to hate in return and (irrationally) tie it to the Jewish element of the person's identity even if they are not connected.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

it is not a simple question for a few reasons. One is that since there is (as recent posts have shown) no agreed upon definition of anti-semitism. I like one definition and would use that when deciding if what anyone (Jew or not) says is problematic.

The next problem is regarding who gets to decide what will "lead" to anti-Semitism. I walk outside with a skull cap on and someone could see my existence as leading to anti-Semitism and so I should have to hide my identity. Part of the problem is that hatred is irrational. This Brodsky guy made a hateful and evil statement but it wasn't a function of his Judaism, nor does his Judaism have anything to do with it (at least no connection is apparent in the posted material). As such, anyone who thinks to criticize him because he is Jewish is taking an unrelated fact and letting it drive the response. People can therefore be driven by ANYTHING any Jew does to hate in return and (irrationally) tie it to the Jewish element of the person's identity even if they are not connected.

The question was should Jew and non-Jew be held to the same standard (whatever that standard might be) or not.

 

[rosends]

The question was should Jew and non-Jew be held to the same standard (whatever that standard might be) or not.

Except that, as we know from other cultural groups, in-members often coopt language and use slang which, if used by others, would be unacceptable. In-members are held to a different standard generally.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Except that, as we know from other cultural groups, in-members often coopt language and use slang which, if used by others, would be unacceptable. In-members are held to a different standard generally.

So this implies that its not antisemitic for a Jew to make public remarks that could lead to other Jews being put in danger, but it is antisemitic for a non-Jew to make public remarks that could lead to Jews being put in danger?

I'd have the thought the potential victims of such talk would not benefit from this double standard.

 

[rosends]

So this implies that its not antisemitic for a Jew to make public remarks that could lead to other Jews being put in danger, but it is antisemitic for a non-Jew to make public remarks that could lead to Jews being put in danger.

what it actually means is that there are times when a Jew's saying something shouldn't lead to putting anyone in danger, but a non-Jew saying the same thing could.

Ice Cube slams Maher: N-word is 'our word'

Ice Cube sat with Bill Maher and did not hold back over his use of the N-word.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

what it actually means is that there are times when a Jew's saying something shouldn't lead to putting anyone in danger, but a non-Jew saying the same thing could.

Ice Cube slams Maher: N-word is 'our word'

Ice Cube sat with Bill Maher and did not hold back over his use of the N-word.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Yes, I'm familiar with that spat.

Would you agree that the remark by Brodsky is a kind of inverted antisemitism?

By which I mean, this said by a non-Jew would be antisemitic:

"I hope every one of those useless POS Jews are blasted to bits"

and that therefore this said by a Jew

"I hope every one of those useless POS Irishmen are blasted to bits"

Is equally reprehensible? and that neither be more tolerable than the other?