During my .. brief awokenness this afternoon, I happened to peruse the newspaper. And what did I see? Pieces commenting on the recent attack at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. This is, of course, to be expected. But what was *not*, like *at all* to be expected, was the escalating level of accusations in relation to the attack that Donald Trump… is apparently an anti-semite.
I mean … this is ludicrous. Like, I am not wild about many of the things the President has done either inside or outside of office (more on that in a moment), but it just seems straight-up counterfactual to level s uch a charge at him.
Some might respond to allegations of being anti- this or that race by claiming they have “[x-race] friends”, or even “some of my best friends are [x]”. Trump’s daughter ‘converted’ (insofar as such a thing is held possible) to Judaism, unless I am mistaken, as part of her marriage efforts to Jared Kushner. The same man who, perhaps because he has such influence over Trump as his warmly-regarded son-in-law, took up a prime position in the White House at the very heart of the Trump Administration – from whence he forced out Steve Bannon, from whence he negotiated a huge arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and from whence he has continued to exercise a capacious (and I would argue, destructive) influence over the Administration’s policy.
If Trump really were an anti-semite, this would be a peculiar state of affairs to have happen.
Speaking of Trump’s personal associations – even CNN (and seriously, how did we reach a point wherein CNN is a voice of reason ??) – was at pains to point out that “Many of Trump’s past business associates and lawyers are Jewish”, and therefore that “it’s not credible to argue he is an anti-Semite.”
Not least, I suppose, because one of Trump’s first actions upon hearing of the attack was to vigorously denounce it *as* an anti-semitic action, and to vitriolically castigate anti-semitism as a “vile hate-filled poison”, “one of the ugliest and darkest features of human history.”
Because that’s what anti-semites do, right? Talk stridently and without equivocation *against* anti-semitism?
Further, when we look at Trump’s foreign policy, we do not see actions against Israel or Israeli allies. Instead – quite the contrary. We see some of the most pro-Israel stances of any President of the past few decades. Who else would have moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem? Who else would have torn up the Iranian nuclear deal in order to lock-step support Netanyahu-s wide-eyed and white-walled conspiratorial claims on the subject? And who else would have uncritically put such screws upon aid to Palestinian refugees and representative organizations while carrying out missile bombardment of one of the few effective opponents to Israeli regional hegemony. (ok, well, to be fair, Clinton would probably have gone a bit further on that last score … putatively all the way to Damascus, even)
In terms of Trump’s actions, rhetoric, and associations, I am afraid I am just not seeing how he is supposedly “anti-semitic”.
Indeed, quite the contrary – “philo-semitic” may be a more accurate label.
Yet what “evidence” was put forward to support or endeavour to substantiate this particular charge? Well, the implicit thrust no doubt, goes something like this:
“Trump is a Nazi, therefore OF COURSE he’s an anti-semite! Can’t be a non-anti-semite Nazi!”
But of course you can’t *say* that … because it’s plainly non-sensical (although there’s some rather interesting material in Hannah Arendt’s ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’ on a somewhat related note … we’ll uh .. we’ll leave that for now).
So apart from the general “has stoked national tensions” route (which is peculiar, because you would think that Trump stirring up *anti-Islamic* sentiment, particularly with regard to Israeli security concerns, would be *the opposite* of anti-semitic…?) ; it would appear that he is being attacked for, among other things, speaking about the level of power that big US financial institutions have over both American politics and the American – and therefore global – economies.
Which is … odd, because that’s … not exactly untrue.
I do note with interest, furthermore, that he was one of only two ‘major’ Presidential candidates to be proposing the restoration of the Glass-Steagall legislation which sought to keep more risky ‘Wall St’ investment banking activities separate from ‘Main St’ savings-and-loan institutions (inter alia – I’m simplifying drastically; suffice to say, its abrogation under the Clinton Administration was one of the direct underpinnings of the Global Financial Crisis in the late 2000s).
The other candidate, of course, being Bernie Sanders – who did not shy away from making very similar piquant observations. And, to be fair, who occasionally got attacked as an anti-semite … but with a lot less pick-up and cut-through because he is, of course, also Jewish.
A further area Trump has been attacked upon, has been the way in which he has rhetorically castigated George Soros in 140 characters or less from time to time. Now, certainly, it is possible to attack Soros in a manner that is plainly, blatantly anti-semitic. It is also possible to attack Soros in a manner that is more ‘covertly’, anti-semitic.
But it is *also* possible, as it happens, to simply speak against him on grounds that he is a billionaire “liberal activist” (this is literally how he was described in terms of occupation in the newspaper i was reading earlier – which was endeavouring to be favourable toward Soros and oppositional toward Trump), who regularly makes very large donations to the causes that he likes.
Nobody disputes that this happens. And if one is opposed to these causes – for example, because the guy is donating to rival political candidates … then does it axiomatically become anti-semitic to state the actual fact that a wealthy figure is making large financial contributions to political causes?
Would it still be anti-semitic if Soros was an Anglo-Saxon WASP doing exactly the same thing? Under the apparent ‘logic’ these people are using … quite probably so, as the thematic trope of a wealthy financier responsible for propelling a world-view is apparently intrinsically a Jewish stereotype or something.
Without wishing to support in any way, actual anti-semitic in character, content, and motivation attacks against Soros … allow me to suggest something different:
Namely, that the penalty for large-scale participation in politics is to be attacked for it. It is an inevitable part of involvement in the political – much more, the psephological – game.
This does *not* mean that all attacks are valid or are to be allowed. As I have said, the ones based purely around somebody’s notional ethnic heritage alone, can very much be vigorously opposed. And for that reason alone, surely.
But it appears at this juncture that the people seeking to have Trump hung as an anti-semite, on the basis of his attacking a wealthy donor who has made generous contributions to his opposition … are wishing to ‘have cake and eat it too’. By implicitly stating that Soros (or anyone else for that matter – provided they are anti-Trump, I presume) should be allowed to engage in politics, and *make* such large-scale contributions to the field of same … but be utterly immune to and above any form of scrutiny or criticism *whatsoever*, on grounds that to be anything other than supportive is implicitly anti-semitic.
A moment’s consideration will reveal the trenchant problem with this maxim in practice.
Now once again – don’t get me wrong. Trump is many things, and many of these are elements to both his personhood and his political persona and platform which can, should, and *must* be most *vigorously opposed*.
But he is *not*, unless I have catastrophically misread something, or the definition of “anti-semitism” has changed to “what a certain portion of liberal commentators seem to think, and never mind what a pretty large proportion of what, say, the Israeli population actually believe” … he is *not* an anti-semite.
To insist, by contrast, that he *is* , in spite of all the available counter-veiling evidence … and upon some excessively flimsy pretenses … is surely to ‘cheapen’ the term. And in so doing, to actually *help* the *real* anti-semites out there by de-valuing the charge.
But hey, never mind that – there’s political points to be scored and everybody responds to a Nazi comparison! Implicit or outright!
‘Anti-semitic’ is a shutdown, polarising term, in the same barrel of rotten apples as ‘racist’.
Shorthand and a quick way to identify fellow travellers.
Basic human laziness, which causes more trouble than it solves. Talking ‘fear’ because that kicks in before rational thought.
Trump doesn’t need to speak in Obama- or Clinton-type gorgeous sentences. He’s just about ‘binaural beats’ and his listeners fill in the gaps from their own inner narratives.
‘A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.’
Andrea: “‘Anti-semitic’ is a shutdown, polarising term, in the same barrel of rotten apples as ‘racist’.”
Exactly. It’s intellectual laziness of the most egregious sort.
“Anti Semite” is screeched when a dissenting view is stated. Subsequently whenever I hear the term these days I am highly suspicious of whomever is doing the screeching.
The endless badge of victimhood will continue to be used in this fashion unless and until it loses all power to direct narrative back onto critics.
We live in one of the most peaceful places on earth so let’s not let anyone interfere with our peace.
I take it your awokeness was alluding to being awake and not woke. Yeah, it’s not Trump who is to blame. Like with many wrongs in the world the blame for the attack can be laid at the feet of that renowned anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn. Guardian columnist Christina Patterson accused Corbyn of “encouraging a climate” of antisemitism. Appearing live on Sky News on the same day as the attack, Patterson also likened Corbyn to Donald Trump, a president who has hired alleged white nationalists.
Champagne socialists really hate Corbyn, I think they are frightened.
Jeremy Corban is hardly anti jewish as he is Jewish.
He is against the crimes perpetrated on the Palestinians as any for minded thinking person would be.
The stupid shut down cry of anti semitism is pathetic but people have learned to be in fear of such nonsense. Arabs and many other are semetic.
Anti Muslim, anti Christian, anti religion and many other antis can be leveled unfairly by anyone, but that does not give credibility to such claims.
Interesting background facts:
“This shooting comes amid a steady increase in anti-Semitic incidents and hate crimes since the 2016 presidential campaign season and, in particular, the inauguration of Donald Trump.
The FBI found that in 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, there had been an increase of almost 5 percent in hate crimes since 2015, and 10 percent since 2014. Of the 1,273 crimes for which the FBI found a motivation of religious hatred (about 20 percent of the total), half were against Jews.
In 2017, the last year for which complete data is available, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an advocacy group dedicated to combating anti-Semitism, found that there had been 1,986 reported anti-Semitic incidents in the United States that year, including acts of vandalism as well as physical violence. That figure was a 57 percent increase from 2016, which itself had seen a 35 percent uptick in incidents from 2015.
The surge between 2016 and 2017 was the highest increase in incidents on record since the ADL started reporting on them in 1979. Between mid-2015 and mid-2016, as the 2016 presidential campaign reached a fever pitch, more than 800 journalists received a staggering 19,000 anti-Semitic messages on Twitter.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/27/18032250/pittsburgh-synagogue-tree-of-life-shooting-antisemitism-soros
Except that blaming your problems on George Soros is well known to be antisemitic code. Trump does not critique Soros for being a billionaire, he critiques him using the same language and ideas as prominent anti-semites do. The difference is, like most antisemites in power, Trump doesn’t believe the bullshit he propagates. He spreads antisemitic messages purely because part of his support base are antisemitic. Discussing his former business partners etc is utterly irrelevent. We don’t care what his personal feelings are, we care about whose hate he stokes.
Who exactly is calling Trump an anti-semite? You’ve constructed an entire article out of a strawman.
Nobody that I’m aware has outright called him an anti-Semite because just as Curwen’s article says – that is completely absurd.
However plenty on the liberal/left have blamed him for the attack:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-central-premise-of-his-presidency-critics-say-trump-has-fostered-the-toxic-environment-for-the-political-violence-he-denounces/2018/10/27/cd45e43e-da1e-11e8-a10f-b51546b10756_story.html?utm_term=.b7a4642b14ae
In fact it has been leading Democrats and mainstream media that have fuelled the toxic atmosphere in the USA today. Ever since his election they have egged on extremists and impressionable youth to physically attack their opponents.
?????!!!!! I require evidence that any leading democrat and/or MSM outlet have incited anyone to physical violence. I’m aware of recommendations of in-your-face protests like the various restaurant showdowns against prominent WH staffers, but I’m unaware of any physical contact taking place in any instance. Anything even slightly resembling this news seems to have entirely evaded my personal echochamber.
Meanwhile I recall Trumps own unambiguous calls to violence against protesters during his election campaign, and his numerous denials and defenses of violent hate groups and individuals since.
However, like others here I’m a tad perplexed by this article even being written, being again entirely unaware of any narratives popular or otherwise claiming he’s antisemitic. It’s akin to saying ‘say what you like about Simon Bridges, he doesn’t persecute Hindus’. A lengthy defense against a premise noone was promoting.
Trump is not anti-Semite as he is not against Jews.
But as a Zionist he shares its anti-Semitism against Arabs.
Trump may not be “anti-semitic” per se, but his nationalist, right-wing, racist rhetoric is sufficient to embolden the far-right. His love affair with Fiox News speaks volumes. His close rerlationship with Hannity should ring alarm bells. And his reluctance to condemn neo-nazis in Charlottesville where a woman was killed by a white supremacist thug indicates who his support base is.
No, he’s not publicly “ant-semitic” per se. He doesn’t need to be
Louis Farrakhan recently referred to Jews as “termites” (in a life long hatred of Jews)
He’s a mate of Obama and the Clinton’s
I have seen zero evidence that Trump is anti-Semitic. But who needs evidence? Trump is “literally Hitler”, and the Russians hacked the election, so we are told.
Let’s also note that the Gab profile of the shooter in Pittsburgh also showed him repeatedly claiming that he didn’t support Trump, because he believed Trump is a Zionist plant.
Trump may not be an anti-semite however a group of his supporters are. He could have denounced this group after Charlottesville but he didnt. Instead saying there were good people on both sides, this can only lead to those people thinking they are now in the right. He is not responsible for their actions but he needs to be aware his actions can encourage these people.
So Trump needs to denounce followers who he may not have met, yet Obama can be seen publicly enjoying the company of Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti Semite
Mjolnir is right and that is exactly why so many in Pittsburg want Trump to stay away. They’re not calling him anti-Semitic but that his hate speech creates an environment for people to hate, for white nationalists to attack minority groups. Knarf is right in that your blog is pissing in the wind.
Calling Stormy Daniels “Horseface” on Twitter is tactless, but hardly hate speech
As for Charlottesville, the whole gig looked like a setup to me. Which former “Occupy” supporter suddenly becomes a White Nationalist?
Apparently anyone who is not a zionist is anti semitic. Even the jews who do not believe in settlement expansion are anti semitic.
Its like anyone who believes in pluralism is racist.
Or anyone who believes in immigration controls is xenophobic.
There are so many terms of abuse by fascists who have overused and misused terms so much they are now meaningless.
Beware the person who uses “anti Semitic” as a description.
Comments are closed.