Definition of Anti-Semite : Someone Who Hates Jewish People

[robrecht]

Maybe you didn't see it, but he also used the term "final solution" when talking about Jews in a another thread.

Yes, I did see that, but I have not had time to read that thread in its entirety nor to respond to any posts there.

[elam]

I'm not talking about any particular branches of Zionism; I'm talking about your presumed authority to determine who is and who is not a Jew.

I don't determine anyone's bloodline. That is a Rabbi's prerogative.

To be a Jew as defined by the Jewish authorities is not to undergo circumcision, or perform some religious ritual, memorial etc it is solely based on whether your mother has an unbroken maternal line of Jews, or your mother has undergone the long process of conversion.

According to the Jewish authorities if your Father's mother was Jewish, but your mother is a non-Jew who hasn't undergone the long process of conversion then he is a Jew you are not.

According to the Jewish authorities if you are female and your mother is/was a Jew (or you have undergone the long process of conversion) and you marry a non-Jew then your children are considered Jewish even if you raise them as a Christian, Muslim, Taoist or whatever. The female line never losses their status of being Jewish. The male line will need to marry someone with the Jewish blood-line for your grand-children to be considered Jewish.

The above is the official Rabbinic position. Societally things can be very different...no matter how good your blood-line might be, other Jews might reject you for not being Jewish enough eg: if on a hot Shabbat day you open your fridge, unscrew a bottle, pour the fluid into a glass, and lift the glass to your mouth, for some Jews you will have committed multiple offenses. A righteous Jew takes neither food nor drink on a Shabbat day.

Question: What is your definition of "Jew"? Does your definition conform to Jewish perceptions?

[robrecht]

I don't determine anyone's bloodline. That is a Rabbi's prerogative.

To be a Jew as defined by the Jewish authorities is not to undergo circumcision, or perform some religious ritual, memorial etc it is solely based on whether your mother has an unbroken maternal line of Jews, or your mother has undergone the long process of conversion.

According to the Jewish authorities if your Father's mother was Jewish, but your mother is a non-Jew who hasn't undergone the long process of conversion then he is a Jew you are not.

According to the Jewish authorities if you are female and your mother is/was a Jew (or you have undergone the long process of conversion) and you marry a non-Jew then your children are considered Jewish even if you raise them as a Christian, Muslim, Taoist or whatever. The female line never losses their status of being Jewish. The male line will need to marry someone with the Jewish blood-line for your grand-children to be considered Jewish.

The above is the official Rabbinic position. Societally things can be very different...no matter how good your blood-line might be, other Jews might reject you for not being Jewish enough eg: if on a hot Shabbat day you open your fridge, unscrew a bottle, pour the fluid into a glass, and lift the glass to your mouth, for some Jews you will have committed multiple offenses. A righteous Jew takes neither food nor drink on a Shabbat day.

Question: What is your definition of "Jew"? Does your definition conform to Jewish perceptions?

I recognize the right of various branches of Judaism to define Jewish identity in various manners. For example, Karaite and Reform Judaism do recognize a role of patrilineal descent in determining who is and who is not a Jew in their views. You have not determined anyone's bloodline, but you have attempted to exclude anyone who supports some form(s) of zionism from being Jews--is that not correct?

[Leonhard]

I wouldn't use 'tainted' or 'final solution' either.

Though Cerebrum123, you should mention that he didn't use 'final solution' in terms of what the Nazi did, but about the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jewish people in 70AD.

[Cerebrum123]

I wouldn't use 'tainted' or 'final solution' either.

Though Cerebrum123, you should mention that he didn't use 'final solution' in terms of what the Nazi did, but about the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jewish people in 70AD.

I don't really see how it matters. It's at minimum very, very bad taste to be using such terms given Jewish history, at worst it's anti-Semitic. elam's posts have a trend that seems to be heading towards the latter.

[Leonhard]

I don't really see how it matters. It's at minimum very, very bad taste to be using such terms given Jewish history, at worst it's anti-Semitic. elam's posts have a trend that seems to be heading towards the latter.

I have already agreed with you that it is distasteful. However as to whether elam is anti-semitic, care to be specific? What, that's he's saying, is anti-semitic?

Would you call me anti-semitic for my criticisms of the State of Israel?

[elam]

Why do you use the word 'tainted'?

Nothing sinister in the word. It just refers to something added to the human condition. That is: man was created in the image and likeness of God but...

The word "tainted" encompasses a range of Jewish ideas. Imu, the term explains why the Jews have suffered over the centuries. Imu, it refers to the curse of God that every Jew must acknowledge they are under. Because of Ezekiel 18:20 Jews don't hold to the concept of inherited sin so HaShem must have added something to the fates (soul?).

If you are RCC then the idea is fully understandable. In the RCC we do not accept the Calvanist idea that mankind became fully corrupt (totally depraved) because of Adam's disobedience to God. In the RCC we believe our soul (as the seat of reason) became blemished (tainted) by Adam's sin, and once we are perfected God will remove that blemish.

Of course, Jews reject the doctrine of Original Sin. Below is a link to "Outreach Judaism" that examines both the Calvanist & Jewish position.
https://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/

[robrecht]

Nothing sinister in the word. ...

Read the definition I posted. Use of such words can be responsible for some people thinking that you have anti-semitic views.

[Cerebrum123]

I have already agreed with you that it is distasteful. However as to whether elam is anti-semitic, care to be specific? What, that's he's saying, is anti-semitic?

Would you call me anti-semitic for my criticisms of the State of Israel?

I said with what he's said so far it's trending towards the latter. It's not a stretch when someone makes distasteful remarks* about a certain group, repeatedly, doesn't like said group.

*"tainted", "final solution", and another term I've never heard from anyone that wasn't anti-Semitic "Jewry".

[robrecht]

... According to my Jewish friends you can either be a Zionist or a Jew, you can't be both! ...

... Religious Jews as a general rule dislike the Zionists. ...

... I'm not even against Zionism per se. I would support the benevolence of Hovevei Zion but I am dead set against Revisionist Zionism as founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky and which gave rise to terrorist groups such as the Irgun. ...

... I can't see it happening while the Zionists (as opposed to Jews) demand recognition of a Jews only state...

... I'm still deciding my status concerning Zionism - I'm divided - some advocates I'd support (eg: the Utopians), some I wouldn't (eg: the terrorist branches), some I'm half-hearted about (eg: the Marxist = the kibbutzniks).

elam, if you do not want to be perceived as holding anti-semitic views, you should also be more careful about how you sometimes use the words zionist/zionism. You sometimes display some awareness of its many forms and manifestations in history, but other times you used it as a blanket way of determining who is and who is not truly Jewish. It is the latter usage, to which I have objected.

[elam]

Maybe you didn't see it, but he also used the term "final solution" when talking about Jews in a another thread.

Obviously you missed the context.

From the late 19th century Jews were persecuted in most European states, it started in Russia and then spread to Poland, France, Germany etc. Jews attempted to flee to anywhere they might feel safe.

Meanwhile the British were busy sinking or sabotaging Jewish refugee boats heading for the middle east (the allies needed the Arabs on-side. At first to access their oil and come 1939 to ensure they didn't side with the axis powers).

In the 1930s & 1940s the USA turned away Jewish refugee boats diverting them to Latin America. The main reason for this is the USA had taken in huge numbers of Jewish refugees in the early 20th century and because of this there was social unrest.

Strangely, only Imperial Japan welcomed the Jews, settling them in occupied Manchuria & Shanghai.

When WW2 ended and the full extent of the holocaust was realised, the Europeans came up with their final solution to what they saw as the Jewish problem = partition Mandated Palestine and allow the Jews to establish a Zionist state and encourage the European Jews to immigrate to the new state. Israel was established in 1948.

It is just factual history, readily verifiable. I simply use the terminology of academia. Europe wanted to rid itself of the Jews, and they came up with a solution that they saw as their last option...

Other than that, there is nothing special about the term.

[robrecht]

Obviously you missed the context.

From the late 19th century Jews were persecuted in most European states, it started in Russia and then spread to Poland, France, Germany etc. Jews attempted to flee to anywhere they might feel safe.

Meanwhile the British were busy sinking or sabotaging Jewish refugee boats heading for the middle east (the allies needed the Arabs on-side. At first to access their oil and come 1939 to ensure they didn't side with the axis powers).

In the 1930s & 1940s the USA turned away Jewish refugee boats diverting them to Latin America. The main reason for this is the USA had taken in huge numbers of Jewish refugees in the early 20th century and because of this there was social unrest.

Strangely, only Imperial Japan welcomed the Jews, settling them in occupied Manchuria & Shanghai.

When WW2 ended and the full extent of the holocaust was realised, the Europeans came up with their final solution to what they saw as the Jewish problem = partition Mandated Palestine and allow the Jews to establish a Zionist state and encourage the European Jews to immigrate to the new state. Israel was established in 1948.

It is just factual history, readily verifiable. I simply use the terminology of academia. Europe wanted to rid itself of the Jews, and they came up with a solution that they saw as their last option...

Other than that, there is nothing special about the term.

Persecution of Jews in Europe began much earlier than 19th century Russia.

[elam]

Read the definition I posted. Use of such words can be responsible for some people thinking that you have anti-semitic views.

Heh, "tainted" is totally inoffensive to all Christians - original sin is core to our central doctrines. My Jewish friends introduced the term to me to explain to me why each Jewish individual perceives that they have been "marked" by HaShem for suffering. I'll doubt any Jew would contest the term when used in the context I have previously given.

I'm not interested in the sensibilities of some delicate petals who will find offense at words rather than than the injustices they regularly see on TV.

One of the definitions you provided for "tainted" does fit my Jewish friends context...

* affect with a bad or undesirable quality.
"his existence was tainted by suffering".

[robrecht]

Obviously you missed the context.

From the late 19th century Jews were persecuted in most European states, it started in Russia and then spread to Poland, France, Germany etc. Jews attempted to flee to anywhere they might feel safe.

Meanwhile the British were busy sinking or sabotaging Jewish refugee boats heading for the middle east (the allies needed the Arabs on-side. At first to access their oil and come 1939 to ensure they didn't side with the axis powers).

In the 1930s & 1940s the USA turned away Jewish refugee boats diverting them to Latin America. The main reason for this is the USA had taken in huge numbers of Jewish refugees in the early 20th century and because of this there was social unrest.

Strangely, only Imperial Japan welcomed the Jews, settling them in occupied Manchuria & Shanghai.

When WW2 ended and the full extent of the holocaust was realised, the Europeans came up with their final solution to what they saw as the Jewish problem = partition Mandated Palestine and allow the Jews to establish a Zionist state and encourage the European Jews to immigrate to the new state. Israel was established in 1948.

It is just factual history, readily verifiable. I simply use the terminology of academia. Europe wanted to rid itself of the Jews, and they came up with a solution that they saw as their last option...

Other than that, there is nothing special about the term.

Of course there is something special about the term, otherwise you would not use it in quotation marks. The first context in which you used the term was this:

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I suspect Israel took retribution out on the Palestinians living in the territories captured in 1967. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled to nearby countries as refugees. From an international perspective Zionist Israel (not Jewish Israel) is pursuing a "final solution" for the Palestinians. Link Again, here.

That you purposefully used this term to hearken back to Nazi attempts to exterminate Jews, and not in reference to the recreation of a Jewish homeland, is obvious from your very next reference to a "final solution":

... Israel was established as Europe's solution to the Jewish problem. Many European countries were sympathetic to the Nazi point of view and that persists despite the Holocaust. Israel is a sitting target for anyone that wants to impose "the final solution" on the Jews, and conveniently 43.4% are stuck in one place, surrounded by unfriendlies. ...

Next you offered your own religious interpretation of what you believe to be God's 'final solution' for the Jews:

As far as I am aware, HaShem never indicated a return of the Jews to the Promised Land once His final solution was implemented. In His mercy He'd already given them multiple chances. So I would estimate that what we are witnessing is the will of man and the subterfuge of the ungodly powers.

As I suggested earlier: have a read of Josephus' the Jewish Wars. Also have a read of his The Antiquities of the Jews. They are available online.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/histo...vius-josephus/

From where I sit, the Jews in general haven't changed a bit...so I don't perceive HaShem would sanction their resettlement of the lands He had allocated to them.

And again here.

Only then did you disingenuously claim that you were merely using 'standard terminology used in academia & diplomacy'.

It is the standard terminology used in academia & diplomacy - and regularly used by the Jews. Get a thicker skin...

[elam]

Persecution of Jews in Europe began much earlier than 19th century Russia.

Sure, but according to the Jewish Virtual Library previously the persecutions were localised and had little impact on emigration. The persecutions in Czarist Russia were national and caused mass emigration...