Skip to main content

View Diary: Canadian PM redefines Anti-Semitism in Israel (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You provide a good example of the Livingstone (0+ / 0-)

    Formulation. As explained by David Hirsch, the Livingstone Formulation is "a rhetorical formulation which is sometimes deployed in response to an accusation of antisemitism, particularly when it relates to discourse which is of the form of criticism of Israel. This formulation is a defensive response which deploys a counter-accusation that the person raising the issue of antisemitism is doing so in bad faith and dishonestly."

    First, however, I want to note that I was careful to write that "being against Jim Crow in the American south did not necessarily mean one was anti-American[.]"

    Hirsch notes:

    ... It is widely accepted in the sociological literature on racism, and also in the practice of antiracist movements, that racism is often unintended and that social actors who are involved are often unconscious of the racism with which they are perhaps complicit or of which they are unconscious ‘carriers’. Antiracists are generally comfortable with the concepts of institutional, structural and discursive racism and they are comfortable with the idea that discourses, structures and institutions can be racist in effect, objectively, even in the absence of any subjective racist intent on the part of social actors. Yet a common response to the raising of the issue of antisemitism in relation to discourses concerning criticism of Israel is that if there is no antisemitic intent then there can be no antisemitism. Antisemitism is implicitly, then, often defined differently from other racisms as requiring an element of intent.
    In a paper on the subject, the second link above, Hirsch writes that The Livingstone Formulation
    is defined by the presence of two elements. Firstly the conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel with what are alleged to be demonizing, exclusionary or antisemitic discourses or actions; secondly, the presence of the counter-accusation that the raisers of the issue of antisemitism do so with dishonest intent, in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. The allegation is that the accuser chooses to 'play the antisemitism card' rather than to relate seriously to, or to refute, criticisms of Israel. While the issue of antisemitism is certainly sometimes raised in an unjustified way, and may even be raised in bad faith, the Livingstone Formulation may appear as a response to any discussion of contemporary antisemitism.

    Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

    by another American on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:20:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  But you are acting in bad faith. (0+ / 0-)

      The only thing you have, which is pathetic, is criticism of the act of criticizing.  Can't you argue on the merits of the argument (which is indefensible) instead of acting like an irrational troll trying to divert the topic by implying that anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-semetic?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site