View Story | 136 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
It is not only vague, but it can be based not on a person's own actions, but the viewpoint of others: a person becomes implicated because someone (not necessarily themselves) implicates them, fairly or not.
And beyond that, when you say "Jews are implicated" do you mean "some Jews" or "all Jews"? If you mean "some Jews", your statement is so self-evident as to be meaningless. If you mean "all Jews", then I have to ask whether all Jews aren't equally "implicated" in the Jewish and Jewish-Palestinian organizations whose actions and policies you approve.
Next, we would have to get to the question of who is Jewish enough to be "implicated". Does one have to be religiously observant, culturally identified, or merely Jewish by descent (and then in what percent matrilineally, patrilineally, or both)? Can one who is Jewish by descent cleanse oneself of the taint of "implication", and if so, what does it take?
(On the latter point, I would say that anyone who feels burdened by his or her Jewish identity in view of the experience of the Palestinian people, but who has written extensively and passionately on behalf of the Palestinian cause, ought to consider him/her guilt by implication to have been expunged.
Generalizations, stereotypes and lack of empathy will never lead to wisdom, understanding, non-violence or peace. That is true for Arun Gandhi (who seems to have acknowledged it) and for every Kossack who engages in that kind of "thinking" on any side of any issue.
Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism
by word is bond on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:24:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
the "Jewish" State.
That claim implicates all Jews in its actions.
Yes, We Can
by litho on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM PDT
Israel is the Jewish state. If there were more Jewish states, Israel would be one of the Jewish states.
But as I noted above, "implicate" is a weaselword. It is so ambiguous and elastic that it can apply to almost any relationship. Your use of it is a fudge.
The people who are "implicated" by Israel's actions are its citizens, or at least those citizens who supported the government that took those actions.
The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) both claim to be the Chinese state. Do their (often incompatible) actions "implicate" all overseas Chinese, or all Americans of Chinese descent? Of course not.
Nevertheless, we are asked to believe that any right-thinking person lays a guilt trip on every Jew in the world because of Israel's actions. It follows, we are told, that any Jew who disapproves of those actions has "a duty to do [his/her] best to prevent it from committing oppression". Other diarists have provided information on a large number of organizations in which Jews, or Jews and Palestinians working together, are doing their best to change Israel's actions. Compared to them, the sterile squabbling over I/P diaries by a handful of dKos regulars is hardly a significant contribution.
Since you are likely to insist on having the last word, let me leave you with a question. I have never believed that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but now you make me wonder:
If all Jews are implicated by Israel's actions, isn't criticism of Israel's actions a criticism of all Jews?
by word is bond on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:34:42 PM PDT
Not even worth a response.
by litho on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:15:08 AM PDT
If you see a logical fallacy, you ought to explain what it is.
by word is bond on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:43:24 AM PDT
come back when the diary is fresh.
by litho on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:50:07 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 136 comments