h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Can I claim me belonging to a minority makes me more vulnerable?

i have read many times claims against some criticism about the state of Israel because it was considered anti-semitic propaganda.

It seems that any criticism to a part is taken as an attack against The whole group, with the bonus of ' we are a minority' as it happens in the case of the jews.

This is the mainstream, hegemónic treatment of any piece of news about the Israel government.

What makes vulnerable a group like those? How can you critise without fueling social phobias?

This issue has deep historical roots.

Saint Augustine and Napoleon, among others, wave weighed in on the issue of how Jews should be regarded by non-Jews. I believe that both the above-mentioned were doing the best they could doing tumultuous times. Saint Augustine, for instance, was reacting against some contemporaries who believed that the Christian God would want the Jews to die because they did not support Christ. Instead, Saint Augustine wanted the Jews to survive but not prosper. For the times that was relatively enlightened, I imagine.
http://www.olspdx.org/church-history-36.html

(The Jewish diaspora began around 70 C.E., while Saint Augustine was not born until 354.)

The Napoleonic Code established the primacy of civil laws over religious one. For the Jews, this meant freedom to live outside their ghettoes.
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/h/48945221.html

North of France there were a number of nation-states which would later become Germany. Here is what happened when Napoleon conquered one of these:
"When Napoleon conquered Westphalen, a German principality, he imposed these regulations on the Germans as well, so that after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1814, the German Jews were legally equal to other Germans. That, however, did not last long. The Germans could not tolerate Jewish equality but did keep the French imposed laws 'on the books'"
http://jbuff.com/c070104.htm

So, looking at this with a very long historical lens, you can imagine what all of this would mean to you if your ancestors had been Jewish. Things would be pretty much all right for you if you were in France or North Africa (whence large numbers of Jews were deported by the Romans in the First century C.E.), but let's not talk about being on the margins in the German states -- i.e. being a member of two societies at once, but not really welcomed. The welcome m,at would turn into something far darker in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, followed by another mass movement of Jews to their new nation-state in the late 1940s.

Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of some, and it can do no right in the eyes of others. Acknowledgement of what the individual people are like is apt to take second place to these huge historical and political concepts that seem to swarm constantly.

The dust will not settle in our time, as Samuel Beckett said.

I never knew any Jewish people until I went away to college, and thoroughly enjoyed knowing the ones I met there. As for the state of Israel, I hope it will continue to survive (and, yes, even prosper) for many reasons:

1. It is quite forward-thinking compared with some of its neighbors. In terms of technology, it is highly advanced.

2. Israel comes closer to being a true democracy than any other countries in its region.

At the same time, I hope that there can be a moderation in some aspects of its activities on the West Bank. I'm not going to say more about this, however, because it involves what individuals have done there, not (or not *just*) the state itself.

I agree with you that it ought to be possible to criticize any country in the world for its policies or actions if you wish. It will be harder to criticize Israel than some other countries, though, because of these huge issues that have been around for thousands of years.

The world is a strange place.....

Recently, there was an outcry because of a cartoon : http://mondoweiss.net/2019/05/controversial-cartoon-reporters/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/12/new-york-times-cartoonists-ban-antisemitism

It was considered antisemitic because there were jewish symbols. In The cartoon , Netanyahu is a dog that leads a blind man, Trump. The dog has a David star and Trump a jewish ítem for the head.
The criticism is about how the far right in the israelí government is leading the actions of another far-rightwinger, Trump. Quite a mild criticism if you see the big business the belic industry means for both countries. Or the recent agreement to develop several business in the settlements. Or to name it properly, stolen lands from Palestinian people.

I don´t think Israel state is a democracy. It has the appearence of it, but it isn´t. It is an apartheid state. the White supremacism is even applied to those jews who aren´t White, like Iraqui, arabs, black… jews.

It is a funny coincidence how much friendly is the relationship of fascists like Bolsonaro, Orban, Trump... with Netanyahu and the israeli far-right.

Since 1948 the decolonization from the British Empire meant the neocolonization of Palestine.

Without equality and justice in those lands we can´t call it democracy, it´s an ethnocracy, a colonialist democracy based in a persistent genocide.

Crimes must be told, and so far, Israeli power transform any criticism into an antisemitic attack.

Here's a discussion of Israel's claim to be a democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state

"Ethnocracy" is a fairly apt word. The Jews in Israeli seem to feel that the country can be a democracy. The Arab inhabitants tend to disagree.

So, where can a country fall on the spectrum that runs through totalitarian state, monarchy, plutocracy, republic, democracy, etc.?

I don't think we can call Israeli a monarchy.

The sovereign is the entire community of citizens.

By comparison, many of the countries near Israel are monarchies: Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the UAE. Libya and Syria have dictators. Montesquieu saw the Muslim Middle East as an incorrigible land of despots.

My advice to Israel would be to move the country outside the Middle east so that the negative influences that buffet the area will not give them so many reasons for paranoia and defensiveness. Thinking things through logically is hard when you fear for your future.

Then, perhaps, it could move closer to real democracy.

Not that moving is possible. Again and again, the crushing weight of history stifles much that could be better.

"Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of some, and it can do no right in the eyes of others. "

Not accurate. Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of some, and is actively engaged in war crimes in the eyes of, y'know, people who acknowledge what the recorded facts mean. It's not that they "can do no right", it's that they're actively enforcing apartheid with helicopter gunships. This is NOT a "six of one" situation.

"It will be harder to criticize Israel"

It's no harder to criticse Israel. It's just harder to do so without being immediately lambasted as anti-semitic, which is why fewer people than you might expect do it.

"Can I claim me belonging to a minority makes me more vulnerable? "

If it does, and you have evidence - sure.

"This is the mainstream, hegemónic treatment of any piece of news about the Israel government. "

The parts of the mainstream media that aren't owned/run by Jews are *terrified* of coming across as anti-semitic. It's toxic to the brand.

"What makes vulnerable a group like those?"

Interesting question. What usually makes a group vulnerable is *oppression*. As in, the society they live in and move through is structurally set up to deny them rights and opportunities, and tacitly (or even perhaps explicitly) permits discrimination against them. Black people experience this, homosexuals experience it. We're making progress but racism and homophobia are definitely still a *structural*, embedded problem.

Meanwhile, although historically Jews have definitely suffered in that way (although no more so than many other groups who don't get the same sensitive consideration), right now, right here, they seem to me at least to be almost in the opposite position. There is no tiptoeing around like the tiptoeing around you get when discussing anti-semitism, perhaps because it's hard to discuss what amounts to racism against white people. The left get tangled up in it all the time. And if Jewish people are being discriminated against in a structural, societally pervasive manner like black people and homosexuals have been and are, it's curious that there are so many of them in positions of power and influence in government, the professions, higher education, journalism and the media. Meanwhile, the one and only country in the world where Jews are a majority and in charge is a nuclear-armed apartheid state that uses tanks against kids throwing rocks. "Vulnerable" seems entirely the wrong word for this group.

"How can you critise without fueling social phobias?"

Extremely carefully, if you value your career. One thing you absolutely must do is stick to the facts. And there's no reason not to - the facts are absolutely damning. You must be aware, however, that the opposition, the pro-Zionists, absolutely will try to imply you have an agenda beyond valid criticism, and that that agenda is anti-semitic. And all you can do in response to that calumny is stick to the facts.