In an article in El País, José R. Ayaso sets out to clarify the use of such terms as “Jew” and “Hebrew ” in Spanish. In principle this is a laudable project, as one often comes across such barbarisms as “the Hebrew army” in Spanish language media.
After somewhat laboriously setting out the differences between the main terms in play, Ayaso arrives at the following conclusion.
Israel and the Jewish people should never be confused, regardless of the importance of Israel and Zionism for Jewish people around the world.
So far, so good.
The demonstrations that have taken place against Olmert’s government in Spain’s main cities can be described as anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist but not as anti-Jewish […].Furthermore, representatives of Israel and Jewish organizations in the Diaspora have often described these demonstrations as “antisemitic”, and that isn’t true either.
Remarkable stuff. Ayaso is capable of stating as self-evident that there was no antisemitic element present in demonstrations where many banners were carried in support of organizations dedicated to killing every Jew they can find and where frequent comparisons were made between Israel and Nazi Germany. And, of course, he doesn’t take the trouble to consider whether or to what extent anti-Zionism itself may be antisemitic in nature.
Having resort to the ghost of antisemitism is the easiest way to discredit all those who don’t unconditionally support the Zionist cause […]
The Livingstone Formulation a la española.
“The state of Israel”, “the Israeli Army”, “Israelis” or “Israeli Jews” (to distinguish them from Israeli Arabs and other ethnic groups and religious minorities) are the correct expressions to use.
Correct for use if one wishes to criticize the policies or activities of Israel and its government is what he means. But why mention only Israeli Jews? Why not just say Israelis? Why not mention Israeli Druze or Bedouin? A considerable number of members of these groups - especially the first - are strongly committed to the Zionist project and serve in the IDF. Why couldn’t criticism of Israel or its armed forces be reasonably directed at them? Is the Druze paratroop officer in Gaza to be excused in advance for any excess he might commit simply on the grounds that he is an Arab?
The correct choice of words can help us prevent the errors of the government of Israel from staining the [Jewish] Diaspora and also stop what should be only anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli from eventually and tragically turning into something anti-Jewish and antisemitic.
Antisemitism caused by lamentable carelessness with words and by the actions of the government of Israel and by those factors alone. That’s quite a theoretical innovation.
At the foot of the article Ayaso is described as being “Professor of the History of Israel and the Jewish People” at the University of Granada, in Spain.
UPDATE: Catalunya is cancelling its Holocaust Day memorial ceremonies on January 27th. “Marking the Jewish Holocaust while a Palestinian Holocaust is taking place is not right,” a local City official told Barcelona’s La Vanguardia newspaper.
I have a really hard time faking tolerance for people who are patiently telling me they want me dead, not because I’m a Jew but because of some other reason that’s awfully close to that. Only with antisemitism do we allow racists and bigots to tell US the ground rules for which we can and cannot be offended. Imagine if you will some Klan heads telling black people that it’s not because they’re black that they should be slaves, but because they’re genetically inferior.
“Catalunya is cancelling its Holocaust Day memorial ceremonies on January 27th. “Marking the Jewish Holocaust while a Palestinian Holocaust is taking place is not right,” a local City official told Barcelona’s La Vanguardia newspaper.”
This is what it’s all about, devaluing the Shoah.
Catalunyans need to read up its own history:
There were anti-Jewish pogroms in Catalonia and other areas of Spain in 1391 which forced Jews to convert or to go into exile. There is a reason why Spain had been Judenrein for many centuries.
As to their cancelling the Holocaust Day ceremonies, they were just politically inspired. Their cancellations speak volumes about their real attitudes towards Jews.
This is a little off-topic, but the BBC’s refusal to broadcast a Gaza Emergency Appeal is already being blamed on the “Israel lobby” and the BBC’s supposedly pro-Israel stance in The Guardian.
Interesting piece, but I think you take it a bit too far with the constant parsing of words to find some tiny little thing to object to. In particular, the final quote is an inexact translation insofar as it allows you to make a point that is a lot less clearly implied the original Spanish.
The original Spanish DOES NOT insert the additional verb “stop” into the sentence. In fact it uses the verb of the previous phrase to extend to the second phrase.
Regardless of that, I think Frank Furedi’s description applies here:
“(You) interpret what are in fact confused and ambiguous references …as expressions of anti-Semitism.
“Consequently, the charge that a certain statement is ‘anti-Semitic’ should not be accepted at face value. Statements and acts need to be analysed and interpreted in the context in which they were made or carried out. It is particularly important to resist the temptation to characterise speech or behaviour as anti-Semitic by second-guessing its real meaning. An objective assessment demands analysis of what was actually said, rather than speculation about its ‘true’ or ‘hidden’ meaning. Just as we already have the irrational concept of ‘unwitting racism’ in the UK, we may soon end up with charges of ‘unwitting anti-Semitism’ being made against those individuals judged by other people’s interpretive wits to be anti-Semitic.”
the fact that you criticise me for using a verb in the English translation the literal translation of which is not present in the Spanish text tells us all we need need to know about you
And what, pray, is that supposed to mean?
It seems to me that you have taken a well-meaning article and found, as you are fond of doing, some implication in which you find offense. Except this time you’ve based your case on a bit of a mistranslation.
If you used the correct translation, you would see that it implies that using correct definitions would “help” or “allow” in avoiding a decline of anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism, not stop such a decline. So the writer doesn’t believe using the correct definitions will “stop” anti-Semitism, he believes it will help to prevent it, because he doesn’t want stupid people who wish to criticize Israel to think this means they must therefore criticize Jews and become anti-Semites, or to believe that if they criticize Israel they must be criticizing the Jewish people.
Apparently you’d like to go after him for this. Maybe because you don’t accept any distinction - I don’t know. Or maybe you just have to much time on your hands.
If you’re going to be in the business of micro-analyzing people’s words in search of things you don’t like, you’d better get the words right, don’t you think?
And I still don’t know what your reply is supposed to mean. Apparently I’m unable to parse your words sufficiently well to have a clue what you’re trying to say.
In fact, I now can see that you probably translated it yourself. And therefore perhaps wilfully mistranslated it, for the purpose of making it seem that your inference was clearly correct.
Seems pretty dishonest if you ask me. There’s enough real anti-Semitism around without going after people like this.