Newt Gingrich calls on US ambassador to Belgium to be fired

[BigSkyBob]

...over some remarks on Israel and the causes of anti-semitism.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-fundraiser-and-ambassador-blames-israel-anti-semitism_610946.html

(Wow, the Weekly Standard is worse than I'd have imagined)

I actually have had the opportunity to hear ambassador Gutman speak in person on several occasions, and it should be noted that he's a very charismatic speaker and comes across as a sympathetic person. Also, the Weekly Standard might very well imply that he's a huge Obama supporter, but the guy served on Mark Warner's exploratory committee (or something like that). He's quite popular over here, as well. Most people know who he is and, unlike the last piece of swift boating scum you guys sent us, those people don't hate his guts.

And isn't Gutman a Jewish name, anyway?

I think he's wrong about the causes of Antisemitism, especially since a large portion of Muslims in the world are Semites.  I also think you can be anti-Israel and not be an anti-Semite, and vice versa. 

If you rate religions on a scale of 1-10, with 5 being neutral, I don't see many people having a problem with other folks rating certain Baptist and Pentecostal groups a "1."  But, if Judaism isn't granted at least a "5," you are treated as a "hater" and someone with a character defect. That's inconsistent and completely unfair.

[BigSkyBob]

I really don't see what the controversy is about. He obviously was not excusing anti-antisemitism but rather attempting to come to an understanding of its roots.

Here are his exact words, apparently:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His statement just screams that "Muslim hatred for Jews" "should [not] be condemned." If that is what he meant, that premise could be debated back and forth. If he didn't want to leave that impression, may I suggest his choice of language isn't very diplomatic, and, if he isn't rhetorically up to the job termination is a viable option.

[BigSkyBob]

I think the bad thing about what Gutman said is his implication that Muslim Antisemitism should not be condemned because it stems from Israel's actions. Antisemitism doesn't happen in a vacuum, there is always some reason but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be condemned.

And I don't know what your problem is with the weekly standard, they were merely copying an article from Ynet, so you should complain about them first if you have a problem with the way the article was written.

I suppose you'd also say that anybody who hates America should be condemned regardless of the reason for it as well.

Or maybe it would be more reasonable to say that sometimes nations do things that piss people off, and rather than saying "stop hating!", the 'hated' nation could do a little self reflection and try to improve relations that way.

That certainly would have been a much more diplomatic way of expressing his apperent thought.

[BigSkyBob]

I think he's wrong about the causes of Antisemitism, especially since a large portion of Muslims in the world are Semites.  I also think you can be anti-Israel and not be an anti-Semite, and vice versa. 

Please spare us the idiotic word play.  Yes, it is a bad choice of phrase, but anti-Semitism is a synonym for anti-Jew, not not anti-Jew or Arab.

The guy is a diplomat; he's not suppose to make "a bad choice of phrase."  It's like talking about Montezuma's revenge in front of the president of Mexico.

Not nearly so extreme, and the analogy would only work if he were the ambassador to Israel anyway.

I would think that if the Ambassador to France stated that there he wasn't subject to "Montezuma's revenge" the Mexican government would react with equal vigor.

[BigSkyBob]

The comments on this thread are totally illogical.  They don't make any sense.  People are drinking gallons of anti-Muslim neocon Kool-Aid.

I think he's wrong about the causes of Antisemitism, especially since a large portion of Muslims in the world are Semites.

I'm also growing tired of people trying to conveniently redefine words just to fit their own absurd arguments.  Anti-Semitic means anti-Semitic.  We all know what it means.  Coming up with novel uses just makes you look ridiculous.

I think the original redefinition occured when "Semite" was arbitarily restricted to "Jews" in coining the term. Surely, that Orwellian abuse of language was subject to criticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Montezuma's revenge, huh?  Did you just compare the negative feelings stirred up by the enormous loss of Palestinian life with a case of traveler's diarrhea?  [/quote]

I just made an analogy between the offensiveness of mentioning "Montezuma's Revenge" and the offensiveness of noting hating people is not comdemnable.

Now, I did acknowledge that the Ambassador in question did have the resource in noting that the hatred was justified. I don't think he availed himself to that option. You, on the other hand, seem to be availing yourself to exactly that option both above and below:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In general, it is a good idea to try to understand what someone has written before you presume to speak on their behalf.

[BigSkyBob]

I think the original redefinition occurred when "Semite" was arbitrarily restricted to "Jews" in coining the term.

Nothing arbitrary about it at all. The point was to distinguish 'respectable' 'racial' anti-Jewish sentiment from irrational religion-based anti-Jewish sentiment. Very nineteenth century. The term 'anti-semitism' has never (ever) meant anything other than 'anti-Jewish'.

I think you missed the part about "in coining the term."

Prior to the coining of the term "anti-Semite" there was a word "Semite" that referred to many ethnic groups.

It makes perfect sense that a word anti-X means an opposition to X. A term was coined to the effect that "anti-X" means "an opposition to Y." That was, I submit, a bit Orwellian.

[BigSkyBob]

I think he's wrong about the causes of Antisemitism, especially since a large portion of Muslims in the world are Semites.  I also think you can be anti-Israel and not be an anti-Semite, and vice versa. 

Please spare us the idiotic word play.  Yes, it is a bad choice of phrase, but anti-Semitism is a synonym for anti-Jew, not not anti-Jew or Arab.

The guy is a diplomat; he's not suppose to make "a bad choice of phrase."  It's like talking about Montezuma's revenge in front of the president of Mexico.

It's a bad choice on the narrow philological grounds you are bringing up.  While philologically anti-Semite should mean what you are purposefully misinterpreting it as, it doesn't, and everyone who uses the word knows it.  It's only a bad choice of phrase because pedantic idiots who think they are being smart and people trolling for the lols do what you did with the word.

There is the issue of whether, or not, it was wrong to coin the term as it originally was. If we can declare war against the Norse word "ndly" that has no racial philogical grounds whatsoever, as offensive to Blacks, then, we can declare war against "anti-Semite" because it is offensive to many Semitic peoples, and that offensiveness is philogical.