Up With Absolutes.

At risk of starting up this conversation again, I do have address two issues from Le Affair de Liz Allen. So, I made the rounds and read Mike Matthews’ opinion and Dana Pico’s opinion at their respective sites. As you see in Dana’s post, he accurately lays out the issue here. We are not talking about opposition to Israel’s policies, or even opposition to the very existence of the State of Israel. As I have said in the comments, debate over Zionism and Anti-Zionism can and must continue, for that debate is a rare one where both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

No, we are talking about Anti-Semitism. Dana lays out the difference.

Zionism is a Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel. Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism, or discrimination against Jews.

Intellectually, we can see room for a difference: one could be anti-Zionist, meaning to oppose the existence or expansion of the modern state of Israel, without being anti-Semitic, hating the Jews.

Dana goes on to discuss how and why Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semiticism have become conflated and confused, and it is worth a read. To be sure, when Donviti called fellow Delaware blogger and activist Liz Allen out over her anti-semitic comments here and elsewhere concerning “Jewish Bankers,” he, and we, are talking Anti-Semiticism and not Anti-Zionism or any opposition to Israel. Yet, discussions yesterday and on Sunday at DWA and here centered on Israel and Zionism. I suspect there is both a genuine confusion over the two issues, and an intentional confusing of the them since there really is no defense to anti-semiticism, while there is a defense to anti-zionism. Indeed, in her defense, Liz and others kept discussing Israel and Zionism, as if her opposition to both justified prejudicial statements concerning “Jewish Banksters.”

Look at two of her more egregious comments again and please find the reference to Israel or Zionism:

If you look at each one of the Banksters that have caused the banking demise, majority are Jewish…check that fact.

When will this country wake up. Bernanke is an orthodox Jew, and refused to answer Bernie Sanders questions on “where the money went”. They are freaking robbing the US, and we still stand behind them 100%! Wake up and smell the robbery without a gun people.

Not a mention of Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East, Zionism, or Anti-Zionism, is there? No. She just believes that there is a conspiracy or a cabal of bad Jewish bankers who are robbing us blind, because they are Jewish. That is Anti-Semiticism. It is bigotry. It is prejudice. It is discrimination.

Now, Mike Matthews of Down with Absolutes, of course, is criticizing us. Contain your shock, please.

People are more concerned with labeling those whose commentary they loathe. They’d rather label them “racist!” or “anti-Semitic!” than advance the argument with respectful debate.

I am sorry, but how can there be a respectful and meaningful discussion with a bigot concerning their bigoted views? How does that conversation go? I suppose I ask Liz why she has a low opinion of Jewish bankers, and I suppose she responds by saying they are evil money grubbing robber barons intent of stealing all our money. Wasn’t that enlightening? I suppose I can ask her why she feels that way, and her answer will be “google Jewish bankers” or some reference to Israel. And around the circle of prejudice we go.

Prejudice is not based on reason or rational thought. How can it be, for you are labeling an entire group, indeed, millions of people, based on an outdated and false stereotype. This is really one of the more asinine things Mike has said in his long line of asinine things. Does he think we should have a respectful and meaningful discussion about the merits of racism? Sexism?

I know it goes against the title of his blog, but there are moral absolutes. And one of them is: PREJUDICE IS ALWAYS WRONG. It is morally wrong. It is legally wrong. There is no defense of it. There is no rationale for it. It is simply wrong. And giving those with prejudiced views the sanction of discussing their prejudice in a calm and respectful manner validates the prejudice. For it gives the prejudice the merit of being “one side of the debate.”

One aspect of being a liberal, Mike, means you are intolerant of those who are intolerant. We seek equal opportunity for all. We fight against discrimination and prejudice where we find it. We don’t discuss the merits of prejudice. We fight against it. We don’t respect prejudice. We shame it. I don’t want to understand Liz Allen’s prejudice. As I said in the comments yesterday here, if you are a liberal and you are prejudiced, then you are a hypocrite.