Dan Minette wrote: > > I am still trying to figure out the line between criticising > > Israel/Jews in politics/Jewish politics and anti-semitism. > So I have a > > question: When Christopher Hitchens claims that "The Democrat party > > truly is what some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of > > the Israeli lobby", is he being critical of the Democrats or is he > > being anti-semitic? > > He is being critical of the Democratic party. One way to > note this is his support of the neocons (who are Jewish) in > the next breath.
Okay, so if you support the neocons, you are not anti-semitic? And that means you can easily go around claiming that a political party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli lobby without attracting any criticism? Maybe I am being dense, but I really do not see the difference between what Hitchens said above and what Zimmy was protesting against - the notion that Jews control the world/the country/the politics of a country. If the war had been launched by a Democratic President, would this still not be anti-semitic? > If you read other things by him he comes > out with a fairly well nuanced view. In the last two days, I have read some 6 articles by Hitchens. And I have not come across any well nuanced view. > Out of curiosity, are > there no code phrases in Indian politics. Words that sound > innocuous on the surface, but conveys very specific meaning, > which is often not so innocuous? That is a very good question, Dan. And, offhand, I can think of only one phrase which fits the criteria. Coined by Advani, the term is 'pseudo-secularist'. The Hindutvavadis used it against anyone and everyone who opposed their political agenda. It was a short hand for 'muslim-loving, hindu-hating treacherous hindu', or, more accurately, 'annoying people who wouldn't let us do what we want'. Didn't really work too well as most secularists just took to calling themselves 'pseudo-secularists' with pride. And then we came a full circle sometime in 2003 - after a few years in the govt., Advani was forced to admit that India could never be a Hindu Rashtra and was promptly dubbed a pseudo-secularist by the RSS and the VHP. At which point the term fell out of favour with the secularists. :) Now that may not seem too subtle, but given the names/tags/labels used in Indian politics, that exhibited a deft touch. Some less delicate/innocuous examples would be: When people object against the distorted history textbooks in Gujarat, the are Macauly ki aulaad [Macauly's children]. When people don't see any harm in supporting Sonia Gandhi, they are 'boot licking sycophants who just want to be colonialised once again'. When people don't think that today's muslims ought to be blamed/hurt for something a muslim invader did more than 500 years ago, they are Babar ki santaan [Babar's children]. Stuff like that. The emphasis here is on hard hitting phrases, not on political correctness or snide attacks. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
