Thank you for taking your time to answer my comment. I understand your reply, and agree with it in general.
However, let me make some brief comments.
I agree that sometimes "Israel" is used with a negative connotation, yes. But, on the other hand, sometimes it is simply the only correct word you can use, as if for instance someone asks you where does Gelfand live. In the case of Karjakin's comment, I see no hint of a negative connotation. In fact, I think (of course, I cannot know with certainty ) that he simply mentions Israel (as he would have mentioned Argentina in my previous example) to stress that the RCF is not being run on Russia.
And finally, regarding "I'd need to know more before assuming benign intent on Karjakin's part.", I tend to think that it is better "I'd need to know more before assuming malign intent on Karjakin's part.". In fact, I think that this should apply not only to Karjakin but to (ok, almost) anyone.
I am in turn in general agreement with your points as well: In certain cases, the best way to refer to Israel is with the word "Israel", and we should not start with the assumption of malign intent from Karjakin or (almost) anyone else.
The question is the degree to which he has forfeited that presumption, and I'm just not sure. His statement reads suspiciously to me, for several reasons, but they can be read innocently. (That is, of course, part of what one expects from "dog whistles". That doesn't justify seeing dog whistles everywhere, though.) I don't think this is purely a case of reading into his statement what isn't there, but I'd probably need more background info on Karjakin and his views on Jews, and how he thinks his audience would understand the statement.
So, some further clarification on my part is probably warranted.
Hi Dennis, I appreciate and enjoy your work since the old times of chessmind.powerblogs.
Having said that, I must say that I think that your "anti-Jewish dog whistles" phrase is wrong and dangerously misleading.
I have read the complete translation of Karjakin's post in telegram, and it seems to me that the only two times he mentions the word "Israel" (he never mentions something like jews) is simply because Sutovsky is from there, and because apparently Glukhovsky is also there. Thus, I see no hint of an anti-jewish statement. I mean, If Sutovsky were argentinian like myself, and if Glukhovsky was also here in Argentina, Karjakin's post would probably been the same replacing the word "Israel" by "Argentina", and I would not see any "anti-argentinian dog whistles".
Thanks for the kind remarks, and for your critical comment as well. I hope you're right.
Here's why I have my doubts. First, I've never heard of anti-Argentinian dog whistles. Maybe that is a thing in some of the neighboring South American countries, but it's not a standard trope. Across the world, however, using "Israel" with a negative connotation is frequently used to throw shade on Jews. It's the politically acceptable way to be an anti-Semite. Everyone who cares knows what is meant, and the speaker gets to have a fig leaf of deniability: "Oh no, I don't mean the Jews, I mean Israel. (Well, not the Arab population of Israel, or the Christian population. You know, the other part.)"
Second, I read the complete translation as well, and only saw Glukhovsky mentioned in connection with Israel. I know that Karjakin is no fan of Sutovsky's (I blogged about his attempt to entrap Sutovsky on the previous blog), but as far as I can tell he isn't mentioned in Karjakin's current Telegraph article.
So here's what I think it comes down to. Glukhovsky is in Israel. Is this a big deal, and why mention it? It's not clear to me that it's a big deal - when the President of the United States takes a vacation somewhere or is overseas, no one freaks out and says the U.S. is controlled from Delaware or Florida or Hawaii or Texas or some foreign country. When Kramnik was the World Champion and living in France, were Russians complaining about Kramnik's lack of patriotism? ("Stalin save us, the World Championship title is controlled from France!") No one would even understand such remarks. So why focus on Glukhovsky's leaving Russia for Israel since the start of the invasion? Is there any indication that Glukhovsky is funneling money into Israeli chess? I'd add that Karjakin seems to be saying that Glukhovsky has been doing a bad job from well before his going to Israel. So why is his being in Israel relevant?
One more thing. Karjakin singles out a number of chess players among the signatories of the letter denouncing the invasion. I can't confirm that it's true of all of the players he mentions, though I didn't manage to disconfirm any of them, but four of the seven are Jewish: Nepomniachtchi, Svidler, Khalifman, and Dubov. They are big names and worth mentioning, but I'm also suspicious of their being named right after he mentions Israel.
So, I might be wrong, but given Jews' seemingly eternal status as everyone's favorite scapegoat, I'd need to know more before assuming benign intent on Karjakin's part. I must acknowledge that the foregoing is not proof (that's why it's only a "dog whistle"), but as the thing walks and quacks like a duck, I fear that it's a duck, especially given Russia's history of anti-Semitism. (It has gotten better in the last decade or so, but it's only "good" in relative terms.)
Thank you for taking your time to answer my comment. I understand your reply, and agree with it in general.
However, let me make some brief comments.
I agree that sometimes "Israel" is used with a negative connotation, yes. But, on the other hand, sometimes it is simply the only correct word you can use, as if for instance someone asks you where does Gelfand live. In the case of Karjakin's comment, I see no hint of a negative connotation. In fact, I think (of course, I cannot know with certainty ) that he simply mentions Israel (as he would have mentioned Argentina in my previous example) to stress that the RCF is not being run on Russia.
And finally, regarding "I'd need to know more before assuming benign intent on Karjakin's part.", I tend to think that it is better "I'd need to know more before assuming malign intent on Karjakin's part.". In fact, I think that this should apply not only to Karjakin but to (ok, almost) anyone.
Best,
Uriel
I am in turn in general agreement with your points as well: In certain cases, the best way to refer to Israel is with the word "Israel", and we should not start with the assumption of malign intent from Karjakin or (almost) anyone else.
The question is the degree to which he has forfeited that presumption, and I'm just not sure. His statement reads suspiciously to me, for several reasons, but they can be read innocently. (That is, of course, part of what one expects from "dog whistles". That doesn't justify seeing dog whistles everywhere, though.) I don't think this is purely a case of reading into his statement what isn't there, but I'd probably need more background info on Karjakin and his views on Jews, and how he thinks his audience would understand the statement.
So, some further clarification on my part is probably warranted.
Hi Dennis, I appreciate and enjoy your work since the old times of chessmind.powerblogs.
Having said that, I must say that I think that your "anti-Jewish dog whistles" phrase is wrong and dangerously misleading.
I have read the complete translation of Karjakin's post in telegram, and it seems to me that the only two times he mentions the word "Israel" (he never mentions something like jews) is simply because Sutovsky is from there, and because apparently Glukhovsky is also there. Thus, I see no hint of an anti-jewish statement. I mean, If Sutovsky were argentinian like myself, and if Glukhovsky was also here in Argentina, Karjakin's post would probably been the same replacing the word "Israel" by "Argentina", and I would not see any "anti-argentinian dog whistles".
Best,
Uriel
Hi Uriel,
Thanks for the kind remarks, and for your critical comment as well. I hope you're right.
Here's why I have my doubts. First, I've never heard of anti-Argentinian dog whistles. Maybe that is a thing in some of the neighboring South American countries, but it's not a standard trope. Across the world, however, using "Israel" with a negative connotation is frequently used to throw shade on Jews. It's the politically acceptable way to be an anti-Semite. Everyone who cares knows what is meant, and the speaker gets to have a fig leaf of deniability: "Oh no, I don't mean the Jews, I mean Israel. (Well, not the Arab population of Israel, or the Christian population. You know, the other part.)"
Second, I read the complete translation as well, and only saw Glukhovsky mentioned in connection with Israel. I know that Karjakin is no fan of Sutovsky's (I blogged about his attempt to entrap Sutovsky on the previous blog), but as far as I can tell he isn't mentioned in Karjakin's current Telegraph article.
So here's what I think it comes down to. Glukhovsky is in Israel. Is this a big deal, and why mention it? It's not clear to me that it's a big deal - when the President of the United States takes a vacation somewhere or is overseas, no one freaks out and says the U.S. is controlled from Delaware or Florida or Hawaii or Texas or some foreign country. When Kramnik was the World Champion and living in France, were Russians complaining about Kramnik's lack of patriotism? ("Stalin save us, the World Championship title is controlled from France!") No one would even understand such remarks. So why focus on Glukhovsky's leaving Russia for Israel since the start of the invasion? Is there any indication that Glukhovsky is funneling money into Israeli chess? I'd add that Karjakin seems to be saying that Glukhovsky has been doing a bad job from well before his going to Israel. So why is his being in Israel relevant?
One more thing. Karjakin singles out a number of chess players among the signatories of the letter denouncing the invasion. I can't confirm that it's true of all of the players he mentions, though I didn't manage to disconfirm any of them, but four of the seven are Jewish: Nepomniachtchi, Svidler, Khalifman, and Dubov. They are big names and worth mentioning, but I'm also suspicious of their being named right after he mentions Israel.
So, I might be wrong, but given Jews' seemingly eternal status as everyone's favorite scapegoat, I'd need to know more before assuming benign intent on Karjakin's part. I must acknowledge that the foregoing is not proof (that's why it's only a "dog whistle"), but as the thing walks and quacks like a duck, I fear that it's a duck, especially given Russia's history of anti-Semitism. (It has gotten better in the last decade or so, but it's only "good" in relative terms.)