Showing posts with label European antisemitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European antisemitism. Show all posts

Thursday, August 17, 2023




Professor Boštjan M. Zupančič is a former judge and former president of the Third Chamber at the European Court of Human Rights.  He was previously a judge at the Constitutional Court of Slovenia and vice-chair of the U.N. Committee against Torture (Geneva). He graduated from Harvard Law School and now acts as a legal consultant. In 2020,Zupančič  joined the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) as an associate research fellow.

He is also a Jew-hater.

Zupančič's hate isn't subtle. He doesn't hide it behind "anti-Zionism." He doesn't insist that he doesn't hate Jews. His hatred is explicit and continuous. 

His former Twitter account, bmz9453, had plenty  of antisemitic posts.  It was closed down but his replacement account is filled with anti-Jewish tweets - even quoting antisemitic sites like The Daily Stormer and the Holocaust revisionists at the Institute of Historical Review.

Here is a selection of his tweets for just the past few months, often direct quotes from antisemitic websites like Unz.com:




He posted a 37 minute film that accuses Jews of systematically engaging in incest with their children. 


Since the Ukraine war started, Zupančič has obsessively blamed the Jews for their supposed role in the war.


And he reposts the most vile antisemitic conspiracy theories he can find every day - here are two from yesterday:



Today's leaders of human rights groups insist that they cannot be antisemitic because their fighting for human rights precludes any prejudice. The truth is that no one is immune from bigoted beliefs, and any philosophy can be twisted into Jew-hatred. 

Boštjan M. Zupančič was a human rights judge for 18 years. It hasn't stopped hum from openly engaging in spreading hate for Jews every single day. On the contrary - his biography gives his hatred legitimacy.








Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, August 14, 2023

From Ian:

Meir Y. Soloveichik: Not Everything Is Tisha B’Av
It is with this in mind that we must approach the reaction of many when the Knesset, three days before Tisha B’Av, approved limitations on the Israeli Supreme Court. The Times of Israel immediately presented us with the remarkable headline: “Judicial overhaul opponents see parallel to Tisha B’Av, saddest day in Hebrew year.” Indeed, comparisons to the destruction of the Temple abounded. A meme with the words shisha b’av, “the sixth of Av,” was circulated on the Internet, with the comparison to Tisha B’Av being made even by prominent Israeli writers. Some Israelis announced that though they did not usually fast on the Ninth of Av, they would do so this year to mourn what the Knesset had wrought.

I do not wish to discuss the merits or flaws of the government proposal. Rather I want to make one point only: One cannot compare the tragedies of the Jewish past to a democratic vote by the Israeli Knesset, however mistaken one might believe that vote to be. To make this comparison is to recommit the sin of the spies and their audience among the Hebrews, and to repeat the error of our ancestors in the desert millennia ago. Sharing a meme with the words shisha b’av dangerously demonizes a vast part of the Israeli electorate by comparing voters to the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem. And one can react only with horror to the statement by a Jew that a vote by the Knesset is more worthy of mourning than the deaths of Jews throughout history.

In arguing that the memories of Tisha B’Av obligated him to protect the physical well-being of the Jewish state, what Begin was also implying was that in the story of Israel, some—though not all—of what the Romans had wrought had been undone by the rise of the State of Israel and the miracles that followed. The Temple is not yet rebuilt, and hatred of the Jews still festers, but a rebuilt, united Jerusalem stands under Jewish sovereignty. If those who suffered in the events marked on the Ninth of Av would have been shown images of our own age—a united Jerusalem featuring a Jewish government, a Judean desert in bloom, and Jewish homes rebuilt throughout the Holy Land—they would have rejoiced at this vindication of Jewish yearnings. And if they would have been told that during all this, the parliament of the Jewish state would then vote to limit the ability of a Supreme Court to pronounce administrative decisions as “unreasonable,” their awe would not be diminished by an iota, no matter the flaws or virtues of this vote.

And so it must be stressed—though as I type these words, I still cannot believe that it must be stressed—that however much one might disagree with the Israeli coalition’s agenda, it is not Tisha B’Av. It is not the Holocaust. It is not the destruction of the Temple. It is not the expulsion from England, or Spain. It is not the auto-da-fé. It is not the massacres of the Crusades. To argue otherwise is to desecrate the memory of the martyred and the murdered, the exiled and the expelled, those who died with faith in the future of Jerusalem on their lips, and who would react with wonder at the miracles of our age.
Obama’s Calculated Tolerance of Black Anti-Semitism
I believe Sheila Miyoshi Jager’s account; she has nothing to gain by such a story, while the calculating Obama, determined to leave her because he was sure that as a white woman, she would be a political liability as his wife, made sure in his own memoir, Dreams of My Father, to leave out the Cokely episode, including his failure to condemn Cokely for his charge that “Jewish doctors” were deliberately committing “genocide” on “black babies.” This variant on the medieval blood libel about Jews killing Christian children so as to use their blood in making matzos, was a charge so explosive that it could well have resulted in murderous attacks by credulous African-Americans on Jewish doctors. When Sheila Miyoshi tried to convince Obama to denounce Cokely, he refused. He had decided that if he condemned Cokely, he would lose more support among black antisemites than he would gain in Jewish support. Clearly, Obama did not share the anguish of Jews at such charges, an updated version of the medieval blood libels. He was perfectly willing to pass over in silence Cokely’s disgusting and absurd charge of “genocide” by “Jewish doctors” of “black babies.” Sheila Miyoshi was appalled at Obama’s indecent political calculus, and told David Garrow so; that, she said, was her reason for the breakup. Obama, ever the calculating arriviste, determined to rise high, felt no need to reassure Jews that he stood with them. Instead, his silence about Steve Cokely’s charge suggested he had no interest in condemning even the worst antisemitic charges if to do so might hurt him with a black electorate that was also predominantly antisemitic.

Obama’s betrayal of a longstanding American commitment to veto all anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Security Council, when instead of a veto he had Samantha Power abstain from voting on UN Security Council Resolution 2334, that declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank, where a half-million Israelis lived, to constitute a violation of international law, was bad. An American veto would have killed the resolution. With the Americans not vetoing it, UNSC 2334 passed by a vote of 14-0. But Obama had done worse than that, when as a thrusting young Chicago politician he refused to do the right thing; he never denounced Steve Cokely for his extreme antisemitism, reflected in his charge that “Jewish doctors” practiced “genocide” on “black babies.” Obama’s tolerance of the worst kind of antisemitism was then, and remains, a form of antisemitism.
Antisemitism Still Haunts the European Left
Why the double standard? Why identify and condemn antisemitism from the right but not from within the left’s own ranks?

A large part of the answer sheds light upon a problem for the left not just in France, but in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom—the other countries covered by the ADL report—as well. In essence, antisemitism is not seen as a pernicious ideology targeting Jews as the root of the world’s ills, but rather as an instrument to be deployed in political conflicts. If antisemitism comes from a source that you would have no truck with anyway—in this case, an organization that believes fervently that Catholic doctrine should lie at the foundations of law and public policy—then there is no hesitation in condemning it, particularly when, as was true with the Civitas episode, there is no mention of Zionism or the State of Israel. But if antisemitism comes from an ally, like Corbyn, then you are duty-bound to deny it and dismiss it as a smear. In such an environment, any analytical consistency and certainly any attempt to point out the glaring overlap between far-left and extreme-right antisemitic tropes—dual loyalty, financial clout, disproportionate political and cultural influence—becomes impossible.

While the ADL report highlights the differences between the four countries under the microscope, there are also some key commonalities. “In all four countries, the two dominant findings were that antisemitism was used in anti-Israel contexts and in anti-capitalist contexts,” it observed. “In anti-Israel contexts, antisemitic themes included (1) accusations that Jewish cabals control politics and media and prevent either criticism of Israel or support for Palestine; (2) Holocaust trivialization as a means of arguing that Palestinians are no less victims today than Jews were during the Holocaust; (3) equating Israel with the Nazi regime, thus demonizing Israel; (4) accusations of antisemitism are in bad faith and employed to silence criticism of Israel. In anti-capitalist contexts, antisemitic themes included (1) Jewish control of financial markets; (2) Jewish obsession with money; and (3) Jewish exploitation of workers.”

The point, however, is that large swathes of the European left are either incapable of recognizing these themes as antisemitic, or they believe that the upsurge in hatred against Jews is solely a result of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. “They have learnt nothing from what happened to them in Europe. Nothing,” ranted Tariq Ali, a British far-left leader, at an anti-Israel rally in May 2021. “Every time they bomb Gaza, every time they attack Jerusalem—that is what creates antisemitism. Stop the occupation, stop the bombing and casual antisemitism will soon disappear.”

Ali did not spell out the lesson that he believes the Jews should have learned from the Nazi era, but the implication of his words is that they are receiving their just desserts for dispossessing the Palestinians. And that their choice now is to either give in—and thereby suddenly and miraculously banish antisemitism from public discourse, or to carry on fighting and accept antisemitism as an inevitable consequence. Until this mode of thinking is banished from the left, Jews will have little reason to trust its representatives, even on those occasions when they do condemn antisemitism.

Thursday, August 10, 2023

Remember David Miller, the disgraced former academic who was fired from his position at Bristol University for his antisemitism?

He was defended by hundreds of academics and Jews as being merely "anti-Zionist."  But Miller keeps on proving them wrong with episode after episode of undeniable antisemitism. 

This week, he did it again. 

Miller got very upset over a tweet by Hen Mazzig,. Mazzig wrote:
If you are not Jewish, just because you don’t understand why something is antisemitic doesn’t mean its not. It means you need to educate yourself of the tropes, conspiracies, and hate Jews face.
Miller responded:

If you are not Jewish, do not be cowed by racial supremacists who want to hector you into political subservience. 

Judeophobia barely exists these days. 

Educate yourself about Zionism and the tactics used by its adherents.

Zionist propagandists like Hen Mazzig rely on 'standpoint theory' to fool naïve liberals and leftists into buying their lies. 

They say only Jews can define Judeophobia, based on their 'lived experience'. 

This is a denial of reality.

Standpoint theory relies on the bizarre notion that people are magically qualified to speak about things via accident of birth, rather than observing material realities. 

Real anti-racism is rooted in looking at the facts.

The facts:

1. Jews are not discriminated against.

2. They are over-represented in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic and political power.

3. They are therefore, in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.
Miller easily slides between "Jews aren't discriminated against" to "Jews are a monolithic group that oppresses others." 

Amazingly, he is still being defended.

He then followed up with a thread to defend his position where he showed that Jews are not discriminated against in the workplace, and in fact make more money (for example)  than other groups, so therefore there is no antisemitism. He also bizarrely distinguishes between "discrimination" and "hate crimes," defining "discrimination" strictly within the context of the workplace and ignoring that attacking Jews directly as Jews is the worst form of discrimination there is. 

Like all Jew-haters, Miller relies on redefining his terms. In short, he is saying that there cannot be antisemitism since Jews control the world!

The ADL's global survey of antisemitism asks a number of questions whose answers indicate that the respondent has antisemitic attitudes. So, for example, 29% of French people agree that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust" and 45% of Spanish people agree that "Jews have too much power in the business world."

David Miller would certainly agree with many of those survey questions - he pretty much says it in his social media.. There is no doubt that Miller agrees with more than half of the ADL's list of antisemitic statements:

Jews are more loyal to Israel than to [this country/to the countries they live in]
Jews have too much power in the business world
Jews have too much power in international financial markets
Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust
Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind
Jews have too much control over global affairs
Jews have too much control over the United States government
Jews think they are better than other people
Jews have too much control over the global media
Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars
People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave
Since Miller's opinions are classically antisemitic, mirroring what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion say, and he also claims to be against all forms of racism, he simply redefines "Judeophobia" in ways that disqualifies his own antisemitism.

Now that he has outed himself even more, I wonder whether his defenders from 2021 are feeling a bit squeamish about signing letters that say he is a "highly regarded scholar" or that insist that he is not antisemitic. 

Given the amount of self-deception that people are capable of, I doubt it. 

I created my own Miller-style power map:

 



______________________________


I just want to add a bit about standpoint theory.

In theory, it should be possible to detect and analyze racism and bigotry without being a member of the victimized group. But in reality, many attacks on groups rely on the same sort of "facts" that Miller uses to defend his own hate.

It is possible that the Confederate flag can be displayed without it being intended to be a racist symbol, just as a swastika can be displayed purely because someone admires its iconography. One can find evidence that some slaves were treated well. Bigots like Miller defend these kinds of things because, objectively, they are not offensive. 

That is because offense is inherently subjective. 

Miller cannot know how offensive it is for someone to say that Jews have no rights to Jerusalem without knowing how central Jerusalem is to Jews. Objectively, it is simply a piece of real estate no different than any other. Subjectively, it is the heart of every Jew.

In fact, this is how bigots always justify their hate. They simply claim they are "asking questions" or "making observations" and there is not a bigoted bone in their bodies, nosiree. They are just asking about whether the Holocaust happened or whether Black people are inherently less intelligent than whites. They are simply observing whether there are more Jews in banking and the media than other groups. Surely, bigots like Miller claim, no one can be offended by objective investigations into these matters, can they? 

In reality, studying racism, bigotry, misogyny and antisemitism must rely on the feelings of the victims, because the attacks are often targeted to hurt those feelings. There is only one reason to compare today's Jews to Nazis - to deliberately hurt Jews. 

To be sure, the ones defining what is offensive must be reasonable members of the group, and the majority of members of the group, not the outliers who find offense under every rock. Most Jews understand that attacking Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is just a new twist on antisemitism, as are dog-whistles about "rootless cosmopolitans" or "New York bankers" or "powerful Zionist media." Non-Jews might not recognize these for what they are, which is why the plurality of victims must be the ones who define what is an attack. 

Insisting that bigotry can be observed objectively is simply a way justify that bigotry.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, July 28, 2023



Sweden's SVT Nyheter reports:

Police have granted a public gathering outside the Israeli embassy in Stockholm on Friday. The woman behind the application states that she plans to "light the Torah with a lighter".

The demonstration is scheduled for 12 noon on Friday.

"We are conducting a dialogue with the organizer and other parties who may be affected, for example the Israeli embassy,"​​says Mats Eriksson, press spokesperson at the police.

The application is submitted by a woman in her 50s who states that it is a "manifestation for children's rights in Sweden which are systematically violated". She writes that the plan is to "light the Torah with a lighter".

 What, exactly, does burning a Torah (more likely a printed Chumash) have to do with children's rights? 

There are only two answers - both of which are profoundly antisemitic.

One is that they have nothing to do with each other, but the woman wants publicity, and she knows that attacking Jewish holy objects will get her the publicity she wants. Which means that every crank in Sweden will now seek to burn sacred Jewish objects to get their cause in the newspapers, and antisemitism has become a gimmick. 

The other is that somehow she is associating Judaism with violating children's rights. Which is not so far fetched - "progressives" in Europe and the US always associate Israel with every social justice crime they can think of.

And as this incident shows, the modern antisemites don't distinguish between Judaism and Israel, as much as they claim to. Otherwise, why is she intending to do her stunt outside the Israeli embassy?

Either way, antisemitism is becoming cheapened and commoditized, which means that people are becoming less and less outraged at attacks on Jews and Judaism as more of these stunts get approved. 

I support freedom of speech. Technically, what she wants to do is legal. Nazis in 1933 could also justify their book burnings as freedom of their own expression - yet everyone knows what it really meant.

History shows that book burners are the people who care the least about freedom of expression. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, July 13, 2023


In 1889, a notable French artist named Adolphe Willette ran as an  explicitly antisemitic candidate in the 9th arrondissement of Paris for legislative elections.

The campaign poster included "The Jews are only powerful because we are on our knees! 30 million French people are their trembling slaves. It is not a question of religion, the Jews are a different race, hostile to our own... Judaism, there is the enemy!"

Notice how these antisemites were careful not to appear to be bigoted - their problem, they claimed, was not with Judaism as a religion, but Jews as a race, dedicated to destroying France. 

Of course, the broken "Talmud" tablets on the ground show that they hated Jews as a religion too, but even these avowed antisemites didn't want to appear to be bigoted. They came up with a convoluted distinction between "good Jews" and "bad Jews" and claimed they only hated the Jewish race. 

It seems strange today to see a political poster that is so suffused with hate, and a candidate who fully expects that a campaign centered on antisemitism would attract voters. Certainly that belongs to a time long gone, right?

Nope.

Yesterday, a small group of people who are alarmed at the weakening of the Democratic Socialists of America started a new slate of candidates for the DSA National Political Committee  - to save the DSA by appealing to antisemitism (which they pretend is anti-Zionism.) 


They call themselves the Anti-Zionist Slate of the DSA.

One of the primary issues facing our organization right now is our flagging membership numbers. Our organization's membership numbers have seen a substantial decrease from a high of over 94,000 constitutional members in April 2021 to a little over 78,000 constitutional members today. In reality, the number of members who are currently members in good standing and have paid their dues has decreased to 57,000 members. 

This trend is not one to be dismissed or ignored. Rather, it must be accepted as an ongoing problem that needs to be diagnosed and further addressed before DSA finds itself facing a full-blown membership crisis. 
So how best to shore up an American socialist group than to appeal to their naked hate of Israel?

Anti-Zionism as an organizing principle

Fighting Alongside Liberation Struggles to Dismantle Zionism & Imperialism: Recognizing that the US is a linchpin of imperialism and racial capitalism globally, we as a slate prioritize solidarity with liberation struggles, including those of indigenous peoples from Turtle Island to Palestine, and strive for an organization that takes material action against imperialism....We must develop relationships of accountability with grassroots formations as the BDS Working Group has done with Palestinian grassroots formations in diaspora and in Palestine. To best do so, we support the proliferation of grassroots BDS campaigns, such as the BDS Working Group’s No Appetite for Apartheid campaign...
The focus on hating Israel as a unifying theme for an American political group reflects the exact same kind of single-minded hate that the antisemitic political parties in Europe tried to take advantage of from the late 1800s through World War II.  Just as Jews were regarded as the source of all the people's problems then, the Jewish state is regarded the same way today. They prioritize hating Zionism over workers' rights, or racism, or fighting capitalism - and they are convinced that this is a winning strategy to attract socialists to their platform.

Another DSA group recently released a statement saying that they believe that Israeli Jewish civilians - including children - should be treated as military targets under international law. Essentially they called for an open season on murdering Israeli Jews. 


So it appears that there is some support in the DSA for a platform that is based on hating Jews. 

Just as with Willette, the "anti-Zionist" candidates would insist that they have no problem with Jews per se. And their justification for their focus on hating Jews living in the Jewish homeland is just as absurd and transparent as Willette's.

History may not always repeat, but it sure plagiarizes a lot. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, April 19, 2023



If the Star of David on Israel's flag upsets you but the crescent, crosses and other religious symbols on more than 60 other flags doesn't bother you...you just might be an antisemite.

If you think that 21 Arab states isn't enough, and 1 Jewish state is too many, you just might be an antisemite.

If you show more sympathy towards the person who stabbed the Jew than for the Jew he stabbed, you just might be an antisemite.

If you have to jump through hoops to pretend to find apartheid in the Jewish state while ignoring everywhere it really is, you just might be an antisemite.

If every terrible event in world history prompts you to compare it with Israeli actions, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that the Palestinian Arabs, who never thought of themselves as a people until the mid-20th century, have more of a claim to nationhood than Jews who have been a nation for 3000 years, you just might be an antisemite.

If you think that Zionism is racist, but Palestinian Arab nationalism is justice, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that Zionism is incompatible with feminism, but have nothing bad to say about Islamism, you just might be an antisemite.

If Saudi ties to Israel upset you more than Saudi ties to Osama bin Laden did in 2001, you just might be an antisemite.

If the only democracy you want to see in the Middle East is one rigged for Jews to be in the minority, you just might be an antisemite.

If the only refugees from the 1940s that you insist "return" to where they lived previously are Palestinian Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that the only "settlers" in the world who must move out of their homes are all Jews, you just might be an antisemite.

If you think that the the very concept of a Jewish state is racist, but you are okay with an Arab or Muslim state, you just might be an antisemite.

If there are any parts of the world that you believe Jews should not be allowed to live, you just might be an antisemite.

If there are any historic Jewish holy places where you believe Jews have no right to pray, you just might be an antisemite.

If you call Jews who insist on praying in their holiest spot "extremists," you just might be an antisemite.

If you get a thrill comparing Israelis to Nazis, you just might  be an antisemite.

If you are compelled to respond to any mention of the Holocaust with "nakba," you just might be an antisemite.

If you aren't Muslim but refer to Jewish shrines like the Temple Mount, Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs by their Muslim names that came centuries later,  you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that it is a moral duty to boycott Israeli Jews but not Israeli Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you need to believe that Ashkenazic Jews are descended from Khazars and have no Middle East ancestry, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that there is no archaeological proof for Jewish history in Jerusalem, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim to be pro-Palestinian but ignore how Palestinians have been and continue to be mistreated by their fellow Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that "occupation" is one of the worst crimes but never said a word about any occupation that cannot be linked to Israel, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that the only reason Israel does anything progressive or moral is to cover up for its crimes, you just might be an antisemite.

If Jews must pass a test of being anti-Israel for you to allow them to speak publicly or join movements, you just might be an antisemite.

If you consider the word "Zionist" an insult, you just might be an antisemite.

If you are offended by the lyrics of Hatikva but have no problem with the Palestinian national anthem that extols violence and vengeance, you just might be an antisemite.

If you regard terrorists Leila Khaled, Rasmea Odeh and Dalal Mughrabi as feminist role models, you just might be an antisemite.

If your response to every terrorist attack that kills Jewish civilians is that they deserve it, you just might be an antisemite.

If you defend  or excuse Arab antisemitism, you just might be an antisemite.

If you feel a burning desire to equate the Taliban with Orthodox Jews, you just might be an antisemite.

If you think putting on a hijab makes you a person of color but putting on a yarmulka makes you white, you just might be an antisemite.

If you are upset by scenes of Jews dancing in Jerusalem, you just might be an antisemite. 

If you bitterly complain about how Israel's separation barrier inconveniences Palestinians, but don't mention how it has saved hundreds of Jewish lives, you just might be an antisemite. 

If you go to a religious Jewish neighborhood to harass random Jews with "pro-Palestinian" slogans, you just may be an antisemite. 


(This is an almost complete rewrite, expansion and revision to a 2020 post.)





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, April 05, 2023

Here is the text of an 1883 newspaper article about a blood libel in Hungary at the time 

THE PASSOVER MURDER. 

Vienna, Austria, Aug. 13.—On the 3d day of August the Hungarian Jews who had been under trial on the charge of having killed a young Christian girl for the purpose of mixing her blood with the Passover bread were acquitted. The full text of the conclusion of the trial and of the judgment rendered by the public prosecution is now before me. The prosecutor frankly admitted that the prosecution had never any foundation for their charges, outside of prejudice and ignorant superstition.

T'he circumstances of this case may be summarized as follows: Early in the month of March, lt042, a young girl named Esther Solymosi, in the service of a woman living near Tisza Eslaz, in Hungary, was sent by her mistress to the town to make some purchases, and went, but never returned. As excitement and inquiry grew concerning her dis-appearance, the story began to be circulated that the JEWS HAD KILLED THE GIRL to use her blood for ritual purposes. Samuel Scharf, a child of 5 years old, the son of the Jewish butcher, was induced by liberal gifts of candy to say that his father had called the girl into the synagogue and cut her throat. The child stated that his elder brother, Moritz, a boy of 15, had held the girls' hand while his father killed her. Moritz, however, denied all knowledge of the murder, but the next day, being examined by the police, said that his father and some other Jews killed the girl, and that he had seen the whole affair through the key-hole. Thereupon, the elder Scharf, and ten or twelve other Jews, were seized and thrown into prison.

 In June, 1882, a body was found in the River Thetas, dressed in the lost girl's clothes. No marks of violence were visible upon It, and this should have settled the matter  and released the Jews, but public feeling was. very strong against them, and few would believe that it was the missing Esther. The body was much disfigured from long immersion in the water, the girl 'a mother refused to recognize it, the village doctor declared it to be the body of a woman of 20, and the story was circulated that the Jews had dressed another body in Esther's clothes, to turn aside suspicion from themselves. 

The suspected Jews were kept in prison, and subjected to every species of indignity until June 20, l883, when their trial began, at Nyireghyaza, Hungary. It ended, as has been stated Aug. 3, in the acquittal of the accused parties. Not that there was no evidence against them, there was, on the contrary, an enormous mass of it, but it was almost wholly unworthy of belief. The only motive for the alleged crime was that the blood was wanted to mix with the Passover bread., but as no evidence whatever could be given to show this to be a custom of the Jews, it was soon dropped by the court, and the public prosecutor dismissed it with a mere allusion from his final charge. 

The story of the boy Moritz, completely broke down under cross-examination, although he had evidently learned it well, and repeated it as accurately as a parrot. In more than one detail the boy contradicted himself, and by actual test it was found that through the keyhole he could not have seen nearly all the movements that he described, even had they been going on within. Moreover, the Judge would not admit the boy to oath, not merely on account of his youth, but also because of his evident LACK OF MORAL PRINCIPLE, as shown in his abjuring his religion, and the hatred be manifested toward his parents The magistrate who conducted the preliminary Inquiry last year, who seemed to have been the principal agency in giving currency to the  charge,   and who no doubt instructed the boy Moritz to in the lesson he repeated in court, was found to have been a convict, and to have spent twelve years In an Austrian prison for a murder. His evidence, which was brought forward to strengthen that of Moritz, was thrown out by the court. The raftsmen who had testified that they had taken another body in Esther's clothes from a Jewish woman, and sunk it in the river, afterward confessed that it was false, and they were indicted for perjury. . 

Indeed the amount of false swearing and lying by witnesses un both sides, was one of the most remarkable features of the trial, and raises the question whether men and women, in a certain stage of superstition, know when they are telling the truth. As the prosecution was forced to the admission that it had literally no reliable evidence, it had nothing to do but to let the prisoners go. So they were fully acquitted, and after being kept in prison over a year, on a base and groundless charge, and while there subjected to cruelties and insults without number, and kept under trial for thirty-three days, were dismissed with the kind injunction to harbor no bitter feeling against it Christian fellow subjects. If they can obey this injunction they will prove themselves far better followers of the meek-Nazarene than those who bear his name. 

Tablet magazine published a horrendous postscript to this affair in 2012:

Last Thursday, Jobbik MP Zsolt Baráth delivered a five-minute speech from the floor of parliament commemorating a blood libel that took place 130 years ago. Several days before Passover in 1882, a young girl was murdered in the Hungarian village of Tiszaeszlár, and the local Jewish community was blamed. A group of 15 accused Jews were eventually acquitted in a court trial, but the murder victim, Eszter Solymosi, has since become a martyr figure for the Hungarian right. A memorial constructed in her honor several years ago is a pilgrimage spot for Jobbik members and other far-right activists. “As we can see, there is no clear explanation, we do not know what happened to Eszter,” Baráth said. “Nevertheless, there is one point common to the known variants: The Jewry and the leadership of the country were severely implicated in the case.”





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, February 08, 2023

Yesterday, EU High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell spoke at the EEAS Conference on Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference about the dangers of Russian disinformation campaigns:

 Russia is using information manipulation and interference as a crucial instrument of this war. This war is not only [about] using explosives, bombs, bullets, killing people. It is about the mind of the people. It is about how to conquer the spirit, the intelligence, the understanding of the people. 

It is not new. It started with the [COVID-19] pandemic. When the pandemic came, we started speaking about “the battle of narratives”. This is a sentence as important as “the Geopolitical Europe”. The battle of narratives started with the pandemic at the latest. 

And, today, that is clear: this war is not only conducted on the battlefield by the soldiers. It is also waged in the information space, trying to win the hearts and minds of people.  

...This is a major threat for the liberal democracies, which are based on information. Democracy is a system that is based on the information that people have, because they made their choices – their political choices – according to their own perceptions and information that they receive about what is happening in the rest of the world. 

If the information is toxic, democracy cannot work. If information is manipulated, people don’t have a clear idea of what is going on. So, their choices are biased, and the information is the oil of the engine of democracy. We have to take care of the quality of information because is the sap, the blood, the oil, the thing that makes democracy work.  
The EU created an "EU vs. DisInfo" organization, with at least 16 full time staff, all to fight disinformation. Yet it begins and ends with Russian disinformation.

What about anti-Israel disinformation? Where is the EU on that?

The EUvsDisInfo report released yesterday shows a great graphic of how Russians are manipulating information. But it doesn't mention that anti-Israel forces use exactly the same methods.


Pallywood manipulation of photos and videos? Check. Overwhelming social media with anti-Israel memes? Check. Changing the context to not allow pro-Israel voices to make a point? Triple check. Using diplomatic methods to attack Israel? Not only the PA but many of its allies, check. 

But does the EU even notice anti-Israel propaganda techniques? No, they agree with their messages. And when they agree, they don't think they are being manipulated. For example, when Defence for Children Palestine says that Israel killed a child earlier this week, they won't bother to check whether the "child" was a member of a terror group.  (Yes, there are some that are too extreme for the EU, so they can pretend that they are discriminating between truth and lies.) 

 Anti-Israel lies - that Jews visiting the holiest Jewish space are a threat to peace, that illegal Palestinian outposts in Area C are legal while legal Jewish towns are illegal, that Palestinian NGOs have no terror links, that Israel is attacking civilians, that Palestinian attacks are all in response to Israeli "crimes" and wouldn't happen if they weren't "provoked"  - those lies are accepted by both official EU bodies and their media, and therefore the public.

The fact that they happen to align perfectly with traditional European antisemitism is just a coincidence, I'm sure.  

The fight against disinformation assumes that there is an objective truth. I agree. Yet the progressive crowd emphasizes that there is no truth, that narratives are the only acceptable form of reporting, and only certain narratives are acceptable. The EU vs. DisInfo site seems to state that there is objective truth when it comes to Russia, but it doesn't seem to have an issue when its own intelligentsia seems to embrace a post-truth worldview where narratives rule - especially when it comes to Israel. It would be interesting if they use their own methodology against the "progressive" narratives.

But they won't. 

(h/t Irene)


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, January 12, 2023

From Ian:

Karol Markowicz: The New Jew
The New Jew remembers the Taffy Brodesser-Akner piece about how support for Israel is no longer in fashion on the left, how “we whispered to each other that it felt like the anti-Israel sentiment was actually a new way of being openly anti-Semitic, somehow wrapping it up in a Democratic cause” and how that piece made him sad. Today it would make him angry. How dare the mealy-mouthed left question the existence of the only Jewish state? We're done explaining anything to anyone anymore.

When someone is found to be a Jew-hater (a term far preferable to the clunky “antisemite”) he thinks “please, just don’t take them to the Holocaust museum.” Having to prove our humanity to people who hate us is embarrassing and the New Jew refuses to do it. We are not here to beg “please don’t hate us” and show them how much we have been hated by others. We’re here to say we mean “Never Again.” We’re here to boo when you think we won’t have guns to protect ourselves.

Her favorite Jewish organization is Tikvah because they didn’t flinch when the Museum of Jewish Heritage in Manhattan demanded they disinvite Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis from their Jewish Leadership Conference. The boldness was appealing. The event went on, the protestors impotently raged outside, and the Jews inside got to say: we invite who we want.

The New Jew furtively discusses admiration for Bari Weiss if she’s at the beginning of her journey away from the left and brazenly Ben Shapiro if she’s exited the building.

Religiously, the New Jew is either Orthodox or shul-less. She noticed that Reform and Conservative synagogues stayed closed for too long during Covid and when they re-emerged they were temples to leftism not G-d. She fills in her worship at Chabad, because they’ll never turn Shabbat into a struggle session, but it’s not an exact fit. The shuls will get there. They’ll have to. Their empty pews will be their signal.

She has broken with Facebook or Instagram friends who said vile things about Israel while Jews hid from bombs in basements in Tel Aviv. He has looked at his family, or dreamed about the one he hopes to have, and said "Not us. Not ever."

He discovers there are many others like him, so many others, and they’re welcoming and accepting as we all navigate together being independent Jews in the freest of countries.

The gun booing was telling because it wasn't about quietly owning a firearm. It was about letting others know that you do. It was about standing up for that right, standing up against the idea that our people will always be sitting ducks. We will not be.

A real political realignment to accompany this shift is coming. It is not here yet. One issue, like support for Israel, often leads to change on other issues, like gun rights. One little time you pull out a thread and where has it led? The whole shawl of Jews-always-being-liberals unravels.

Israel is an imperfect example but it's still instructive. Israel was once a left-leaning country. It is not today. The shift runs parallel to what is happening with Jews in America. Leftism rewards victimhood and the New Jews have decided to be victims no more.
Melanie Phillips: An ancient spoon stirs American mischief against Israel
So why is the U.S., which claims to be Israel’s staunch ally, giving credence to a false Palestinian identity created to write the Jews out of their own history?

The Biden administration’s sympathy with the Palestinians is well documented. It has persistently refused to call them to account for their murderous aggression and incitement. It continues to fund them regardless of their “pay-for-slay” rewards to terrorists’ families. It forces Israel to undermine its own security in pursuit of a “two-state solution” that the Palestinian Arabs have refused for almost a century.

In creating a new role of special envoy to the Palestinians, for which it appointed a man with a record of profound hostility to Israel, Hady Amr, the administration upgraded the Palestinians’ status by giving them direct and public access to the U.S. government. It has also appointed other profound enemies of Israel to several prominent positions within the administration.

But what the Assyrian spoon transfer reveals is that the Palestinian Big Lie is being promoted as truth by none other than the Department of Homeland Security, which was created after 9/11 to protect America against terrorist attacks.

Far from being a key link in the chain of Western security, the DHS has internalized the fiction about Palestinian identity that is promoted as a principal weapon in the war of extermination against Israel—and is in turn the flag behind which march the Islamist foes of the West.

Noll said of the spoon transfer, “This is a historic moment between the American and Palestinian people and a demonstration of our belief in the power of cultural exchanges in building mutual understanding, respect and partnership.”

It was certainly a historic moment. What it demonstrated, however, was that the Biden administration is a far more profound foe of Israel and the Jews than most people have yet realized.
Zionism is more than just a viewpoint and passion - opinion
ZIONISM INSPIRES the Jewish people to this day, through heroes like the Maccabees, who fought for freedom in ancient Israel. It is what triggers mourning for the destruction of the Jewish temples in Jerusalem thousands of years ago.

Zionism is what powers the Jewish people’s ancient connection to the land of Israel, which is constantly reinforced by new archaeological findings. These discoveries date back to the times of King David, whose own Zionism led to him declaring Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish nation, uniting that nation once again.

Zionism is what has accompanied the Jewish people through centuries of exile, crusades, conquerors, pogroms, persecution and the Holocaust.

Zionism is all the above and more. It is such a core element of the Jewish people that it is part of our religion, our oral and written history, our traditions and our national memory. It is an inherent part of our sense of peoplehood. Regardless of whether we live in Israel or not, or agree with the current Israeli government or not, Zionism is part of who we are.

While these clubs and others claim that their only goal is to boycott Zionists, the outcome of their actions is excluding and silencing Jews and Jewish voices on campus. An outcome that, if not confronted, could expand well beyond the halls of UC Berkeley.

These attempts to portray Zionism as merely a viewpoint are a transparent backdoor to excuse antisemitism - a backdoor that must be nailed shut. The way, to do so is to show the OCR and the world that Zionism is an intricate part of the Jewish people, their identity and their shared ancestry. Zionism must be recognized for what it is: an integral part of Jewish Identity not only by the OCR in its investigation but the wider public.

Monday, January 02, 2023

Lebanese news site Al Shiraa published not one but two essays about how awful Jews are today.

Abdul Hadi Muheisen, "writer and researcher," writes about the many expulsions of Jews from European countries in the Middle Ages, and justifies them, claiming that the Jews were expelled due to usurious practices. He takes the "pound of flesh" story from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice as fact, saying that this was a routine practice by Jewish moneylenders.  He then says that the ethnic cleansing of Jews from western Europe was a wonderful thing for the history of the world:

Thus, it can be said that the dark ages of the Jews began with the beginnings of the Renaissance in Europe, and this fact supports the validity of the theory that some historians say, according to which the nations of Europe could not begin the era of renaissance and prosperity until after they were able to liberate themselves from the clutches of Jewish economic control.
And, of course, the Jews deserve to be punished:

The agents of the Illuminati were scattered in the neighborhoods of the ghetto, spewing poisons of hatred  and the spirit of revenge into the hearts of the Jewish masses against those who abandoned and isolated them . The rabbis, in turn, taught them that they were God's chosen people, and that the day of vengeance would undoubtedly come and they would inherit the land and those on it.

And located in general on the western borders of Russia, and most of them were from the Khazars, who were famous for their culture known as Yiddish, which is the name of their language that they speak, as they are known for their malice, extreme stinginess, low methods in financial matters, and their despicable morals.

The agents of the Illuminati inside the ghetto neighborhoods were kindling the fire of hatred and the desire for revenge, and they took to organizing the exploitation of these circumstances until it turned into a global revolutionary movement whose goal was terror and intimidation.
Sounds a lot like projection.

But this isn't even the most antisemitic article in Al Shiraa today. That one is The Crisis of the Jewish Mind, by psychiatrist and social worker Dr. Ahmed Ayyash, illustrated with this photo.

In Ayyash's expert and professional opinion:

It is true that the Jewish mind leads its believers towards mass suicide, even if that obliges them to use nuclear weapons against a billion Muslims in their final battle, according to the promise of the God of volcanoes and war “Jehovah.” This indicates and confirms that the greatness of Jewish intelligence works against itself more than it works fiercely against others. 

The intelligent Jewish mind, as much as it is a genius in science, is disturbed, sick and foolish in its metaphysical beliefs. ..The Jewish mind commands its believers to strike their heads against the Western Wall so that the Messiah  appears early. 

The massacres, contempt and imprisonment of an entire people, and the occupation of lands do not establish in the Jewish mind any guilt or remorse complex. Their God, “Yahweh,” convinced them that all their enemies are nothing but living beings created to serve the chosen people of Yahweh.

The Jewish mind is a troubled, sick, psychotic, paranoid mind that is governed by persecution, revenge, and killing as appropriate.

What a coincidence that all the peoples of the world do not tolerate the Jewish mind, nd declare hostility to the Jew and accuse him of harnessing the country's financial capabilities for mysterious plans?
It is not a coincidence, but an inability, and an intolerance, to accept a sick mind that analyzes everything in its favor, even if all peoples starve. It is a disturbed and troubled mind, psychotic, paranoid, aggressive, dangerous, that employs his intelligence against himself and takes his believers to mass suicide...
This must be the new anti-Zionism.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, December 09, 2022




From Algemeiner:

More than 200 artists have signed a statement pledging to boycott Finland’s leading gallery of contemporary art because of its links with a Finnish-Israeli philanthropist, in a move denounced as “antisemitic” by the Bishop of Helsinki and other public figures.

In the statement, the signatories pledged to “refuse to sell our labor and art” to the Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki as long as it maintained links with the Zabludowicz Art Trust, an initiative of Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz, a London-based billionaire who holds dual Finnish and Israeli citizenship.

Responding to the statement on Thursday, Helsinki’s Lutheran Bishop charged the artists with having adopted an antisemitic stance.

“If an individual Jew is held responsible for the actions of the state of Israel, or if an individual Jew is prohibited from supporting Israel, or if Israel as a state is required to do something more than other democratic states, we are guilty of antisemitism,” Bishop Teemu Laajasalo told Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat news outlet.

In a separate tweet, Laajasalo commented that “antisemitism has many faces. A neo-Nazi or an Islamist is identifiable. It is more difficult to recognize the Jew-hatred of the Academy or [among] culture workers.”

What, exactly, are the boycotters accusing Zabludowicz of?

Artforum writes:

Citing Zabludoiwcz Art Trust cofounder Chaim (Poju) Zabludowicz’s position as CEO of the private investment organization Tamares Group—a company founded by his father that indirectly supports the Israeli state via its stake in Knafaim, a provider of maintenance services to the Israeli Air Force—BDZ accuses the art trust and its subsidiaries (including the Zabludowicz Collection, Zabludowicz Art Projects in London, and Daata Editions) of “artwashing” what it describes as Israeli state policies of racism and apartheid by using “art and cultural activities in the UK to enhance the image of Israel.” 

There is no doubt that Zabludowicz is a Zionist. But the boycotters need to exaggerate links between the museum and the IDF to justify boycotting the entire museum, so here is how they inflate it.

The Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art has eleven board members. One is Zabludoiwcz.

He is the head of many institutions, including owning a hockey team. He has given millions to art initiatives as well as medical research. He is also head of the Tamares holding company, which mostly invests in real estate (it owns 40% of downtown Las Vegas.)

Tamares has equity stakes in at least 25 companies covering a wide range of interests, including entertainment and technology. One of them is Kanafaim, which is in turn another holding company that has four business units, including El Al Airlines and Maintenance Wings. The latter provides maintenance services for the Israel Air Force.

This is a minuscule part of his holdings and the relationship between the museum, Zabludowicz's art ventures and Maintenance Wings is nonexistent.

Boycotting the museum because of this tenuous link makes as much sense as boycotting every company that includes Vanguard Funds as one of its major investors because Vanguard also invests in defense contractors. 

Anyone can find an excuse to boycott any Jew they want if they look hard enough for a reason. And that is exactly what the boycotters here are doing - including every one of the 200 artists. 

Every major art gallery and museum can find a patron that also invests in companies that are involved with ventures that some will consider unethical - if one is willing to dig for them. 

But the interest in finding such links begins and ends with rich Jews. 







Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, October 24, 2022




The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is not a definition. It is a very vague guideline whose main advantage is that it is better than nothing. When a new controversy erupts about some famous person like Donald Trump, Rashida Tlaib or Kanye West saying or doing something, the narrative about whether it is antisemitic or not almost never refers to the IHRA Working Definition - because that definition is nearly useless in making such determinations. 

I have created my own definition that does not have the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. I describe it in the paper below, slightly modified from a paper I submitted to the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, ISGAP, for publication. (I previously excerpted from this paper.)

The ADL's webpage on the IHRA definition says, "The IHRA Definition is one tool, albeit an important one, to use to identify and combat antisemitism.  However, it is not a substitute for more nuanced expertise on antisemitism, nor does its use preclude consulting other definitions."

In fact, if you look at what the ADL has said is antisemitic, it tracks far better to my definition than to IHRA. 

I am not saying to abandon the IHRA Working Definition. I am definitely not interested in tearing down the great work done by many people to get governments and institutions to adopt the IHRA definition.  I'm saying that people who are serious about antisemitism use my definition in conjunction with the IHRA definition as the best means we have to impartially determine whether specific incidents are, in fact, antisemitic. Ultimately, I would like to see the IHRA incorporate my definition into its own.

This is too important to worry about politics or the egos of the drafters of other definitions. If my definition is the best - and other experts in the field have told me that it is - then it is the one that should be used. And if mine can be improved, let's do it.

____________________________________________________________

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism has been a tremendous success, and it is heartening to see so many nations and institutions adopt it. It is the best official definition we have.

However, it is not above criticism. In fact, while it may be the best definition out there, it is not really a good definition.

As is well known, the core component of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism says,

 “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This definition is vague, a fact already noted by other experts.[i],[ii]

A certain perception” doesn’t tell us anything about the perception itself.

May be expressed” implies that not all hatred towards Jews is antisemitism — but does not help us understand what is.

Saying that the manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals does not limit the scope of the definition at all.

The core definition simply does little to help anyone understand what is, and what is not, antisemitism.

Perhaps because of this ambiguity, the IHRA definition goes on to give eleven potential examples of antisemitism. The examples are accurate – most would agree that they are indeed manifestations of antisemitism – but they cannot be easily extrapolated to include all examples of antisemitism. Anything that does not fit exactly within the examples may or may not be antisemitism itself – the working definition does very little to guide the reader to understand what antisemitism means beyond the examples. Even the examples themselves aren’t considered definitive:  the Working Definition introduces the examples with caveats saying the definition “could, taking into account the overall context, include” the given examples – meaning that in some contexts they might not be.

A definition of antisemitism that cannot flatly say, for example, that Holocaust denial is antisemitic is severely lacking.

What would an ideal definition of antisemitism look like?

Any good definition of antisemitism must be precise. It should not have words like “may” or “could” or “might.”

A good definition should be complete. It should not require any examples. It should not require any background information or pre-existing knowledge on the part of the individual who needs to use the definition.

A good definition should be useful, able to be applied to new situations.

An ideal definition should be, essentially, an algorithm. It should be possible to input any speech or any actions into this algorithm and determine, with as much certainty as possible, that those words or acts are, or are not, antisemitic.

Finally, a good definition should be short.  Ideally, it should fit in a tweet.

I created my own definition of antisemitism that, I believe, fits these criteria.

The EoZ Definition of Antisemitism

Antisemitism is
hostility toward, 
denigration of
malicious lies about or 
discrimination against

Jews

as individual Jews, 
as a people, 
as a religion, 
as an ethnic group or 
as a nation (i.e., Israel.)

 

The formatting is deliberate, although not strictly necessary. It emphasizes that there is a list of actions that are included in the definition of antisemitism, as well as a list of potential targets, but the central and immutable point is that Jews are the object of vitriol.

The centrality of Jews to the definition contrasts with the IHRA Working Definition. The core IHRA Working Definition says the targets of hatred may be Jews, non-Jews, Jewish institutions, property or religious facilities. This is not strictly true. The target of antisemites is always Jews, and the others are simply proxies for Jews. For example, synagogues that are converted to churches may still have Jewish symbols on their facades, but they are no longer the objects of attack because there are no Jews associated with them anymore.

The definition has four types of general actions that define antisemitism, and five terms for the object of these actions. The objects represent the different dimensions of what it means to be a Jew.

“Hostility toward Jews” is, I believe, a better formulation than “hate towards Jews.” Hate is internal while hostility is generally noticeable to others. It does little good to make antisemitism a thought crime – antisemites usually don’t admit that they hate Jews, but they often display hostility towards Jews. “Hostility towards Jews” includes violence.

“Denigration of Jews” is any act or speech that unfairly criticizes Jews. This is emphatically not “criticism of Jews” – one can have criticisms of Jews as a people or a nation or as individuals without being antisemitic. Denigration crosses the line from rational to irrational.

“Malicious lies about Jews” includes all conspiracy theories involving Jews, and there are hundreds of them. It also includes any stereotyping of Jews: it is difficult to imagine a more heterogeneous group than Jews are, and any assumption that Jews all are on the same page with any issue is invariably a malicious lie.

“Discrimination against Jews” is obviously antisemitic, just as any discrimination against any people is bigotry. Notably, the IHRA core definition does not mention discrimination.

Now let’s look at the objects, Jews as “X.”

“Jews as individual Jews” means that the words and actions are directed against Jews simply because they are Jews.

“Jews as a people” emphasizes the peoplehood of Jews whether they are religious or not. Jews have been referred to as a people (“am”) since Biblical times. Attacking Jews as a people is clearly antisemitic.

“Jews as a religion” includes attacking Judaism itself. Again, we are only speaking of unfair or malicious attacks. Judaism may be criticized as may any other religion without it being antisemitic.  (Admittedly, the language is a little stilted here.)

“Jews as an ethnic group” includes those who attack Jews for racial or xenophobic reasons. I didn’t want to say “Jews as a racial group” because Jews are emphatically not a racial group. Most Jews are, however, part of an ethnic group and have been discriminated against or attacked on that basis.

Finally, we reach “Jews as a nation (i.e., Israel.)”

The IHRA definition seems to bend over backwards to treat anti-Zionism as a special case of antisemitism. It isn’t. Any student of antisemitism knows how modern anti-Zionism is a new label on a very old bottle.  Just because there is not complete congruity between Zionism and Judaism is not a reason to treat anti-Zionism as anything other than antisemitism – there is not perfect correspondence between Jews as a people, as a religion or as an ethnic group/tribe, either. Converts to Judaism aren’t ethnic Jews and most Jews aren’t religious. That doesn’t make attacks against those groups any less antisemitic.

The same goes for the modern State of Israel. As the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks eloquently stated,

 Jews have lived in almost every country under the sun. In 4,000 years, only in Israel have they been able to live as a free, self-governing people. …Only in Israel can Jews today speak the Hebrew of the Bible as the language of everyday speech. Only there can they live Jewish time within a calendar structured according to the rhythms of the Jewish year. Only in Israel can Jews once again walk where the prophets walked, climb the mountains Abraham climbed and to which David lifted his eyes. Israel is the only place where Jews have been able to live Judaism in anything other than an edited edition, continuing the story their ancestors began.[iii] 

Judaism and Israel are bound together. Jews know this - and the antisemites know this, too. Identifying with the State of Israel is a core component of what it is to be a Jew, not an exception.

Classic antisemitism says Jews poisoned the wells. Modern antisemitism says Israelis poison the wells and water.

Classic antisemitism says Jews delight in killing children. Modern antisemitism says the same about Israelis.

Classic antisemitism says Jews control major world governments. Modern antisemitism says the same about Zionists.

Classic antisemitism excludes Jews from clubs and organizations. Modern antisemitism excludes Zionists from “progressive” spaces.

There is no need to apologize for saying that modern antisemitism, in the guise of anti-Zionism, is just another flavor of classic antisemitism. The similarities dwarf the differences.

The IHRA Working Definition seems defensive when mentioning Israel. It says, “Manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

How is that different than criticism of Judaism, or criticism of Jews as a people? Any honest criticism is fair game for all those categories of what it means to be a Jew, not just for Israel. The IHRA does no favors by differentiating Israel from Judaism in this context.

We can run this same exercise against all the speech and actions in the first half of my definition. Hostility towards Jews as individual Jews, as a people, as an ethnic group or as a religion is clearly antisemitism – and so is hostility towards Israel as a nation. Hostility goes way beyond sober criticism, and it betrays the irrationality of the hostile party. Why single out Israel in this regard?

Denigration of Israel is similar. What other nation gets regularly denigrated? Saying Israel has no right to exist is on the same moral plane as saying Jews have no right to exist as a people – or that Jews are not a people at all, which is a favored accusation among Arab antisemites specifically to argue that a Israel has no right to exist as a homeland for people who merely share a religion. Again, classic and modern antisemitism are entwined.

Malicious lies about Israel fit in the same category as malicious lies about any group. The malice betrays the hate, and the hate is what drives the malice. The apartheid lie, the ethnic cleansing lie, the racism lie – they are just as illegitimate and revolting as the Christ-killing lie, the Elders of Zion lie, the Untermensch lie.

The same logic goes with “discrimination against Jews as a nation.” When Israel is discriminated against, we all know it is because it is the only state that is filled with and controlled by Jews. Vehement denials of antisemitism are not arguments.

For the purposes of determining what antisemitism is, Israel is not a special case of the collective Jew.  It is a core example. Nowadays, it is perhaps the paradigm of being a Jewish object of hate.

In a way, my definition is an extension of Natan Sharansky’s excellent “3D test” of whether anti-Israel criticism becomes antisemitism. As he wrote,

We must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.[iv]

This is not only true for criticism of Israel, but for criticism of Jews, of Judaism and of the Jewish people. Jews as a people, as a religion, as a culture and as individuals can be legitimately criticized, just as Israel can be. Only when the criticism extends into the territory of these 3 “D”s do they become antisemitic.

There is no difference between demonizing, delegitimizing, and applying double standards to Israel or to Jews in every other sense. Both are the same antisemitism.

Testing the definition with antisemitism defined under IHRA

To test whether my definition is accurate, I suggest that we use it as an algorithm against situations that are listed as examples in the IHRA Working Definition to see if this definition judges those situations as antisemitic.

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

This would be hostility towards Jews as individual Jews, as a people, and as a religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

This would be malicious lies against Jews as a people, and possibly as a religion or nation.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

This is hostility towards, denigration of, and malicious lies about Jews as a people.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

This is the prototypical example of malicious lies about Jews as individual Jews (i.e., witnesses to the Holocaust,) as a people and as a nation (Arabs regularly accuse Zionists of making up the Holocaust to justify taking their land.)

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

This is denigration of and malicious lies about Jews as individual Jews, as a people and as a nation.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

This is hostility towards, denigration of, malicious lies about and discrimination against Jews as a people and as a nation.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

This is discrimination against Jews as a nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

This would be hostility towards and malicious lies about Jews as a people and as a nation.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This would be malicious lies about and hostility towards Jews as a nation.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

This would be hostility towards Jews as individual Jews and as a people.

Testing the definition with antisemitism not defined under IHRA

The IHRA Working Definition is ambiguous about some examples of antisemitism that are generally accepted as antisemitism.

One example is the Khazar theory – the idea that most or all Ashkenazic Jews are not ethnic Jews at all but descended from a Turkic people known as the Khazars who supposedly converted to Judaism. Like Holocaust denial, it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that is often disguised as legitimate research.

The IHRA Working Definition gives very little guidance on whether this is antisemitic or not, yet virtually everyone agrees it is. Under my definition, however, there is no doubt: the Khazar theory is a malicious lie about Jews as an ethnic group and a people.

Similar malicious lies, popular for the past hundred years among Arabs, is that there is no Jewish connection to Jerusalem and that the Jewish Temples are fictional. While the IHRA working definition does not help at all on this, my definition addresses it similarly to the Khazar theory: they malicious lies about Jews as a people and as a nation.

Popular writer and poet Alice Walker wrote a poem about Jews where, under the guise of simply asking questions, she accused Jews of believing that non-Jews are subhumans who must be killed, and that the Talmud supports raping children.[v] While this may fit under the IHRA working definition, it might not if Walker claims “context:” that she is just asking questions, or is only discussing the Jews who study the Talmud. Under my definition, however, Walker is exhibiting hostility towards, denigration of and malicious lies about Jews as a people and as a religion (as well as a nation in other parts of the poem where she ties Jews with Israelis.)

Testing the definition with ambiguous cases

How does this definition do with more controversial or ambiguous cases of potential antisemitism?

George Soros is a Jewish billionaire who funds many left-wing causes. Sheldon Adelson was a Jewish billionaire who funded many right-wing causes. Both have been the object of conspiracy theories. Are those theories antisemitic?

Frank Gaffney said about Soros:

 Is George Soros the anti-Christ?  While former New York mayor Rudi Giuliani has put the question in play, theologians may be better equipped to debate it than politicians.

The decades-long record of this billionaire financier and philanthropist, however, is one of such malevolence and destruction that he must at a minimum be considered the anti-Christ’s right-hand man. [vi]

This was regarded by the ADL as being antisemitic[vii]. Is it?

I’m no expert on Christian eschatology, but I have seen that non-Jewish rich people like Bill Gates[viii] and Jeff Bezos[ix] have also been accused of being the Antichrist, so without any mentioning or hinting of Soros’ religion, it does not fit my definition of antisemitism – the attack on him is as an influential rich person, not as a Jew, at least on the face of it. (For those who say that the Antichrist must be Jewish, however, this may very well be considered antisemitic.)

In contrast, Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters had this to say about Sheldon Adelson[x]:

Sheldon Adelson believes that only Jews – only Jewish people – are completely human. That they are attached in some way…and that everybody else on Earth is there to serve them.

There is no record of Adelson ever saying anything remotely like this. Waters is – consciously or not – invoking antisemitic interpretations of the Talmud and ascribing that to Adelson.

Both Waters and Gaffney are accusing rich Jews of being puppet-masters, but only Waters is couching that accusation is clearly Jewish terms. Under my definition, he is showing hostility toward, denigration of and malicious lies about a Jew as an individual Jew. While Gaffney’s slur can be interpreted as being against any rich person, Rogers’ invective cannot be interpreted any other way except for being antisemitic.

To be sure, the puppet-master motif has been associated with Jews for more than a century. Yet it is not exclusively applied to Jews, so without additional evidence, we cannot say that the accusation itself is antisemitic when applied to an influential Jew.

This brings up another issue in determining whether something is antisemitic or not. The IHRA Working Definition takes pains to point out that much of the determination of whether something is antisemitic or not depends on context. I would be a little more specific and note that much of that determination depends on the mindset of the potential offender. Their intentions may have been wholly innocent, they may have been malicious, and they very possibly may have been clueless or careless as to the implications of their offensive actions or statements.

We cannot read minds, but we can take educated guesses based on other statements or actions by the person or group that is behind the offensive words or actions. In this example, if Gaffney has a history of antisemitism, or he has previously specifically referred to Soros’ being a Jew, or he has cited sources saying that the Antichrist must be a Jew, then we can reasonably assume that his statement was indeed antisemitic, because in that case it would also be hostility toward, denigration of and malicious lies about Soros as an individual Jew.

Knowing the motivation of the person making the offensive comment is key in any determination. I believe that we should err on the side of caution and not assume antisemitic motives unless there is a compelling reason to do so, typically a history of other obviously antisemitic comments or a consistent pattern of singling out Jews for opprobrium. Without a cautious approach, there is a danger that charges of antisemitism will be used capriciously and more as a means of attacking a political opponent than as a sober analysis of an event or a statement. Indeed, we see that happen all the time both on the political Right and Left: accusations of antisemitism that are not motivated by actual concern about Jew-hate but to score political points. 

Another interesting test case is Representative Ilhan Omar’s statement that the reason US politicians support Israel is “all about the Benjamins, baby.”[xi] She was saying that Zionist money is the main or only reason why any politician would support Israel. This is invoking a trope of Jews controlling a nation with money. This is a case of malicious lies about Jews as a people or as a nation, and as such, it is antisemitic.

But what about political attack ads against Jewish candidates, portraying them as greedy and holding wads of cash? The Washington Post reported on six such ads by Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections.[xii] This is a more difficult call. The trope of a money-grubbing politician transcends religion or peoplehood. Yet when the candidates have obviously Jewish names, it makes the possibility that this is an attack on Jews more likely.

In one case, the attack ad against Sara Johnson Rothman showing her holding a pile of $100 bills appears to cross the line into antisemitism, because the ad excised her maiden name that she consistently uses as her middle name and just called her ”Sara Rothman.” This formulation made her sound like she was Jewish herself rather than having married a Jew. In that case, it seems to be a case of denigrating (and possibly malicious lies) about an individual who is portrayed as an individual Jew.  

The other cases require some mind reading to be sure that they were antisemitic, but the sheer number of them makes it  difficult to dismiss as normal political attack ads. If there were no comparable ads against non-Jewish candidates from the same sources, that could indicate antisemitic intent. Conversely, if there were a dozen other political ads in 2018 showing non-Jewish candidates grabbing bags of cash, then this would be considered normal political mudslinging and not specifically antisemitic. It must be noted that even if the ads are not strictly antisemitic themselves, the attackers should be more conscientious about the appearance of using these sorts of antisemitic dog-whistles.

In fact, dog-whistles and potential dog whistles are among the most difficult cases to define as antisemitic, within this definition and without it. By their very nature, dog whistles are meant to hide malicious intent.

When Donald Trump tweeted a graphic showing Hillary Clinton in front of a background of piles of cash, and it included the text “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” inside a six-pointed star[xiii], and there was an immediate backlash that Trump was associating Hilary with Jewish cash. The original graphic came from a far-right forum that traffics in antisemitism so there is little doubt that the choice of that star was meant to be a dog whistle for that audience. Whether Trump intended to share the same dog whistle with his followers as the original artist did is unclear. The Trump campaign modified the graphic within two hours.

Is it antisemitic? It all depends on what was in Trump’s mind when he tweeted it, and we cannot know that. Yet the origin of the graphic, and the fact that there was a path from that ignoble source to Trump and he then tweeted it, indicates that more care should have been taken before spreading this graphic around. A good definition of antisemitism can help people be more sensitive to spreading antisemitic tropes.

In October 2020, a BDS Facebook page in South Africa published a cartoon about Clover Dairy, which had been purchased by a firm that was owned by an Israeli company.[xiv] It showed a gross, fat man shoveling money in his mouth with the caption, “Don’t feed Clover’s greedy bosses.” The South African Jewish Report said that the cartoon was antisemitic, but BDS complained about that characterization, saying the caricature was just that of a greedy capitalist, not necessarily a Jew. A reverse image lookup shows that the original cartoon had nothing to do with Israel or Jews. Yet the caricature was specifically against Clover because it was purchased by an Israeli company, and it is difficult to dismiss this use of the graphic as anything less than a dog whistle that evoked Nazi-era cartoons showing fat, rich Jews with piles of money – the only thing missing was the prominent nose. Given that BDS itself is an antisemitic movement – it discriminates against Jews as a nation – I don’t believe we should give BDS the benefit of the doubt here. There is room for argument in this case, though.

It is important that a good definition of antisemitism not only defines what it is, but also what it is not. Whoopi Goldberg’s claim that the Holocaust had nothing to do with race[xv] was a manifestly stupid and false statement, but it was not malicious. By my definition, it was not antisemitic.

Another point: It is possible for a statement to be hurtful but not antisemitic, but statements that are meant to be hurtful to any Jews who hear it are undoubtedly antisemitic.  

When the determination of antisemitism depends on what was going through the offender’s mind, it makes sense to err on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt unless there is a history of other more blatant antisemitic provocations from the same source.

One thing is clear, though. This discussion, with this level of specificity, is impossible with the IHRA Working Definition, or the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, or any of the other well-known attempts at defining the term. My definition allows this discussion to take place, and any borderline cases for my definition are also arguable among experts in antisemitism. My definition more closely maps to the large number of cases that Jews “know” to be antisemitic than the other definitions do.

Conclusion

Existing definitions of antisemitism have been vague and have only provided very general guidance that is often not useful for specific cases. I presented here a definition that is useful, precise, and as accurate as can be reasonably expected, both to define what is and to exclude what isn’t antisemitism.

I don’t want to take away from the excellent work that has been done in promoting the IHRA Working Definition, but I hope that my definition can supplement it in ways that can make it more useful and actionable.



[i] Maya Hertig Randall and Catherine Imbeck, “The IHRA working definition of antisemitism: a legal analysis,” Legal opinion provided at the request of the Service for Combating Racism at the Federal Department of Home Affairs (Switzerland), November 6, 2020

[ii] Peter Ullrich, “Expert Opinion on IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism,” Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, October 2019

[iii] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “Israel: The Heart of Judaism,” HaMizrahi, April 2018

[iv] Natan Sharansky, “3D Test of Anti-Semitism:Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization,” Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 (Fall 2004)

[v] Alice Walker, “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study They [sic] Talmud”, Alice Walker: The Official Website, November 2, 2017

[vi] Frank Gaffney, “George Soros, The Anti-Christ, or Just His Right-hand Man?”, Center for Security Policy, October 11, 2018

[vii] “The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories,” ADL Blog, October 11, 2018

[viii] Christopher James Blythe, “Bill Gates’ Comments on Covid-19 Vaccine Enflame ‘Mark of the Beast’ Worries in Some Christian Circles,” Religion Dispatches, May 4, 2020

[ix] “Could Jeff Bezos possibly be the Antichrist?”, Reddit r/Christianity, March 13, 2022

[x] “Musician Roger Waters on Hamas-Affiliated News Agency: Crazy Puppet Master Adelson Has Donald Trump’s Tiny Little Pr*ck in His Pocket; Israelis Teach U.S. Police How to Murder Blacks,” MEMRIReports Twitter,  June 21, 2020

[xi] Zack Beauchamp “Ilhan Omar’s tweet revealed core truths about anti-Semitism in America,” Vox, February 12, 2019

[xii] Eli Rosenberg, “Republicans attack Jewish candidates across the U.S. with an age-old caricature: Fistfuls of cash,” Washington Post, November 6, 2018

[xiii] Louis Jacobson, “Donald Trump’s ‘Star of David’ tweet: a recap,” Politifact, July 5, 2016

[xiv] Jeremy Gordin, “The SAJR vs the Press Council: What's going on?” PoliticsWeb (South Africa), June 2, 2022

[xv] Kenan Malik, “Whoopi Goldberg’s Holocaust remarks drew on a misguided idea of racism,” The Guardian, February 2, 2022




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive