Adopt my algorithmic definition of antisemitism

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!