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

Sunday, June 04, 2023

From The Forward:
A new study is casting doubt on the idea, held by some but not most American Jews, that antisemitism is just as prevalent on the far left as it is on the far right. Though far more American Jews consider the far right as the greater antisemitic threat, some academics and Jewish leaders have embraced horseshoe theory — the idea the opposite ends of an ideological spectrum are similar — and applied it to antisemitism.

Though the Anti-Defamation League, for example, has identified the far right as far more threatening to American Jews, its leader, Jonathan Greenblatt, has compared far-left critics of Israel as the “photo inverse” of the extreme right.

While antisemitism on the right tends to focus on conspiracy theories about Jews being disloyal to white people or rejecting conservative values, on the left it’s often tied to blaming Jews for actions undertaken by Israel.

A paper published in June in the journal Political Research Quarterly found that anti-Jewish beliefs are far more popular in right-wing circles, particularly among young people. 

The results show that “there’s a problem on the young right,” said study author Eitan Hersh, an associate professor of political science at Tufts University. “It’s very interesting and, I think, concerning that we have this rare form of prejudice that is more common among young people and old people. It’s kind of shocking because if you look at other forms of prejudice, like racism, sexism, anti-gay attitudes, they’re just way higher among older people than younger people.”

For the study, a survey was sent to 3,500 American adults, 2,500 of them between the ages of 18 and 30. Respondents were asked to reply to a series of questions, such as whether they believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than the U.S.; if it’s appropriate to boycott Jewish-owned businesses to protest Israeli policies, and whether Jews have too much power. They were also asked questions to test for a double standard. For instance, one question would ask whether Jews who want to participate in activism must first denounce Israeli actions against Palestinians, and then a similar question was posed about Muslims denouncing a Muslim country’s actions. 

Hersh said he was surprised by the results. Those on the left were less likely than even political moderates to believe Jews were more loyal to Israel. They were also less likely than moderates to think Jews have too much power or that boycotting Jewish businesses to protest Israel was acceptable. Young adults who held the most conservative views were almost five times more likely to say it was acceptable to boycott Jewish businesses than those on the farthest left and almost 10 times more likely to say Jews had too much power. 
I'm not quite sure why this is being published now - the survey was published nearly a year ago.

The people behind the survey, while trying hard to make it as scientific as possible, are still missing the nature of modern antisemitism of the Left. So is The Forward.

The far-Left (in the US) is conditioned to be against traditional antisemitism. They know "hating Jews" is a bad thing. They know the Holocaust was a horrible event. Their visceral hatred for Nazis means that are never going to say that they will boycott Jewish-owned businesses or that Jews have too much power.

That is because they have replaced the object of their irrational hate from "Jew" to "Zionist."

The surveyors should have asked the identical questions across the same groups with the word "Zionists" instead of "Jews:"

1. US Zionists are more loyal to Israel than to America.
2. It is appropriate for opponents of Israel’s policies and actions to boycott Zionist American owned businesses in their communities.
3. Zionists in the United States have too much power.
Even though they don't want to admit it - certainly not to a survey - "Zionist" has become a useful replacement for "Jew" in their own bigotry. "Zionists" are excluded from progressive clubs, not "Jews" - but there is essentially no difference between the two. Jews are expected to denounce Israel as a precondition to being accepted in some campus spaces, but members of other religions aren't given the same demands. 

If the far-Left were given similar questions to those the ADL asks about Jews in their antisemitism surveys but using the word "Zionists" instead, then we would learn how congruent their hate is with right-wing antisemitism. In addition to the questions above, they should specify whether the responders agree:

Zionists have too much power in the business world
Zionists have too much power in international financial markets
Zionists talk too much about the Holocaust
Zionists don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind
Zionists have too much control over global affairs
Zionists have too much control over the United States government
Zionists think they are better than other people
Zionists have too much control over the global media
Zionists are responsible for most of the world's wars
People hate Jews because of the way Israel behaves
If far-Left responses to classic antisemitic tropes repurposed as "anti-Zionist" are similar to far-right answers to those tropes with Jews, that would be strong proof that the "horseshoe theory" is correct - and that the Left has simply recast Jews as "Zionist" while denying any connection between the two. The crazed prejudice is the same, just recast as a rational, political position rather than an irrational racist position. 

My theory that the far Left tries to bury antisemitic attitudes behind other concerns is supported by a survey done in 2021 that showed a correlation between education and antisemitism, using a brilliant methodology where the people being polled would not know that their answers would indicate prejudice - something the Left is sensitive to. 

I'm not saying that the far Left is just as antisemitic as the far-Right. We don't have the data. I'm saying that the methodologies in the surveys we know of that make the claim that there is little far-Left antisemitism have all been flawed. 

It would be similarly instructive to see the far-Right responses to the same questions on "Zionists," because while the Left tries to paint the right-wing antisemites as Zionist, the reality is, I believe, quite different (just look at David Duke's writings about Israel for an example.) 

Maybe I should raise the money for a proper survey to see if I am right or not. Because the professionals and academics are still missing the boat.



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, April 28, 2023




On Thursday, the New York City Council voted on a resolution recognizing April 29 as End Jew Hatred Day annually in the City of New York. It was introduced by Councilwoman Inna Vernikov.

One would expect that such a resolution would be approved unanimously. What could possibly be controversial about a resolution against antisemitism? It doesn't mention Israel. It notes the rising attacks on Jews in the city, which is obvious and supported by hate crime statistics. 

But antisemitism is alive and well and spouted on the record in the halls of City Council.

After Vernikov and others spoke in support for the resolution, Council member Charles Barron said that he would abstain. The reason the issue was not fully supported by all, he said, is because the Jewish community is inconsistent in opposing hatred, specifically hatred of Palestinians. He then went on a rant about Israel "murdering Palestinian women and children and stealing land." he then accused Jewish leaders of having supported not only crimes against Palestinians but also apartheid in South Africa. 

It was classic antisemitism, saying that because he (wrongly) perceives (some) Jews as supporting racism, he doesn't want to oppose a resolution condemning hate of Jews. Hate of some morphs into hate of all, a hallmark of bigotry everywhere.  

It is also a perfect example of how hate for Israel is just another form of hate for Jews - why should Israeli policies affect one's vote against antisemitism?

Later, Shahana Hanif - the first Muslim City Council member in New York - gave completely different reasons for voting against the resolution. She claimed that the organizations behind the resolution were far-right wing, Islamophobic and anti-trans organizations, and implied that the City Council members who introduced the resolution were anti-trans as well, so therefore she "refused to collaborate" with them. 

Of course, that should indicate an abstention, not a vote against the resolution. Alternatively, Hanif could easily have put on the record that she opposes the supposedly hateful organizations that she claims were behind the resolution but that she supports the idea of an "End Jew Hatred" day. Her choice to vote against the resolution can only mean one thing: she is against fighting Jew-hatred. And whether she likes it or not, she is sending the message to New York that the Muslim community is not against antisemitism. 

Here's video of the entire discussion and vote on the resolution.


Today, we have people in positions of power who are quite comfortable publicly calling Jews murderers, thieves and Islamophobes and using that as an excuse to oppose supporting a minority Jewish community that is being physically attacked on the streets of New York every day. 






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!

 

 

Sunday, April 02, 2023

Tabia Lee was the Director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education at De Anza Community College in Cupertino, CA, and was recently fired from that position because she didn't adhere to the standard DEI orthodoxy. She describes her experiences in Compact:
What made me persona non grata? On paper, I was a good fit for the job. I am a black woman with decades of experience teaching in public schools and leading workshops on diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism. At the Los Angeles Unified School District, I established a network to help minority teachers attain National Board Certification. I designed and facilitated numerous teacher trainings and developed a civic-education program that garnered accolades from the LAUSD Board of Education.

My crime at De Anza was running afoul of the tenets of critical social justice, a worldview that understands knowledge as relative and tied to unequal identity-based power dynamics that must be exposed and dismantled. This, I came to recognize, was the unofficial but strictly enforced ideological orthodoxy of De Anza—as it is at many other educational institutions.
One section of her essay is relevant for this site:

The conflicts were not limited to my tenure-review process. At every turn, I experienced strident opposition when I deviated from the accepted line. When I brought Jewish speakers to campus to address anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, some of my critics branded me a “dirty Zionist” and a “right-wing extremist.” When I formed the Heritage Month Workgroup, bringing together community members to create a multifaith holiday and heritage month calendar, the De Anza student government voted to support this effort. However, my officemates and dean explained to me that such a project was unacceptable, because it didn’t focus on “decentering whiteness.”

When I later sought the support of our academic senate for the Heritage Month project, one opponent asked me if it was “about all the Jewish-inclusion stuff you have been pushing here,” and argued that the senate shouldn’t support the Heritage Month Workgroup efforts, because I was attempting to “turn our school into a religious school.” The senate president deferred to this claim, and the workgroup was denied support.
I looked up what she did for Jewish Heritage Month, and from what I can see, it was incredible

The first event in 2022, I believe, was this one on defining antisemitism, with panelists Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. from the National Jewish Advocacy Center and  Alyza Lewin from the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.  They both explain the logic behind the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and explain why the "3D" test is an accurate description of when criticism of Israel crosses the line into antisemitism. Rabbi Goldfeder spoke specifically about why labeling Israel as an apartheid state, as the then-recent Amnesty report did, is in fact antisemitism.

Dr. Lee even went through a breakout room exercise where students could take real world examples of "anti-Israel" slanders and identify whether and why they were antisemitic.

No wonder the hard Left on campus was upset about this! 

This video is nearly two hours long, but it includes not only excellent presentations by Goldfeder and Lewin, but also a video by the later Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explaining why anti-Zionism is often antisemitism. 

I don't know how many people attended this, but it is astonishing that this was shown on any campus today.


 

There are many other videos of different events celebrating Jewishness, moderated by Dr. Lee,  that interview Jews who are unabashedly woke but also often unabashedly Zionist. One example: This one interviews Dr. Brandy Shufutinsky, a Black Jewish social worker who disagrees with critical social justice and intersectionality theory, and features rap videos by her quite proudly Jewish son "Westside Gravy."

I am fairly certain that De Anza will not have another Jewish Heritage Month. 

Tabia Lee appears to be a principled warrior against all kinds of racism and bigotry, and as such she couldn't survive on that campus. I hope that there might be a larger university that actually cares about real equality and anti-racism that hires her and gives her the resources she needs to lead the students, not be led by the extremists. 

Her dismissal is a huge loss for the De Anza community.  I hope some other campus can gain her expertise.



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 15, 2023


Inspired by this tweet:


He didn't merely "criticize Israel." He accused a member of Congress of being bought and controlled by the Jewish lobby.



This is not the first time that blatant antisemitism was justified as mere "criticism of Israel." And when people like Cavallaro and Ken Roth explain the reasons they didn't get the positions they wanted, the media doesn't bother to wonder - hey, maybe there is a conflict of interest here in the description of the reasons they give.




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, February 13, 2023

The latest AJC report on antisemitism in America has an interesting datapoint.

There were a number of questions asked of both Jews and the general American public about antisemitism, and for most of them, the responses were very similar. For example:



Amazingly, a higher percentage of the American public (90%) feels that the statement "ISrael has no right to exist" is antisemitic than Jews! (87%)

Where they diverge is concerning, though.

34% of the American public is not familiar with classic antisemitic tropes, and therefore they don't see the problem with a statement like "Jews control the media."

The next question is even more concerning - both about the general American response and the Jewish response:


58% of Americans and even 41% of Jews don't see comparing Covid mandates to the Holocaust  as antisemitic - somehow, apparently, conflating mandatory wearing of the yellow star, as bad as that is, with gas chambers. 

A lot of people are very uneducated.And the ignorance that results can help bring about the next wave of antisemitism.






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!

 

 

Tuesday, January 17, 2023

From Ian:

A New Study Shows That the U.S. Has More Anti-Semites Than Jews
According to a recent survey conducted by the Antidefamation League (ADL), disturbingly large numbers of Americans answered “yes” when asked if they believe Jews “go out of their way to hire other Jews” or “are more loyal to Israel than to America,” and to other similar questions. Kevin Williamson reflects on these results, and what they say about the persistence of this “strange prejudice.”
About 3 percent of Americans agreed that all of the anti-Semitic tropes in the ADL survey are “mostly or somewhat true,” suggesting that there are millions more anti-Semites in the United States than there are Jews. This is not entirely surprising, given the small size of the Jewish population.

Anti-black racism has of course been the most consequential prejudice in American history, but anti-Semitism remains strangely vital. Like its cousin, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism is more than a prejudice and more than a visceral hatred—it is, in its most extreme form, a kind of “theory of everything” in politics. Anti-black racism may exist with or without an attendant conspiracy theory, but anti-Semitism is almost without exception rooted in a conspiratorial view of the world. The fact that anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise on college campuses is entirely predictable in that campus culture is as much conspiracy-driven as talk-radio culture or Fox News culture, with different villains and a slightly more refined rhetoric: not “Jews” pulling the strings from the shadows, but “Zionists.”


Williamson also notes the confusion, and the bad faith arguments, that have emerged from the term “anti-Semitism.”
The Semitic languages famously include both Hebrew and Arabic, but also Amharic, Tigrinya, Tigre, Aramaic, and Maltese. But when T. S. Eliot wrote, “But this or such was Bleistein’s way:/ A saggy bending of the knees/ And elbows, with the palms turned out,/ Chicago Semite Viennese,” he wasn’t talking about the Catholics down in sunny Malta.
The real reasons Ken Roth was bounced by Harvard’s Kennedy School
The claim that Jewish influence and money can force non-Jews to serve the selfish interests of the Jews is, of course, a classic antisemitic trope. In the modern context, this trope usually claims that these Jewish conspirators are doing their dirty work to benefit Israel.

Roth also claimed that Elmendorf’s decision was “a shocking violation of academic freedom.” Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), agreed, saying, “If Harvard’s decision was based on HRW’s advocacy under Ken’s leadership, this is profoundly troubling from both a human rights and an academic freedom standpoint.”

It appears that Roth and Romero do not understand the nature of academic freedom. An applicant for a fellowship or faculty position does not enjoy academic freedom at the institution—in this case, Harvard—where they wish to work. They have freedom of speech to express their ideology and beliefs like all other citizens, but Roth would not have enjoyed the protection of academic freedom, which would allow him to express his views, no matter how corrosive or biased, until he became part of the Harvard community. Obviously, this never took place.

Moreover, hiring committees normally vet applicants during the application process. It appears that in the initial stages of Roth’s application, the committee inadvertently, or perhaps purposely, ignored Roth’s hostility to Israel. So, it is very likely that when the choice of Roth was made public, Harvard stakeholders had the opportunity to inform the dean about the darker aspects of Roth’s career. Dean Elmendorf then did what the hiring committee at the Carr Center should have done in the first place: Examine HRW’s and Roth’s defective scholarship and singular focus on Israel, objectively.

One particularly grotesque example of Roth’s shoddy scholarship and tendency toward outright falsehoods was a 2021 HRW report titled, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” the title of which makes its content clear.

No apartheid exists in Israel, but that did not prevent HRW from presenting the 217-page report as fact, effectively redefining apartheid to make their case. The Israel-based watchdog organization NGO Monitor, however, produced a report of its own that eviscerated HRW’s libels. NGO Monitor concluded that “the HRW publication is fundamentally flawed, using lies, distortions, omissions and blatant double standards to construct a fraudulent and libelous narrative demonizing Israel.”

“A careful examination of the text shows that HRW conducted almost no primary research,” NGO Monitor noted. “Rather, the text is bloated with cut-and-paste phrases, and quotes and conclusions taken from third-party sources—notably, other political NGOs participating in the same ‘apartheid’ campaign against Israel.”

“The omissions are even more egregious than the errors and misrepresentations, rendering HRW’s report as nothing more than propaganda,” the watchdog group asserted.
Even the PLO knows the Jews are indigenous to Israel - opinion
To deal with the inconvenient historical fact that Jews are the indigenous population of Israel, the drafters of the PLO charter created an arbitrary dividing line to determine who would be considered a Palestinian. First, the PLO charter deems any Arab who had lived in the entirety of what is now modern Israel prior to the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland to automatically be Palestinian, without regard to whether they were residents in the land. Further, the PLO charter deemed any Arab (but not Jews) born after 1947 to a Palestinian father to be a Palestinian.

Jews, on the other hand, were excised from their own national identity under the PLO charter. Only Jews who had resided in what is now modern Israel prior to “the Zionist invasion” would be considered Palestinian. And what did the PLO even mean when they called it “the Zionist invasion,” 1948 or the 1800s? The latter, of course.

Jews were forcibly removed from Israel after the destruction of the Second Temple and dispersed across the globe, making Palestine, as conceived by the PLO charter, a nearly Jew-free land before the Zionist movement was ever founded.

Imagine if, at the time of the founding of modern Israel, Jews had made a similar declaration with regard to Arabs. To wit, Israel would only recognize those “Arab Palestinians” who resided in the land and identified as “Palestinian” prior to the time of Abraham. This would obviously be an impossibility since the term “Palestinian” was created by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba revolt in around 130 C.E., while Abraham arrived in the Land of Israel approximately 2,000 years before the first use of the term Palestine.

Recently, antisemitic activists have escalated their attacks on Jews, claiming we are “settler-colonists” of a land they call Palestine. In my latest new law review article, I examine the question of colonialism and Israel. Part of my research involved tracing the history of the Jewish presence in Israel and comparing it to the waves of actual settler-colonists, ending with Palestinian Arabs, who displaced the indigenous Jewish population.

The only way that anti-Israel activists can strip Jews of our status as the indigenous people of the land and eliminate Jewish self-determination is to do as the PLO charter did: ignore history and designate a time when Jews had been ethnically cleansed from our own homeland as the point in time when Jewish history in Israel starts.

There are settler-colonists in Israel, and they are Palestinian Arabs. Nonetheless, Israel welcomes these settler-colonists and provides them with rights that no other country would provide to invaders and occupiers. It’s time for Palestinian Arab activists and their supporters to accept history and thank Israel for the gracious hospitality extended to newcomers.


Friday, January 13, 2023

The ADL has released a report, "Antisemitic Attitudes in America," that is making headines today becasue it indicates that antisemitic attitudes in the US are increasing dramatically.

Over three-quarters of Americans (85 percent) believe at least one anti-Jewish trope, as opposed to 61 percent found in 2019. Twenty percent of Americans believe six or more tropes, which is significantly more than the 11 percent that ADL found in 2019 and is the highest level measured in decades.

Many Americans believe in Israel-oriented antisemitic positions – from 40 percent who at least slightly believe that Israel treats Palestinians like Nazis treated the Jews, to 18 percent who are uncomfortable spending time with a person who supports Israel.

There is a nearly 40 percent correlation between belief in anti-Jewish tropes and anti-Israel belief, meaning that a substantial number of people who believe anti-Jewish tropes also have negative attitudes toward Israel.

This is the first of a series of reports by the ADL based on this survey; a future report will compare antisemitic and anti-Israel opinions across the political and ideological spectrum. 

So while the overlap of anti-Israel and antisemitic attitudes would initially appear to show that Leftist anti-Zionism is correlated with antisemitism, we cannot make that conclusion, since traditional antisemites generally also hate Israel (as much as the Left tries to claim that they are Zionist.)  If virtually all far-Right antisemites are also anti-Israel, the 40% correlation could be accurate without any Leftist (traditional) antisemites.

However, even if we assume that the overlap of classic antisemitic and modern anti-Israel opinions occur exclusively on the Right, we can still infer something about Leftist contributions to antisemitic attitudes in the US from the specific questions asked:


Some of these reflect current far-Left antisemitic discourse more than traditional far-Right applying their existing antisemitism to Israel. It may reflect that the far-Left anti-Zionism contributes to far-Right antisemitic rhetoric.

And indeed we have seen that in the past. The most extreme far-Right antisemitic publications enthusiastically and prolifically quote from far-Left sources like Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada and Max Blumenthal.

So while we cannot conclude that the far Left shares antisemitic attitudes with the far Right, there are definitely connections and influences, and this may be one reason the general index of antisemitic attitudes in the US is going up.

But this is in many ways the entire question misses the point.

One reason that my algorithmic  definition of antisemitism is (IMHO) the best out there is that it does not show bias against, even implicitly, the political attitudes of the antisemites. 


The ADL's correlation is important, but it says nothing about causation. 

Since the Left self-defines as anti-racist and socialist, it is emotionally invested in the appearances of treating everyone equally, so certainly their attitudes in any poll will reflect that self-perception. Which means that the ADL methodology, as well-intentioned as it is, has a fatal flaw.

It doesn't take into account the history of antisemitism and how it has changed over the centuries.

It started off as being against a people (this week's Torah portion includes the first expression of antisemitism in history: "“Look, the Israelite people ....may join our enemies in fighting against us....”) Christian antisemitism opposed Jews as a religion and as a people. "Scientific" antisemitism introduced the concept of hating Jews as an inferior race. Conspiracy theory antisemitism groups Jews together as planning to take over the world. And modern antisemitism ascribes all evil to the Jewish state and its supporters.

The commonalities dwarf the differences. For all of them, the "new" antisemites regarded their predecessors with some contempt, as a primitive example of bigotry unlike the newer, enlightened version. 

 For all of them, there were differences in which Jews were included as objects of hate. For all of them, some "good Jews" tried to ingratiate themselves with the new antisemites, and similarly the antisemites would embrace the "good Jews" as a shield to claim that they weren't bigots. For all of them, the Jews represented what the antisemites hated the most in the world. 

And for all of them, the vast majority of Jews in the world by any definition are framed as evil. 

People wouldn't be antisemitic if they didn't get something out of it. Antisemitism is attractive because it is a simple explanation for the ills of the world. It is attractive because the antisemites can use others as scapegoats for their own shortcomings. It is attractive for the simple reason that people want to feel superior to others. For antisemites, modern and classic, Jews represent what they hate most. 

If racism is the biggest evil, then Jews must be the biggest racists - but the new antisemites cannot admit that they are the ones being bigoted. Their hate is different, they want to believe, because it is anchored in ethics. 

But psychically, the hate is the same. It is just as toxic, just as irrational, and just as based on easily provable lies. 

The ADL, by trying to find correlation between the latest flavor of antisemitism and the older versions, does not take into account that the new antisemites specifically define themselves as impervious to bigotry, and will naturally try to avoid appearing to be one of the distasteful types of antisemites that their political enemies embrace. But of one could do a brain scan of their emotional state when they think of Israel, it would be identical to that of the KKK when thinking of Jews. 

The ADL could prove this pretty easily. They could rephrase some of their questions to refer to Zionists, not Jews:

Zionists are not as honest in their business dealings as other businesspeople.
Zionists are not warm and friendly.
Zionists have a lot of irritating faults.
Zionists are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.
Zionists have too much power in the United States today.
Zionists don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind.
Zionists have too much power in the business world.
Zionists do not share my values.
Zionists are more loyal to Israel than to America.
Zionists stick together more than other Americans.

And this is only a list of tropes that apply to traditional antisemitism. Like all previous versions, modern antisemites have added new antisemitic tropes. The ADL could add:

Zionists tend to be more racist than other Americans.
Zionists support Jewish supremacy in Israel.
Zionists are sympathetic towards right wing antisemites. 
Zionists accuse all critics of Israel of being antisemitic.
Zionists use antisemitism as a means to control Americans.

If the Leftist attitude towards "Zionists" mirror that of the Rightist attitude towards "Jews," then we would have very convincing evidence that anti-Zionism is just a new form of antisemitism. 






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!

 

 

Tuesday, January 03, 2023

From Ian:

FBI Says Violence Against Jews Is in Decline. Jews Aren’t Buying It.
The FBI’s latest annual report shows a decline in violence against Jews, findings that are at odds with Jewish watchdog groups who say anti-Semitic hate crimes have hit their highest levels in history during the past two years.

The FBI’s 2021 findings, released at the end of last year, have sparked accusations the federal law enforcement agency is deflating these statistics at a time when the American Jewish community is facing an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism. At least one watchdog group is calling on Congress to investigate how and why the FBI underreported anti-Jewish hate crimes.

"At a time of record anti-Semitic hate crimes, it is appalling that the FBI's data-gathering has been so badly botched," said Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a watchdog group that combats Jew hatred. "This massive failure has undermined the purposes of hate crimes data precisely when we most need the data. If the FBI doesn't quickly correct this problem, congressional committees will need to ask some serious questions."

Marcus said the FBI’s 2021 statistics on hate crimes against Jews are "essentially useless" due to new reporting procedures that omitted statistics from organizations typically included in the federal agency’s yearly assessment. While the FBI claimed that violence against Jews decreased last year, groups such as the Anti-Defamation League reported that 2021 saw the highest levels of anti-Semitic violence on record. A report from the AMCHA Initiative, a Jewish advocacy group, last year found that assaults on Jewish students and their identities doubled in the 2021 and 2022 academic year.

Marcus, an attorney and former staff director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, said the FBI’s inaccurate reporting is likely to prompt congressional oversight.

"In my experience overseeing federal civil rights data collections, congressional committees have historically taken a keen interest in the completeness and accuracy of governmental information provided to the public," Marcus told the Washington Free Beacon. "It is hard to imagine that a failure of this scope would escape the notice of congressional oversight staff."

"I am hopeful that the Department of Justice and FBI will clean up this mess on their own," Marcus said. "If DOJ and the FBI do not fix this problem, however, by providing corrected and complete data to the public, we should not be surprised if Congress should get involved."
Sweet success in Ben & Jerry’s-MDA blood donor project
Ben & Jerry’s Israel and Magen David Adom have begun a joint project to raise awareness and encourage young people to join MDA’s regular pool of blood donors in Israel.

To sweeten the project, Ben & Jerry’s set up ice-cream carts at four blood donation stations across the country where anyone who donated blood received free ice cream.

Locations included the Dizengoff Center, where 71 units of blood were donated; in Rishon Lezion, which collected 119 units; at Rupin Academic College, where 80 people donated units of blood; and at the Knesset, which collected 120 units. The donated blood can conceivably help save the lives of about 1,000 people in less than two months.

Able to save the lives of around 1,000 people in under 2 months
MDA vice president of blood services Prof. Eilat Shanar said, “In order to maintain a proper blood supply in the State of Israel, MDA’s blood services are required to collect about 1,000 blood units from volunteer donors every day. We are very happy about the cooperation with Ben & Jerry’s and we hope to continue this activity in other places throughout the country and encourage more and more people to donate blood and save lives.”
Is the UK Turning into Something Extremely Different?
On December 1, 2022, Britain’s Office for National Statistics released the latest 10-yearly census, carried out in 2021, showing that the fastest-growing population in England and Wales is Muslims. According to the census:
“For the first time in a census of England and Wales, less than half of the population (46.2%, 27.5 million people) described themselves as ‘Christian’…”

“It’s not a great surprise that the Census shows fewer people in this country identifying as Christian than in the past,” the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said in response to the findings, “but it still throws down a challenge to us not only to trust that God will build his kingdom on Earth but also to play our part in making Christ known.”

The Muslim community in Britain reacted otherwise. Zara Mohammed, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said:
“Whilst the Census does look at religion, the lack of wider religion-specific monitoring prevents us from fully understanding how acute the issue of under-representation of Muslims is in British society.

“These initial figures give us an opportunity to now make meaningful change and create a better Britain for all.”


In 2013, British journalist Vincent Cooper wrote: “By the year 2050, in a mere 37 years, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation.”

The census taken 2021 has revealed that while fewer than half of people (27.5 million) in England and Wales now describe themselves as Christian, those claiming “No religion” rose by 12 points to 37.2% (22.2 million). Those identifying as Muslim rose from 4.9% in 2011 to 6.5% (3.9 million) in 2021. The next most common responses were Hindu (1.0 million) and Sikh (524,000), while Buddhists overtook Jews (273,000 to 271,000).

Religion seems a far more important part of life for Muslims than for other Britons: it appears central to their sense of identity. According to a report from 2006:
“Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law…. Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.”

An article by Abdul Azim Ahmed, published by the Religion Media Centre in September 2021, admitted that within Britain all the divergent schools of Islam are present — although Salafism has grown in recent years, particularly among younger Muslims.

Trevor Phillips, former head of Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality and Equality and Human Rights Commission, found that the followers of Islam hold very different values from the rest of the society; many apparently want to lead separate lives. “Muslims are creating nations within nations,” he said.

Wednesday, December 28, 2022

From Ian:

The Democrats must have a ‘Sister Souljah moment’ on antisemitism
The recent rise in American antisemitism is the result of a lack of consequences for those engaging in it.

For example, Americans Against Antisemitism studied 194 anti-Jewish assaults and 135 attacks on Jewish property in New York that have taken place since 2018. According to their July 2022 report, only two of the perpetrators actually went to prison.

A similar situation is occurring on college campuses. Students who harass Jews are rarely if ever suspended or expelled, and almost never face any consequences at all. This has emboldened antisemites on campus, with a chilling effect on Jewish and pro-Israel voices.

Colleges have codes of conduct according to which harassment of other students can result in serious ramifications. These codes have not been enforced against antisemites.

In the realm of politics, when Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar engaged in anti-Jewish and anti-Israel comments, and expressed support for BDS, their fellow Democrats were initially prepared to take action against them. A resolution passed by the House of Representatives (H.R.183) sought to “ensure safety” for Jews. It stated, “Accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel or to the Jewish community than to the U.S. constitutes antisemitism.”

The resolution was a response to Omar’s comments, with Tlaib by her side, that supporters of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship “push allegiance to a foreign country.” In Jan. 2019, Tlaib criticized Sen. Marco Rubio’s efforts to punish those who attempt to boycott Israel, tweeting, “They forgot what country they represent.” Rubio posted, “The ‘dual loyalty’ canard is a typical antisemitic line.” Neither Tlaib nor Omar have apologized for these statements.

Instead of making it clear that Tlaib and Omar’s bigoted views are anathema to the Democratic Party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed both for reelection.

Sadly, it is not surprising that several Jewish organizations, including the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and Ameinu, along with the left-wing lobby J Street, issued a statement saying they “oppose Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s pledge to strip Representative Ilhan Omar of her House Foreign Affairs Committee seat based on false accusations that she is antisemitic or anti-Israel. We may not agree with some of Congresswoman Omar’s opinions, but we categorically reject the suggestion that any of her policy positions or statements merit disqualification from her role on the committee.”

With Jewish organizations like these, we should not be surprised that antisemitism is rising.
War of Independence veterans protest 'defamatory' Netflix movie
Veterans of the War of Independence, who are currently in the tenth decade of their lives, have joined the furor surrounding the Jordanian film Farha, which depicts Israel Defense Forces soldiers executing Palestinian children and babies, demanding Netflix immediately remove it from their library.

"We are Holocaust survivors who defended our country. Remove the defamatory film," the five ex-soldiers called.

The Israel Law Center has sent a warning letter to Netflix on their behalf concerning a potential breach of Israeli defamation laws.

The group consists of 96-year-old Oded Negbi, who served in the Givati Brigade and fought many battles in the Negev and Jaffa; 92-year-old Eitan Yavzory of Kibbutz Afikim, who fought in Gush Etzion and in the Negev; 94-year-old Ezra Yachin, who fought in Jerusalem; 92-year-old Lt. Col. (Res.) Ze'ev (Tibi) Ram, a Holocaust survivor who lost his entire family at Auschwitz and enlisted in the Golani Brigade upon the outbreak of the War of Independence; and 91-year-old Prof. Benny Arad, a veteran of the Haganah, who fought in the War of Independence, among other conflicts, and served as an IDF officer for many years. As a physicist, Arad was one of the founders of the Department of Experimental Physics at the Negev Nuclear Research Center.

"It's an antisemitic movie. When I heard about it, I was appalled. At the thought that this movie is being shown all over the world, I was driven to stand up and protest, and I called in my son. He contacted the Israel Law Center," Arad said.

"Personally, I don't watch television. But when we're defamed like this, I can't let it pass. The world doesn't know what the IDF is, what a moral army we have. So they may think that the lies that the movie shows are the actual truth. All we did is defend our country, our nation, and our nascent state."

Negbi also shares his frustration with the movie and the lopsided fashion in which it depicts his comrades in arms.

"The life I lived alongside the Arabs was completely different. When I heard about that movie, I shuddered. I went through many hardships. My mother taught me to give to others and help them. Not even the concept of killing children could come out of a home like that. The very notion of harming an Arab child was far from our minds. It's sheer slander," he said.
‘Activist’ or Antisemite? Dr. Noura Erakat’s Poorly-Timed Speech at OSU
Several incidents involving swastikas, harmful antisemitic libels, and images of the burning Israeli flag took place on Ohio State University (OSU)’s campus in the months and weeks leading up to the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

One would have hoped that OSU administrators and students could come together to resist this unprecedented and abhorrent increase in antisemitism on campus.

Sadly, those hopes were crushed by the invitation of a speaker to campus who spews the very same libels.

On November 9, the OSU Palestinian Women’s Association hosted Rutgers University Professor Dr. Noura Erakat, who spoke to Ohio State students over Zoom to discuss her new book, “Justice for Some: Law and the Occupation of Palestine.”

Although she is hailed by her university and many anti-Zionist activists as an expert in international law, fallacies in her book can be found as early as the introduction, where Erakat discusses “Zionist militias established Israel by force, without regard to the Partition Plan’s stipulated borders.”

This falsehood negates the indisputable fact that in 1948, most Jews accepted United Nations Resolution 181, which partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. Arabs, on the other hand, vehemently rejected the proposal and tried to eliminate Israel and kill its Jewish inhabitants.
The Washington Post was harshly criticized - justly - for illustrating an article about a measles outbreak in the Somali community of Columbus, Ohio with a photo of Chassidic Jews in Brooklyn on Tuesday.


What makes this worse is that the Somali community is known for its low vaccination rates. They had a breakout of measles in 2017 and also this year in Minnesota.  The Hill wrote about the Ohio breakout without mentioning them at all, and NPR's 2017 article tried to explain why the Somali community was reluctant to immunize.

The contrast with how the media treated the Orthodox Jewish community during COVID could not be starker. The Somali angle is minimized and contextualized; the Jewish angle was trumpeted. 

The Washington Post has another problematic article, on a completely different topic: a review of a biography of famed children's book author Roald Dahl, the review written by Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Dirda.

Near the end, it mentions:
Yet to adult eyes, Dahl frequently goes uncomfortably too far in depicting an anarchic Hobbesian world of savagery and violence. When “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” first appeared in 1964, the Oompa Loompas were racist caricatures of African pygmies (though later changed to hippie-ish, rosy-skinned dwarfs). The depiction of Veruca Salt’s father, in that same book, sails close to Jewish stereotypes. Not least, while Dahl defended his notorious “anti-Israeli” political views as justifiable anger over that nation’s treatment of the Palestinian people, many felt this argument was a cover for antisemitism.
Dirda makes it sound like Dahl's antisemitism was simply "anti-Zionism" that may have gone a little bit too far. This is simply false. He admitted himself that he was an antisemite!

Dahl's family has publicly admitted he was antisemitic as well, and apologized for it. "We loved Roald, but we passionately disagree with his antisemitic comments," they said.

And Dahl's comments themselves show how antisemitism and anti-Zionism are two sides of the same coin.

In a review of a book about the Lebanon War that appeared in the August 1983 edition of the British periodical Literary Review, Dahl wrote, in reference to Jewish people, “Never before in the history of man has a race of people switched so rapidly from being much-pitied victims to barbarous murderers.”

He also made reference to “those powerful American Jewish bankers” and asserted that the United States government was “utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions over there.”

Later that same year, he doubled down on his statements in an interview with the British magazine New Statesman. “There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews,” he said. “I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.

A few months before his death in 1990, Dahl stated outright that he was anti-Semitic in an interview with The Independent.

After claiming that Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon was “hushed up in the newspapers because they are primarily Jewish-owned,” he went on to say, “I’m certainly anti-Israeli and I’ve become anti-Semitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It’s the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren’t any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that’s why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel.”

In that New Statesman interview, Dahl told the reporter - after his other antisemitic statements - that he didn't see any Jews fighting in World War II. The reporter, angry, responded:

 Firmly but not rudely I told him that my father was Jewish, that my grandfather had won all sorts of medals in North Africa and Europe, that Jews fought in enormous numbers in all of the Allied armies, were often over- rather than under-represented, and that this slimy canard of Jewish cowardice was beneath him. At which point he coughed, mumbled something about “sticking together”, and then promptly ended the interview.  

This is hardly ambiguous. 

Dirda is clearly knowledgeable about Dahl, it is not possible that he is unaware of Dahl's antisemitism. Yet he chose to downplay it as just some people's opinions, not something that Dahl and his family freely admits and supported by his own clear bigoted statements.

What gives, Washington Post?

(h/t Nathan)




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!

 

 

Tuesday, December 13, 2022




From CBS News:

The FBI released its 2021 hate crime statistics, but the data falls short of providing a complete picture of targeted violence in the U.S. Despite rising concerns about targeted violence and domestic terrorism, less than two-thirds of law enforcement agencies reported data on hate crimes to the FBI, last year, marking a significant drop-off. 

Agency participation for hate crime statistics fell dramatically from 93% in 2020 to 65% in 2021. That drop comes as the FBI and the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics transition to a more detailed and comprehensive crime-reporting system, known as the "National Incident-Based Reporting System" or NIBRS. The new data collection method offers a more complete picture of crime in the nation, with additional information gathered about victims, offenders, and those arrested — including age, sex, and race, as well as a description of any relationship between victim and offender. 

Incidents of hate crimes are not decreasing, according to the FBI. But until participation in the FBI's new data collection programs increases, the bureau will not be able to make a meaningful comparison of the number of hate crimes with years past.  

For reporting on anti-Jewish crimes, the inaccuracy is much worse - because the cities with the highest Jewish populations are not represented at all:

Ted Deutch, CEO of the American Jewish Committee, noted 35 major U.S. cities reported zero hate crimes in 2021. "The report provides a woefully inadequate assessment of the reality and extent of hate crimes targeting Jews in the United States," he said in a statement.

Major cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Miami, did not provide data to the bureau. Others, including Chicago and Phoenix, reported zero hate crimes in 2021, according to the FBI's report.

The FBI reports that anti-Jewish hate crimes decreased from 963 in 2019, to 683 in 2020, to only 324 in 2021. 

Yet in New York City alone, there were 196 anti-Jewish incidents recorded in 2021. (And 195 this year through September only.)

In Los Angeles, there were over 80 anti-Jewish crimes in 2021.

Chicago reported only 8 antisemitic crimes last year but over 25 this year.




None of them are recorded in the FBI statistics. Even though these statistics are publicly reported, the FBI chooses to ignore them because they are not using the FBI's official system. 

The FBI has always had a problem with many cities not reporting their statistics, but this is far worse than ever before. And now we cannot tell how much worse antisemitic crimes are getting.




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!

 

 

A week ago, lawmakers sent a bipartisan letter to President Biden asking for various government agencies to work together to fight antisemitism:

We welcome the measures the Administration has taken thus far to address antisemitism. However, combating a growing threat of this magnitude, particularly here at home, requires a strategic, whole-of-government approach. Interagency coordination also could benefit from considering a broadly understood definition of antisemitism, as several agencies have adopted or recognized individually. Because many individual agencies play a critical role in combating antisemitism, closer coordination is needed to share best practices, data, and intelligence; identify gaps in efforts; streamline overlapping activities and roles; and execute a unified national strategy. The strategic collaboration of such entities would also send a key message to the American people and the international community that the United States is committed to fighting antisemitism at the highest levels. 

As such, we urge you to prioritize coordination among all agencies working in this space, including, but not limited to, officials from the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Department of Education, including the Office for Civil Rights; and the Department of State, including the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, the Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, and the Office of International Religious Freedom; in addition to representatives from the Intelligence Community; the Office of Management and Budget; the National Security Council; the Homeland Security Council; the Domestic Policy Council; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; in order to ensure all relevant entities within the Executive Branch and Congress are working in tandem. Creation of an interagency task force led by an official at the Assistant Secretary rank or higher is one way to accomplish such coordination.

Likewise, we request that agencies working collaboratively to combat antisemitism work with the leadership of the House and Senate Bipartisan Task Forces to Combat Antisemitism and key non-profit community stakeholders to develop a National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism. Doing so will provide a cohesive and comprehensive plan for interagency efforts in this critical space. 

Seemingly in response, the White House issued this statement Monday:
As President Biden has made clear: antisemitism has no place in America. All Americans should forcefully reject antisemitism – including Holocaust denial – wherever it exists.  
The President is establishing an inter-agency group led by Domestic Policy Council staff and National Security Council staff to increase and better coordinate U.S. Government efforts to counter antisemitism, Islamophobia, and related forms of bias and discrimination within the United States. The President has tasked the inter-agency group, as its first order of business, to develop a national strategy to counter antisemitism. This strategy will raise understanding about antisemitism and the threat it poses to the Jewish community and all Americans, address antisemitic harassment and abuse both online and offline, seek to prevent antisemitic attacks and incidents, and encourage whole-of-society efforts to counter antisemitism and build a more inclusive nation.
There are some significant differences between what the members of Congress asked for and what the White House is establishing.

First of all, and most troubling, is that the Biden administration letter lumped in Islamophobia and "related forms of bias and discrimination" with antisemitism. This already weakens the initiative, even with the strong language about antisemitism being its first task. Antisemitism is not like other types of bias and it cannot be fought using the same tools. It appears that the Biden initiative is going to consider antisemitism as a purely right-wing phenomenon, ignoring progressive, Black and Muslim-based antisemitism. It is difficult to call out those forms of antisemitism when they are considered fellow victims - one cannot imagine a group denounce Muslim antisemitism when members of the same group are fighting Islamophobia at the same time. They would issue kumbaya statements about being against Nazis, not real recommendations. 

This is "all lives matter"ing antisemitism.

The White House letter's specifically mentioning Holocaust denial hints at this concentration on only one kind of antisemitism, from the far-Right. While Holocaust denial is horrible, it is a fringe opinion in the US and not a major ideological threat. Denying the emotional, historic and religious Jewish connection to Israel, claiming that Jews controlled the slave trade, demonizing the Jewish state, denying that Jews are "real Jews" altogether, and claiming that Jews are a monolithic group that controls the media, financial system and government - those are the ideological threats that American Jews face today that can and does turn violent.

Secondly, the Congressional letter specifically said that a unified definition of antisemitism is important to fight it. It clearly means the IHRA working definition (although mine would be better.)  The White House did not mention that, almost certainly because of fears of attacks on the initiative from progressives - who are part of the problem. This fear of upsetting the "Squad" has already taken one of the most important tools to fight antisemitism - defining it properly - off the table.

Thirdly, while the Congressional letter asked that this inter-agency group have some real power by being lead by an official at at least Assistant Secretary rank, the White House response only says that it will be led by "staff." It will have no power except, perhaps, to call meetings. 

The White House press release language is strong, but given how it is watering down what over 120 lawmakers asked for, it appears like it is a cosmetic move to make it look like they are doing something rather than a real effort to fight antisemitism. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that this watering down is out of fear of upsetting the "progressives" who are a major component of today's antisemitic ideologies.




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