Showing posts with label EoZ Antisemitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EoZ Antisemitism. Show all posts

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!

 

 

Thursday, February 09, 2023

The American Bar Association proposed a Resolution 514 condemning antisemitism that referred to the widely accepted IHRA working definition.

Israel haters immediately attacked. 

More than 40 organizations, both those that are explicitly anti-Israel and "progressive" organizations, joined a campaign claiming that the IHRA Working Definition chills free speech. "Any embrace of the IHRA definition by the ABA would legitimize and encourage this undermining of core democratic rights," they say, without explaining exactly how.

The National Lawyers Guild said, falsely, that "the IHRA definition would provide a tool to stigmatize and suppress lawyers, legal advocates and law students from expressing political criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian human rights." Of course, they cannot point to any wording in the IHRA definition that would do anything like that.

Human Rights Watch wrote a similar letter. 

The main point that these critics make is that the IHRA definition has supposedly been used to suppress free speech. They cannot point to where the definition actually does that, because it doesn't mandate anything: the definition is filled with caveats that in the end only provide guidance. If the IHRA Working Definition is being misused, then these organizations should fight the misuse, not the definition. The fact that they don't tells you all you need to know.

Moreover, the ABA resolution explicitly said that nothing in the resolution is intended to diminish or infringe upon the Bill of Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so even if their lies about IHRA were true, the text wouldn't allow it to be misused that way.

They are lying when they say that their opposition to the definition is based on human rights and free speech concerns. The only problem they have with it is that it notes that singling out Israel as uniquely evil far out of proportion to its supposed crimes is antisemitic. And they want to have the right to do exactly that. 

Their objections are based on their hate of the Jewish state, not their interest in Palestinian human rights or in fighting antisemitism. 

The original draft resolution also included an attached 17 page report on antisemitism that went through a history of antisemitism in Europe and in the US. It mentioned Natan Sharansky's "3-D" test for antisemitism as well as further references to the IHRA and US State Department definitions of antisemitism. 

In the end, the ABA removed everything that could be considered a definition, including virtually the entire report, and left the eviscerated resolution to condemn something that could mean anything:


Without a definition, this is entirely meaningless. Some Israel haters define antisemitism as hating Arabs. Others define Zionism as antisemitism. There is nothing in this resolution that contradicts those bizarre definitions. 

The resolution doesn't even mention Jews - only a single reference to improving security at "Jewish institutions and organizations." It mentions "houses of worship," not synagogues. 

Right now, the resolution is about as meaningful as a resolution saying that puppies are cute. It is a checkbox - now the ABA can say they oppose antisemitism (whatever that is)! Mazel tov!

Because of the modern antisemites who use obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Israel as a proxy for the age old obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Jews, the ABA believes that it passed a resolution that didn't upset anyone.

Well, this Jew is upset. 

The Jews who publicly identify as Jews, those who wear identifiably Jewish clothing, those who publicly support the Jewish state or speak Hebrew in public or who stand proud in their Zionism - they are the biggest targets and victims of antisemitism today.  

This resolution doesn't give a damn about them. 




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 31, 2023

Before MEMRI, there was The Middle East Record. 

Starting in 1960 (I'm not sure how long it lasted for), a group of Israelis issued detailed analysis of the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, and also translated articles and radio broadcasts from the Arab world and the general region. It's annual report was over 700 pages.

People who claim that Arabs aren't antisemitic and only anti-Zionist clearly don't read MEMRI or Palestinian Media Watch or this blog. But it would be hard for them not to admit that the examples brought here, from the Egyptian (UAR) "Voice of the Arabs" broadcast in 1961, are not pure antisemitism:
ARAB VIEWS OF JUDAISM, ZIONISM, ISRAEL 

In March-April, Ahmad Sa'id, the director of the Cairo "Voice of the Arabs" broadcasts, devoted a series of talks to the "Jewish story throughout the world." Following are the major points in these talks as recorded by the BBC Monitoring Service: 

The "Depravity of the Jews." Sa'id rejected the claim that Zionism was established to end the persecution of the Jews (V of A, March 4-5 [7]). The Jews, he said, had a traditional solidarity and a hostility to all that was non-Jewish; this went back to rabbinical precepts, which had urged them to disregard all moral considerations in their pursuit of riches (V of A, March 6 [8]). Jews had always been skilled in imposing conditions on the countries and peoples among whom they lived; dur-ing wars they welcomed invaders and had themselves caused many wars. (V of A, March 7 [9]) The ancient high priests of Israel (Arabic: ahbdr) introduced into Judaism things to arouse the feelings of the Jewish people and prompt them to seek means of dominating the Christians and all other peoples, particularly when the tide of belief in Judaism was halted with the birth of Christ. (V of A, March 9 [11]) 

The "Immoral Teachings of the Talmud." The Talmud said this to the Children of Israel, Sa'id continued: 
Every Israelite should endeavour to prevent other nations from becoming sovereigns on earth; the Children of Israel must have absolute authority wherever they may be. Without this they are considered exiles and captives. When the real Messiah comes, the awaited victory will be realized. The Messiah will then accept gifts from all peoples, and reject those of the Christians. The nation of Israel will then be extremely rich, because it will have acquired all the wealth of the world. 

The Talmud states, Sa'id continued, that in God's eyes an Israelite is respected more than angels, and that the difference between Israel and other nations is as that between men and animals. According to the Talmud and the high priests of Israel, theft from the foreigner is no theft, but simply a restoration of Israel's property. An Israelite may not make a loan to a foreigner except with interest. Jewish religious authorities said: An Israelite may cheat a customs inspector outside the pale of Israel's laws, and may take a false oath provided he can succeed in his lies. God commanded the Jews to take interest from the Gentile, and not to lend him anything except on this condition; "otherwise, we would be helping him, while it is our duty to harm him." The Israelites meet every week and boast among themselves about the acts of cheating and trickery they have committed. 

Finally, the Talmud says: The oath taken by an Israelite in his dealings with other peoples is no oath, because he would be making an oath to an animal; and an oath to an animal is no oath. Sa'id concluded: These are a few of the main points which the high priests introduced into Judaism, revealed in the true Torah. They sought thereby to create a people devoid of moral values, who would rob other peoples of their riches and dominate their fortunes and destinies. (V of A, March 9 [11]) 

A prominent Shaykh of Al-Azhar attributed similar sayings to the Talmud (Akhir Sdah, Jan 11, in an article on alleged forgeries of the Qur'an). It was reported in Cairo that parts of the Talmud were being translated for dissemination in Africa; according to this report the Talmud assured of Paradise whoever killed a non-Jew. (Ahram, Jan 20) 

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" —"The Basic Zionist Document." ...At the Basle conference in 1897, Jews adopted both public and secret resolutions. The secret ones, however, had leaked out; they were "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." The Zionists decided to fight virtue and honesty, to present religion and morality as old-fashioned, to encourage the use of alcohol, to destroy moral sense, to dominate the press, to raise prices to meet wage increases, and to encourage foreign countries to fear their neighbours, so as to make them devote their resources to arms.

Zionism and the Power of World Jewry. Ahmad Sa'id said that Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, had planned that the Zionists should hold the economic and political reins of the big Powers: statistics showed that the Zionists controlled a great many newspapers and news agencies in Britain, the USA, France and South Africa. (V of A, March 15 [17]) The Jews in France had been able to gain control of the French economy, and consequently of the media of information, including three radio stations, as a result of having pretended to embrace Christianity when threatened with anti-Jewish measures by Louis XII. (V of A, March 16 [18]) In America the Jews became so powerful that as early as 1789 Benjamin Franklin, in one of his speeches, re-ferred to "the Jewish danger." (V of A, March 17 [20]) In Britain there were 450,000 Jews, who despite their small numbers dominated many commercial houses and most of the organizations in direct contact with the public. British Jews, Sa'id said, were more intelligent than Jews elsewhere; they were aware of the British people's dislike of any interference in their affairs, and therefore adopted British nationality. (V of A, March 19 [21]) Said said that Britain had acted as a guardian of world Zionism when it was administering Palestine (V of A, March 26 [28]). He said that Zionist propaganda used to allege that the Arabs had sold their land willingly, because of the high prices offered; in truth the British had collaborated with the Zionists to compel the Arabs to sell the land. (V of A, April 3, 4 [6]) 

"Zionist Plot For World's Nuclear Annihilation." An article in the [semi-official] Al-Gumhuriyah attributed to Zionism a plot to annihilate the world with nuclear weapons. The writer cited four "facts" in support of his theory. (1) The aim of world Zionism, the writer alleged, was to sow destruction in the world in order to dominate it. In support of this "fact" the writer purported to quote Winston Churchill from an alleged article on world Jewry in the "Sunday Herald of Feb 8, 1920" saying that this "brutal movement" intended to establish "a new world society on the basis of tyranny, hate and sucking the blood of the peoples." Also, a Rabbi had allegedly written in the "American monthly Century of Jan 1928" that the Jews were behind all the wars and great revolutions in history, had sown among the gentiles the seeds of anarchy and despair, and were still ruling them. (2-3) The Jews had originated the atomic bomb— the article mentioned Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer—and in order to make sure of the destruction of the world, the Jewish Rosenberg family had handed the atomic secrets to Russia. (4) President Harry Truman had given the order to drop the atomic bombs on Japan in "his capacity as a Zionist agent." 

The more you study, the more you see that there is no distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism - the stated foci of the hate are supposedly different but both of them are genocidal philosophies centered on Jews.



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, December 14, 2022


Israel is trying to gag its critics by formally labelling them as antisemites in the UN, Jewish academics have warned, but the EU Commission says there's no cause for alarm.

Some 128 scholars of Jewish history and Holocaust studies from around the world raised the red flag in a letter published in EUobserver on Thursday (3 November) entitled: "Don't trap the United Nations in a vague and weaponised definition of antisemitism".
Yes, once again Israel haters have written a letter. 

And once again, it is meaningless to have 128 academics sign anything because there are millions of academics worldwide, and one can find a few hundred to sign any fringe opinion. 

And once again, the criticism of IHRA has nothing to do with what it actually says.

Yet once again, the letter - since it comes from Jews and supposedly (but not really) scholars of Jewish subjects - gains an outsized amount of publicity.

It is all a game, and one where the media plays its part to inflate issues it agrees with.

But without the pro-Israel side countering the meaningless letter, it appears to be the consensus among Jewish academics.

So other Jewish academics who support the IHRA definition wrote their own letter - and gathered more signatures than the anti-Israel academics did. The effort was spearheaded by the Jewish Studies Zionist Network, which was organized this year.

 JSZN co-coordinator, Adam Fuller, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations at Youngstown State University, said, “This isn’t about criticizing Israel. You can criticize Israel’s government all you want like you can criticize any other government in the world. But the hostility toward Israel rises to something well beyond mere criticism. It’s demonization of Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. The demonization parallels any other antisemitic trope that paints the Jewish people as thieving and conniving.”  

Jarrod Tanny, Associate Professor of Jewish History at University of North Carolina Wilmington, and founder of JSZN, said, “Contrary to what the IHRA WDA’s opponents think, this document is not some sort of legal code intended as a weapon to silence critics of Israel. It is a working definition, a tool to offer guidance to those who need to grapple with antisemitism but are unfamiliar with the issues at hand. Our critics maintain that the JDA {Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism)  is a far superior definition of antisemitism, but upon careful examination it is obvious that it is intended as a get out of jail free card for the demonization of Israel.”

 “Unlike the JDA,” Tanny added, “the IHRA ensures that Israel is treated like any normal internationally recognized independent state and its supporters are afforded the same rights as anyone else."

Indeed, the JDA definition spends as many paragraphs on what they claim antisemitism isn't - obsessive criticism of Israel - than on what it is. 

Hate for Israel is no less antisemitic as hate for Jews. There is a clear distinction between demanding a boycott of the world's only Jewish state - which includes silencing Zionists - and mere criticism of Israel. 

It is a shame that these "open letters" force others to respond, but the game has to be played. 

On another note, I really need to get hold of the JSZN to see if they want to hold a seminar on my (IMHO, superior) definition 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, December 13, 2022

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!

 

 

Monday, November 07, 2022

Haaretz has two articles about extremism in today's Republican party, and many of the examples include what they claim is antisemitism. 

Armed with my definition of antisemitism, do their examples fit the bill?

Law professor David Schraub says that the GOP is now as antisemitic as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party was. Let's look at what he says.

After years of largely futile efforts by Jews to raise the alarm bells on ascendant antisemitism in the GOP, 2022 finally has made the problem too obvious to ignore. Republican candidates up and down the ballot are cavorting with open white supremacists, attacking their opponents for sending their kids to Jewish schools and eagerly elevating the conspiratorial Jew-baiting of celebrities like Kanye West.
My definition is precise, so I need precise examples. I am unaware of any candidate attacking opponents for sending kids to Jewish schools, for example, but the specific language would be important - i.e., if the point was attacking their record on public schools  but having nothing to do with the "Jewish" part of the schools they sent their kids to.

The only link given to a specific event is here:
The faux-populist rage at “globalists” and cosmopolitan “elites,” at what one far-right judge sneeringly dubbed “the Goldman rule”– that is, "the guys with the gold get to make the rules" – would be perfectly at home in the Corbynist social media milieu.
He points to a concurring opinion in a legal case by circuit judge James Ho, who quotes "The Goldman Rule:" "He who has the gold makes the rules."

That really sounds antisemitic. But Judge Ho includes a source for this "rule," and it comes from the book "Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam" by Vivek Ramaswamy, about an unwritten rule at Goldman Sachs that the employees would joke about. It has nothing to do with Jews - it has everything to do with corruption at Goldman Sachs.

Now, Judge Ho was tone deaf to mention this without further context, and it opened him up to the appearance of antisemitism. It was stupid. But antisemitism is malicious, and when you follow the source, there is no indication of malice; it was tone deaf in the sense that Ho did not seem to recognize that without context, Goldman was not referring to a generic Jew. 

The cases where apparent stupidity cross the line into antisemitism is when the person saying the statement is either knowingly engaging in antisemitic dog whistling, or when any normal person would recognize that the trope is antisemitic. Such is one case in the other article, by Ben Samuels, "Meet 10 of the Most Extreme Republicans Running for Congress." 

I am certainly not trying to promote these candidates' nutty opinions, many of which include QAnon conspiracy theories. Conspiracy  theorists very often fall into antisemitic tropes. I just want to look at the specific examples of antisemitism given and determine if, indeed, they are.

One of those Republican candidates in the article is Marjorie Taylor-Greene, whose most famous episode is when she claimed the Rothschild family worked with a California utility to redirect the sun's rays to start wildfires to clear land for a rail project. The conspiracy theory is insane enough but adding the Rothschilds makes it cross the line into antisemitism. The article also mentions that she, like many far-Right figures, promotes conspiracy theories about George Soros - and without specifically mentioning his Jewishness, I am reluctant to consider those inherently antisemitic (as my linked article on the topic notes.) Yet the clearest evidence of her antisemitic attitudes comes from her promoting a video in 2018 that said “Zionist supremacists have schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation.”

The article says that Rep. Lauren Boebert "notably asked a group of kippa-wearing visitors at a U.S. Capitol building last January if they were doing 'reconnaissance.'" Again, at first glance, this appears to be a clear example of antisemitism. But a little research shows that this is a case of being clueless rather than antisemitic - Boebert had been accused a year earlier of bringing groups of people to the Capitol to engage in "reconnaissance" ahead of the January 6 riots. She was making fun of herself, and assumed (like most political blowhards) that everyone, especially religious Jews who generally lean Republican,  follows her life obsessively and would get the joke. 

Again, tone deaf and stupid, but not antisemitic in itself. 

Candidate J.R. Majewski is not specifically quoted on antisemitism in the article, but it does quote him as referring to himself as a "superfan of Gab," the social network that hosts many white supremacists and antisemites. It seems highly unlikely that someone who is a fan of Gab is unaware of the antisemitism on the platform. You might argue that Twitter also is filled with antisemitism, but who refers to themselves as a superfan of Twitter? This, to me, strongly indicates that at the very least, Majewski is tolerant of antisemitism. 

The article notes that  in 2016, candidate John Gibbs defended an antisemitic Twitter account that regularly promoted Nazi-era propaganda. That account, "Ricky Vaughn," was a cesspool of antisemitism and racism; there is no way to defend that account without defending antisemitism. 

Republican candidate from Texas Johnny Teague leaves little doubt:

[Teague has] written a novel fictionalizing Anne Frank’s final days, in which he writes that she embraced Christianity just before being murdered by the Nazis. As reported by JTA, the book continues Frank’s diary entries, where she aimed to learn more about Jesus by trying to obtain a copy of the New Testament, reciting palms and expressing sympathy for Jesus’ plight. His version of Frank writes: “Every Jewish man or woman should ask questions like ‘Where is the Messiah? … Did He come already, and we didn’t recognize Him?’”   
This is incredibly offensive and antisemitic, effectively saying that Jews who do not accept Christianity are wrong.  

Two other candidates that engage in George Soros conspiracy theories - Jo Rae Perkins and Mike Cargile - also engage in other truly nutty conspiracy theories. Cargile also has been linked to white supremacists, which would indicate that his Soros theories include a Jewish component that would make them antisemitic, Perkins is obsessed with QAnon which as far as I know has not trafficked in antisemitism, so she appears to just be an idiot. 

I am generally of the opinion that if accusations of antisemitism must include mind-reading, without any other evidence, we should err on the side of caution. I say this knowing that some antisemites will consciously hide their hate for Jews, or wink at that hate with dog-whistles (I don't see evidence of that in these cases except for MJT.) There is also the strong possibility that some of these candidates have said other things not mentioned in this article that could add the context that would tip their ambiguous statements into full blown Jew-hate.

Yet even with that caution, too many of these candidates appear to fall on the antisemitic side of the fence. 



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, October 24, 2022




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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would an ideal definition of antisemitism look like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EoZ Definition of Antisemitism

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

Jews

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing the definition with antisemitism defined under IHRA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is discrimination against Jews as a nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing the definition with antisemitism not defined under IHRA

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

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

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

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

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

Testing the definition with ambiguous cases

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

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

Frank Gaffney said about Soros:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive