EoZ definition of antisemitism being taught in the Ivy League

My algorithmic, short and useful definition of antisemitism has been discussed in an academic conference and in a scholarly book.

This definition has been included in the syllabus of the course "Antisemitism: A History" being taught at Brown University as part of their Judaic Studies curriculum. Here's the course description:

Antisemitism: A History

Antisemitism is sometimes called the "longest hatred," and from Pittsburgh to Paris it is on the rise. This course will examine the history of antisemitism and antisemitic tropes; theoretical approaches to its persistence; and individual case studies. Topics will include: Christian and Muslim anti-Judaism; racism; economic stereotypes; and modern manifestations in the U.S. and Europe.

The course is being taught by Michael L Satlow, Dorot Professor of Judaic Studies and Religious Studies. The syllabus says:

All I can ask for is that my definition is debated and compared to the others. I think mine has great advantages - brief, accurate, precise, and the easiest one (by far) to be used to answer the question of whether some event or statement is antisemitic or not. If people find shortcomings in my definition, I'd love to hear them. 

 I don't know Michael Satlow, but I thank the professor for including my definition in his course.. I hope other universities and academic papers do the same. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

You just might be be an antisemite if....

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!

 

Read More

American Bar Association caves to modern antisemites, condemns an "antisemitism" that could mean anything

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!

 

Read More

Voice of Arab Radio antisemitism, 1961

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!

 

Read More

"Jewish academics" write an open letter against the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Another larger group responds.

From the EU Observer, November 3:

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!

 

Read More

The White House initiative against antisemitism falls way short

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!

 

Read More

How many of these far-Right Republican figures have dabbled in antisemitism?

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!

 

Read More