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!
|
|
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
