The era of self-righteous indignation - and politically correct antisemitism

As the story of classified papers being discovered in Joe Biden's private residences snowballs, it is fun to watch the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. The people who are filled with anger at Biden were nonchalant when Donald Trump was found to have done the exact same thing, and those who were in the forefront of being angry at Trump are muted now.

It is fairly obvious that neither side really believes that national secrets that jeopardize the security of the United States were revealed in either case. Both episodes are excuses to score political points, to attack and injure the hated enemy. 

The classified papers are a prop, an excuse to act morally righteous. But there is no morality involved here - if there was, then there should be an identical response to both episodes. 

How many people have responded the same in both cases? I haven't seen any. (I don't want to downplay the seriousness of either situation - the laws are there for a reason - but it seems highly unlikely that in either case there was a malicious intent.)

The partisan nature of the responses to both episodes is proof that morality isn't the driver, but smugness. It isn't righteous indignation, it is self-righteous indignation. It isn't virtuous, it is virtue signaling. It is a message to the world - my political enemy is beneath contempt while  I am morally superior. He does despicable things that my side would never do (and if it does, it is completely different.)

The self-righteous indignation allows me to hate my opponent without the opprobrium normally associated with the emotion of hate.

It occurs to me that this same psyche is the norm for anti-Zionists. They claim to be righteous; they claim to be moral, they claim that their outrage is a reflection of their pristine values. But when it comes to Israel, the posturing is not merely to feel morally superior - it is to actively attack "Israelis" (meaning, today's eternal Jews) while wearing the mantle of morality.

It is politically acceptable antisemitism.

The proof is clear to those who care to open their eyes. The people who claim to be defending Palestinian rights do nothing to help Palestinian attain those rights. These moral posers don't support peace; they justify the most heinous terror attacks against Jews, they don't say a word about Palestinians being attacked or discriminated against in other Arab countries, they were silent when Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait and Iraq and Libya. Palestinian lives matter - but only when Jews can be blamed. Otherwise, they are just cannon fodder to be placed in limbo until the final battle to destroy the Jewish state. 

Antisemitism has always had a measure of self-righteousness - attacking Jews was the most principled thing anyone could do. Martin Luther told  his followers to burn synagogues and Jewish schools, calling it "sharp mercy." Hitler framed Jews as a cancerous danger to Germany that must be excised - and that philosophy became part of mainstream German medical ethics. 

Morally sanctioned hate has an almost irresistible attraction. Imagine the psychic rewards of being not only allowed to but encouraged to express and act upon your worst instincts, assured that it is for the greater good! 

Jews become the focal point of hate for everything the self-righteous find reprehensible.  Climate change? US police brutality? Ocean pollution? Domestic abuse of women? Your favorite antisemite not getting the job he wanted? Anything and everything can and has been blamed on the Jews and Israel - and always couched in moral terms.

The more vicious your attacks, the more you are elevated within your circle. That's how Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh become heroes in the West.  

Today, when more people act smugly virtuous than ever before, Jews are again the target. As they have been for centuries.

---

---

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

12/14 Links Pt2: No, Zionism isn’t out of date: Why the US arrests some terrorists but ignores others; Professor reveals pervasive antisemitism at University of Toronto Medical School

From Ian:

No, Zionism isn’t out of date

Ha’aretz columnist Anshel Pfeffer does not believe in Zionism. He doesn’t oppose it, he just thinks talking about it is a category mistake:

You cannot be either a Zionist or an anti-Zionist, he says, just as you cannot be a veteran of Iwo Jima unless you were born at least 90 years ago and fought in that battle. Zionism isn’t an ideology. It’s a program, or an ideological plan, to establish a state for Jews in the biblical homeland. And that program was fulfilled on May 14, 1948, when David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence at the old Tel Aviv Museum. That’s it. Done.

"…believing that on the whole, founding the State of Israel was the right thing to do, doesn’t make you a Zionist any more than thinking that Oliver Cromwell was right to overthrow King Charles, makes you a Roundhead. It simply doesn’t matter what you think about long-ago events you didn’t take part in. Israel is a reality and it’s not going anywhere."

He’s wrong. There absolutely is such a thing as Zionist ideology, a set of basic principles that Zionists believe. And here they are:
-There is an am Yehudi, a Jewish people. You might think this is obvious, but Mahmoud Abbas denies it, and so do the “[insert nationality here] of the Mosaic persuasion” crowd, which includes the American Reform Movement.

-The survival of the Jewish people requires the Jewish state, a state that is more than just a state with a Jewish majority. The precise meaning of “more” differs according to the faction of the Zionist movement to which one belongs, but the Nation-State Law that was passed by the Knesset in 2018 is an example of a secular attempt to explicate that.

-Only in the Jewish state can a person fully realize his Jewish identity. You can still be a Zionist if you don’t believe that all Jews ought to live in the Jewish state, but Zionism includes the idea that diaspora life is sub-optimal even when it is not actively dangerous.

-One needn’t be a Jew to be a Zionist. Agree with the principles above and you are a Zionist, regardless of your own religion or ethnicity.

Pfeffer points out that there were religious and secular, socialist and revisionist Zionisms. This was true before 1948, and it’s still true today. But all of them affirm the principles above. The existence of factions doesn’t negate the truth behind an ideology. After all, these are Jews we are talking about!

Tom Stoppard and the Failure of ‘Diasporism’

As much as the contributions of Diaspora Jews should inspire pride and celebration, it has become clear that there has emerged no serious alternative other than Israel for those who would sustainably perpetuate specifically Jewish achievement and inquiry. Those of us in the Diaspora will not all move there—although Stoppard is here to remind us that Jews will always require a refuge from the forces of hatred that now seek Israel’s destruction. But we are called upon to support the Zionist project not only as a form of self-defense but also to continue providing the wider world with the fruits of Jewish labors. Leopoldstadt’s invocation of a potential Jewish state at the play’s beginning, and Israel’s existence at its end as the tiny remnant of the Merz and Jacobowicz families gathers in the once-grand apartment of assimilation in 1955, mark it as one of the most profoundly Zionist documents of our time.

It is a reflection of the durability and power of anti-Semitism that, even if the playwright had uncovered the facts of his own Jewish past in 1955 the way his young British character does, rather than in the 1980s, he would have risked a great deal by writing Leopoldstadt as a young man in the wake of his career-making success with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead in 1966. He likely would have become known as a Jewish, rather than a British, playwright—a dramatist making a special pleading due to the tragedy visited upon his own family. No, it was his established reputation as the greatest living English dramatist that has enabled this unlikely production—among other things, Leopoldstadt has a cast of 38, the largest any play on Broadway has seen in generations. Therein lies yet another lesson about the limits of Diasporism.

The Hanukkah Queen Who Saved the Jews

A generation after the Hanukkah miracle, in the midst of great turmoil, Salome Alexandra defended Judaism and restored Jewish practice.

The story of Hanukkah is one of the best-known in Jewish history: how a small group of faithful Jews, led by the Maccabees, revolted against their Hellenist Greek rulers during the years 167-160 BCE, and restored the Temple in Jerusalem to Jewish worship once again.

Their unlikely military victory and the miracle of a single jug of oil burning in the Temple’s golden Menorah for eight days are celebrated during the holiday of Hanukkah. Less known is what came next.

The “Maccabee” brothers (named after one brother, Judas Maccabeus) established the Hasmonean royal dynasty that ruled the Jewish kingdom of Judea for over 200 years. Far from presiding over a peaceful nation, the Hasmonean rulers were mercurial, autocratic, and ruled a land continually on the brink of civil war. It fell to Queen Salome Alexandra - also known as Shlomit Alexandra and as Shlomzion - to stand up to some of the most terrifying dictators imaginable, champion traditional Judaism, and restore peace to Judea.

A key fact that’s often ignored in telling the Hanukkah story is that many Jews at the time embraced a Hellenist lifestyle, worshiping Greek deities and embracing Greek values. Within a generation of the Hanukkah miracle, the Jewish community was again riven into factions, most notably the Sadducees, who rejected the Talmud and many Jewish elements of a traditional Jewish lifestyle and who dominated the ruling classes, and the Pharisees who clung to Jewish traditions and lifestyles.

Queen Salome and her Wicked Husband
Queen Salome was born into a prominent scholarly family and married into royalty. She possessed incredible courage and calmness. Salome’s brother was Shimon ben Shetach, one of Judea’s most renowned rabbis and a champion of the Pharisee cause. When it became too dangerous for her brother to remain in Judea because of Sadducee persecution, Queen Salome hid him, as well as other rabbinic allies of traditional Judaism.

Read More

John Glubb and Leila Khaled (guest post)

Guest post from Paul M.

John and Leila

The most effective army Israel faced in its 1948 war of independence was the Arab Legion of Transjordan. There’s a reason for that: It was not just armed and trained by Britain, it was led by British officers as well, commanded by Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb, affectionately known by the Ottoman honorific Glubb Pasha.

Glubb was a career soldier, a much-decorated British officer from 1915 until 1956, through two world wars and the assault on the new Jewish state. He was much-honored too, with an alphabet behind his name: KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ & KPM.

If, in the fighting world, you wanted to find Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb’s diametric opposite, you might be tempted to choose Leila Khaled, member of the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, serial airplane hijacker, pin-up for terrorism groupies everywhere.

And, surprisingly, you might be wrong. They’re less different than you would imagine.

In 1973 Leila Khaled wrote her autobiography, called “My People Shall Live.” (I expect there will be a second volume someday, “Your People Should Die,” but I digress.) Who supplied the foreword? John Bagot Glubb. I had always assumed Lt. General Glubb was simply a good soldier, following orders to serve his country by serving his country’s client, but it seems it was more personal than that.

The first thing to strike you about Glubb’s foreword is how naive it is. He simply takes her words at face value. Everything else written on Palestine is “prejudiced, if not pure propaganda,” full of “half-truths,” “distortions” and “intentional deception.” Khaled, by contrast, is “refreshing” because her position is so clear. The things she has to say are “simple facts.” Perhaps we should give him credit for at least acknowledging that she’s not impartial but there’s almost nothing to show that he has any opinion of his own on the morality of her refreshingly clear position or its consequences.

He does, though, eventually find a flaw. Her politics are “oversimplified” to the point of paranoia and her rejection of anyone who doesn’t embrace violence makes it hard for her sympathizers to help her. As you read this, you can’t help but feel his personal sense of unfair treatment. Perhaps it pulled at the quarter-century-old scar of his dismissal by King Abdullah.

What begins by seeming like amorality, a disinterest in Khaled’s choices, veers into something else soon enough. Before the end of the first page Glubb presents the conclusion of his moral thinking. Violence begets violence, but Palestinian violence is their “only means of recovering their country and their freedom.” Wait, wasn’t that what the Jews were doing?. He quotes Khaled,”As a Palestinian, I had to believe in the gun as an embodiment of my humanity,”without comment except to note that she’s a bit down on anyone who thinks otherwise. Even so, he wants us to know that she cried when John Kennedy was shot. When he turns to the Jews, it’s different: Jewish violence is inherited from the Nazis. 

Now we know where to place him. We’ve heard that one before.

Her contempt for non-violence and political difference notwithstanding, Glubb simply takes Khaled at her word when she says Jews and Arabs will be equals in the democratic Palestinian state she and her friends are going to create. The real problem is the Jews won’t allow it. They “desire to have an all-Jewish state.” Like the one we see today, presumably.

Glubb ends by solemnly informing us that “It is easy for us, who have never been the victims of foreign conquest ... to denounce with vehemence the crimes of the evicted Palestinians.” That’s some chutzpah from a son and servant of the empire on which the sun never set. It’s world-class chutzpah when we remember that Transjordan’s purpose in invading on May 15th 1948 was not to free the Palestinian Arabs—who could have had their freedom for the asking but chose war instead—but to annex the land to itself. Abdullah had said as much to Jews and Arabs alike(1).

In his own memoirs, Glubb wrote that he came to love the Arabs(2). That must have been British understatement, because what shines through this foreword is not just love but infatuation. This is the Glubb Pasha who led his army into the Old City of Jerusalem and who had ultimate responsibility for the emptying, looting & burning of the Jewish Quarter. Some people (not me, obviously) can say much in a few words. Glubb was accidentally one of those. It’s hard not to wonder how many others among the British military and functionaries, in Mandatory Palestine and back in London, felt the way he did.

1) Howard Sachar, “A History of Israel” 2007, p.321–322

2) John Bagot Glubb, “A Soldier with the Arabs” 1957, p.5

Read More

An angry Twitter thread to @Amnesty @AmnestyUSA, serial liars and Jew-haters.

I don't use the word "antisemitic" loosely, but in the case of Amnesty International, it really fits.

Amnesty USA has spent the past two days posting a huge number of tweets to justify the "apartheid" report, which did not get a wonderful reception in the US.

In one thread, AmnestyUSA claimed that the organization treats all countries equally:

Amnesty International is committed to researching and documenting human rights abuses wherever they occur. We have issued reports on crimes against humanity committed by authorities in countries around the world, from China to Sudan to Saudi Arabia.

In 2017, Amnesty International released conclusive evidence that authorities in Myanmar are committing apartheid against the Rohingya.

Our sole mandate is to document and expose human rights violations wherever we find them and to issue recommendations that will remedy and end them.

As someone who has followed Amnesty's antisemitism for years, I sort of lost it.

Here is my response, fixing typos because I was so angry:

Why you are full of crap:
1. Oh, great, you also accused Myanmar of apartheid. So you are comparing Israel with a country that engaged in mass rapes and genocide. AND NO ONE ELSE is given the title "apartheid.". Not even China with Uighurs. Not Darfuris in Sudan. You are comparing Jews with the worst abusers ever. Drop dead.

2. You have OBSESSED over Israel. You spent untold time and money just to attack travel companies who don't discriminate against Jews in Judea and Samaria. Your priorities are all screwed up,@amnesty, and it happens to be against Jews. There's a word for that. 

3. Remember your Gaza Platform? It's still there today. It was based on complete garbage input. I showed scores of photos of terrorists that you called "civilian" or even CHILDREN. I pointed it out. You never corrected it. Still online today. You KNOWINGLY lie about Israel. 

4. But that wasn't the only dedicated website you set up to demonize Israel. You also have "Black Friday," paying web designers who knows how much to meticulously demonize Israel. You NEVER do anything remotely similar against anyone else. Not Myanmar, not China. NO ONE. 

5. Do you spend so much time on Israel because you care about Palestinians? Of course not. Palestinians in Lebanon REALLY DO live under apartheid - special laws just against them, limits on where they can live. But your last report on them was in 2007! Why? NO JEWS. 

6. Amnesty-UK has hosted antisemites in its space. But it refused to host a Jewish group! Why? Because you support f-king antisemites. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2018/01/amnest…

7. You accept as credible the most absurd Palestinian lies, and you suspect anything a Jew says. Only one example: elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/10/outrag…

8. Remember back in 2013 when you accused Israel of limiting fuel into Gaza? It was a lie. Hamas was limiting fuel. You never corrected it. Why? Because you have a problem with Jews, you antisemitic jerks.
elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2013/12/amnest…

9. You try REALLY HARD to find things to blame on Jews, but when Hamas is caught on film using ambulances and hospitals for fighting - you claim you "can't find evidence" of the charges. Yes, you excuse Hamas war crimes - and Gaza civilians lose because of your unrestrained hate of the Jewish state. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2014/08/amnest…

10. You have articles where you are against incitement to violence. Yet when Israel arrests an Israeli Muslim who has a long history of direct incitement to kill Jews, you support the threats. Because - Jews. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/11/amnest…

11. Saleh Hijazi, Deputy Director for MENA at International, SUPPORTS TERRORISTS. His Facebook page includes tributes to senior Islamic Jihad leader Khader Adnan (who openly advocates blowing up Jews) and to airplane hijacker Leila Khaled.
Human rights. Yeah, right. 

12. In 2015, Amnesty International rejected a motion to tackle the rise in antisemitic attacks in Britain at its annual conference.

You guys NEVER reject resolutions at your conferences - unless it is against antisemitism.

Now you claim to be against antisemitism. Sure. 

13. Besides Gaza and Black Friday, you have a THIRD dedicated subdomain/website against Israel, about the "Nakba." Name one other country that has 2. I think you have 1 about Syria.
Don't tell us that you treat all issues equally. You HATE the only Jewish state. 

I could do this all day. How you praise organizations that support terror and post antisemitism (YAS.) How you claim IDF soldiers can't be hurt by firebombs and boulders dropped on them. How you deny Hamas uses human shields - defending human rights violations.

ENOUGH. 

Feel free to look at my MANY articles proving 's lies, bias, duplicity and false interpretations of international law. elderofziyon.blogspot.com/search/label/A…

And then AmnestyUSA made me even angrier with this thread which has nothing to do with their report:

On 1 June 2018, 21-year-old paramedic Razan al-Najjar was killed by Israeli sniper fire while she was treating injured protesters during the Great March of Return.  Razan was wearing her white coat, clearly identifying her as a medic. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the sniper fired one round of live ammunition into the crowd.Moments earlier, Razan and three other Palestinian paramedics had moved closer to the fence to provide assistance to the injured protesters, holding up their hands to show they meant no harm. Razan was shot in the chest and died in hospital.Neither Razan nor her colleagues posed any threat to Israeli forces. Amnesty International believes that Razan Al-Najjar was wilfully killed - a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

Up until the last sentence, Amnesty was relying on the New York Times reporting of the incident, using hundreds of photos and videos to track the path of the bullet, something that only ever happens in Israel. But al-Najjar was indeed killed by an Israeli bullet, that part is accurate.

However, the New York Times didn't say that the sniper targeted the nurse. On the contrary, the investigation showed that the bullet fragmented and ricocheted off the ground, breaking into three pieces that hit three different people.  

Amnesty takes the NYT investigation, and without adding any new information, decides that the NYT is wrong and the sniper aimed at the nurse. This is a figment of Amnesty's imagination and there is no evidence of it. One can claim the sniper was reckless or made a mistake, but one cannot say that it was a murder given the evidence. 

Clearly, Amnesty is more interested in crucifying Israel than telling the truth. And that is a consistent pattern, as I have shown scores of times over the years.

Why did Amnesty USA decide to bring up this story from three years ago now? Because they want to deflect from the clear evidence that their "apartheid" report is biased and has no basis in international law. So they do what Twitter trollers do - ignore the evidence against their position and try to go on the offensive on an unrelated topic.Calling them trolls is generous. Because their only obsession centers on Jews. 

---

---

Read More

When the utopian vision of a one-state socialist "Palestine" crashes into Palestinian Islamism

Both Western Leftists and Palestinian Arabs agree that they would love to see a single state from the river to the sea. 

Neither of them admit aloud how different their visions of such a state are.

When speaking to Western audiences, the Left - whether they are Jews like Peter Beinart or prominent Palestinian Leftists like Leila Khaled - describe a socialist utopia where Jews would ostensibly be treated equally with Arabs under the law, but the state would be strictly secular. 

Palestinian Arabs, however, favor an Islamist state run by Sharia law. To them, the Palestinian Authority is too secular already.

The last time Pew did a survey of Muslims worldwide, it found that 89% of Palestinians would want Islamic law - Sharia - to be the law of the land. This was the third highest in the world, behind only Afghanistan and Iraq.

A vast majority of Palestinians would like to see corporal punishment for crimes like theft and stoning as a punishment for adultery. A majority would like their state to give the death penalty for those who leave Islam. Most Palestinians say that it is a bad thing that their current laws do not adhere closely to sharia law.

There is nothing in common between these two views of what a single Palestine would be. The majority of Palestinians have no interest in the secular paradise that you see described in the pages of Open Democracy and The Guardian and Jacobin. Most Palestinians say that their end goal is not one state with equal rights for Jews but one Palestinian state from the river to the sea where Jews are, at best, tolerated second class citizens - and many openly advocate for deporting any Zionist from the country altogether.

Polls show that a mere 10% of Palestinians want a state with equal rights between Jews and Muslims. The latest political polls show that socialist parties like the PFLP and DFLP would only get 2% of the vote in any election held now. 

Palestinians hate socialism. They prefer Islamism. 

Palestinians do not want equal rights for Arabs and Jews. They want an Islamic state.

Everything written about a one-state solution in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times is fiction. The Western Leftists will trot out people with Arabic-sounding names who write passionately about a single state with equal rights for all as if they represent Palestinian public opinion.

Only rarely does the Left admit that the idea of equal rights for Jews in a majority Arab state is problematic. Edward Said, the intellectual father of the one state idea, admitted in 2000 that he couldn't see how Jews would be treated equally in his solution. "It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don't know."

The socialist fantasy and Palestinian reality cannot co-exist. A single state would become a nightmare for Jews. Everyone knows it. 

Which goes to prove that the Leftists who make their one-state argument in the West - and who do not make the same argument in Arabic-language media - are only paying lip service to equal rights for Jews. They want to see Israel destroyed, and they are willing to partner with their Islamist ideological opponents to make that happen. They paper over their differences and hoping that no one notices that they are supporting a Muslim ethnostate where Jews are tolerated if they behave like good dhimmits and persecuted if they demand their own rights.  

There is only one reason the socialist Left and the Palestinian Right support each other: their shared antisemitism. 

---

---

Read More

Antisemitism unites the Right and the Left - for Palestinians

It has been long long recognized that the extreme Right and the extreme Left in the US disagree on everything - except their antisemitism. 

For Palestinians, it is the same thing - but there is no "extreme" about it.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is holding a celebration today for the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi. The PFLP and its offshoots the DFLP, PFLP-GC and others are Marxist and their terrorists like Leila Khaled are the darlings of the anti-Israel Left.

Yet during the Second Intifada, the PFLP coordinated terror attacks on Jewish civilians together with Hamas and Islamic Jihad - both of them Islamist organizations whose values are polar opposites to Marxism.

Their philosophies could not be more different, but they share something far more fundamental than mere politics: both sides hate Jews, and therefore they are allies. Even today, they coordinate their activities in Gaza for fighting Israel.

The divide between Right and Left simply doesn't exist when they both share their belief in antisemitism. 

Even more amazing is that the socialist Left in the West does not seem to have any real philosophical problem with far Right, Islamist terror groups in the Middle East. This goes to absurd lengths, such as when far Left icon Judith Butler said that "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important." She admitted to some differences of opinion with Islamist groups, but altogether they are considered part of the Left because they oppose Israel - even though their opposition is based on traditional Muslim Jew-hate and not, as she claimed, their "anti-colonialist" stance.

Similarly, Western anti-Israel rallies organized by socialist groups will include signs and banners supporting Hezbollah. 

In the end, people have their own biases and then will attach to groups that share those biases, and ignore any inconsistencies. Jew-hatred is a fundamental principle, and the haters will attach to whichever group supports that position, and not be too particular about the specifics. 

---

---

Read More

Support for terror. Demonization of Israel. Antisemitism. This feedback loop is all illustrated on the security barrier.

Recently, Palestinian artist Taqi al-Din Sabateen painted a picture on the separation barrier, showing an Israeli soldier who removes his helmet to reveal a KKK mask, as he glares at a Palestinian child hilding a goldfish bowl.

Calling Israeli Jews racists has been fashionable since Israel existed, and it is not considered outrageous anymore. 

It should be.

The cumulative effect of this slur - along with "genocide" and "apartheid" and all the others - is that people believe it and eventually it becomes something that you cannot even argue against because they are accepted as historic fact. 

Which is entirely the point.

To the immediate left of this mural is another, of PFLP terrorist and airplane hijacker Leila Khaled.

At the very same time that the audience is being told that Israeli Jews are like the KKK, we see that killing Israeli Jews is a heroic act - it is the "struggle" and the "resistance."  Terror against Jews is not only allowed, but mandatory, because they are evil racists who think they are "chosen" and better than goyim - which is a mainstream Palestinian view. 

And Westerners are not allowed to criticize this because the Palestinian experience makes their opinions tantamount to facts - if they are antisemites, they are justified in being antisemites.  

Therefore, antisemitism is a legitimate opinion. 

And when repeated over and over without pushback (because it is considered vaguely racist to question Palestinian hate,)  it becomes more and more accepted.

---

---

Read More