Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: anti-Zionist not antisemitic

Showing posts with label anti-Zionist not antisemitic. Show all posts

Sunday, November 27, 2022

Arabs cheering violations of human rights against Israelis in Qatar; @Amnesty and @HRW silent

I've seen lots of articles in Arabic extolling how Israelis are being abused by many Arabs at the World Cup in Qatar. This one from Ma'an - an independent Palestinian news source not associated with any terror group - is typical:

"The majority of Arab peoples do not like our presence here, even though we signed 4 normalization agreements." Israeli Channel 12 correspondent, Ohad Hemo.

The words of this reporter summarize what is happening on the ground here, but the expression is inaccurate, as the reporter used the term “do not like” to mitigate the burden of meaning on the settlers’ ears, but the appropriate term is “hate”, “despise”, “reject”, “disdain”. There are many terms suitable for this context, but what is certain is that the Arab peoples have recorded a clear position in relation to "Israel" since the beginning of the World Cup in Qatar.

The Israeli media is experiencing a crisis of transportation and presence at the World Cup. News of Israeli reporters getting insulted and rejected all the time tops people's fondest stories about the World Cup. With every talk of expelling an Israeli reporter from a café or street, Palestinian flags increase in the streets and World Cup stadiums, and there is much talk about Palestine.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says in Article 2:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination similarly says that discrimination based on national origin is considered racial discrimination - on par with discrimination based on color.

Even if Israel really was the worst human rights violator on Earth, even if you don't consider Israel to be a legitimate country whatsoever - Israelis must be treated with respect like any other human being, under international law. And under international law, this is racism.

Apparently, the Arabs in Qatar do not accept that section of the UDHR.

I have not seen one Arabic article in Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese or other media that defends the right of Israeli reporters and fans to visit Qatar without harassment.

But to Palestinians and their allies, these incidents of harassment are points of pride. Racism is a feature, not a bug, to the anti-Israel crowd.

Where is Amnesty? Where is Human Rights Watch? Where are the hundreds of NGOs who spend thousands of hours trying to dig up (or make up) dirt about Israel, who claim that they are not biased, that they speak truth to power, when we have on video lots of examples of Israelis and people who are assumed to be Israelis being harassed in Qatar?

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!

Young hiring managers far less likely to hire Jews than older ones

On Friday, I looked at a survey from Resumebuilders that showed that 26% of recruiters and hiring managers in the United States were less likely to hire people they assume to be Jewish.

As shocking as this is, it gets worse.

I asked for the raw data of the survey to see if I can see any patterns of the respondents. One of them stuck out as the biggest factor as to whether the hiring manager would discriminate against Jews.

Their age.

Younger hiring managers were twice as likely to be biased against Jewish applicants than older ones.

Why would hiring managers be any different than the general population? If they aren't, that means that antisemitism is getting continuously worse in America in coming decades. And the total number of those surveyed was over 1000, which should be pretty accurate.

Another very disturbing finding is that nearly 38% of the hiring managers with a post-graduate education were less likely to move forward with Jewish applicants, with a similar percentage feeling that there were too many Jews in their industries. And nearly 37% of Black hiring managers were less likely to move forward with Jewish applicants. (Although the sample size was small, Arab hiring managers were the least likely to not move forward with Jews - only 7%.)

The other major correlation was between certain industries and antisemitism. According to the survey, these industries that had over 70 respondents were most likely to reject Jewish applicants:

Business 37%

Finance 37%

Education 29%

Technology 28%

These are fields that one would expect to be among the most "liberal." Blue collar fields like retail and food had fewer antisemitic attitudes by hiring managers (although 20% is still nothing to ignore.)

It is hard to escape the conclusion that we are losing the fight against antisemitism, badly. If we expected that education is an inoculation against antisemitism, we are seeing the opposite.

And given that surveys are showing that young people are less likely to be pro-Israel it is also hard to escape the conclusion that today's anti-Zionism - especially on campus - is directly contributing to today's 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!

Some 2022 antisemitic incidents you haven't heard about

The ADL keeps a database of extremist incidents, including antisemitic incidents. They list over 1700 so far for this year. I have been looking though their list for 2022, specifically incidents that mention Israel.

Here are only a few of them:

January, Brooklyn NY: Graffiti that read, "Kill Israel and the Jews" was found on the campus of a middle school.

January, Mountain View CO: In response to a Jewish middle school student's presentation on the Holocaust, the teacher harassed the student about the creation and policies of the State of Israel.

January, Seattle WA: The message "It's okay to be a Zionist genocider" was found spray-painted across the Jewish Family Service.

February, Buffalo NY: An antisemitic flier was posted on the campus of the University of Buffalo. The flier depicted Robert and John F. Kennedy with Stars of David etched over their faces, and the words, "Israel and the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers."

February, University City MO: In a social media post, a campus Birthright program was the target of an anti-Zionist campaign comparing them to Patriot Front, a White Supremacist organization. The campaign strongly suggested that, like the Patriot Front, the Birthright program should not be allowed on campus and the post included the call "Death to all Settler Colonialism!"

March, Storrs CT: A Jewish college student was the target of antisemitic harassment and removal from a campus community group for their pro-Israel activism.

April, New Brunswick NJ: The Israel Fellow for the University of Rutgers Hillel received multiple antisemitic Instagram comments in response to a video they posted regarding the recent terror attack in Israel. One comment read, "die jews die."

May, Santa Barbara CA: "Zionist the evil Jews have got to go" was written in chalk by a bus stop.

May, Champaign IL: "Death to Israel" and "Israelis kill children" was written in chalk on a college campus.

July, Lakewood CO: A Jewish person was approached by an unknown individual on the street who said, "The Zionists will burn."

July, Boulder CO: "ZIONIST SEX PREDITAR (sic) AREA!" was found written in chalk on a sidewalk.

August, Miami FL: A Jewish institution received a threatening phone call in which the caller threatened violence against the Jewish community on behalf of his "Palestinian Wife" in relation to events in Israel. The caller threatened to cut off the heads of Jewish people.

August, Brooklyn NY: Graffiti said that said, "Antisemitism was invented by a Zionist," "Zionism is Anti Semitism (sic) and "Antisemitism is overrated" was found on a train platform.

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!

Arabic media upset that UAE will teach students about the Holocaust: "normalization"

Times of Israel reports:

The United Arab Emirates is taking major steps to combat a regional culture of Holocaust denial in the wake of the 2020 Abraham Accords that normalized its relations with Israel.

Once entirely absent from the learning materials of children in the UAE — which also blacked out Israel from world maps and globes — the Holocaust is now set to be fully included in the curriculum, as the Gulf country moves to position itself as a regional peacemaker.

Emirates Leaks published this news with the headline "the new shame of normalization." It got picked up by Iraqi and Iranian Arabic media as well.

If teaching the Holocaust is considered a shameful act of normalization with Israel, then it follows that Holocaust denial is merely "anti-Zionism."

As always, there is no distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. And the Western anti-Zionists never, ever denounce the antisemitism in the Arab world.

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!

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, Antisemite

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur of the "occupied Palestinian territories," has a smoking gun in her quest to demonize Israel and to shut up her critics who accuse her of antisemitism.

She shows a video of an Israeli policeman abusing a Palestinian truck driver. She frames this as if it happens every day. She rhetorically asks, "Do you think the policeman faced any consequences?"

The event happened over five years ago. It was widely publicized and condemned in Israel. The policeman was fired and charged with assault.

Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan, who oversees the Israel Police, said the policeman’s behavior was “very grave and worthy of condemnation” in a post on his Twitter account last month.

In its statement Thursday, police said that “as was clarified immediately after the incident, this is an irregular and violent incident that is contrary to all the values of the Israel Police.

“This irregular incident is not only not in line with the values and commands of the police, but also damages the tens of thousands of policemen and -women who work day and night for the security of the citizens of the State of Israel with integrity and decency.”

Albanese tries to pretend that this is an everyday event in Israel. It obviously isn't. The Israeli public would not stand for it. The Israeli police would not stand for it. The Israeli government would not stand for it. And we know that from the outraged reactions from all of them in 2017.

Her dishonesty, and her spreading the lie that this is indeed normal, without even spending five minutes to research the incident, is indeed proof of her antisemitism. What else would you call someone who assumes the worst about Israeli Jews - and is clearly wrong?

Can you call it "anti-Zionism?" If so, that means that she admits that her "anti-Zionism" is irrational hate, based on prejudice, not facts. Which makes it just as evil as antisemitism, and then one would have to believe that it is a pure coincidence that anti-Zionism is emotionally and psychologically identical to antisemitism. (Her response to my charge of prejudice would no doubt be to bring up other instances of Israeli lapses, just as antisemites have a ready supply of examples of Jewish immorality - and just like antisemites, she would never consider her default position of assuming the worst to be anything but a reflection of reality.)

This was not the only notable thing about Albanese this weekend.

She was also hosted by Palestine Chronicle in a discussion this weekend. Palestine Chronicle and its editor have a history of publishing antisemitism and support for terrorism, and even recently reports on Jews respectfully visiting the Temple Mount as "settlers breaking into Al Aqsa Mosque."

Again, she didn't bother to research the newspaper hosting her talk - or maybe she did, and decided that it was an appropriate venue.

Either way, Albanese cannot be considered objective when discussing Jews in Israel. And she proves it every day.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

National Library of Tunisia stands up to antisemitic bigots

This week, The National Library of Tunisia sponsored an international symposium called "The Forgotten Languages of Tunisia," about works written by Tunisians in languages that are not widely studied in Tunisia nowadays, including Turkish, Berber, Hebrew and a flavor of Judeo-Arabic that is still spoken in Djerba.

Because of the latter two languages, the symposium was interrupted by antisemites, upset that Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic would be discussed in a scholarly environment. The protesters claimed that this was a form of "normalization" with Israel.

For two hours, the protesters stopped the symposium, chanting, "No to Zionism", "No to Judaism", "No normalization with Israel", "Brainless Jews", "No to Holocaust Museum" , "The Tunisian people are a free people who will not fold to the pernicious Zionist project."

Newspaper Al Chourouk complained that one of the speakers, Jonas Sinony, is a Jew with a Polish (Jewish) mother. (He is a scholar of semitic languages.)

The good news is that the story doesn't end the way that most of these do.

Unlike most cases of attempted cancellation in Arab countries, the library stuck to its guns.

The director of the National Library stayed calm in the face of the screaming protesters, repeating that they will not yield to intimidation.

On their Facebook page, they wrote,

The seminar "Forgotten Languages" was a success, and everyone resisted in the face of the forces of bigotry and extortion.

The presentations were valuable and posted on this page, the fair was a success, and the accusations of "normalization" are oppressive and unjust.

Many thanks to the attendees who sympathized with the National Library and remained in the hall waiting for the scholarly sessions despite the desire of a group of people to cancel them.

Many thanks to the helpers of the National Library who fought to defend and preserve the institution.
And many thanks to the members of the library core union for standing up to the aggressors.

Thanks also to the security forces who negotiated with the aggressors and forced them out peacefully.

66 years after independence, and 11 years after the revolution of dignity, we will not accept the confiscation of freedom of speech and academic freedoms, and we will not accept any arbitrary decision from those who forget that we have become free.

The newspaper "Kapitalis" was also angry at the protesters, writing, "This is our heritage and history, and we are the most worthy to study it. By knowledge we are liberated, not by cancellation, erasure and denial."

"These groups (that protested), who pretend to be defending Palestine, will drag the country into more ignorance and misery," the newspaper quoted observers. "These armies of ignorance, fools, ignorant people and promoters of violence are issuing fatwas against Professor Raja Ben Salama, director of the National Library. They will not rest until they get rid of all the enlightened people and assassinate knowledge..."

I do not recall reading such a direct attack at antisemites in any Arabic media. Normally the most extreme voices win by default, because moderates in Arab countries are not willing to risk being publicly slandered as "Zionists" or "Jews."

This is a very encouraging story, and it will take many more similar stories to root out the antisemitism endemic in the Arab world.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

A French court ruled Israel's "occupation" is legal. The UN makes up new laws to say otherwise.

The UN Commission of Inquiry - which is not a court - decided that Israel's occupation is illegal, which is pretty much new legal ground. And the Commission even admits it!

Its report says, "It is unclear in international law and practice when a situation of belligerent occupation becomes unlawful." But that doesn't stop it from trying - and then pretending it did!

A number of legal experts have identified several principles that, when adhered to, may be used to determine the legality of an occupation. These include whether sovereignty and title are not vested in the occupying power, the occupying power is entrusted with the management of public order and civil life in the occupied territory, the people under occupation are the beneficiaries of that trust in view of their right to self-determination, and the occupation is temporary.

In the present report, the Commission focuses on two indicators that may be used to determine the illegality of the occupation: the permanence of the Israeli occupation, already noted in its previous report to the Human Rights Council at its fiftieth session, and actions amounting to annexation, including unilateral actions taken to dispose of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as if Israel held sovereignty over it.

No legal precedent. Just asking some "experts" who are anti-Israel - and not asking legal experts who are not already antipathetic towards the Jewish state.

In short, the UN is making things up to come to a pre-determined conclusion by cherry picking legal scholars who agree with that conclusion - and not even seeking the opinions of anyone else.

Yet none of these assumptions as to what makes an occupation illegal - a concept that is virtually sui generis, made up for Israel - are based on actual legal rulings. They are making up novel arguments, treating them as established law, and hoping that people believe it.

There is one case that is precedent for the legality of Israel's presence in the West Bank. And, naturally, the UN doesn't cite it.

In 2013, a French court of appeals ruled in a mostly forgotten but quite important case (Association FRANCE-PALESTINE SOLIDARITE “AFPS” and PLO et. al. vs. SOCIETE ALSTOM TRANSPORT SA) that Israel's presence in the West Bank is a case of legal occupation.

The PLO had claimed that Israel's occupation is illegal based on a hodgepodge of arguments, such as claiming that Israel violates the Hague Convention IX of 1907, Article 5, that says "In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes...."

The court acidly noted that there were no bombardments of Jerusalem.

More importantly, the French court ruled that the PLO's claims of being occupied under the Hague and Geneva Conventions were invalid to begin with, because those conventions are based on one nation invading the territory of another "high contracting power" and the PLO was not a state.

The case is summarized here.

It is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the legal status of West bank territories under international law, beyond the political claims of the parties.

While this court does not decide international law, it examined international law and ruled according to those laws. As such, it should have been referred to by the UN COI as a precedent, or at least as a source for legal arguments.

Of course, the COI does nothing of the sort. The French court ruled the "wrong" way and therefore must be ignored, while wholly new legal opinions must be promoted.

Because the UN COI is not trying to determine the truth. Its entire purpose is to twist law and facts to create a new legal framework and a new "truth" tailor-made to damn Israel.

(h/t Yerushalimey)

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!

An antisemitic WWII-era Nazi poster from France has relevance today

During the Nazi occupation of France, this antisemitic poster was published shortly after the United States entered World War II.

It says, "87% of American Heavy Industry Is In The Hands of Jews!"

This poster can teach us a lot about modern antisemitic propaganda.

First of all, it uses a completely made up number, but it appears legitimate since it sounds so precise. No "three quarters" but 87%! This is like the completely made up accusation that Israel has imprisoned 850,000 Palestinians since 1967. It sounds precise enough to be parroted by mainstream media - but there is no source.

But there is another, far more important point with this poster.

If the audience isn't already antisemitic, it doesn't make any sense.

Who cares if Jews own most of American heavy industry? What difference does it make?

But when the audience of the poster already considers Jews to be vermin, then the poster is giving a warning that something evil is afoot.

The poster doesn't need to say anything disparaging about Jews - years of previous propaganda has already brainwashed large numbers of French people to consider Jews subhuman and anything they do as immoral. The graphic links the undeniably awful Jews with the tanks and airplanes of the Allied forces.

The very word "Jew" is the epithet, one that everyone already agrees is symbolic of the worst kind of person.

The poster shows that the Nazi propaganda campaign against Jews was thoroughly successful, and there is no worse insult than calling something Jewish. In some ways, this poster isn't antisemitic - it is worse. It was written not to convince the world to hate Jews but to use their existing hate for Jews to further demonize others.

And that is precisely the goal of the modern Jew haters, who are attempting to do the exact same thing with the word "Zionist."

Already, in Leftist (and most Arab) circles, the word "Zionist" is as toxic as the word "racist" or "fascist" or "apartheid" is. It is a go-to and reliable insult. And the new antisemites are working overtime to associate the words "Zionist" and "Israel" with racism and colonialism and every other social justice crime.

For example, this poster attempts to link Israel to climate change for its audience.

They are not where the Nazis were in 1942. They are still working on creating a visceral hate of "Zionists" and a negative reaction anytime people see the word. They are still in 1935. But they are working hard to get the West to the point that Nazi Europe was in 1942.

If they succeed in their propaganda battle, it is entirely possible we will soon see posters saying "87% of members of Congress are Zionist" without any further comment necessary.

Today's antisemites have learned well from their antisemitic forebears.

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!

"Israel is Judaizing and occupying Bahrain" says Shiite politician

Iranian news site Tasnim News reports:

The Deputy Secretary-General of Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society, Sheikh Hussein Al-Daihi, said that the Bahraini regime seeks to Judaize the country and obliterate the identity of the capital, Manama, "which is known for its authentic history," saying that Bahrain is the second country to be occupied by Israel through the purchase of real estate.

In his speech during the "Day of Betrayal" organized by Al-Wefaq in the Lebanese capital Beirut on the occasion of the second anniversary of the signing of the normalization agreement with the Israeli entity, Al-Daihi stressed that the people of Bahrain stand by the side of Palestine and its resistant people .

Al-Daihi affirmed that Palestine will remain the cause of the Bahrainis “no matter how the Bahraini regime tries to put its hand in the hands of this pariah entity, and they handed it the reins of everything,” explaining that the regime opened to “this pariah entity with open arms, they welcomed it everywhere,” warning that this entity is ephemeral and temporary, “and whoever stands by it will disappear with it.”

During his speech, he denounced the regime's work to establish a Jewish identity on the land of Bahrain and in the capital, Manama, "this ancient and authentic capital, known for its authentic history, filled with good, Islamic, and other landmarks. Today, the regime wants the Jews of this capital, and gave them a large part of our land in the capital under the title "Reviving the Jewish neighborhood in the capital, Manama," and turning evasively towards those who want to buy the lands of some residents of the capital, Manama, with forged addresses, with Zionist companies and individuals, who wanted to buy lands from the capital to give it to the Jews, to revive a neighborhood and a synagogue for Jews that have no effect and no presence in the capital.

Note that he makes no distinction between relations with Israel and "Judaization." Because there is no difference - they hate Israel because they hate Jews, not the other way around.

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!

At Berkeley Law, everyone can choose their identity - except Jews. Everyone has free speech - except for nearly all Jews.

At Berkeley Law School, faculty and staff members are encouraged to include their preferred pronouns in email signatures. Students can indicate their preferred pronouns on their law school applications, as well as on their name tags during student orientation.

Clearly, the right to identify oneself as one wishes is important at the law school, and anyone who chooses to ignore those wishes and tell students and staff that they refuse to address them as they self-identify would be marginalized as a bigot, and probably censured.

There is one exception, though.

This fall there has been a controversy at Berkeley Law when nine student organizations will not host events or invite speakers who have expressed views in support of Zionism. Many Jews protested, saying that this effectively discriminated against them as Zionism and Judaism are tightly bound.

The lawyer defending the student organizations, Liz Jackson of Palestine Legal, who is herself an alumnus of the school, defended the discriminatory bylaws in a most curious way:

“Some students say that their Jewish identity is so deeply identified with Zionism that this effectively discriminates against them," Jackson said. "But that’s their subjective view and choice about how they understand their own Jewish identity.”

According to Palestine Legal's lawyer, Jews do not have the right to say that their Judaism includes love of Israel. Self-identification is not a right for Jews, rather, Jewishness is defined by others and Jews must adhere to the definition that anti-Zionists impose on them.

This doesn't sound very progressive. But this is the argument of the Berkeley Law student organizations to defend their blocking any speaker for whom Israel is a central part of their Judaism, which includes the vast majority of Jews.

Jackson herself says she is Jewish. According to her own standards, I can declare that this is only her subjective view and that she is in reality not Jewish. How do you think that argument would go over at Berkeley? Yet that is exactly what she is saying about 95% of all Jews.

Jackson's hypocrisy doesn't end there.

Not only does she deny the right of Jews to define Judaism, she denies the right of Zionists to define Zionism!

In an Oct. 3 statement released by ASUC Senator Shay Cohen addressed to LSJP and student groups that adopted the bylaw, student groups alleged that the bylaw was “a deliberate attempt to exclude Jewish students from the community,” and likened anti-Zionism to antisemitism.

“When we say ‘Zionism,’ we mean the Jewish right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, which is Israel,” said Amir Grunhaus, campus senior and president of Tikvah, a Zionist student group that signed the statement. “This does not say anything about the self-determination of Palestinians.”

Jackson expressed disagreement with this definition of Zionism, alleging that it was “colonial ideology” and that it is “problematic” to believe that a religious group has a right to a state of their own as it “requires discrimination” against people outside of that group.

This is "1984"-level thought police stuff. This lawyer defines what her political opponents believe.

Note also that Jackson here is defining Jews as a purely religious group, not as a people. According to her words, atheist Jews aren't Jews, either.

Jewish and Zionist identity can only be defined by those who oppose Jewish and Zionist identity.

And this is still not the height of Liz Jackson's hypocrisy.

She wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times against the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act where she falsely claimed that the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is incorporated in the Act, makes criticism of Israel illegal on campus. She's lying - the IHRA definition explicitly says that criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any country is not antisemitic.

Jackson wrote:

The State Department standard is highly controversial because it conflates criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Jewish hatred, shutting down debate by suggesting that anyone who looks critically at Israeli policy is somehow beyond the pale. It has no place on college campuses in particular, where we need students to engage in a vigorous exchange of ideas.

Jackson claims she supports a vigorous exchange of ideas on campus. No Zionist I know of disagrees. But at Berkeley, she has taken the exact opposite stand, and defends organizations making bylaws that ban not only speech that supports Zionism, but they ban Zionist speakers from speaking on any topic whatsoever!

To anti-Zionist hypocrites like Jackson and her organization Palestine Legal, these are the rules:

The right to self-identify is sacred - except for Jews.

The right to define your own beliefs is sacred - except for Zionists.

The right to free speech is sacred - except for nearly all Jews.

And calling out this obvious hypocrisy is anti-Palestinian racism.

(h/t Andrew P)

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!

11/01 Links Pt2: Hatred of Israel drags us back to the Middle Ages; Radical social justice ideology is fueling US antisemitism; Edward Said’s Jews

From Ian:

Hatred of Israel drags us back to the Middle Ages

Since it was established in 1948, Israel has endured numerous wars and hundreds of bloody terrorist attacks. It has been forced to defend itself against continual attempted invasions by its neighbors.

Most importantly, it has sought a peace agreement with the Palestinians many times. Each time, it has been rejected by the Palestinians, who hope Israel will simply disappear.

But there is an even more important reason for Magni to consult with history: Today, there is a large alliance of forces that former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer has called “medievalist.” They are autocratic, confessional and terroristic. Many of them have Iran has a primary sponsor. They persecute women, homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities and others. They almost uniformly back Russia’s violently anti-Western policies.

Aligned against this unholy alliance are the forces of modernity. Today, they are united more than ever in the need to defend democracy, the rule of law and coexistence in the face of brutal aggression, whether by Iranian terrorism or the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

At the U.N. last week, however, many nations—including Italy—defended Israel from the anti-Semitic U.N. Commission of Inquiry into the May 2021 Israel-Hamas conflict, which is dedicated solely to condemning Israel.

In other words, times are changing. Those members of the Italian parliament who hate Israel should realize they are on the wrong side of history. Indeed, when will the left understand that, especially since the signing of the Abraham Accords, embracing hatred of the Jewish state only drags us back to the Middle Ages?

Radical social justice ideology is fueling US antisemitism

Even while many Jews back social justice movements calling attention to police abuse and mass incarceration, some worry that rhetoric characterizing America as a white supremacist society and demonizing whiteness has and will continue to spill over into hostility toward Jews. As proponents of this ideology tend to view Jews as white, how could it not?

We worry that supposedly white adjacent groups with higher average incomes and educational achievements, such as Jews and Asians, are being implicated in white supremacy for allegedly succeeding on the backs of marginalized communities.

Moreover, it strikes us that the new social justice activism is not just a call for a much-needed shift in policy priorities but a fundamental challenge to the liberal order, which would render everyone, Jews especially, more vulnerable. The ideologues in the movement often don’t seek to fix institutions but to tear them down, as was evident in the campaign to defund the police. Those of us who have studied the history of antisemitism know that when illiberalism sets in, whether on the political right or the left, resurgent antisemitism is never far behind.

The hypothesis that radical social justice ideology foments antisemitic sentiment on the Left is supported by a new survey of 1,600 likely voters. The survey shows that self-described progressives and very liberal Americans who believe that America is a structurally racist nation also tend to see Jews and Asians as white adjacent to the tune of 80%. That same subset views Jews as having too much power and privilege by nearly 2-1 over comparable groups, such as Black, Asian or LGBT Americans. These percentages on both questions steeply decline among moderates and conservatives.

The survey also indicates that on the far Left of the American political spectrum, Israel is being increasingly viewed as a colonizer, which calls into question the country’s very right to exist. A plurality of progressives now views Israel in these very extreme terms. While the new data is not a smoking gun that the spread of radical social justice ideology is driving antisemitic sentiment on the left, it comports with what many of us have observed with our own eyes.

Adam Levick's London talk on Critical Race Theory and antisemitism

The inevitable course of the CRT understanding of the West also includes a likely antisemitic outcome:

Ibram X Kendi’s “How to be an anti-racist” (a dumbed down version of CRT) promotes the ideology’s belief that racial disparities in outcomes are, by definition, evidence of systemic racism – bigotry that, in his rejection of liberalism, must be combated by “anti-racist discrimination” against ‘whites’ (including, it follows, against Jews) – that is, the institutionalisation of preferential practices based on overtly racial and (per such racial essential-ism) antisemitic criteria.

Equality under the law and colour-blind admission standards in education, for Kendi, insofar as such traditional liberal expressions of anti-racism don’t produce equal results, is in fact racist.

While liberalism seeks traditional justice, CRT proponents seek what Thomas Sowell calls “Cosmic Justice”, a Utopian concept that, by demanding not just a fair and transparent process, but the desired result, is irreconcilable with personal freedom based on the rule of law.

CRT turns the Greek saying “character is destiny” on its head, and posits instead that “colour is destiny”.

CRT embraces fatalism and cynicism over liberalism’s agency and optimism.

CRT is obsessed with identity, while liberalism’s project has always sought to transcend identitarianism and the obsession with who we are as the result of mere accidents of birth.

The CRT inspired myth of the white-adjacent, white or even hyper-white Jew helps explain why some anti-Zionists obscenely characterize Israel as a “white supremacist state”, which brings us to a powerful observation by the Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi:
Anti-Semites have typically “turned Jews into the symbol of whatever it is a given civilization finds as its most loathsome quality.
Under early Christianity, the Jew was the Christ killer. Under communism, the Jew was the capitalist. Under Nazism, the Jew was the ultimate race polluter.
Now we live in a civilization where the most loathsome qualities are racism, and, lo and behold, Jews have become “white people” oppressing “people of colour”.

This represents, Halevi concludes, a “classical continuity of thousands of years of symbolising the Jew”.

Moreover, the message of Jewish tradition is that none of us are at the mercy of qualities or characteristics that can never change. Our message has always been one of action and hope—each one of us is a work in progress, even kings and great leaders.

CRT nullifies this powerful and liberal idea—that we are individuals with the power to make a difference in our own lives.

Equality before the law, regardless of class, colour, or creed, is not just the only answer that has worked for Jews, and the greater good, over the long run, it’s also the only solution with any moral authority – the only idea that has proven itself to be most likely to result in human flourishing.

It is not by chance that Jews in particular tend to thrive in societies in which liberalism is enshrined in law and civic culture:
The veneration and codification of individual as opposed to group rights, which are protected via the neutral application of laws.
The idea that we should judge each person not by their station or their family lineage, but by their decisions, actions and achievements.
The sacredness of the individual over the group.
Human agency over fatalism.

It is the idea that all men are created in the image of God, that freedom is a natural self-evident right which precedes the state, and is shared by all individuals—revolutionary ideas originating in the Torah, but ushered into the West by Locke, Mill, Montesquieu and the drafters of the US Constitution – which offer the only real protection against increasing threats to Jewish freedom and the liberal values that serve as a bulwark against racism and tyranny throughout the world.

Yes, extremist rhetoric can normalize violence - and that includes "anti-Zionist" rhetoric

Historian Matthew Dallek writes in a New York Times op-ed:

The assault on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, last week shocked even those who have become inured to rising violence in the United States. The erosion of norms restraining extreme behavior that began well before the election of Donald Trump in 2016 appears to have accelerated. Society looks as if it is coming apart at the seams.

...Under Mr. Trump’s leadership, groups on the right have felt increasingly comfortable incubating, encouraging and carrying out violence.

The consistency of the rhetoric (“enemy of the people”; “Our house is on fire”; “You’re not going to have a country anymore”; “the greatest theft in the history of America”; “Where’s Nancy?”) has ingrained dehumanization of Republican opponents in parts of the political culture; conservatives have often painted their critics as enemies who must be annihilated before they destroy you. As the Department of Homeland Security has reported, domestic violent extremism — such as the white supremacist Charlottesville riots and the Jan. 6 insurrection — is one of the most pressing internal threats facing the United States.

I don't disagree with any of this except for the term "conservatives" instead of "the far-right" in the paragraph above - there is little conservative about those who support political violence.

Dallek makes a half-hearted attempt at even-handedness:

Some on the left, too, have increasingly abandoned norms of civility and respect for rules and institutions. The gunman who in 2017 targeted Republican members of Congress and shot five people playing baseball — the Republican House whip, Steve Scalise, was seriously wounded — drew inspiration from his hatred of Republicans and Donald Trump. In June, a California man was arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home and charged with attempted murder after posting on the social platform Discord that he was going to “stop Roe v. Wade from being overturned.”

But then Dallek draws a distinction that isn't really there, as the rest of the article ignores far-Left incitement:

While Democratic leaders for the most part are quick to condemn violence, Republican leaders increasingly minimize its severity or turn a blind eye.

But Democrats are no less guilty at minimizing the violence on their side.

One obvious example: Hundreds of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 were violent, but the political Left emphasized that 93% of the protests were peaceful - as if the hundreds of violent protests shouldn't be reported.

Has anyone reported on the percentage of rallies on the Right that are violent compared to non-violent? I'm sure the percentage that are non-violent is far higher than 93%.

Both sides are guilty of emphasizing the excesses of the other side and downplaying those on their own, not just the Right. And the Left's blind side is not only for anti-racist protests but also for anti-Israel rhetoric that can easily escalate into violence.

Most of the anti-Israel protests in the US are sponsored by far-Left groups like Samidoun and Within Our Lifetime. They feature chants that call for violence against Zionist Jews, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly. After all, the chants of "Globalize the Intifada" are a call for violence against Jews worldwide. "From the river to the sea" is a call to ethnically cleanse Jews from the Middle East. "By any means necessary" is explicit support for terror attacks against Jews. Yet this incitement is minimized by the larger Left.

Some of these protests have indeed escalated into violence, as we saw last year in New York and Los Angeles. The vicious beating of a Jew in New York was blandly reported as "clashes between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters." Only this past week, a yeshiva boy in New York was attacked by someone who demanded he say "Free Palestine", mirroring a similar attack in May. The line between Leftist rhetoric and violence against Jews has already been crossed multiple times - but it is downplayed, over and over.

Overseas, the same socialist sponsors chant pro-violence messages that are even more explicit, and they can be seen as a preview of what we will be seeing soon in the US. This past weekend in Brussels, a rally organized by Samidoun included these chants:

Stand firm until it ends, by throwing a stone or shooting bullets. My people have a war and have no fear, either with a stone or with a Kalashnikov. And fire your rockets, O Motherland...O Motherland, we are coming to you. O my love, O Grand Rocket, hand over this land to me. In war and sword, we will return.

The rally featured people dressed up as masked Palestinian terrorists and holding signs supporting specific terrorists.

This is not just inciting to violence - it is romanticizing it. And the ideological basis for murdering Jews comes from the socialist PFLP, whose philosophy of violence against Zionist Jews was written in the 1960s are remains unchanged today. The PFLP is a terror group that has been behind countless attacks on civilians worldwide.

How many people on the political Left call out the PFLP and Samidoun and Within Our Lifetime when they call for violence? On the contrary, the Left supports the PFLP as a social justice political party that has founded human rights groups.

Incitement to violence is wrong no matter who does it. It will not stop until those on the same political side are brave enough to call it out, even if it means there will be dissent within the party.

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!

When "anti-Zionists" were antisemites of the Right

In the 1940s and 1950s, there was a burgeoning publishing industry of far-Right antisemites.

Jack Tenney was a California state senator who published a number of antisemitic tracts in the 1950s - but he insisted that he was only anti-Zionist.

The cover for his "Zionist Network" was pretty much identical to Nazi antisemitic propaganda:

The inside cover of Tenney's book "Zion's Fifth Column" includes a quote where he insists he has nothing against Jews:

Of course. Tenney didn't think his hate of Jews was unreasoning. In "Zionist Network" he describes how close-knit Jews control the world.

Also similar to today's antisemitic anti-Zionists, Tenney creates a hit list network of Jewish organizations, similar to the Boston Mapping Project this year and much of what David Miller still does.

In "Zion's Fifth Column" he lists many Jewish organizations, along with the names of their officers. It is indistinguishable from what one can see in Electronic Intifada on any given day.

Another notable "anti-Communist" publication was called Common Sense (not to be confused with a 1940s' magazine nor with Bari Weiss' current newsletter.)

Reading Common Sense now shows a funhouse mirror version of today's anti-Zionists who are just as antisemitic as this publisher was. In many ways Common Sense resembles Arab media antisemitism, complete with Khazar conspiracy theories and railing against the Talmud.

Here are some of the top headlines of Common Sense, where Jews and Zionists are used interchangeably.

Especially notable is this cover, which is the obverse of today's Left accusing Zionists of weaponizing antisemitism. It turns out the far Right agreed with them!

Common Sense also included Holocaust denial. It was partially funded by Benjamin Freedman, a famous antisemite and Holocaust denier.

It had a circulation of about 50,000 and published up until about 1970. It was recognized as a hate group by the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1954. While the Committee was associated with the Right, it recognized and condemned those who used anti-Communism as an excuse for their hate.

Communism’s present threat to the very survival of the United States and the rest of the free world has placed heavy burdens on the defenders of human freedom and dignity. The Committee on Un-American Activities is concerned to observe that this burden is being aggravated by certain individuals and organizations unscrupulously exploiting the menace of communism to promote other activities equally subversive and equally un-American. Such activities would destroy the very foundation work of the American Republic, if permitted to operate unnoticed or unchallenged. Committee investigations disclose that this organized activity falls into two patterns: (1) The neo-fascist organization which openly espouses a fascist regime for the United States; and (2) The organized hate group, which masquerades as a defender of our republican form of government yet conducts hate campaigns against racial and religious minorities in the infamous tradition of the fascist dictatorships.

The Committee, which is now associated with the most extreme excesses of the Right, wrote this - something that you will hardly find either today's Left nor today's Right ever saying: "Those who would support the extreme right today do as great a violence to our national institutions as do those on the extreme left. "

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!