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

Sunday, June 04, 2023

From The Forward:
A new study is casting doubt on the idea, held by some but not most American Jews, that antisemitism is just as prevalent on the far left as it is on the far right. Though far more American Jews consider the far right as the greater antisemitic threat, some academics and Jewish leaders have embraced horseshoe theory — the idea the opposite ends of an ideological spectrum are similar — and applied it to antisemitism.

Though the Anti-Defamation League, for example, has identified the far right as far more threatening to American Jews, its leader, Jonathan Greenblatt, has compared far-left critics of Israel as the “photo inverse” of the extreme right.

While antisemitism on the right tends to focus on conspiracy theories about Jews being disloyal to white people or rejecting conservative values, on the left it’s often tied to blaming Jews for actions undertaken by Israel.

A paper published in June in the journal Political Research Quarterly found that anti-Jewish beliefs are far more popular in right-wing circles, particularly among young people. 

The results show that “there’s a problem on the young right,” said study author Eitan Hersh, an associate professor of political science at Tufts University. “It’s very interesting and, I think, concerning that we have this rare form of prejudice that is more common among young people and old people. It’s kind of shocking because if you look at other forms of prejudice, like racism, sexism, anti-gay attitudes, they’re just way higher among older people than younger people.”

For the study, a survey was sent to 3,500 American adults, 2,500 of them between the ages of 18 and 30. Respondents were asked to reply to a series of questions, such as whether they believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than the U.S.; if it’s appropriate to boycott Jewish-owned businesses to protest Israeli policies, and whether Jews have too much power. They were also asked questions to test for a double standard. For instance, one question would ask whether Jews who want to participate in activism must first denounce Israeli actions against Palestinians, and then a similar question was posed about Muslims denouncing a Muslim country’s actions. 

Hersh said he was surprised by the results. Those on the left were less likely than even political moderates to believe Jews were more loyal to Israel. They were also less likely than moderates to think Jews have too much power or that boycotting Jewish businesses to protest Israel was acceptable. Young adults who held the most conservative views were almost five times more likely to say it was acceptable to boycott Jewish businesses than those on the farthest left and almost 10 times more likely to say Jews had too much power. 
I'm not quite sure why this is being published now - the survey was published nearly a year ago.

The people behind the survey, while trying hard to make it as scientific as possible, are still missing the nature of modern antisemitism of the Left. So is The Forward.

The far-Left (in the US) is conditioned to be against traditional antisemitism. They know "hating Jews" is a bad thing. They know the Holocaust was a horrible event. Their visceral hatred for Nazis means that are never going to say that they will boycott Jewish-owned businesses or that Jews have too much power.

That is because they have replaced the object of their irrational hate from "Jew" to "Zionist."

The surveyors should have asked the identical questions across the same groups with the word "Zionists" instead of "Jews:"

1. US Zionists are more loyal to Israel than to America.
2. It is appropriate for opponents of Israel’s policies and actions to boycott Zionist American owned businesses in their communities.
3. Zionists in the United States have too much power.
Even though they don't want to admit it - certainly not to a survey - "Zionist" has become a useful replacement for "Jew" in their own bigotry. "Zionists" are excluded from progressive clubs, not "Jews" - but there is essentially no difference between the two. Jews are expected to denounce Israel as a precondition to being accepted in some campus spaces, but members of other religions aren't given the same demands. 

If the far-Left were given similar questions to those the ADL asks about Jews in their antisemitism surveys but using the word "Zionists" instead, then we would learn how congruent their hate is with right-wing antisemitism. In addition to the questions above, they should specify whether the responders agree:

Zionists have too much power in the business world
Zionists have too much power in international financial markets
Zionists talk too much about the Holocaust
Zionists don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind
Zionists have too much control over global affairs
Zionists have too much control over the United States government
Zionists think they are better than other people
Zionists have too much control over the global media
Zionists are responsible for most of the world's wars
People hate Jews because of the way Israel behaves
If far-Left responses to classic antisemitic tropes repurposed as "anti-Zionist" are similar to far-right answers to those tropes with Jews, that would be strong proof that the "horseshoe theory" is correct - and that the Left has simply recast Jews as "Zionist" while denying any connection between the two. The crazed prejudice is the same, just recast as a rational, political position rather than an irrational racist position. 

My theory that the far Left tries to bury antisemitic attitudes behind other concerns is supported by a survey done in 2021 that showed a correlation between education and antisemitism, using a brilliant methodology where the people being polled would not know that their answers would indicate prejudice - something the Left is sensitive to. 

I'm not saying that the far Left is just as antisemitic as the far-Right. We don't have the data. I'm saying that the methodologies in the surveys we know of that make the claim that there is little far-Left antisemitism have all been flawed. 

It would be similarly instructive to see the far-Right responses to the same questions on "Zionists," because while the Left tries to paint the right-wing antisemites as Zionist, the reality is, I believe, quite different (just look at David Duke's writings about Israel for an example.) 

Maybe I should raise the money for a proper survey to see if I am right or not. Because the professionals and academics are still missing the boat.



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!

 

 

Friday, June 02, 2023

I am particularly proud of most of the memes I made this week.





























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 year ago I posted newspaper articles showing that even the worst antisemites deny being antisemites. They always have a reason for hating Jews that has nothing at all about hating Jews. 

A neo-Nazi skinhead who said he doesn't hate Jews, just doesn't want them around anymore.

Famous firebrand radio star Rev. Charles Coughlin denied being antisemitic.

Henry Ford, who distribute the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the US, denied it as well. 

Both the Soviets and Nazis (at one point) claimed they weren't antisemitic - but only anti-Zionist!

Here are some other examples of how, magically, no one is antisemitic.

General George Van Horn Moseley, 1939:




Charles Lindbergh's America First group, 1941:


A Canadian colonel who put out a pamphlet called "Plans of the Synagogue of Satan," 1953:




French political party, 1956, says they are not antisemitic but the Jews control the phone company and post office:


Their insistence that they weren't antisemitic, and even in some cases making their own definitions of antisemitism to prove it, sounds very familiar nowadays.



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, June 01, 2023

Cairo Conspiracy, also known as Boy from Heaven, is a film synopsized as "Adam, the son of a fisherman, is offered the privilege to study at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the center of power of Sunni Islam. Adam becomes a pawn in the conflict between Egypt's religious and political elites."

It was released a year ago. It has received a number of awards and positive reviews.

It was finally released in Israel last week.

Suddenly, Egyptian officials are denouncing the film - and blaming Israel for it.

Islamic writer and researcher, and former Egyptian Undersecretary of the Ministry of Religious Endowments, Saad El-Fiqi, said that showing the movie "A Boy from Heaven" in Israel to tarnish the image of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif failed miserably.

He continued in statements to RT: “The Zionist is known for lying, fraud and promoting everything that is false, and Israel is a bastard state that has no origin and its history is known and established for all wise people in the world,” stressing that one day it will be destroyed as its legend ended in the war of the tenth of Ramadan and the sixth of October.

Al-Fiqi stressed the need to  refute what is published in the Zionist media, especially with regard to Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, which is known for always standing with the cause of Palestine and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as its clear positions against Zionist arrogance and exposing its lies, as well as exposing the faults of those who support the bastard state.

The Egyptian Islamic writer and researcher said that the honorable Al-Azhar, whether Israel likes it or not, remains a dagger in its back, revealing its faults, showing their mistakes and lies, and that it is a state that will inevitably disappear.
If you need evidence that hate for Israel is unhinged, this is plenty.

The director of the film is Swedish-Egyptian. It was co-produced by  Sweden, France and Finland.. It was mostly filmed in Turkey.

So, naturally, it must all be Israel's fault.

Apparently, an Israel Hayom article about the movie mentioned that some of the actors were Israeli. Last year, they were proudly described in Arabic media as being "of Palestinian origin."  That seems to what started this whole thing. 

Yet the film was even reviewed positively by Al Jazeera last year!



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, April 17, 2023

There was a most interesting communication between Israel's  Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli and Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian territories.

Albanese had recently tweeted that "Israel has a right to defend itself, but can't claim it when it comes to the people it oppresses/whose lands it colonizes." The clear implication is that Jews who are killed by Palestinians have no right to self defense as long as the murderers can claim that they are oppressed by Israel. 

Chikli wrote a pointed and detailed response to the UN, demanding that Albanese be fired.

 Over 3000 years ago, the moral imperative not to kill was established as the most fundamental commandment given to humanity within the framework of the Ten Commandments - one of the most authentic human rights charter. Throughout history, the importance of the right to life and the prohibition of murder have been developed by philosophers such as John Locke, and has been incorporated into many official documents. One of the most prominent milestones in this context is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, whose Article 3 declares that ''Everyone has the Right to life, liberty and security of person." 

Against the background of this long process of establishing the universal right to life for all individuals, I am writing to express my profound shock, condemnation and dismay at the recent comments made by formal UN employee and special rapporteur, Ms. Frances. Albanese. Ms. Albanese's reprehensible, irresponsible and terror-inciting remarks made earlier this week called into question Israel's very right to defend the lives of its citizens. 

Ms. Albanese's statement is not only outrageous but also explicitly denies the right to life and personal security of many Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. Her comments contradict the basic core foundational human rights upon which the United Nations is built, setting a dangerous precedent. It is also unacceptable for a UN representative to make such a statement, even if she thinks that part of the country is disputed territory. 

I would like to draw your attention to a concerning matter regarding Ms. Albanese's recent remarks. It appears that her words may have been intentionally influenced by the recent horrific terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians: Just last week, a British-Israeli mother, Lucy Dee, and her two teenage daughters, Maia and Rina Dee, were brutally murdered in the Jordan Valley by a Palestinian terrorist who deliberately rammed their vehicle and then shot them at point blank range. Ms. Albanese's statement seems to suggest that Lucy Dee and her daughters, three innocent human beings driving on a holiday, were not deserving of the right to be protected by the State of Israel. 

This statement is especially troubling, as it casts a dark shadow on Ms. Albanese's basic human compassion, and her ability to uphold the principles of the United Nations and carry out her duties as a representative on its behalf. 

Regrettably, this is not an isolated instance of Ms. Albanese's relentless, systematic and irrational bias against Israel and display of antisemitism. As a representative who should be applying intemational law equally for all, irrespective of their faith, background or geographic locality, this is deeply concerning. 

A particular, troubling example is her speech at a Hamas-sponsored conference in Gaza in November 2022, during which she urged her audience to "resist". Moreover, in recent years, Ms. Albanese has also accused the "Jewish Lobby" of controlling United States and Europe, supported the BDS campaign against Israel, compared Israelis to the Nazis and refused to condemn Palestinian terrorism.

Ms. Albanese's actions and statements clearly violate the impartiality and objectivity requirements outlined in the UN Code of Conduct for Special Rapporteurs. Her clear and persistent display of antisemitic rhetoric, hostility and prejudice towards Israel demonstrates that this particular rapporteur does not uphold these values. The United Nations is failing to uphold its own commitment to protecting fundamental human rights for all and applying equal treatment of all its member states by allowing Ms. Albanese to continue to spew hatred, antisemitism and incite violence. Her blindly one-sided anti-Israel mandate is unacceptable and clearly goes against the principles of the United Nations. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to take prompt action and terminate Ms. Albanese, position's permanently. It is s essential that the United Nations uphold its own principles and convey a resolute message that antisemitism and support for violence and terrorism have no place within its organization. In this context, I would like to refer to Chaim Herzog's powerful speech at the United Nations General Assembly on November 10, 1975, stating that "It is indeed fitting that the United Nations, which began its life as an anti-Nazi Alliance, should, 30 years later, find itself on its way to becoming the world center of anti-Semitism". We very much hope that it is still possible to change this sad situation. 

Yours respectfully, 
Amichai Chikli 
Minister of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism 
Albanese did not respond to any of these points. Instead, she composed the equivalent of a schoolyard taunt:
I wonder how the 3000-year-old "moral responsibility [sic] not to kill" can be reconciled with the thousands of Palestinians killed since 2007 in oPt (4k out of conflict; 4.4k in-conflict, i.e. in Gaza: 2008/9, 2012, 2014, 2018/9, 2021, 2022).
She is saying that Israel is hypocritical on two levels: one by not adhering to the same human rights standards that Chikli is saying she is guilty of violating, and secondly of not upholding Jewish laws itself in killing Palestinians. 

Even though Albanese has already distinguished herself with her blatant bias and tacit support for Palestinian terror, this is fairly astonishing. By not defending her own words justifying Palestinian "resistance," she is saying that Palestinian terror is not even worth discussion - because Israel is worse. 

In her moral universe, two wrongs make a right. 

It is clearly a false charge. The vast majority of those killed by Israel were either legitimate targets or collateral damage when Israel was attacking legitimate targets in wartime. Some were tragic accidents. 

One is not liable for those deaths under either Torah law or the Geneva Conventions

Palestinian terrorists, including the killers of the Dee mother and daughters, are guilty of murder in their deliberate targeting of uninvolved civilians; And Palestinian terror is illegal under both of them.

Albanese ignores or condones Palestinian murders while condemning Israel's defensive wartime actions - and she cynically invokes Jewish law to make her case, including that Jews (and only Jews)  do not have the right to defend themselves against those who claim "oppression." 

In Albanese' perverted moral calculus, Israeli Jews cannot claim to be oppressed by those who daily call for them to be ethnically cleansed from their homes. Only Palestinian lives matter and Palestinian murders are "legitimate resistance;" Jewish Israelis do not have the right to claim either self defense or oppression, which is the golden ticket needed to kill anyone on the other side.

This is another case where Albanese's own words cross the line from "anti-Zionism" into 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!

 

 

Thursday, February 02, 2023



AI helped me get a terrorist in a suit, but it wasn't easy.




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

The last time we looked at Jordanian columnist Bassam Al Yassin, he was spewing Nazi-level Jew-hatred:
The Jew is the epitome of evil and deceit, a professor of greed and deceit, a genius who plots against creation, a superman who spies wherever he is. The Jew is selfish, self-centered, and believes that God created no one but Him, and that the goyim – other peoples, were created to serve Him. That is why the Jew lives behind a false mask of oppression and the Holocaust. 
He remains a columnist at Sawaleif, of course. Today he writes, "All of humanity has come together and unanimously agreed that the Jews are behind all the destruction and sabotage on earth, and the leaders of the invisible, murderous hand in the world."

So it is no surprise that he fully supports murdering Jewish civilians as he praises Jerusalem murderer  Alqam Khairi:

A man who defeats an army, washes away the shame of a nation ...It is not terrorism nor an “attack on the civilized world”, but rather a sacred right guaranteed by God to the oppressed on earth.

Who else - Oh Alqam - embodied the resistance, and made the Jews taste the bitterness of bark, without slogans. You alone ignited a revolution without microphones, and exposed the security cooperation between the regimes and the Zionists, with a smuggled gun. Blessed are you in martyrdom, and the highest levels of Paradise are permissible for you. God gave you the task when the nation neglected it. 

 Your legitimate project: A homeland without Jews and a nation without borders... #Palestine without occupation and a citizen without humiliation. The hidden truths were revealed, and the hidden scandals spread under false names, foremost of which was the fear of the normalizers against the Jews as if they were angels, not murderers. And it was the distinguishing mark, between those who worship God and exalt His name in His exaltedness, and those whom the White House kisses, may God curse him.
Just "anti-Zionism," right?

The silence from the self-described "anti-Zionists" in the face of consistent, public Jew hatred in Arab media proves that their avowed opposition to antisemitism is mere words. 




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, January 25, 2023








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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 


Monday, January 23, 2023










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!

 

 

Sunday, January 22, 2023




Rob Eshman writes in The Forward:

The way Jewish institutions reacted to a few dozen pro-Palestinian students protesting at the University of Michigan last week exemplifies an unwelcome trend in pro-Israel advocacy: the rise of Snowflake Zionism.  

The protesters marched through campus on Jan. 12 behind a woman who shouted into a bullhorn, “There is only one solution!” They chanted back, “Intifada! Revolution.”

The protest prompted a storm of outrage from some Jewish organizations, right-leaning  Jewish outlets and social media, amplifying concerns that college campuses are not welcoming to supporters of Israel.

“We’re outraged by the chants calling for a violent intifada and demanding ‘Zionists have got to go’ by SJP at @UMich,” tweeted Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. “Let’s be clear: this is a direct call to violence and the university must investigate this as a possible violation of Jewish students’ rights under #TitleVI.”

Such responses have now become a kind of Palestinian-Jewish Kabuki. Students march. Jewish organizations swoop in, hurling accusations of antisemitism, demanding investigations and threatening to strip away federal funding. 

There are plenty of real antisemitic threats, as well as vandalism and assaults, committed on campuses and off. . But by intervening in every campus display of anti-Israel activity — and attempting to defund schools over it — in the guise of making  campuses “safe” for pro-Israel Jewish students, are we are creating a generation of fragile Zionists unable to stand up for what they believe in the face of fierce criticism?
Calling for a new intifada is not exactly "fierce criticism." It is incitement to murder. 

The earliest I can find the "Intifada Revolution" chant documented is from 2016, in the Twitter account of Nerdeen Kiswani, founder of Within Our Lifetime. Kiswani openly cheers murdering Jews and had perself made direct physical threats against Zionists. There is no way to misinterpret "Intifada Revolution" as anything other than a direct call to violence.

Are Jews who fight back against being directly threatened "snowflakes"?
I think the anti-Zionists are doing our kids a favor. They are provoking those who disagree to marshal their best arguments, to figure out ways to inform and persuade others, and maybe, just maybe, to consider the merits of other points of view. 
If the anti-Zionists were open to debate, maybe. But they are not. They try to shut down any Zionist activity, they promote bullying Zionist Jews, they consider dialogue to be a form of "normalization." So when students on campus are confronted with the most fanatic, pro-terror elements who shut down any chance for a meeting of minds, what option do they have to stand up for themselves? Should they also incite to murder? Should they march around campus calling for a new Nakba to finish the job (and then claim that they mean a "peaceful Nakba")? 

I'm all for college students knowing how to answer anti-Israel arguments. That's part of the purpose of this site. But Eshman is telling Jewish students not to fight back when they are directly threatened, and that is completely wrong.



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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, January 16, 2023

An independent report was released last week looking at allegations of pervasive antisemitism at the National Union of Students (NUS) in the United Kingdom. 

The antisemitism is closely linked with anti-Zionism, where Jewish students are lightning rods for students' hate against Israel.

As Spiked Online summarizes the report:
Written by barrister Rebecca Tuck, the report depicts an NUS that views anti-Semitism as a second-order problem, the scale of which is exaggerated by Jewish students. Too many NUS leaders seem to believe that anti-Semitism is far less important than other forms of discrimination.

Tuck’s report is damning. ‘For at least the last decade’, she argues, ‘Jewish students have not felt welcome or included in NUS spaces or elected roles’. Indeed, many Jewish students feel that the NUS treats them as pariahs. In numerous instances, leading NUS members have consciously downplayed the significance of instances of anti-Jewish hate.

Typically, complaints of racism are taken very seriously by the NUS, and in higher education more broadly. The mere hint of racial harassment on campus causes universities to denounce themselves as ‘institutionally racist’. That is, unless the complaint is about an incident of anti-Semitism. Often, the report shows, Jewish students were told that what they saw as anti-Semitism was merely legitimate criticism of Israel. When Jewish students pointed out, to the contrary, that they had been vilified for being Jewish, not their political beliefs, their complaints were downplayed or dismissed.

As Tuck persuasively argues, the NUS has persistently deflected these complaints because of its pro-Palestine stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, in recent years, it has seemed that some leaders of the NUS hold Jewish students answerable for the actions of Israel. This has resulted in an environment that is deeply hostile to Jews.
The offenders always argue back that they are simply pro-Palestinian, not antisemitic (and the Jews should stop being so touchy.) 

Once again, history provides us with the answer to that charge.

75 years ago, on January 15, 1948, the Palestine Post had these three small articles on page 3 out of 4.

Just as in the UK today, the objects of attack are all Jews - Jews assumed to be guilty by association with Zionism. It is obvious antisemitism. 

Yet also just as in the UK today, all of these episodes would have been dismissed by the anti-Zionists of the time as a normal reaction to the evils of Zionism and having nothing to do with Jews as Jews.

From the perspective of 75 years later, no one can seriously argue that the episodes in Mexico, Syria and Beirut were not pure antisemitism. The attackers at the time didn't even to pretend to distinguish Zionists from Jews - only their apologists did that. 

But can anyone doubt that the "anti-Zionist" aggression we see today on campus and elsewhere doesn't have the exact same sources, the same motivations and the same mental processes behind them as those in these three articles? 

The only thing that has changed in 75 years is that the modern antisemites try to be more careful in their language to avoid explicitly saying that Jews are their target. (The Soviets turned that into a science.) But the vitriol is the same, the boycotts and marginalization are the same, the threats are the same, and the hysterical hate against a minority is the same. 

Sadly, the reactions from the authorities in charge (the President of AUB willing to discuss the demands of antisemites as if they had validity) are the same, too.




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!

 

 

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!

 

 

Sunday, January 15, 2023



The timing of the current torrent of articles and posts about Harvard's Kennedy School denying a fellowship to Ken Roth is most curious.

According to the initial article that started this all off in The Nation, Roth was denied his fellowship in the end of July 2022. 

It took nearly six months for this news to hit the media.

What happened during those six months? Why didn't Roth lash out at the time - why was he silent for so long?

The answer can be seen in his history at Human Rights Watch.

HRW would issue many reports about human rights abuses worldwide. But only a subset of them would be turned into media events - with much longer reports, behind-the-scenes partnerships with other organizations, embargoed reports to be released on specific days to coincide with their splashy press conferences, and lining up sympathetic reporters and media outlets to publish their articles at the times that would maximize the impact of the campaign. 

A large proportion of these campaigns would be against Israel. Relatively minor issues with questionable human rights dimensions, such as the fact that Booking.com and AirBnB listed Jewish-owned properties in the territories, would be promoted far more than actual deadly attacks in Syria or elsewhere. 

In short, Ken Roth has a lot of experience creating campaigns that greatly exaggerate what he considers Zionist crimes.

A real victim of a real injustice does not have the luxury of creating a campaign to gain maximum publicity. They need to cry out and hope that a sympathetic person of prominence will help them get the message out to the world. Most of them fail, and real victims of real crimes are almost never heard from.

Every employer can choose not to hire any person for any (legally valid) reason, and they don't have to explain themselves to the world. And a university choosing not to hire someone is in no way "violating academic freedom" - that would mean that they have to hire everyone, no matter how toxic their ideas or methods. Academic freedom applies to faculty members and students, no one else.

Here is an extensive definition of academic freedom. In no universe did Harvard's dean violate it. 

In this case, all we know is the second-hand report that the reason for the decision was "anti-Israel bias" and "Roth’s tweets on Israel were of particular concern" - which no one can argue with!  Any analysis of his own tweets, in his own words, proves Roth's bias beyond a doubt.  This is why Roth and his defenders falsely claim that he wasn't chosen because he is a "critic of Israel," an absurd lie - there are plenty of critics of Israel at Harvard, including Stephen Walt himself, co-writer of the infamous Israel Lobby book, whose position includes the name of the supposed Harvard donor who (Massing guesses) didn't want Roth - yet he still holds that position 15 years after the book controversy.

If the rich Jews who fund Harvard have any say on the contents of Harvard's academic program, it sure isn't obvious how. 

Contrast this with the billions of dollars that pour into US universities from Saudi Arabia and especially Qatar, specifically to influence them politically.

For a wealthy, connected and privileged man like Ken Roth, it is not enough to just move on when he doesn't get a job and find the next one (which he did, at another Ivy League school.) He has to use all of his expertise to get revenge at the people who insulted him: the dean at Harvard and the rich Zionist Jews whom he believes (with zero proof!) were behind the decision. 

Campaigns take time.  Roth had to find a reporter and a media outlet that would maximize the impact of his newest attack on Zionist Jews. And he found both with Michael Massey, a reporter who defended Walt and Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" book, and The Nation, which publishes outrageously anti-Israel articles that include boldfaced lies. 

Roth made sure not only that they would promote his new jihad against the few Zionists left in academia - but that it would be a cover story.

Now the six month gap makes sense. Front page stories take time.

Note the irony of the illustration - Roth is the little guy, a victim of a God-like thumbs-down from Harvard. A little guy who has the connections to build a months-long campaign that gets him on the cover of The Nation!

The follow-on stories, some probably planted and the others naturally following what looks like news,  were a fait accompli. So was his own account of the episode for The Guardian, where he again falsely claims that he didn't get the job  "because of my criticism of Israel." That is not what The Nation reported.

He can't stop lying when it comes to Israel.

Roth, with half a million Twitter followers, has plenty of clout to do his own direct promotion as well.  And he is tweeting about this as much as he used to tweet his monomaniacal anti-Israel campaigns. 

And now he claims that this carefully choreographed campaign has created an "uproar." He's trying to make it  self-fulfilling prophecy.

As with the AirBnB campaign, the Harvard story is based on an inversion of reality. Boycotting only Jewish-owned businesses really is discrimination, and not allowing universities full latitude in hiring staff is itself a violation of academic freedom.

Ken Roth is not the victim of an all-powerful Zionist lobby. He is a vindictive, pathetic yet extraordinarily privileged antisemite who has carefully plotted his revenge at the rich Jews whom he thinks sabotaged the only job in the world he felt was worthy of him. 

And his actions today prove that Harvard was quite right in rejecting him.




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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive