Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: antisemitic

Showing posts with label antisemitic. Show all posts

Thursday, August 17, 2023

Former European Court of Human Rights judge Boštjan M. Zupančič is an obsessed Jew-hater

Professor Boštjan M. Zupančič is a former judge and former president of the Third Chamber at the European Court of Human Rights. He was previously a judge at the Constitutional Court of Slovenia and vice-chair of the U.N. Committee against Torture (Geneva). He graduated from Harvard Law School and now acts as a legal consultant. In 2020,Zupančič joined the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) as an associate research fellow.

He is also a Jew-hater.

Zupančič's hate isn't subtle. He doesn't hide it behind "anti-Zionism." He doesn't insist that he doesn't hate Jews. His hatred is explicit and continuous.

His former Twitter account, bmz9453, had plenty of antisemitic posts. It was closed down but his replacement account is filled with anti-Jewish tweets - even quoting antisemitic sites like The Daily Stormer and the Holocaust revisionists at the Institute of Historical Review.

Here is a selection of his tweets for just the past few months, often direct quotes from antisemitic websites like Unz.com:

He posted a 37 minute film that accuses Jews of systematically engaging in incest with their children.

Since the Ukraine war started, Zupančič has obsessively blamed the Jews for their supposed role in the war.

And he reposts the most vile antisemitic conspiracy theories he can find every day - here are two from yesterday:

Today's leaders of human rights groups insist that they cannot be antisemitic because their fighting for human rights precludes any prejudice. The truth is that no one is immune from bigoted beliefs, and any philosophy can be twisted into Jew-hatred.

Boštjan M. Zupančič was a human rights judge for 18 years. It hasn't stopped hum from openly engaging in spreading hate for Jews every single day. On the contrary - his biography gives his hatred legitimacy.

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!

Antisemites and the Insincere Apology (Judean Rose)

Actor and Musician Jamie Foxx jumped on “The Jews Killed Jesus” bandwagon on August 4^th and on August 6^th he apologized. In so doing, he joined a club: that of the legions of celebrities who broadcast rude and blatantly antisemitic statements to their legions of followers after which they apologize. These celebrities have learned that you can say the worst antisemitic thing, as long as you apologize.

In case you missed it, here is what Jamie Foxx chose to post to his 16.2 million followers:

"They killed this dude name Jesus... What do you think they'll do to you???!" followed by the hashtags #fakefriends #fakelove

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by A Wider Frame (@awiderframe)

This post was then duly deleted by Foxx. Then, once he deemed enough time had elapsed to make it still seem sincere, Foxx apologized:

I want to apologize to the Jewish community and everyone who was offended by my post. I now know my choice of words have caused offense and I'm sorry. That was never my intent.

To clarify, I was betrayed by a fake friend and that's what I meant with "they" not anything more. I only have love in my heart for everyone. I love and support the Jewish community. My deepest apologies to anyone who was offended [three heart emojis]

Nothing but love always,

Jamie Foxx [heart, fox, and praying hands emojis]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jamie Foxx (@iamjamiefoxx)

Aniston, following in Foxx’s (antisemitic) footsteps, liked the screed about the people who killed Jesus, and then denied she had done so, or been antisemitic. No. Antisemitism makes her sick. As per the Guardian:

“This really makes me sick,” said Aniston’s statement, which was posted on Instagram Stories. “I did not ‘like’ this post on purpose or by accident. And more importantly, I want to be clear to my and anyone hurt by this showing up in their feeds – I do not support antisemitism. And I truly don’t tolerate HATE of any kind. Period.”

So let me break this down for you, Foxx had a friend named Jesus who was killed by a fake friend who was not a Jew, chas v’shalom. Jamie is filled with nothing but love.

Aniston, meanwhile, seems to be vaguely asserting she was hacked, or perhaps the butler did it, while she, Aniston, was in the shower. In either case, the apology, or even the suggestion of one, even via a canned lawyer’s statement augmented by numerous emojis, is all that counts in the end. The calls of support came flowing in, suggests the Guardian, though that seems to require a generous interpretation of “numerous.” But they managed to dig up a court Jew, so that’s all right (emphasis added):

Foxx’s handling of the episode did earn him numerous supportive comments. Alongside the actor’s apology Saturday, music producer Breyon Prescott wrote, “Anyone that has been around you knows that you have no hate for anyone!!! … [You’re] the best, don’t let anyone make you think differently.”
The actor Porscha Coleman added: “People can’t even speak any more without someone being offended. You were clearly talking about someone you thought was a friend who turned out to be a backstabber … Society is so sensitive these days!”
And podcast host Mark Birnbaum, who is Jewish, wrote on Instagram that he found Foxx to be “the most inclusive non-antisemitic person out there”.
“He’s got nothing but love for everyone, including us Jews,” Birnbaum said. “Let’s move onto the next nonsensical story of the day.”
Other users remarking on Foxx also alluded to his prior displays of solidarity with the Jewish community. In 2017, he performed at a barmitzvah-themed birthday party in honor of the singer Drake as well as at a Jewish fan’s barmitzvah.

Oh, wow. He performed at a Bar Mitzvah. Clearly the guy loves Jews.

Look. We’ve seen this show before. We saw it with Ilhan Omar, how she “unequivocally” apologized after saying it’s all about the Benjamins and AIPAC, but essentially still saying the same thing: AIPAC wields problematic political clout. P.S. It doesn’t.

Listening and learning, but standing strong 💪🏽 pic.twitter.com/7TSroSf8h1
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 11, 2019

Even self-perpetuating PA president Mahmoud Abbas did the antisemitic blurt out and apology thing while speaking to the Palestinian National Council. After saying crazy things like the Jews took money from Hitler to settle in Palestine, Abbas issued an “official” apology. From Ynet (emphasis added):

"If people were offended by my statement in front of the PNC, especially people of the Jewish faith, I apologize to them. I would like to assure everyone that it was not my intention to do so, and to reiterate my full respect for the Jewish faith, as well as other monotheistic faiths."

“If.” Get that? If people were offended. Especially Jews.

Kyrie Irving did the same thing. Tweeted an antisemitic documentary, and then apologized. But of course as he said, he was “unjustly” labeled an antisemite. And of course, the apology only came after he was suspended.

ViacomCBS cut ties with Nick Cannon after the latter said stupid stuff about Jews on a podcast. So Cannon apologized.

Ottawa Centre MPP Joel Harden issued an apology after footage was leaked of him saying horribly antisemitic things. From the Jerusalem Post (emphasis added):

In footage from a 2021 interview of Harden by the Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine (OFIP) that recently surfaced and gained prominence, Harden stated that he has "asked many questions of Jewish neighbors here about how much longer we should put up with this, because if I were to name... the single greatest threat – the single greatest origin of violence in the Middle East – is unquestionably the State of Israel and the way in which they feel absolutely no shame in defying international law doing whatever they want."

Harden also condemned antisemitism and said that manifestations of Jew-hatred in pro-Palestinian camps were unhelpful to the cause, but conditioned that "I can also understand from the pro-Palestinian standpoint how the barbarity and the scale of viciousness can lead someone to strike out with intemperate hateful language [!!] because of that real hurt where people are at."

But the guy apologized.

Last year I participated in an interview with the Ottawa Forum on Israel Palestine, where I spoke in a way that perpetrated an antisemitic stereotype towards Jewish neighbours.

I regret my choice of words. My full statement and apology is below. https://t.co/h6IPxjD68G
— Joel Harden (@JoelHardenONDP) November 20, 2022

Should we believe him? Only if you really, really want to, or perhaps share common cause with him in some completely different area as with RFK Jr. and Farrakhan.

The fact is there is no way to prove the sincerity of an apology. Lie detectors are easily fooled and the interpretation of body language is not an exact science. Some Jews would say that’s precisely why we should give these antisemites the benefit of the doubt. Others, like this writer, reject the apologies as a matter of course. It’s not just that the apologies are too well-timed, canned, or inadequate—it’s that it’s a matter of self-preservation.

Some say that the Jews never see the danger until the gates are closing and it’s too late. It’s the nature of nice, normal people to make the choice to always see things in a positive light. Jews may even tell you that benefit of the doubt is a Jewish value. But Judaism doesn’t tell us to be stupid. For a Jew, survival often means taking off the blinders that make us see benign intent where none is meant.

Jimmy Carter, antisemite.

The announcement that Jimmy Carter is entering hospice care at his home is prompting a wave of fawning pre-obituaries about what a wonderful humanitarian he is.

No one is talking about his antisemitism.

Carter's animus towards Israel is legendary, but the source of that hate is not his progressivism or humanitarianism, but old fashioned Christian antisemitism.

For decades, Jimmy Carter gave a weekly Sunday sermon at his Georgia church. Some of his lessons promoted classic Christian antisemitism, way beyond what the Christian scripture says.

He says that modern Israeli Jews are persecuting Palestinian Christians in line with alleged Jewish persecution of Christians in the New Testament because of Jewish supremacism:

“…this morning I’m gonna be trying to relate the assigned Bible lesson to us in the Uniformed Series with how that affected Israel and how it affects us through Christ personally… It’s hard for us to even visualize the prejudice against gentiles when Christ came on earth. If a Jew married a gentile, that person was considered to be dead. … How would you characterize from a Jew’s point of view the uncircumcised? Non believer? And what? Unclean, what? They called them DOGS! That’s true. … What was Paul’s feeling toward gentiles in his early life as a Jewish leader? [Paul was not a Jewish leader. Ed.] Anybody? Absolute commitment to persecution! To the imprisonment and even the execution of non-Jews who now professed faith in Jesus Christ. … We know the differences in the Middle East. But the differences there are between Jews on the one hand who comprise the dominating force both militarily and also politically and the Palestinians who are both Muslim and Christians. …”

Carter bizarrely claims that sacrifices in the Jewish Temples were a means for rich Jews to avoid taking care of their elderly parents:

“Corban [sacrifices] was a prayer that could be performed by usually a man in an endorsed ceremony by the Pharisees that you could say in effect, ‘God, everything that I own all these sheep all these goats this nice house and the money that I have, I dedicate to you, to God.’ And from then on according to the Pharisees law those riches didn’t belong to that person anymore. They were whose? God’s! So as long as those riches were belonged to the person, that person was supposed to share them with needy parents right? But once it was God’s it wasn’t theirs and they didn’t have anything to share with their parents. So with impunity, and approved by the Pharisaic law, they could avoid taking care of their needy parents by a trick that had been evolved by the incorrect and improper interpretation of the law primarily designed by religious leaders to benefit whom? The rich folks! The powerful people! Because the poor man wouldn’t have all of this stuff to give to God. He would probably, in fact he might very well have his parents in the house with him or still be living with his own parents.”

This is a completely fictional reading of Jewish law.

Carter repeatedly said that Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus for various reasons, spreading the very source of Christian antisemitism as truth:

The subject of his first class was the tale of Jesus driving the moneylenders from the temple. The press soon reported that the president had informed his students that this story was “a turning point” in Christ’s life. “He had directly challenged in a fatal way the existing church, and there was no possible way for the Jewish leaders to avoid the challenge. So they decided to kill Jesus.”

So the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he opposed the moneylenders! And in another lesson, Carter doubled down on Jewish hate of Christians:

He soon spoke at a Sunday-school class again; and, with an AP reporter in attendance, told those assembled that Jesus, in proclaiming himself the Messiah, was aware that he was risking death “as quickly as [it] could be arranged by the Jewish leaders, who were very powerful.”

There is a theme of rich, powerful Jews who want to oppress the gentiles - that informed Carter's view of the modern Middle East.

And his opinion of American Jews reflected that same animosity he has towards the Jews of Jesus' time. he blamed Jews for his loss in the 1980 election, more than once.

Kenneth Stein, who worked with him and interviewed him for his own book, quotes Carter as railing against the "Jewish money" that opposed him:

"[Vice president] Fritz Mondale was much more deeply immersed in the Jewish organization leadership than I was. That was an alien world to me. They [American Jews] didn't support me during the presidential campaign [that] had been predicated greatly upon Jewish money."

Carter's aide Stuart Eizenstat also says that Carter blames Jews for his 1980 loss: “From the New York primary [in March 1980] onward, I believe Carter was left with the view that New York Jews had not only defeated him in the primary but were also a factor in his loss in November.” However, while New York Jews did vote overwhelmingly for Ted Kennedy in the primary, more voted for Carter than Reagan in the presidential election.

Reagan took over 90% of the electoral college in 1980. It was a landslide. For Carter to blame New York Jews for his huge loss is nothing less than pure antisemitism.

Carter's antisemitism doesn't end there. He noted how Palestinian Christians were fleeing, but he blamed not the Muslim supremacists who are persecuting them, but Israel, continuing his theme of powerful Jews persecuting Palestinian Christians - even though Israel's Christian community has stayed steady.

His hate of Jews naturally spread to his supporting antisemites. When Helen Thomas lost her job for calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel, saying Jews must "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Germany or Poland where they were massacred, one of the very few people who supported her was....Jimmy Carter. She told Playboy that he was very sympathetic but didn't want to go into details because it would get him into trouble.

Carter also condoned terror attacks against Jews in Israel. Really.

In his "Peace, Not Apartheid" book, Carter wrote, "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

This "humanitarian" didn't call for suicide bombings against Jews to end unconditionally. He advised Palestinians to use them as a bargaining chip to force Israel to give in to their demands. That is literally the definition of terrorism, and Carter is saying that he supports the goals of Palestinian terror.

Carter made many hateful statements about Israel which clearly cross the line into antisemitism. For example, he once downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat because they would only have a couple of bombs while Israel has hundreds, as if dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv is no big deal. Carter's support and even compliments for Hamas, for Palestinian "democracy" and other outrageous anti-Israel statements could fill a book. But even without mentioning Israel, his antisemitism is clear and unambiguous.

The single most damning example of Carter's antisemitism comes from an incident in 1987.

Neal Sher was the head of the Office of Special Investigations, the Justice Department’s Nazi prosecution unit. They had iron-clad evidence that a Chicago resident, Martin Bartesch, a member of the SS Death’s Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp, was a war criminal and a murderer.

Bartesch's family started a huge campaign against the OSI, writing letters to members of Congress and other prominent people asking for help. Most politicians contacted the OSI to find out the details, OSI provided them with evidence of his guilt, and they would drop the matter.

But, Sher says, not Jimmy Carter.

In September 1987, after all of the gruesome details of the case had been made public and widely reported in the media, I received a letter sent by Bartesch’s daughter to the former president. Citing groups that had been exposed for their anti-Semitism, it was an all-out assault against OSI as unfair, “un-American” and interested only in “vengeance” against innocent family members.

...Not even the staunchest and most sincere devotee to humanitarian causes could legitimately claim that an SS murderer who deceived authorities to obtain a visa and citizenship was somehow deserving of exceptional treatment.

That’s why I was so taken aback by the personal, handwritten note Jimmy Carter sent to me seeking “special consideration” for this Nazi SS murderer. There on the upper-right corner of Bartesch’s daughter’s letter was a note to me in the former president’s handwriting, and with his signature, urging that “in cases such as this, special consideration can be given to the families for humanitarian reasons.”

Unlike members of Congress who inquired about the facts, Carter blindly accepted at face value the daughter’s self-serving (and disingenuous) assertions.

Here is Carter's note supporting the case of a known Nazi war criminal.

Carter took the side of a family of a Nazi against his own government. And he couched it in "humanitarian" terms.

Maybe, maybe one could excuse one or two of these examples in isolation. But in the aggregate, there is no denying it: Jimmy Carter is an antisemite, and anyone who doesn't think that this detracts from his humanitarian work is condoning world's oldest hate.

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!

12/29 Links Pt1: Why Does the EU Disproportionately Fixate on Israel?; The forgotten speech of Yasser Arafat; Why Israel Cannot Send Its Iron Dome to Ukraine

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: Why Does the EU Disproportionately Fixate on Israel?

As part of its "Joint Strategy in support of Palestine," the European Union recently circulated a confidential document that proposes various measures to finance and advance monitoring, undercutting and undermining Israel's policies in Area C of the West Bank, including providing support and legal assistance to Palestinian residents prosecuting land claims in Israeli courts.

Under the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords, signed and witnessed by the EU, Israel and the Palestinian leadership (PLO) agreed to divide the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria into three distinct areas of control and administration, pending the completion of negotiation on the permanent status of the territories. It was agreed that Area C would remain under Israel's full control, jurisdiction and administration.

In attempting to undermine and to intervene in Israel's legitimate and agreed-upon jurisdiction and governance in Area C, and in supporting Palestinian attempts to violate the Oslo Accords, the EU is in fact violating the terms of the very agreement to which it attached its signature as witness.

The EU claim that Area C is "to be preserved as part of a future Palestinian state in line with the Oslo Accords" is simply a mistaken and misleading interpretation of the Oslo Accords. They made no reference whatsoever to any "future Palestinian state" or "two-state solution." On the contrary, the Palestinian leadership and Israel agreed that the ultimate fate of the territories will be agreed upon in permanent status negotiations. No determination was made as to the outcome of such negotiations.

The EU document notes the EU's commitment to "contribute to building a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders." However, the Oslo Accords made no mention whatsoever of the 1967 borders. On the contrary, there has never been any 1967 border but an Armistice Demarcation Line established in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. These agreements stated specifically that the Armistice Demarcation line was not intended to constitute a border but rather a temporary line separating the forces pending negotiation of peace agreements.

It is high time that Israel's government take a far more assertive role in clarifying to the EU and its member states that the anti-Israel fixation of its staff and its actions in undermining Israel's legitimate authority and jurisdiction in Area C will no longer be tolerated.

Face it, the United Nations Is Antisemitic

The UN General Assembly passed 15 resolutions critical of Israel in 2022, compared to 13 resolutions for all other countries. Since 2015, the UN General Assembly has passed 136 resolutions critical of Israel, compared to 58 against all other nations combined. Selectively holding Israel to a higher moral standard than all other nations is classic antisemitism because its real purpose is to delegitimize the world's only Jewish state.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, said, "The UN's automatic majority has no interest in truly helping the Palestinians, nor in protecting anyone's human rights. The goal of these ritual, one-sided resolutions is to scapegoat Israel."

How the EU Is Undermining International Law in the West Bank

The 1995 agreement known as Oslo II divided the West Bank into three parts: Area A, to be administered directly by the Palestinian Authority (PA); Area B, to be administered jointly by the PA and Israel; and Area C, to be controlled directly by Israel pending further negotiations. In July, the European Union’s mission in eastern Jerusalem produced a document, recently leaked to the press, stating the EU’s commitment “to contribute to building a Palestinian State within 1967 borders,” and outlining a program to build Palestinian settlements in Area C even where not authorized to do so by Israeli law. Jenny Aharon writes:

The EU . . . insists that its positions are based on meticulous compliance with international law, its own laws and charter, and also the Oslo Accords. This claim is surely [belied] by the leaked document in which we can see an activist EU striving to help the Palestinians take over Area C, the very area that is designated to Israel’s control per the Oslo Accords preliminary agreement which the EU claims to uphold.

The claim [made by the EU] is that the construction is meant for humanitarian ends and is not politically motivated. Yet the EU construction takes place in locations that are highly sensitive, precisely for the purpose of creating new facts on the ground and preparing the area for a Palestinian takeover without any final peace agreement.

Oftentimes the political motivation [of EU-funded construction projects] is obvious, as it is conducted without permits and in such places where Israel has no choice but to demolish it—for example, a school adjacent to a dangerous highway or in places where there are no facilities and thus are not considered habitable environments. The political motivation becomes even more obvious as the document explicitly states the EU’s plan to curb Israel’s archeological activities in order to minimize the Jewish connection to the land.

Moreover, the EU does not seem to consider building in Area A and Area B where all they would need is a permit from the Palestinian Authority. Apparently, in those areas, there is no need for humanitarian aid at all.

Palestinian Authority Paved Illegal Highway in Gush Etzion with Foreign Funding

The Gush Etzion Regional Council and local residents recently discovered the construction of a highway starting at Za’atara village, 11 km southeast of Bethlehem in Gush Etzion, north of the Herodion site, and reaching into the Judean Desert. At the start of the new road stands a sign in Arabic saying it was paved with foreign funding and assistance from the Palestinian Authority.

Mind you, the new highway is built in an agreed upon safeguarded reserve area, where roads and buildings are not allowed to be constructed per the Oslo Accords.

According to the Gush Etzion Regional Council, the road is another part of the ongoing effort to damage the contiguous Jewish territory in Gush Etzion. It provides access to new, illegal Arab neighborhoods in the Gush Etzion area, facilitating faster development.

Back in 2009, Salam Fayyad, then prime minister of the Palestinian Authority and its finance minister, issued the “Fayyad Plan,” aimed at creating facts on the ground, especially in Area C, with major international support, to transform international recognition of a de facto Palestinian state into a de jure state should Israel fail to deliver on its Oslo promises. Over the past 13 years, with increasing speed, the PA has been pursuing Fayyad’s policy, often with the tacit approval of the IDF civil administration and most defense ministers in Netanyahu’s and Lapid’s governments.

The Gush Etzion Regional Council says the paved road was built on preserved territories which the Palestinian Authority undertook in the Oslo Accords not to build homes or roads. Naturally, they had no intention of keeping their commitment, and Area C, especially near the robust Gush Etzion Jewish community, is flooded with illegally built PA homes and roads.

Palestinian Muslims are violating the Oslo Accords paving a road with foreign funding that cuts off the heart of the Judean desert from the Jewish continuum. There is no justification for this act of colonialism and land grab. pic.twitter.com/B2ZnIUUTOM
— Brooke Goldstein (@GoldsteinBrooke) December 29, 2022

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

Haaretz has two articles about extremism in today's Republican party, and many of the examples include what they claim is antisemitism.

Armed with my definition of antisemitism, do their examples fit the bill?

Law professor David Schraub says that the GOP is now as antisemitic as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party was. Let's look at what he says.

After years of largely futile efforts by Jews to raise the alarm bells on ascendant antisemitism in the GOP, 2022 finally has made the problem too obvious to ignore. Republican candidates up and down the ballot are cavorting with open white supremacists, attacking their opponents for sending their kids to Jewish schools and eagerly elevating the conspiratorial Jew-baiting of celebrities like Kanye West.

My definition is precise, so I need precise examples. I am unaware of any candidate attacking opponents for sending kids to Jewish schools, for example, but the specific language would be important - i.e., if the point was attacking their record on public schools but having nothing to do with the "Jewish" part of the schools they sent their kids to.

The only link given to a specific event is here:

The faux-populist rage at “globalists” and cosmopolitan “elites,” at what one far-right judge sneeringly dubbed “the Goldman rule”– that is, "the guys with the gold get to make the rules" – would be perfectly at home in the Corbynist social media milieu.

He points to a concurring opinion in a legal case by circuit judge James Ho, who quotes "The Goldman Rule:" "He who has the gold makes the rules."

That really sounds antisemitic. But Judge Ho includes a source for this "rule," and it comes from the book "Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam" by Vivek Ramaswamy, about an unwritten rule at Goldman Sachs that the employees would joke about. It has nothing to do with Jews - it has everything to do with corruption at Goldman Sachs.

Now, Judge Ho was tone deaf to mention this without further context, and it opened him up to the appearance of antisemitism. It was stupid. But antisemitism is malicious, and when you follow the source, there is no indication of malice; it was tone deaf in the sense that Ho did not seem to recognize that without context, Goldman was not referring to a generic Jew.

The cases where apparent stupidity cross the line into antisemitism is when the person saying the statement is either knowingly engaging in antisemitic dog whistling, or when any normal person would recognize that the trope is antisemitic. Such is one case in the other article, by Ben Samuels, "Meet 10 of the Most Extreme Republicans Running for Congress."

I am certainly not trying to promote these candidates' nutty opinions, many of which include QAnon conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists very often fall into antisemitic tropes. I just want to look at the specific examples of antisemitism given and determine if, indeed, they are.

One of those Republican candidates in the article is Marjorie Taylor-Greene, whose most famous episode is when she claimed the Rothschild family worked with a California utility to redirect the sun's rays to start wildfires to clear land for a rail project. The conspiracy theory is insane enough but adding the Rothschilds makes it cross the line into antisemitism. The article also mentions that she, like many far-Right figures, promotes conspiracy theories about George Soros - and without specifically mentioning his Jewishness, I am reluctant to consider those inherently antisemitic (as my linked article on the topic notes.) Yet the clearest evidence of her antisemitic attitudes comes from her promoting a video in 2018 that said “Zionist supremacists have schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation.”

The article says that Rep. Lauren Boebert "notably asked a group of kippa-wearing visitors at a U.S. Capitol building last January if they were doing 'reconnaissance.'" Again, at first glance, this appears to be a clear example of antisemitism. But a little research shows that this is a case of being clueless rather than antisemitic - Boebert had been accused a year earlier of bringing groups of people to the Capitol to engage in "reconnaissance" ahead of the January 6 riots. She was making fun of herself, and assumed (like most political blowhards) that everyone, especially religious Jews who generally lean Republican, follows her life obsessively and would get the joke.

Again, tone deaf and stupid, but not antisemitic in itself.

Candidate J.R. Majewski is not specifically quoted on antisemitism in the article, but it does quote him as referring to himself as a "superfan of Gab," the social network that hosts many white supremacists and antisemites. It seems highly unlikely that someone who is a fan of Gab is unaware of the antisemitism on the platform. You might argue that Twitter also is filled with antisemitism, but who refers to themselves as a superfan of Twitter? This, to me, strongly indicates that at the very least, Majewski is tolerant of antisemitism.

The article notes that in 2016, candidate John Gibbs defended an antisemitic Twitter account that regularly promoted Nazi-era propaganda. That account, "Ricky Vaughn," was a cesspool of antisemitism and racism; there is no way to defend that account without defending antisemitism.

Republican candidate from Texas Johnny Teague leaves little doubt:

[Teague has] written a novel fictionalizing Anne Frank’s final days, in which he writes that she embraced Christianity just before being murdered by the Nazis. As reported by JTA, the book continues Frank’s diary entries, where she aimed to learn more about Jesus by trying to obtain a copy of the New Testament, reciting palms and expressing sympathy for Jesus’ plight. His version of Frank writes: “Every Jewish man or woman should ask questions like ‘Where is the Messiah? … Did He come already, and we didn’t recognize Him?’”

This is incredibly offensive and antisemitic, effectively saying that Jews who do not accept Christianity are wrong.

Two other candidates that engage in George Soros conspiracy theories - Jo Rae Perkins and Mike Cargile - also engage in other truly nutty conspiracy theories. Cargile also has been linked to white supremacists, which would indicate that his Soros theories include a Jewish component that would make them antisemitic, Perkins is obsessed with QAnon which as far as I know has not trafficked in antisemitism, so she appears to just be an idiot.

I am generally of the opinion that if accusations of antisemitism must include mind-reading, without any other evidence, we should err on the side of caution. I say this knowing that some antisemites will consciously hide their hate for Jews, or wink at that hate with dog-whistles (I don't see evidence of that in these cases except for MJT.) There is also the strong possibility that some of these candidates have said other things not mentioned in this article that could add the context that would tip their ambiguous statements into full blown Jew-hate.

Yet even with that caution, too many of these candidates appear to fall on the antisemitic side of the fence.

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

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Universities Paper Over The New Exclusion Of Jews On Campus -- Just Like In 1930's Poland (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Just two weeks ago, I wrote about how in May last year, the violence by Hamas terrorists resulted in increased antisemitic attacks on American Jews. In its report, the US Commission on Civil Rights put the anti-Zionism of protesters in context:

The Commission recognizes that individuals have a right to be critical of Israel and the Israeli government; however, anti-Semitic bigotry disguised as anti-Zionism is no less morally deplorable than any other form of hate. [emphasis added]

It's not clear if many noticed this point, that anti-Zionism can be just another form of antisemitism. Universities, for their part, appeared to miss the point entirely -- and still do.

In 2019, as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Lawfare Project alleging discrimination, San Francisco State University agreed to issue a statement affirming

it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity.

This apparent landmark development did not stop the president of SFSU the following year from defending the invitation of the terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled to speak there on the grounds of "academic freedom" and "free speech" -- while noting in passing the importance of Zionism to Jewish identity.

The required statement was no magic formula and the words had no effect. There have been no attempts to bring similar lawsuits to encourage recognition of Zionism at other university campuses.

Instead, the situation on campus gets even worse as anti-Jewish groups have gone from toxic speech against Jews to attempts at ostracizing Jews on campus.

Here are 2 examples in the news.

University of Vermont

The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights opened a formal investigation into claims of discrimination and harassment of Jews on the University of Vermont campus:

o May 12, 2021, in response to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza, UVM Empowering Survivors posted on Instagram that it would “follow the same policy with zionists that we follow with those trolling or harassing others: blocked,” going on to say that “we will not be engaging in conversation about . . . Zionism.”
o On May 1, 2021, UVM Revolutionary Socialist Union book club's first Instagram post stated that “No racism, racial chauvinism, predatory behavior, homophobia, transphobia, Zionism, or bigotry and hate speech of any kind will be tolerated.” The complaint further stated that the club’s bylaws “require every RSU member to pledge ‘NO’ to Zionism.”
o On Sept. 24, 2021, a group of “rowdy, intoxicated students” reportedly vandalized the university’s Hillel building for close to 40 minutes by throwing rocks at the upper, dorm portion of the building, and hurled “items with a sticky substance” against the building’s back. UVM administrators did not categorize the attack as a “bias incident,” even though it took place where a large number of Jewish students were known to be.

o The complaint also named a university teaching assistant who repeatedly targeted student supporters of Israel on social media. In a series of tweets on April 5, 2021, she wrote:
is it unethical for me, a TA, to not give zionists credit for participation??? i feel its good and funny, -5 points for going on birthright in 2018, -10 points for posting a pic with a tank in the Golan heights, -2 points just cuz i hate ur vibe in general.
The following month, the TA wrote:
“the next step is to make zionism and zionist rhetoric politically unthinkable,” (adding that it should be) “worthy of private and public condemnation, likened to historical and contemporary segregationist movements.”

University of Vermont Responds

Suresh V. Garimella, president of the university posted a denial on the university website and AP summarized his response:

After investigating the complaint made Sept. 30. 2021, that two groups excluded from membership students who supported Israel as the homeland for Jewish people, the university determined the groups were not recognized student organizations, received no university support and were not bound by the university’s policies governing student organizations.

The university also investigated allegations that an undergraduate teaching assistant made anti-Semitic remarks and had threatened to lower the grades of Jewish students. The university determined that no grades were lowered and no student reported they had been discriminated against.

Finally, after learning that rocks had been thrown at a campus building where Jewish students lived, police determined small rocks were thrown at the building to get the attention of a friend, and there was no evidence it was motivated by antisemitic bias, Garimella said. [emphasis added]

Garimella missed the point, claiming everything was fine and that the real problem was the investigation itself which "has painted our community in a patently false light."

The action that the university president took with the 2 groups is laughable:

To ensure an inclusive environment within recognized UVM student organizations, student leaders were reminded of university policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, or any other protected category. [emphasis added]

There was no condemnation of the exclusion by the groups. Instead, they were "reminded" of the university policies -- policies that Garimella claims the groups don't have to follow anyway.

In his online response, he dismisses the posts by the TA, claiming:

The university took prompt action to ensure that the objectionable statements did not adversely impact students in the classroom and further, to perform a thorough review to ensure all grades were awarded on a non-discriminatory basis. [emphasis added]

So Garimella claims that the comments by the TA are irrelevant as long as grades were not altered. He argues that the hate expressed and the discrimination encouraged by the TA "did not adversely impact students in the classroom" as long as the threats were not carried out.

Garimella's description of the Hillel incident, claiming it was an innocent attempt to get someone's attention fails to address the allegation reported by The Lewis D. Brandeis Center that

When one student whose window had been pelted called out asking the perpetrators to stop, one of the students responsible for the rock throwing shouted, “Are you Jewish?”

Garimella's insistence that the intent was innocent is also contradicted by the claim that a sticky substance was put on the wall of the building.

University of California, Berkeley

The Jewish Journal reports that Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones:

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. [emphasis added]

The article is by Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center. He describes this current development as going beyond the anti-Jewish discrimination that has long been proliferating on college campuses. Instead of toxic speech being aimed at Jews who stand up for their pro-Israel identity, now Jews themselves are being targeted on campus.

In response to the claim that these groups are allowed to exclude pro-Israel Jews as an expression of the groups' free speech, Marcus quotes Berkeley's dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, who said that the exact opposite is true because these groups have deliberately included anti-Zionist bylaws which themselves limit the free speech of Zionist students.

Marcus goes further, writing that discriminatory conduct -- excluding students who support Israel -- is not protected free speech:

While hate speech is often constitutionally protected, such conduct may violate a host of civil rights laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not always the case that student groups have the right to exclude members in ways that reflect hate and bigotry. In Christian Legal Society [CLS] v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of another Bay Area University of California law school, Hastings College of the Law, to require student groups to accept all students regardless of status or beliefs. Specifically, the Court blessed Hastings’ decision to require Christian groups to accept gay members. [emphasis added]

A Washington Post article at the time quotes Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who made a comment on the case that seems prescient today:

"Although the First Amendment may protect CLS's discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them," Stevens wrote separately.

CLS forbids those who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct," Stevens said, but the same argument could be made from groups that "may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks, and women -- or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks, and women. [emphasis added]

A university has no obligation under free speech to support a group that discriminates and excludes Jews who support Israel.

University of California, Berkeley Responds

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky was widely quoted as making the point that under the exclusionary criteria of these groups he himself would be banned from the groups as well as 90% of his Jewish students.

Yet despite this, he defended the groups against Marcus.

Chemerinsky claims that the Law School has an "all-comers" policy, meaning that every student group and all student-organized events must be open to all students. He claims he knows of no case where this has been violated or that Jewish students have been discriminated against.

He goes on to complain that Marcus exaggerates the extent of the exclusion of pro-Israel speakers:

But what [Marcus] does not mention is that only a handful of student groups out of over 100 at Berkeley Law did this. He also does not mention that in a letter to the leaders of student groups I expressed exactly his message: excluding speakers on the basis of their viewpoint is inconsistent with our commitment to free speech and condemning the existence of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism.

Finally, it is important to recognize that law student groups have free speech rights, including to express messages that I and others might find offensive.

Like Garimella of UVM, Chemerisnsky plays down the impact of the anti-Zionist actions taken by student groups on his campus.

In response to his numbers game that only a relatively few groups have an exclusionary policy, Marcus responds:

Would it be okay for only 5% or 10% of the campus to be segregated? What percentage of the Berkeley campus should be open to all? Shouldn’t it be 100%? And what is the right number of doors that should be closed to students of any race or ethnicity: isn’t it zero?

On Chemerisnsky's claim that these student groups have a free speech right to exclude Zionists, Marcus draws a key distinction:

Excluding Zionists is not like excluding Republicans and environmentalists. It is not just viewpoint discrimination. If a Democratic club amended their bylaws to prohibit Republican speakers from appearing before them, we could accept their right to do so. We might regret that they are restricting the possibility of dialogue. We might prefer the approach of those law student groups that seek balanced presentations, in order to advance civil dialogue and promote learning. But we wouldn’t consider this to be a civil rights issue.
When persons are excluded on the basis of their ethnic or ancestral identity, however, we must respond differently. [emphasis added]

University indifference to the increasingly virulent exclusion of Jews on campus is compounded by the spread of this new attempt to ostracize Jews to other universities:

Last month, the Brandeis Center and JOC filed a similar complaint with OCR [Office of Civil Rights] on behalf of two Jewish State University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz students who were also kicked out of a sexual assault awareness group and then cyberbullied, harassed and threatened, over their Jewish and Israeli identities. Currently OCR is investigating complaints filed by the Brandeis Center against the University of Illinois, Brooklyn College, and University of Southern California (USC). And the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating a Brandeis Center employment discrimination complaint of anti-Semitism in the DEI program at Stanford University.

1930's Poland

Rafael Medoff writes about a historical analogy to the exclusion of Jews at Berkeley in an article on Berkeley's Version of "Ghetto Benches":

In many universities in pre-World War II Poland, antisemitic faculty and students humiliated Jewish students by forcing them to sit in the back of classrooms. Those areas came to be known as the “ghetto benches.” In some instances, the benches were marked with the first letter of the name of the Jewish student group on campus—a kind of precursor to the Nazi practice (first instituted in German-occupied Poland, in fact) of identifying Jews via a badge or i.d. card bearing a Star of David and the letter “J” or the word “Jude.”

If there were insufficient seats in the back of the Polish classrooms, the Jewish students were made to stand, even if there were empty seats elsewhere in the room. Jewish students who ignored the regulation were often assaulted, and those who boycotted classes in protest were severely penalized. [emphasis added]

In a 1964 article in The Jewish Quarterly Review, "The Battle of the Ghetto Benches," H. Rabinowicz writes about Endek -- the fascist anti-Semitic National Democratic party of Poland. Endek influenced the creation of an anti-Jewish "Green Ribbon" League and pushed for an "Aryan paragraph" that would limit membership and rights to members of the "Aryan race," thus excluding Jews.

Many students succumbed to Endek influence. Warsaw's anti-Jewish "Green Ribbon" League developed rapidly. The nationalists proclaimed "A Week Without Jews", and the Aryan paragraph figured in the new Statute of the Warsaw Polytechnic. It placed the Jews outside the student Code of Honour as persons with whom non-Jews were to have no dealings and who could not even be challenged to duels. [p.154]

Back then, white supremacy was used to exclude Jews on campus.
Today, Jews are accused of being white supremacists.

Anti-Jewish student groups are not picky about the excuses they use to ostracize Jews.

After years of disrupting Jewish and Israeli speakers, and pushing the idea of boycotts, it was only a matter of time before student groups on campus would gravitate towards one more tactic that was successfully implemented in the furthering of Jew-hatred.

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!

Rashida Tlaib, the Lion's Den, and the ubiquity of Jew-hate across political boundaries (plus comic)

Last week, member of Congress Rashida Tlaib said at a Palestine Advocacy Day event, “I want you all to know that among progressives, it becomes clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel‘s apartheid government.”

The formulation asserts both the lie that Israel is an apartheid state and that people cannot be both progressive and support Israel.

One does not see similar litmus tests for progressives. Indeed, the virtually unanimous support that the anti-Israel crowd has for the emphatically Islamist, regressive groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad shows the absurdity of the idea that these supposed progressives support only progressive causes.

This was already evident back in 2006 when gender theorist Judith Butler said, "Yes, understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important."

If Hamas is part of the global Left, and an Israel where there are equal rights for Arabs and women and gays is cast as part of the bigoted far-Right, then the terms have lost all meaning.

But there is another political theory that is far more powerful than the arbitrary Left/Right divide.

Jew-hatred explains the obvious contradictions between what "progressives" claim to believe and what they actually believe.

And it works both ways. Far right Jew haters, who are far more willing to take pride in their bigotry, regularly pretend to be pro-Palestinian - happily quoting the most far-Left personalities. The racist shooters at Overland Park and Pittsburgh were partly fueled by the antisemitism of the Left.

The far-Right pretense of caring about Palestinian human rights is as transparently false as the far-Left pretense of caring about women's and gay rights while supporting Hamas.

Another proof that antisemitism trumps Left/Right politics comes from the new West Bank terror group, called The Lion's Den. As Khaled Abu Toameh reports:

This is the first organized armed group that consists of gunmen belonging to a number of Palestinian factions – including Fatah, Hamas, IJ and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

The PFLP is a Communist group. Islamic Jihad and Hamas are Islamist groups. How can they work together?

Because for antisemites, there is no Right and Left. Those political affiliations are excuses for their hate of Jews, not the reasons for it. Arab antisemites are far less wedded to their supposed Leftist or Islamist Rightist causes than they are to hating Jews - but it is the exact same logic that allows Western "progressives" to be as hypocritical as Western white supremacists who pretend to love Palestinian Arabs.

The only consistency is Jew-hate.

Perhaps it is time to resurrect the political parties like the late 19th century Deutschsoziale Antisemitische Partei whose primary ideological basis was antisemitism, so these people on the Right and Left can join together and enjoy consistent political positions.

The Lion's Den is a model for how today's antisemites can put aside their differences for the greater good of ethnically cleansing Jews from the planet.

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!

"Yonkle, the Cowboy Jew" - 1907 novelty song is all kinds of wrong

In 1907, a novelty song was released called "Yonkle, the Cow-Boy Jew."

It is antisemitic and anti-Indian, and simply wrong in all sorts of ways. I do not know if the lyricist, Will J. Harris, was Jewish. (Someone with that name had some hits in the 1920s but that one was born in 1900.)

The sheet music is out there, but here are the lyrics, which are incredibly offensive.

A Jew named Yonkle Finklestein
Went out west one day;
Just to shoot wild Indians,
That's what the neighbors say.
Didn't care a snap for home,
Left his wife and little child;
Met a pretty cowboy girl
Then his Yiddish brain went wild
To his friends he sent a note,
And this is what he wrote.

Chorus
Western life is fine and dandy
I have got no kick;
When I think of the pawnshop bus'ness
Oi, it makes me sick.
Ev'ry time I see some Indians
I just kill a few,
So I've changed my name from Finklestein

To Yonkle, the Cowboy Jew.

Now Yonkle made love to the girl
That he met out west;
But she told her beau on him,
And he then did the rest.
With a shooter in his hand
Cowboy made poor Yonkle dance;
Then he yelled, "You Tenderfoot,
Run while you have got the chance,"
Yonkle then commenced to pray
And swore he'd never say:

Even worse is the photo series someone created to publicize the song, showing "Yonkle" with his foot on a dead or captured American Indian. (This is from the Library of Congress site.)