Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: denying antisemitism

Showing posts with label denying antisemitism. Show all posts

Thursday, August 03, 2023

Recent EoZ memes, cartoon, posters &c

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!

The UN just said that burning the Quran is against international law

In 2019, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 73/328, "Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech." It included this paragraph:

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines that are in violation of international law,

A resolution voted on yesterday thas an identical title. But it has a paragraph that says this:

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their religious symbols, holy books, homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centres or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines in violation of international law,

It adds "religious symbols" and "holy books" to what cannot be attacked, and it changes "that are in violation of international law" to "in violation of international law."

In other words, Pakistan just managed to pass a UNGA resolution that states that burning Qurans is against international law.

There was, by all accounts, a major debate. Spain tried to take out the words "in violation of international law" from the text, but its attempt was voted down, 62-44 with 24 abstentions.

And then the entire resolution was adopted by consensus.

While burning the Quran is something to be condemned, it is not against international law, and this is on the slippery slope of adopting Islamic concepts of blasphemy as something the entire world must adopt.

The text is in the preamble, and UNGA resolution itself, has no legal effect, but this is still significant - people use the text of UN resolutions as evidence of what international law is.

Two weeks ago, the UN Human Rights Council passed its own resolution that "Calls upon States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks that address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and to take immediate steps to ensure accountability."

As one critic notes, "One only has to look at some of the 28 states that voted in favor of the (HRC) resolution to realize that the real purpose is not to counter hate speech or foster equality and tolerance, but to provide authoritarian governments cover and legitimacy when suppressing dissent."

There is a thin line between hate speech that could lead to violence - which is incitement - and legitimate criticism. Muslim-majority states are trying to blur that line to force the West to adopt their own bans on blasphemy as international law.

As we saw in the UN yesterday, the West caved. But free speech is not something to give up on.

I don't have the text of the UNGA resolution, but the UNHRC resolution has at least two other problematic elements.

One is that, as we've seen, any statements against antisemitism are always paired with condemnations of Islamophobia. But the UNHRC resolution, supposedly against religious hatred, mentioned Islamophobia - and not a word about antisemitism. Which makes it pretty obvious that people are not serious about combating antisemitism.

The other is that the UNHRC resolution refers to the Quran consistently as "the Holy Qur’an." The word "Holy" should not be there - the Quran is only holy to Muslims. The insistence of that language indicates again that these resolutions are not meant to fight religious hatred as much as they are to elevate Islam as a belief over others.

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!

There is no inoculation for the virus of Jew-hatred

My post about Jimmy Carter's antisemitism last week prompts a question: but what about all the wonderful things he has done?

One cannot argue that Carter has not been sincere when he works with Habitat for Humanity, for example. His Middle East work may be influenced by his antisemitism, but he has worked on many other worthy causes. How can those things fit together?

But one can ask the same thing about lots of other antisemites. Alice Walker is a gifted poet and storyteller, but that doesn't make her immune from antisemitic attitudes. Roger Waters was a good songwriter in the 1970s, but that doesn't mean he doesn't harbor antisemitic attitudes. Roald Dahl wrote fantastic children's books, but also hated Jews.

Then again, we can go back in history and ask the same questions. Voltaire was a groundbreaking philosopher, but he was also a racist and antisemite. Martin Luther was a brilliant theologian and an obsessed Jew-hater.

If theology can coexist with hate, perhaps that invalidates the theology. But pioneers in theology and philosophy and humanitarianism and progressivism and socialism and science and even medical ethics have been found to be antisemites - and these are all fields that, in theory, if you believe their self-definitions, should be immune to antisemitic thought.

Obviously, theory is very different from practice.

Some people say that antisemitism is a conspiracy theory. Or that it relegated to the Right. Or that is is a form of bigotry that is part of a larger group of discriminations against race or sexual preference or age.

Yet it fits in no clear category. It morphs into new forms every few decades.

It is a virus with new strains coming out all the time.

Viruses have only one imperative - survive by adaptation. Right now the most virulent strain of antisemitism spreads by pretending to be outraged at how Jews act in Israel - and it cloaks itself by insisting that this current hate of Jews in Israel has nothing in common with the previous instances, despite the obvious parallels.

This is hardly the first time antisemitism pretended to be the opposite. In 1873, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution on antisemitism that pretends to be philosemitic - but ends up wishing that all Jews should convert to Christianity.

Is this any different than modern antisemites who wish just as fervently that the Jewish state be destroyed, that Jews should live as second class citizens in a Muslim majority state and most of them should be ethnically cleansed? Is the Southern Baptist desire that all Jews see the light different from those who want all Jews to be "good Jews" who shed all nationalism and all attachment to the land of their ancestors?

And both of them claim to be doing it because they care so much about Jews.

The other strains of the antisemitic virus didn't die out. The Middle Ages strain is still there, the Christian strain still thrives in many places, the Nazi strain stays stubbornly alive and spreading. Social media has been a huge boon to the virus, allowing it to spread at the speed of light. People can work very hard for years to come up with a way to minimize the threat of one strain but another one can emerge and propagate in days.

Today, we hear people arguing against accusations of antisemitism. How can Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch be antisemitic when their entire organizations are based on human rights? How can Jeremy Corbyn be antisemitic when he is an avowed anti-racist?

The virus doesn't care what philosophy you have. Whatever you hate most in life can be linked to Jews, and usually is.

Instead of reflecting on the history of antisemitism that shows that anyone can catch the virus of antisemitism, many pretend that they are immune. Worse, they pretend that their progressivism or humanitarianism or anti-racism inoculates them from antisemitism - that they aren't and cannot be antisemitic because their worldview does not allow it.

On the contrary, the virus can grow in any medium. The anti-racists become antisemites by accusing Jews/Israelis of racism. The humanitarians become antisemites by accusing Jews of inhumanity. The very ideas that people believe make them immune to infection are the ones that spread it.

Just like before, they justify their hate as being based on facts, unlike all of their predecessors. even though those predecessors said the exact same thing. They write their articles and posts and tweets that show the exact same kind of irrational, obsessive hate that previous centuries of antisemites had.

As we know from recent experience, viruses are hard to eradicate. We still need to try. But we need to understand that the virus does not avoid anyone because of their belief system. On the contrary, it often uses that very belief system as a means of spreading further.

Beware of anyone who says they cannot be antisemitic because of their worldview. Instead, teach them about the history of antisemitism, and show that they have very prominent Jew-hating forebears, who were the world's leaders in theology, the arts, philosophy, science and the Enlightenment.

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!