Antisemites to give talk about "antisemitism" in NYC

In August I noted that "Jewish Voice for Peace" published a book on antisemitism that justifies some kinds of antisemitism.

Now the people who passionately believe that the only people on Earth who do not have the right to self-determination are Jews are holding a conference to claim that the only kind of antisemitism that matters is that neo-Nazi type than can be blamed on the ultra-Right.



Leftist antisemitism, as we've seen in the British Labour party, is not antisemitism as long as the person spouting the hate claims - sometimes way after the fact - that they were only criticizing Israel.

The people who are speaking and claim to care about antisemitism are the exact kind of people who don't give a damn about antisemitism - they are only using Jews as pawns to demonize their political opponents.

Here are the speakers:

Leo Ferguson is the community and communications organizer for Jews for Racial & Economic Justice.
Lina Morales is a member of Jews of Color and Mizrahi/Sephardi Caucus of Jewish Voice for Peace.
Linda Sarsour is the former Executive Director of the Arab-American Association of New York, a co-chair of the National Women's March, and was a co-founder of MPower Change.
Rebecca Vilkomerson is the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Yes, suddenly Linda Sarsour is an authority on antisemitism. She is, but not for the reasons she claims.

Get ready for lots of talk about how Zionist call all critics of Israel antisemites (no, only the ones who actively seek the destruction of the only Jewish state)   and how there is suddenly much more neo-Nazi activity since Trump was elected (there isn't but the media is covering it much more.)

Meanwhile, here is your handy guide again for the differences between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

11/13 Links Pt2: Judea Pearl: The Balfour Declaration at 100 and How It Redefined Indigenous People; Normalizing anti-Semitism on campus

From Ian:

---

Judea Pearl: The Balfour Declaration at 100 and How It Redefined Indigenous People

Balfour understood that Eretz Israel is an inextricable part of Jewish identity. Accordingly, he also understood that indigeneity is based on intellectual attachment and historical continuity no less than on physical presence or genetic lineage.

In 2014, when peace negotiations seemed somewhat hopeful, Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat was reported in The New York Times as saying: “the Palestinians could never accede to Israel’s demand that they recognize it as the nation-state of the Jewish people. … I cannot change my narrative.” A few months later, when pressed to explain what narrative defines his position Erekat told the Times of Israel: “I am the proud son of the Netufians and the Canaanites. I’ve been there for 5,500 years before Joshua. ”

On this centennial celebration of the Balfour Declaration it is worth reminding Erekat and Khalidi that the declaration’s most profound imprint on the world’s conciousness has been a universal understanding that the essence of indigineity is cultural and intellectual, not genetic or geographical.

Palestinian resistance to accepting their neighbors as equally indigenous to the region has been so obsessive and so counter-productive that it begs to be enlivened through a hypothetical scenario, however imaginary. I can’t resist imagining Balfour attending Khalidi’s lecture at Columbia, raising his hand and asking politely:

“Professor Khalidi, can you name a Canaanite figure that you are proud of? A Canaanite poem that you enjoy reciting? A Canaanite holiday that you celebrate? A Canaanite leader who is a role model to your children?

Replace the word “Canaanite” with “biblical” and you will find four questions that every Israeli child can answer half asleep.

There is merit and wisdom in hypothetical scenarios. In this case, I would hope it could mitigate the Palestinian claim to exclusive ownership of the title “indigenous people” and, God-willing, usher a genuine reconciliation effort based on mutual recognition and shared indigeneity. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

JPost Editorial: Bipolar Britain

What’s more, the meetings became known to the Foreign Office three months ago. If they were such a big source of concern, why was nothing done about them for so long? Why is it that the “scandal” was made public in Britain last Friday, to coincide with Netanyahu’s visit to London for meetings with May and to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration?

Meanwhile, the British press, in a tendentious attempt to sensationalize what was in reality nothing more than a breach of protocol, presented one leg of the trip as though Patel was seeking to transfer hard-earned British taxpayers’ money to the Israeli military.

In reality, however, Patel was looking into the possibility that Britain would help defray some of the costs for maintaining an Israeli field hospital on the Golan Heights that treats wounded Syrian refugees.

Both The Guardian and The Independent – at least initially – reported that the money was going to the IDF, as noted in a piece for The Algemeiner by Simon Plosker, managing editor of HonestReporting.com.

The Times of London claimed, meanwhile, that Patel sought to provide British aid to an Israeli Army program “treating wounded Syrian jihadists, including al-Qaida fighters.”

We understand that newspapers have to make money and that sensationalism sells. We also understand that nearly anything to do with Israel arouses strong emotions in Britain.

But what about journalistic integrity? There is much to appreciate in Britain’s approach to Israel. May is undoubtedly one of the most pro-Israel heads of state in Europe, though she is bogged down with political problems.

But Patel’s treatment is not just the collateral effect of May’s crisis-ridden government. Rather, the Patel scandal is an uncomfortable reminder of the toxic atmosphere of anti-Israel sentiment both in British society and in the Foreign Office. Apparently, it is no coincidence that this reminder was made now, as Israel and Britain celebrate the Balfour Declaration, the Jewish people’s first decisive diplomatic success on the road to statehood.

Antisemitism Campaigners Urge Prince Charles to Repudiate 1986 Letter Decrying US ‘Jewish Lobby’

CAA Chairman Gideon Falter said that Charles’s letter was “disturbing.”

“It appears that our future king believed in 1986 that the ‘influx’ of Holocaust survivors to Israel were not ‘Semitic,’ ’cause great problems’ including terrorism, and should be ‘eliminated,’ presumably through their removal,” Falter said. “The letter also appears to endorse the view that Israel is not simply the result of Jewish self-determination in the historic Jewish homeland, but the result of bullying by an all-powerful ‘Jewish lobby,’ which holds US presidents in its clutches. We view these comments as unmistakably antisemitic.”

Noting that Charles retains a good relationship with the UK Jewish community, Falter called on Charles to “urgently repudiate” these “historic remarks” as a gesture of reassurance.

The eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II – who this year became the longest-reigning monarch in British history – Charles and his suitability for the throne have long been a favored topic of discussion in the British press. Critics of the prince charge that his publicly-expressed views over the years on matters as varied as architecture and religion show him to be remote and out of touch.

Prince Charles’ staff issue statement disavowing his 1986 letter as “not the Prince’s own views”

In a letter exposed today in the Mail on Sunday, it was revealed that Prince Charles made deeply troubling comments about refugee Holocaust survivors and the power of the “Jewish lobby”. Following criticism by Campaign Against Antisemitism and others, Clarence House, Prince Charles’ residence and office, has now issued a statement dismissing the views he expressed in a letter over thirty years ago.

In a 1986 letter to explorer Laurens van der Post, the heir to the throne wrote: “Dear Laurens, Am on my way to Cyprus and Italy having passed through Suez Canal. Lovely having three days at sea. This tour has been fascinating and have learned a lot about Middle East and Arab outlook. Tried to read a bit of Koran on way out and it gave me some insight into the way they think and operate. Don’t think they could understand us by reading the Bible though. Much to admire some aspects of Islam – especially accent on hospitality and accessibility of rulers. Also begin to understand their point of view about Israel. Never realised they see it as a US colony. I now appreciate that Arabs and Jews were all a Semitic people originally and it is the influx of foreign, European Jews (especially from Poland they say) which has helped to cause great problems. I know there are so many complex issues, but how can there ever be an end to terrorism unless the causes are eliminated? Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naïve, I suppose! Charles”

Following publication of the letter, Campaign Against Antisemitism issued a statement saying: “This letter is disturbing. It appears that our future king believed in 1986 that the ‘influx’ of Holocaust survivors to Israel were not ‘Semitic’, ‘cause great problems’ including terrorism, and should be ‘eliminated’, presumably through their removal. The letter also appears to endorse the view that Israel is not simply the result of Jewish self-determination in the historic Jewish homeland, but the result of bullying by an all-powerful ‘Jewish lobby’ which holds US presidents in its clutches. We view these comments as unmistakably antisemitic. However, since the letter was written, the Prince of Wales appears to have warmed to the Jewish community and we note his friendship with the former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, as well as his attendance at the inauguration of the present Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. In order to reassure the worldwide Jewish community, including Jews living in Israel, that the heir to the throne has changed his views, these historic remarks must urgently be repudiated by Prince Charles.”

Read More

In case you missed it: Recent notable EoZ articles

Here are some notable recent EoZ articles:

The biggest Israel-related story of the decade that no one (right or left) wants you to know

Why are prominent British Zionists so willing to push the fake Palestinian narrative?

UK diplomat admits "second half of Balfour" doesn't exist - but it SHOULD

Fisking Mahmoud Abbas' anti-Balfour article

Where are all the predicted NYC anti-Muslim hate crimes after the terror attack?

Three months after riots, Israel quietly reinstalls cameras at entrances to Temple Mount

"If UNRWA goes, the refugee issue is over"

"Shlomo Shekelberg" and using Jews as a political football

J-Street U says being against the Jewish State's existence is "nuanced debate"

Fact-free British columnist looks forward to Israel's destruction

Academic fraud Joseph Massad claims Ashkenazic Jews are really European

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

Columbia professor Joseph Massad or Stormfront?

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

A few days ago, EoZ highlighted the latest screed of Joseph Massad, who is a professor at Columbia University and an occasional contributor to Ali Abunimah’s “The Jewish state is our misfortune/Hail Hamas”-website. Elder wondered in his post what Massad’s sources or evidence might be, and I pondered the same question a few years ago, when I researched Massad’s writings on the evil Zionist entity for several articles. I found at least a partial answer: for some of his main “arguments,” Massad clearly relies on the kind of “evidence” that is popular at the neo-Nazi site Stormfront and that David Duke promoted in his “minor league Mein Kampf.”

You can read the post where I demonstrated this in considerable detail here (warning: it’s longish!);  but if you don’t have the time, you can just take the quiz I posted back then to illustrate how hard it is to distinguish between Massad’s stuff and what’s popular on Stormfront (correct answers at the end of this post; some of the quotes have originally British spelling, I Americanized it to avoid giving the game away).

1) “Nazism was a boon to Zionism throughout the 1930s.”2) “For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history.”3) “In Germany, the average Jews were victims of the Zionist elite who worked hand in hand with the Nazis.”4) “Hitler could have just confiscated all the Jewish wealth. Instead he used the ‘Haavara Program’ to help establish the State of Israel.”5) “Between 1933 and 1939, 60 percent of all capital invested in Jewish Palestine came from German Jewish money through the Transfer Agreement.”6) “In fact, contra all other German Jews (and everyone else inside and outside Germany) who recognized Nazism as the Jews’ bitterest enemy, Zionism saw an opportunity to strengthen its colonization of Palestine.”7) “Zionists welcomed the Nazis’ anti-Semitic policies. Like the Nazis, they believed in race-based national character and destiny. Like the Nazis, they believed Jews had no future in Germany.8) “the Zionist Federation of Germany […] supported the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, as they agreed with the Nazis that Jews and Aryans were separate and separable races. This was not a tactical support but one based on ideological similitude.”9) “Zionism […] developed the idea of the first racially separatist planned community for the exclusive use of Ashkenazi Jews, namely the Kibbutz.”10) “The Zionists were afraid that the ‘Jewish race’ was disappearing through assimilation.”

Before I let you find out how you did, I should perhaps note what I just found out: my articles on Massad got me an honorary mention on Stormfront! As I noted in my post back then, Stormfront members shared and debated Massad’s notorious Al Jazeera column “The last of the Semites,” which Jeffrey Goldberg immediately denounced as “one of the most anti-Jewish screeds in recent memory.”

A few weeks later, one Stormfront member came across my post and linked to it with some heartfelt compliments, including “not-so-hidden Hasbara shill” who writes a “stinking blog, brimful with Israeli propaganda, lies and deceit;” “a manic proponent of the Zionist doctrine and propaganda.” But the Stormfront member noted that reading my post wasn’t entirely a waste of time, because it lead to “another two very interesting Massad’s articles” – which s/he liked so much that s/he promptly shared them…

Oh well, I do think I deserve their disdain – and Columbia professor Joseph Massad deserves their admiration.

* * *

1) Massad  2) Stormfront   3) Stormfront    4) Stormfront    5) Massad    6) Massad    7) Stormfront    8) Massad    9) Massad    10) Stormfront

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More