Adopt my algorithmic definition of antisemitism

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is not a definition. It is a very vague guideline whose main advantage is that it is better than nothing. When a new controversy erupts about some famous person like Donald Trump, Rashida Tlaib or Kanye West saying or doing something, the narrative about whether it is antisemitic or not almost never refers to the IHRA Working Definition - because that definition is nearly useless in making such determinations. 

I have created my own definition that does not have the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. I describe it in the paper below, slightly modified from a paper I submitted to the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, ISGAP, for publication. (I previously excerpted from this paper.)

The ADL's webpage on the IHRA definition says, "The IHRA Definition is one tool, albeit an important one, to use to identify and combat antisemitism.  However, it is not a substitute for more nuanced expertise on antisemitism, nor does its use preclude consulting other definitions."

In fact, if you look at what the ADL has said is antisemitic, it tracks far better to my definition than to IHRA. 

I am not saying to abandon the IHRA Working Definition. I am definitely not interested in tearing down the great work done by many people to get governments and institutions to adopt the IHRA definition.  I'm saying that people who are serious about antisemitism use my definition in conjunction with the IHRA definition as the best means we have to impartially determine whether specific incidents are, in fact, antisemitic. Ultimately, I would like to see the IHRA incorporate my definition into its own.

This is too important to worry about politics or the egos of the drafters of other definitions. If my definition is the best - and other experts in the field have told me that it is - then it is the one that should be used. And if mine can be improved, let's do it.

____________________________________________________________

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism has been a tremendous success, and it is heartening to see so many nations and institutions adopt it. It is the best official definition we have.

However, it is not above criticism. In fact, while it may be the best definition out there, it is not really a good definition.

As is well known, the core component of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism says,

 “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This definition is vague, a fact already noted by other experts.[i]^,[ii]

“A certain perception” doesn’t tell us anything about the perception itself.

“May be expressed” implies that not all hatred towards Jews is antisemitism — but does not help us understand what is.

Saying that the manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals does not limit the scope of the definition at all.

The core definition simply does little to help anyone understand what is, and what is not, antisemitism.

Perhaps because of this ambiguity, the IHRA definition goes on to give eleven potential examples of antisemitism. The examples are accurate – most would agree that they are indeed manifestations of antisemitism – but they cannot be easily extrapolated to include all examples of antisemitism. Anything that does not fit exactly within the examples may or may not be antisemitism itself – the working definition does very little to guide the reader to understand what antisemitism means beyond the examples. Even the examples themselves aren’t considered definitive:  the Working Definition introduces the examples with caveats saying the definition “could, taking into account the overall context, include” the given examples – meaning that in some contexts they might not be.

A definition of antisemitism that cannot flatly say, for example, that Holocaust denial is antisemitic is severely lacking.

What would an ideal definition of antisemitism look like?

Any good definition of antisemitism must be precise. It should not have words like “may” or “could” or “might.”

A good definition should be complete. It should not require any examples. It should not require any background information or pre-existing knowledge on the part of the individual who needs to use the definition.

A good definition should be useful, able to be applied to new situations.

An ideal definition should be, essentially, an algorithm. It should be possible to input any speech or any actions into this algorithm and determine, with as much certainty as possible, that those words or acts are, or are not, antisemitic.

Finally, a good definition should be short.  Ideally, it should fit in a tweet.

I created my own definition of antisemitism that, I believe, fits these criteria.

The EoZ Definition of Antisemitism

Antisemitism is
hostility toward, 
denigration of
malicious lies about or 
discrimination against

Jews

as individual Jews, 
as a people, 
as a religion, 
as an ethnic group or 
as a nation (i.e., Israel.)

 

The formatting is deliberate, although not strictly necessary. It emphasizes that there is a list of actions that are included in the definition of antisemitism, as well as a list of potential targets, but the central and immutable point is that Jews are the object of vitriol.

The centrality of Jews to the definition contrasts with the IHRA Working Definition. The core IHRA Working Definition says the targets of hatred may be Jews, non-Jews, Jewish institutions, property or religious facilities. This is not strictly true. The target of antisemites is always Jews, and the others are simply proxies for Jews. For example, synagogues that are converted to churches may still have Jewish symbols on their facades, but they are no longer the objects of attack because there are no Jews associated with them anymore.

The definition has four types of general actions that define antisemitism, and five terms for the object of these actions. The objects represent the different dimensions of what it means to be a Jew.

“Hostility toward Jews” is, I believe, a better formulation than “hate towards Jews.” Hate is internal while hostility is generally noticeable to others. It does little good to make antisemitism a thought crime – antisemites usually don’t admit that they hate Jews, but they often display hostility towards Jews. “Hostility towards Jews” includes violence.

“Denigration of Jews” is any act or speech that unfairly criticizes Jews. This is emphatically not “criticism of Jews” – one can have criticisms of Jews as a people or a nation or as individuals without being antisemitic. Denigration crosses the line from rational to irrational.

“Malicious lies about Jews” includes all conspiracy theories involving Jews, and there are hundreds of them. It also includes any stereotyping of Jews: it is difficult to imagine a more heterogeneous group than Jews are, and any assumption that Jews all are on the same page with any issue is invariably a malicious lie.

“Discrimination against Jews” is obviously antisemitic, just as any discrimination against any people is bigotry. Notably, the IHRA core definition does not mention discrimination.

Now let’s look at the objects, Jews as “X.”

“Jews as individual Jews” means that the words and actions are directed against Jews simply because they are Jews.

“Jews as a people” emphasizes the peoplehood of Jews whether they are religious or not. Jews have been referred to as a people (“am”) since Biblical times. Attacking Jews as a people is clearly antisemitic.

“Jews as a religion” includes attacking Judaism itself. Again, we are only speaking of unfair or malicious attacks. Judaism may be criticized as may any other religion without it being antisemitic.  (Admittedly, the language is a little stilted here.)

“Jews as an ethnic group” includes those who attack Jews for racial or xenophobic reasons. I didn’t want to say “Jews as a racial group” because Jews are emphatically not a racial group. Most Jews are, however, part of an ethnic group and have been discriminated against or attacked on that basis.

Finally, we reach “Jews as a nation (i.e., Israel.)”

The IHRA definition seems to bend over backwards to treat anti-Zionism as a special case of antisemitism. It isn’t. Any student of antisemitism knows how modern anti-Zionism is a new label on a very old bottle.  Just because there is not complete congruity between Zionism and Judaism is not a reason to treat anti-Zionism as anything other than antisemitism – there is not perfect correspondence between Jews as a people, as a religion or as an ethnic group/tribe, either. Converts to Judaism aren’t ethnic Jews and most Jews aren’t religious. That doesn’t make attacks against those groups any less antisemitic.

The same goes for the modern State of Israel. As the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks eloquently stated,

 Jews have lived in almost every country under the sun. In 4,000 years, only in Israel have they been able to live as a free, self-governing people. …Only in Israel can Jews today speak the Hebrew of the Bible as the language of everyday speech. Only there can they live Jewish time within a calendar structured according to the rhythms of the Jewish year. Only in Israel can Jews once again walk where the prophets walked, climb the mountains Abraham climbed and to which David lifted his eyes. Israel is the only place where Jews have been able to live Judaism in anything other than an edited edition, continuing the story their ancestors began.[iii] 

Judaism and Israel are bound together. Jews know this - and the antisemites know this, too. Identifying with the State of Israel is a core component of what it is to be a Jew, not an exception.

Classic antisemitism says Jews poisoned the wells. Modern antisemitism says Israelis poison the wells and water.

Classic antisemitism says Jews delight in killing children. Modern antisemitism says the same about Israelis.

Classic antisemitism says Jews control major world governments. Modern antisemitism says the same about Zionists.

Classic antisemitism excludes Jews from clubs and organizations. Modern antisemitism excludes Zionists from “progressive” spaces.

There is no need to apologize for saying that modern antisemitism, in the guise of anti-Zionism, is just another flavor of classic antisemitism. The similarities dwarf the differences.

The IHRA Working Definition seems defensive when mentioning Israel. It says, “Manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

How is that different than criticism of Judaism, or criticism of Jews as a people? Any honest criticism is fair game for all those categories of what it means to be a Jew, not just for Israel. The IHRA does no favors by differentiating Israel from Judaism in this context.

We can run this same exercise against all the speech and actions in the first half of my definition. Hostility towards Jews as individual Jews, as a people, as an ethnic group or as a religion is clearly antisemitism – and so is hostility towards Israel as a nation. Hostility goes way beyond sober criticism, and it betrays the irrationality of the hostile party. Why single out Israel in this regard?

Denigration of Israel is similar. What other nation gets regularly denigrated? Saying Israel has no right to exist is on the same moral plane as saying Jews have no right to exist as a people – or that Jews are not a people at all, which is a favored accusation among Arab antisemites specifically to argue that a Israel has no right to exist as a homeland for people who merely share a religion. Again, classic and modern antisemitism are entwined.

Malicious lies about Israel fit in the same category as malicious lies about any group. The malice betrays the hate, and the hate is what drives the malice. The apartheid lie, the ethnic cleansing lie, the racism lie – they are just as illegitimate and revolting as the Christ-killing lie, the Elders of Zion lie, the Untermensch lie.

The same logic goes with “discrimination against Jews as a nation.” When Israel is discriminated against, we all know it is because it is the only state that is filled with and controlled by Jews. Vehement denials of antisemitism are not arguments.

For the purposes of determining what antisemitism is, Israel is not a special case of the collective Jew.  It is a core example. Nowadays, it is perhaps the paradigm of being a Jewish object of hate.

In a way, my definition is an extension of Natan Sharansky’s excellent “3D test” of whether anti-Israel criticism becomes antisemitism. As he wrote,

We must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.[iv]

This is not only true for criticism of Israel, but for criticism of Jews, of Judaism and of the Jewish people. Jews as a people, as a religion, as a culture and as individuals can be legitimately criticized, just as Israel can be. Only when the criticism extends into the territory of these 3 “D”s do they become antisemitic.

There is no difference between demonizing, delegitimizing, and applying double standards to Israel or to Jews in every other sense. Both are the same antisemitism.

Testing the definition with antisemitism defined under IHRA

To test whether my definition is accurate, I suggest that we use it as an algorithm against situations that are listed as examples in the IHRA Working Definition to see if this definition judges those situations as antisemitic.

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

This would be hostility towards Jews as individual Jews, as a people, and as a religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

This would be malicious lies against Jews as a people, and possibly as a religion or nation.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

This is hostility towards, denigration of, and malicious lies about Jews as a people.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

This is the prototypical example of malicious lies about Jews as individual Jews (i.e., witnesses to the Holocaust,) as a people and as a nation (Arabs regularly accuse Zionists of making up the Holocaust to justify taking their land.)

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

This is denigration of and malicious lies about Jews as individual Jews, as a people and as a nation.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

This is hostility towards, denigration of, malicious lies about and discrimination against Jews as a people and as a nation.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

This is discrimination against Jews as a nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

This would be hostility towards and malicious lies about Jews as a people and as a nation.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This would be malicious lies about and hostility towards Jews as a nation.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

This would be hostility towards Jews as individual Jews and as a people.

Testing the definition with antisemitism not defined under IHRA

The IHRA Working Definition is ambiguous about some examples of antisemitism that are generally accepted as antisemitism.

One example is the Khazar theory – the idea that most or all Ashkenazic Jews are not ethnic Jews at all but descended from a Turkic people known as the Khazars who supposedly converted to Judaism. Like Holocaust denial, it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that is often disguised as legitimate research.

The IHRA Working Definition gives very little guidance on whether this is antisemitic or not, yet virtually everyone agrees it is. Under my definition, however, there is no doubt: the Khazar theory is a malicious lie about Jews as an ethnic group and a people.

Similar malicious lies, popular for the past hundred years among Arabs, is that there is no Jewish connection to Jerusalem and that the Jewish Temples are fictional. While the IHRA working definition does not help at all on this, my definition addresses it similarly to the Khazar theory: they malicious lies about Jews as a people and as a nation.

Popular writer and poet Alice Walker wrote a poem about Jews where, under the guise of simply asking questions, she accused Jews of believing that non-Jews are subhumans who must be killed, and that the Talmud supports raping children.[v] While this may fit under the IHRA working definition, it might not if Walker claims “context:” that she is just asking questions, or is only discussing the Jews who study the Talmud. Under my definition, however, Walker is exhibiting hostility towards, denigration of and malicious lies about Jews as a people and as a religion (as well as a nation in other parts of the poem where she ties Jews with Israelis.)

Testing the definition with ambiguous cases

How does this definition do with more controversial or ambiguous cases of potential antisemitism?

George Soros is a Jewish billionaire who funds many left-wing causes. Sheldon Adelson was a Jewish billionaire who funded many right-wing causes. Both have been the object of conspiracy theories. Are those theories antisemitic?

Frank Gaffney said about Soros:

 Is George Soros the anti-Christ?  While former New York mayor Rudi Giuliani has put the question in play, theologians may be better equipped to debate it than politicians.

The decades-long record of this billionaire financier and philanthropist, however, is one of such malevolence and destruction that he must at a minimum be considered the anti-Christ’s right-hand man. [vi]

This was regarded by the ADL as being antisemitic[vii]. Is it?

I’m no expert on Christian eschatology, but I have seen that non-Jewish rich people like Bill Gates[viii] and Jeff Bezos[ix] have also been accused of being the Antichrist, so without any mentioning or hinting of Soros’ religion, it does not fit my definition of antisemitism – the attack on him is as an influential rich person, not as a Jew, at least on the face of it. (For those who say that the Antichrist must be Jewish, however, this may very well be considered antisemitic.)

In contrast, Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters had this to say about Sheldon Adelson[x]:

Sheldon Adelson believes that only Jews – only Jewish people – are completely human. That they are attached in some way…and that everybody else on Earth is there to serve them.

There is no record of Adelson ever saying anything remotely like this. Waters is – consciously or not – invoking antisemitic interpretations of the Talmud and ascribing that to Adelson.

Both Waters and Gaffney are accusing rich Jews of being puppet-masters, but only Waters is couching that accusation is clearly Jewish terms. Under my definition, he is showing hostility toward, denigration of and malicious lies about a Jew as an individual Jew. While Gaffney’s slur can be interpreted as being against any rich person, Rogers’ invective cannot be interpreted any other way except for being antisemitic.

To be sure, the puppet-master motif has been associated with Jews for more than a century. Yet it is not exclusively applied to Jews, so without additional evidence, we cannot say that the accusation itself is antisemitic when applied to an influential Jew.

This brings up another issue in determining whether something is antisemitic or not. The IHRA Working Definition takes pains to point out that much of the determination of whether something is antisemitic or not depends on context. I would be a little more specific and note that much of that determination depends on the mindset of the potential offender. Their intentions may have been wholly innocent, they may have been malicious, and they very possibly may have been clueless or careless as to the implications of their offensive actions or statements.

We cannot read minds, but we can take educated guesses based on other statements or actions by the person or group that is behind the offensive words or actions. In this example, if Gaffney has a history of antisemitism, or he has previously specifically referred to Soros’ being a Jew, or he has cited sources saying that the Antichrist must be a Jew, then we can reasonably assume that his statement was indeed antisemitic, because in that case it would also be hostility toward, denigration of and malicious lies about Soros as an individual Jew.

Knowing the motivation of the person making the offensive comment is key in any determination. I believe that we should err on the side of caution and not assume antisemitic motives unless there is a compelling reason to do so, typically a history of other obviously antisemitic comments or a consistent pattern of singling out Jews for opprobrium. Without a cautious approach, there is a danger that charges of antisemitism will be used capriciously and more as a means of attacking a political opponent than as a sober analysis of an event or a statement. Indeed, we see that happen all the time both on the political Right and Left: accusations of antisemitism that are not motivated by actual concern about Jew-hate but to score political points. 

Another interesting test case is Representative Ilhan Omar’s statement that the reason US politicians support Israel is “all about the Benjamins, baby.”[xi] She was saying that Zionist money is the main or only reason why any politician would support Israel. This is invoking a trope of Jews controlling a nation with money. This is a case of malicious lies about Jews as a people or as a nation, and as such, it is antisemitic.

But what about political attack ads against Jewish candidates, portraying them as greedy and holding wads of cash? The Washington Post reported on six such ads by Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections.[xii] This is a more difficult call. The trope of a money-grubbing politician transcends religion or peoplehood. Yet when the candidates have obviously Jewish names, it makes the possibility that this is an attack on Jews more likely.

In one case, the attack ad against Sara Johnson Rothman showing her holding a pile of $100 bills appears to cross the line into antisemitism, because the ad excised her maiden name that she consistently uses as her middle name and just called her ”Sara Rothman.” This formulation made her sound like she was Jewish herself rather than having married a Jew. In that case, it seems to be a case of denigrating (and possibly malicious lies) about an individual who is portrayed as an individual Jew.  

The other cases require some mind reading to be sure that they were antisemitic, but the sheer number of them makes it  difficult to dismiss as normal political attack ads. If there were no comparable ads against non-Jewish candidates from the same sources, that could indicate antisemitic intent. Conversely, if there were a dozen other political ads in 2018 showing non-Jewish candidates grabbing bags of cash, then this would be considered normal political mudslinging and not specifically antisemitic. It must be noted that even if the ads are not strictly antisemitic themselves, the attackers should be more conscientious about the appearance of using these sorts of antisemitic dog-whistles.

In fact, dog-whistles and potential dog whistles are among the most difficult cases to define as antisemitic, within this definition and without it. By their very nature, dog whistles are meant to hide malicious intent.

When Donald Trump tweeted a graphic showing Hillary Clinton in front of a background of piles of cash, and it included the text “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” inside a six-pointed star[xiii], and there was an immediate backlash that Trump was associating Hilary with Jewish cash. The original graphic came from a far-right forum that traffics in antisemitism so there is little doubt that the choice of that star was meant to be a dog whistle for that audience. Whether Trump intended to share the same dog whistle with his followers as the original artist did is unclear. The Trump campaign modified the graphic within two hours.

Is it antisemitic? It all depends on what was in Trump’s mind when he tweeted it, and we cannot know that. Yet the origin of the graphic, and the fact that there was a path from that ignoble source to Trump and he then tweeted it, indicates that more care should have been taken before spreading this graphic around. A good definition of antisemitism can help people be more sensitive to spreading antisemitic tropes.

In October 2020, a BDS Facebook page in South Africa published a cartoon about Clover Dairy, which had been purchased by a firm that was owned by an Israeli company.[xiv] It showed a gross, fat man shoveling money in his mouth with the caption, “Don’t feed Clover’s greedy bosses.” The South African Jewish Report said that the cartoon was antisemitic, but BDS complained about that characterization, saying the caricature was just that of a greedy capitalist, not necessarily a Jew. A reverse image lookup shows that the original cartoon had nothing to do with Israel or Jews. Yet the caricature was specifically against Clover because it was purchased by an Israeli company, and it is difficult to dismiss this use of the graphic as anything less than a dog whistle that evoked Nazi-era cartoons showing fat, rich Jews with piles of money – the only thing missing was the prominent nose. Given that BDS itself is an antisemitic movement – it discriminates against Jews as a nation – I don’t believe we should give BDS the benefit of the doubt here. There is room for argument in this case, though.

It is important that a good definition of antisemitism not only defines what it is, but also what it is not. Whoopi Goldberg’s claim that the Holocaust had nothing to do with race[xv] was a manifestly stupid and false statement, but it was not malicious. By my definition, it was not antisemitic.

Another point: It is possible for a statement to be hurtful but not antisemitic, but statements that are meant to be hurtful to any Jews who hear it are undoubtedly antisemitic.  

When the determination of antisemitism depends on what was going through the offender’s mind, it makes sense to err on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt unless there is a history of other more blatant antisemitic provocations from the same source.

One thing is clear, though. This discussion, with this level of specificity, is impossible with the IHRA Working Definition, or the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, or any of the other well-known attempts at defining the term. My definition allows this discussion to take place, and any borderline cases for my definition are also arguable among experts in antisemitism. My definition more closely maps to the large number of cases that Jews “know” to be antisemitic than the other definitions do.

Conclusion

Existing definitions of antisemitism have been vague and have only provided very general guidance that is often not useful for specific cases. I presented here a definition that is useful, precise, and as accurate as can be reasonably expected, both to define what is and to exclude what isn’t antisemitism.

I don’t want to take away from the excellent work that has been done in promoting the IHRA Working Definition, but I hope that my definition can supplement it in ways that can make it more useful and actionable.

---

[i] Maya Hertig Randall and Catherine Imbeck, “The IHRA working definition of antisemitism: a legal analysis,” Legal opinion provided at the request of the Service for Combating Racism at the Federal Department of Home Affairs (Switzerland), November 6, 2020

[ii] Peter Ullrich, “Expert Opinion on IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism,” Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, October 2019

[iii] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “Israel: The Heart of Judaism,” HaMizrahi, April 2018

[iv] Natan Sharansky, “3D Test of Anti-Semitism:Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization,” Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 (Fall 2004)

[v] Alice Walker, “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study They [sic] Talmud”, Alice Walker: The Official Website, November 2, 2017

[vi] Frank Gaffney, “George Soros, The Anti-Christ, or Just His Right-hand Man?”, Center for Security Policy, October 11, 2018

[vii] “The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories,” ADL Blog, October 11, 2018

[viii] Christopher James Blythe, “Bill Gates’ Comments on Covid-19 Vaccine Enflame ‘Mark of the Beast’ Worries in Some Christian Circles,” Religion Dispatches, May 4, 2020

[ix] “Could Jeff Bezos possibly be the Antichrist?”, Reddit r/Christianity, March 13, 2022

[x] “Musician Roger Waters on Hamas-Affiliated News Agency: Crazy Puppet Master Adelson Has Donald Trump’s Tiny Little Pr*ck in His Pocket; Israelis Teach U.S. Police How to Murder Blacks,” MEMRIReports Twitter,  June 21, 2020

[xi] Zack Beauchamp “Ilhan Omar’s tweet revealed core truths about anti-Semitism in America,” Vox, February 12, 2019

[xii] Eli Rosenberg, “Republicans attack Jewish candidates across the U.S. with an age-old caricature: Fistfuls of cash,” Washington Post, November 6, 2018

[xiii] Louis Jacobson, “Donald Trump’s ‘Star of David’ tweet: a recap,” Politifact, July 5, 2016

[xiv] Jeremy Gordin, “The SAJR vs the Press Council: What's going on?” PoliticsWeb (South Africa), June 2, 2022

[xv] Kenan Malik, “Whoopi Goldberg’s Holocaust remarks drew on a misguided idea of racism,” The Guardian, February 2, 2022

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Even Palestinians regard the Algerian "reconciliation" between Hamas and Fatah as a joke

On October 13, major media reported:

Palestinian factions signed a reconciliation deal in Algiers on Thursday, vowing to hold elections by next October in their latest attempt to end a rift that has now lasted more than 15 years.

The deal was signed by a leading figure from the Fatah party of President Mahmud Abbas and by the chief of Islamist movement Hamas, which rules Gaza.

But Abbas himself, president of the Palestinian Authority since 2005, was not present.

"We signed this agreement to get rid of the malignant cancer of division that has entered the Palestinian body," said the head of the Fatah delegation, Azzam al-Ahmed.

"We are optimistic that it will be implemented and will not remain ink on paper."

Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh said it was "a day of joy in Palestine and Algeria and for those who love the Palestinian cause, but a day of sadness for the Zionist entity (Israel)".

I didn't even bother to discuss it, because we've seen this movie before. Fatah and Hamas have made these sorts of agreements before - in fact, most of them have been supposedly more comprehensive, with the promise of "unity" between the rival factions.

After the agreement, nobody said much about it. But Mahmoud Abbas sent a message of thanks to Algerian President Abdel Majid Taboun for his role in the meaningless gesture.

But Palestinian Sama News held an online poll for its readers, asking "Will the Palestinian reconciliation succeed under the auspices of Algeria?"

As of Sunday afternoon, the results are 93% saying that the agreement is meaningless, and only 4% think it will succeed.

The Palestinians know that the rift between the PA and Hamas is irreconcilable. Only Western media takes these performative "agreements" seriously.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

The Jew in Caricature (1921 German book)

I found an interesting 1921 book in German called "The Jew in Caricature," that gives a history of how Jews were caricatured throughout the ages up until the book's publication.

It appears to be a scholarly work, pointing out the antisemitic history of caricature. It discusses the phenomenon of Judensau - obscene sculptures and and drawings of Jews acting obscenely with pigs - at length. They can still be seen in cathedrals in Europe.

The author goes on to the 19th century with a large number of caricatures of Jews in popular magazines and newspapers.

Miss Goldstein, I've been looking for a woman for a long time for which, as my wife, I need not be jealous of. Why? Because jealousy is disruptive in business. and you Fraulein, would be just to my liking . . .

They find examples from all over the world.

Political flyer for antisemitic candidate Adophe Willette

Towards the end of the book the antisemitic caricatures of Germany circa 1919 are indistinguishable from Nazi posters. 

It would be nice if someone would translate this book. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

10/23 Links: The gaping holes in the UN Commission of Inquiry report; From Oslo to Abraham; Rushdie ‘going to live’ but has lost use of eye and hand, says agent

From Ian:

The gaping holes in the UN Commission of Inquiry report

What is missing from this report as context for this difficult environment is startling. Not a word about Palestinian rejectionism for decades. Not a word on Israeli steps that completely contradict the narrative that Israel is all about permanent occupation and annexation.

Not a word about Israeli efforts to make Palestinian life better, despite Palestinian rejection and terrorism in the form of thousands of Palestinian workers making a decent living working in Israel every day. Not a word about the anti-democratic forces and corruption at work in Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, which have greatly contributed to the ills of the Palestinian people. Not a word about an educational system in the Palestinian community, which preaches and teaches hatred of Israel and Jews and the virtues of violence against the Jewish state.

Most significantly, related to the two major themes of the report — that Israel is engaged in moving toward permanent control of the West Bank and its Palestinian population and toward de facto annexation — is the complete failure to mention numerous Israeli peace offers that would have transformed Palestinians lives, including through the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel’s offer at Camp David, then later at Taba, in 2000, would have meant the withdrawal of Israeli from most of the territory and the removal of most settlements. The Palestinians said no and turned to violence and suicide bombs.

Then came Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, including from all settlements, only to have Israel met with a Hamas takeover, and years of attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians. And then at Annapolis in 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians one more opportunity to end the conflict and move toward a state as Israel withdraws, only to be met again with no response.

In sum, there are real issues to discuss. But it’s impossible to do that in a serious and responsible way when the approach is the kind of biased one that the COI report represents. The consequence of such one-sidedness is to make the Palestinians think once again that history is on their side in their decades-old rejection of Israel’s legitimacy. This delusion has been harmful to Palestinians and is repeated here once again.

At the same time, a report like this plays into the hands of those Israelis who see the world as against them and prefer the status quo rather than creative solutions and initiatives.

The bottom line: Israel will surely reject this report for what it is: a continuing of counterproductive, anti-Israel propaganda by an arm of the UN that has a long history of bias against the Jewish state.

At the same time, the reality of the situation in the territories, even though it does not reflect either Israeli permanence or annexation, demands Israeli initiatives on the ground to improve living conditions for the Palestinians and to open up new possibilities for negotiations and solutions – even if the Palestinians have not shown they are ready for either.

American Jews must give up the illusion that they have ‘no enemies’ to the left or the right

The final straw came in 2000, when Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader held a massive campaign rally in Boston. From the stage, I was told, his running mate, Winona LaDuke, shrieked, “We’re going to stop the slaughter in Palestine!” This would have been bad enough, given that it erased Israel’s name from the map and, with it, the numerous Jews then being murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the name of “Palestine.”

But what made my blood run cold was the description of what followed: The crowd howled its approval and rose to its feet in a standing ovation. At that moment, what I saw in my mind’s eye was Hitler and the great crowd rising as one to hail him. These people, I suddenly realized, wanted to kill me.

What followed was not merely anger, but a horrific sense of betrayal. I believed in the catechisms of the left. I felt that I was one of them. But now, I suddenly realized, they did not think I was one of them. And this was because, despite everything, I did believe that the Jews have a right, at the very least, to defend themselves. I now knew that my former comrades did not believe in that right. But I did, and I would fight for it.

I will not go into the long journey that followed, which led me to Zionism, aliyah and everything that came after. Suffice it to say, I rejected the left in its entirety, and became very right-wing for a very long time.

I can no longer count myself an ideological right-winger. I believe I have learned a great deal from both the left and the right, from the likes of Orwell and Camus along with Burke and C.S. Lewis. These days, I prefer to keep my own counsel. But that sense of betrayal has never left me, and I am still angry about it.

That many Jews on the right now feel the same way is painful but also, I regret to say, not particularly surprising. All non-Jewish movements contain people who believe very ugly things about the Jews. The left has Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the right has its “alt” contingent and now Kanye West.

But I must say, and perhaps this will comfort him, that I do not agree with Haworth’s despairing conclusion that “no one cares about us.” In fact, there are non-Jews on both the right and the left who care very deeply about the Jews, whether they be Ritchie Torres on the left or Meghan McCain on the right. Sometimes they are forced to fight a rearguard action against the haters, but they are there, they are not to be underestimated and we must work to embrace them all.

Indeed, for Jews to believe that we have “no enemies to the left” is as absurd as believing we have “no enemies to the right.” There is no single political movement—except Zionism—that is monolithically philo-Semitic. Jews, in the end, have no right or left. We have only ourselves and our friends or enemies, wherever they may be on the political spectrum. To wholly commit ourselves to one side or the other only sets us up for a rude awakening followed by a terrible disillusionment.

"Documentary Series Exposes 3,000 Hours of Vile Leftist Antisemitism Recorded by Swedish Spy"

Zvi Yehezkeli, an Israeli television journalist and documentarian who heads the Arab desk at News 13, on Sunday night is launching “Sh’tula” (implant), a five-episode espionage docu-series on Channel 13, which reveals for the first time authentic documentation of what goes on behind the scenes of human rights organizations operating in Judea and Samaria.

The series was three years in the making. “There are 3,000 hours of footage, all of which required legal backing, and the content features many characters,” Yehezkeli told Ma’ariv. “In general, this thing is explosive, with the possibility of international lawsuits, so this process has been crazy. And it’s also the longest series I’ve ever done.”

The series “Sh’tula” follows a pro-Palestinian young Swedish woman who came to Israel as a tourist to study architecture. She met someone from the Eli settlement who explained that there’s another side to the Israeli-Arab story.

“Slowly, she is gaining ground within the human rights organizations that operate in Judea and Samaria and is actually becoming an intelligence agent,” Yehezkeli relates. “After a year, she reaches the real leadership, the Hamas people, who reveal to her the mechanism of raising money for the organizations, and the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas headquarters in Europe and human rights organizations. This means that human rights organizations like BDS are operated by Hamas members.”

“It became a treasure trove of intelligence, including secrets that Hamas members told her and are documented on paper,” he continues. “So, we started building a series out of it. It’s very complicated because there’s a lot of use of hidden cameras, and we also have to protect her life.”

At some point, Yehez told Army Radio on Sunday, his spy recorded a European activist who confessed on tape that she wanted to see all the Jews dead, on both sides of the “green line,” arguing that their very existence was rooted in sin. Should be fun to watch, especially if at some point you thought European activists were fair and even-handed and wanted only to help poor suffering Arabs.

Read More

"Islamic University of Tel Aviv" conspiracy theory grows

Last year I mentioned an Arab conspiracy theory that there is an "Islamic University of Tel Aviv" where Jews are taught to become secret Muslim preachers, where they infiltrate Muslim lands and corrupt the teachings of Islam.

An Egyptian news site has exciting new information about this fictional university:

     Recently, publications about the Islamic University in Tel Aviv have spread on social media, and some have praised the validity of that information, and others have attacked that information, and it has become oscillating between truth and rumor.

In this dialogue with Professor Dr. Said Askar, who specializes in Islamic studies in the hadith and its sciences at the Faculty of Fundamentals of Religion, Al-Azhar University, he revealed to us much about the validity of the existence of the Islamic University in Tel Aviv. 

Who joins Islamic University in Tel Aviv?  

 Only the Jews join it and those who study it are the Da’esh [ISIS] who claim their knowledge of the Islamic religion. 

What is the purpose of this university?

 The aim of it is to know the Islamic religion and its history and to search for loopholes, the aim of which is to question Muslims in their religion. And to study the conditions of Muslims in a systematic way so that they can know the weaknesses and strengths. This is what we find in some Hebrew newspapers and websites that speak of Quranic verses and hadiths and when they pretend to congratulate Muslims on holidays.

What is the benefit of distorting the Islamic religion? 

  The benefit is that they believe that the Islamic religion attacks Judaism and that they believe that they can respond to Muslims through religion. They can brainwash young people who join ISIS and create immoral principles of religion.

When was this university established?

  A long time ago, because it was the one who brought out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who served a lot in the Israeli Mossad, and before they executed him, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi admitted this.

 I would like to add to this that whoever leads Libya now is a graduate of that university... His militias and all leaders are Jews, and the evidence for that when some of them were arrested, they found their nationalities were Jewish.

From your point of view, Doctor, can the Arab world demand the demolition of this university because it is considered a source of terrorism?  

Of course, the whole world must intervene, but normalization has spread in some countries, and if they talk about the demolition of that university, it will be said that this is an internal matter in Israel that no one can control but Israel.

Why wasn't that university known before that we only heard about it at this time?  

Because it was secret in the beginning, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but after the fall of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and others, the matter began to appear completely and many talked about it.

The only person I can find with this name at Al Azhar University is in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

A small example of how academic Jewish studies has been taken over by anti-Zionist politics

Recently, Joshua Karlip wrote in Commentary about how Jewish studies in American academia have been taken over by a wokeism that marginalizes and denigrates Jews:

In December 2020, I participated in a Zoom panel at the annual Association for Jewish Studies Conference that discussed the state of the field of Jewish historiography over the past two decades. One participant noted that the first two decades of the 21st century have witnessed a rise in studies of the history of anti-Jewish violence. In response, I offered what I considered an innocuous explanation. Over the past two decades, I suggested, Jews have experienced an alarming rise in violent attacks. Between 2000 and 2005, the second intifada targeted the Jewish civilian population of Israel, leaving nearly 1,000 dead. Here in America, we have witnessed synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh and Poway, as well as a steady stream of attacks, some deadly, on Jews who “look” like Jews—Orthodox men.

This explanation did not sit well with a senior scholar in the audience. “What you said was exceedingly Jewishly focused,” she lectured me. She then went on to “enlighten” me that those who attack Jews are not primarily targeting Jews. Rather, the true targets of their hatred are African Americans. These hatemongers simply are angry at American Jews for promoting African-American rights. She ended her disquisition with a challenge. If I were really serious about fighting anti-Semitism, she told me, I would openly ally myself with Black Lives Matter.

His article is specifically about his field, Jewish historiography, but we've seen similar absurdities in other Jewish studies fields, as in an article last year in Religion Dispatches that accused anyone who wants to see Judaism survive of being racist. 

Or when 200 Jewish Studies academics last year signed a petition condemning Israel for defending itself from Hamas rockets and saying that Israel was engaged in "Jewish supremacy."

Or even recently, when the Association for Jewish Studies decided to stop accepting ads from Tablet magazine, because some members objected to some of Tablet's articles. The critics aren't even slightly ashamed at preferring woke politics over free speech, noting that  "much of the magazine’s content is focused on decrying liberal ​'wokeness'" - clearly a major crime in today's Jewish Studies cliques.

I saw a small example last week, when I tweeted, "If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite."

If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite. https://t.co/xAjJUmYR0b

— Elder of Ziyon 🇮🇱 (@elderofziyon) October 19, 2022

Zachary Braiterman, professor of Jewish Thought and Culture at Syracuse University, responded, "it's a show of force and deliberate provocation of Palestinians living in the Old City."

This struck me as bizarre, since the video showed no indication of any deliberate provocation. Arabs pass by the singing Jews without harm. The song being sung has nothing offensive. the dancing Jews looked exactly like dancing Jews going outside their shuls on Simchat Torah worldwide.

The conversation went like this:

EoZ: You are a professor of Jewish culture and you never heard of Jews dancing on Simchat Torah outside their synagogues???

ZB: i know what a rightwing show of force by radical rightwing religious nationalists in Israel looks like

EoZ: Funny, because it looks exactly like a Simchat Torah celebration in Teaneck or Boca to me.

Please, let us ordinary people know exactly what you see in this video that shows you are right. The song? The color of the Torahs? 

I await your expertise.

ZB: because the intention is a show of force over against Palestinian people under Israeli control

EoZ: No flags. No insults. No slogans. The Arabs can pass by without issue. No incitement. They are doing in the Old City exactly what Jews did everywhere else. If you think they do not have the right to do in Jerusalem what Jews do in America, that says something about you, not them.

ZB: you are omitting the entire political context of a military occupation and threats of dispossession in E. Jerusalem

EoZ: So according to you, Jews have the right to dance outside on Simchat Torah everywhere in the world - except for Jerusalem's Old City.  Even if they have NOTHING to do with Ben Gvir.

Do I have that right?

ZB: why not at the Kotel?

EoZ: Why not outside where they pray?

Braiterman insisted, three times, that the video showed Jews deliberately provoking Arabs, yet never offered any evidence outside the pompous "I know it when I see it."

In short, he sees religious Jews dancing and he assumes that they are bigots. He cannot even imagine that Jews dancing outside in Jerusalem are celebrating the holiday the way Jews do worldwide, and nothing more. 

He then attempted to claim that Jews who quietly visit the Temple Mount are also deliberately provoking Arabs: "the religious zionists regularly do not respect Arab residents of Jerusalem or the sanctity of Har Ha'Bayit." I responded that this was absurd, they show far more respect for the Temple Mount than Muslims do. But he has a consistent position - when Jews show a love of Jerusalem's holy places, he assumes that they are really trying to attack Muslims and Arabs. 

Braiterman throws all religious Zionist Jews into one bucket, pretending that they are all racists, all fans of Itamar Ben Gvir, all support attacking Arabs for no reason.  

Stereotyping isn't sober analysis. It is bigotry. 

I've prayed on the Temple Mount and would happily have joined the Simchat Torah dancing, and I am no fan of Itamar Ben Gvir. An Israeli friend told me "my guess would be that not only is it true that most religious Zionists oppose [Ben Gvir], but also most of his supporters are not religious Zionists." 

The professor is not an antisemite. No one who spends two years writing a post on the Sefat Emet would be. But throwing all religious Zionists in the same racist bucket is, in a small way, just as bigoted as throwing all Jews into the same bucket.

Jewish studies is in deep trouble. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Without evidence, Palestinians warn Jews want to build a synagogue in Qattanin Market

Lately, Palestinian media have been warning that Israel plans to convert the famous Qattanin (Cotton) market, adjacent to the Temple Mount, into a synagogue.

Apparently, Jews went to pray there during Sukkot and to avoid friction the Jerusalem authorities closed the stores in the market for several morning hours. (Arab media say that their lulavim and etrogim were "vegetable offerings.")

Different "experts" have come to the same conclusion, all without pointing to any evidence.

Palinfo says: "Al-Maqdisi researcher Radwan Amr said, in a press statement, that the occupation and settlement groups are working to transform the Qattanin Market into a roofed synagogue."

Felesteen says, "The occupation is trying to convert it into a synagogue, according to the head of the Jerusalem Committee against Judaization Nasser Al-Hidmi."

Masa News says, "The researcher in Jerusalem affairs, Fakhri Abu Diab, told Safa news agency that the occupation and the alleged temple groups are keeping their eyes on the Qattanin market, as it is the closest to Al-Aqsa Mosque and a main view of the Dome of the Rock."

Three different "experts" coming to the sane conclusion at the same time? It sounds like another orchestrated rumor meant to rile up Muslims. 

There is an inexhaustible supply of both rumors to incite against Jews and an inexhaustible appetite for such rumors. 

---

---

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!

 

Read More

10/22 Links: Yair Rosenberg: How to Learn About Jews From Jews, Rather Than the People Who Hate Them; Anne Bayefsky: The UN gives a master class in anti-Semitism

From Ian:

Yair Rosenberg: How to Learn About Jews From Jews, Rather Than the People Who Hate Them

Jews make up 2 percent of the American population, and just 0.2 percent of the world population. In practice, this means that most people have never met one. What the average person knows of Jews, they know from received cultural stereotypes, television, and the internet. The consequences of this are regularly evident in our public discourse, where ignorant and ill-intentioned ideas about Jews abound. That’s why this newsletter has spent the last three weeks covering anti-Semitism—from the Ivy League to Kanye West—and could easily continue doing so this week. But focusing on the negative ways that outsiders misrepresent Jews has the unfortunate effect of shrinking the Jewish experience to the hampered horizons of their haters. In actuality, Jews are a proud and diverse people who have thrived for millennia, and whose collective experience is far richer than simply surviving oppression. When we view Jewish existence through the lens of anti-Jewish prejudice, we lose the very elements of it that have enabled the tradition to repeatedly overcome efforts to stifle it.

So this week, instead of responding to the latest anti-Jewish outrage, I want to offer an eclectic introduction to Jews and Judaism through writings, art, and culture produced by Jews themselves. Of course, there is absolutely no way to reasonably reduce such a vast corpus into a single set of selections. My 10 brief recommendations here are meant to be suggestive, rather than comprehensive. You won’t find any “Intro to Judaism” books or yet another Holocaust movie, because you don’t need me to find those. Instead, my hope is to crack open a wider window into the Jewish experience than one can get through a cursory Google or Wikipedia search, and to introduce you to some of the texts and textures of Jewish life—a panoramic approach to a perennial people.

There are literally thousands of other things I could have included. If you’re Jewish, I’d love to hear from you about what would make your list. And if you’re not, I’d love to know what you’re curious about. Please send those ideas to deepshtetl@theatlantic.com, and hopefully we’ll dive into them in a future edition. Consider this the start of the conversation, not the end.

Anne Bayefsky: The UN gives a master class in anti-Semitism

Not mentioned: Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks, suicide bombings, incendiary kites, pipe bombs, small arms fire, arson, vehicular attacks, assaults, grenades, IEDs, sniper fire, anti-tank fire, anti-aircraft fire, kidnappings, stabbings, rape, torture, stoning and beheading.

In the only other throw-away line on Jewish victims, the report refers to the years 2000 to 2007 this way: “the Commission acknowledges the significant detrimental impact of armed attacks and security incidents.” “Detrimental impact” was how they described the Jews blown apart in the Palestinian suicide-bombing reign of terror. Not as a human rights violation.

The report ends with conclusions and recommendations that take the assault on human decency to the next level.

The inquisitors advocate that Israelis be hunted down, prosecuted and jailed for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC)—for the Nazi-like crimes of “persecution” and the “transfer of populations” (knowing full well that the latter meant transfer to the death camps).

On the other hand, they couldn’t name a single Palestinian crime worth prosecuting.

The list of recommendations is directed only at “the Government of Israel,” the ICC prosecutor, and various U.N. bodies and member states. And not one recommendation is made to Palestinian authorities.

And last but not least, Americans should be under no illusions that they are safe from this toxic international pogrom.

The report demands that the International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s “World Court,” be instrumentalized to manufacture duties “of third states” to chase after alleged criminal Israelis.

The final paragraph of this masterpiece of modern anti-Semitism announces just how far the spider is now casting the web. In kitchen-sink legalese, the inquiry demands that U.N. member states start “investigating and prosecuting persons suspected of committing or otherwise aiding and abetting or assisting in the commission or attempted commission of crimes.”

What crimes? Crimes in the eyes of the very men and women committing, aiding, abetting and assisting the criminal enterprise of destroying the Jewish state and decimating its inhabitants.

Pro-Israel advocates decry ‘one-sided’ apartheid panel at New York law conference

Pro-Israel advocates have decried a panel on apartheid law at a legal conference in New York this weekend as a “one-sided” assault against the Jewish state.

Saturday’s panel at the International Law Weekend conference, titled “Racism and the crime of apartheid in international law,” features several strident critics of Israel.

The talk is part of the American Branch of the International Law Association’s annual meeting at New York City’s Fordham University.

Among the panelists is Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine director of Human Rights Watch. Shakir and his organization have been vocal critics of Israel, and he was deported in 2019 for his alleged support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.

Close to 100 Jewish professionals and community leaders sent a letter to two prominent law firms sponsoring the conference urging them to withdraw from the event.

The apartheid law event “is slated to present a sharply one-sided, anti-Israel panel,” said the letter sent Thursday, while urging the firms to “separate your institutions from the egregiously biased event.”

“The panel was never intended to be a serious exploration of an unsettled area of law but was designed as an occasion to demonize the Jewish state,” added the letter, which was spearheaded by the advocacy group CAMERA.

The American Branch of the International Law Association, or ABILA, highlighted “the Israeli authorities’ systematic oppression of Palestinians” in an initial description of the event, along with Myanmar’s treatment of Rohingya Muslims and China’s persecution of the Uyghurs.

After ABILA came under criticism, the text was revised and all three references were removed. For balance, the group also added a speaker to the panel who is supportive of Israel, though the other four panelists have accused the country of apartheid or systematic oppression.

“It’s an insult to the intelligence of the public to suggest this late-hour change has created any semblance of balance,” the letter to the law firms said.

Read More

10/21 Links Pt2: Phillips: Antisemitism and Israel-bashing are one and the same; Hijacked: The Capture of America's Middle East Studies Centers

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Antisemitism and Israel-bashing are one and the same

Those trying to defend the Jewish people from the tsunami of Jew-hatred swamping the West often face an implacable refusal to acknowledge that anti-Israel or anti-Zionist attitudes are the modern iteration of antisemitism.

It's claimed instead that Israel's defenders are trying to silence criticism of what Israel does, just like any other country would be criticized.

But Israel isn't criticized like any other country. It is instead subjected to obsessive libels, double standards and scapegoating for crimes of which it is not only innocent but is in fact the victim – all unique characteristics of antisemitism.

This lethal myopia now stretches from Australia to a London theater.

Four years ago, a conservative Australian government announced that it recognized "West Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. This week, Australia's current Labor government reversed that decision – and declared that Israel's capital is Tel Aviv.

Despite the claims made to the contrary by foes and false friends alike, Israel is legally, historically and morally entitled to Jerusalem. What's more, the patent absurdity of declaring that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital was exceeded only by its arrogance.

A sovereign country decides for itself where to situate its capital. No one else can decide that its capital is actually another city altogether.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared that "the status of West Jerusalem should be resolved by peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians."

But it's eastern Jerusalem that's the source of controversy. No one has ever suggested that the rest of Jerusalem, which has been part of Israel since the creation of the state, is up for negotiation.

Jerusalem, which had a Jewish majority from the mid-19th century, is the ancient capital of the Jews' homeland and is central to Jewish belief. Albanese's comment made it absolutely clear that Australia has singled out Israel for an act of gratuitous aggression aimed at the very core of Israeli and Jewish identity.

In doing so, Albanese's policy has met the definition of antisemitism. Yet his party, like so much of the Western left, holds that anti-Israel or anti-Zionist attitudes are a legitimate political position. They associate antisemitism solely with ancient, exterminatory stereotypes of Jewish money, power and demonic blood-lust.

Yet the Palestinian cause they champion is based on precisely such stereotypes. So, they tie themselves into knots to maintain their support for the Palestinian cause while distancing themselves from its antisemitism.

The academic boycott folly

The boycotters of South Africa did not support democratic initiatives in that country, according to Hyslop. Similarly, the BDS movement has no interest in compelling the Palestinian Authority or Hamas to change their authoritarian ways; the focus is solely on demonizing Israel.

Another resemblance is found in virtue signaling. “The culture of the boycott produced an imagined South Africa that was a theater of morality,” Hyslop says. “But the problem was that, too often, the ostensible topic of South Africa simply became the occasion for a kind of parading of the foreign scholar’s moral virtue…When traveling abroad in the 1980s, I was struck by the way in which many keen supporters of the boycott were uninterested in discussing the details of what was happening in South Africa. South Africa was merely the occasion for them to play a heroic (in reality, mock-heroic) role on the stage of the theater of morality.”

Hyslop wrote, “I can honestly say that, throughout the 1980s, I did not talk to a single South African scholar or university employee whose political views had been changed in any way by the academic boycott.” He added, “the academic boycott had little in the way of visible achievement.”

“In many ways, postapartheid South Africa is an exemplary democratic polity,” Hyslop says. “It has reasonably free and fair elections….There is no censorship, and vigorous political debate can be found in the print media and on the radio….scholars can teach and publish more or less what they wish. Nobody gets arrested for their political views.”

On the other hand, he observes that supporters of the new South Africa “are reluctant to acknowledge the persisting inequality, the corruption, and the incipient authoritarianism of the postapartheid polity.”

Supporters of the Palestinians do not acknowledge the existing corruption and denial of human rights by Hamas and the P.A. While there is every reason to expect those characteristics to remain, it is hard to imagine a Palestinian state with any of the attributes of the “exemplary democratic polity” that emerged in South Africa.

It was not sanctions that brought about change in South Africa, Hyslop says. “The mass revolts inside South Africa were the chief force making for the eventual democratization.” The academic boycott “had no important political effect in undermining apartheid and…may have had a minor negative impact on postapartheid society.”

Hyslop also suggests the South African case should be a cautionary tale for the BDS crowd. “The politics of the boycott engendered a situation where academics approached the South African question primarily as moralists. In doing so, they largely abandoned the contribution they could have made as intellectuals to the creation of South African democracy. To this day, it damages their ability to engage with the country.”

New poll reveals far left’s embrace of anti-Semitic tropes

Four-fifths of self-identified “progressive” and “very liberal” likely voters in the U.S. believe Jewish Americans have “unfair advantages” that need to be addressed, according to a new poll conducted by the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV) and OneMessage Public Strategies, which revealed the American far left’s embrace of a series of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic tropes.

In the nationwide survey of 1,600 likely voters, 17% of progressives and 20% of very liberal respondents agree that American Jews have too much power, while 21% of progressives and 25% of very liberals say Jews “benefit from privilege.” Forty-five percent of progressive respondents view Israel as an “occupier/colonizer,” and 47% of progressives think Israel has too much power.

Additionally, 67% of progressives and 54% of very liberals report that they have “cancelled” a friend or family member due to their political views.

“This poll confirms some of the worst fears of the Jewish community—that a dogmatic commitment to critical theory and a social justice lens can contribute significantly to anti-Semitism,” said David Bernstein, CEO of JILV. “While the majority of Americans support freedom of speech, oppose hyper-partisanship and support traditional liberal values, the far left continues to view politics as a zero-sum game—dividing the world into ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed,’ and willing to expel those they disagree with from their social circle—and the results aren’t good for Jews.”

Read More

Elder Comix: When the Left realizes that they hate most Jews

Inspired by this.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

10/21 Links Pt1: Lapid: UN's CIO report is antisemitic and written by antisemites; Iran testing drones on Ukrainian civilians for future use on Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Yair Lapid, Authoritarian and Unafraid

Under Israel’s constitutional law Basic Law – Referendums, to come into force all international agreements that involve the concession of sovereign territory require the approval of two-thirds of the Knesset or must pass in a public referendum. Since Lapid’s deal involves the concession of Israel’s territorial waters, under both the spirit and letter of the law, Lapid is supposed to submit the deal to the Knesset for two-thirds approval. In the event, Lapid tried to avoid even presenting the agreement to the Knesset for review. Although Attorney General Gali Miara Baharav issued an opinion that the agreement doesn’t need to be considered under the Basic Law – Referendums (for reasons that aren’t clear), she still insisted that the Knesset must approve the deal by a simple majority.

Lapid, for his part, doesn’t care what his attorney general thinks or what the law says. In response to a reporter’s question at the press conference, Lapid explained how he justifies his decision to act in clear contempt of the law and his attorney general and suffice with government approval of his radical deal with Hezbollah’s stand-in government in Beirut.

As he put it, “In light of the opposition’s unrestrained behavior, we have decided not to bring the agreement before the Knesset for a vote.”

That is, given that his political opponents oppose a gas deal that cedes Israeli territory and natural resources to its sworn enemy, under the gun, and just weeks before a national election, Lapid has decided that the Knesset is unworthy of the honor of approving his deal.

Several commentators have noted that Lapid’s statement demonstrated a contempt for his opposition. But the real problem with his statement, and the sentiment it expressed, is that it demonstrated an utter contempt for the most basic institution in Israel’s parliamentary democracy—the parliament, and for democratic norms.

Probably the worst thing about Lapid’s anti-democratic behavior is that his supportive press is letting him get away with it. While the CEC made Yesh Atid pay Channel 14’s legal costs, it didn’t require Lapid’s party to reimburse the television station for the fortune it paid to run a public campaign against Lapid’s efforts to shutter it. Channel 14 felt compelled to launch its campaign because for the most part, it received no support from its counterparts in the progressive, Lapid-supporting media. Israel Hayom, which changed its editorial line to support the Bennett-Lapid government was the only newspaper to express opposition to Lapid’s campaign against Channel 14. And it did it in a house ad, on page 20 of the paper. With the exception of two or three journalists on the right that broadcast for the other stations, Channel 14’s competitors either said nothing, or expressed support for Lapid’s effort to shut it down.

As for the deal with Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, most of the media coverage has played down Lapid’s apparent breach of a Basic Law to ram his deal through on the eve of elections. Opposition to the deal has been painted in partisan colors, effecting the sense that the controversy over an agreement which requires Israel to make massive concessions in response to Hezbollah threats is nothing but electioneering.

It is impossible to know how the elections will pan out. There are always last-minute surprises. Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc is consistently polling between 59-62 seats, which makes it far from certain that Netanyahu will be able to form a coalition without making a deal with members of Lapid’s left-Arab bloc. But Lapid’s behavior since taking over the caretaker government makes one thing clear. If he forms the next government, the foundations of Israel’s democratic system and the basic freedoms that citizens of a free society expect, including freedom of the press and representative government, will be imperiled.

David Singer: Roth confounds UN, USA & Australia: Two-State solution “is gone” Kenneth Roth – recently retired Executive Director of Human Rights Watch – has undermined the continuation of the policy espoused by the UN, USA and Australia for the last 20 years supporting the the creation of a new Palestinian Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history (two-state solution).

Addressing a recent discussion hosted by the Washington-based think-tank - Arab Center - Roth declared:
“The two-state solution is great but it's gone”

Roth’s bombshell admission was followed by this statement made by Hady Amr - US deputy assistant secretary for Israeli and Palestinian affairs:

"We remain committed to rebuilding our bilateral relationship with the Palestinian people, with the US president's goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,"

In reversing Australia’s decision to recognise western Jerusalem, later revoked, as the capital of Israel – Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said:
“Australia is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. We will not support an approach that undermines this prospect.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been repeating a similar mantra since 2017:

“A two-state solution that will end the occupation and, with the creation of conditions, also the suffering even to the Palestinian people, is in my opinion the only way to guarantee that peace is established and, at the same time, that two states can live together in security and in mutual recognition,”

This blinkered approach by the UN, USA and Australia has seen each of them refusing to acknowledge – let alone discuss – the merits of a new alternative solution emanating from Saudi Arabia in June : Shredding the failed two-state solution and calling for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of the 'West Bank' into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine whose capital will be Amman – not Jerusalem (Saudi Solution).

Read More

Jordan freaks out over Dutch diplomat's minor rebuke of press freedoms in the kingdom

The Dutch ambassador to Jordan tweeted, "Pleasure meeting HE Minister of Media AlShubol. An opportunity to discuss issues of common concern, including the media scene in Jordan. Stressed our strong bilateral relationship, and I shared our concerns on Jordan’s declining international ranking on freedom of speech. Netherlands ready for cooperation."

Jordan ranks 129th out of 180 nations in press freedom, and as I have noted often, even though it has control over the media it allows virulently antisemitic material to be published daily. 

Jordan and Jordanians are very unhappy at this very mild rebuke.

Jordan's government has criticised the Dutch ambassador to Amman after he made comments about media freedom in the kingdom.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said that Harry Verweij had weighed into domestic affairs during a courtesy meeting with a senior official.

His comments included the licensing of a local radio station and who ran it, according to the ministry, which did not elaborate further.

The ambassador's actions were “incomprehensible” according to a statement.

"Jordan is always open to frank dialogue that approaches all issues with all partners and friendly countries through diplomatic channels and direct contact, in accordance with diplomatic norms, but that it does not accept interference in its internal affairs," a statement on the Petra news agency said.

The responses on Twitter are no less strident:

I reject any interference by you in Jordan's internal affairs.

You must respect your position and shut your mouth Our internal affairs are none of your business.

This is a blatant interference in the affairs of our country and we do not allow you. You have to respect the sovereignty of this country. And not to interfere in his affairs

I advise you to go back to Holland, you need to collect a lot of firewood this winter because of the Russian war. This is none of your business.

Unacceptable intervention in our country's  business. Read your job description again and stick to it..

Our freedom of speech is our concern, and its not yours whatsoever.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of others..

I wonder if this robust defense of Jordan from criticism and outside interference applies to Israel 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!

 

Read More

The UN Commission of Inquiry's footnotes betray how they lie

It happens again and again. A major institution, whether the UN, Amnesty or HRW, issues a report that asserts what it considers facts, it refers to a footnoted publication, and the footnote proves that they are lying.

Here is an example from the latest UN Commission of Inquiry report. It finds that Israel's "occupation" is unlawful under international law.  It says:

The occupation of territory in wartime is, under international humanitarian law, a temporary situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty. Occupation as a result of war cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory.

The footnote to this points to the  International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), commentary of 1958 on article 47 of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The wording of that commentary makes it clear that Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" which is the linchpin of the entire argument.

It says:

This provision of the Hague Regulations is not applicable only to the inhabitants of the occupied territory; it also protects the separate existence of the State, its institutions and its laws. ...As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4, the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty.

What state is Israel occupying? If there was no state there, there is no occupation. The UN report's own footnote betrays that the assumptions behind the entire report itself is false.

The commentary emphasizes that the purpose of the Convention is to protect the people, not the State. Israel agrees with this and its High Court rulings have always upheld the humanitarian aspects of the Geneva Conventions even without the existence of a Palestinian state in the territories it controls. 

However, the text itself makes it clear that there is no occupation if there is no previously existing State that had legal title to the land - and there wasn't one. It sure isn't Jordan, whose annexation of the West Bank was illegal by virtually every yardstick. It cannot be the "State of Palestine" because we are told - by the UN - that the territories have been occupied since 1967 and no one claims that the "State of Palestine" existed before 1988 at the earliest. 

I have yet to find an international law expert say the exact date that "occupied territories" of 1967 became "occupied Palestinian territories." But the UN retroactively says that the territories that Israel won in a defensive war have been "Palestinian" since 1967 - they even have had a "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."

Israel also has the absolute right to protect its own soldiers and citizens from harm that comes from the territories, under the same Geneva Conventions. As always at the UN and with other modern antisemites, a question of competing rights is being treated as if only one side has human rights, and they assume that Jews simply do not have such rights.

The UN's fast and loose definition of "occupation" is made clear in footnote 10:

For the purposes of the present report, “the territories that Israel occupies” and equivalent terms are a reference to East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan, Gaza and the West Bank outside East Jerusalem. 

Israel doesn't occupy Gaza by any definition of the term that existed in any legal manual or article before Israel's withdrawal from the territory in 2005. Those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza without having a single soldier there have literally made up a new definition of occupation to apply to Israel only. Essentially, the UN is admitting - not for the first time - that it doesn't care about the legal definition of occupation to begin with; it applies the label to Israel without any regard to what it means. 

Which is this entire report in a nutshell. If Israel is not occupying "Palestinian territory" under the legal definition of occupation then there is no "occupation" that can be declared illegal. The UN decided to make the declaration of illegality first, and tried to justify it afterwards, all while pretending to give an impartial legal analysis.

---

---

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!

 

Read More

Palestinian kids want to emulate a terrorist's death

This video showing the death of terrorist Uday al-Tamimi, who killed IDF soldier Noa Lazar, has gone viral on Palestinian social media, making him into a hero as he keeps shooting before being finally killed.

Yes, he's dead, but Palestinians are proud that he managed to evade Israeli intelligence for ten days. Tamimi himself left a will where he hoped that he would be an inspiration for hundreds of young people to take up guns in copying him.

Sure enough, his death is being re-enacted by Palestinian kids:

Toy guns today, real guns tomorrow - thanks to a culture of glorifying terror, death and "martyrdom."

(h/t Abu Ali Express)

---

---

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!

 

Read More

10/20 Links Pt2: For Israel’s 75th Birthday, Hollywood Should Raise a Toast; Shapiro says Kanye West is spouting anti-Semitism that resembles Nazi propaganda

From Ian:

Gil Troy: For Israel’s 75th Birthday, Hollywood Should Raise a Toast

Now that the High Holy Days are over, let’s start planning what should be the most hyped holiday of this year: Israel’s 75th birthday. Although Israel was founded on May 14, 1948, its diamond jubilee celebration will be, by the Hebrew calendar, on April 26, 2023, 189 days from today. Although only six months remain to figure out how to celebrate the greatest modern Jewish miracle, few Jewish organizations or Israeli leaders seem to have noticed or started planning.

Last May, I tried triggering some brainstorming about how to celebrate this culmination of the arc of Zionist triumph: starting last August with the Zionist Congress’s 125th anniversary, building through this November 29, with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations’ 1947 recognition of Israel and culminating with Israel’s 75th birthday. Celebrating those three moments toasts the idea of a Jewish state, the world’s recognition of that idea and Israel’s realization of that noble, liberating idea.

As the date approaches, I become more dismayed by the organizational and political torpor, and as anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks metastasize, it’s clear that we need our friends in Hollywood to help make this moment.

The war against Israel and the Jewish people is now a cultural war. When there is so much hatred against what Israel is, not just what Israel does, when bash-Israel-first has become an instinctive posture, an obsessive pursuit and a shorthand for proving yourself to others, the battleground must shift. I still advocate the Zionist salons, Israeli historical exhibitions, Diamond Jubilee Presidential medals, Zionized haggadot and ice-cream-for-breakfast-eating initiatives I championed last spring.

But in our wired world, where American adults average 11 hours of interacting with media daily and four and a half of those hours being entertained, the pro-Israel entertainment community must mobilize. It may be wise, as in baseball to hit ‘em where they ain’t, in celebrating Israel. We’ve got to reach them where they are.

In that spirit, I offer two suggestions modeled on two successful initiatives. We need 75 Israel jubilee minutes in Hebrew, English, French, and Spanish, modeled on America’s Bicentennial Minutes and the Charles R. Bronfman Foundation’s (CRB) Canadian Heritage Moments. These Israeli history snippets should culminate in a big, brassy, schmaltzy celebration of Israel, modeled on the Saturday Night Seder thrown together in two weeks during 2020’s COVID lockdown, which attracted over a million viewers when streamed on its own website and on YouTube that Passover.

Demand for probe into BBC coverage of Jews and Israel

The JC is launching a public online petition today demanding a parliamentary inquiry into the BBC’s coverage of Jews and Israel.

The move comes after a string of controversial stories by the BBC caused concern in the Jewish community — followed by BBC responses that only deepened that concern.

This week, the BBC admitted unfairly criticising Israel in a report on the beheading of a gay Palestinian by other Palestinians. And six weeks ago, an open letter to BBC Director-General Tim Davie demanding impartiality on Jewish issues was ignored.

Delivered in September, the landmark letter was signed by politicians from both Labour and the Conservatives, from both houses of Parliament, with Jewish groups and public figures.

It also requested the corporation to stop repeatedly hosting Abdel Bari Atwan, an Islamist pundit who has frequently praised terrorism.

Its 36 signatories included former Tory leader Lord (Michael) Howard, the government’s former terror czar Lord (Alex) Carlile and former BBC governor Baroness (Ruth) Deech, as well as historians Simon Sebag Montefiore and the newly-ennobled Andrew Roberts and playwright Steven Berkoff.

“We urge you urgently to take cogent and coherent steps to rectify this worrying trend across your platforms as a matter of the utmost urgency, and look forward to your swift confirmation that this is being done,” the message said.

But the BBC has not replied. At the beginning of September, a BBC spokesperson told the JC: “We’ll get something to you in due course.” There has been no further communication.

It followed the BBC’s contested coverage of an attack on Jewish youngsters on Oxford Street last Chanukah, which reported as fact the disputed allegation that the victims had used a racial slur. The BBC’s reaction to complaints triggered an ongoing probe by Ofcom.

£30,000 reward offered to catch Oxford Street attackers

Jewish groups in Britain are offering a reward of £30,000 (nearly $34,000) to find those responsible for an attack on a busload of Jewish teenagers in Central London during Chanukah last year.

The move comes after the Metropolitan Police Service closed its investigation without identifying any suspects.

The young passengers, a Chabad group of British Jews and Israelis from northwest London, were on the bus on Oxford Street during holiday celebrations in November 2021 when a group of Arab men began yelling and banging on the vehicles. As video of the incident showed, the men even tried breaking the windows and gave a Nazi salute.

No one was injured in the attack and police began an investigation, calling the incident a hate crime.

In a statement given to the Jewish News in the U.K. earlier this month, the Metropolitan Police said they had received tips as to who the assailants were, however, “the only names provided in response to those appeals have been eliminated from our inquiries. The identity of those involved is still unknown. A decision was taken in July to close the case.

“Hate crime of any kind is unacceptable,” the police said in the statement. “Should new information come to light that provides a realistic line of inquiry, we will of course be willing to carry out further investigation.”

Read More