Is Anti-Zionism to be Considered Anti-Semitism?

Anti-semitism is the hate of Jews for being Jews.

Being Jewish includes the belief that the Land of Israel is the covenanted homeland of the Jewish nation.

It is the land where the nation, as a federation of the Twelve Tribes, settled in under the leadership of Joshua after Moshe brought the Israelites out of Egypt back into the land of the Forefathers.

It is the land in which the Monarchy ruled.

It is the land which first withstood and then was defeated when the Assyrian Empire invaded.

It is the land which revolted against the Greek-Selecuid occupiers.

The land that stood up to the Roman occupiers.

The land in which the entire ancient religious and cultural heritage of the Jewish People, in its unique Hebrew language, was formulated and fashioned.

The land to which Jews constantly and continually returned over the 18 centuries of foreign rule including the Byzantines, the Persians, the Muslim Arabs, the Crusaders, the Mamlukes, Ottomans, British and Jordanians and the loss of political indendence.

It is the land where the Two Temples stood and served as sacred sites of worship.

It is the land in which special commandments can be exclusively fulfilled and no where else.

It is the land that, ever since Talmudic times of the second Babylonian exile, Jews  felt obligated to support those living in it, especially the scholars, sending charity funds from across 70 countries of the Diaspora.

It is the land towards which Jews pray, no matter wher they may be - north, south, east, west.

It is the land mentioned in our daily prayers, our Shabbat and Festival prayers, in the Passover Haggada, Tisha B'Av elegies and more.

Anyone who seeks to sever the connection between Jews and the Land of Israel, anyone who claims there is no Torah-based directive to return to it and reside in it and make it bloom, who declares him or herself an anti-Zionist, is being anti-Jewish.

They may love Jews but to dislike and disregard the Land of Israel, ideologically, economcially, politically or security-wise, to reject the right of the Jews to establish a state in their historic homeland, is being anti-semitic.

^

The Anti-Semitism of Degas

From A Compulsive Perfectionist by Colin B. Bailey

The most dramatic—and saddest—aspect of Degas in the 1890s relates to his increasingly outspoken anti- Semitism and his reaction to the efforts to rehabilitate Captain Albert Dreyfus, who had been found guilty of espionage in December 1894 and sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island.8 

As evidence tending to exonerate Dreyfus and implicate the highest echelons of the French military came to light in 1897, Degas’s relations with the Halévy family became more and more fraught. The Halévys’ elder son, Élie, noted in November 1897, “I have a Jewish name, even though I am Protestant.” (Degas also harbored an irrational dislike of Protestants.) The Halévys associated with journalists and intellectuals committed to proving (and publicizing) Dreyfus’s innocence. At their Thursday dinner on November 25, 1897, the day on which Le Figaro published Émile Zola’s first article in support of Dreyfus, Ludovic expressly forbade any discussion of the topic (“Papa was very annoyed, Degas very anti- Semitic”). Although no one knew it at the time, the last family dinner that Degas attended at the Halévys took place on January 13, 1898, the day on which Zola’s “J’accuse” appeared on the front page of L’Aurore. Their ebullient younger guests, whose company Degas usually relished, offended him with their pro- Dreyfusard opinions. He canceled the following week’s dinner on the day itself, writing to Louise:

You will have to excuse me tonight, and I would rather tell you right away that I am asking you to do so for some time. You could not have thought that I would have the heart to continue being cheerful and entertaining. The time for laughter is over. You kindly introduced me to these young people, but I constrain them and they are unbearable to me. Let me remain in my corner. I’ll be happy there. There are many good moments to remember.

The decision must not have been easy for Degas to take. Unaware of this crisis, on the evening of January 20 nineteen- year- old Julie Manet— another anti- Dreyfusard who would contribute funds to La Libre Parole for the repatriation of Jews to Jerusalem— went to Degas’s apartment to invite him to dinner. “We found him so worked up into such a terrible state against the Jews,” she noted in her diary, “that we left without asking him anything at all.” “To live alone, without any family, it is really too hard,” he had confided to Madame Giuseppe De Nittis in May 1877. In his rupture with the Halévys, Degas administered a selfinflicted wound.

...Degas, who initially appeared to Kessler like “an elegant grandfather . . . an apostle, untouched by the world,” became agitated when conversation turned to the Bernheim family, who dealt in his work. Referring to the father, Alexandre, who had established the business, Degas exclaimed, “How can one chat with people like that? Let’s see, with a Jewish Belgian who is a naturalized Frenchman! It’s as if one wished to speak with a hyena, a boa. Such people do not belong to the same humanity as us.”

Kessler recorded that Degas’s most deranged invective was reserved for compulsory education: 

“It’s the Jews and the Protestants who do that” [Degas said] . . .Degas became completely angry, thundering against the popularization of art and the unrestrained increase in  exhibitions, pictures, and artists...?

Amused and horrified in equal measure, Kessler left the dinner concluding that the artist was “a deranged and maniacal innocent.”

8 For what remains the best introduction, see Linda Nochlin, “Degas and the Dreyfus Affair: A Portrait of the Artist as an Anti- Semite,” in The Dreyfus Affair: Art, Truth, and Justice, edited by Norman L. Kleeblatt (University of California Press, 1987). Degas was joined by Renoir (and to a lesser degree Cézanne) in their at times violent anti- Dreyfusard positions; Monet  and Pissarro were ardent supporters of Dreyfus’s cause. Degas and Renoir both broke with Pissarro over the Dreyfus Affair.

^

What Has a Map of the Khazar Empire to Do with "Palestine"?

If you visit this site, you'll observe a list of maps of Palestine.

And at the bottom you can see one of the Khazarian Empire:

Background:

In 1976, Arthur Koestler...in The Thirteenth Tribe, argued that most Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars, a Central Asian people who ruled a large kingdom on the Black Sea and apparently converted to Judaism in the 8th century. This hypothesis has been taken up more recently by Shlomo Sand in a book called The Invention of the Jewish People. Koestler, one of the oddest and most extraordinary public intellectuals of the 20th century, wanted to weaken anti-Semitism by demonstrating that many Jews weren’t Semites at all. Sand, a self-avowed post-Zionist who teaches at Tel Aviv University, is apparently driven by the desire to prove that Ashkenazi Israelis are interlopers in the Middle East. 

An anti-Semitic canard, it has been going through yet another revival.

Al Jazeera and many other Arabs believe it as it would justify their claim of European Jews being a foreign entity as it is for Russian nationalists, a:

pretext for arguing that Jewish intrigues and dominance were to be found from the very beginning of Russian history. In this context the term “Khazars” became popular as a euphemism for the so-called “Jewish occupation regime.”

That's why you will read of pro-Palestine propagandists demanding Jews of Israel 'go back to Europe'. 

^

Shame on the NYTimes Publishing an Anti-Semitic Letter

In Friday's paper, reacting to President Donald Trump's Executive Order [EO], this letter was published:

To the Editor:
Re “Trump’s Order Protects Jews,” by Jared Kushner (Op-Ed, Dec. 12), about an executive order to withhold federal money from colleges that don’t fight bias against Jewish students:

Attacks on Jews in this country and throughout the world are very troubling. Everyone with even a meager knowledge of history is well aware of the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust. Also troubling are the attacks on Muslims, people of color and those who are not heterosexual.
Mr. Kushner’s father-in-law, Donald Trump, and members of the administration are largely to blame for the rise of violence and discrimination against the “other” here in this country, including Jews.

I would be more apt to support the president’s executive order if I weren’t overwhelmingly disgusted by the overt racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism displayed by this president and his supporters over the last three years. It is the president who has engaged in divisive, dangerous rhetoric, fueling the flames of white supremacy and anti-Jewish sentiment.

Instead of seeking fair treatment of all residents of this country, this president has decided to win over the Jewish vote through this transparent ploy.

Jane Carlin
Stamford, Conn.

The EO simply applies, in an equalizing fashion, the terms of the law as it has applied to other minorities. In other words, it removes any discrimination against Jews as regards protection from hate crimes they otherwise previously did not have. We Jews, and the students on campuses, surely do need that equality factor.

Moreover, the reason for that is not Trump. To blame him for radical Muslim students, their extremist progressive allies and, unfortunately, the neo-Bundist Jewish Diaspora supremacists attacking verbally and physical with threats of harm as well as harm caused by prejudiced lecturers and university administrators, is anti-Semitic.  It is, again, blaming the victim.

Shame on the NYTimes.

^

The New York Times Goes Cockamamie

Only in the New York Times would one find such a cockamamie* defense of anti-Semitism

...critics have complained that such a policy could be used to stifle free speech and legitimate opposition to Israel’s policies toward Palestinians in the name of fighting anti-Semitism++. The definition of anti-Semitism to be used in the order, which matches the one used by the State Department, has been criticized as too open-ended and sweeping.  For instance, it describes as anti-Semitic “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” and offers as an example of such behavior “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

If that isn't wacky enough, this follows:

opponents of the definition fear that it could be used to declare any defense of Palestinian autonomy to be anti-Semitic, with federal education funding as a cudgel.

Autonomy is granted by the sovereign power within its own territory.  By agreement. So campaigning for autonomy cannot be anti-Semitic as all it is is a political arrangement that does not deny Jewish nationality.

I am presuming that radical Jewish anti-Zionists are at work here, supplying the NYT with nonsensical reasoning. I need be careful here as anti-Semitism is actually non-sensical itself which could lead to all sorts of misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

The order, once signed, is to protect Jews and also non-Jews who seek to defend Israel on campuses without being threatened with actual violence, their events shut down, their dorm rooms targeted by fellow students, off-campus activists as well as by their own lecturers and administration officials.


UPDATE

Read Joel Pollock on another NYT cockup in reporting on Donald Trump's Executive Order.

++  What is happening is that free speech and legitimate opposition to Arab terror, incitement, defense of Zionism & Israel, etc. is being stifled by Arabs and their fellow-travelers. That is the horrific situation on campuses and what the EO will combat.

The order, I understand, prohibits discrimination based on "perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics".
In other words, the crime is what the anti-Semite presumes, not necessarily what Jews think of themselves.

SECOND UPDATE

Initial reporting indicated that the order would include language defining Judaism as a “national origin,” setting off a frenzy among major Jewish organizations, activists and lawmakers. The draft text of the order obtained by JI makes no such reference.

Of note: There is no mention of Israel in the text of the executive order draft shared with JI. However, IHRA includes as contemporary examples of antisemitism the accusation of dual loyalty, using symbols associated with antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” IHRA also notes in its working definition that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

______________


*  cockamamie


^

The Anti-Anti-Semitism Professor

A Hofstra professor of Teaching, Learning and Technology and the director of social studies education programs, Alan Singer, thinks

Not everything is anti-Semitism

Well, "thinks" might be inappropriate. He promotes an idea that while there is anti-Semitism, there are different approaches to solving it.

For example, the recent violence in New York he sees this way

Urban tension in gentrifying communities where racial and ethnic minorities are being displaced by gentrification and in Brooklyn, New York, by an expanding orthodox religious group has led to anti-Semitic slurs and physical assaults on religious Jews, but they are not an attack on Judaism as a religion and on the Jewish people as a whole. This behavior can best be addressed by building an inclusive community.

"As a whole"?  Does he mean the attacks are actually targeting specific Jews?

Of course not. All Jews are targets for this form of hatred. 

Singer is with Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist pro-Palestine group (see this). And that sheds some light on his approach to anti-Semitism. It's a form of what I see as "it's the Jews' fault and therefore, Jews are obligated to solve it by being less Jewish".

For example, he wrote in his Hofstra piece:

Distinguishing between bias and racism or anti-Semitism makes it possible to have thoughtful and respectful discussions and societal debates on difficult issues without automatically putting people on the defensive.

This may sound logical to some but it is based on a purposeful misrepresentation. Bias directed at Jews because they are Jews is anti-Semitism. Yes, Jews can be, and are, guilty of various wrongdoings but to create a distinct category of "bias" when Jews, and especially Jews who appear Jewish, like Hasidim in Brooklyn, are being attacked for things they have not done, is anti-Semitism and no amount of debates or inclusivity will set right.

He further pooh-poohs anti-Semitic behavior by academic staff at his university be referring to it as "microaggressions" thus exhibiting his own anti-anti-Semitism mode.

He goes further with a form of goody-goodiness penning this drivelous wisdom:

As a teacher, I distinguish between bias and racism or anti-Semitism. Everyone has biases. They are products of culture, what we are taught and our understanding of experiences. But everyone does not act on biases to restrict or hurt other people. 

If he would only act, think and write as a Jew.

^ 

Anti-Semitism in UK Parliamnet

No, not today.

July 31, 1946.

Here is MP Richard Crossman commenting in the debate following the King David explosion:

May I turn to General Barker?(*)                                                                              I am not so much concerned with him as with anti-Semitism. I was a little shocked at the roars of applause on the Benches opposite when the right hon. Member for West Bristol defended General Barker from the point of view that there was a great strain in Palestine, and that little errors of tact must be explained or excused. When one's troops are doing a military operation against the Jewish people, the danger of anti-Semitism is extraordinarily high. The natural instinct is to dislike the race or people one is1014fighting. There is an inclination rather to have it out with the Jewish community than to limit one's hatred to terrorism. This is a natural inclination, and it is all-important that the men at the top should give no sign of countenance, by word or praise, to support anti-Semitism. They should not officially give those under their command the feeling that it will not be ruthlessly penalised.

We are living in a strange world. I spent 120 days meeting and talking with Jews and others in Palestine, and elsewhere. I became aware of the deep unconscious anti-Semitism which there is in us, a virus, a poison which has been put into us by Hitler. I became more aware of it last Monday, when I listened to a moving Debate on Germany, in which I heard hon. Members advocating that Habeas Corpus must be given back to S.S. men; that it was impossible, as two hon. Members said, to indict a whole people. One even said that to indict an organisation was impossible. One Member said, "After all, liberty means liberty to be a Nazi." Those are sound sentiments. But I thought it a monstrous irony that a year after the war has finished hon. Members are making speeches forgiving the nation which killed six million Jews and pleading from all sides of the House that we should be fair to the Germans at a moment when they are condoning the removal of Habeas Corpus altogether in Palestine. There has not been a right to Habeas Corpus for any Jew or Arab in Palestine since the emergency regulations were introduced. They have been living under a more ruthless form of dictatorship in Palestine than the people living in the control division of Germany or Austria.

(*)

and here

The Arab of Palestine Transformed into A Jew

I have become convinced that rational and logical political thought and discourse is nigh useless when engaging the new generation of non- or anti-Zionists who disguise their discomfort and uneasiness at being too overly identified with Israel, Jewish particularism even of a secular cultural character and the responsibilities the Jewish state must assume in order to protect its existence and preserve the security of its citizens which means, foremost of all, the use of power and deadly force, if required.

The frustration at discovering that they do not know history or historical development, the simple facts nor do they care that how those are manipulated and misrepresented is confounding.  They publicize themselves as cerebral and intellectual but it appears they know they cannot truly argue the issues and mostly ignore interaction with opposing viewpoints.

Or, they go off on weird tangents, like baking a Vegan Anti-Zionist Sweet Potato Challah together with a statement of how one is to educate children:

JVP's September 2017 manifesto is quite clear:

As young Jews, we recognize that Israel is not our birthright. 

One could be forgiven for thinking, well, maybe Israel is not their birthright because their Judaism is lacking all its many levels of culture, history, religion and national identity.  Redefine Judaism and it can become anything.  Ask the Bundists, the American Council for Judaism, Satmar or the pre-1930s Reform Movement or the pre-1950s American Jewish Committee.

And so, to free themselves from these encumbrances, to become fashionably "liberated", these youth reverse and twist reality and create the "Arab Palestinian-cum-Jew".

They point an accusing finger at Israel, removing themselves from the matrix, distancing themselves from being seen as an "Israeli" or "Israeli supporter", and apply to the Arabs referred to as "Palestinians" the framework of being the "Jew". Awkwardly, they then can promote themselves as pro-Semites.

Israel is the "Jew-hater". Israel aligns itself with anti-Semites (Hungary; Trump).

It is as simple as it is simplistic.

^

Mahmoud Abbas and the Caricature

Mahmoud Abbas is hospitalized.

But he reads the daily press.

Here he is reading Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda of yesterday:

Let's take a closer look at the caricature on the back page of yesterday's newspaper:

A real close look:

We all know what type of ideological hatred produces such images.

When he dies, I surely hope no Jew will say kaddish for him.

_______________

Seems Abbas might have done that pose deliberately.

^

Iran Lied? Abbas Lies!

I just saw that Abbas apologized for his antisemitism.

Here:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has walked back on comments he made that accused Israeli rabbis of calling for the poisoning of Palestinian water wells. He apologized for offending Jewish people around the world with a classic anti-Semitic trope During a speech he made Thursday at the European Parliament in Brussels, Abbas said: “Only a week ago, a number of rabbis in Israel announced, and made a clear announcement, demanding that their government poison the water to kill the Palestinians. Isn't that clear incitement to commit mass killings against the Palestinian people?”

Oh, sorry, that was from 2016.

Here, from today:

Abbas Apologizes to 'Jewish People' for Offensive Comments, 

Condemning Holocaust and anti-Semitism

And he adds the "if" trick, meaning who would be offended?

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

Iran Lied?

Abbas Lies!

Credit

________

UPDATE

And Abbas is re-elected as PLO head.

Well, that's a resounding "we-don't-give-a-_ _ _ _-".


UPDATE

[Abbas'] remarks are not just a reflection of his personal opinion but rather the Palestinian belief system. They constitute the basis of the false Palestinian narrative that holds there is no such thing as the Jewish people. The Jews are merely a religious group and as a result, they have no right to a nation state. In a statement following the outcry over his remarks, Abbas apologized not to the Jewish people but "members of the Jewish religion." The Jews have no historical connection to Palestine and there is therefore no basis for their demand for a return to Palestine. As the descendants of the Canaanites, the Palestinians are the only indigenous people here. The Jews are intolerable beings, which is why the Europeans created Zionism in a bid to both rid themselves of the Jews and defend against the strengthening of the Arab nations and Islam.

^

Tamika Mallory and Her Use of "Rejection"

Tamika Mallory seems to me to be skimming anti-Semitism writing, during her trip here in Israel:

"The story of [Jesus'] birth represents so much. As black Christians the rejection is particularly familiar." 

She and a "JusticeDelegation" were also

briefed by @GrassrootsJlem on Israeli land confiscation, settlements and other discriminatory policies towards Palestinian Jerusalemites

To get back to that use of "rejection", What/Whose "rejection"? 

By Jewish landlords so the parents couldn't have nice accommodations?

By Jewish religious leaders who didn't think Jesus was the Son of God?

Here she is at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre:

I wonder, is she seeking solutions for peace?

P.S. Tamika, why not convince Arabs-called-Palestinians to reject their policy of  rejectionism and Mahmoud Abbas' anti-Semitism?


^

Abbas - Jew Hater

The anti-Semite is at it again.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Monday that Jews in Europe were exposed to pogroms not because of their religion, but because of their social role and financial matters.

Speaking during the National Palestinian Council in Ramallah, Abbas attributed the claim to Jewish scholars and said that factually, "such pogroms did not take place in Arab nations, which had Jewish communities."

So, the charge of 'Christ killers' was not a factor? Matthew?

St John Chrysostom made the charge of deicide the cornerstone of his theology

As for pogroms, besides those in the 1940s and much much earlier, let's go back to Muhammed.

Let's not forget the dhimmi status.  Forced conversions and other persecutory actions.

This is a peace partner?

____________________

UPDATE

Even the EU is upset:

The speech Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivered on 30 April contained unacceptable remarks concerning the origins of the Holocaust and Israel's legitimacy. Such rhetoric will only play into the hands of those who do not want a two-state solution, which President Abbas has repeatedly advocated.

^

The LRB Has Not Yet Published This Letter

The following letter was sent for publication to the London Review of Books on January 14.

Despite being "considered for publication", it has not yet appeared.

"Neve Gordon, upset that anti-Semitism, in his estimation, has been 'inverted' in that "the charge ‘anti-Semite’ is used to defend racism, and to sustain a regime that implements racist policies" (The ‘New Anti-Semitism’, LRB, Vol. 40 No. 01 · 4 January 2018), suggests a remedy and writes: "We can oppose two injustices at once. We can condemn hate speech and crimes against Jews, like the ones witnessed recently in the US, or the anti-Semitism of far-right European political parties, at the same time as we denounce Israel’s colonial project and support Palestinians in their struggle for self-determination."

As one who daily fulfills the policy of returning Jews to their national historical homeland, and who rejects any charge of inherent racism in accomplishing that goal, I can only hope that Gordon succeeds in convincing his colleagues, friends and others to follow through on his suggestion.  However, I would wish to point out, to him and to readers of the LRB, that anti-Jewish sentiment and activity exists amongst Arabs, theologically as well as politically, and specifically Arabs of Palestine, and it has existed long before any "occupation" or "settlement construction" began.  The Mufti of Mandate days did not need to seek support from Nazi Germany in 1933, nor accept funds during that decade, nor travel to Berlin and make anti-Semitic broadcasts in support of the Nazi regime until the war's end.

Mahmoud Abbas surely can oppose Jews entering the Haram A-Sharif courtyard but does he need to pronounce that I "have no right to defile it with [my] filthy feet." (PA TV, Sept. 16, 2015)? Do their newspapers have to print caricatures with Jews represented by hook-nosed, side-curl figures"?  The PalWatch website presents hundreds of examples of hate language and drawings.

I trust in leaving out Arabs when he listed only US and European right-wing anti-Semitism, as well as left-wing Judeaphobia, Gordon was not protecting anti-Semites who perhaps align themselves with his racist approach that the Land of Israel beyond an ephemeral "Green Line" must be off-limits to Jews."

^

Anti-Semitism Of Things, Of Men and Of Identity

As Margaret McGlynn writes in her The Royal Prerogative and the Learning of the Inns of Court on page 222 in a chapter on 'the Fallacies of Realpolitik':

I've mentioned that categorization previously.  The text of the two chapters published in his The Jewish War front is here.  The definitions again:

There are two distinct forces at work within the general phenomenon called Antisemitism:  the one is a subjective repulsion, strong enough and permanent enough to become anything from a hobby to a religion; the other is an objective state of things which tends to ostracize the Jew almost independently of whether his neighbours like or dislike him. We shall call the first category "the Antisemitism of Men' and the second "the Antisemitism of Things'.

He railed against Germany:

There and not elsewhere was the discovery made, and the principle proclaimed, that the objection to the Jew is not religious but racial, and he must therefore be persecuted even if baptized. There and not elsewhere was antisemitism sublimated to the rank of a scientific philosophy.

and also postulated that there are facts and objective truths which lead others to adopt anti-Semitic posturing for:

in some countries the decisive factor is not the antisemitism of men but the antisemitism of things...[we need] realize that the fundamental curse of Jewish existence in the central zone of distress is due to something infinitely deeper than policies or ideologies or propagandas, whether anti or pro...

He further explains that

there are certain inevitable aspects in the normal social evolution of Eastern Europe (the words "inevitable" and "normal" should be emphasized) which are inherently, objectively, and organically fatal to the Jews' existence. 

...human anti-semitism is an active enmity, a constant urge to harm the hated race, to humiliate them, to see them squirming and writhing beneath one's feet...even at its strongest only a leading minority manifest it in its greedily acute stage; the majority just follow suit and mildly enjoy the fun. Being thus of a somewhat elastic nature, the "Antisemitism of Men" can sometimes be fought with a measure of success;

I wish to add a third category:

The Anti-Semitism of Identity 

It is one rooted in jealousy, in a feeling a self-cognizant deficiency, an overwhelming emotion that one can never match the challenge of confronting a rival, a counterpart, a competitor.

The hatred there grows is nourished by realization that one's identity is not as one supposed, imagined or believed in. One assumes he is a Palestinian when his identity was as a Southern Syrian into the 1920s. One assumes there was no Jewish Temple on Mount Moriah but always a mosque built by Abraham Ibrahim.  One assumes Muhammed flew on a winged creature, tethered it to a wall (which was not the Western Wall of Herod's Second Temple) and stepped on the a rock (which was not the Foundation Stone of Aravna's threshing floor upon which the Altar was built) all in Jerusalem when he really never was in Jerusalem.  "Palestinian Arabs" are either Canaanits, Jebusites or, in the words of Saeb Erekat, Natufians.

The frustration growing out of the realization that these lies, myths and calumnies they have propogated for decades are simply not truly altering the ability of Zionism to continue and build up and strengthen the Jewish state in the historic Jewish homeland they resort to a new tactic of "protecting free speech" as, for example, expressed in a letter to the Guardian in October protesting what the signees termed Professor Moshe Machover's insistence that anti-Zionism and support for Palestinian rights are not antisemitic which read in part

“Misusing the term antisemitism for pro-Israel political purposes deprives it of its charge and its critical role in naming those who hate Jews because they are Jews. Real antisemitism is obscured by this self-serving redefinition of the term.”

They see themselves as  combating attempts to "suppress solidarity with Palestine by conflating criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jewish bigotry".

Another formulation of this redefinition so as to permit themselves to hate Jews for being Jews while not being tainted with a charge of anti-Semitism is here describing the remarks of a professor at UMass, Sut Jhally, who said he

believes that the...discussion [over Palestine] is often halted through accusations of anti-Semitism and racism toward those who are critical of Israeli policy, specifically right-wing Israeli policy...[this is] a very, very effective silencing mechanism

and

it silences those accused for the fear of being deemed a racist or anti-Semite...[it] manipulates the oppressive, violent and fearful history of Jewish people and distracts from what the state of Israel, not Jews, what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

At the notorious New School panel, a discussion of a new book from Jewish Voice for Peace 'On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice' co-sponsored by the New School Creative Publishing & Critical Journalism program with moderator Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now!, Leo Ferguson, Lina Morales, Linda Sarsour and Rebecca Vilkomerson, and which elicited an official institution response, there was this:

Panelist Lina Morales, a member of the Jews of Color and Mizrahi/Sephardi Caucus of JFREJ, called Zionism “a mistake” that “has led us down a dangerous and horrible road,” while Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of the pro-BDS Jewish Voice for Peace, described the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as “apartheid.”

Lying and misrepresenting is a basis of anti-Semitism since the object is to create a false picture so that someone can more comfortably and confidently hate Jews. As an audience member noted, the panel avoided the 

ideological purity tests on the left...the idea that if you’re Jewish you have to affirmatively prove your anti-Zionist bona fides before you’re let into any leftist space regardless of the causes

Denying to Jews the right to promote a nationalism, Zionism, one that is based on a 3000-year history, culture, religion and literature, that had received international legal support in 1919, 1920, 1920 and 1947 and that is evident by archaeological findings and external non-Jewish sources is an anti-Semitism of identity denial while promoting another identity paradigm that is unequal in all spheres to Zionism.

Attempting, and too often violently, to supplant one identity over another, as the Arab Palestine movement seeks to do, and which is underscored deeply by unadulterated anti-Semitism, with support from anti-Semites as in the case of the British Labour Party and anti-Zionists, is an evil and those espousing that track know full well what they are doing.

This is the new face of the oldest hatred.

^

Juan Carlos Girauta's Error

I am not sure that all who read the anti-Catalonia piece in the Jerusalem Post caught the full force of these lines at the end:

As a liberal democracy, Israel should favor the rule of law in Spain, and make its voice heard, together with other Western allies such as the US, the EU, France and Germany, in support of Spain’s constitutional order. And it should hope Spain recognizes the signs of friendship and responds in kind with a more reliable friendship.

In doing so, Israel will also ensure that at no point will the Spanish Jewish communities, strongly Zionist, be accused of incompatible loyalties between Spain and Israel, and targeted by those who always look to claim dubious fidelity of Diaspora Jews toward their legitimate national governments.

They were composed by a member of the Spanish Congress from Barcelona on behalf of the Ciudadanos Party, one Juan Carlos Girauta.

Credit

I am willing to give Senor Girauta a bit of leeway here, but not that much.

I consider that a veiled threat, even if unintended.  He should know better.

And considering that Spain is very anti-Semitic, I doubt whether supporting Catalunia's independence will make that much difference or, for that matter, supporting a unified Spain.

Now, it so happens that it is claimed that he

expressed strong sympathies for right-wing Zionism (to the point of calling then-president Zapatero an anti-Semite) 

and in the matter of that 2015 Mattisyahu incident, he termed it Judeaophobic. 

He also called for

"protecting freedom of expression in the university classrooms of our country".

when the Faculty of Psychology of the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) on February 25, 2016, called to cancel the lecture of an Israeli professor. Haim Eshach, a specialist in teaching science and technology in the preschool stage.

Those were admirable expressions and honorable acts.

But Jews should be able to express their opinions about the countries in which they live freely with no pressure to conform and certainly not at the risk of being accused of a dubious charge of dual loyalty.  Especially in the matter of Catalonia.  As they do.

Lovers of Zion need grasp that rights and liberties as well as all civic responsibilities and obligations belong to Jews as citizens in Spain, the United States and France.

Fir if nit, is Spain a true democracy?

Well-meaning, perhaps, as his intentions were, his words need to be revised.

P.S.  And why the editor at the JPost did not excise them or rephrase then is another question.

^

Arab/Muslim Anti-Semitism.

Just published again:

Even Richard Silverstein, 14 months ago, despite wanting to believe it, I believe, was forced to point out its falseness.

There is no Rabbi Mlama.  The original story based itself on a claim by a Breaking the Silence activist that Jews had poisoned a well.  All here.

Oh, and that Rabbi in the photograph?  Aguda's Yisrael Eichler.

^

Mr. Myers, I Take Your Anti-Semitism Personally

Mr. Myers has now apologised. See below.

Anti-Semitism is never far from the surface:

Sunday Times of London Op-Ed Called Anti-Semitic Is Removed From Website
By ED O’LOUGHLINJuly 30, 2017
DUBLIN — The Sunday Times of London has pulled from its website an op-ed article denouncing the campaign by women of the British Broadcasting Corporation for equal pay after the column sparked widespread accusations that it was anti-Semitic and misogynistic.

The article, by Kevin Myers, an Irish journalist

with a record of provocative right-wing statements [and a Holocaust denier; really], had been commissioned for the print version of the outlet’s Irish edition. Framing his piece as an attack on the push to close the pay gap at the BBC, Mr. Myers wrote:

“I note that two of the best-paid women presenters in the BBC — Claudia Winkelman and Vanessa Feltz, with whose, no doubt, sterling work I am tragically unacquainted — are Jewish. Good for them. Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity. I wonder, who are their agents? If they’re the same ones that negotiated the pay for the women on the lower scales, then maybe the latter have found their true value in their marketplace.”

Claudia Winkleman is most probably a distant relative of mine, my grandfather and her great-grandfather originating in Zbarzh.  I am not sure if Myers is Jewish but he is now out of a job having

suggested stars Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz earned more money at the BBC because they were Jewish. 

and

Editor Martin Ivens said he has apologised personally to Ms Feltz and Ms Winkleman for these "unacceptable comments both to Jewish people and to women in the workplace". He added: "It has been taken down and we sincerely apologise, both for the remarks and the error of judgment that led to publication."

Joshua Zitser has noted

But, there is a more insidious racism at work in the UK as reflected in Myers' writing: even in the most well lettered circles, anti-Semitism is unquestioned and tacitly accepted. I have on more than one occasion nonchalantly been reminded that it makes sense that I’m a journalist because, you know, “the Jews run the media”. It is often accompanied by a smirk and insistence that the individual is not anti-Semitic...There are real-life consequences of these comments; so many Jews I have spoken to are fearful to be open about their cultural and religious heritage because of the inevitable fear of anti-Semitic bigotry and, occasionally, violence.

Too bad for the Irish.

Addition:

After more research and resourcing, he seems to be a very poor reader of other people's sensibilities is a generous thing to say about him.*

______________

UPDATE


And yes, he has defended Israel.  But employing such an anti-Semitic trope destroys any value that support has.

UPDATE

UPDATE

Some responses.

And on Twitter. ______________

*  Someone had this observation on his Holocaust piece:

...he is being semantic and pedantic. He “denies” there was a holocaust because in Greek it means burning. He denies there were six million victims because (a) he doesn’t seem to understand the concept of approximation, and (b) his logic is defective (i.e. he think that if you kill, say, 6.1 million people then you haven’t killed 6 million).  It’s an idiotic way of trying to say that people like David Irvine, however vile, should be allowed so say what they like.

______________________

From the apology:

"I have many flaws. One of my flaws is to … deal with major issues in throwaway lines. And I did that with regard to the two women whom I identified within the BBC hierarchy who were particularly well rewarded."Mr Myers also said he was "a great admirer of the Jewish people".When asked how the article got published, Mr Myers said: "I am the author of that article. I am the author of my own misfortunes. I am the master of my soul. And I must answer for what I have done."But I don't think it right or proper for me to start saying some how or other, other people are responsible for what happened. I must do nothing that will bring ruin or unhappiness to other people."He said he had lost his livelihood and he did not want anyone else to lose their jobs. "Enough damage has been done," he said.He said he would guess five or six people - some in Ireland and some in London - would have read a column before it was published.Last Friday and Saturday, he said, a number of people "nodded on duty and let something through that shouldn't have got through". "But I am the author of this."...
"I am very, very sorry that I should have so offended them and I do utter an apology, not for any reason other than out of genuine contrition for the hurt I caused them but I uttered those words out of respect for the religion from which they come. And for the religion that I still hold in high regard, particularly the Irish members of that religion who have been so forthright in their defence of me generally."

And this:

'In short, I believe that those who have vilified Myers for supposed anti-semitism are wrong. If he was fired for this – then he was fired unjustly.  Those of us who call out genuine anti-semitism have a responsibility to similarly call out wrongful accusations of it.'

__________________

A semi-defense:

The point about this awful writing, though, is that Myers can do much better. This suggests to me that he hardly bothered to read over what he had written – and that his editors hadn’t the heart to do more than glance at it either. And this in turn points to something larger: in the age of Trump, far-right insult has become a kind of automatic writing. What matters is what it is not, which is “politically correct”, aka in line with the most basic standards of decency and good manners. So long as it is not PC, you can sell it by the yard. It’s a generic, mass-produced commodity...
They broke the only rule that matters – don’t pick on people who can answer back. Jewish people have learned from the most abysmal experiences to be alert to the tropes of anti-Semitism and to call them out when they see them. It’s a matter of survival. Myers was probably half asleep and wholly bored when he threw in some of those tropes to try to enliven the corpse of a moribund column. He woke up out in the cold he has so long pretended to enjoy inhabiting.

^