Here's the State Department's report to Congress last year on global anti-semitism. Nice cover, sort of neo-expressionist. On page 33, the report says that it is anti-Semitic to ascribe
policy-making to a "pro-Israel lobby" or a "Zionist lobby," because
that's just traditional anti-Semitic thinking of shadowy Jewish
conspiracies.
And on page 28, it says that these anti-Semites "tend to believe that
Jewish lobbying groups and individual Jews in influential positions in
national government positions seek to bend national policy toward
Israel's interests."
An official of the office that produced the report was Lisa Sherman. Lisa seems to be married to California congressman Brad Sherman. Brad Sherman touts his wife's office's report on his website.
Lately Brad Sherman tweeted his participation at the AIPAC policy conference, in a roundtable with two other Jewish congresspeople, including Jane Harman, who has gotten in trouble for her phone conversation with a "suspected Israeli agent."
A year or so back, Sherman, who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism, spoke at an AIPAC summit. His subject:
"Top Middle East scholars will explore what can be done to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and advancing its radical agenda throughout the region."
You know me. I love to talk about power, to scrutinize power. Sherman's a powerful congressman. AIPAC is the Israel lobby, and Israel is pushing us to stop Iran's "radical agenda throughout the region."
Uh-oh. Was that anti-Semitic? Help me, Mrs. Sherman!
"On page 33, the report says that it is anti-Semitic to ascribe policy-making to a 'pro-Israel lobby' or a 'Zionist lobby,' because that's just traditional anti-Semitic thinking of shadowy Jewish conspiracies." In other words, a shark can swim, so if a platypus can also swim, then a platypus is just a shark in disguise. Time for a remedial logic class!
Wow. I clicked the hyperlink to this most impressive report, and considered the time, effort, (taxpayer) expense and salary paid to Mrs. Sherman to create such a comprehensive report for the benefit of our elected officials (and the benefit of Abe Foxman's annual salary). Bravo, Mrs. Sherman, very comprehensive! Now, if only Congress could see fit to commission a comprehensive report on how our taxpayer dollars were used by the IDF in Gaza to unleash white phosphorus weapons on innocents, use DIME-cube technology to sheer the limbs from mothers and grandmothers, and use depleted uranium bombs on babies and children.
Obama gets this. Obama is pissed. Change is now or never, Mr. President. If you believe you were chosen by fate to be the first African-American president because a higher Being put you in this particular place at this particular time, then you must cut through the thicket of Foxman-Hoenlein-Zuckerman-JeffGoldberg-Kampeas-Krauthammer-Kristol-Dershowitz race-baiting, bigoted, pseudo-victimology hasbara and do the right thing. A comprehensive peace in the ME with all 57 Arab states signing on, an independent state for the Palestineans with pre-1967 borders, a destruction of the "separation barrier," immediate foodstuffs being given to the Palestineans, freedom of movement, the right to return, a guarantee of safety for the Israeli population (monitored by NATO), and a circumvention of the vast corruption of our elected Congressional officials occasioned by the traitorous "lobbying" group AIPAC. So far, so good.
Only on the pages of these silly blogs does anyone believe that 5 million Arabs are "returning" to Israel and Israelis will need NATO to guarantee their safety. I doubt any of the "realists" that this blog pays homage to, buy into such nonsense.
These are the kind of "legal" rationales that Communists constructed in the Soviet Union to murder Christians and dissidents and send them to the gulag by the millions. The Zionists (not surprisingly, given their Trotskyite background) are emulating that strategy. They clearly want to consolidate power in the federal government and then pass these kinds of laws that put the heft of an increasingly authoritarian and monolithic federal State behind their agenda, one that outlaws dissent and free speech as "racist" and "anti-Semitic."
Oscar (above) says "Obama gets this." No doubt he does, which is why he is supporting "hate law" legislation in the Congress that is the kind of trojan horse used to put these authoritarian measures into law. These Trotskyites are all of the same authoritarian mind, and they understand that their radically subversive views are essentially anti-American, anti-free speech, and unconstitutional, and so they have to sneak them through by pulling the strings in Washington mostly behind the scenes, and working with like-minded, power-mad members of Congress. But once they're in place, they have the weight of a $3.5 trillion federal budget behind them, plus federal police powers. Now you tell me: how the hell are dissidents supposed to compete with that? It’s like a row boat trying to turn an oil tanker.
This is no joking matter. Antisemitism can be defined as a hate crime. Thus if some American patriot got into a fist fight with a neocon over their manipulating the US into going to war in Israel's interest, he would have his simple assault charge enhanced with the hate crime proviso.
Soon, it will be anti-semitic to even say the word "Zionist".
Truly stunning. American taxpayers are footing the bill to patrol the world for the slightest indication somebody might not like a Jew for "being a Jew." This mandate is itself conflated with anyone who has a problem with our special ally's de facto policies on the ground. Now congress is entertaining hate legislation in the name of anti-hate legislation, the taxpayer American courts to enforce this Orwellian legislation. Science Fiction has nothing on Reality. Ed is right on the money–that's your money, and your life, and that of your children; all in accordance with the bipolar vision of ancient Jews. Just as the blacks morphed the term "nigger" into a positive word of their own brotherhood, non-Jews need to morph the term "anti-semite" into an identifier of all those who apply moral standards equally. I mean, doesn't conflation work both ways?
Oh we are headed for another big war, no doubt about it, and as usual, the Jews will be playing a big part–and guess what? Thanks to goys, they will survive yet again, and give little credit to the goys.
This bullshit in addition to the Holocaust Industry – especially all those Holocaust memorials – are destroying freedom of speech in this country.
Thanks for alerting us to this. I'll study this carefully.
strahl- oh yes, it's very clear, all the holocaust memorials are destroying freedom of speech in america. mondoweiss, what do you think of all the "humanistic" comments your blog attracts.
I wouldn't worry about it….I don't think you could fine prosecutor, unless he was jewish….or a jury 9n the US right now that would doanthing but laugh it out of court. I am also willing to bet that the FBI hasn't stopped, but expanded their investigation of AIPAC and Israeli related activities and persons in the US. ……….and more than willing to put big money on the FBI watching several jewish congress members like Sherman, Engle and several others…..Harman is the tip of the iceberg…stay tuned.
The holocaust industry systematically and publicly prohibits free speech on a variety of issues, yes.
Phil, do you actually take the trouble to read before your write, or is this simply your penchant for mendacity? You state that "[o]n page 33, the report says that it is anti-Semitic to ascribe policy-making to a "pro-Israel lobby" or a "Zionist lobby," because that's just traditional anti-Semitic thinking of shadowy Jewish conspiracies." But that's not at all what the author(s) say, as a closer reading indicates. And, in fact, on the previous page, the author(s) are careful to point out that "Motives for criticizing Israel may stem from legitimate concerns over policy, or from illegitimate prejudices." [emphasis added] But above all, the primary definition of anti-Semitism – and its relationship to anti-Zionism – comes not from the author(s) (as you imply) , but rather from the EUMC – the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia.
(Continued) But your lies and misrepresentations don't stop there. You claim that "…on page 28 [actually that should read page 38], it says that these anti-Semites 'tend to believe that Jewish lobbying groups and individual Jews in influential positions in national government positions seek to bend national policy toward Israel's interests.'" But that, of course, has been ripped out of context to make it appear that the author(s) of the report have determined it out of mid-air, when in reality it is based on empirical evidence from a survey conducted by the ADL and correlates with those who think that Jews owe their primary allegiance to Israel. (Note that this is "classic" anti-Semitism, because it has nothing to do with what Israel may or may not do, or with how Israel did or did not come into being. It has to do with how people percieve Jewish citizens in 11 European countries!!!)
"A survey conducted by the ADL"? Gosh, that sounds "empirical."
BTW, I believe that the meme (Gosh I so love that term; It's so chic!) that somehow the two pieces of legislation known as the "Global Anti-Semitism Review Act" and the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" (if and when it is passed) are connected is the work of Paul Craig Roberts. Personally, I don't see the connection at all, and I wish that someone would explain it to me. Perhaps I'm wrong in supposing that Roberts is just a senile old fool?
perhaps you could provide us with a specific quotation from Roberts, and explain what you think is wrong with it.
but rather from the EUMC – the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. Reminds me of my troubles in finding info in the time swallowing net Moloch EU . Let's see: Exactly what I expected. http://www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDe... for whatever reason with copy prevention. Does that mean it has no EU copyright??
Lea, I fail to see your point.
Continued: European Definition – Genesis: From the Jewish perspective: Jewish Communities in Europe
continued – EU working paper" definition of Antisemitism. A pure data collecting effort with no special legal force. Report from the FRA side (still under the EUMC link/Search: Antisemitism /click: document link/scroll down to bottom of the page) FRA Discussion papers [Working Paper] 16.03.2005, EUMC, [Working Paper]
Working Definition of Anti-Semitism The EUMC Report on Antisemitism published in March 2004 highlighted both the lack of operational definitions of antisemitism in most EU Member States and the insufficient data comparability due to the different methodologies used by primary data collectors. In order to support the collection of more specific and relevant data and to have a very precise view on the developments of anti-Semitism the EUMC and OSCE/ODIHR consulted Jewish organisations like the European Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, other major Jewish NGO's and prominent academics. Informal discussions were held with a view to develop a common "Working Definition" in line with the theoretical arguments elaborated in the EUMC’s antisemitism report, whose author was also consulted to ensure that the Working Definition is compatible with the theoretical considerations outlined in the report, which was adopted by the EUMC’s Management Board. This Working Definition has a practical purpose acting as a basic guide to both official and non-official primary data collecting agencies highlighting possible examples of antisemitism, taking into account the overall national context. The text was sent to the EUMC’s RAXEN network (organizations based in each EU Member State contracted by the EUMC to collect data) for distribution among data collecting agencies in order to get feedback regarding its functionality, effectiveness and relevance to their country specific situation. The role of the network does not include primary data collection. However, since they interact with both official and non-official primary data collectors, they were asked to discuss this Working Definition with them and provide the EUMC with feedback regarding their views on its functionality. The text will be reviewed again with all those involved in the process and the next steps will be discussed with OSCE/ODIHR and the Jewish organisations. For the EUMC the "Working Definition" is developed as a practical tool to support more accurate data collection and is part of an ongoing process having no legal basis. Similar "Working Definitions" for data collection proposes, improving comparability and effectiveness, will be also developed in the future for other subjects. The OSCE/ODIHR's involvement is particularly important, since they have announced that they will also be collecting data on antisemitism in the near future, and is therefore worthwhile to make an effort to ensure coherence and consistency.
continued – "EU working paper" definition of antisemitism – a purely data collecting effort. That's not something bad really: Last but not least I checked Germany in the latest report "Anti-Semitism – Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2008 – Jan. 2009 Next to statistics, numbers, it lists one incident:
I read about it. It was a clash with extreme right youth. Some regions in the east have quite a bit of trouble with extreme right wing activities. Now the definition becomes important:
This shows one problem. Incidents against non-Jewish Europeans as long as they are "perceived to be Jewish" or simply confronting hate propaganda, as in the incident above, are listed as antisemitic incidents. Now if you read these numbers in a paper, would you expect this to be so. Or wouldn't you assume it concerned only attacks against European Jews? Now I have to return to the US paper and check their systematics.
Look what you've triggered, a real chain. Now I'll check your complaints. See if Phil is really a misrepresenting liar.
Lea, if you read my post again, it will save you a lot of trouble cutting and pasting from EUMC. Just to refresh your memory, I was not trying to point out that there are or are not anti-Semitic attacks in Europe. The key point that I was making is that Phil was suggesting that the wife of a Congressman was responsible for the defintions of what constituted anti-Semitism. He was also making the (spurious, in my opion) argument that to simply criticize Israel is anti-Semitic and to actually suggest that Israel tries to influence US policy through AIPAC (or the "The Lobby" is by definition a "hate crime".
oh, right — you mean Phil was being anti-Semitic!
I've read an awful lot of diaspora jewish people bragging about how tight they are around the world, how influential they've been in all their host nations, always partnering in behalf Israel. Is that all just nonsense? The gentiles just continually misperceive jewish speakers and writers and all jewish activity?
So, what are the theoretical assumptions underlying the working definition of "anti-semitism?"
Anti-Semitism (contemporary usage): a revised neologism used to deflect criticism of any words or deeds uttered or done by a jewish person. Anti-Semite (contemporary usage): Any non-Jewish human who implies or states that not all Jews are clones of Anne Frank, especially when such human points to activity involving a disproportionate number of Jews.
No, Rowan, I meant (if you bothered to read both my posts) that Phil was being dishonest!
Your intellect, WikiLicki, is a marvel!
Well Rowan, I suspect that you can probably find that survey. Then you can tell us why it isn't empirically sound. In the meantime, I think that we can all assume that you're just pontificating and blowing hot air.
You realize, I have a protective spirit especially concerning the two authors of his blog? I read Phil's comment as tongue-in-cheeque, and there is quite a bit of argument about it over here too. It is in fact an international debate. I will read a couple of German publications on the relevant topic: "New Antisemitism"? Soon … As I will look carefully into your accusations once I read the whole report. Basically as I already wrote, I am grateful that he alerted us to the new issue. My responses so far only concerned this, since I hadn't looked closer into it before: But above all, the primary definition of anti-Semitism – and its relationship to anti-Zionism – comes not from the author(s) (as you imply) , but rather from the EUMC – the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. Yes, it was adopted by the management board of EUMC. And it was inspired and influenced by US and European Jewish NGO's in informal talks with members from the OSCE and the EUMC plus the author of the EU's report. So it is not really very peculiar that the new basic definition of antisemitism surfaces. Anti-Zionism = New Antisemitism. It's one part of our larger clash of cultures scenario. The problem, the controversial part of the story lies with this equation: Islamic antisemitism = European antisemitism. It feels more dangerous than helpful. Since it necessarily ignores factual grievances. They usually are glossed over with the scapegoat theory in European antisemitism. Poor losers looking for a scapegoat. I don't like that path. But that is strictly beyond European measurements, but an issue Europe has to deal with–in different fields, e.g. education–considering it's many Muslim Europeans. We have quite a few Turkish people here by now.
I'm sure that Phil and Adam will be very happy to hear that you feel you have to protect them. In point of fact, well I don't really give a damn what they think. My point was very simple. Phil misrepresented the content of the report in a cynical attempt to attack Congressman Sherman through his wife, even though she appears to go to great pains to state in the report that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. The question of whether or not anti-Zionism = New anti-Semitism (which I don't think, BTW, that either the EUMC or the Dept. of State Report are trying to say) is quite irrelevant to this discussion. As for your question about that "controversial part of the story", I suggest that you download the full Dept. of State report and check out, particularly, the discussions of Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the subject of blood libels, all of which have no place in 21st century society. Then ask yourself, what factual greivances do these ignore?
JES49 said: "the discussions of Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the subject of blood libels, all of which have no place in 21st century society. " I would never have read any what you mentioned but for the ADL screaming about them all the time. Mein Kampf is one boring book. I don't understand why the ADL gives it such good reviews. The real question is, if they have no place in 21st century society, why do Jewish groups keep bringing them up?
Here's the FRA/EUMC working definition: “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.” The first clause defines it. It's a "certain perception of Jews". Rather open-ended, one could say.
"a survey conducted by the ADL" The group that's been busted for spying for Israel? You're actually using them as a credible source?
Well, good for you jdva. But tell me, what would you call those books if the subject had been… well, say Muslims or Arabs instead of Jews? And what would you say if the subjects of Jewish control and blood libels had been widely spread in Israeli society, including in popular television shows?
"…busted for spying for Israel?" Wow, that's a serious charge. Could you please back that up, because I certainly don't recall seeing anywhere that the ADL was "busted for spying for Israel"?
Again, Lord Haw Haw, I am responding before your comment is actually posted here. You want a quote. Well, here's a link to the whole article on Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html Frankly, I find the entire argument illogical. As best as I can understand it, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act simply mandates the DoS to produce, periodically, a report (the one Phil cites here) covering anti-Semitism worldwide. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (or the "David Ray" Act, as it's known) extends legislation from 1969 to to include sexual orientation, gender expression or identity and disability as hate crimes. Roberts tries to conflate the two, so that the definition of anti-Semitism from one law could somehow be used as the definition of a hate crime for another.
The Anti-Defamation League has been Hitler's biggest press agent in the past 60+ years.
And another great intellect heard from in the peanut gallery.
Google search for nazi at adl.org – 6,370 hits: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&a...
And your point is, jdva?
"'Don't fuck with us, or there is a price you are going to have to pay.'" -Abe Foxman, 09/06 Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations http://www.jstandard.com/index.php/content/print/...
This "JES49" person is as disingenuous as Richard Witty.'Disingenuous' is a difficult word to use accurately, but the best synonym might be faux-naïf.
I call him a troll but faux-naïf certainly looks better.
In the meantime, Lord Haw Haw, have you got any answers for me? Is there such a term as faux-pontife? You know, one who tries to throw sand in an other's eyes by pontificating.
And you, jdva, have you got any more information on where the ADL was "busted for spying for Israel"?
Again, jdva, your point is?
ADL Blinks, Settles Spying Case: http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspying2.html
Yeh, right jdva. Get real!
http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/forums/showthrea... …The Mother of Foxman blunders was exploiting ADL 's reputation to wangle a midnight Clinton pardon for fugitive felon Marc Rich. Rich showed gratitude by immediately embedding himself in Iraq oil corruption, i.e., he abetted Saddam's paying Hamas suicide bombers. Only after congressional investigators revealed Foxman's role did he apologize for accepting contributions from Rich. Many supporters left ADL and never returned. William Safire's 2001 New York Times column on this scandal is instructive: "'You never made a mistake in your life?' an angry Abe Foxman shouted over the phone 'What about when you worked for that anti-Semite Nixon?'" Note that Foxman – infuriated at justified criticism – is shouting at an eminent journalist who was sympathetic to every aspect of ADL's work. Safire's rebuke concluded: "It's time [for the ADL and other do-good organizations] to set out written policies to resist manipulation by rich sleazebags and to reprimand or fire staff members who did not get with the ethical program."
And this causes us to raise into question the veracity of the ADL survey exactly how? Remember, that is what we were talking about. I suggest that you could spend your time more productively by finding the survey which Lisa Sherman cites in her report and seeing if there is something in that that you (and Lord Haw Haw) can refute. Abe Foxman is not the subject. He's a red herring.
ADL's Rabbi Abe Foxman and US Rep. Brad Sherman welcome Israeli City of Ariel Mayor Ron Nachman at ADL Pacific Southwest Dinner – Dec 2007: http://blessingbank.blogspot.com/2007/12/rep-brad...
Again, jdva, what does this have to do with the reliability of the ADL survey???!!! Everything that you (and Lord Haw Haw) have brought up so far are simply designed to deflect attention from page 28 of the Department of State report. Find the survey. Then tell us why it is empirically unreliable. Enough with the ad hominem attacks against Abe Foxman. He may be a thoroughly disgusting person or a saint. That doesn't change the veracity of the survey or its results!
The ADL is a known espionage agency and go-between for a foreign government. Would you trust any survey released by a bunch of spies and political operatives? Me neither.
And now, back to the point. You make the assertion that the "ADL is a known espionage agent… for a foreign government". That is entirely an inaccurate and unfounded assertion on your part. The article that you produced as "evidence" boils down to a city attorney who brought charges against the ADL for hiring someone to monitor telephone calls, not to spy for a foreign country. Now, I'm going to challenge you for the last time. Support your charge that the survey results are not reliable, based on the actual survey itself: Were the questions asked leading? Was the sample representative? Was it statistically meaningful? But please don't rely on a bunch of unsupported charges about the ADL and its directory, otherwise don't bother replying!
"ADL is a known espionage agent… for a foreign government". That is entirely an inaccurate and unfounded assertion." It's spot on. The only people that don't say it are Zionists or those that are afraid of Zionists. Are you trying to say that B'nai B'rith has no connections to the Israeli government? None?
I don't know whether it's because you're too lazy or too feeble-minded to answer my question. If you ever decide to try and address the issue rather than just shitting around, here's a place you can start: http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/European_Attitud... In the meantime, so long muchacho!
I don't know whether it's because you're too lazy or too feeble-minded I stuck around long enough for the classic Zionist personal attack that I knew would manifest itself. Thanks for playing true to form.
The question of whether or not anti-Zionism = New anti-Semitism (which I don't think, BTW, that either the EUMC or the Dept. of State Report are trying to say) is quite irrelevant to this discussion. go to page 42 of the pdf.file (32.document – from: Chapter 3. TRADITIONAL and NEW ANTISEMITISM.) While traditional anti-Semitism remains prevalent among extremist fringe groups and populations where xenophobic attitudes persist, “new anti-Semitism” commonly manifests itself in the guise of opposition to Zionism and the existence and/or policies of the state of Israel. Traditional anti-Semitism, with its historic linkage to Nazism and fascism, tends to be overt and is con- sidered unacceptable and illegitimate by much of the mainstream in Western Europe, North America, and beyond. In contrast, new anti-Semitism, char- acterized by anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism that is anti-Semitic in its effect—whether or not in its intent—is more subtle and thus frequently escapes condemnation. Now if it disguises itself. How do we separate between legitimate or non-legitimate criticism? Does it all cook down to if a Jew criticizes it is less likely to be antisemitic if a non-Jew does it may well be antisemitism in disguise. Disguise versus suspicion. A not very stable methodological basis.
Lea, first of all "guise" is not "disguise". Secondly, please look at pages 6 and 7 of the report for a fuller explanation. Let me ask you, do you consider that a majority of those asked in Europe believed that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries where they live is anti-Semitic? And if so, what on earth does this have to do with Israeli policy? And what would you consider Islamophobic as opposed to "legitimate" criticism of Islam and those states that have instituted shari'a law?
BTW, Lea, the "new anti-Semitism" refers only to the West. In the Middle East it's pretty much the "Old" anti-Semitism. See, for example, pp. 28-29 on the "blood libel". (Of course, I bet there are some commenters here who really do believe that the Jews kill gentile children and use their blood for matza!)
First I have to admit, I had no time to read it yet. I had to finish Trita Parsi, which tomorrow is due to be returned to I forget which German university library. How did Adam term it? Guilty as charged. (?) But: Lea, first of all "guise" is not "disguise". NOUN: 1. Outward appearance or aspect; semblance. 2. False appearance; pretense: spoke to me under the guise of friendship. 3. Mode of dress; garb: huddled on the street in the guise of beggars. 4. Obsolete Custom; habit. See also: Synonyms: guise
No, from what I know so far is that the term "new anti-semitism" suggests that the old shapeshifter is now surfacing in a new guise and that is: criticism of Israel, or the "collective Jew". And that is surely a complex issue in the ME, as it no doubt is partly fueled to distract attention.
Strictly, the equation theory post Russian revolution relied on the same notion. Many left Jews were proud about their prominence in the left camp. So I haven't really arrived at a decision. But that's a recurring problem, you can watch matters through a lens of danger and find corresponding evidence, or you can concentrate on the obvious differences. 2009 isn't 1938 neither was 2003.