Theresa May adopts a definition of anti-Semitism that demonizes Israel’s critics

Middle East
on 82 Comments

Speaking at a meeting with the Conservative Friends of Israel yesterday, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the UK is formally adopting a definition of anti-Semitism agreed to earlier this year by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (henceforth IHRA). She added praise of Israel, describing it as a state that “guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities.”

The significance of her statement cannot be underestimated, in light of the serious problems that the IHRA definition poses, in its vague language, as well as its conflation of critique of Israel with actual anti-semitism. As Jewish Voice for Peace noted, such definitions could be construed to silence any criticism of Israeli policies.

The text of the IHRA definition is a near copy of a 2005 draft document first circulated by a European anti-racism agency, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (henceforth EUMC), which was drafted with the help of pro-Israel groups, yet abandoned by the European Union since 2007. When the EUMC was replaced with another body, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, all non-official documents were removed from the new agency’s website – including the working definition. The agency has in fact officially disavowed the document several times (2010, 2013), with the spokesperson clarifying that “creating definitions” is not even “part of its mandate”, which instead pertains to providing “evidence-based advice on a wide range of fundamental rights, including anti-Semitism.”

Partisan outlets such as “Honest Reporting” praise the EUMC definition in no uncertain terms and note that even the US State Department regards it a “useful framework,” but the State Department’s reliance on the language is not appreciated by many others, including Jewish Voice for Peace, which complained in an official letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and other officials last year that “the so-called “State Department definition” includes clauses about “demonizing,” “delegitimizing,” and “applying a double-standard to the state of Israel,” prohibitions that are so vague that they could be, and have been, “construed to silence any criticism of Israeli policies.”

The EUMC definition of Anti-Semitism is also the basis upon which British members of Labour were ‘trained’ during the recent attempt to straighten out the ranks and banish any signs of alleged or supposed anti-semitism. The initial outrage concerning Labour’s supposed ‘anti-Semitic problem’ focused upon Member of Parliament Naz Shah’s criticism of Israel in a 2014 Facebook post suggesting the Jewish state should be relocated to the United States, as well as former London mayor Ken Livingston saying that ‘Hitler was supporting Zionism’. (Norman Finkelstein provides a perspective on both cases, as well as noting Livingston’s ‘more or less’ accuracy here.)

In one of these ‘trainings’ organized by the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, leftwing Labour activist Jackie Walker complained the definition was not something she could work with. “In the session, a number of Jewish people, including me, asked for definitions of anti-Semitism,” Walker said. “This is a subject of much debate in the Jewish community.” This suggestion, together with statements such as “in terms of Holocaust Day I would also like to say, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust Day was open to all peoples who have experienced holocaust?”, only seemed to further infuriate Walker’s Zionist opponents, and resulted in her second ousting from Labour’s Momentum group.  

Let us then scrutinize the critical passages in the IHRA definition. I assess these to be the few final points, which, as I have checked, are identical to those in the EUMC document.
–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.
– 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.
– Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic 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.
– Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
– Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Let’s look at them one by one:

– “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.”

Well, if you look at critique even by Israeli Jewish journalist Gideon Levy, this even extends further – into how US Senator “ignoramuses” are “enabling destruction” by increasing military aid to Israel, money that “is being spent on maintaining a brutal, illegal occupation that your country claims to oppose”.

This funding surely wouldn’t come out of the blue if it weren’t for the ceaseless pressure of well-funded Israeli lobby organisations working for conservative Zionist interests. Sometimes it’s at the level of pathetic, how people such as Kerry complain about giving more than half of the global aid to Israel, but then Israel “doesn’t listen” to American warnings… Levy states that the current situation could be regarded as “the United States of Israel”.

Or what about Jewish comedian Jon Stewart’s blasting of Netanyahu’s Congress speech last year, where Netanyahu spoke against a sitting Administration’s foreign policy on Iran? Netanyahu was invited by House Speaker Boehner without prior notice to the White House in a clearly partisan and offensive move. Stewart called the 26 standing ovations the “Longest Blowjob a Jewish Man Has Ever Received”.

Are these really Jewish anti-Semites, self-haters (I’m sure some will hurry to say “yes!”), or are they really criticizing a political issue? And how can one separate between “Israel” and “Jewish” when Israel is officially “the Jewish State”? We’ll return to that later.

Next item:

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

Israel regards itself a democratic State. In fact, often boasting of being “the only democracy in the Middle East”. This is in itself a rather contentious claim (or at least it should be), in that close to 5 million Palestinians under its effective occupation can’t vote in any meaningful way. Not to mention, that from the outset in 1948, the ‘democracy’ was conditioned to support a Jewish State, by ethnic cleansing of about 85% of the Palestinian population. Nowadays, Israeli leaders warn of ‘Arabs’ coming to ‘vote in droves’ as Netanyahu said last year, whilst some, such as Coalition Whip David Bitan prefer that they not vote at all.

That’s all very “special”. I don’t know, for example, of another ‘democracy’ that is being allowed to continue, indefinitely, with a military belligerent occupation for half a century, and to avoid any scrutiny of its nuclear program and arsenal – and it does this with the systematic protection by the United States through UN Security Council vetoes and shared policy of ‘ambiguity’. By the EUMC and IHRA defintions, the USA would appear to be quite anti-Semitic. In fact, American leaders seem to be getting in line to NOT be neutral on Israel, when it’s about garnering support from the conservative Jewish-Zionist-Israeli (take a pick) lobby. Hillary Clinton demonstrated this quite clearly this year when speaking to the Israel lobby group AIPAC. I will not make a similar quip to that of Jon Stewart, but it could easily be applied here, in inversion. Clinton made use of Donald Trump’s comment that he would be ‘the neutral guy’ in regards to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and mocked the idea of ‘neutral’ in this respect. “That’s why I feel so strongly that America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival.”

It is completely uncontroversial today to note, that USA has a ‘special relationship’ with Israel, and that ‘special standards’ apparently must apply.

Next item:

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

Ok, fine, no comment there.

Next item:

– “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Oh, this is quite big. These comparisons are something that Jews often do. And this includes the most prominent leading intellectuals. The late Israeli Orthodox Jewish professor and philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz basically coined the term ‘Judeo-Nazis’. Former President Ezer Weizman hailed him as “one of the greatest figures in the life of the Jewish people and the State of Israel in recent generations,” adding that he was “a spiritual conscience for many in Israel.” Leibowitz used the term “Judeo-Nazi” even in reference to a Supreme Court judge (Landau) who at the time (1987), legalized torture: “The State of Israel represents the darkness of a state body, where a creature of a human form who was the president of the Supreme Court decides that the use of torture is permitted in the interest of the state”, he added. In fact, in that very interview he regards the discussion of Israeli democracy as “sterile” and labels Israel as “the only dictatorship in the enlightened world.”

Even Holocaust survivor and celebrated author Primo Levi drew such analogies, with considerable contemplation: “I feel indignant towards those who hastily compare the Israeli generals to Nazi generals, and yet I admit that Begin draws such judgements on himself”, he said, reflecting upon the 1st Lebanon War.

Such comparisons of Israelis and Israeli actions to Nazis date all the way back to the first days of Israel’s existence. “Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken” said the leftist Mapam leader Aharon Zisling in a party meeting, in reference to the recent reports of the Dawaymeh massacre, the single largest massacre in the 1948 Nakba. (In Tom Segev, 1949, The First Israelis and in Benny Morris, Righteous Victims). I had written several times about this particular massacre, here and here.

Were all these people who compared Israeli actions and policies anti-Semites?

Next item:

– “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”.

Now, this is very tricky, when Netanyahu goes around the world saying he represents the “entire Jewish people”, don’t you think? “I went to Paris not just as the prime minister of Israel but as a representative of the entire Jewish people” he said last year, in the wake of the Paris attacks.

What are people supposed to think? That the Jewish State is NOT the Jewish State, that Jews all over the world are NOT represented by that Jewish State when its leader says they are?
Is Netanyahu then an anti-Semite?

I think these examples show clearly that the EUMC and IHRA definitions are rather meaningless. Scrutiny of the critical points here reveals that they are even rather absurd.

This suggests that the real purpose of these definitions is “to silence any criticism of Israeli policies”, as the Jewish Voice for Peace Advisory Council had noted.

In other words, UK and PM Theresa May have officially jumped on the conservative Zionist bandwagon, demonizing critics of Israel and Israeli policy as anti-Semites.

 

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

82 Responses

  1. amigo
    December 13, 2016, 6:24 pm

    I wonder if Mrs May will provide the funding for extra prisons and Judges and police /prison officers etc to apply these laws.

    Will she be able to influence the EU now that Britain is to all intents and purposes out of the circle.

    These laws , pushed by the zionist influence in Britain will only serve to demonstrate to the brit in the street that Israel has far to much influence in “their ” sovereign nation.Imagine the blow back when young British students are sent to gaol in the hundreds.The numbers opposing Israel will grow exponentially and none to soon.

    Keep up your resistance Israel.You are on the way out and good riddance.

    • Egbert
      December 14, 2016, 5:26 pm

      “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” – a view held by some prominent Israelis.

      I trust the UK government will refuse entry to these ‘anti-semites’ and publicly denounce them. However, I expect that it will turn out to be a case in which some ‘anti-semites’ are more ‘anti-semitic’ than others.

  2. HarryLaw
    December 13, 2016, 7:47 pm

    On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
    Adopt the following non legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
    “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.” https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
    So when the Israli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said..
    “This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. . . the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. . . including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.
    And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians.
    Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there”.
    What is this statement,she is threatening non Jews with death she is being Anti Semitic since Palestinians are also Semites. Should we petition Teresa May to ban the Israeli Justice Minister from the UK, as not being conducive to the Public good?

    • Keith
      December 13, 2016, 11:08 pm

      HARRYLAW- ““Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”

      Harry, that is the definition of the old anti-Semitism. The definition of the “new” anti-Semitism is anything and everything which is less than 100% support for Israel and Zionist power-seeking. The anti-Semitic label is applied based upon the new definition, however, the characteristics of the old definition are inferred based upon the label.

  3. RoHa
    December 13, 2016, 10:39 pm

    ‘prohibitions that are so vague that they could be, and have been, “construed to silence any criticism of Israeli policies.”’

    Gee, I wonder why they were written so vaguely?

    ‘the IHRA definition….
    – Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination’

    I don’t even have to wait for the US extradition request. I’ll be picked up next time I get off the plane at Heathrow.

  4. Maghlawatan
    December 14, 2016, 12:23 am

    In 2014 the Jewish Chronicle, a UK newspaper, pulled an ad for humanitarian aid for people in Gaza because the readership found it offensive.

    In 2014 Jewish thugs in Israel sang genocidal chants in public.

    It is impossible to protect Israel legally from the nonsense of Zionists .

    The idea that the laws of other countries can be manipulated to protect the settlers is insane

  5. Marnie
    December 14, 2016, 1:06 am

    Professor Liebowitz “That says a great deal about the nazi mentality that is dominant here” and he was right. But nazi collaborators have spent the last few decades working very hard to ensure that anyone making those obvious comparisons will face criminal charges.

    “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Unknown

    “How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right.” Black Hawk

    “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” George Orwell

  6. Maghlawatan
    December 14, 2016, 3:07 am

    Traditional antisemitism had no foundation. Zionism gives people a reason to hate Jews. Using white phosphorous, murdering kids in the hundreds, torture, destroying homes, apartheid, brainwashing….

    • Jon66
      December 14, 2016, 1:07 pm

      Mag,

      That makes as much sense as:
      Traditional Islamophobia had no foundation. Islamic fundamentalism gives people a reason to hate Muslims. Using trucks to run over civilians, bombing nightclubs, kidnapping hundreds of girls, beheadings, brainwashing kids to join terrorist groups…

      If you are looking for it, you can always find an excuse to hate some group. How about judging people by their actions, not their religion or ethnicity.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2016, 1:38 pm

        jon, are you able to make your analogy without juxtaposing zionism, a political construct, with religious fundamentalism?

        zionism is not judaism, nor radical judaism. there are lots of secular zionist fanatics. and anti semitism is not solely or primarily directed towards religious jews or the religion of jews.

        judging people by their actions, not their religion or ethnicity.

        zionism is neither a religion or an ethnicity. we can judge zionism by it’s actions, that’s not anti semitism. as mag pointed out, traditional antisemitism had no foundation. but efforts to conflate anti zionism with anti semitism will backfire — because unlike anti semitism, there is ample justification for anti zionism.

      • Jon66
        December 14, 2016, 2:40 pm

        Annie,
        So why is Mag justifying anti-semitism because of the behavior of some people who have a particular political view?
        What he said was, “Zionism gives people a reason to hate Jews?”

        Do the actions of some pedophile priests give people a reason to hate Catholics?
        If “zionism is not judiasm” as you say, then no one should have a reason to hate Jews because of Zionism.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2016, 3:06 pm

        jon, i don’t think stating a reality is the same as justifying it. undoubtedly zionism has given some people a reason to hate jews, it doesn’t mean it’s correct or right. and the victims of pedophile priests — are you suggesting it would not be logical for even one of them to blame the church? that’s simply the consequence of f*cking little boys, some will (and have) grow into men who blame the institution which allowed it to happen. whether i think it’s justified is beside the point. but does it happen? of course.

        either way, the primary focus should remain on the perpetrator of the crime, not the emotional response of the victim, however rational (justified?) or irrational that response may be.

        If “zionism is not judiasm” as you say, then no one should have a reason to hate Jews because of Zionism.

        what? i’m not following your logic. are you suggesting judaism is the cause (excuse or justification) at the root of anti semitism? again, are you able to make your analogy without juxtaposing zionism, a political construct, with religious fundamentalism (islamic or otherwise)? i find it strange you chose to analogize zionism with religious fundamentalism. do you perceive them to have similar qualities or something?

        edit: maybe you did find another non fundamentalist analogy, pedophilia. i guess that might be analogous to zionism — i’d have to chew on that thought.

        i’m curious, at a minimum, do you agree w/the beginning of mag’s statement Traditional antisemitism had no foundation ?

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2016, 3:35 pm

        jon, following up on your pedophilia/zionism analogy. given your implication it’s not rational to hate the institution of catholic church or catholicism as a consequence of decades of pedophilia, what would you think of legislating anti-pedophilia as a hate crime.

        or what if a kid stuck a catholic school his entire childhood suffering abused by nun’s and priests, would you support legislation preventing him from expressing condemnations against the church on the grounds he was singling out the institution? what if he chose to boycott the church? would you support making that illegal?

        what if the parents of 100 boys who had been raped by the priests of a certain parish organized a boycott among parishioners of that church. would you support the town council members condemning that boycott or making it illegal? would you accuse the parents of a hate crime. what if all other catholic all over the world said the parents boycott was hurting their children’s feelings. what if they said spreading news of and exposing the pedophilia was making their children uncomfortable at the university. would you take pity on those unraped catholic university students, having their church singled out because of the one parish’s pedophiles?

        maybe we should all just shut up about pedophilia, lest we be accused of being racist.

      • MHughes976
        December 14, 2016, 3:18 pm

        If anti-Semitism means (as it means to me) ‘prejudice against Jews’ it has always been and always will be mistaken, since there is no such thing as a reason for prejudice or for hostile emotions based on prejudice. If anti-S means ‘negative sentiments directed at some people who are Jewish’ then it would, like anti-Christianity etc. sometimes be justified, since no human group is impeccable. ‘Hatng Jews’ by itself, pure and simple, must go beyond the evidence provided by specific acts, so contains prejudice. I’d rather not see ‘reasons for hating Jews’ mentioned around here.
        Anti-Zionism is rejection of a purported moral principle, not an expression of emotion, though emotions may arise when one contemplates the fact that Z never stood a chance of becoming operational without intense and sustained cruelty. Then some people who are Jewish (those flinging white phosphorus around, perhaps) may be hated – and in all the circumstances some people who are Jewish will be admired. But there is no reason in any of this for directing hatred or admiration at anyone by reason of their being Jewish.

      • eljay
        December 14, 2016, 3:19 pm

        || Jon66: … That makes as much sense as: Traditional Islamophobia had no foundation. Islamic fundamentalism gives people a reason to hate Muslims. … ||

        Does Islamic fundamentalism claim to speak and act on behalf of all Muslims the way Zionism claims to speak and act on behalf of all Jews? If ‘yes’, your analogy makes as much sense.

        (But the hatred is misplaced in either case, IMO.)

        || … If you are looking for it, you can always find an excuse to hate some group. How about judging people by their actions, not their religion or ethnicity. ||

        Or their opposition to (war) criminal behaviour. Zio-supremacists and Islamic fundamentalists should heed this advice.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 14, 2016, 3:27 pm

        Jon

        Orthodox rabbis rape kids at a similar level to the rape output of Catholic priests so your comparison is off.

        Israeli society is sick

        https://storify.com/public/templates/slideshow/index.html?src=//storify.com/davidsheen/israeli-army-the-next-generation

        http://addictinginfo.org/2014/07/28/israeli-mobs-hunt-palestinians-chanting-schools-out-in-gaza-there-are-no-children-left

        It’s not a few bad apples when kids are educated to hate.
        Are we supposed to respect that ?
        Why haven’t the decent people in Israel been able to control the extremists ?

        Old fashioned antisemitism worked around the myth of the blood libel, of Jews as child killers. Completely baseless.

        Israel kills kids in industrial quantities and is proud of it.

        A day will come when Israel needs European support and there won’t be any.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 14, 2016, 3:34 pm

        “How about judging people by their actions, not their religion or ethnicity -”

        Lovely idea but Israeli apartheid is a function of religion.
        If religion didn’t matter in Shangri La there couldn’t be apartheid.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2016, 4:09 pm

        Israeli apartheid is a function of religion.

        i’d call it more a function of colonialism. the religion has also being appropriated as a function of colonialism.

        If religion didn’t matter in Shangri La there couldn’t be apartheid.

        i don’t agree. i think the powers that be could find a way to justify their colonial intentions and actions without religion if need be. some non religious secular jews still spout the historic homeland justification and the lemmings follow suit.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 14, 2016, 4:15 pm

        Annie

        The Jews of Europe had no land. So the Zionists had to sequester some. Unfortunately it belonged to people. So they had to be dispossessed.
        Thus apartheid.
        Religion is at the rotten heart of it.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2016, 7:26 pm

        The Jews of Europe had no land. So the Zionists had to sequester some.

        they didn’t have to, and lots of them didn’t want to. The Jews of Europe had no land. So the Zionists sequestered some.

        Unfortunately it belonged to people. So they had to be dispossessed.

        they didn’t have to be dispossessed. while religion may be at the rotten heart of it, it began as a colonial project, and it remains a colonial project. religion and the religious serve that project. at least that’s my take on it.

      • Jon66
        December 14, 2016, 5:29 pm

        Annie,

        You can certainly blame the Israeli govt or the Church as institutions for their actions. I’m saying you can’t hate Jews for the actions of the Israeli govt or Catholics for the action of the Church. I disagree that Zionism has given anyone a reason to hate Jews. People may hate specific Jews or hate the Israeli govt, but a “reason” means that there is a rational explanation for it. If there is no rational reason then I do think Anti-semitism is the word.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2016, 6:01 pm

        while i don’t think it’s fair jon, i can’t agree with you that one can’t hate jews because of the actions of the israeli government. for one thing, if you’re a child growing up in the west bank and the only jews you ever come in contact with are the ones running the occupation one could very much hate all jews. maybe this is a matter of semantics. don’t you think there are children in israel who hate palestinians because the only exposure they have to them is what they see on the news and what they hear from their parents. what other explanation might you have for so many israeli jewish teenagers not thinking palestinian israelis should have a right to vote.

        the word “can’t”, to me, has a particular meaning. ie, people can’t fly (independent of a flying vehicle). but i don’t think you can say people can’t hate jews because of zionism, because, unfortunately, many do.

        it might give you a sense of righteousness or relief to imagine there’s some inherent racist seed inside most anti semites that makes them irrationally hate jews. but i would posit often that is simply not the case. because what may seem irrational to you, an irrational person might see as rational. and while i would posit most people who don’t like zionism do not hate all jews i think others, in their anger and frustration or revenge or whatever, will blame jews, all of them. so i just don’t buy it that one can’t hate jews for the action of the israeli government.

        i think there are also examples of young girls who may have gotten raped repeatedly by their step fathers growing up who, by the time they are teens, hate all men. it just happens. even tho most men are not rapists. if that child has no male father figure in her life to counter her abuser, what would be the reason for her day after day and year after year, rationalizing that all men are not like that?

        especially when you separate people physically so that they do not come in contact with eachother, separate neighborhoods, schools, hospital rooms, etc, it is much more likely those people will not have positive role models to counter negative stereotypes they learn about from their media and their elders. racism is learned. it’s not something people are born with. so yeah, you can learn to be racist. one of the ways you can learn racism is to abuse people based on their race or ethnicity. like for example the occupation, something like that would almost guarantee a degree of fear and/or prejudice. zionism breeds racism. there’s nothing irrational about that. psychologically, you can almost count on it to impact a segment of society.

        think about it like learning fire. if your hand gets close to the flame it hurts so you learn not to touch it. so if someone kills your father and that someones brother kills or imprisons your mother, and another related being bulldozes your house how many times does it take to learn those people are dangerous and want to hurt you? saying zionism doesn’t cause hatred is like.. nutty. and once you have hatred in your heart things like logic and rationality become more challenging. the situation of occupation breeds contempt. and that contempt will not always be limited to the system, sometimes it will spill over onto the people responsible. and lots of people hold (all) jews responsible for the occupation. it’s not fair, but it can happen.

        i think you are in denial jon.

      • Mooser
        December 14, 2016, 6:32 pm

        “i think you are in denial jon.”

        Being in denial is one thing, but expecting everybody else to join you there at their own expense is something else again.

      • Mooser
        December 14, 2016, 6:50 pm

        “Jon 66” what on earth are you so concerned about? So a few people don’t like us. If a few anti-semites don’t like 2 billion Jews, we’ll just roll right over them. If we’ve got what it takes to take back Palestine, why be concerned about a little anti-semitism.

        Make up your mind, “Jon66”: Are we powerful and numerous enough to take back our country, and play power politics and war, or are we a religious minority which can’t survive without protection from criticism? Which is it?

        And is the big problem being hated, or is just being thought of as in no way special bad enough?

      • eljay
        December 14, 2016, 7:09 pm

        || Jon66: … I’m saying you can’t hate Jews for the actions of the Israeli govt … I disagree that Zionism has given anyone a reason to hate Jews. … a “reason” means that there is a rational explanation for it. … ||

        A reason is a justification. It does not have to be a rational explanation.

        And while I agree that the actions of the Israeli government are not a valid or rational reason for anyone to hate all Jews, you’re wrong to suggest that Zionism hasn’t done its very best to provide a reason (a justification) for some people to hate Jews.

        Among other things:
        – Zionism routinely declares Israel to be a “Jewish State” and conflates the “Jewish State” with all Jewish people in the world.
        – The “Jewish State” routinely claims to exist, to speak and to act on behalf of and for the benefit of all Jewish people in the world.
        – Even as the “Jewish State” continues intentionally and unapologetically to commit (war) crimes, Zionists reinforce the conflation of the “Jewish State” with all Jewish people in the world and insist that all Jewish people in the world must provide unquestioning support to the “Jewish State”.
        – And, last but not least, Zionists ensure that any valid criticism of Israeli (war) crimes is firmly conflated with criticism of Jews and the “Jewish State”. They make damned sure to keep it tied to and all about Jews.

      • Mooser
        December 14, 2016, 7:17 pm

        “How about judging people by their actions, not their religion or ethnicity.” “Jon 66”

        Yes, why don’t we do that for the Zionists. Ethnicity, religion, that’s all swept aside, and given no consideration, and only the actions of the Zionists matter. We judge them only as a group of like-minded people who came to Palestine.

        That sound like a good idea to you “Jon66”? A good basis for judgement, “by their actions”?

      • Jon66
        December 14, 2016, 9:45 pm

        Annie,
        Mag said, “Traditional antisemitism had no foundation. Zionism gives people a reason to hate Jews. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/definition-semitism-demonizes/comment-page-1/#comment-863031

        He contrasted traditional anti-semitism with current hatred of Jews. He said the older hatred had no foundation. But there were ‘reasons’ that Jews were hated, e.g., unclean or parasitical I do not believe that these were valid reasons to hate Jews. He put forth Zionism as a current reason to hate Jews. The contrast he presented was a traditional hatred without foundation and a modern hatred with reason. If he had said that there were irrational reasons in the past why people hated Jews and the modern irrational reason was Zionism than I wouldn’t disagree.
        If irrational hatred of all Jews for the action of some Jews is anti-Semitism or bigotry or whatever you want to call it and the hatred of all Jews for the actions of Zionism is irrational, than isn’t the hatred of all Jews for the actions of Zionism anti-semitism or bigotry or whatever. We can search for excuses for why some people hate others unfairly, but I think it’s better to condemn the hate.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 15, 2016, 1:23 am

        He contrasted traditional anti-semitism with current hatred of Jews. He said the older hatred had no foundation.

        first off, i can’t speak for mag, i can only speak for how i interpreted what he said. he contrasted traditional anti semitism with anti semitism as a response to zionism. i’m sure there’s still traditional anti semitism currently hanging out. in fact, many die hard zionists could easily be anti semites (lots of neonazis love zionism and israel — yuk). he didn’t say anything about “older” or “current”. he said traditional.

        He put forth Zionism as a current reason to hate Jews.

        he put forth zionism gives people a reason to hate Jews. the hatred of all Jews for any reason is irrational, unfair, and anti semitism. but it doesn’t erase the situation that Zionism gives people a reason to hate Jews jon. it’s a main driver of anti semitism. but it doesn’t mean there are not valid reasons (easily justifiable) to resist and be abhorred by zionism and/or zionists. and if one or one’s family has been hurt, murdered, robbed, imprisoned, persecuted, and/or oppressed by zionists then it is not irrational to hate them. plus, if the only jewish people you’ve ever met are zionists or zionist supporters or zionist soldiers (the case for some people growing up in palestine) then it is also not irrational to presume that’s who all jews are, and fear them.

        there’s a big leap between ‘i hate him because he’s smelly’ and ‘i hate him because he kills my people’.

        better to condemn the hate.

        i don’t think hate is a healthy emotion for anyone, for any reason. but i am not going to condemn the hatred of someone for their torturer or their killer or their oppressor. that is not my place. i regularly speak out against people ascribing hatred to their adversaries, for i don’t think one can tell what is in another persons heart. it’s frequently used as a smear by zionists defending israel — ‘you’re hateful’ etc. but if someone speaks from their own heart and tells you what and who they hate, then i would try to listen and understand. and if they told me they hated jewish people i would tell them why i thought they were wrong and misguided. but i wouldn’t tell a palestinian grandmother who still had the keys to her stolen house and whose son was murdered by zionists she shouldn’t hate zionism or zionists. that’s not my place. just like i wouldn’t tell an abused wife not to hate her husband. while i might not agree with it, sometimes hate is rational. zionism gives people a reason to hate. it’s not the same as not showering. you can’t fix it merely by claiming that unlike traditional anti semitism, modernized (new) anti semitism is anti zionism.

        condemning hate doesn’t stop wars or occupation, especially when the people with the bombs claim they are moral and you’re forcing them to bomb you. you can condemn away but it won’t have any meaning.

        clearly from your presence here you think your time is more valuable than trying to stop the occupation or end zionist crimes. the hatred of zionism will end when zionism stops being a cruel racist sadistic endeavor.

        that’s about all i have to say on the topic.

      • RoHa
        December 14, 2016, 10:00 pm

        “isn’t the hatred of all Jews for the actions of Zionism anti-semitism or bigotry or whatever. … I think it’s better to condemn the hate.”

        I think it’s better to stop faffing about “hate” and concentrate on stopping the evil actions of the Zionists.

      • RoHa
        December 14, 2016, 10:11 pm

        “I’m saying you can’t hate Jews for the actions of the Israeli govt or Catholics for the action of the Church. ”

        Jon, I’m neither Catholic nor Jewish, so I look on as an outsider.

        It seems to me that the vast majority of Catholics are horrified by the paedophile priests, and want the Church to prosecute rather than protect. This means that the Catholics do not support the evil, and so do not attract obloquy for that support.

        But it also seems to me that the vast majority of Jews do support the evil of Zionism. This might not be a sufficient reason to hate them, but it certainly is a reason for negative attitudes.

        You may not like this idea. The moderators may not like this idea. But until we see large numbers of major, “official”, Jewish organizations speaking out against Zionism, those negative attitudes will persist.

      • Sibiriak
        December 15, 2016, 12:45 am

        RoHa: …it also seems to me that the vast majority of Jews do support the evil of Zionism

        ————–

        What specific “evil” of “Zionism” (a term people understand in many different ways) are you saying the “vast majority of Jews” support? And, most importantly, what evidence to you have to substantiate that claim?

      • Sibiriak
        December 15, 2016, 1:36 am

        @RoHa:

        Example evils of Zionism: (short list; expand/revise at will):

        Ethnic cleansing
        Apartheid
        War crimes
        Crimes against Humanity
        Occupation of Palestinian territory
        Denial of Palestinian right of self-determination
        Expanding settlements in the West Bank
        Refusal to accept a Palestinian State
        Ethnocratic/theocratic governance in Israel.
        Anti-Arab racism
        Discrimination against Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel.

        Which of these evils of Zionism (or others) do you claim are supported by the “vast majority of Jews”? On what evidentiary basis?

        If you cannot specify and substantiate your accusation, then I’m afraid you are engaging in anti-Jewish prejudice.

        If you mean simply that most Jews support the historical creation of a Jewish-majority state in Palestine, then it has to be pointed out that such support is hardly a special characteristic of Jews– there has been widespread international support for the creation of Israel. Therefore, Jewish support for the creation of Israel would not constitute a rational basis for an negative attitude toward, let alone hatred for, Jews as a group.

        It also has to be pointed out that in the U.S. (and elsewhere, no doubt) favorable attitudes toward Israel remain quite widespread among the non-Jewish population:

        Today, majorities of conservative Republicans (79%) and moderate and liberal Republicans (65%) say they sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians, while just 4% and 13%, respectively, sympathize more with the Palestinians. This is the case for conservative and moderate Democrats as well – far more have a more sympathetic view of Israel (53%) than of the Palestinians (19%). Liberal Democrats, however, are more divided, with four-in-ten (40%) sympathizing more with the Palestinians, versus a third (33%) with Israel.

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/23/5-facts-about-how-americans-view-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

      • RoHa
        December 15, 2016, 2:00 am

        “What specific “evil” of “Zionism” (a term people understand in many different ways) are you saying the “vast majority of Jews” support? And, most importantly, what evidence to you have to substantiate that claim?”

        I’m not saying that they do support Zionism and all its evils.

        I’m saying that’s the way it seems.

        And I get that impression from the way that “official” Jewish groups leap to the defence of Israel every time some criticism is made, from the Israeli flags that decorate synagogues, from the actions and attitudes of the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Johnathan Sacks. To the outside observer, Jewish based criticism of Israel is almost invisible.

        Now I know that lots of non-Jews also have favourable attitudes to Israel, but their position is mostly passive. They are not the ones we see (e.g.) attacking a cartoonist for an accurate cartoon.

        Nonetheless, their approval is a reason for negative attitudes towards them, as well.

      • Jon66
        December 15, 2016, 7:31 am

        Annie,
        I understand why a Palestinian would hate a Zionist. I understand why a woman abused by her husband would hate him. But for the Palestinian to hate all Jews or the woman to hate all men would display a narrow mindedness and lack of understanding. I would tell that woman, and I have, that obviously not all men behave that way and people should be judged by their actions not their sex. Maybe someone smarter than I can help, but there seems to be a difference between finding a ‘reason’ to feel a certain way and finding an ‘excuse’. I guess it’s just an area in which we disagree.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 15, 2016, 8:25 am

        But for the Palestinian to hate all Jews or the woman to hate all men would display a narrow mindedness and lack of understanding.

        jon, i am beginning to think you are willfully not getting my point. so let me be blatantly clear. and please bear with me. if a girl child was raped twice a day by multiple male relatives beginning at the age of 2 extending til she was 13, and she hated all men would you say she displayed narrow mindedness and lack of understanding?

        frankly, i think your radar is off here. but let’s presume she did display narrow mindedness and lack of understanding. who would you blame for that? who would you blame for her irrationality? and wouldn’t the crimes of her abusers be your priority? why pick on the girl? why not fix the root of the problem? or don’t you think the systematic structural violence of zionist is the root cause of the issue. or maybe you don’t recognize the daily abuse. looked at kate’s list lately? frankly, i think anti semitism is the least of our problems right now, considering the circumstances.

        it just seems like a big fat divert away from the criminals, who will continue to abuse because that is what they are conditioned to do, by the state. the system of zionism/occupation as it currently exists and has existed since the founding of the state of israel (as opposed to some non racist hypothetical ideologically pure cultural zionism that has, thus far, never materialized) is the core problem.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 15, 2016, 7:46 am

        Jon
        It’s possible to hate ISIS for what it does.
        And hate the IDF for what it does
        And the IDF is a Citizen army

        I am interested in the factors that would lead people to hate Jews for what they actually do and what they so openly support
        Zionism assumes the Holocaust pass covers everything. It doesn’t.

      • eljay
        December 15, 2016, 8:01 am

        || Jon66: … If irrational hatred of all Jews for the action of some Jews is anti-Semitism or bigotry or whatever you want to call it and the hatred of all Jews for the actions of Zionism is irrational, than isn’t the hatred of all Jews for the actions of Zionism anti-semitism or bigotry or whatever. We can search for excuses for why some people hate others unfairly, but I think it’s better to condemn the hate. ||

        So…as long as people condemn irrational hatred against all Muslims, it’s acceptable for Muslims to support Islamic State. Interesting.

      • eljay
        December 15, 2016, 8:57 am

        || Jon66: … I understand why a Palestinian would hate a Zionist. I understand why a woman abused by her husband would hate him. But for the Palestinian to hate all Jews or the woman to hate all men would display a narrow mindedness and lack of understanding. I would tell that woman, and I have, that obviously not all men behave that way and people should be judged by their actions not their sex. ||

        If rapists and wife-beaters claimed to act on behalf of all men and most men – including you – openly supported the “right” of rapists and wife-beaters to “self-determine”, your explanation to that “narrow-minded” woman would ring pretty hollow.

        “Narrow-minded” Palestinians must hear a similarly hollow ring when they are told they shouldn’t hate all Jews even as a “Jewish State”…
        – which routinely proclaims that it exists, speaks for and acts on behalf of all Jewish people in the world; and
        – which (according to the Zionists here on MW) is openly supported by most Jewish people in the world,
        …continues intentionally, unapologetically and with impunity to steal, occupy and colonize their lands; to commit (war) crimes against them; and to deny them their (human) rights.

      • Bumblebye
        December 15, 2016, 9:15 am

        Jon66

        you are being an obtuse twit.

        In occupied Palestine, what representatives of Israel are people, especially children, most likely to meet?
        Highly likely to be militant hate filled shtetlers or uniformed half trained bullies – middle of the day, middle of the night. And what is the designated ‘nationality’ of these invaders of their land? Why, it’s ‘yahud’, isn’t it? So do these victims of the israeli state hate a nationality, an ethnicity or a religion? If the israelis had adopted the nationality ‘hebrew’ instead of ‘yahud’ the answer might have been less ambiguous – ‘hebrew’ could encompass all those who speak the language but are not Jewish.

        How irrational is it for a child to grow up hating those who terrorise his family, friends, neighbors, compatriots on a daily basis, killing, maiming, destroying homes and livelihoods, stealing from homes, stealing homes and lands, endlessly? How can you even pretend that’s ‘antisemitism’?

      • oldgeezer
        December 15, 2016, 9:24 am

        @jon66

        I, like others, agree that the Palestinians shouldn’t blame or hate all Jewish people. I am sure many of them don’t as they are likely aware of many Jewish people who are working to end and correct their oppression.

        That said why are you so focussed on the negative feelings of the victims of 80 years of oppression and not on the negative feelings of the oppressors. A multitude of polls show Jewish Israeli attitudes to their victims. The words of the GoI stand as further testament. The ongoing collective punishment is a huge indicator that all Palestinians are held responsible forbthe actions of a few yet you whine about the unfairness of the reaction to that oppression and punishment. Why don’t you complain about the GoI claimimg it acts and speaks for all Jews? Why don’t you complain about Jewish leadership in other countries who publicly claim all Jews support Israel?

        So many things you could be complaining about and acting on in your own house yet your big concern has been that the victims reaction is unfair. Stop victimizing them. So you sow…

      • Mooser
        December 15, 2016, 3:57 pm

        What you people can’t seem to understand, and “Jon s 66” is to modest to say, is that the world is obligated to support a Jewish State. Even neutrality is a form of opposition. Supporting Palestinian rights is, guess what?

        Only unstinting support for Zionism can, in some measure, reduce the debt owed us.
        Is that plain enough “Jon s 66”?

      • Mooser
        December 15, 2016, 4:10 pm

        “But until we see large numbers of major, “official”, Jewish organizations speaking out against Zionism, those negative attitudes will persist.”

        And that would be great. But keep in mind that the usual reaction (as it is with people of all religions in the US who don’t like what their religion is doing) is to back away from or avoid the organized forms of Judaism. So the idea of standing in opposition when you can just adjust the relationship may not seem necessary.

      • Mooser
        December 15, 2016, 4:19 pm

        “the woman to hate all men would display a narrow mindedness and lack of understanding. I would tell that woman, and I have, that obviously not all men behave that way and people should be judged by their actions not their sex. “

        Gee, I would call that adding insult to injury, and frankly, it sounds like you take pleasure in kicking a woman when she’s down.

      • RoHa
        December 16, 2016, 3:46 am

        “So the idea of standing in opposition when you can just adjust the relationship may not seem necessary. ”

        Maybe not. And, for all I know, it might be the case that the world’s 14 trillion Jews silently repudiate Israel and all its works. But while the “official ” Jewish organisations and Jewish leaders (whom, I know, you honour and revere) continue making so much noise, the impression still stands that Jews in general give Israel wholehearted support.

        I know that there are groups like JVP which occasionally wag an admonitory finger at Israel, but I only know this from reading MW. They make no impression on the wider world. Even when Israel is slaughtering Gazans, such groups get no mention in international media. I have never seen them or heard their name on British or Australian TV news. (Currently telling us that Assad and the Russians are war criminals for taking Aleppo.)

        So until the 87 quadrillion stop being silent and make their position clear, the negative attitudes will persist.

      • MHughes976
        December 16, 2016, 7:06 am

        As to U.K. Jewish opinion, see poll from City University (London) Nov. 12, 2015, revealing very strong liberal Zionism – right to exist, 2 states, don’t expand settlements. As we know, liberal Zionism is Zionism.

      • Mooser
        December 16, 2016, 1:04 pm

        “As to U.K. Jewish opinion,”

        I think it’s like this: If Zionism (or other things related or not) makes people back away from organized Judaism, they are not likely to be included in a survey of “Jewish opinion”.

        I call that the 100% rule.

      • Mooser
        December 16, 2016, 1:13 pm

        “So until the 87 quadrillion stop being silent and make their position clear, the negative attitudes will persist”

        Sure, that may be, the negative attitudes will persist. I don’t think that will prevent Jews from backing away from organized Judaism as it is, or ceasing material and political support for Zionism. They may or may not make a big noise about it.

    • Jon66
      December 16, 2016, 5:09 pm

      All,
      I’m not the one who first mentioned Palestinians. The article above was centered on the U.K. Please re-read my first comments. I was simply trying to say that Zionism is not an excuse for anti-semitism. That was not focused on the ‘victims’ of Zionism, but rather a general statement. I didn’t think the statement would be so controversial.

      • Mooser
        December 16, 2016, 7:35 pm

        “. I was simply trying to say that Zionism is not an excuse for anti-semitism.”

        ROTFLMSJAO! Tell it to the Zionists! Zionists have , from the very beginning, thought that Zionism is an excuse for antisemitism.

      • RoHa
        December 16, 2016, 9:07 pm

        “Zionists have , from the very beginning, thought that Zionism is an excuse for antisemitism. ”

        And vice versa.

  7. Ossinev
    December 14, 2016, 8:09 am

    Difficult to know where to start with this one – it is so hilarious. But here goes anyway. So Tm bless her and of all places at a Friends of Israel meeting ( heavy hint there ) has decided that the UK will be formally adopting a definition of “anti – Semitism”. So first question that automatically comes to mind is “what is the definition of a Semite ? “. No really you`re kidding me – I thought all this time it was just Jews but you mean there are are all sorts of people in and from the Middle East who are also Semites but they are Muslims. And wait there`s more there are lots perhaps millions!) of people who are Jewish but are not actually Semites. So why isn`t this about anti – Judaism. Is there some sort of trademark/patent on the term “Anti – Semitic” held by A Jewish Institution , an individual Rabbi or wow could it be the government of Israel

    Second question. Can we have definitions for all the other “Antis” as well eg anti- Catholicism. anti – Baptistism , anti – Paganism etc etc ad nauseum otherwise it`s just not fair. In fact it could be argued that it is downright discriminatory in favour of a specific and very small minority of the British people and yes I have to say something distinctly smelly about it.

    I will stop at two but there are a lots and lots of questions which will become formal legal challenges whenever this daft Bill becomes law and is actioned in anyway.

    You have got to hand it to these Israeli First Zionists here in the UK ( knock , knock yes officer I will come quietly ) they cerainly know how to shine a light unto their shit.

  8. Talkback
    December 14, 2016, 8:49 am

    Well, here’s the thing.

    Contrary to Kenneth Stern’s original proposal on which the EUMC “working” [!] definition was based upon it says in the definition that all these examples only “could” be examples and only “taking into account the overall context”. It doesn’t say that these ARE examples of antisemitism, no matter what.

    But the Hasbara trolls and their minions never quote this important limitation and they don’t know how to cope with the sentence that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
    http://www.antisem.eu/projects/eumc-working-definition-of-antisemitism/

    Btw. here’s what Kenneth Stern thinks about the latest antisemitism bills:
    “both unconstitutional and unwise. … The definition was never intended to be used to limit speech on a college campus, … It was written for European data collectors to have a guideline for what to include and what to exclude in reports.”
    http://forward.com/news/356220/expert-on-hate-opposes-campus-anti-semitism-bill-based-on-definition-he-cre/

    • pabelmont
      December 14, 2016, 9:59 am

      Talkback: “don’t know how to cope with the sentence that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

      I didn’t know this escape-hatch was there, but it is, indeed, and is the very last sentence of the USA’s Department of State’s definition of anti-semitism (June 8, 2010): http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm

  9. eljay
    December 14, 2016, 9:02 am

    –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.

    If the accusation is falsely made, that’s anti-Semitic. If it isn’t falsely made, it’s not anti-Semitic.

    – 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.

    People who wish to be Jewish should have a right to self-determine as Jewish. That right of self-determination does not comprise a “right” to an oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and/or religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

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

    Makes sense. And this is why expecting Israel…
    – not to exist as a supremacist state of any kind;
    – not to engage in oppression and colonialism;
    – to respect and uphold international laws;
    – to honour its obligations under international law; and
    …is not anti-Semitic.

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

    Israelis should be characterized as Israelis and Israel should be characterized as the nation state of and for all Israelis. Zio-supremacists keep characterizing Israel and Israelis and being all about Jews. That smacks of both anti-Semitism and bigotry against non-Jewish Israelis.

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

    This should only be considered anti-Semitic if no other nation’s policies are compared to Nazism. Don’t want to be “singling out” Israel, right?

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

    Makes perfect sense. It’s strange, then, that Zio-supremacist JeffB would make that very assertion here on MW and even stranger that his co-collectivists were extremely reluctant to take him to task for having made it.

    • Sibiriak
      December 14, 2016, 9:56 am

      eljay: People who wish to be Jewish should have a right to self-determine as Jewish.
      ———-

      In international law, the right of self-determination applies to whole peoples, not individual persons, i.e. it is a collective right, not an individual right.

      The argument to be made, then, if you wish to make it, is that there is no collective Jewish people inside Israel that can make a legitimate claim for the right to self-determination of peoples .

      • Maghlawatan
        December 14, 2016, 4:17 pm

        People have the right to identify as Transgender. But they don’t hjave the right to force anyone else to endure something illegal because they themselves are transgender.
        Jewish self determination cannot impinge on the rights of non Jews.

    • Sibiriak
      December 14, 2016, 10:38 am

      eljay: That right of self-determination does not comprise a “right” to an oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and/or religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.
      ——————

      Absolutely true.

      The right of self-determination of peoples cannot be used to negate other fundamental rights and principles, such as that of equality.

      Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples , and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. “[22]

      Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [23] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) [24] reads:

      “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. ” [emphasis added]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
      ——————————-

      A right to freely determine political status and freely pursue economic, social and cultural development in no way implies a right to discriminate against minorities, deny another people their rights, set up an apartheid regime, commit war crimes etc.

      On the other hand, you yourself have stated that if Israel’s Jewish-majority granted equality to non-Jews, Israel could be a “culturally Jewish” state while ceasing to be a “supremacist” Jewish state.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/practicing-standard-countries/#comment-775755

      • eljay
        December 14, 2016, 12:44 pm

        || Sibiriak: … you yourself have stated that if Israel’s Jewish-majority granted equality to non-Jews, Israel could be a “culturally Jewish” state while ceasing to be a “supremacist” Jewish state. ||

        IMO, an Israel with full equality for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees – and no different or special rights for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – would not be a supremacist “Jewish State”, but it certainly could be culturally Jewish (for an undetermined span of time, anyway).

    • RoHa
      December 14, 2016, 6:12 pm

      “If the accusation is falsely made, that’s anti-Semitic. If it isn’t falsely made, it’s not anti-Semitic.”

      Hold on, there, eljay. Think of all the times you have heard or read the protest “That statement is anti-Semitic/racist/sexist/anti-Kiwi/Islamophobic/[fill in the blank]!”

      Have any of the protesters ever shown any interest in the truth of the statement, let alone acknowledge that truth could be a defence?

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2016, 3:51 pm

        “Have any of the protesters ever shown any interest in the truth of the statement, let alone acknowledge that truth could be a defence?”

        Of course, everybody is interested in “the truth of the statement” when it concerns “anti-Semitic/racist/sexist/anti-Kiwi/Islamophobic/[fill in the blank]!”

        So there you go “RoHa”, that leaves you perfectly free to argue, for instance, ‘women are morally inferior to men’ or ‘people with dark skins are inferior to white-skinned people’ or ‘Jews only help their own’.
        In pursuit, naturally, of “the truth of the statement”.

      • RoHa
        December 19, 2016, 10:58 pm

        People used to be interested in the truth of such claims, but those particular issues were argued out before the practice of using “racist/sexist/ …ist” accusations to enforce silence on dissenters became the norm.

  10. AddictionMyth
    December 14, 2016, 9:51 am

    Also, Sussex Friends of Israel is a terrorist organization: http://addictionmyth.com/twitter-death-threat/

    Oh the hypocrisy.

    • Rashers2
      December 17, 2016, 9:03 pm

      By the way, @AddictionMyth, this link is blocked from the UK & comes up with, “The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country.” Copyright??? Somewhat against my principles, I accessed it by switching to a DC-located proxy server.

  11. HarryLaw
    December 14, 2016, 10:10 am

    The Hebrew Encyclopedia defines anti- Semitism as all manifestations of hatred and racism directed against Semites. The Fact is that anti-Semitism also comprises all manifestations of hatred and racism directed against all Semites including Arabs. I would like to make three points.

    1/ Zionists have manipulated Semitic ethnicity so as to apply to Jews alone, enabling them to level the allegation of anti-Semitism against Arabs in spite of the fact that they [Arabs] constitute the majority of the Semitic peoples.

    2/ the label “anti-Semitic” has acquired enormous deterrent power and is used as a political tool by Zionists.

    3/ Now confident in having monopolized the term Semites, they can abuse that term by calling anyone an “anti-Semite” who criticize Israel, Zionist leaders are free to mouth the most racist abuse against others i.e, Eyelet Shaked.

  12. Ossinev
    December 14, 2016, 12:38 pm

    Further to my earlier post apologies to all you traditional Church of England brethren out there. Of course it is long past time for an up to date definition of Antdisestablismentarianism and this new Anti Semitism Bill would be a great opportunity to highlight the whole issue of the injustice of separating Church from State. Over to you Theresa.

    • MHughes976
      December 14, 2016, 2:50 pm

      I’m a fairly traditional CofE member and antidisestablishmentarian and would accept your apoligy if I thought any such were called for. But yes, a definition of anti-Catholicism – suggesting that Rome was not the historic death place of St.Peter? – and even more pertinently of Islamophobia – suggesting that the Palestinian people does not exist? – would certainly be of interest.

  13. broadside
    December 14, 2016, 1:20 pm

    The definition of antisemitism is not unlike Israel’s defined borders: vague, but expanding.

  14. Maghlawatan
    December 14, 2016, 4:18 pm

    Theresa May is very poor

  15. Maghlawatan
    December 14, 2016, 4:32 pm

    Theresa May and antisemitism : Israel is the smarmy kid that holds onto the teacher’s skirt and makes faces at the other kids. na na na na.
    The smarmy kid that tortures puppies and is out of control . It’s not ADD. It’s something far more disturbing.

    • broadside
      December 15, 2016, 8:31 am

      No, Maghlawatan. Israel is the crime boss’s sadistic son, the crime boss being the US. The son walks through town, and actually believes the smiles and greetings he receives are genuine, and warm.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 15, 2016, 11:50 am

        Broadside he is a sadist in his own right.

  16. Qualtrough
    December 15, 2016, 3:33 am

    It is quite easy to see the UK banning Mondoweiss under this definition. Scary in its implications.

  17. catalan
    December 16, 2016, 9:55 am

    RoHa,
    There are reasons besides Israel for which people don’t like Jews. Not that it bothers me, I am not part of the everyone must like everyone movement. Israel is definitely a cause among a certain segment of the left. However, another cause is the supposed wealth, nepotism, favoritism. Still others, predominantly on the right, see Jews as agents of a global world order, antitraditionalists, communists.
    Among Eastern Europeans, antisemitism is certainly not caused by any sympathy for Muslims or dislike of Israel. On the contrary, they are not fans of the Muslims either and applaud Israel in that regard.
    The point being that this condemnation you demand won’t do a thing about antisemitism. It would be seen as halfhearted and self serving, insincere. Not to mention that these Jewish organizations don’t have the authority to speak for anyone. I have never voted, nor participate in any of them.
    Cheers.

  18. Rashers2
    December 17, 2016, 11:23 pm

    Sometimes, “gallows humour” or sharp, waspish words designed to sting – or expressions of outrage, even – seem hollow and too much trouble to muster or construct. This is one such occasion. Predominantly, I feel only a rather resigned sadness at la May’s espousal of this ludicrous definition of anti-Semitism.
    When the Zionist project goes up in metaphorical or literal smoke, as some day all colonial projects should and do, I’ve mused aloud before about the need for re-education for those Zionists who survive the explosion or implosion – a de-Zionification programme analogous to the de-Nazification programme at the end of WW II, in which the perverted morality exemplified in the worldviews of the Ayelet Shakeds, Naftali Bennetts and countless more with no public faces can be exposed to the many who have internalised it over generations for what it is – a moral perversion.
    Now, it seems, I’m about to be on the wrong side of the (bad) laws of my own country. If anyone targeted this site, frequently miss-described by strident, Zionist mouth-foamers as a “hate site”, and those who comment on it, most of us would be pretty easy to identify behind our “handles”. Next time I land at Heathrow I can’t be refused entry; and (unless, over the past 10 years, things have changed even more than I realise) I can’t be “rendered” to one of @RoHa’s Newspeak Secure Academies for Gleichschaltung without first being tried and convicted.
    In earnest, a trial in an open English court of the “right” defendant (not of a no-one like me but of someone with a high profile) for anti-Semitism under Mrs. May’s new definition would probably do a lot of good; not only in causing the definition to be re-visited and either abandoned or re-cast but also as a reminder to legislators that bad laws are inimical to the rule of law because they tend to bring the law itself into contempt.

    • Maghlawatan
      December 18, 2016, 11:06 am

      I was thinking the same thing. I read about denazification recently. One German officer said it was the first time he had been treated as a human in 12 years.
      A German man in his 90s died a few weeks ago and donated £380,000 to the village in Scotland in which he was held after the war. Because they were so kind to him.

  19. Ossinev
    December 18, 2016, 1:04 pm

    @Qualtrough
    “It is quite easy to see the UK banning Mondoweiss under this definition. Scary in its implications”

    The UK ( as in Magna Carta ) is not the US and it is not at all scary IMHO. If they actually try to “enforce” this nonsense it will actually be a good thing because it will lead to public defiance and a real positive = it will further highlight the Apartheid scenario in the poor little victimised beleagured “size of Wales ” Land of Creation and the malign influence which it has in UK politics.

  20. Dan Walsh
    December 19, 2016, 2:22 am

    re idea of UK banning of MW…

    The UK’s University and College Union (UCU) went through a costly and detailed legal evaluation of a union member’s claim that the UCU was antisemitic back in 2013. The complaint was leveled by Ronnie Fraser who claimed his dignity was injured when he spoke out against BDS. All his arguments were trounced in all their particulars by the UCU review despite an all-star legal team’s best efforts to equate BDS with antisemitism. It is worth reading about because it debunks many (all?) of the arguments hasbara puts forward about antisemitism to this day.

    Huffington had this to say but there are other/better/UCU docs online as well.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/28/ronnie-fraser-ucuc-antisemitic-israel-palestine-tribunal_n_2971925.html

    Any effort of the UK govt to ban MW (farfetched to my mind) would have to consider recent/UK precedents such as this UCU case. In any event I doubt Organized Zionism would ever let a major legal challenge to its cherished, prescriptive definition(s) of antisemitism ever go to court: the likelihood of defeat is formidable and to judicially lose (as in lose forever lose without a chance of coming back) the powerful sword of lexical ambiguity would be near-fatal to Zionist propaganda.

Leave a Reply