The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous," "play-acting," "acting out," "coward" or "dissembling."
Alternatively, the word is an amalgam of the Greek prefix hypo-, meaning "under," and the verb krinein, meaning "to sift or decide." Thus the original meaning implied a deficiency in the ability to sift or decide. This deficiency, as it pertains to one's own beliefs and feelings, informs the word's contemporary meaning.
"Anti-Trumpism is antisemitism!" —Mooser
Max Weber, according to Montserrat Guibernau, defines the state as “a human community possessing the sole ‘right’ to use violence within a given territory.” Moreover, “ethnicity [a group identity which is subjectively perceived, Weber suggests] facilitates group formation . . . particularly in the political sphere.” “He stresses that it is primarily the political community, no matter how artificially organized, that inspires the belief in common ethnicity.”
So it clearly follows that antisemitism can be defined as both anti-Zionism and/or anti-Trumpism by those who choose to do so. Furthermore, as “Weber’s emphasis upon violence and territoriality in defining the state has clear roots in [Heinrich von] Treitschke’s Die Politik,” Trumpistas are justified in believing, with Treitschke, that “the state exerts its power through war . . . . and [t]he appeal to arms will be valid until the end of history and therein lies the sacredness of war” — (THE NATION-STATE AND NATIONALISM IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996: 7, 31-32).
I am known for saying ‘Build a house, it’s like you wiped out a hundred Arabs. Build a settlement, it’s like you wiped out tens of thousands of goyim [‘non-Jews’]’. That’s the truth”.
Zionists must be forced to comprehend that human beings are bound by a common humanity more elemental than any unity of race, ethnicity, culture, religion and/or secular dogma. Their desire to atomize humankind into racial, ethnic, cultural and religious particles should be respected — with opprobrium —if they make that determination for themselves. I doubt they will make that determination, personally. But . . . they must not be allowed to reduce all people living in historic Palestine to racial, ethnic and cultural groups and/or religious creeds.
The perverse, primordial (ethnonational) ideology of Zionism, like the depraved (ethnonational) ideology of Nazism, need only be condemned by the international community (and a substantial minority of the U.S. people). Then the Zionist State can be dismantled by U.S. military force (and/or a “coalition of willing” military allies). Yes, I mean — literally — deploying many U.S. military regiments (“boots on the ground”) to Israel. There is no realistic alternative to disassembling the Zionist state by means of military force.
Zionists can choose to live in little, itsy-bitsy walled-off ethnic enclaves scattered around the world — as I’ve suggested before — if they remain committed to practicing ethnic and racial segregation, but their ethnonational, racist state must be dismantled, and Zionists must remove themselves — or be removed by military force — from Palestine.
“Ultimately, liberal Zionists like Loeffler need to decide if they will ever be willing to let go of their Zionism and embrace the human rights community that includes all people.”
Zionists — regardless of what they may profess, at times — do not recognize universal human rights. Myths of common ancestry and being God’s “chosen” people separate them irremediably from the rest of humanity.
Anthony D. Smith, Professor of Ethnicity and Nationalism at the European Institute, London School of Economics, suggests that hundreds of different ethnic groups have cultivated a myth of ethnic election or chosenness. “Even in antiquity,” he writes, “Jews were by no means the only people to have believed that they were ‘chosen.’ Intimations of such ideas can be found over a millennium earlier in Egypt and Mesopotamia . . .” (“Chosen Peoples,” ETHNICITY [An Oxford Reader], ed. by Hutchinson, John and Anthony D. Smith, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996, p. 190).
After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 CE, “a defensive Hellenic population became even more convinced of its elective status and imperial mission —as if the destiny of the world hung on the correct liturgical observance of the only true Christian doctrine in the only genuine Christian empire” (p. 193).
“The Welsh myth of election pictured the community in Wales as . . . a latter-day chosen people, whose original form of Christianity had been transplanted to ancient Britain by Joseph of Aramathea. Together with the Welsh language, folk poetry and medieval bardic contests, these beliefs helped to nurture a sense of unique Welsh identity, especially after the English conquest and the incorporation of Wales” (p. 195).
Warfare and a warrior ethos are common among so-called “chosen” peoples. “The elect consist of righteous warriors under their redeemer-princes and faithful caliphs, and ethnic chosenness is born on the spears and shields of missionary knights such as the Hungarian or Catalan nobility. As with the battles of the ancient Israelites against the Philistines, memories of victory and defeat became incorporated into the sacred history of a chosen people and its warrior deity” (p. 197).