When does anti-Zionism become anti-Jewish hatred?


Philip Mendes

The question as to whether Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are one and the same thing inevitably correlates with attitudes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Those who lean towards the “Greater Israel” end of the spectrum are more likely to answer yes, whilst those who favour the “Greater Palestine” solution are more likely to answer no. As a long-time supporter of Israel but also of two states for two peoples, I sit close to the middle of these two spectrums, and hence my response to the question is necessarily a complex one. That is yes and no.

Historically, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism were two separate ideologies. Anti-Semitism is a racist prejudice that exists independently of any objective reality. It is not about what Jews actually say or do, but rather about what anti-Semites falsely and malevolently attribute to them. As reflected in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it is a subjective stereotyping based on notions of collective Jewish guilt.

In contrast, anti-Zionism (particularly prior to the creation of the State of Israel) was based on a relatively objective assessment of the prospects of success for some Jews in Israel/Palestine. Opposition came from both Jews and the international Left.

However, in recent decades anti-Zionist fundamentalism and anti-Semitism have increasingly converged.

Of course, left-wing attacks on Zionism and Israel incorporating anti-Jewish prejudice are different to the traditional anti-Semitism of the far Right. They constitute a form of political, rather than racial anti-Semitism. And most of their key proponents deny being anti-Semites. Nevertheless, this group arguably create an anti-Jewish discourse and the potential for an openly anti-Semitic movement by demonising all Israeli Jews and all Jewish supporters of Israel as the political enemy.

Today, there are arguably three principal Left positions on Zionism and Israel.

One perspective, which can broadly be called pro-Israel, is balanced in terms of favouring a two-state solution, and supporting moderates and condemning extremists and violence on both sides. This is a minority position, but is held by a number of centre-left leaders such as the current Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

A second perspective endorses a two-state solution in principle, but in practice holds Israel principally or even solely responsible for the continuing violence and terror in the Middle East. This position, which probably represents the majority of the western Left, is held by many social democrats, Greens and trade unions.

The third Left perspective I have called anti-Zionist fundamentalism because it is akin to religious fundamentalism. This view, which is held mainly but no longer exclusively by far Left groups, regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist. Adherents hold to a viewpoint opposing Israel’s existence specifically and Jewish national rights more broadly which is beyond rational debate, and unconnected to contemporary or historical reality.

The anti-Zionist fundamentalist discourse quickly decays into openly anti-Jewish rhetoric. Firstly, there is a pathological and obsessive hatred and demonisation of Israel unrelated to the actual actions and reality of that State. These include absurd claims that Israel is the world’s worst human rights abuser, or that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians.

Secondly, there are proposals for academic and other boycotts of Israel based on the ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis. The aim of such caricatures is to impose pariah status on the whole Israeli nation. These proposals single out Israelis in that no such boycotts are proposed against other countries or nations involved in territorial expansion or human rights abuses.

Thirdly, there is the extension of the denunciation of all Jewish Israelis to all Jews – Zionist or otherwise – who are supportive of Israel’s existence. These Jews are collectively denounced via group libel as accomplices of racism and genocide whatever their actual ideological and political position on solutions to the conflict.

Fourthly, there are stereotypical descriptions of Jewish behaviour, and attacks on alleged Jewish global power, wealth and influence. Conspiracy theorists accuse Jews of controlling western governments, finance and the media; planning the 9/11 attacks; and responsibility for the US-led war in Iraq. Finally, deliberate attempts are made to diminish and trivialise the extent of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust by comparing Jews with Nazis. These analogies do not appear to be used in regards to any other international conflicts, and seem to be motivated solely by a desire to offend and hurt Jews.

This convergence of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was particularly apparent during the recent debate over the attempted introduction of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) policy by Marrickville Council. Three particular developments are worth noting.

Many local BDS proponents either seem to be ignorant of the real aims of the international BDS campaign, or alternatively are deliberately hiding their real views. They deny being anti-Israel, and in some cases, even claim to be pro-peace and supportive of a two-state solution. Yet the leading Palestinian proponents of BDS such as Omar Barghouti openly admit that they do not seek an end to the occupation to facilitate a peaceful two-state solution, but rather the demonisation of all Israeli Jews and the elimination of Israel. In his new book, BDS: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The global struggle for Palestinian Rights (Haymarket Books, Chicago, 2011), Barghouti even vilifies Palestinian moderates and Israeli leftists who support a peaceful two-state solution, rather than the destruction of Israel. The key statement distributed by the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in July 2004 is also crystal clear that the first and foremost priority is to reverse the events of 1948 that lead to the Palestinian refugee tragedy, whereas ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 is only identified as a secondary task.

In addition, BDS proponents malevolently exploit the willingness of self-denying Jews to vilify their own people. The BDS campaign has tapped into the long history of radical Left anti-Semitism whereby a small number of unrepresentative token Jews (some would call them “Uncle Toms” but I prefer the term “self-denying” Jews since they deny any feeling of solidarity with other Jews who are oppressed or attacked) are opportunistically encouraged to exploit their own religious and cultural origins in order to vilify their own people.

The radical Left would never employ such techniques against other historically oppressed groups. Yet during the Marrickville BDS debate this offensive and ridiculous misrepresentation of Jewish views was prominent. For example, Lee Rhiannon claimed that “many Jewish communities support this work”. In fact, no Jewish communities support the BDS, and the only Jewish community group in Marrickville, the Inner West Jewish Community and Friends Peace Alliance which is left-oriented and strongly supportive of a two-state solution, devoted considerable time and resources to opposing the Marrickville BDS proposal.

The only prominent local Jewish supporter of the BDS is Antony Loewenstein, who uses the term “Zionist” as a form of abuse, and who has called for a public inquiry into the alleged power and influence of the Jewish lobby in Australia.

Finally, the debate exposed the increasing capture of academic and media journals and institutions by the powerful pro-Palestinian lobby. This lobby now controls the Middle East policy of journals such as Overland, Arena, New Matilda and Crikey.com, the academic centre known as the Sydney University Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the NSW Greens, and a number of trade unions such as the NSW Teachers Federation which support the BDS. These organisations fanatically exclude alternative left-wing views defending Israel’s existence.

Philip Mendes is the co-editor of Jews and Australian Politics, Sussex Academic Press

I know it's a lot to read, but this article helps put the attitudes of many into perspective.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2733944.html

Professor Kenneth L. Marcus, former staff director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, identifies four main views on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, at least in North America:
1.anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic in its essence and in most, if not all, of its manifestations;
2.anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are both analytically and historically distinct, but the two ideologies have merged since 1948;
3.anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism remain distinct, but anti-Zionism occasionally crosses the line into "outright anti-Semitism", while anti-Semitism often pollutes anti-Zionist discourse;
4.anti-Zionism is analytically distinct from anti-Semitism, but much apparent criticism of Israel or Zionism is in fact a thinly veiled expression of anti-Semitism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

we see it right on this Board how the two converge!

It doesn't matter how it's labelled. A lie is still a lie, and I'm sick and tired of Israel messing with the US government. As for Palestine, it's wrong what they're doing there too, but the AIPAC is so far up our government's collective ANUS I doubt any outcome will bode well for Palestine.

yep,the Article is FACTUAL!

Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism

Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews

Emanuele Ottolenghi

The Guardian, Saturday 29 November 2003

Is there a link between the way Israel's case is presented and anti-semitism? Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism. Critics vehemently disagree. In their view, public attacks on Israel are neither misplaced nor the source of anti-Jewish sentiment: Israel's behaviour is reprehensible and so are those Jews who defend it.
Jewish defenders of Israel are then depicted by their critics as seeking an excuse to justify Israel, projecting Jewish paranoia and displaying a "typical" Jewish trait of "sticking together", even in defending the morally indefensible. Israel's advocates deserve the hostility they get, the argument goes; it is they who should engage in soul-searching.

There is no doubt that recent anti-semitism is linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it is equally without doubt that Israeli policies sometimes deserve criticism. There is nothing wrong, or even remotely anti-semitic, in disapproving of Israeli policies. Nevertheless, this debate - with its insistence that there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism - misses the crucial point of contention. Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.

If Israel's critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes - the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?

The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are dismissed as paranoia, even when anti-semitic imagery is at work, is a subterfuge. Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?

Despite piqued disclaimers, some of Israel's critics use anti-semitic stereotypes. In fact, their disclaimers frequently offer a mask of respectability to otherwise socially unacceptable anti-semitism. Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis". This equation between victims and murderers denies the Holocaust. Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got. Others speak of Zionist conspiracies to dominate the media, manipulate American foreign policy, rule the world and oppress the Arabs. By describing Israel as the root of all evil, they provide the linguistic mandate and the moral justification to destroy it. And by using anti-semitic instruments to achieve this goal, they give away their true anti-semitic face.

There is of course the open question of whether this applies to anti-Zionism. It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.

It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which case one should oppose Palestinian nationalism as well. It could even be argued that though both claims are true and noble, it would have been better to pursue Jewish national rights elsewhere. But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes further and denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves - and consequently behave as - a nation. Anti-Zionists deny Jews a right that they all too readily bestow on others, first of all Palestinians.

Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights. Jews condemning Israel and rejecting Zionism earn their praise. Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.

The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.

Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced. By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.

Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.

· Emanuele Ottolenghi is the Leone Ginzburg Fellow in Israel Studies at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/29/comment

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

Robert Wistrich1

Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti- Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel. Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative "Jewish lobby," the Jewish/Zionist "world conspiracy," and Jewish/Israeli "warmongers." One major driving force of this anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism is the transformation of the Palestinian cause into a "holy war"; another source is anti-Americanism linked with fundamentalist Islamism. In the current context, classic conspiracy theories, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are enjoying a spectacular revival. The common denominator of the new anti-Zionism has been the systematic effort to criminalize Israeli and Jewish behavior, so as to place it beyond the pale of civilized and acceptable conduct.



The question of whether anti-Zionism can or should be equated with anti-Semitism is one of those pivotal issues that refuse to go away. It is of considerable importance in any effort to define the nature of the "new Judeophobia" and strategies to deal with it. Recently when I addressed British MPs in the House of Commons, this was the first order of business. Surely, they wanted to know, doubts about Zionism or alarm at Israel's policies must be distinguished from loathing toward Jews? Was it not true that anti-Semitism was frequently confused with "anti-Sharonism," as The Guardian likes to claim? Did not Jews themselves often engage in the fiercest opposition to Israeli government policy without being accused of anti-Semitism? Finally, exaggerated use of the Judeophobic charge, it was suggested, might raise the suspicion that Israel's leaders were seeking to deflect or even silence justified criticism.

My answer to such objections is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since 1948) have tended to converge, generally without undergoing a full merger. There have always been Bundists, Jewish communists, Reform Jews, and ultra-Orthodox Jews who strongly opposed Zionism without being Judeophobes. So, too, there are conservatives, liberals, and leftists in the West today who are pro-Palestinian, antagonistic toward Israel, and deeply distrustful of Zionism without crossing the line into anti- Semitism. There are also Israeli "post-Zionists" who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly "Jewish" state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews.

Nevertheless, I believe that the more radical forms of anti-Zionism that have emerged with renewed force in recent years do display unmistakable analogies to European anti-Semitism immediately preceding the Holocaust. One of the more striking symptoms has been the call for a scientific, cultural, and economic boycott of Israel that arouses some grim associations and memories among Jews of the Nazi boycott that began in 1933. (Indeed, such actions go back at least fifty years earlier when anti-Semitic organizations first used economic boycotts as a weapon against Jewish competitors.) There are other highly visible manifestations. An example is the systematic manner in which Israel is harassed at international forums such as the United Nations, where the Arab states have for decades pursued a policy of isolating the Jewish state and turning it into a pariah. An offshoot of this campaign was the hate-fest at the UN-sponsored Durban Conference against racism of September 2001, which denounced Zionism as a "genocidal" movement, practicing "ethnic cleansing" against Palestinians. In these and similar public forums, as well as in much of the Western mainstream media, Zionism and the Jewish people have been demonized in ways that are virtually identical to the methods, arguments, and techniques of racist anti-Semitism. Even though the current banner may be "antiracist" and the defamation is being carried out today in the name of human rights, all the red lines have clearly been crossed. For example, "anti-Zionists" who insist on comparing Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich appear unmistakably to be de facto anti-Semites, even if they vehemently deny the fact! This is largely because they knowingly exploit the reality that Nazism in the postwar world has become the defining metaphor of absolute evil. For if Zionists are "Nazis" and if Sharon really is Hitler, then it becomes a moral obligation to wage war against Israel. That is the bottom line of much contemporary anti-Zionism. In practice, this has become the most potent form of contemporary anti-Semitism.

Indeed, Israel is today the only state on the face of this planet that such a large number of disparate people wish to see disappear - itself a chilling reminder of the Nazi propaganda of the 1930s. The most virulent expressions of this "exterminationist" or genocidal anti-Zionism have come from the Arab-Muslim world, which is the historical heir of the earlier 20th-century forms of totalitarian anti-Semitism in Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union. Even "moderate" Muslim statesmen such as Mahathir Mohammad have publicly repeated the classic anti-Semitic belief that "Jews rule the world" while eliciting virtually no objections in the Islamic world. The more radical Islamists from Al-Qaida to the Palestinian Hamas go much further since they fuse indiscriminate terror, suicide bombings, and a Protocols of Zion style of anti-Semitism with the ideology of jihad. In this case, the socalled "war against Zionism" unmistakably embraces the total demonization of the "Jewish other": as the "enemy of mankind," as deadly poisonous snakes, as barbarian "Nazis" and "Holocaust manipulators" who control international finance, not to mention America, or theWestern mass media, while they busily instigate wars and revolutions to achieve world domination. Such conspiracy theories sailing under "anti-Zionist" colors constitute a highly toxic, even murderous worldview that today is linked to religious fanaticism and a worldwide revolutionary agenda. The same demonizing stereotypes can, however, be found in moderate pro-Western Egypt (home to the Protocols based anti-Semitic soap opera Rider without a Horse), secular Baathist Syria, conservative Wahhabite Saudi Arabia, and the Shiite fundamentalist Iran of the ayatollahs. This is an ideological anti-Zionism that seeks both the annihilation of Israel and a world "liberated from the Jews" - in other words, it is a totalist form of anti-Semitism.

The danger has become especially grave because this "annihilationalist" anti-Zionism is spreading under the guise of anti-Israelism and hatred of Sharon to Western Europe, America, and parts of the Third World. It has found grassroots support in the Muslim diaspora among radicalized youth and an echo among antiglobalists, Trotskyites, and far-Right groups as well as parts of the media. There is a loose and shifting coalition of red-brown-green bigotry focused against both America and Israel. Osama bin Laden is a hero not only to those who wish to restore Islam's global hegemony but also for some of those who still believe in the "world revolution" of the proletarian masses or the demise of "Judeo-American" domination.

Much of the mobilizing power of "anti-Zionism" derives from its link to the Palestinian cause. Since the 1960s, the PLO has worked hard to totally delegitimize Zionism and the policy has largely succeeded: this anti-Zionism involves a total negation of Jewish nationhood and legitimate Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Israel, a denial of the link between Judaism and the land, or of the existence of the two Jewish temples in Jerusalem. No wonder Israel never existed on any Palestinian maps throughout the Oslo "peace process." Nor should it be forgotten that the Palestinian Authority has frequently combined anti-Semitic motifs - including Holocaust denial, updated blood libels, and Jewish conspiracy themes - with its general incitement to violence. Moreover, some Palestinian Christians have developed a "liberation theology" that plays on older anti-Semitic efforts to de-Judaize the Christian tradition and finds a sympathetic echo in the West. As for the Islamic groups among the Palestinians, they openly see themselves as engaged in "a war against the Jews." Hamas, for example, has embraced a full-fledged Islamicized vision of the "Jewish peril" derived from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Palestinian suffering and Arab "anti-Zionism" have helped to infect Europe with an old-new version of anti-Semitism in which Jews are rapacious, bloodsucking colonialists. The theme is that Jews were rootless, imperialist invaders who came to Palestine to conquer the land by brute force, to expel or "cleanse" it of its natives. They are the modern "Crusaders" with no legitimate rights to the soil - an alien transplant, absolutely foreign to the region. They succeeded only because of a gigantic occult conspiracy in which the Zionists (i.e., the Jews) manipulated Great Britain and subsequently America. This is a typically anti-Semitic narrative of which Hitler might have approved - widely believed around the world, even credited by millions of educated people in the West.

The popularity of the Protocols today is the one telling symptom of the growing merger between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Zionism is increasingly depicted in some mainstream media as being "criminal" in its essence as well as its behavior. This flows from the leftwing mantra that brands Zionism as a racist, apartheid, colonialist, and imperialist movement, reviving a stigma that has anti-Semitic echoes on a European continent still grappling with the guilt of its genocidal and colonial past. Israel seems to be losing on both counts. Its military actions offer Europeans the tantalizing prospect of saying "the victims of yesterday have become the [Nazi] perpetrators of today," along with the opportunity to present Zionism as heir to the darkest pages of Western colonial history such as Algeria, Vietnam, or South Africa. Such aspersions are not a priori anti-Semitic, but through endless repetition they are becoming the ideological rationalization for dismantling Israel. This is the aim of "progressive" anti- Zionism, which, unlike the classic forms of racist anti-Semitism is not ethnically nationalist or völkisch. But it is highly discriminatory in negating the possibility of a legitimate Jewish nationalism. The antiglobalists either ignore or excuse the terrorism, jihadism, and anti- Jewish stereotypes to be found in PLO nationalism/fundamentalism. For much of the Western Left, Palestinians can only be victims and never perpetrators.

On the far Left as well as the far Right, anti-Zionism uses a type of discourse and stereotypes concerning the "Jewish/Zionist lobby," Israeli/Jewish "criminality," and Sharonist "warmongering" that is fundamentally manipulative and anti-Semitic. This has penetrated the mainstream debate to the point where 60 percent of all Europeans regard tiny Israel as the greatest threat to world peace; where over a third of those surveyed in Europe and America regularly attribute to Jews excessive power and influence; where Jews are suspected of dual loyalties by ever greater numbers of non-Jews; and where "anti-Zionist" attacks on Jewish institutions and targets show that we are talking about a distinction without a difference. Anti-Zionism is not only the historic heir of earlier forms of anti-Semitism. Today, it is also the lowest common denominator and the bridge between the Left, the Right, and the militant Muslims; between the elites (including the media) and the masses; between the churches and the mosques; between an increasingly anti-American Europe and an endemically anti- Western Arab-Muslim Middle East; a point of convergence between conservatives and radicals and a connecting link between fathers and sons. Anti-Zionism is much more than an exotic collection of radicalchic slogans that survived the debacle of the late-1960s counterculture. It has become an "exterminationist," pseudoredemptive ideology reconstructed in the Middle East and reexported back to Europe with devastating effects.



Notes
1. This article was originally presented as a written statement at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, and published in its official record on 10 February 2004.


PROF. ROBERT S. WISTRICH is Neuberger Professor of Modern European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He previously held the Chair for Jewish Studies at University College, London, as well as guest professorships at Harvard, Brandeis, and Oxford universities and at the Royal Institute of Advanced Studies in the Netherlands. Between 1999-2001, Professor Wistrich was one of six historians appointed by the Vatican to the Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission, which examined Pope Pius XII’s record during the Holocaust. He is the author of many books including the award-winning Socialism and the Jews (1982) and Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred (1992). He also scripted, edited, or presented several key documentary films for British television including The Longest Hatred (1991), Good Morning Mr. Hitler (1994), and Blaming the Jews (2003). His latest study is Hitler and the Holocaust (2001). In 2002 he became director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is editor-in-chief of its annual journal, Anti-Semitism International.

Before the thread bogs down with protests of definition, I give you a US State Dept. report on the subject.

The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies. While there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.

For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character. The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue.

Global anti-Semitism in recent years has had four main sources:


Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world.
Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.
Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq.
Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/40258.htm

Agreed!

Protocols of the Elders of Zion




If ever a piece of writing could produce mass hatred, it is this one. . . . This book is about lies and slander."
—Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the most notorious and widely distributed antisemitic publication of modern times. Its lies about Jews, which have been repeatedly discredited, continue to circulate today, especially on the Internet. The individuals and groups who have used the Protocols are all linked by a common purpose: to spread hatred of Jews.

The Protocols is entirely a work of fiction, intentionally written to blame Jews for a variety of ills. Those who distribute it claim that it documents a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. The conspiracy and its alleged leaders, the so-called Elders of Zion, never existed.

THE ORIGIN OF A LIE

In 1903, portions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were serialized in a Russian newspaper, Znamya (The Banner). The version of the Protocols that has endured and has been translated into dozens of languages, however, was first published in Russia in 1905 as an appendix to The Great in the Small: The Coming of the Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth, by Russian writer and mystic Sergei Nilus.

Although the exact origin of the Protocols is unknown, its intent was to portray Jews as conspirators against the state. In 24 chapters, or protocols, allegedly minutes from meetings of Jewish leaders, the Protocols "describes" the "secret plans" of Jews to rule the world by manipulating the economy, controlling the media, and fostering religious conflict.

Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, anti-Bolshevik émigrés brought the Protocols to the West. Soon after, editions circulated across Europe, the United States, South America, and Japan. An Arabic translation first appeared in the 1920s.

Beginning in 1920, auto magnate Henry Ford's newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, published a series of articles based in part on the Protocols. The International Jew, the book that included this series, was translated into at least 16 languages. Both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, later the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, praised Ford and The International Jew.

FRAUD EXPOSED

In 1921, the London Times presented conclusive proof that the Protocols was a "clumsy plagiarism." The Times confirmed that the Protocols had been copied in large part from a French political satire that never mentioned Jews—Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864). Other investigations revealed that one chapter of a Prussian novel, Hermann Goedsche's Biarritz (1868), also "inspired" the Protocols.

THE NAZI ERA

Nazi party ideologue Alfred Rosenberg introduced Hitler to the Protocols during the early 1920s, as Hitler was developing his worldview. Hitler referred to the Protocols in some of his early political speeches, and, throughout his career, he exploited the myth that "Jewish-Bolshevists" were conspiring to control the world.

During the 1920s and 1930s, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion played an important part in the Nazis' propaganda arsenal. The Nazi party published at least 23 editions of the Protocols between 1919 and 1939. Following the Nazis' seizure of power in 1933, some schools used the Protocols to indoctrinate students.

FRAUD EXPOSED

In 1935, a Swiss court fined two Nazi leaders for circulating a German-language edition of the Protocols in Berne, Switzerland. The presiding justice at the trial declared the Protocols "libelous," "obvious forgeries," and "ridiculous nonsense."

The US Senate issued a report in 1964 declaring that the Protocols were "fabricated." The Senate called the contents of the Protocols "gibberish" and criticized those who "peddled" the Protocols for using the same propaganda technique as Hitler.

In 1993, a Russian court ruled that Pamyat, a far-right nationalist organization, had committed an antisemitic act by publishing the Protocols.

Despite these repeated exposures of the Protocols as a fraud, it remains the most influential antisemitic text of the past one hundred years, and it continues to appeal to a variety of antisemitic individuals and groups.

THE PROTOCOLS TODAY

According to the US Department of State's "Report on Global Anti-Semitism" (2004), "The clear purpose of the [Protocols is] to incite hatred of Jews and of Israel."

In the United States and Europe, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Holocaust deniers endorse and circulate the Protocols. Books based on the Protocols are available worldwide, even in countries with hardly any Jews such as Japan.

Many school textbooks throughout the Arab and Islamic world teach the Protocols as fact. Countless political speeches, editorials, and even children's cartoons are derived from the Protocols. In 2002, Egypt's government-sponsored television aired a miniseries based on the Protocols, an event condemned by the US State Department. The Palestinian organization Hamas draws in part on the Protocols to justify its terrorism against Israeli civilians.

The Internet has dramatically increased access to the Protocols. Even though many Web sites expose the Protocols as a fraud, the Internet has made it easy to use the Protocols to spread hatred of Jews. Today, a typical Internet search yields several hundred thousand sites that disseminate, sell, or debate the Protocols or expose them as a fraud.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007058

Typical if one is a critic of Israel you must be anti semetic

Naw the 8 million a day we give them has nothing to do with it.

The Pollard spy case, ignore it.

The USS Liberty was an "accident"

Storming the Gaza bound flotila and killing ten unarmed people is nothing to be concerned with.

The war crimes against the people of Gaza are to numerouse to list here is a few.

The Israeli military are accused of:

• Using powerful shells in civilian areas which the army knew would cause large numbers of innocent casualties;

• Using banned weapons such as phosphorus bombs;

• Holding Palestinian families as human shields;

• Attacking medical facilities, including the killing of 12 ambulance men in marked vehicles;

• Killing large numbers of police who had no military role.

Israeli military actions prompted an unusual public rebuke from the International Red Cross after the army moved a Palestinian family into a building and shelled it, killing 30. The surviving children clung to the bodies of their dead mothers for four days while the army blocked rescuers from reaching the wounded.

Human Rights Watch has called on the UN security council to set up a commission of inquiry into alleged war crimes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/gaza-israel-war-crimes

If thinking this is all pretty bad stuff makes me anti semetic than I suppose I am guilty.

Examining your use of adjectives, hyperbole (rhetoric), and a highly partisan approach, you may be guilty.

One Earth One People.

I wish we could debate the issues without being labeled anti this or that.

I know how irritated I get when some Obama kool aid drinker immediately cries racism after anyone criticizes him..

I find it a ploy to keep people quiet.

Honestly, it doesn't work..

You are always better served to have your argument based in facts that can be easily referenced, so that even the most ignorant clown can clearly see..

They usually just change the subject. Then you know you have won.

Semantics?...Holly War?...Sterotyping?...Creative wordplay?...Anti-Americanism is in vogue?.. Islamism?... Judeophobia?...Protocols of the Elders of Zion?...Post Zionist?...

Slice it, dice it, chop it up...doesn't matter...Anti-Semitism is easy to identify...If all else fails, just follow your nose....

I think the whole anti-Jew thing is just repackaged and resold. You can call it anything you want but it is all the same.

A Jewish friend of mine is one of the nicest people I have ever met. He has all the qualities of any human.

I Jewish girl I dated some years ago was gentle and kind in every way.

Racism is taught from an early age. Some outgrow the lies and form their own opinions and many don't. There are a lot of evil greedy Jews just like there are a lot of evil greedy Russians, Albanians, Hispanics, Congolese, and every other racial and nationalistic group.

Some versions of "taught from birth" cause the Jew-Arab conflict to run so deep that an end is nowhere in sight. I don't see any change in how the children are taught but I do see that event as the only cure for the problem.

If someone says they are anti-Zionist then the next question should be
"Why?"

Why would anyone be opposed to a Jewish state in their homeland - Israel
now 64 years later?

Anti-Zionism now is Anti-Israel.

Note that these people do not claim to be opposed merely to the policies
of Israel. No, they are opposed to Israel itself. They oppose the idea of
Israel.

Why?

Of all the countries surrounding Israel in the Middle East, only democratic Israel
maintains freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
full rights to all citizens, protections of minorities and women. Why
would someone single out Israel for derision while tolerating the oppression
of the neighboring Muslim states?

The usual rationale is that the land did not belong to the Jews but
in fact the Jews living there have as much right to the land there as
anyone. It was acquired legally during immigration there over several
centuries before civil war broke out and the English left. And of course
Israel always was the birthplace of the Jews and the land they originally
ruled and developed.

If the they simply do not want them there because they are Jewish, if
it would be alright the people there were some other religion or ethnicity...
If the issue is that it is a Jewish state then it is antisemitism.
Pure and Simple.

I hate those "Obama kool-aid drinkers".

I agree with your sentiments to a point. Anti-semitism is more than a mere 'label', it is responsible for the industrialised extermination of 6 million. It must never be allowed to happen again and this vile emotion needs exposing at every opportunity.

My point exactly.



The cycle of generational violence must be broken in the home, the schools and by the media. It takes a massive effort on the part of all those involved.