Jewish Board of Deputies Says Anti-Semitism Means What We Say it Means – Even if it’s Different From Yesterday

Jewish Board of Deputies Says Anti-Semitism Means What We Say it Means – Even if it’s Different From Yesterday

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post-Blog

‘Words Mean What I Want Them to Mean – the Only Question is – Who is Master?’

The Zionists just hate free speech – as it’s hard to justify murdering Palestinians, demolishing their homes, locking up their kids –  better to cry ‘anti-Semitism’
Israel was Apartheid South Africa’s closest military ally – Israel gave S Africa nuclear technology and built a large arms factory there – is this too part of today’s Jewish identity?
Even though the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency
has dropped the EUMC Working Definition on anti-Semitism, Zionist groups have
been keen to hang onto a
definition that was first formulated by the American Jewish Committee.  For example Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center was quoted
as saying that‘Those who fight
anti-Semitism have lost an important weapon
”. 
One of the reasons that the Working Definition met
such vehement opposition was that it equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.  In particular its statement that ‘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.
’ was  absurd
since Jews are a religion not a people or nation.  The idea that Jews form a separate nation
from those they live amongst is anti-Semitic. 
Likewise the suggestion that ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli
policy to that of the Nazis’
  is
equally absurd.  History is based on
comparisons and there are many comparisons that can be drawn between Nazi Germany 1933-1941 and Israel, not least
the fact that Zionism seeks the expulsion or removal of Palestinians from Palestine/Israel
and the permanent privileges that are accorded to Jews, the master race in Israel,
compared to Palestinians.  There are many
other comparisons, for example the hatred of ‘miscegenation’ mixed-race Jewish and
non-Jewish relationships
However the Working
Definition was right to suggest that ‘holding
Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ 
The fact that the Board of Deputies of British
Jews continually seek to associate Jews with Israel’s racist and genocidal
policies is indicative of the fact that Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides
of the same coin.   
This week’s Jewish
Chronicle has an article
in which the Board of Deputies condemns students at the School of Oriental and
African Studies for holding a discussion ‘which
aims to separate anti-Zionism
from antisemitism.’
 The Board doesn’t
like the idea that you can separate opposition to Israel and its inherent
racism from hatred of Jews.  The fact
that the Board’s stance directly contradicts the Working Definition’s proposal
that associating Jews with Israel’s war crimes is anti-Semitic is neither here
nor there, because as Humpty Dumpty said When I use a word, it means just what I
choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,”
said Alice,
“whether you can make words mean
so many different things.” “The question is,”
said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
It
is not surprising that the Board should object to a discussion whose title is ‘Decoupling Judaism and Zionism in Palestine Advocacy’.  After all Zionists spend all their time trying
to propagate the lie that if you oppose Zionism, the racist philosophy that
treats Palestinians as the untermenschen of
Israel, then you are anti-Semitic.
Even
worse, the discussion also aims to draw the line between ‘combating the weaponisation of anti-Semitism and identifying real
instances of anti-Semitism.’
  Quite
understandably Marie van der Zyl, Deputy President of the Board finds an ‘attempt to redefine anti-Semitism for
hostile political ends
’ nothing less than outrageous.  Zionism if course never attempts to use anti-Semitism
in a hostile political manner.  Zionism is
a gentle political creed that preaches brotherly love to all good (Jewish) people
on Earth.
Ms
Zyl is quoted as saying that for the ‘vast
majority of British Jews’
  the State
of Israel is a fundamental part of their identity.  Criticism of Israel cannot help but be anti-Semitic
according to this definition.  There is,
of course, just one small flaw in this argument.   Criticism of a religious identity or indeed
any other identity is not racist.  It is
the essence of free speech and Zionism hates nothing so much as free
speech.  In Israel every newspaper and
periodical is subject to censorship in order to prevent any criticism of the
fundamentals of Israel society.  This is,
of course done under the rubric of ‘security’.
In Israel censorship
has taken on levels undreamt of.  The age
of digitalisation of archives has meant that thousands of documents, which were
previously available to academics have now, fallen under the remit of the Chief
Military Censor.  In Classified:
Politicizing the Nakba in Israel’s state archives
, Shay Hazkani, who was Israel Channel 10’s military correspondent from
2004-8 estimated that about one-third of documents that were de-classified in
the 1980s have been re-classified starting from the late 1990s, when the
archives were digitized.
Censorship
is a Zionist habit.  In Israel Palestinians
are regularly detained and imprisoned, often without trial, for writing
something that is considered ‘incitement’. 
Jews, however foul and racist they are on social media, however many death
threats they make, are never detained or jailed.
Ms
Zyle is quoted as ‘utterly condemning’
the event.  The overtly Zionist Union of Jewish
students, which makes Israel advocacy a condition of affiliation of Jewish societies,
saw the SOAS discussion as ‘further proof
of some in the student movement denying Jewish students the right to define anti-Semitism
and their own relationship with Israel.’
Quite
how a meeting on separating out anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism challenges the
right of the poor Zionist dears to define their own identity is a mystery
worthy of Conan Doyle.  But there is a
serious point here.  If people define
themselves in a way that is reactionary, racist, chauvinist etc. is it racist
to challenge them and criticise that identity? 
Some Roman Catholics see opposition to abortion and contraception as
part of their identity.  Is it racist or
chauvinist to support a woman’s right to choose?
Many
Africans define their own religious identity to include Female Genital
Mutilation.  Is it racist to oppose
FGM?  Some Muslims see the burka or niqab
as part of their identity.  Is it racist
to oppose these articles of clothing. 
Perhaps opposition to the Hindu custom of Suthee, the burning of widows
on their husbands funeral pyres was also racist?
The
idea that criticism and condemnation of a racist ideology is itself racist is absurd.  Literally words have lost all meaning. Afrikaners
used to try and pretend that Apartheid was inherent to their identity.  Zionism seems to agree with that proposition.  After all Israel and Apartheid South Africa had
the closest of relationships.
As
the Zionist movement in this country tries to emulate its American cousins, so
it goes onto the offensive in trying to outlaw all political opposition to Zionism.  In this it is increasingly backed up by the
political establishment in both parties. 
See for example Partisan
Report on Antisemitism discredits Home Affairs Select Committee

Tony
Greenstein 

 

 

 

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This