Why Anti-Israelism is not Anti-Semitism

 

By Kourosh Ziabari

The leaders of the Israeli regime have long been after spreading this fallacy that criticizing the actions and policies of this regime is tantamount to being anti-Jew and anti-Semite, thereby sanctioning any condemnation of their brutal and aggressive ploys by the international community.
The politicians and policy-makers in Tel Aviv have shrewdly realized that, at least in Europe, the Achilles heel of the statesmen is being accused of anti-Semitism, the reason being that because of the alleged hardships that Hitler imposed upon the Jews during the World War II, the European leaders should continue to pay ransom to the Israeli regime so as not to be charged with the blame of anti-Semitism. Why? Because Israel is the sole entity that represents the global Jewry.
For the very same reason, the European officials and even independent academicians and media personalities are extremely afraid of censuring Israel for the crimes it commits and for its grave violations of the international law. As an instance, the whole world witnessed that in the late 2008 and early 2009 the European mass media flagrantly closed their eyes to the barbaric massacre of Palestinian civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip and ignored the dreadful humanitarian crisis in the beleaguered coastal enclave with connivance and complicity. They cowardly feared that if they gave coverage to the suffering of the people of Gaza and the nightmarish days they were experiencing under the heavy cloudburst of Israel Defense Forces’ attacks, they might be accused of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli bias.
The same path of duplicitous silence by the Western media was followed in the aftermath of IDF’s fatal assault on the Freedom Flotilla which was heading toward the besieged Gaza Strip. Nine Turkish peace activists were killed during the attack and tens of others from different nationalities were wounded as they took action in self-defense against the Israeli belligerents. However, the mainstream media in Europe brazenly refused to give coverage to and shed a light on the incident in a conspicuous act of censorship. And this is a manifestation of the supernatural influence of the Israeli politicians and Zionist lobbies in the Western mainstream media.
The Israeli officials know well how to perform a pitiable and deplorable play and make the people around the world believe that a horrendous wave of anti-Semitic sentiments is sweeping the globe. They have systematically tried to institutionalize this belief that those who criticize them are anti-Jew and anti-Semite. They resort to rationalizations and justifications which have long been parts of Israel’s propaganda tactics for attracting financial and military assistance from the West.
For example, the website of Anti-Defamation League, an extremist Zionist organization which is in charge of winning media wars on behalf of the Israeli regime says that “hostility toward Jews dates to ancient times, perhaps to the beginning of Jewish history… From the days of the Bible until the Roman Empire, Jews were criticized and sometimes punished for their efforts to remain a separate social and religious group – one that refused to adopt the values and the way of life of the non-Jewish societies in which it lived.”
From this fallacious premise, they want to deduce this conclusion that international hatred toward the Israeli regime is consistent with the anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish sentiments which existed in European societies before the establishment of Israeli state.
Today, the Israeli officials point their finger of accusation at the Muslim nations such as Iran for giving rise to anti-Semitism. Iranian officials’ outspoken and unequivocal condemnation of the felonies of Tel Aviv and its premeditated collective punishment of the Palestinians has provided the Israelis with a pretext for presenting themselves as an oppressed nation which has been historically harassed and molested.
However, the Israeli propaganda machinery has astutely concealed this fact criticism of Tel Aviv is not equivalent to the criticism of Jews and Jewish communities.
Here in Iran, which is unreasonably accused of spreading anti-Semitic sentiments, more than 10,000 Jews live in peace and tranquility and are entitled to every social, political and economic right that the other Iranians enjoy. Their religion is explicitly recognized in Iran’s constitution. They have a representative in Iran’s parliament and freely attend their religious ceremonies without being persecuted, in sharp contrast to Israel’s indefensible discrimination against the Arabs and Muslims in the occupied territories, Gaza Strip and West Bank who are even deprived of observing their religious rituals and going to mosques.
The international community should be aware of the fact that the Israeli regime is not representative of the Jews and that even the Jews living in other countries are fed up with the aggressive and expansionistic policies of the Israeli regime.
Jews constitute a respectable minority in the world population and although Judaism has gone through various distortions throughout the history, the teachings of Islam prohibit the Muslims from prosecuting Jews or the members of other religious minorities, inviting the true believers to behave with the followers of other religions in a compromising and tolerant way. The claim that Israel is a Jewish state is a big lie. Maybe it can be said the majority of people living in the lands Israel occupies are Jews, but the claim that Israel is a Jewish state is completely erroneous and untrue, because Judaism never allows its followers to kill innocent people, occupy their land, confiscate their belonging and properties and destroy their homes.
In a statement to his companions and comrades, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) once said, “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I will complain against this person on the Day of Judgment.”
Neither Iranians nor the people of other Muslim nations nor those Westerners who dare criticize the bloodthirsty officials of the Israeli regime for their frequent wrongdoings and crimes are anti-Jew or anti-Semite. They are simply anti-Israeli. Believe me: anti-Israelism is not anti-Semitism.

Read More

The Anti-Semitism Trump Card Used Again after judge gives speech against Israel

Judge faces anti-Semitism probe after speech attacking Israel helps free arms factory protesters

Remarks: Judge Bathurst-Norman is being investigated after summing up in a trial which led to protesters being acquitted

A senior judge was under investigation yesterday after being accused of making anti-Semitic remarks in court that may have swayed his jury into acquitting a group of protesters.
Judge George Bathurst-Norman was said by critics to have persuaded a jury to clear a group of campaigners who smashed up a factory making parts for Israeli warplanes.
Summing up in the criminal damage trial, he compared Israel to the Nazi regime and accused the country of ignoring international law.
The judge added that 'there may be much to be admired' about the chief protester, and that 'in the last war he would probably have received a George Medal'.
The Office for Judicial Complaints, which deals with objections over the conduct of judges and magistrates, confirmed that an inquiry into how Judge Bathurst-Norman handled the trial of five political activists at Hove Crown Court in June is under way.
Its findings will be considered by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge and Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, who have the final say on any disciplinary action.
A number of complaints are said to have accused the judge not just of anti-Israel rhetoric but specifically of anti-Semitism.
The case involved a group of activists who broke into and vandalised a Brighton factory run by engineering firm EDO MBM.

The company was making parts for use in the bomb-aiming equipment on Israeli F16 warplanes.
The invasion shut the factory for a week and caused £187,000 worth of damage. But five men and women who appeared in court claimed they had done nothing wrong under criminal damage law. 
The law says someone is not guilty of causing damage if they believed it was necessary for the immediate protection of someone else's property.
It is framed to protect, for example, someone who smashes a neighbour's door down if they believe their house is on fire. 

Under attack: The judge criticised the actions of Israel in bombing parts of Gaza in January 2009 which prompted protesters to storm the arms factory

However, in the Brighton case, the activists claimed they believed their invasion was necessary for the protection of property in Gaza.
Several similar defences by protesters have been successful in recent years.
In 2008, six Greenpeace protesters were acquitted after causing £30,000 worth of damage at a coal-fired power station.

The jury in that case accepted they had acted to prevent climate change causing greater damage. 
Describing evidence shown in court, Judge Bathurst-Norman told the jury that he could only describe the 'horrific' events shown as 'scenes which one would rather have hoped to have disappeared with the Nazi regimes of the last war'.
In his summing up, he gave his backing to the evidence of one defendant, Ornella Saibene, a former Greenham Common activist.
The judge said: 'She took us through the horrors, and there really is no other word for it than horrors, that emerged in the press and on the news and the footage as to what the Israelis were doing in Gaza.
'You may think that perhaps "Hell on Earth" would be an understatement of what the Gazans endured.'
Among groups complaining was the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Its president, Vivian Wineman, said: 'The judge's comments give rise to profound concerns about the appropriateness of his directions to the jury.'
Jonathan Hoffman, of the Zionist Federation, said: 'This opens the door to any group which thinks the British presence in Afghanistan is wrong to go and smash up plants supplying British forces.'  

By Steve Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent

Read More

The Anti Semitism Card gets Used Yet Again by Israel to distract you from their crimes

* ISRAEL'S FOREIGN MINISTRY PLEADS ANTI SEMITISM *

FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTRY LINK

Yes you are reading this correctly. This satanic, cesspool of a government from the bowels of Hell itself, is bringing in the old antisemitism chestnut again which has been chewed, swallowed and regurgitated more times than I care to remember.

No he is not condemning the massacres that his tyrannical government is responsible for. He had to dedicate half a page on the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs website to crying antisemitism - Yawn. In essence he is stating that antisemitic chants emanating from the flotilla (and I believe that this is a pathological lie in any event) is reason enough to open fire on foreign aid workers in international waters.

Read More

Tactics of desperation: using false accusations of Anti-Semitism as a weapon to silence criticism of Israel's behaviour

By Ulli Diemer

Ulli Diemer argues that as world public opinion turns against Israel, its racist apartheid regime and its occupation, the Zionist state and its lobbies have turned to attempts to outlaw criticism of Israel by labelling it as “anti-Semitism” – attempts that need to be exposed and challenged as a serious threat to basic freedoms.

”At the same time as it attempts to crush internal resistance, the Israeli state, aided by its supporters in the United States and Canada, has launched extremely aggressive and well-financed propaganda campaigns abroad whose goal is to counteract the decline in support for Israel.

“A telling characteristic of these campaigns is that they by and large do not focus on attempting to justify Israel’s behaviour...

“Instead, the focus has shifted to attempting to shut down criticism of Israel by targeting the most outspoken critics with crude smear tactics and outright censorship.”

For more than 60 years, Israel has engaged in an unceasing campaign to dispossess Palestinians of their land and their rights. Its ability to do this has depended on three factors in particular:

• overwhelming military superiority;

• keeping public opinion, especially in North America and Europe, on its side; and

• making ordinary working-class Israeli Jews believe that it is in their interest to support Israel’s Zionist elite rather than making common cause with ordinary Palestinians.

Israel’s military dominance is unchallenged, thanks to unconditional support and limitless supplies of advanced military technology and equipment provided by the United States and its allies (including Canada). However, military dominance has not been able to achieve Israel’s ultimate goal: forcing Palestinians to stop resisting and to acquiesce in their dispossession and oppression. Israel’s relentless onslaught has been met by equally determined Palestinian resistance which, despite the odds, steadfastly refuses to accept the injustice of occupation.

This Palestinian resistance has called into being an ever-growing international network of support and solidarity. In dozens of countries and hundreds of communities around the world, organizations and movements have emerged to demand that Israel be made to adhere to international law and to basic principles of justice.

Israel and its supporters see these international campaigns as a huge threat. Israel has escaped the sanctions that have been applied to other states which commit human rights abuses and violate international law only because the United States automatically vetoes all attempts to hold Israel accountable. Israel is also crucially dependent on huge annual inflows of foreign aid, to the point where it is conceivable that the state would collapse if the flows of outside cash which prop it up were to be withdrawn.

Anything that undermines public support in the US, Canada and Europe, therefore, threatens the external backing on which the Israeli state depends for its very existence. It is true that the governments which turn a blind eye to Israel’s violations of international law mostly ignore popular opinion in their own countries as well, but this could change if support for Israel were to become a serious political liability. In this regard, what is particularly worrisome from Israel’s point of view is the fact that support for Israel among Jews in the United States and Canada, especially among younger Jews, has declined dramatically. If Jews stop supporting Israel, then all foreign support is in jeopardy.

Threats to Israel’s international legitimacy bring with them an even greater internal danger: the danger that Israeli Jews will themselves start seeing the Zionist formula – in essence, a militarized apartheid state holding down the Palestinian population by force – as a dead end.

If working-class Israeli Jews were to see their interests as being different from those of the ruling elite – if they come round to the view that their long-term interests will be better served if they join Palestinians in working for a democratic secular state with equal rights for Palestinians and Jews – Israel’s ruling class would find itself in the same untenable position that the white elite in apartheid South Africa faced in the early 1990s. Already, Israel’s rulers are debating what to do about the “demographic threat” they are facing: Israeli Jews are leaving the country in increasing numbers to move to other countries, while the Palestinian population continues to increase.

The Palestinian resistance, and the growing international support which it has attracted, have had a substantial effect in changing the way Israel is perceived. Increasingly, international public opinion is no longer willing to turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing, house demolitions, systematic humiliations, imprisonment, torture, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians, children as well as adults.

Faced with the erosion of its credibility and support, the Israeli state has lashed out by using ever-increasing repression against the non-violent Palestinian resistance. One of the centres of this resistance is the village of Bil’in, which has been fighting the expansion of an illegal Israeli settlement on its land with weekly non-violent protests for more than five years now, protests which have turned Bil’in into an international symbol of non-violent resistance. The Israeli state has been using ever more extreme tactics of harassment and brutality to attempt to crush the village and put an end to the protests, which it correctly believes are causing substantial harm to Israel’s international image. Similar tactics of harassment and imprisonment are being used against other Palestinians who resist, as well as against Jewish Israelis and international solidarity activists who support the Palestinian cause.

At the same time as it attempts to crush internal resistance, the Israeli state, aided by its supporters in the United States and Canada, has launched extremely aggressive and well-financed propaganda campaigns abroad whose goal is to counteract the decline in support for Israel.

A telling characteristic of these campaigns is that they by and large do not focus on attempting to justify Israel’s behaviour. One has to assume that the architects of the propaganda efforts realize that it is no longer possible to explain war crimes and human rights abuses in a way that the international public will accept.

Instead, the focus has shifted to attempting to shut down criticism of Israel by targeting the most outspoken critics with crude smear tactics and outright censorship.

On a growing number of campuses, for example, this has involved harassment and firing of outspoken professors (e.g. Norman Finkelstein, Joel Kovel), as well as attempts to ban events such as “Israeli apartheid week”.

In Canada, we are now seeing an attempt to silence criticism of Israel by labelling all such criticism as “anti-Semitism” and therefore as hate speech. This tactic has a triple purpose: to suppress public awareness of what Israel is doing; to discredit critics by smearing them as “anti-Semitic”, and to keep Jews onside by frightening them with the spectre of anti-Semitism.

In Canada, the Harper government, fanatically pro-Israel, is fully involved in this effort. It has cut funding to groups which have supported Palestinians in their quest for justice, and it has set up a Parliamentary body charged with coming up with the legal rationale for making it illegal to criticize Israel.

If the Harper government is successful in getting its way, statements such as the following, all of them expressions of generally accepted principles of human rights and international law, will henceforth be classified as anti-Semitic hate speech in Canada:

• A state must be the state of all its citizens”.

Saying this will be classified as “anti-Semitic” because it implies that the Israeli state has a duty to serve and represent all of its citizens equally, Palestinians as well as Jews.

• ”Everyone born in a state, and everyone who has been a permanent resident for a specified and reasonable period of time, is entitled to citizenship”.

Saying this will be classified as “anti-Semitic” because it would mean that Palestinians under the rule of the Israeli state have the right to be citizens of Israel.

• ”All citizens of a state must be equal under the law, equally entitled to the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. A state may not favour, or discriminate against, citizens, on the grounds of religion, ethnicity, or race”.

Saying this will be classified as “anti-Semitic” because it implies that Israel has to dismantle its discriminatory, apartheid-style system of laws.

• ”Every state must accept its internationally recognized borders and must renounce all claims on territory outside of its borders”.

Saying this will be classified as “anti-Semitic” because it would mean that Israel would have to stop seizing land beyond its borders.

• ”All states must abide by international law, including the Geneva conventions, laws against collective punishment, laws against torture, etc.”

Saying this will be classified as “anti-Semitic” because it implies that Israel has to stop engaging in ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, and other violations of international law.

• “Refugees have a right to return to the lands from which they were expelled by an invading army or occupying power.”

Saying this will be classified as “anti-Semitic” because it means that the Palestinian refugees expelled from their homeland by Israel must be allowed to exercise their right of return as guaranteed by international law.

• ”Sanctions should be applied to those who violate international law.”

Saying this will be classified as “anti-Semitic” because it implies that Israel should face sanctions for engaging in collective punishment and ethnic cleansing, for practising torture, for committing war crimes, for defying UN resolutions and World Court rulings, and for other illegal acts.

The attempt to outlaw criticism of Israel by labelling it as “anti-Semitism” is a serious threat which needs to be exposed and challenged. At the same time, it should also be recognized as a tactic of desperation, a tactic that has become necessary because of the ever-growing opposition to the crimes of the Israeli state.

The resort to increasingly blatant open repression is a symptom of loss of control. In the past such tactics would not have been necessary because any criticism of Israel was confined to the outer fringes of public debate. Now it has become mainstream, and those who support an ethnically defined, apartheid-style Israeli state are feeling increasingly threatened. Those of us who support a democratic secular state should feel encouraged, even though the struggle is far from won.

Read More

You Want to Understand Anti-Semitism? Just Look in the Mirror by Gilad Atzmon?

Gilad Atzmon

Benjamin Weinthal, the Jerusalem Post’s correspondent in Berlin wondered earlier this week whether Germany has learned from its Nazi history? The question is in itself very intriguing. Considering its past, one may expect Germany to oppose any form of racist, discriminatory, expansionist and nationalist ideology. Bearing in mind Israelis are considered the ‘Nazis of our time’ by more than just a few commentators, one may expect the Germans to advise the Israelis what not to do. One may also expect Germany to stand by the Palestinians for the Palestinians are, de facto, the last victims of Hitler.

Do not hold your breath. When Jpost’s writer Weinthal refers to Germany learning from its history, he means the complete opposite. What he seeks is German subservience to the Zionist ideology and Jewish national interests. Weinthal, wants to see a clear diplomatic rift between Germany and Iran in the name of the Shoa and its memory. “With regard to its more future-oriented responsibility to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons and its threats to obliterate Israel, critics say Germany is stumbling.” Weinthal makes it transparent that as far as Zionists are concerned, guilt-tripping the Germans is the way forward.

Weinthal reports that the paths of Iran and Demjanjuk crossed at the International Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin conference ‘Time to Act’ last weekend. “The Berlin conference's policy experts raised questions about Germany's historic responsibility to Israel and the lessons from the genocidal Nazi anti-Semitism.” In case one is failing to understand, the Jewish lobby in Germany is mounting pressure on German politicians and academia to increasingly act against Iran in the name of Jewish suffering.

In the conference Dr. Charles Small , the head of the Yale ‘Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism’ insisted that Germany had failed to extract the necessary lessons from the Nazi period. The Germans, according to this exceptionally lame ‘interdisciplinary’ academic Zionist do nothing to prevent an “Iran-organized Shoah”.

Zionist academics are indeed amusingly innovative. Interestingly enough, I myself never thought that Anti Semitism is a subject for an ‘interdisciplinary’ study. I always believed that if Zionists and Jewish tribal campaigners are interested in the origin of anti Jewish feeling all they really need to do is to look in the mirror. In fact Dr Small and the Jpost’s Weinthal who promote the prospects of a new world conflict in Germany should self-reflect so they understand where the resentment to Jewish nationalism and tribal activism are coming from. Once again, it is Jewish activists who openly promote conflict. Once again they do it in the name of Jewish suffering. This is enough to make Jewish national politics a repugnant concept.

“Holocaust denial is unlawful in Germany”, says Weinthal, yet Iranian Holocaust-deniers are welcome in German conferences. For a change Weinthal is almost correct. There is indeed an element of discrepancy here. But it can be resolved quite easily. Holocaust denial laws in Germany and anywhere else must be abolished immediately. It doesn’t make any sense that a certain historical chapter within our living memory should be legally restricted. Holocaust denial laws are an assault against humanism and free thought. Leave alone the fact that they make the Zionist Shoa narrative look highly suspicious.

Weinthal concludes by posing a criticism of German intellectual integrity. “Historical responsibility unites Demjanjuk and the Islamic Republic”, yet he continues, “the glacier-like pace at which the connection is being understood is rather surprising in a country that helped to develop philosophical thinking based on connections.”

There is a Glimpse of truth in Weinthal’s argument. On the face of it there is a discrepancy here between the German legal action and the state’s attitude towards Iran. Yet again, the solution is pretty simple: as I argued in a previous paper, Demjanjuk should have never been put on trial in Germany or anywhere else for ‘accessory’ charges. If the Germans are interested in Nazi ‘accessories’ they may start with the Jewish Kapos, continue with the Judenrat and eventually finish with the Zionist agencies that collaborated with Nazis all along the war.

According to Weinthal, the Germans fail to ‘make connections’. I would advise Weinthal that the Germans are indeed famous for their superior philosophers. It is also depressingly notable that Germany didn’t produce a single major philosophical work or a great symphony since the end of WWII. Due to its guilt and the constant Zio-centric pressure, Germany is wary of its own greatness or even greatness in general. Instead of hosting some major academic conferences that would elaborate on questions to do with Being, Ethics or Metaphysics (following the tradition of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger), Berlin is welcoming some of the shallowest ‘interdisciplinary’ Zionist minds, the likes of Dr. Charles Small. Germany must immediately liberate itself of this pseudo academic trend.

Unlike Weinthal, I do believe that Germans have not lost their ability to think, to judge and to ‘make connections’. Germans do grasp what is really going on. In dismay they see the crimes that are committed in Palestine by the Jewish state. Germans may be confused by it all, but not for too long. Making the necessary ethical connections is inevitable.

To conclude, I do not think that anyone except Zionists doubt the fact that German people learned their lesson. However, it is evidently clear that Israelis, Zionists and Jewish Interdisciplinary tribal activists fail to draw the necessary lesson from the Shoa. Instead of making our planet a peace seeking habitable place the Zionists and Jewish tribal activists use Jewish suffering as an excuse for more wars and world conflicts. Zionists had a chance to open a new page in Jewish history. They obviously failed completely. The images of Israel starving Palestinians and dropping white phosphorus on populated neighborhoods depict a total Israeli ethical failure. Israel implements genocidal tactics. Israel is the only state to practice Nazi like racist discriminatory ideology and policies.

If Israel and its supporters want to tackle anti-Jewish resentments they should stop chasing their critics at once. They instead better look in the mirror and understand once and for all that the problem is inside.

All Israel/Nazi photo montages and many more are available on:

http://morris108.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/photo-montage-comparing-gaza-with-nazi-germany-graphic/#more-5769

Read More

Will Harper criminalize criticism of Israel?

By Murray Dobbin

Ever since the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip last December the global debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has intensified with both sides upping the ante, and the stakes of the framing battle increasing almost daily. One of the most recent -- but almost totally unreported -- developments in Canada is something called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA). It is not an official parliamentary body but is a multi-party, voluntary association of 13 MPs. It is currently holding an inquiry into anti-semitism because, it says, "The extent and severity of anti-semitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War."

In fact, anti-semitic attitudes in the U.S. -- Canada will hardly be any different -- are at an all-time low according to Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, whose mandate is to monitor and expose anti-semitism. Statistics Canada reports number of hate crimes against Jews has been dropping since 2001-2002. But of course, it all depends on how you define anti-Semitism. Jewish organizations from the Canadian Jewish Congress and Hillel to B'nai Brith have all been vigorously redefining this scourge to capture many more alleged perpetrators in its net of enemies. One of their targets is the handful of Canadian universities where pro-Palestinian activity has been intense.

But it goes far beyond just the universities. For the first time in decades the unquestioned dominance of Israel's public relations machine and lobbying juggernaut is being seriously challenged. The characterization of Israel as an Apartheid state is gaining much more credibility than Israel's supporters had ever anticipated. So is the international Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. These are very serious threats to Israel's credibility as "the only democratic state in the Middle East" -- one of its most powerful claims.

Last December's brutal assault on Gaza by the Israeli army and air force -- and the deliberate targeting of civilians (as publicly confessed by the soldiers who did it) -- was a tipping point for many who had preferred to sit on the fence or to decline to form a hard opinion. Those hard opinions are forming everywhere and the current government of Israel, led by the hard-line Benjamin Netanyahu, is only making things worse.

There have been two responses. The newest is what the Israeli government has referred to as "re-branding" and in part it involves "soft" stories about Israel -- like one I saw on the CBC shot from a beach in Israel where bathers had claimed they saw a mermaid. The most prominent example was the celebration of Tel Aviv's centennial by the Toronto Film Festival. Scores of prominent Jews (and thousands of others) protested.

The other response is conventional. It is the simple rule of all pro-Israeli organizations and activists: either declare outright or hint at the possibility that any individual criticizing Israel is anti-semitic. Jewish critics -- whose numbers are increasing dramatically -- are branded as "Jew-hating" Jews. The strategy has been extremely effective at intimidating potential critics into silence.

Which gets us back to the CPCCA. The 13-member group is co-chaired by Liberals Scott Reid and Mario Silva and also boasts Winnipeg NDP MPs Pat Martin and Judy Wasylycia-Leis and Conservatives Jason Kenney and Peter Kent. Bob Rae and Ken Dryden are members and the Bloc is also represented. But it is effectively run by Kenney and the other ex-officio member, Liberal Irwin Cotler. Both Kenney and Cotler were in London, U.K. last February for the first meeting of European parliamentarians that lead to the "London Declaration" of which the CPCCA is the follow-up initiative.

The core message of the coalition is that criticism of Israel itself is now a new form of anti-Semitism. The group's web site asks "What is the "new anti-semitism?" and answers:

"Anti-semitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is always re-invented and manifested in different ways. For example, while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-semitism."

There is no evidence or links to any evidence to support the claim.

In its FAQ section the coalition answers the question of whether or not its inquiry is "...really about limiting legitimate criticism of the State of Israel?" No, says the web site: "...dissent and opposition to individual actions of the Israeli government are both permitted and encouraged in and outside of Israel..."

But not, apparently, inside the inquiry. The coalition formally invited written submissions and stated that "Based on these submissions, the committee will invite witnesses to testify at a series of public hearings." There was virtually no general publicity about the inquiry but when word did get out, numerous submissions were made arguing against the coalition's concept of a "new anti-semitism." Yet not a single organization or individual known for criticism of Israel has been scheduled to make a presentation to the inquiry (it is holding eight meetings on Parliament Hill from Nov. 2 to Dec. 8).

It seems the fix is in: the conclusion of the inquiry has been pre-ordained. If you are a critic of Israel you are already, by definition, anti-semitic and obviously not welcome.

The CPCCA's inquiry begs a lot of questions -- not the least of which is where do they get their funding? The coalition says it does not receive any funding from the government, NGOs or Jewish Community Organizations. Their budget is considerable, judging by the fact that eight of the 20 odd witnesses so far scheduled to appear at the inquiry are being flown in from the U.K., the U.S., Germany and Israel. While the web site promises to reveal funding sources, none are so far listed.

More to the point, just what do the coalition's members hope will result from their proceedings? The CPCCA will make a report to the government and "...anticipates that the Government will respond to it by the spring of 2010." That seems pretty specific, especially for a government that is not known for responding readily to outside groups. Has the government already agreed to respond to the report? Will its recommendations find their way into the criminal code?

There is good reason to fear such an eventuality. Jason Kenney -- the powerful Conservative ex-officio member of the Coalition -- is the point man for Stephen Harper on issues involving Israel and as Minister of Immigration he personally blocked British MP George Galloway from speaking in Canada. He also eliminated the half million dollars in funding the Canadian Arab Federation used for settlement programs for new immigrants (and not just Muslims). He refused to provide any evidence justifying the move. Kenney told a Toronto audience to "...be wary of the rise of a new form of anti-semitism cloaked in debates about Israel's actions in the Middle East."

It remains to be seen what the recommendations of the coalition will be, but its conclusions regarding a sweeping redefinition of anti-semitism have already been drawn and incorporated into their inquiry process -- mortally damaging its credibility. The likelihood that the Harper government is working in lock-step with the coalition is high and the CPCCA's purpose may well be to prepare the ground for criminalizing criticism of Israel.

The only remaining question is whether Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe will allow this abomination to be reflected in any new legislation.

Read More

Fighting antisemitism in Canada

Dr. Yakov M. Rabkin

Canada's parliamentarians have formed a committee to fight antisemitism.

All initiatives to combat racism deserve praise, provided this work benefit Canadians, rather than serve the interests of foreign powers. One such power is the State of Israel for whom antisemitism provides its raison d’être.

According to the Israeli author Tom Segev, the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl considered antisemites «our friends and allies»: antisemites want to be rid of Jews while Zionists want to gather them to Israel.

Many Jews realized this and opposed Zionism from its very beginning in the late 19th century: they saw that Zionists played into the hands of their worst enemies, the antisemites.

Indeed, the Zionists’ cooperation with antisemites was usually harmonious. Thus, in the 1930s, Zionist emissaries in Germany established a smooth working relationship with the Nazi authorities.

In the opinion of Howard Sachar, American historian sympathetic to the Zionist movement, Adolf Eichmann, who was then in charge of Jewish emigration, “dealt cordially and cooperatively with Zionist representatives from Palestine. When the Zionists sought permission to open vocational training camps for future emigrants [to Palestine], Eichmann willingly supplied them with housing and equipment”.

Ever since 1948, when the Zionists unilaterally declared independence against the will of Palestine’s non-Jewish majority, Israeli leaders openly worry about Jews becoming again a minority in the Holy Land.

To counter this spectre, they encourage immigration of Jewish citizens of other countries. Since most immigrants have moved to Israel under the threat – real or perceived – of antisemitism, rather than for ideological reasons, antisemitism has served Israel’s interests.

The former head of Israel’s intelligence services Y. Harkabi warned a few years ago: “It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of antisemitism, was to become a factor in the rise of antisemitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”

Nowadays Jews in Canada and other countries are increasingly associated with Israel’s bomber aircraft, gun-toting soldiers and Zionist settlers that fill the TV screens of the world.

However, Israeli authorities are not concerned that their policies towards the Palestinians breed antisemitism around the world. To the contrary, the rise of antisemitism supports their claim that only in Israel can a Jew feel safe.

At the same time, “vassals of Israel” (a term coined by the former Israeli ambassador to France Elie Barnavi for individuals often mistaken for Jewish leaders), not only proclaim their loyalty to Israel, they defiantly fly Israeli flags at the entrance of Jewish institutions, including old-age homes and hospitals.

This irresponsible conflation of Israel and Jewish Canadians provokes antisemitism and invites hostility. The standard Zionist claim that Israel - a distant and bellicose state most Jews neither control nor inhabit - is "the state of the Jewish people” implicates innocent Jews in Canada into what Israel is and does. This is what foments antisemitism in our country.

Ironically, while these “vassals of Israel” contribute to the growth of anti-Jewish sentiment in Canada, they hurl accusations of antisemitism at even the most moderate critics of Israel. It is this heavy-handed tactic that generates resentment and feeds antisemitism.

Conversely, Canadian Jews who speak against Israeli abuses of power – such as Independent Jewish Voices – profoundly undermine antisemitic beliefs. They embody the diversity of Jewish life – “two Jews, three opinions” – that flies in the face of the antisemitic canard of the world Jewish conspiracy.

In the wake of the Holocaust, many prominent Jews, including the philosopher Martin Buber and the political scientist Hannah Arendt, warned that establishing an ethnic state for Jews would plunge the entire region into incessant violence.

They believed that only a pluralistic state for all inhabitants of Palestine would ensure peace. Since then, over a million Israeli citizens have left their perennially threatened ethnocracy for liberal democracies elsewhere. Many more Israeli Jews have settled in Canada than Canadian Jews who have left their country for Israel.

Canadians mean well when they associate Jews, who suffered in the Holocaust because of their ethnicity, with the state of Israel, which has assured this ethnic group a monopoly on power.

Thus they uphold the myth according to which Israel represents the Jews around the world and constitutes their natural homeland. This does not help to fight prejudice.

To fight antisemitism, it is crucial to dissociate Jews and Judaism from the State of Israel and its behaviour. Our parliamentarians should affirm the right of all Canadians to criticize Israel like any other country in the world, without the fear of being labelled antisemitic. This would be a sure way to rid Canada of the scourge of antisemitism, new and old.

Dr. Yakov M. Rabkinis Professor of History at the University of Montreal.

His recent book, A Threat from within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism (Fernwood), has been translated to eight languages and nominated for the Governor General Award.

http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/

Read More

Canada checks into Bellevue’s Mental Ward

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/


Ottawa pledges $1M for anti-Semitism task force

The Canadian government, in partnership with B’nai Brith Canada, will invest nearly $1 million on a national task force to combat anti-Semitism, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney said last week.

The June 1 announcement was made at the Sutton Place Hotel at a conference titled “The St. Louis Era: Looking Back, Moving Forward.”

The task force, which will promote further Holocaust education and research over the course of three years, was announced on the 70th anniversary of the voyage of the St. Louis, a German ocean liner carrying Jewish refugees that was turned away from the U.S. and Canadian coasts in June 1939.

Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s executive vice-president, spoke of the verbal and physical attacks perpetrated against Jewish and pro-Zionist students at university campuses across Canada over the past year.

It seems unthinkable, he mused, that in this day and age, “Canadian universities would be the hotbed of anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism.”

Dimant went on to praise Canada’s boycott of the United Nations recent followup to its 2001 anti-racism conference, as well as Kenney’s role as a supporter of the Jewish community.

“Your government has been a trailblazer… [and] we are proud to call Canada a friend and ally,” Dimant said.

Kenney made reference to the book One Is Too Many, co-authored by Irving Abella and Harold Troper, which states that Canada accepted fewer Jewish immigrants during the period of 1933 and 1948 than any other western country. The book indicts the Mackenzie King government – and specifically its head of immigration, Frederick Charles Blair – for actively limiting the number of refugees attempting to immigrate to Canada. The book’s title refers to a quote from an unnamed immigration officer who was asked how many Jews would be allowed into Canada after the war.

Kenney spoke of the St. Louis as “a symbol of anti-Semitism” that acts as a reminder of Canada’s past to future generations in the hope that such an event won’t happen again.

“Conferences like this are essential,” Kenney said. “This must be the learning of [our] entire society… gatherings such as this demonstrate that there is a way to stamp out [anti-Semitism].”

In his speech, Kenney also mentioned his visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum in Israel last month, and he drew comparisons between the tragedy of the Holocaust and present-day genocide in places such as Rwanda.

Kenney also noted that he would be visiting Oslo and Prague next month, the former being where Israelis and Palestinians negotiated peace accords in 1993, and the latter being near the former Terezin concentration camp, which held more than 55,000 Jews at the height of World War II.

B’nai Brith president Joe Bogoroch, presented Kenney with a commemorative plaque, which Bogoroch hoped would “honour the memory of [Holocaust] victims and ensure their legacy lives on through the ages.”

“The exclusion of the St. Louis has to be seen as the first stage on the road to the Holocaust,” said Liberal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler, who spoke following Kenney. “It is the responsibility of the government to protect those who cannot be protected.”

Cotler said the St. Louis incident was made possible because of the “de-legitimization” of the Jewish people.

Like Kenney, Cotler referred to the 1994 Rwandan genocide to illustrate the dangers of indifference and inaction in the face of human rights violations and genocide. In Cotler’s words, “the Rwandan genocide was so unspeakable because it was preventable.”

Cotler also reinforced the necessity of the new task force as a remedial response to anti-Semitism, saying that it’s imperative “that we always appreciate the role of remembrance as an antidote to racism… we need a comprehensive approach to educating people on human rights crimes.”

Read More

The End of Free Speech? Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.

To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.

Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House.

As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.

It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.

It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.

It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.

It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.

In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.

Given the hubris of the US government, which leads Washington to apply US law to every country and organization, what will happen to the International Red Cross, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the various human rights organizations that have demanded investigations of Israel’s military assault on Gaza’s civilian population? Will they all be arrested for the hate crime of “excessive” criticism of Israel?

This is a serious question.

A recent UN report, which is yet to be released in its entirety, blames Israel for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the United Nations premises in Gaza. The Israeli government has responded by charging that the UN report is “tendentious, patently biased,” which puts the UN report into the State Department’s category of excessive criticism and strong anti-Israel sentiment.

Israel is getting away with its blatant use of the American government to silence its critics despite the fact that the Israeli press and Israeli soldiers have exposed the Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the premeditated murder of women and children urged upon the Israeli invaders by rabbis. These acts are clearly war crimes.

It was the Israeli press that published the pictures of the Israeli soldiers’ T-shirts that indicate that the willful murder of women and children is now the culture of the Israeli army. The T-shirts are horrific expressions of barbarity. For example, one shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach and the slogan, “One shot, two kills.” These T-shirts are an indication that Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians is one of extermination.

It has been true for years that the most potent criticism of Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians comes from the Israeli press and Israeli peace groups. For example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and Jeff Halper of ICAHD have shown a moral conscience that apparently does not exist in the Western democracies where Israel’s crimes are covered up and even praised.

Will the American hate crime bill be applied to Haaretz and Jeff Halper? Will American commentators who say nothing themselves but simply report what Haaretz and Halper have said be arrested for “spreading hatred of Israel, an anti-semitic act”?

Many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda that Palestinians are terrorists who threaten innocent Israel. These Americans will see the censorship as merely part of the necessary war on terror. They will accept the demonization of fellow citizens who report unpalatable facts about Israel and agree that such people should be punished for aiding and abetting terrorists.

A massive push is underway to criminalize criticism of Israel. American university professors have fallen victim to the well organized attempt to eliminate all criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at a Catholic university because of the power of the Israel Lobby. Now the Israel Lobby is after University of California (at Santa Barbara,) professor Wiliam Robinson. Robinson’s crime: his course on global affairs included some reading assignments critical of Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

The Israel Lobby apparently succeeded in convincing the Obama Justice (sic) Department that it is anti-semitic to accuse two Jewish AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, of spying. The Israel Lobby succeeded in getting their trial delayed for four years, and now Attorney General Eric Holder has dropped charges. Yet, Larry Franklin, the DOD official accused of giving secret material to Rosen and Weissman, is serving 12 years and 7 months in prison.

The absurdity is extraordinary. The two Israeli agents are not guilty of receiving secrets, but the American official is guilty of giving secrets to them! If there is no spy in the story, how was Franklin convicted of giving secrets to a spy?

Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American rather than Israeli interests. It eliminates any prospect of Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda.

To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti-semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel. It is permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a universal hate-crime in the Western world.

Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered.

Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination? How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks and anti-semitics? Surely the case doesn’t need to be protected by thought control.

Imprisoning people for doubts is the antithesis of modernity.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Elsewhere, I have come across this:

http://ww3zionism.blogspot.com/2009/05/are-you-legally-anti-semitic.html

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Are You Legally Anti-Semitic?

Antisemitism as defined by Congress and the US State Dept

On Oct 16, 2004 AD, President Bush signed into law the global anti-Semitism review act; which is quite interesting. The United States state Department list the following sets of beliefs as being anti-Semitic.

1. Any assertion that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world is anti-Semitic.

2. Any strong anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic.

3. Virulent criticism of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic.

4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature, especially the Talmud and the Kabala is anti-Semitic. [I wonder if that includes the traditions of the elders that Jesus criticized. “And woe unto the Pharisees” that Jesus said.]

5. Criticism of the US government and congress for being under influences of the Jewish/Zionist community, including AIPEC, is anti-Semitic.

6. Criticism of the Jewish/Zionist community for promoting Globalism, [the New World Order] is anti-Semitic.

7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

8. Diminishing the 6 million figure of the holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.

9. Calling Israel a racist state is anti-Semitic.

10. Asserting that there exists a Zionist conspiracy is anti-Semitic.

11. Claiming the Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik revolution is Russia is anti-Semitic. [I guess you have to revise history].

12. Making derogatory statements about Jewish persons is anti-Semitic. Now isn’t this interesting and all inclusive?

source

P.S. If you have functioning brain matter between your ears, you're probably legally anti-semitic. Anti-semitism seems to go hand and hand with truth and knowing truth.

at 5/05/2009

Read More

The irony of those "anti-racists"

do you see any difference ??

Many organisations are fighting against
Racism and Anti-Semitism
are those two different and distinct entities ??

Why ??

is
Anti-Semitism not Racism ??
or
are Semites not a Race ??
or
Semites are a "special-race" ??
or
those called Semites are not semites , at all ??
therefore not a race .....


Hitler's friends called them Semites
but actually they were a mixture of Ashkenazim ,
Slavonic, Nordic, Germanic ,Turkmanic.....
anything else , but not Semites !!!


It is like a law which would claim to be
anti-Crime and anti-Rape
as if rape were not a crime....!!
or a spray, being
anti-insects and anti-mosquito's....!!


My personal opinion is that
those calling themselves Semites
are not semites and those calling themselves
anti-racists were themselves , once ,
those cultures and civilisations that have
practised racism and have benefited of it.

And the irony of this all ,
is that those" today's semites " are issued
from those cultures and those civilisations
which were the racists , the last 500 years !!!

And finally ,

what if ??
a semite becomes a racist ??
what if ??
a semites became racists and established
the Stae of Israel ??
what if ??
a semite became racist and established
the Stae of Israel , and is still discrimating
his own victims ???

Shall we not dare to call them racists ,
only because they are semites ???


Shall we not dare to call him racist ,
only because he is semites,
and his accuser is a Iranian
who would like to build Atom-energy ??

Ahmadinejad is not an Anti-Semite ,
his grand-father the Emperor of Persia
released the Jews from the captivity in Babylon,
remember ??


Raja Chemayel
holding a mirror at the West

Read More

So what did we learn about anti-Semitism?

Dima Omar

April 6, 2009 Well, not much really…. Just that when you invite people who don’t consider each other to be "within the pale", as British columnist David Aaronovitch said, then the discussion on anti-Semitism turns into character assassination. No one expected a calm discussion during the debate entitled "Anti-Semitism – Alive and Well in Europe?", which was organised by the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival. Along with Aaronovitch, the panel included Gilad Atzmon and the Observer columnist Nick Cohen. It’s not clear why Cohen was invited to join at the very last minute when his views, to the naked eye at least, are akin to those of Aaronovitch’s. It would be fair to describe both men as supporters of Zionism who believe that anti-Semitism is on the rise and that much of it is "unfairly" blamed on Israel’s actions. Atzmon’s views, on the other hand, are well-known to those who follow websites on Palestinian activism. He has very strong views on "Jewishness" and "Jewish identity", and makes a clear distinction between Jews as a people and those who commit crimes in the name of "Jewish ideology". Both Aaronovitch and Cohen launched an attack on Atzmon. Aaronovich took the podium for 18 minutes (when we were told each speaker would only have 10, and indeed Atzmon had less than 10) during which he gave a theatrical performance, reading out paragraph after paragraph of Atzmon’s articles to prove the point that the man was "fascist". I doubt anyone in the audience managed to grasp what he was saying, but when you spit out the word "Jews" then at least it gives the impression what you’re saying about them is bad! Cohen, other the hand, kept wondering, over and over again, why "upper-class", "educated", "white" people would waste such a beautiful spring day debating anti-Semitism with a "nutter" (well, at least I could say I learned something about racial and class prejudice that day!) One can imagine how shocked and angry Atzmon was by the time it was his turn to take the podium. And this is why the event became a missed opportunity. He tried to steer the debate back to its theme, but at times his emotions failed him. In between having to answer to the attacks levelled against him by Aaronovitch and Cohen, and trying to remind people of what they came to discuss, much of his ideas were lost on those who’ve never followed his writings. Once the floor was opened for questions, a member of the audience said the discussion, as a whole, "was a profound disappointment". So why did the Oxford Literary Festival invite Atzmon? After all, he’s the "proud self-hating Jew" who wonders how America has allowed its foreign policies to be shaped by "ruthless Zionists" and believes that the burning of synagogues, while "in no way are legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or 'irrational' hate crimes." Cohen certainly conceded that whenever Israel launches a fresh attack on Gaza or Lebanon, synagogues and Jewish cemeteries are attacked in the UK. Yet somehow he refuses to accept the correlation between Zionist policies and anti-Semitism. He wants us to believe that anti-Semitism is fuelled by pure hatred for the Jews. After all, Chinese property wasn’t attacked in the aftermath of the Tibetan clashes last year. Sudanese property wasn’t attacked when Darfur was in the media. Well, Mr. Cohen, maybe it’s because China and Sudan are being condemned in the international community, especially in Britain, while Israel to this day is being hailed as the West’s indispensable partner. Maybe it’s because what Israel has committed in Gaza during "Operation Cast Lead" earlier this year has created more devastation than what happened in Darfur (and this is according to the head of the International Red Cross). Maybe it's because it is acceptable for British Jews to join the IDF, and actively take part in Israel's wars, while British Muslims or Chinese or whatever would never dare join a non-British army. The response from some members of the "upper-middle class, educated, white" audience proved that these questions are not an endorsement of conspiracy theories. They are legitimate questions. One man raised the question of the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington. It was their pressure that led Obama to back down on his decision to appoint Mr. Freeman as an advisor, a man well-known for his criticism of Israel. "In those circumstances," the man asked, "is a rise in anti-Semitism surprising when democracy is affected by that type of lobbying activity that prevents Obama from being able to appoint Ambassador Freeman?" We know what Atzmon would’ve said, but neither Aaronovitch nor Cohen answered that question. None of this justifies attacking synagogues or anti-Jewish graffiti. If anything, Atzmon - whom Aaronovitch and Cohen blasted as a "fascist" and a "nutter - was saying ordinary Jewish people "must be saved of the crimes imposed on them." The crimes taking place in Palestine aren’t being committed just in the name of Israel, but in the name of the Jewish people. That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s a fact. If you’re in doubt, go and read the Israeli government’s statements during Operation Cast Lead. Is it so outrageous to ask Jews in the UK to disassociate themselves from what is happening in Israel, without being labelled as an "anti-Semite"? Apparently it is. When people applauded Atzmon for making that point in the discussion, they were attacked by Aaronovitch who shouted "Shame on you! How dare you!", even addressing one member in the audience by saying "You Sir, are an anti-Semite." In the aftermath of the July 7th attacks, Muslims were attacked everywhere. It became so dangerous that a fatwa had to be issued allowing women to take off the headscarf if they felt their lives were in danger. Yet at the same time, the Muslim community was under enormous pressure to disassociate itself from the terrorists who blew up those trains and busses. While they were being attacked themselves, they were still expected to make a clear statement that what happened on July 7th does not represent them and is not being committed in their name. Try and say that to the Jewish community today without being called an "anti-Semite". Now I don’t want to ponder too much semantics but it is very ironic that anti-Semitism has been coined as a term exclusively for Jews when most of them do not belong to the Semitic race. Arabs, on the other hand, are Semitic. So if for one moment I, as an Arab, could reclaim that definition, I leave you with one point to think about. In the beginning of his speech, Aaronovitch wanted to illustrate just how bad Atzmon was. He quoted the Guardian’s Jon Lewis who described Atzmon’s writings as "extremely popular in the Arab world." Aaronovitch then fixed his audience with a gaze and asked them to keep that sentence at the very front of their minds. On second thought, I think I did learn something about "anti-Semitism" that day. Dima Omar is a Palestinian journalist and filmmaker. She is based in London. To listen to David Aaronovitch reading Gilad Atzmon click here To listen to David Aaronovitch’s tantrum click here To Listen to Gilad Atzmon deconstructing antisemitism click here To listen to Atzmon confronted with a outraged Jewish member of the audience click here To listen to a disappointed member of the audience click here To link to Aaronovitch confronted with a Jewish member of the audience click here To listen to Aaronovitch's closing remarks click here To listen to Atzmon's closing remarks click here www.uruknet.info?p=53208 Link: palestinethinktank.com/2009/04/06/dima-omar-so-what-did-we-learn-about-anti-semi tism/

Read More