“When I saw the depths of crazy self hatred to which some of my leftist friends had sunk, I started thinking—I am afraid of this self-hatred, because I know that it can be exploited. When Englishmen or Frenchmen hate themselves – and some do – it doesn’t put their countries at risk. They’re in their countries unconditionally. Whereas here, self-hatred is always connected to something else—-” [A. B. Yehoshua].
Chapter 11 of “The Jewish Idea and Its Enemies” by Edward Alexander featured the subject of “Jewish Anti-Semitism, Enlightenment, Evenhandedness, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Its opening statement speaks volumes. He alludes to the comprehensive studies on the origin of the state of Israel and of its current social, cultural, and political condition, generally including accounts, however brief, of the often troubled history of Jews in their various lands of exile. The kinds of hostility, ranging from vilification and discrimination to expulsion and murder, visited by gentiles on Jews.
Now, importantly, in these accounts of the anti-Semitism that forms part of the history of the Zionist enterprise, Alexander notes that “relatively little attention is paid to the anti-Semitism of the Jews themselves, although it plays a large role in Jewish history.” He could well of substituted the word “Zionist” with “Jews”.
Professor Alexander argues further that self-hating Jews have made such large contributions “to the ideology and politics of anti-Semitism ” that it may fairly be called a product, “perhaps the only genuine one, of the so-called ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition.” He makes considerable us of Sander Gilman’s “brilliant book”, “Jewish Self-hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews” and David Shipler’s “Arab and Jews” among others to develop his treatise. Alexander also covers an abbreviated history from “time immemorial” to illustrate that anti-Semitism’s origin originates well before the modern Israel.
In contemporary times, anti-Semitism has reached the ultimate in significance to the point that numerous parties have found it necessary to re-visit its very definition to avoid lack of correctness in its application. The most simplest is the “Three Ds of anti-Semitism” or “The 3D Test” as described by Wikipedia, originated by Natan Sharansky to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. The three Ds represent:
* delegitimization of Israel.
* demonization of Israel.
* subjecting Israel to double standards.
To deal with the subject in general, the AJC ‘s “The Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” is vastly broader. An extract follows:
* Calling for ,aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
* Making mendacious dehumanizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective
* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially, but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
* Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
* Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
* Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
* Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews * killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Dina Porat on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, differs slightly on the above. With these definitions in mind, we can safely progress to current situations and individuals.
As recently as June 25, 2019, Sherry Sufi addressed the subject of “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism.” in a Jerusalem Post Op-Ed. Her introductory comment states, ‘Yet when it comes to Jews, all sorts of imaginary distinctions are put forward to justify anti-Semitic prejudices. This hypocrisy must end.” She notes further that by isolating Zionism they are not being anti-Semitic and consequently that this should automatically legitimize their opposition to the State of Israel.
The given subject arose in a debate between the well known journalist, Melanie Phillips and politician Einat Wilf who spoke for the proposition, while Mehdi Hasan, journalist for Aljazeera and Ilan Pappe, an equally well known Zionist detractor spoke against it. Further, there are others, Avi Shlaim, Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Sand who share the same negative views as the last named.
Sufi notes that in 1975, even the UN fell for this pathological anti-Semitism, when it passed Resolution 3379 declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. However, although it was revoked in 1991, the fact that it passed in the first place, illustrates the scale of the problem.
Daniel Greenfield is an investigative journalist who is widely published. He has penned some interesting pieces on Senator Bernie Sanders, who is largely given to wearing his Jewish connection on his sleeves. In “I am a Proud Jewish Person” published in the Jewish Press of August 25, 2019, Greenfield introduces Sanders as one who “Pals Around with Ant-Semites” which provides insights into Sander’s character through his own words.
At the iconic Apollo Theater he said, “I’m proud to be Jewish——-I may be Jewish, but you’re not going to find any candidate running for president, for example, to talk about Zionism and the Middle East.”
As a further example of anti-Semitism leveled at Sanders, in reply to NPR host Diane Rehm, he states, “Well, no, I do not have dual citizenship with Israel,” Sanders replied. “I’m an American. I don’t know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I’m an American citizen, period.”
Daniel Greenfield astutely reminds us that Bernie Sanders has mainstreamed, campaigned for, and “defended countless anti-Semitic figures ranging from Jesse Jackson, after the Hymietown slur, to Keith Ellison, and the Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Tlaib gang.”
Even more so , whenever he’s defending an anti-Semite, “the son of a Polish immigrant, suddenly declares himself to be a proud Jewish person.” To Greenfield, he’s actually “a shameless leftist weasel” who colludes and collaborates with the worst sorts of anti-Semites on a regular basis.
More recently on October 16, 2019 in a Jewish Press piece entitled, “New Sanders Surrogate is a BDS Supporter Who Compared Israel to ISSIS”, Greenfield reminds us that Sanders cannot seem to find enough Muslim anti-Semites to “stock his deranged campaign with.”In this instance, he is specifically referring to Linda Sarsour.
Previously Keith Ellison had served in the subject position. Greenfield draws attention to Sanders recall of a real winner in Amer Zah, who speaks of the expulsion of “Palestinians” in 1948 AD justified by a Biblical promise in 1948, which sounds like “Jewish jihad” to him. For Zah, Israelis are “foreigners in the land of Israel—-colonist settlers.” Zah has described defenders of Israel as “scumbags” ,” pigs” and “bastards”.
Despite J Street’s not too frequent observance of the given rules on avoidance of anti-Semitic pronouncements or acts, they are seldom held to accountability. ZOA however, has responded in their ZOA edition on “The J Street Challenge”. A few observations are given hereunder:
[a] Street U co-sponsors events with anti-Semitic groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
[b] The group brings anti-Israel speakers to campus to spread lies about Israel.
[c] It draws a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas by placing the blame equally on “both sides.” It does this despite the fact that Israel is a liberal democracy fighting a terrorist group that uses Palestinian-Arabs as human shields and has the genocide of the Jewish people as a stated goal in its charter. Hamas is recognized by the US as a terrorist organization and has launched nearly 20,000 rockets.
On September 4, 20i5 Arutz 7 published “US Jews: Muslim J Street head is Anti-Israel.” According to the ZOA, Amna Farooqi, a 21 year old student, the new president [at the time] of J Street’s student subsidiary, is a “radical Muslim who spews hatred for Israel and its leaders, supports violence against Israel, and supports anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions.”Her tweets include, “Wonder how many American Jews hear of the horror inflicted on Gaza this summer?” and “Wonder what Bibi would say if Palestinians applied his Iran logic to their situation.”
She also implied support for Palestinian terrorism when she tweeted, “Every movement exercises a range of acts of resistance.”
In answer, presumably, Bibi would relieve her confusion by informing her that Israel was a defender and not the aggressor. Mort Klein, ZOA President states that Amna Farooqi promotes ugly lies against the Jewish State of Israel and her leaders – makes clear that J Street no longer has any right to claim to be “pro-Israel, pro-peace”.
Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz informs us; ” I went back and I read every single J Street press release from the first day of its existence. I could not find a single one of them that praised Israel. How can you be a pro-Israel organization and never express any pro-Israel views?”
The Guardian published a lengthy epistle on the virtues of George Soros on July 6, 2016, named “The George Soros philosophy – and its fatal flaw.” Apparently, to the Guardian, his philosophy overrides his behavior. For the latter, Daniel responds fully on his Blog “Sultan Knish” of November 12, 2010. His title – “The Jewish People vs. George Soros.
As observed by Greenfield, Soros in his youth was a Nazi collaborator where others elected to be a rescuer, as was the case for Greenfield’s father. Soros made the wrong choice then accompanying a Nazi officer in his search for Jewish property he could loot. Despite his denial he had a choice. He could have escaped to join the partisans, as did Daniel Greenfield’s father.
Greenfield recognizes Soros’s inability to have an understanding of evil being wrong. Not in the past, nor as he assists in helping set up and fund organizations like J Street, “whose sole purpose is to help Muslim terrorists who murder Jews currently.” He has observed the liberal media defending Soros as if he was a victim of the Holocaust and a survivor, which he regards as an obscenity.
To Greenfield, Soros was not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, he was a collaborator”—running the gas chambers and sorting the gold teeth. Soros was not a victim, he was a perpetrator.” Summarizing, we learn the following from the author:
* Soros has funded organizations that actively promoted anti-Semitic smears against Jews.
* Soros has said that he doesn’t want to be part of any Jewish national existence, and that the
solution to anti-Semitism is for Jews to “give up on tribalism”. His narrative has always
been to blame Anti-Semitism on Jews and on Israel.
* Soros’ father identified with Germans, more than with Jews. Like some of that type, he wanted
to be more German, than the Germans.
* Over the years Soros has made it very clear that he doesn’t like Jews, and doesn’t want to be
in his family. His father changed his last name from Schwartz to Soros. His ex-wife has stated
that Soros’ mother disliked her, because she was “openly Jewish”. In his biography, Soros
agreed that his ex-wife’s Jewishness was the problem. He even referred to his own mother as a
“Jewish Anti-Semite”. Indeed Soros’ mother disliked Jews so much, she ended up converting.
By way of concluding, a few words on the co-founders of J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami. He is the son of a great Jewish hero
Ben-Ami’s grandparents were Zionist heroes who ,fleeing the Anti-Semitism of Russia to become founders of Tel Aviv. His father followed in their tradition, a leader in the movement to establish the first independent Jewish state in 2,000 years . Reflecting on his father, and betraying his own views, Ben-Ami blithely says , “He was a terrorist”.
The same terrorist Yitzhak Ben-Ami who produced a 600 page magnificent manuscript, “Years of Wrath, Days of Glory – Memoirs from the Irgun”, while his pathetic son’s J Street mission is to “advocate policies that advance shared US and Israeli interests as well as Jewish and democratic values, leading to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” [Refer TOI “A Man and His Wayward Son].