Defining Hate

The latest victim of the Associated Press war against Israel and Judaism is to attack the International Definition of Antisemitism.  

Cesspool academia such as Columbia University is complaining that the government of the United States is insisting upon the “working definition” of Antisemitism.   The Department of State has used the “working definition,” along with examples of antisemitism, since 2010. 

On May 26, 2016, 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism. 

The definition includes denying that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, for example, by claiming the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor.  It also includes applying double standards by requiring behavior of Israel or the Jewish people generally not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.  An example of antisemitism is drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis and holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.   

Those who hate Israel and want to see its destruction are, understandably, upset that they cannot use Israel as a stand-in for the eternal hated Jew.  Haters of the Jewish Nation blame this on the Trump Administration, who is also perceived as an enemy.  These are not terms “pushed” by the Trump Administration, as suggested by pro-terrorist forces, but rather is a definition that has existed long before Donald Trump was in office. 

The terrorist sympathizers have attempted to usurp the First Amendment as well.  They claim that their right of free speech entitles them to violate the international definition of antisemitism and to exercise their antisemitic rhetoric.  The truth is that the First Amendment of the United States does give a broad berth to those who want to use horrible, racist, and antisemitic, bigoted speech against others.  The fact that a person can utter racist words does not mean that they are entitled to receive federal funding, jobs, or other enhancements to their status.   

I witnessed a Nazi march in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.  Originally, it was the Jews who were threatened in advance of the “protest.”  However, when the dozen or so deadbeats showed up at Brandon Park, they used their bullhorns to say terrible and racist remarks against the African American mayor of the city.  It was a repulsive and disgusting display but was permitted by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because the time, place, and manner restrictions were “reasonable.”  The park where the Nazis were permitted to gather was a public forum.   

However, when the pro-Hamas protestors wanted to march on the city of Williamsport, they were permitted to close down a main avenue, Fourth Street, and were not relegated to the public space or the park.  This was “free speech” that did not have to be respected at the location utilized.  Many of the merchants felt the same way and were furious with the administration of the city for permitting the “protest.”   

The fact that people may say awful things, publicly or in writing, about others does not mean that they are entitled to teach in our colleges, schools, and universities, hold public jobs, or receive other benefits that they would not otherwise be entitled to.   

The Associated Press is looking aggressively for a way to criticize and condemn the Administration for cracking down on antisemitism.  The position taken by the news organization has more to do with trying to discourage the President from addressing antisemitism, than any concern for the First Amendment.   

The First Amendment is not going to stop any college professor from Israel hatred. What the IHRA definition will do is help to educate people to understand that Israel has frequently been portrayed inappropriately, wrongly, and antisemitically as the Jew to be hated, mistrusted, and feared.   

When I was a young kid, my father had a couple of partners who were Italian.  I remember somebody saying to me, at one of the jobs, that “all Italians are in the Mafia.”  The type of ugly and baseless stereotypes utilized against all races, religions, colors, and creeds may be related to a particular nation.  The Administration and others concerned with the safety and security of the tiny minority of Jews living in this country, cannot help but be aware of the well funded racist campaign against the State of Israel.  Anyone who has been to Israel, talked to Israelis, or has the slightest idea of what Judaism is all about would promptly appreciate the importance of the international definition of antisemitism and the need to enforce it as part of our national campaign to assure equality of treatment among all of our citizens. 

It is not shocking, to those familiar with the history of antisemitism, that a country made up of 7 million Jews halfway around the world would be regarded as a demon by those who seek its destruction.  The 6 million Jews in the United States, a number shrinking quickly due to assimilation, deserve to be treated with the same respect and regard as any people. 

The Associated Press, and others like it, have done well to infiltrate the Jewish world as well and find Quislings among Jewish people.  We do not hear that term “quisling” very often anymore.  According to the All Holy Internet, the word originates from the surname of the Norwegian war-time leader Vidkun Quisling who lived from 1887 to 1945. He headed the domestic Nazi collaborationist regime during World War II. 

We all have Quislings within our midst who throw their fate, fame, and name with those who would destroy their own people and religion.  It is a shame, but it is the reality of the great American melting pot. 

It is time for newspapers and others to stop using Jews, Judaism, and support for Israel as a wedge issue to undermine the Trump Administration.  Let us keep religion and international politics out of our domestic food fight.