It could be disputed how to define Jew-hatred but there is a working definition that has recently proven to be quite adequate. Many powerful nations have adopted it. However, two parts are missing from this description.
The definition prominently speaks of advocating harm to Jews. Yet, that, in many cases, is a euphemism that does not suffice. The vision of every diehard Jew-hater is the eradication of the Jewish People. Not just harm but death, murder, is their dream and aim. And there is more.
Many anti-Semites have compared Jews – and by extension the Jewish State of Israel – to bad cells or infectious diseases that need to be eliminated. This is then a roundabout way of saying: yes to the mass murder and removal of them. A few examples:
- We have now the supreme despot of Iran saying that Israel is a ‘cancerous tumor’ that ‘must be eradicated.’
- But of course, this is an older idea: Pierce – The Jews Are A Cancer !!! 😉 – YouTube (not available for viewing in Israel)!
- Jews have been called a (world) plague.
- Town Council Silent Over Call to ‘Remove the Infection’ of Jews.
- Let’s not forget the eugenics’ claim that Jews are hereditarily inferior or sick, physically (Let’s concentrate them in camps and work them to death. When that failed, they switch to gas.), mentally and morally.
This is different from the blood libel accusing Jews of spreading illness.
Many times, sickness is compared to ideas that need to go, but in the case of hatred for Jews it’s compared to a whole People and its Home State that need to be eradicated ‘to heal humankind.’
The definition of anti-Semitism needs to incorporate also this obsession with not “just” hurting Jews but wanted them all dead by non-natural causes, and in a euphemism calling them sick, worthy of removal.
There is actually another crucial aspect of the Oppression of Jews that needs to be highlighted – for the simple reason that it needs to go. I would call it: Not standing with the Jews.
By not defending Jews, by not showing solidarity with them, by not being dependable allies to them, Jews need to seek powerful allies no matter their moral values. Then Jews get blamed for having immoral friends, but actually, they had little choice, being forsaken by the “moral” ones, being held hostage by the wrong friends.
(In the long run, the powerful immoral leaders will also abandon them, but being safe for the moment is better than for now being unprotected by anyone.)
A shocking recent example is this report: NATO chief: alliance won’t defend Israel in war with Iran. Make no mistake about what could prompt such a declaration by a sensitive soul who cannot overlook how cruel the fate of the Palestinians. He hunts animals for pleasure – so much for being susceptible to the suffering of others.
So, the working definition of anti-Semitism should also list: to abandon and to threaten abandoning unconditional solidarity with, support for and safety to all Jews.
NB: The Holocaust was the downfall of the Western world more than a disaster for the Jews. Protecting Jews (or not) is equally a hallmark for how moral a person or a society is. One doesn’t need to stand with the Jews for their sake. If one doesn’t, the real loser is the one who forsakes them and their own human quality.