An Open Word About Anti-Semitism

Written by Andrew Winkler, The Rebel Media Group

Monday, 22 January 2007

"In the olden days, an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews; these days it’s someone the Jews hate"

Accusing an opponent of anti-Semitism is probably the most powerful political weapon that exists in Western society. Its destructiveness equals – if not surpasses - the label of paedophilia. The whole topic has developed over time to such a powerful taboo, that there is hardly an open discussion of anti-Semitism, without the participants scrambling to uncritically condemn it as utterly evil. Anybody suspected – or worse - publicly accused of anti-Semitic views or activities, becomes automatically – without trial and conviction – a societal leper. He can kiss his job and career good-bye, and will loose, more often than not, most of his friends and family, in many cases even his freedom.[1]

In spite, or maybe because of its taboo nature, there is a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes anti-Semitism. This essay tries to break through the taboo and examine the various aspects of anti-Semitism and what lead to its taboo nature. The author is conscious of the fact that by doing so, he will attract bitter criticism of those sections of the community that – for one reason or another - are the most interested in maintaining the taboo.

Origins of European Jewry

European anti-Semitism cannot be understood without knowledge of the origins of European Jewry. There are two distinct ethnical and linguistical Jewish groups in Europe, the Sephardic[2] and Ashkenazi Jews[3].

Sephardic Jews

The Sephardic Jews are the direct descendants of the Roman days’ inhabitants of Palestine. Their ancestors were part of the Jewish ‘establishment’ that left Palestine after the failed Jewish uprise against the Roman occupation in the first century around 70 A.D. They eventually settled in the Southern Spanish province of Andalusia where, for many centuries, they had a privileged position under Moorish rule. Sephardic Jews still speak today a medivial Andalusian dialect.

Historic Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism

While Christian zealotism was most likely a factor, Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism has its main cause in the resentment against the Jewish role in the century long Moorish occupation of the Iberian peninsula. Jews were considered to be traitors and collaborateurs. After the final defeat of the Moors in 1492, the ‘Catholic Kings’ gave the Sephardic Jews the choice to either leave for the (Spanish ruled) Netherlands, convert to Christianity or die. Since most Jews picked the easy option of simply pretending to have converted, a common way of testing their religious allegiance was to make them eat a stew cooked out of pork and seafood, both forbidden ingredients under Jewish religious rules.[4]

Throughout the centuries, Spanish and Portuguese anti-Semitism – as elsewhere - continued to be motivated by a mix of religious and socio-economical reasons. In spite of pretending to be Christians, numerous Jewish families secretly adhered to their Jewish beliefs as so-called crypto-Jews, often ‘sacrificing’ their eldest son by making him become a Catholic priest, to protect his family. Many crypto-Jew priests had prominent roles in the Spanish inquisition, which provided them with a powerful tool to fight against their enemies. They were also massively over-represented amongst the financers of the genocidal slave and spice trade, flourishing in both Spain and Portugal.

Ashkenazi Jews

Middle and Eastern European Jewry has its roots in the ethnic Turk tribes from Mongolia who invaded Europe under their Hun King Attila and eventually settled in the area of today’s southern Russia and Ukraine, where they formed the biggest and most powerful European kingdom of the Middle Ages, Khazaria. In the 8th century, the Khazarian kings decided to import thousands of rabbis to set up Talmud schools and convert the entire population to Judaism. This purely commercial decision enabled the Khazars to trade with both Christian and Muslim neighbours and dominate the extremely profitable trade between Europe and Asia, paying for the largest standing army of the Middle Ages. Ironically, Khazaria was eventually destroyed in the early 13th century by a second wave of Mongolian invaders under Genghis Khan, leading to many Ashkenazi Jews ending up in Southern and Middle European countries like Italy and Germany.

Historic Western and Middle European anti-Semitism

Western and Middle European anti-Semitism is widely considered to have its origin in the Middle Ages, where sporadic pogroms often coincided with the departure and the return of Christian crusaders, due to a mixture of religious zealotry and resentment against the high interest charged by Jewish money lenders involved in the financing of the campaigns. Killing the Jewish money lenders under the pretext of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus was obviously a convenient way of getting around repaying ones debts.

Right through to the19th century, anti-Semitic feelings and pogroms tended to be triggered by reports of unethical Jewish business practices, counterfeiting of coins, and ritual killings of Christian children on Passah, also known as the ‘blood libel’[5]. While the veracity of those allegations is widely disputed, there is agreement that they were frequently used as a pretext to avoid repaying Jewish money lenders.

Historic Eastern European anti-Semitism

Eastern European Jews tended to be far less integrated in local societies than Jews in Western and Middle European societies. This was largely due to bigger concentrations of Jewish populations, which brought the Yiddish[6] speaking Ashkenazi Jews in more prominent contrast to the local Catholic or Orthodox Christian Slavic populations. This was particularly true for the strictly Orthodox Tsarist Russia with a deeply rooted mistrust for the descendants of her Khazarian arch-enemies.

German post-WWI anti-Semitism

Contrary to popular beliefs, German anti-Semitism after World War I was mainly motivated by resentment against the perceived responsible of ‘International Jewry’ under leadership of the Rothschild banking dynasty for Germany’s loss of World War I and the humiliating conditions of the Versailles Treaty. However, the resulting misgivings often resulted in the application of popular 19th century social-Darwinist teachings[7] on European Jews.

The Hitler government worked closely with international Zionist groups on a large-scale emigration programme for European Jews, psychologically aided by the increasingly hostile behaviour of the German government towards Jewish citizens. These groups were even allowed to maintain training camps featuring Zionist flags, preparing emigrants for a life in Palestine.

Nazi time Germans greatly resented the hostility of international Jewish groups and blamed them for the Western allieds war effort against Germany. This resulted in the perception amongst many Germans that European Jews were hostile aliens who could be interned and forced to support the German war effort.

Post WWII anti-Semitism

While most historians and politicians agree on pre-World War II anti-Semitism, the situation is far less clear cut for the time after World War II. While Jewish and pro-Israel lobby groups tend to liberally apply the label of anti-Semitism, there seems to be very few cases of racially motivated acts of anti-Jewish behaviour. Many cases of vandalism and terrorist attacks against Jewish synagogues and cemeteries turned out to be false flag operations of Zionist groups such as Mossad, designed to revive war time memories of Nazi persecutions and coerce Jews to ‘take refuge’ in the Jews-only state.

In today’s use of the term, any criticism of Jews or the Jews-only state is widely considered to be anti-Semitic. In particular, any mentioning of the slightest doubt with respect to the veracity of the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust or any suggestion of Jewish responsibility for certain aggressive aspects of US foreign policy or the events of September 11 are widely considered to be tell-tale signs of anti-Semitism. The same applies to anyone giving the slightest credibility to alleged conspiracy theories such as ‘New World Order’, ‘Illuminati’ or – worst of all – the infamous ‘Protocols’.

Jewish Power

The skinner-box like automatism with which any criticism or suggestion of any wrong doings is perceived to be anti-Semitic, has as much to do with Jewish power[8] as it has with a bad conscience with respect to a perceived inaction of the world in response to the Jewish Holocaust. Jewish control over most of Western mainstream media and investment capital has resulted into a situation where it is impossible to have a successful career in politics, science, media, entertainment or the corporate arena if there is even the slightest suspicion of ‘anti-Semitism’. Given the generous use of the term, it is no wonder that there is wide-spread fear amongst most Westerners, especially in Germany and the US, to do, say or even think anything that might attract that deadly label.

Muslim anti-Semitism

Given the unqualified support by the vast majority of Jews for the Zionist entity, the civilian and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people and the unqualified US sponsored contempt for numerous UN resolutions with respect to the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, there are strong misgivings amongst Muslims all over the world towards Jews in general and the Jews-only state in particular. Not surprisingly, these misgivings are wide criticised in the Jewish controlled Western media as anti-Semitism.

What makes these ill fellings different from most Western countries, is that they are not hampered by any bad conscience about the Jewish Holocaust, in fact, there is wide-spread scepticism amongst many Muslims regarding the veracity of the mainstream narrative. The recent Holocaust conference organised by the Tehran government, providing a platform of discussion for over 60 Holocaust revisionists is a clear expression of this scepticism and refusal to give in to Jewish pressure.[9] This is even more notable, since for the first time since World War II, an entire government, not just some maverick historian, has dared to challenge the mainstream narrative of the Holocaust.

The Walt-Mearsheimer Effect

In addition to the headache caused by the Tehran conference, last year’s high profile study of Harvard and Chicago University professors Walt and Mearsheimer on the inappropriate influence of pro-Israeli lobbies on US foreign policies drew attention to the indiscriminate Jewish use of the label of anti-Semitism as a political weapon[10]. The long-term effect of this study remains to be seen. Anecdotal evidence suggests however, that Jewish lobby groups have become more careful with the application of the term, and frequently resort to alternative labels such as ‘conspiracy theory’.

The mere existence of a powerful taboo such as the one surrounding the political term of ‘anti-Semitism’ is already a strong indication for the urgent need of a rigorous examination of its use. By avoiding such an examination, we are allowing powerful interest groups to abuse the term for their selfish political aims in a less than ethical manner. The recent Tehran conference breaking the Holocaust taboo and the debate started by the Walt-Mearsheimer study on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby have started a process that will hopefully lead to a rational debate on this important matter.

Most people don't have much of a clue what anti-Semitism actually is, but they 'know' how to spot it

Most Westerners are adamant that the Jews are the innocent victims of centuries of wicked persecution. They don’t have much of an idea why people keep picking at Jews, but they know for sure that the Jews are the goodies and their enemies the baddies.

When asked for their thoughts on what motivates anti-Semitism, most Westerners don’t have a clue. The most frequent answer is that anti-Semites consider themselves to be racially superior to people of Semitic race. At first sight, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, given the vast majority of today’s Jews are of ethnic Turk origin mixed with Germanic and Slavic elements, and not Semitic. However, since this fact isn’t even known to the majority of Jews, leave alone their critics, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the concept that anti-Semitism is caused by racial supremacism.

The myth of racially motivated anti-Semitism

Throughout history, dehumanisation of other ethnic groups has been the prime tool of morally justifying actions, that otherwise would be considered as evil. Ransacking another tribe to get hold of their winter rations, going to war against another people to rob all their possessions and kill or enslave everyone, all that had to be morally justified by the rulers of the aggressors towards their own people. In 19th century, a school of thinking called social-Darwinism justified European imperialism and colonialism based on Charles Darwin's theories on the survival of the fittest. This school was further developed in Germany[11], to a detailed list of racial ranking, in which Aryan races, such as Germans, Scandinavians, Persians and Northern Indians, were – mainly due to their warrior qualities - considered to be heading the racial ranking list, Semitic races, such as Arabs, Maltese and – not quite correctly - Jews, were ranked, together with Africans and Australian aborigines, at the bottom.

Not surprisingly, this kind of dubious theories didn’t find much resonance anywhere in German society, until – in close cooperation with the Zionist movement - they got heavily promoted by crypto-Jewish publisher Alfred Rosenberg, one of the chief ideologists of National Socialism. The prime purpose of his trailer-trash racism was to scare German Jews into emigrating to Palestine.

Rampant ignorance of what constitutes anti-Semitism

Where does this rampant ignorance of the nature and reasons behind anti-Semitism come from? Most people’s knowledge of the topic is limited to the three pillars of the ‘Jewish Holocaust’: a plan to kill all European Jews by Nazi Germany, the use of gas chambers (and other grisly methods) and 6 million murdered Jews. Thanks to a constant flow of books, newspaper articles, movies and TV shows, there are very few Westerners who aren’t more familiar with this particularly gruesome narrative of World War II, than they are with any other part of history.

More educated people, especially those with a Jewish background, will also have some knowledge of centuries of European anti-Semitism covered in Part 1 of this essay, most notably the ‘blood libel’[12] and the infamous ‘Protocols’[13]. But that’s about as far as it goes.

Eight ways how to spot an anti-Semite

Most Westerners only know as much about anti-Semitism as they need to spot an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite – according to common belief - is someone who:

• thinks anything bad of Jews,
• thinks that Jews could have ever done anything bad,
• doesn’t believe in the ‘Jewish Holocaust’,
• suggests that the ‘Jewish Holocaust’ should be open to free research and discussion,
• criticises any aspect of Judaism, e.g. Talmudism,
• criticises organised Jewry,
• criticises Israel, or
• criticises anyone who is supporting Israel.

Please note that this list is far from being exhaustive.

Skinner-box like reactions

The most interesting aspect of this ‘how to spot an anti-Semite’ list is that is has no base in rational thinking, but is purely belief based. It doesn’t matter whether and how any criticism of Jews, Judaism, organised Jewry, Holocaust beliefs, Israel or its lobby is justified. Most Westerners are conditioned to identify - in a skinner-box like automated reaction - anyone engaging in any of the above mentioned activities as an anti-Semite. The reactions of wide sections of the community to the Tehran Holocaust conference, the Walt-Mearsheimer study[14] on the pro-Israel lobby, Jimmy Carter’s book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’[15] and General Wesley Clerk’s ‘New York money people’ comment[16] are only some of the most notorious examples in recent months.

While there are subtle difference between individuals, when their skinner-box like reactions of identifying anti-Semitism are triggered, these are only gradual differences. Sooner or later, they always kick in. For example, an increasing number of Westerners are increasingly tolerant to criticism of ‘Zionists’, especially when it comes to the treatment of native Palestinians by Jewish settlers and Israeli soldiers, but if the same criticism uses the term ‘Jews’, or worse ‘the Jews’ instead of Zionists, the critic is immediately considered to be an anti-Semite.

The taboo factor

The reason for both the general disinterest in and lack of rational thinking in the context of anti-Semitism, is its taboo nature. A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom declared as sacred and forbidden; breaking of the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society.[17]

There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a danger to society. Most people will react with very strong feelings ranging from anger to fear, shock and disgust, when exposed to any perceived threat to beliefs relating to anti-Semitism. Even discussing its taboo nature causes considerable levels of discomfort.

The role of the media

Corporate media are playing a big role in the taboo nature of anti-Semitism. Not only do they consistently reinforce beliefs surrounding the topic, they also remind us of what happens to those people who dare to break the taboo. We all have heard of numerous cases of people who attracted the anger of the self-declared guardians of the taboo and saw their careers and livelihoods destroyed. In fact there are thousands of new cases every year where people get imprisoned for anti-Semitic activities, most of them for committing ‘Holocaust denial’ related offences, also known as ‘Holocaust revisionism’.

Not many people can afford to risk loosing everything, their jobs, their livelihoods, their family and friend, simply for being regarded to be an anti-Semite. Not many people are willing to risk their own future, leave alone that of their partner and children, by wearing that label. It is hard to think of anything worse that could happen to a 21st century Westerner than being burdened with this stigma.

Jewish Power

So why are the media so interested in maintaining the taboo? The answer lies in who owns respectively controls Western media. It’s hardly a secret that they are controlled by Jews. Not many people talk about it, for fear of attracting the dreaded label, but anyone who has heard of Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban, Michael Eisner, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Jonathan Miller, Neil Shapiro, Jeff Gaspin, David Westin, Sumner Redstone, Mel Marmazin, Don Hewitt, Jeff Fager, David Poltrack, Sandy Krushow, Lloyd Braun, Barry Meyer, Sherry lansing, Harvey Weinstein, Brad Siegel, Peter Chrnin, Marty Peretz, Arthur Sulzberger, William Safire, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, Norman Ornstein, Stephen Emerson, David Schneiderman, Kenneth Polack, Barry Diller, Kenneth Roth, Richard Leibner, Terry Semel, Mark Golin, Warren Lieberford, Jeffrey Zucker, Jack Myers, Sandy Grushow, Gail Berman, Stephen Spielberg, Jefrfrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, Joran Levin, the list goes on and on, he or she must realise that there can’t be any reasonable doubt about the fact that our media are controlled by Jews. There can also be no reasonable doubt that they act together as a political and social force pursuing distinctly Jewish and pro-Israel interests[18].

The pro-Israel lobby

Jewish media power acts as leverage for Jewish political power. A well funded and highly organised lobby, as described by Walt and Mearsheimer[19], has been able to ensure that there is rarely a US politician who dares to stand in the way of what the lobby perceives to be in the best interest of Israel, regardless of the effect on the United States and the American people. Doing so or saying anything critical about Israel or organised Jewry, would automatically result in massive funding through AIPAC and other Jewish lobby groups for his or her opponents, both within and outside his or her party. Most likely, it would also result in a concerted media effort of the likes of AJC, New York Times, Forward, Boston Globe and hundreds of others, to portray the politician as an anti-Semite. Given the fact that in many cases only a couple of percentage points make the difference between winning or loosing the election, no candidate can afford this kind of trouble.

Not surprisingly, ambitious politicians from both parties, Republican and Democrats, are at pains to demonstrate an ‘Israel first’ attitude on guest appearances at various lobby events such as the annual AJC and AIPAC meetings or by acting as speakers on thousands of regional and national lobby events organised by an ever growing number of Jewish lobby groups. Needless to say, they wouldn’t get an invitation if they were suspected to foster anti-Semitic feelings.

Jewish media and lobby groups are enjoying an unprecedented degree of power over Western societies in which criticism of or resistance against this power is a fail-proof method of committing political, social, financial and career suicide. This essay will now examine - as part of a comprehensive ethical analysis of the subject of anti-Semitism - whether they are using this power in an ethical manner.

The Ethics of Anti-Anti-Semitism

Why is it that many Jews react so defensively when non-Jews say anything bad about another Jew? Why is it okay to talk about the stranglehold of the Cosa Nostra over Italian society, but anti-Semitism to even mention the existence of a Jewish equivalent? Why is it okay to talk about the killing of baby girls and embryos in China or the burning of married women in rural India, but not about ritual Passover sacrifices of abducted Christian children in the Middle-Ages? Why is it okay to call the Pope a Nazi collaborator, the American president a child molester with a weakness for young boys, and the virgin Mary a whore, but racist to suggest that some Jews had either prior knowledge or were involved in 9/11, for example ‘lucky Larry’ Silverstein, who bought the WTC for US$124 million a few months before 9/11 and made a healthy profit of US$ 4 billion in insurance payment out of it? Why is it okay to suggest that President Roosevelt deliberately set up the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour for the Japanese navy to shoot and destroy like a barrel of fish, shortly after cornering the Japanese government by a crippling oil embargo, but a crime deserving the most severe punishment to suggest that there might be something wrong with the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust? What makes criticism of a Jew by a non-Jew the latter automatically a racist, regardless of the merits of his or her criticism?

Paranoia, bad conscience, supremacism or ruthless politics?

This over the top Jewish defensiveness is commonly explained with the experience of the Holocaust. Jews supposedly react kind of paranoid when criticised because of the vilification and persecution their ancestors experienced 3 generations ago in Nazi Germany. Does that justify ruining and imprisoning the critics for their alleged acts of anti-Semitism without regard to their reasoning?

Another explanation for the extreme Jewish defensiveness could be bad conscience. Employees who feel that they are not qualified for their role, often react more defensive when criticised than employees who are more confident. Could it be that many Jews overreact to any criticism because they suspect the criticism to be well founded and therefore rather attack the man than the argument?

An even less flattering theory suggests that many Jews feel that they are so high above non-Jews that they consider any criticism by non-Jews to be unacceptable, similar to noble people or officers in the olden days who refused to be judged by anyone but their peers? After all, the holiest book of Judaism, the Talmud, describes non-Jews as cattle which can be killed, abused and exploited at will by Jews. Goyim, how the Talmud calls them, are only there to make Jews richer and their life more comfortable, just like cattle or slaves. For someone brought up in this kind of tradition, being criticised by non-Jews might indeed feel like blasphemy.

Or could it be, as some critics suggest, that the libel of anti-Semitism is purely a cynical political weapon, abused by a powerful lobby to fend off their political enemies? Maybe it is a mixture of all four, depending on the person, but it’s difficult to research this matter, given the viciousness any doubts in the saint-like innocence of all Jews is routinely punished.

Do ends justify all means?

Decisions with ethical consequences can be guided by different moral philosophies. From a teleological or consequentialist perspective, which focuses on ends and consequences, acts are considered to be morally right or acceptable if they produce a desired result. From that angle, it could be argued that modern anti-anti-Semitism was morally acceptable because it produces the desirable end of preventing a repeat of Nazi style discrimination and persecution of Jews. The downside of this approach though is that it is frequently abused for egoistic purposes, as it is the case of what Normal Finkelstein describes the ‘Holocaust Industry’, i.e. the misuse of the Jewish Holocaust for the maximisation of financial and political self-interest. Other examples are the coercing of US politicians by pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC to blindly support Israel - financially, militarily and politically – or otherwise be labelled an anti-Semite and face, at the next election, opponents both from within the own party and from the opposition, who are swimming in Jewish money.

People cannot be used as a means to an end

Critics of the teleological or consequentialist approach argue that everyone must be treated with respect because they have universal rights including the freedom of conscience, consent, privacy, speech and due process. According to this so-called deontological philosophy, individual rights must not be violated. They demand that both intentions and actions of our behaviour should conform with universal moral principles.

From a deontological perspective it is difficult to justify, why someone should be ostracised, his career destroyed and his freedom taken, because he exercised his right of free speech to criticise aspects of modern Jewry or make claims that the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax and should be reinvestigated.

Is anti-anti-Semitism a case of subjective ethicalness?

Moral relativists focus on themselves and the people around them. Their morality is based on the consensus of their relevant group. To them, ethicalness is subjective, based on individual and group experience. A consensus from the relevant group sets their ethical standards, which can change as the group’s views or its members change.

Moral relativism is very common amongst politicians, military and other professional groups. The Enron case is a good example for how relativist moral standards can easily lead to behaviours that – from an outsider’s point of view – are clearly unethical. It demonstrates that subjective ethicalness is prone to corruption and manipulations by powerful groups and individuals.

There is no doubt, that large sections of the community consider anti-Semitism to be utterly evil and a deadly danger to society. They feel that anti-Semites have forfeited their human and civil rights and deserve to be sentenced to death or at least locked up in some kind of high-security facility for as long as possible. This is the same strong reaction most people have when it comes to other powerful taboos such as child molestation and an indication of the amount of brainwashing Western societies have endured when it comes to Jews. This kind of brainless skinner box like reactions as the result of societal taboos as well as the above mentioned risk of corruption and manipulation as demonstrated in the Enron case are convincing proof that subjective ethicalness is unsuitable as a tool to guide our behaviours.

What would a mature person with good moral character consider appropriate?

Conventional morality values virtues such as trust, self control, empathy, fairness and truthfulness. It is fairly obvious that there is a lack of trust amongst many Jews towards those people they destroy for being alleged anti-Semites. They would probably argue that how they could be expected to trust someone who is being anti-Semitic. But that’s exactly what trust is about: trusting another even if there is a risk of betrayal or disappointment. Transferred to the situation of Jewish criticism, the virtue of trust would call for trusting the critic that he is not motivated by racial hatred and some secret wish to kill all Jews.

Self-control, the second virtue, calls to avoid exploiting self-serving opportunities. Many critics, for example Norman Finkelstein and Jeffrey Blankfort, would argue that the exploitation of self-serving opportunities is what the ‘Holocaust industry’ and the pro-Israel lobby are all about.

The third virtue, empathy, the promotion of civility and anticipation of needs, is clearly missing. So is fairness, the fourth virtue, because it can hardly be considered to be fair to ruin or imprison someone purely for exercising his right of free speech.

And last, but not least, truthfulness. Critics of Jews and the Holocaust get persecuted regardless of the merits of their claims. In Germany, for example, the veracity of the Holocaust is treated as ‘self-evident’ and Holocaust revisionists, such as Germar Rudolf of Ernst Zündel, are refused an opportunity to provide proof for the accuracy of the claims they are put on trial for. Similarly, anyone criticising Israel or the stranglehold the pro-Israel lobby has on US politics, for example Jimmy Carter in his recent book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’, is automatically condemned as an anti-Semite, irrespective of the strength of his argument.

The question of justice

Is justice, the fifth moral philosophy, that is fairness in outcomes, processes and communication, served by throwing people into jail, their character assassinate and their careers ruined for being critical of Jews? Throwing someone into jail or destroying his career for criticising Jews or claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax designed to humiliate a beaten enemy and mount international support for the creation and ongoing support of a Jewish state, would immediately be considered to be unjust by most people, if the recipient of the criticism weren’t Jews.

The set-up-to-anti-Semitism syndrome

The more people learned about Apartheid in South Africa, the more supportive they got for the idea of a boycott. Did that make those people hate White South Africans? Of course not. With Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian people it’s very similar. The more people find out about the private homes and orchards bulldozed by Israeli soldiers, the kids and teenagers shot by Israeli snipers, the systematic use of torture and extra-judicial killings, the disastrous impact of the so-called security fences, the daily harassment and intimidation by armed settlers and occupation soldiers, the more angry they get. It’s called sense of justice. Does that make them anti-Semites? Only, if you ask the pro-Israel lobby.

Having said that, a statement of fact should be treated solely on its merits. A fact is a fact, irrespective of who is stating it. As long as that person can proof that his or her claims are logical and reasonable, we all agree that we are dealing with a fact, until proven otherwise. The motivations and personal biases of that person do not change that, even if he or she is an ‘anti-Semite’.

The more difficult Jews are making it for critics to voice their views, the stronger their resentment will become. The more they are accusing critics of being motivated by racism and bigotry, the more angry they will get. The harder they make it for people interested in history and politics to research and publish on crimes of Jews, the more suspicious and mistrusting they get of Jews. In other words, the more Jews combat perceived anti-Semitism, the more 'anti-Semitic' people will become.

Footnotes

[1] There are hundreds of cases of imprisonment each year in over a dozen of countries, most notably Germany and Austria, on the grounds of 'hate crime', referring to written or verbal statements made with respect to Jews or the Holocaust.
[2] Sephardic, adj (Hebrew) Spanish
[3] Ashkenazi, adj (Hebrew) German; given the fact that almost 90% of today's Jews are Ashkenazi, i.e. ethnic Turk, the term 'anti-Semitism' doesn't make a lot of sense. However, since the focus of this essay is not so much the term itself, but the actions and attitudes it describes, the author decided - for simplicty reasons - to stick with the commonly used term.
[4] Pork stew with cockles or clams is still today a national dish in both Portugal and Spain.
[5] The infamous term ‘blood libel’ is frequently used by Jewish lobbyists to discredit any suggestions that Israeli official might have been involved in any murderous activities.
[6] Yiddish is a medivial German dialect mixed with Turk and Hebrew words. For speed and logistical reasons, the ethnic Turk Huns didn’t bring their women along when invading Europe, forcing them to ‘source’ women from the local Germanic tribes. Those women then passed on their own language to the fruits of those ‘marriages’.
[7] English social-Darwinism, which puts European races above populations of European colonies, was instrumental for the dehumanisation of non-European people, necessary for the moral justificiation of their suppression and exploitation.
[8] Paul Eisen, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/380/58/
[9] Fredrick Töben, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/2799/58/
[10] Jeffrey Blankfort, http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/566/58/
[11] By the time Germany entered the imperialistic race, immediately after its unification in 1870, most of the non-European world was already divided by England, France, Russia, Spain, Portugual, Turkey and the Netherlands. Germany was only left with the ‘rejects’, countries like Papua, Namibia and Tonga that nobody else wanted.
[12] Frank Weltner PhD, The Jews in Britain, A short history of Anglo-Jewry, PhD, http://www.jewwatch.com/…
[13] Theodor Herzl, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion http://www.ziopedia.org/…
[14] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)
[15] Henry Siegman, Hurrican Carter, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[16] James D. Besser, ADL Chief: It’s not just David Duke anymore, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[17] Definition of ‘taboo’ on http://en.wikipedia.org
[18] Jeffrey Blankfort, Partial list of Pro-Israeli Jews who Control the American Media, http://www.ziopedia.org/...
[19] Walt, Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby Influence on US Foreign Policy, http://www.ziopedia.org/... (PDF)

Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of 'Jews Anonymous'. He can be contacted on editor@ziopedia.org.This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Source: ZioPedia.org