In his desperation to defend the IHRA Definition of anti-Semitism against the Jerusalem Definition, Rich prays in aid the support of anti-Semites
I am always pleased to be proved
correct in my analysis! When a group of academics issued the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism
I gave it a critical
welcome as I saw immediately that it could be a weapon in the fight against
the IHRA’s
conflation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
Almost immediately the Zionists
went on the attack. To the notorious David Collier from the fascist wing of Zionism
the JDA is ‘harmful
to Jews’.
Dave Rich, the Deputy
Director of the CST, an organisation that was set
up by Mossad, Israel’s MI6 and the Board of Deputies, argues
that the JDA ‘risks setting back genuine
efforts to tackle antisemitism.’ Whereas in fact it is the IHRA, by defining anti-Zionism
as anti-Semitism which does that.
When I submitted a Subject
Access Request to the CST some years ago I got back a file containing over 300
pages. Indeed so copious was the file that there were things in it that I could
not recall. When I come to write my autobiography the first thing I will do
will be to submit another SAR to the CST! In reality the CST is in the business
of monitoring the opponents of Zionism and Israeli Apartheid.
Why you might ask should
the CST spy on fellow Jews if their purpose is, as they claim, simply to
protect Britain’s Jewish community? Or are they saying that anti-Zionist Jews pose
a threat to British Jews?
David Schraub, an
Assistant Professor no less, was on the attack against the JDA in Ha'aretz.
Being a senior academic however doesn’t stop Schraub from getting even the most
basic facts wrong. Contrary to his assertion Jackie Walker was not expelled from the Labour Party for anti-Semitism.
Schraub is one of those cheap imitation academics who reproduce the lies of
others and dress it up as profundity. It is a form of political plagiarism.
Dave Rich wrote an article
in the Jewish Chronicle ‘We don’t need another definition of Jew hate’. Which is of course true. What he omits to mention is that the IHRA isn’t
a definition of anything let alone anti-Semitism. As the Jewish former Court of
Appeal Judge Stephen Sedley said,
the IHRA isn’t a definition because it’s indefinite! David Feldman, a Zionist whom
I’ve criticised
often
enough, described
the IHRA as ‘bewilderingly imprecise.’
The reason that Rich is opposed to the JDA is that it is, despite its
flaws, a definition of anti-Semitism. Consider the central 38 word core of the
IHRA, it defines
anti-Semitism thus:
“Antisemitism
is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.
Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward
Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community
institutions and religious facilities.”
What
is this ‘certain perception’? If it ‘may
be expressed as hatred’ what else may it be expressed as? The IHRA
is a model of obscurity and obfuscation. And deliberately so.
Compare this with the JDA’s core definition:
Antisemitism
is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or
Jewish institutions as Jewish).
Not only is it less than half the IHRA definition it is crystal clear and
explicit as to what anti-Semitism is. That
is the real Zionist objection. The last thing Zionist zealots want
is a definition which is actually a definition. They want it to be obscure, obfuscatory,
hazy and open to interpretation because then they can, by a process of
political osmosis, infect every area of criticism of Zionism and Israel with
the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’.
Zionists want to respond to criticism of Israel, not with intellectual or
reasoned arguments but ‘feelings’ of threats to their ‘welfare’ and ‘safety’. Even
an 84 year old film producer, Ken Loach, was a threat
to the Zionist snowflakes at St. Peter’s College Oxford.
And if, like David Miller, you point to the fact that the students
attacking him belong to a Zionist organisation, the Union of Jewish Students,
which receives its funding direct from the Israeli Embassy, then you are even
more of a threat. And 100 stupid right-wing
MPs, including Caroline Lucas, will sign a statement demanding that you are
sacked.
The reason for this is obvious. It is impossible to defend Apartheid Israel
and the Zionists have to resort to identity politics.
In the face of the big Goebbels style lie, we need to reiterate that anti-Semitism
is about discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence directed at Jews because
they are Jews.
How does Dave Rich, a fake academic who has written a rubbish book The
Left’s Jewish Problem, get over this? *
Rich decides to use the anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros, the
philanthropic Jewish billionaire who is portrayed as the typical international Jewish
financier, as the reason for not adopting the JDA. He says
that the JDA
‘risks
missing all but the most overt cases.’ The Hungarian government’s campaign
against George Soros never mentions the fact Soros is Jewish but it derives its
resonance and force from the use of antisemitic language.
In fact it was blindingly obvious that the Hungarian Prime Minister , Viktor
Orban’s target was Jewish. Orban, won the 2018 General Election in Hungary by
basing his campaign on the demonisation of George Soros. He didn’t need to
explicitly mention that Soros was Jewish because this was so well known and his
supporters made it explicit.
Orban’s campaign was backed by right-wing Zionists including Netanyahu’s son
Yair, who produced
an anti-Semitic cartoon praised which was praised
by neo-Nazis. Orban was quoted
as saying during his campaign:
“We are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open, but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world,”
It doesn’t take many brain cells to work out that Jews are the object
here. It is a recitation of standard Jewish conspiracy theories. But here is
the problem? Among those countries who have adopted
the IHRA is Hungary! Indeed it was under Viktor Orban that Hungary adopted the IHRA
definition. Orban is a big supporter of the IHRA as is fellow anti-Semite Donald
Trump.
And let us not forget that in 2018 Conservative MEPs voted
to support Orban against a censure motion in the European Parliament. I don’t remember the Zionists, who were so
taken up with Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’ protesting that the Tories were anti-Semitic. Strange that.
And for over a decade the same Tory MEPs were in the same European Conservative Reform Group as
Latvian and Poland anti-Semites. Again without any criticism from the Zionists.
Indeed as we know, the Zionist Board of Deputies totally
ignored the far greater Tory anti-Semitism for the simple reason that the campaign
waged against the Labour Left had nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
Indeed when Jonathan Freedland criticised
the Tories for getting into the same sewer as Roberts Zile, the Latvian MEP who
marched with the veterans of the Latvia Waffen SS each year and with the
equally repugnant Michal Kaminski, who had defended the pogromists of Jedwabne
who had the blood of up to 1600 Jews on their hands, who defended these
fascists? None other than the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard in
an article Poland's
Kaminski is not an antisemite: he's a friend to Jews. Pollard’s
reasons were that Kaminski was ardently pro-Zionist which is true for many anti-Semites.
Genuine anti-Semites have no difficulty supporting the IHRA because it isn’t
about anti-Semitism but about shoe horning anti-Zionism into the anti-Semitism mould.
But Dave Rich is too dishonest to admit this. Instead he thinks that the
readers of the Jewish Chronicle are too stupid to ask questions (and he is probably
right about that!).
Another fact is that under Benjamin Netanyahu Israel too has adopted the
IHRA definition. This is not surprising since the whole purpose of the IHRA is
to protect the Israeli State from criticism. But who is it that has close
and friendly relations with the anti-Semitic Orban? Netanyahu!
As the Times of Israel said,
quoting a Hungarian official: ‘Netanyahu and Orban belong to same
political family’. This if nothing else demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Zionist
claque who will stop at nothing to conflate anti-racist and anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism
with Dave Rich leading the charge. Rich should ask how it is that Israel elects
a Prime Minister who maintains such friendly relations with an anti-Semitic regime
and leave the question of what is anti-Semitic to those who have some
understanding of it.
Tony Greenstein
* When Rich expressed is delight that I had
read his book on Twitter I had to suggest that he reign in his pleasure. After
all, I told him, I have also read Hitler’s Mein Kampf!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below