Yale historian Timothy Snyder is indebted to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently made Snyder’s new book even more newsworthy than his extraordinary scholarship deserves to be.
And Netanyahu is indebted to Snyder, whose theory of Hitler’s anti-Semitism is germane to two questions: Is the Iranian regime’s anti-Semitism rooted, as Hitler’s was, in a theory of history that demands genocide?
If so, when Iran becomes a nuclear power, can it be deterred from its announced determination to destroy Israel?
Netanyahu recently asserted, again, that a Palestinian cleric was important in Hitler’s decision to murder European Jews. Netanyahu said that on Nov. 28, 1941, when Hitler supposedly preferred to expel Europe’s Jews rather than exterminate them, Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, met with Hitler and urged him to “burn them.”
Certainly the mufti favored genocide; he certainly was not important in initiating it. Mass murder the Holocaust accompanied the German army, especially after the September 1939 outbreak of war, and especially after the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union.
Granted, it was not until the January 1942 Wannsee Conference that the “final solution” became explicit. But by the time Hitler met the mufti, approximately 700,000 Soviet Jews had been shot. Snyder, not Netanyahu, should be heeded concerning the Holocaust’s genesis.
Attempts to explain Hitler’s obsession with Jews began with the idea that he was unfathomable, a lunatic “teppichfresser” (carpet chewer). The comforting theory was that no theory can explain Hitler because he was inexplicable, a monster, a phenomenon without precedent or portent.
In 1996, however, Daniel Goldhagen’s book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” argued that the explanation for the genocide was acculturation centuries of German conditioning by the single idea of “eliminationist anti-Semitism.”
This cognitive determinism reduced Hitler to a mere catalyst who unleashed a sick society’s cultural latency.
This drew a rejoinder from Christopher Browning, author of “Ordinary Men” (1992), a study of middle-aged German conscripts who became consenting participants in mass-murder police battalions in Poland.
Browning noted that protracted socialization, centuries of conditioning, could not explain the Khmer Rouge’s murder of millions of Cambodians, or the Chinese’ slaughter of millions of Chinese during Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
What happened in those places proved the power of an idea Marxism understood as a mandate to extirpate “false consciousness” to legitimize, even mandate, mass murder.
In “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning,” published in September, Snyder argues that the Holocaust’s origins have been hidden in plain sight, in ideas Hitler articulated in “Mein Kampf” and speeches.
Snyder presents a Hitler more troubling than a madman, a Hitler implementing the logic of a coherent worldview. His life was a single-minded response to an idea so radical that it rejected not only the entire tradition of political philosophy but the possibility of philosophy, which Hitler supplanted by zoology.
“In Hitler’s world,” Snyder writes, “the law of the jungle was the only law.” The immutable structure of life casts the various human races as separate species.
Only races are real and they are locked in mutual and unassuageable enmity, in Hitler’s mindset, because life is constant struggle over scarcities of land, food, and other necessities.
One group, however, poisoned the planet with another idea. To Hitler, says Snyder, “It was the Jew who told humans that they were above other animals, and had the capacity to decide their future for themselves.”
To Hitler, “Ethics as such was the error; the only morality was fidelity to race.” Hitler, who did not become a German citizen until 11 months before becoming Germany’s chancellor, was not a nationalist but a racialist who said “the highest goal of human beings” is not “the preservation of any given state or government, but the preservation of their kind.” And “all world-historical events are nothing more than the expression of the self-preservation drive of the races.”
Now, assume, reasonably, that Iran’s pursuit of a potentially genocidal weapon will not be seriously impeded by parchment barriers such as the recent nuclear agreement. And assume, prudently, that the Iranian regime means what it says about Jews and their “Zionist entity.”
Then apply Snyder’s warning: Ideas have consequences. The idea of anti-Semitism is uniquely durable and remarkably multiform. It can express a mentality that is disconnected, as in Hitler’s case, from calculations of national interest.
Hence an anti-Semitic regime can be impervious to the logic of deterrence. Much, including Israel’s calculation of what military measures are necessary for its safety, depends on the nature of Iran’s anti-Semitism.
George F. Will is one of today’s most recognized writers, with more than 450 newspapers, a Newsweek column, and his appearances as a political commentator on Fox news. Read more reports from George Will Click Here Now.
Washington Post Writers Group.
Here is the original post:
Is Iran’s Anti-Semitism Too Deep for Deterrence?
Yale University historian Timothy Snyder is indebted to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently made Snyders new book even more newsworthy than his extraordinary scholarship deserves to be. And Netanyahu is indebted to Snyder, whose theory of Hitlers anti-Semitism is germane to two questions: Is the Iranian regimes anti-Semitism rooted, as Hitlers was, in a theory of history that demands genocide? If so, when Iran becomes a nuclear power, can it be deterred from its announced determination to destroy Israel?
Netanyahu recently asserted, again, that a Palestinian cleric was important in Hitlers decision to murder European Jews. Netanyahu said that on Nov. 28, 1941, when Hitler supposedly preferred to expel Europes Jews rather than exterminate them, Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, met with Hitler and urged him to burn them.
Certainly the mufti favored genocide; he certainly was not important in initiating it. Mass murder the Holocaust accompanied the German army, especially after the September 1939 outbreak of war, and especially after the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. Granted, it was not until the January 1942 Wannsee Conference that the final solution became explicit. But by the time Hitler met the mufti, approximately 700,000 Soviet Jews had been shot. Snyder, not Netanyahu, should be heeded concerning the Holocausts genesis.
Attempts to explain Hitlers obsession with Jews began with the idea that he was unfathomable, a lunatic Teppichfresser (carpet eater). The comforting theory was that no theory can explain Hitler because he was inexplicable, a monster, a phenomenon without precedent or portent.
In 1996, however, Daniel Goldhagens book Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust argued that the explanation for the genocide was acculturation centuries of German conditioning by the single idea of eliminationist anti-Semitism. This cognitive determinism reduced Hitler to a mere catalyst who unleashed a sick societys cultural latency.
In an October 20 speech to the World Zionist Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, gave Adolf Hitler the idea to exterminate Jews during WWII. (YouTube/IsraeliPM)
This drew a rejoinder from Christopher Browning, author of Ordinary Men (1992), a study of middle-aged German conscripts who became consenting participants in mass-murder police battalions in Poland. Browning noted that protracted socialization centuries of conditioning could not explain the Khmer Rouges murder of millions of Cambodians or the Chinese slaughter of millions of Chinese during Maos Cultural Revolution.
What happened in those places proved the power of an idea Marxism understood as a mandate to extirpate false consciousness to legitimize, even mandate, mass murder. In Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, published in September, Snyder argues that the Holocausts origins have been hidden in plain sight, in ideas Hitler articulated in Mein Kampf and speeches.
Snyder presents a Hitler more troubling than a madman, a Hitler implementing the logic of a coherent worldview. His life was a single-minded response to an idea so radical that it rejected not only the entire tradition of political philosophy but also the possibility of philosophy, which Hitler supplanted by zoology.
In Hitlers world, Snyder writes, the law of the jungle was the only law. The immutable structure of life casts the various human races as separate species. Only races are real and they are locked in mutual and unassuageable enmity, in Hitlers mind-set, because life is constant struggle over scarcities of land, food and other necessities.
One group, however, poisoned the planet with another idea. To Hitler, says Snyder, It was the Jew who told humans that they were above other animals, and had the capacity to decide their future for themselves. To Hitler, Ethics as such was the error; the only morality was fidelity to race. Hitler, who did not become a German citizen until 11 months before becoming Germanys chancellor, was not a nationalist but a racialist who said the highest goal of human beings is not the preservation of any given state or government, but the preservation of their kind. And all world-historical events are nothing more than the expression of the self-preservation drive of the races.
Now, assume, reasonably, that Irans pursuit of a potentially genocidal weapon will not be seriously impeded by parchment barriers such as the recent nuclear agreement. And assume, prudently, that the Iranian regime means what it says about Jews and their Zionist entity.
Then apply Snyders warning: Ideas have consequences. The idea of anti-Semitism is uniquely durable and remarkably multiform. It can express a mentality that is disconnected, as in Hitlers case, from calculations of national interest.
Hence an anti-Semitic regime can be impervious to the logic of deterrence. Much, including Israels calculation of what military measures are necessary for its safety, depends on the nature of Irans anti-Semitism.
Read more from George F. Wills archive or follow him on Facebook.
Does Irans anti-Semitism run too deep for deterrence …
Anti-Semitism: Why Does It Exist? And Why Does it Persist?
By Mark Weber
Over the centuries, hostility against Jews has repeatedly erupted in terrible violence. Again and again, Jews have been driven out of countries where theyd been living. Why does anti-Semitism exist? And why has rage against Jews broken out, again and again, in the most varied nations, eras and cultures? Closely related to this is the broader issue of relations between Jews and non-Jews a subject that many writers and scholars have called the Jewish question.
All too often, discussions of anti-Semitism and the Jewish question have been distorted by prejudice, bigotry and lack of candor. But this important subject deserves careful, informed and honest consideration.
Prominent Jewish leaders claim to be puzzled by the persistence of anti-Jewish sentiment and behavior. Insisting that anti-Semitism is a baseless and unreasonable prejudice, they often compare it to a mysterious virus or disease.
Elie Wiesel is one of the best-known Jewish authors and community figures of our age. His memoir of wartime experiences, entitled Night, has been obligatory reading in many classrooms. Hes a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, and for years has been a professor at Boston University. Wiesel is considered to be an authority on anti-Semitism, but he says that hes puzzled by it. The source and endurance of anti-Semitism in history remains a mystery, he told an audience in Germany in April 2004. /1 In another address he described anti-Semitism as an irrational disease. Speaking at a conference in October 2002, Wiesel went on to say: The world has changed in the last 2,000 years, and only anti-Semitism has remained … The only disease that has not found its cure is anti-Semitism. /2
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is one of the worlds largest and most influential Jewish-Zionist organizations. It considers itself the foremost center for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, and educating the public about this dangerous phenomenon. In his 2003 book, Never Again?: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, ADL national director Abraham Foxman expressed grave concern about what he sees as rising hostility toward Jews: I am convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s if not a greater one. /3 Remarkably, he too claimed to be perplexed about the reasons for the origin and durability of discord between Jews and non-Jews. I think of anti-Semitism as a disease, Foxman writes. Anti-Semitism also resembles a disease in being fundamentally irrational … Its a spiritual and psychological illness. /4
Charles Krauthammer, an influential Jewish-American writer who is a fervent defender of Israel, is similarly puzzled by the endurance of anti-Jewish sentiment. The persistence of anti-Semitism, that most ancient of poisons, is one of historys great mysteries, he wrote in a Washington Post column that also appeared in many other newspapers across the country. /5
Wiesel, Foxman and Krauthammer, along with other prominent Jewish-Zionist leaders, are unable — or unwilling — to provide an explanation for the persistence of anti-Semitism. They believe, or claim to believe, that because its an entirely irrational and baseless disease, theres no relation between what Jews do, and what non-Jews think of Jews. In their view, the strife and tension between Jews and non-Jews that has persisted over the centuries is not caused by, or is even related to, Jewish behavior.
Fortunately, a reasonable explanation for this enduring phenomenon has been provided by one of the most prominent and influential Jewish figures of modern history: Theodor Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement. He laid out his views in a book, written in German, entitled The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat). Published in 1896, this work is the basic manifesto of the Zionist movement. A year and a half later he convened the first international Zionist conference.
In his book Herzl explained that regardless of where they live, or their citizenship, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people. He used the German word, Volk. Wherever large numbers of Jews live among non-Jews, he said, conflict is not only likely, its inevitable. The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers, he wrote. Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear. /6
In his public and private writings, Herzl explained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but rather a natural response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, he said, is not due to ignorance or bigotry, as so many have claimed. Instead, he concluded, the ancient and seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and non-Jews is entirely understandable, because Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.
Anti-Jewish sentiment in the modern era, Herzl believed, arose from the emancipation of Jews in the 18th and 19th centuries, which freed them from the confined life of the ghetto and brought them into modern urban society and direct economic dealings with middle class non-Jews. Anti-Semitism, Herzl wrote, is an understandable reaction to Jewish defects. In his diary he wrote: I find the anti-Semites are fully within their rights. /7
Herzl maintained that Jews must stop pretending — both to themselves and to non-Jews — that they are like everyone else, and instead must frankly acknowledge that they are a distinct and separate people, with distinct and separate goals and interests. The only workable long-term solution, he said, is for Jews to recognize reality and live, finally, as a normal people in a separate state of their own. In a memo to the Tsar of Russia, Herzl wrote that Zionism is the final solution of the Jewish question. /8
Israels first president, Chaim Weizmann, expressed a similar view. In his memoirs, he wrote: Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them … [This] reaction … cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off. /9
Such candor is rare. Only occasionally do Jewish leaders today explain anti-Semitism as a reaction to the behavior of Jews. One of the wealthiest and most influential figures in todays world is George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire financier. Generally he avoids highlighting his ties to the Jewish community, and only rarely attends purely Jewish gatherings. But in November 2003 he addressed a meeting in New York City of the Jewish Funders Network. When he was asked about anti-Semitism in Europe, Soros did not respond by saying that it is an irrational disease. Instead, he said that it is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States. There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that, he said. If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish,” he went on. I cant see how one could confront it directly. /10
Jewish community leaders reacted angrily to Soros remarks. Elan Steinberg, senior adviser at the World Jewish Congress (and former executive director of that influential organization), said: Lets understand things clearly: Anti-Semitism is not caused by Jews; its caused by anti-Semites. Abraham Foxman called Soros comments absolutely obscene. The ADL director went on to say: He buys into the stereotype. Its a simplistic, counterproductive, biased and bigoted perception of whats out there. Its blaming the victim for all of Israels and the Jewish peoples ills. /11
Most people readily accept that positive feelings by non-Jews toward Jews have some basis in Jewish behavior. But Jewish leaders such as Foxman, Wiesel and Steinberg seem unwilling to accept that negative feelings toward Jews might similarly have a basis in Jewish behavior.
Along with all other social behavior over time, conflict between Jews and non-Jews has an evident and understandable basis in history and human nature. The historical record suggests that the persistence of anti-Semitism over the centuries is rooted in the unusual way that Jews relate to non-Jews.
Israeli and Jewish- Zionist leaders affirm that Jews constitute a people or a nation that is, a distinct nationality group to which Jews everywhere are supposed to feel and express a primary loyalty. /12 Some American Jewish leaders have been explicit about this. Louis Brandeis, a US Supreme Court justice and a leading American Zionist, said: Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member. /13 Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and of the World Jewish Congress, told a rally in New York in June 1938: “I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith. I am a Jew … Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race, and we are a race.” /14 In keeping with this outlook, Israeli leaders also say that the Zionist state represents not just its own Jewish citizens, but Jews everywhere. /15
While affirming — usually only among themselves that Jews are members of a separate nationality to which they should feel and express a prime loyalty, Zionists simultaneously insist that Jews must be welcomed as full and equal citizens in whatever country they may wish to live. While Zionist Jews in the US such as Abraham Foxman speak of the Jewish people as a distinct nationality, they also claim that Jews are Americans like everyone else, and insist that Jews, including Zionist Jews, must be granted all the rights of US citizens, with no social, legal or institutional obstacles to Jewish power and influence in American life. In short, Jewish-Zionist leaders and organizations (such as the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee) demand full citizen rights for Zionist Jews not only in their country, Israel, but everywhere.
Major Jewish-Zionist organizations, and, more broadly, the organized Jewish community, also promote pluralism, tolerance and diversity in the United States and other countries. They believe this is useful for Jews. Americas pluralistic society is at the heart of Jewish security, wrote Abraham Foxmam. In the long run, the ADL director went to explain, what has made American Jewish life a uniquely positive experience in Diaspora history and which has enabled us to be such important allies for the State of Israel, is the health of a pluralistic, tolerant and inclusive American society. /16
For some time, the ADL has promoted the slogan Diversity is Our Strength. In keeping with this motto, which it claims to have invented, the ADL has devoted effort and resources to persuading Americans — especially younger Americans — to welcome and embrace ever more social, cultural and racial diversity. /17
This campaign has been very successful. American politicians and educators, and virtually the entire US mass media, promote diversity, multiculturalism and pluralism, and portray those who do not embrace these objectives as hateful and ignorant. At the same time, influential Jewish-Zionist organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) insist that the US must recognize and defend Israel as a specifically Jewish ethnic-religious state. /18 Pluralism and diversity, it seems, are only for non-Jews. Whats good for Jews in their own homeland, Jewish-Zionist leaders seem to say, is not pluralism and diversity, but a tribalistic nationalism.
What Jews think is important because the Jewish community has the power to realize its goals. In a remarkable address in May 2013, Vice President Joe Biden said that the immense and outsized Jewish role in the US mass media and cultural life has been the single most important factor in shaping American attitudes over the past century, and in driving major cultural- political changes. I bet you 85 percent of those [social- political] changes, whether its in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, he said. Jewish heritage has shaped who we are all of us, us, me as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And thats a fact, he added. /19
Biden is not alone in acknowledging this clout. It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture, wrote Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic in 1996. /20 Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote in 2008: As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood … I dont care if Americans think were running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them. /21
Even though Jews have more influence and power in US political and cultural life than any other ethnic or religious group, Jewish groups are uncomfortable when non- Jews point this out. In fact, says Foxman and the ADL, one sure sign that someone is an anti-Semite is if he agrees with the statement that Jews have too much power in our country today. /22 For Foxman, apparently, there can never be too much Jewish influence and power.
Anti-Semitism is not a mysterious disease. As Herzl and Weizmann suggested, and as history shows, what is often called anti-Semitism is the natural and understandable attitude of people toward a minority with particularist loyalties that wields greatly disproportionate power for its own interests, rather than for the common good.
— December 2013. Revised January 2014.
About the Author
Mark Weber is a historian, author and current affairs analyst. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977).
For Further Reading
Norman F. Cantor. The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews. New York: Harper, 1994.
Benjamin Ginsberg. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. The Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993.
Peter Harrison, What Causes Anti-Semitism? Review of Macdonalds Separation and Its Discontents. The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1998. ( http://ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n3p28_Harrison )
Stanley Hornbeck. Review of Macdonalds The Culture of Critique. American Renaissance, June 1999. ( http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html )
Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab. Jews and the New American Scene. Harvard University Press, 1995.
Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. Praeger, 1994.
Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Praeger,1998
Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Praeger, 1998 (Softcover edition, 2002).
W. D. Rubinstein. The Left, The Right and the Jews. New York: Universe Books, 1982.
Israel Shahak. Jewish History, Jewish Religion. London: Pluto Press, 1994,
Goldwin Smith. The Jewish Question. From: Essays on Questions of the Day. New York: Macmillan, 1894. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n1p16_Smith.html )
Mark Weber, A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby ( http://ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml )
Mark Weber, Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign? Feb. 2006. ( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/holocaust_remembrance.shtml )
Mark Weber, Jews: A Religious Community, a People, or a Race?, March-April 2000. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n2p63_Weber.html ) ;
Mark Weber, Straight Talk About Zionism: What Jewish Nationalism Means. April 2009. ( http://www.ihr.org/zionism0409.html )
Mark Weber, The Weight of Tradition: Why Judaism is Not Like Other Religions. Oct. 2010. ( http://www.ihr.org/judaism0709.html )
Mark Weber, Vice President Biden Acknowledges ‘Immense’ Jewish Role in American Mass Media and Cultural Life, July 2013. ( http://ihr.org/other/biden_jewish_role )
Read the original here:
Anti-Semitism: Why Does It Exist? And Why Does it Persist?
August 25, 2015 – Buenos Aires Jew and mobster were spray painted on a subway station in reference to Mauricio Macri, head of the government of the City of Buenos Aires and a presidential candidate.
August 1, 2015 Sauce Viejo, Santa Fe Graffiti reading Black and Jewish here along with a swastika were spray painted on a police officers home, whose wife is Jewish.
June 25, 2015 Paran, Entre Ros Graffiti reading Death to the Jews and a swastika were found spray painted on a wall.
March 10, 2015 Rosario Anti-Semitic graffiti reading “f*** Jews” was written on the Jewish community center, while the local Jewish cemetery was vandalized.
February 2, 2015 Buenos Aires Posters reading A good Jew is a dead Jew. A good Jew is Nisman were found in the Villa Crespo neighborhood.Nisman is a reference to Alberto Nisman, the Argentine prosecutor overseeing the AMIA bombing case who wasfound dead in his homeon January 19th.
January 20, 2015 Lago Puelo – Israeli tourists were physically attacked and insulted with anti-Semitic epithets.
July 19, 2015 – Menton – The rabbi of Menton was hit in the back and insulted by an Italian-speaking man, while the rabbi was walking in the street.
July 15, 2015 – Paris – A Jewish family was assaulted and robbed in their suburban Paris home, injuring two parents and their daughter. Reportedly, the robbers told the family they had targeted their home because they were Jewish and have money.
July 7, 2015 – Paris – A visibly Jewish 13 year-old boy was beaten and robbed outside his school by six young men, who physically assaulted him while one shouted “take that, dirty Jew!” The boy cell phone was also stolen.
May 15, 2015 – Paris – A visibly Jewish boy was brutally assaulted and robbed for four individuals.
May 13, 2015 – Sarcelles – A Jewish woman and her child weresitting on a park bench whenthe three young women violently assaulted her and shouted Hitler did not finish his work and you’re a dirty race.
April 27, 2015 – Paris – A Jewish man was beaten by three individuals as he left a synagogue. The attackers called him a “dirty Jew” and attempted to stab him.
April 18, 2015 Vnissieux Two men on a motorcycle drove up to a synagogue and mimicked firing with automatic weapons at the soldiers on guard.
April 17, 2015 Villeurbanne Two men shouted anti-Semitic insults in front of a synagogue, then punched two security guards while threatening to kill them. They escaped before soldiers guarding the synagogue could catch them.
March 10, 2015 Marseille Two 16 year-old Jewish boys, wearing visibly Jewish garb, were punched by two young men while walking home from a synagogue. The attackers reportedly said, Dirty Jews, were going to exterminate you all, f*** you all.
Read this article:
Global Anti-Semitism: Selected Incidents Around the World …
Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as an ethnic, religious, or racial group. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is widely considered to be a form of racism.
While the conjunction of the units anti-, Semite, and -ism indicates antisemitism as being directed against all Semitic people, the term was popularized in Germany in 1873 as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (Jew-hatred), although it had been used for at least two decades prior, and that has been its normal use since then. For the purposes of a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism was considered “hatred toward Jewsindividually and as a groupthat can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity”.
Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs, state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Although the term did not come into common usage until the 19th century, it is now also applied to historic anti-Jewish incidents. Notable instances of persecution include the pogroms which preceded the First Crusade in 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the massacres of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecutions of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, Cossack massacres in Ukraine of 16481657, various pogroms in Imperial Russia between 1821 and 1906, the 18941906 Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in German-occupied Europe, official Soviet anti-Jewish policies and Arab and Muslim involvement in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.
The origin of “antisemitic” terminologies is found in responses of Moritz Steinschneider to the views of Ernest Renan. As Alex Bein writes “The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his ‘anti-Semitic prejudices’ [i.e., his derogation of the “Semites” as a race]”.Avner Falk similarly writes: ‘The German word antisemitisch was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider (1816-1907) in the phrase antisemitische Vorurteile (antisemitic prejudices). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan’s false ideas about how “Semitic races” were inferior to “Aryan races”‘.
Pseudoscientific theories concerning race, civilization, and “progress” had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. He coined the phrase “the Jews are our misfortune” which would later be widely used by Nazis. In Treitschke’s writings “Semitic” was synonymous with “Jewish”, in contrast to its use by Renan and others.
In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet, Der Sieg des Judenthums ber das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet (The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective.)[pageneeded]&/or[need quotation to verify] in which he used the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both “Jewry” (the Jews as a collective) and “jewishness” (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit).
This use of Semitismus was followed by a coining of “Antisemitismus” which was used to indicate opposition to the Jews as a people and opposition to the Jewish spirit, which Marr interpreted as infiltrating German culture. His next pamphlet, Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums ber das Judenthum (The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit, 1880), presents a development of Marr’s ideas further and may present the first published use of the German word Antisemitismus, “antisemitism”.
The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Antisemites), the first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country.
So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte, and Wilhelm Scherer used the term Antisemiten in the January issue of Neue Freie Presse.
The Jewish Encyclopedia reported: In February 1881, a correspondent of the “Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums” speaks of “Anti-Semitism” as a designation which recently came into use (“Allg. Zeit. d. Jud.” 1881, p.138). On 19 July 1882, the editor says, “This quite recent Anti-Semitism is hardly three years old.”
The related term “philosemitism” was coined around 1885.
Despite the use of the prefix anti-, the term “anti-Semitic” is not a direct opposite of “Semitic” which linguistically makes the term a misnomer. Within common, day to day usage, however, the terms “anti-Semitism” and “antisemitism” have accepted and specific use to describe prejudice against Jews alone and in general. This is despite the fact that there are other speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and that not all Jews speak a Semitic language.
The term “antisemitic” has been used on occasion with meanings inclusive of bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, with the validity of such use being challenged.
The terms “anti-Semitism” and “antisemitism” are both in use. Some scholars favor the unhyphenated form because, “If you use the hyphenated form, you consider the words ‘Semitism’, ‘Semite’, ‘Semitic’ as meaningful” whereas “in antisemitic parlance, ‘Semites’ really stands for Jews, just that.” For example, Emil Fackenheim supported the unhyphenated spelling, in order to “[dispel] the notion that there is an entity ‘Semitism’ which ‘anti-Semitism’ opposes.” Others endorsing an unhyphenated term for the same reason include Padraic O’Hare, professor of Religious and Theological Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of Jewish-Christian-Muslim Relations at Merrimack College; Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; and James Carroll, historian and novelist. According to Carroll, who first cites O’Hare and Bauer on “the existence of something called ‘Semitism'”, “the hyphenated word thus reflects the bipolarity that is at the heart of the problem of antisemitism”.
Though the general definition of antisemitism is hostility or prejudice against Jews, and, according to Olaf Blaschke, has become an “umbrella term for negative stereotypes about Jews”, a number of authorities have developed more formal definitions.
Holocaust scholar and City University of New York professor Helen Fein defines it as “a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actionssocial or legal discrimination, political mobilization against the Jews, and collective or state violencewhich results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews.”
Elaborating on Fein’s definition, Dietz Bering of the University of Cologne writes that, to antisemites, “Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature: (1) Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective. (2) Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies. (3) Jews bring disaster on their ‘host societies’ or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the anti-Semites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character.”
For Sonja Weinberg, as distinct from economic and religious anti-Judaism, antisemitism in its modern form shows conceptual innovation, a resort to ‘science’ to defend itself, new functional forms and organisational differences. It was anti-liberal, racialist and nationalist. It promoted the myth that Jews conspired to ‘judaise’ the world; it served to consolidate social identity; it channeled dissatisfactions among victims of the capitalist system; and it was used as a conservative cultural code to fight emancipation and liberalism.
Bernard Lewis defines antisemitism as a special case of prejudice, hatred, or persecution directed against people who are in some way different from the rest. According to Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of “cosmic evil.” Thus, “it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic” unless this hatred or persecution displays one of the two features specific to antisemitism.
There have been a number of efforts by international and governmental bodies to define antisemitism formally. The U.S. Department of State states that “while there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.” For the purposes of its 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism, the term was considered to mean “hatred toward Jewsindividually and as a groupthat can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity.”
In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now Fundamental Rights Agency), then an agency of the European Union, developed a more detailed working definition, which states: “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.” It also adds that “such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” but that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” It provides contemporary examples of ways in which antisemitism may manifest itself, including: promoting the harming of Jews in the name of an ideology or religion; promoting negative stereotypes of Jews; holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of an individual Jewish person or group; denying the Holocaust or accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating it; and accusing Jews of dual loyalty or a greater allegiance to Israel than their own country. It also lists ways in which attacking Israel could be antisemitic, and states that 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, can be a manifestation of antisemitismas can applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel. Late in 2013, the definition was removed from the website of the Fundamental Rights Agency. A spokesperson said that it had never been regarded as official and that the agency did not intend to develop its own definition.
In 1879, Wilhelm Marr founded the Antisemiten-Liga (Anti-Semitic League). Identification with antisemitism and as an antisemite was politically advantageous in Europe in the latter 19th century. For example, Karl Lueger, the popular mayor of fin de sicle Vienna, skillfully exploited antisemitism as a way of channeling public discontent to his political advantage. In its 1910 obituary of Lueger, The New York Times notes that Lueger was “Chairman of the Christian Social Union of the Parliament and of the Anti-Semitic Union of the Diet of Lower Austria. In 1895 A. C. Cuza organized the Alliance Anti-semitique Universelle in Bucharest. In the period before World War II, when animosity towards Jews was far more commonplace, it was not uncommon for a person, organization, or political party to self-identify as an antisemite or antisemitic.
In 1882, the early Zionist pioneer Judah Leib Pinsker wrote that antisemitism was a psychological response rooted in fear and was an inherited predisposition. He named the condition Judeophobia.
Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind.’…’Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.’… ‘In this way have Judaism and Anti-Semitism passed for centuries through history as inseparable companions.’……’Having analyzed Judeophobia as an hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an inherited aberration of the human mind, we must draw the important conclusion that we must give’ up contending against these hostile impulses as we must against every other inherited predisposition. (translation from German)
In the aftermath of the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938, German propaganda minister Goebbels announced: “The German people is anti-Semitic. It has no desire to have its rights restricted or to be provoked in the future by parasites of the Jewish race.”
After the 1945 victory of the Allies over Nazi Germany, and particularly after the extent of the Nazi genocide of Jews became known, the term “anti-Semitism” acquired pejorative connotations. This marked a full circle shift in usage, from an era just decades earlier when “Jew” was used as a pejorative term. Yehuda Bauer wrote in 1984: “There are no anti-Semites in the world… Nobody says, ‘I am anti-Semitic.’ You cannot, after Hitler. The word has gone out of fashion.”
Antisemitism manifests itself in a variety of ways. Ren Knig mentions social antisemitism, economic antisemitism, religious antisemitism, and political antisemitism as examples. Knig points out that these different forms demonstrate that the “origins of anti-Semitic prejudices are rooted in different historical periods.” Knig asserts that differences in the chronology of different antisemitic prejudices and the irregular distribution of such prejudices over different segments of the population create “serious difficulties in the definition of the different kinds of anti-Semitism.” These difficulties may contribute to the existence of different taxonomies that have been developed to categorize the forms of antisemitism. The forms identified are substantially the same; it is primarily the number of forms and their definitions that differ. Bernard Lazare identifies three forms of antisemitism: Christian antisemitism, economic antisemitism, and ethnologic antisemitism.William Brustein names four categories: religious, racial, economic and political. The Roman Catholic historian Edward Flannery distinguished four varieties of antisemitism:
Louis Harap separates “economic antisemitism” and merges “political” and “nationalistic” antisemitism into “ideological antisemitism”. Harap also adds a category of “social antisemitism”.
Gustavo Perednik has argued that what he terms “Judeophobia” has a number of unique traits which set it apart from other forms of racism, including permanence, depth, obsessiveness, irrationality, endurance, ubiquity, and danger. He also wrote in his book Spain Derailed that “The Jews were accused by the nationalists of being the creators of Communism; by the Communists of ruling Capitalism. If they live in non-Jewish countries, they are accused of double-loyalties; if they live in the Jewish country, of being racists. When they spend their money, they are reproached for being ostentatious; when they don’t spend their money, of being avaricious. They are called rootless cosmopolitans or hardened chauvinists. If they assimilate, they are accused of fifth-columnists, if they don’t, of shutting themselves away.”
Louis Harap defines cultural antisemitism as “that species of anti-Semitism that charges the Jews with corrupting a given culture and attempting to supplant or succeeding in supplanting the preferred culture with a uniform, crude, “Jewish” culture. Similarly, Eric Kandel characterizes cultural antisemitism as being based on the idea of “Jewishness” as a “religious or cultural tradition that is acquired through learning, through distinctive traditions and education.” According to Kandel, this form of antisemitism views Jews as possessing “unattractive psychological and social characteristics that are acquired through acculturation.” Niewyk and Nicosia characterize cultural antisemitism as focusing on and condemning “the Jews’ aloofness from the societies in which they live.” An important feature of cultural antisemitism is that it considers the negative attributes of Judaism to be redeemable by education or religious conversion.
Religious antisemitism, also known as anti-Judaism, is antipathy towards Jews because of their perceived religious beliefs. In theory, antisemitism and attacks against individual Jews would stop if Jews stopped practicing Judaism or changed their public faith, especially by conversion to the official or right religion. However, in some cases discrimination continues after conversion, as in the case of Christianized Marranos or Iberian Jews in the late 15th century and 16th century who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism or Jewish customs.
Although the origins of antisemitism are rooted in the Judeo-Christian conflict, religious antisemitism, other forms of antisemitism have developed in modern times. Frederick Schweitzer asserts that, “most scholars ignore the Christian foundation on which the modern antisemitic edifice rests and invoke political antisemitism, cultural antisemitism, racism or racial antisemitism, economic antisemitism and the like.” William Nichols draws a distinction between religious antisemitism and modern antisemitism based on racial or ethnic grounds: “The dividing line was the possibility of effective conversion… a Jew ceased to be a Jew upon baptism.” From the perspective of racial antisemitism, however, “… the assimilated Jew was still a Jew, even after baptism…. From the Enlightenment onward, it is no longer possible to draw clear lines of distinction between religious and racial forms of hostility towards Jews… Once Jews have been emancipated and secular thinking makes its appearance, without leaving behind the old Christian hostility towards Jews, the new term antisemitism becomes almost unavoidable, even before explicitly racist doctrines appear.”
The underlying premise of economic antisemitism is that Jews perform harmful economic activities or that economic activities become harmful when they are performed by Jews.
Linking Jews and money underpins the most damaging and lasting Antisemitic canards. Antisemites claim that Jews control the world finances, a theory promoted in the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and later repeated by Henry Ford and his Dearborn Independent. In the modern era, such myths continue to be spread in books such as The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews published by the Nation of Islam, and on the internet. Derek Penslar writes that there are two components to the financial canards:
Abraham Foxman describes six facets of the financial canards:
Gerald Krefetz summarizes the myth as “[Jews] control the banks, the money supply, the economy, and businessesof the community, of the country, of the world”. Krefetz gives, as illustrations, many slurs and proverbs (in several different languages) which suggest that Jews are stingy, or greedy, or miserly, or aggressive bargainers. During the nineteenth century, Jews were described as “scurrilous, stupid, and tight-fisted”, but after the Jewish Emancipation and the rise of Jews to the middle- or upper-class in Europe were portrayed as “clever, devious, and manipulative financiers out to dominate [world finances]”.
Lon Poliakov asserts that economic antisemitism is not a distinct form of antisemitism, but merely a manifestation of theologic antisemitism (because, without the theological causes of the economic antisemitism, there would be no economic antisemitism). In opposition to this view, Derek Penslar contends that in the modern era, the economic antisemitism is “distinct and nearly constant” but theological antisemitism is “often subdued”.
An academic study by Francesco DAcunto, Marcel Prokopczuk, and Michael Weber showed that people who live in areas of Germany that contain the most brutal history of anti-Semitic persecution are more likely to be distrustful of finance in general. Therefore, they tended to invest less money in the stock market and make poor financial decisions. The study concluded “that the persecution of minorities reduces not only the long-term wealth of the persecuted, but of the persecutors as well.”
Racial antisemitism is prejudice against Jews as a racial/ethnic group, rather than Judaism as a religion.
Racial antisemitism is the idea that the Jews are a distinct and inferior race compared to their host nations. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, it gained mainstream acceptance as part of the eugenics movement, which categorized non-Europeans as inferior. It more specifically claimed that Northern Europeans, or “Aryans”, were superior. Racial antisemites saw the Jews as part of a Semitic race and emphasized their non-European origins and culture. They saw Jews as beyond redemption even if they converted to the majority religion.
Racial antisemitism replaced the hatred of Judaism with the hatred of Jews as a group. In the context of the Industrial Revolution, following the Jewish Emancipation, Jews rapidly urbanized and experienced a period of greater social mobility. With the decreasing role of religion in public life tempering religious antisemitism, a combination of growing nationalism, the rise of eugenics, and resentment at the socio-economic success of the Jews led to the newer, and more virulent, racist antisemitism.
According to William Nichols, religious antisemitism may be distinguished from modern antisemitism based on racial or ethnic grounds. “The dividing line was the possibility of effective conversion… a Jew ceased to be a Jew upon baptism.” However, with racial antisemitism, “Now the assimilated Jew was still a Jew, even after baptism…. From the Enlightenment onward, it is no longer possible to draw clear lines of distinction between religious and racial forms of hostility towards Jews… Once Jews have been emancipated and secular thinking makes its appearance, without leaving behind the old Christian hostility towards Jews, the new term antisemitism becomes almost unavoidable, even before explicitly racist doctrines appear.”
In the early 19th century, a number of laws enabling emancipation of the Jews were enacted in Western European countries. The old laws restricting them to ghettos, as well as the many laws that limited their property rights, rights of worship and occupation, were rescinded. Despite this, traditional discrimination and hostility to Jews on religious grounds persisted and was supplemented by racial antisemitism, encouraged by the work of racial theorists such as Joseph Arthur de Gobineau and particularly his Essay on the Inequality of the Human Race of 18535. Nationalist agendas based on ethnicity, known as ethnonationalism, usually excluded the Jews from the national community as an alien race. Allied to this were theories of Social Darwinism, which stressed a putative conflict between higher and lower races of human beings. Such theories, usually posited by northern Europeans, advocated the superiority of white Aryans to Semitic Jews.
William Brustein defines political antisemitism as hostility toward Jews based on the belief that Jews seek national and/or world power.” Yisrael Gutman characterizes political antisemitism as tending to “lay responsibility on the Jews for defeats and political economic crises” while seeking to “exploit opposition and resistance to Jewish influence as elements in political party platforms.”
According to Viktor Kardy, political antisemitism became widespread after the legal emancipation of the Jews and sought to reverse some of the consequences of that emancipation. 
Holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories are also considered forms of antisemitism.Zoological conspiracy theories have been propagated by the Arab media and Arabic language websites, alleging a “Zionist plot” behind the use of animals to attack civilians or to conduct espionage.
Starting in the 1990s, some scholars have advanced the concept of new antisemitism, coming simultaneously from the left, the right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, and they argue that the language of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack Jews more broadly. In this view, the proponents of the new concept believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and they attribute this to antisemitism. Jewish scholar Gustavo Perednik has posited that anti-Zionism in itself represents a form of discrimination against Jews, in that it singles out Jewish national aspirations as an illegitimate and racist endeavor, and “proposes actions that would result in the death of millions of Jews”. It is asserted that the new antisemitism deploys traditional antisemitic motifs, including older motifs such as the blood libel.
Critics of the concept view it as trivializing the meaning of antisemitism, and as exploiting antisemitism in order to silence debate and to deflect attention from legitimate criticism of the State of Israel, and, by associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, misused to taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies.
Many authors see the roots of modern antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:
Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: “ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”
The first clear examples of anti-Jewish sentiment can be traced back to Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE. Alexandria was home to the largest Jewish diaspora community in the world at the time and the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was produced there. Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian of that era, wrote scathingly of the Jews. His themes are repeated in the works of Chaeremon, Lysimachus, Poseidonius, Apollonius Molon, and in Apion and Tacitus.Agatharchides of Cnidus ridiculed the practices of the Jews and the “absurdity of their Law”, making a mocking reference to how Ptolemy Lagus was able to invade Jerusalem in 320 BCE because its inhabitants were observing the Shabbat. One of the earliest anti-Jewish edicts, promulgated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in about 170167 BCE, sparked a revolt of the Maccabees in Judea.
In view of Manetho’s anti-Jewish writings, antisemitism may have originated in Egypt and been spread by “the Greek retelling of Ancient Egyptian prejudices”. The ancient Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria describes an attack on Jews in Alexandria in 38 CE in which thousands of Jews died. The violence in Alexandria may have been caused by the Jews being portrayed as misanthropes. Tcherikover argues that the reason for hatred of Jews in the Hellenistic period was their separateness in the Greek cities, the poleis. Bohak has argued, however, that early animosity against the Jews cannot be regarded as being anti-Judaic or antisemitic unless it arose from attitudes that were held against the Jews alone, and that many Greeks showed animosity toward any group they regarded as barbarians. Statements exhibiting prejudice against Jews and their religion can be found in the works of many pagan Greek and Roman writers. Edward Flannery writes that it was the Jews’ refusal to accept Greek religious and social standards that marked them out. Hecataetus of Abdera, a Greek historian of the early third century BCE, wrote that Moses “in remembrance of the exile of his people, instituted for them a misanthropic and inhospitable way of life.” Manetho, an Egyptian historian, wrote that the Jews were expelled Egyptian lepers who had been taught by Moses “not to adore the gods.” Edward Flannery describes antisemitism in ancient times as essentially “cultural, taking the shape of a national xenophobia played out in political settings.”
There are examples of Hellenistic rulers desecrating the Temple and banning Jewish religious practices, such as circumcision, Shabbat observance, study of Jewish religious books, etc. Examples may also be found in anti-Jewish riots in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE.
The Jewish diaspora on the Nile island Elephantine, which was founded by mercenaries, experienced the destruction of its temple in 410 BCE.
Relationships between the Jewish people and the occupying Roman Empire were at times antagonistic and resulted in several rebellions. According to Suetonius, the emperor Tiberius expelled from Rome Jews who had gone to live there. The 18th-century English historian Edward Gibbon identified a more tolerant period in Roman-Jewish relations beginning in about 160 CE. However, when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the state’s attitude towards the Jews gradually worsened.
James Carroll asserted: “Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors such as pogroms and conversions had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million.”
From the 9th century CE, the medieval Islamic world classified Jews (and Christians) as dhimmi, and allowed Jews to practice their religion more freely than they could do in medieval Christian Europe. Under Islamic rule, there was a Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain that lasted until at least the 11th century. It ended when several Muslim pogroms against Jews took place on the Iberian Peninsula, including those that occurred in Crdoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066. Several decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were also enacted in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen from the 11th century. In addition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in some parts of Yemen, Morocco and Baghdad several times between the 12th and 18th centuries. The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids’ Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147, were far more fundamentalist in outlook compared to their predecessors, and they treated the dhimmis harshly. Faced with the choice of either death or conversion, many Jews and Christians emigrated. Some, such as the family of Maimonides, fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands, while some others went northward to settle in the growing Christian kingdoms.
During the Middle Ages in Europe there was persecution against Jews in many places, with blood libels, expulsions, forced conversions and massacres. A main justification of prejudice against Jews in Europe was religious.
The persecution hit its first peak during the Crusades. In the First Crusade (1096) hundreds or even thousands of Jews were killed as the crusaders arrived. This was the first major outbreak of anti-Jewish violence Christian Europe outside Spain and was cited by Zionists in the 19th century as indicating the need for a state of Israel.
In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in Germany were subject to several massacres. The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds’ Crusades of 1251 and 1320. The Crusades were followed by expulsions, including, in 1290, the banishing of all English Jews; in 1394, the expulsion of 100,000 Jews in France; and in 1421, the expulsion of thousands from Austria. Many of the expelled Jews fled to Poland. In medieval and Renaissance Europe, a major contributor to the deepening of antisemitic sentiment and legal action among the Christian populations was the popular preaching of the zealous reform religious orders, the Franciscans (especially Bernardino of Feltre) and Dominicans (especially Vincent Ferrer), who combed Europe and promoted antisemitism through their often fiery, emotional appeals.
As the Black Death epidemics devastated Europe in the mid-14th century, causing the death of a large part of the population, Jews were used as scapegoats. Rumors spread that they caused the disease by deliberately poisoning wells. Hundreds of Jewish communities were destroyed. Although Pope Clement VI tried to protect them by issuing two papal bulls in 1348, the first on 6 July and an additional one several months later, 900 Jews were burned alive in Strasbourg, where the plague had not yet affected the city.
During the mid-to-late 17th century the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth was devastated by several conflicts, in which the Commonwealth lost over a third of its population (over 3 million people), and Jewish losses were counted in the hundreds of thousands. The first of these conflicts was the Khmelnytsky Uprising, when Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s supporters massacred tens of thousands of Jews in the eastern and southern areas he controlled (today’s Ukraine). The precise number of dead may never be known, but the decrease of the Jewish population during that period is estimated at 100,000 to 200,000, which also includes emigration, deaths from diseases and captivity in the Ottoman Empire, called jasyr.
European immigrants to the United States brought antisemitism to the country as early as the 17th century. Peter Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor of New Amsterdam, implemented plans to prevent Jews from settling in the city. During the Colonial Era, the American government limited the political and economic rights of Jews. It was not until the Revolutionary War that Jews gained legal rights, including the right to vote. However, even at their peak, the restrictions on Jews in the United States were never as stringent as they had been in Europe.
In the Zaydi imamate of Yemen, Jews were also singled out for discrimination in the 17th century, which culminated in the general expulsion of all Jews from places in Yemen to the arid coastal plain of Tihamah and which became known as the Mawza Exile.
In 1744, Frederick II of Prussia limited the number of Jews allowed to live in Breslau to only ten so-called “protected” Jewish families and encouraged a similar practice in other Prussian cities. In 1750 he issued the Revidiertes General Privilegium und Reglement vor die Judenschaft: the “protected” Jews had an alternative to “either abstain from marriage or leave Berlin” (quoting Simon Dubnow). In the same year, Archduchess of Austria Maria Theresa ordered Jews out of Bohemia but soon reversed her position, on the condition that Jews pay for their readmission every ten years. This extortion was known as malke-geld (queen’s money). In 1752 she introduced the law limiting each Jewish family to one son. In 1782, Joseph II abolished most of these persecution practices in his Toleranzpatent, on the condition that Yiddish and Hebrew were eliminated from public records and that judicial autonomy was annulled. Moses Mendelssohn wrote that “Such a tolerance… is even more dangerous play in tolerance than open persecution.”
In 1772, the empress of Russia Catherine II forced the Jews of the Pale of Settlement to stay in their shtetls and forbade them from returning to the towns that they occupied before the partition of Poland.
According to Arnold Ages, Voltaire’s “Lettres philosophiques, Dictionnaire philosophique, and Candide, to name but a few of his better known works, are saturated with comments on Jews and Judaism and the vast majority are negative”. Paul H. Meyer adds: “There is no question but that Voltaire, particularly in his latter years, nursed a violent hatred of the Jews and it is equally certain that his animosity…did have a considerable impact on public opinion in France.” Thirty of the 118 articles in Voltaire’s Dictionnaire Philosophique concerned Jews and described them in consistently negative ways,
Historian Martin Gilbert writes that it was in the 19th century that the position of Jews worsened in Muslim countries. Benny Morris writes that one symbol of Jewish degradation was the phenomenon of stone-throwing at Jews by Muslim children. Morris quotes a 19th-century traveler: “I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally spit upon his Jewish gaberdine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit; it would be more than his life was worth to offer to strike a Mahommedan.”
In the middle of the 19th century, J. J. Benjamin wrote about the life of Persian Jews, describing conditions and beliefs that went back to the 16th century: “they are obliged to live in a separate part of town Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt.”
In 1850 the German composer Richard Wagner published Das Judenthum in der Musik (“Jewishness in Music”) under a pseudonym in the Neue Zeitschrift fr Musik. The essay began as an attack on Jewish composers, particularly Wagner’s contemporaries (and rivals) Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but expanded to accuse Jews of being a harmful and alien element in German culture. Antisemitism can also be found in many of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, published from 1812 to 1857. It is mainly characterized by Jews being the villain of a story, such as in “The Good Bargain (Der gute Handel)” and “The Jew Among Thorns (Der Jude im Dorn).”
The middle 19th century saw continued official harassment of the Jews, especially in Eastern Europe under Czarist influence. For example, in 1846, 80 Jews approached the governor in Warsaw to retain the right to wear their traditional dress, but were immediately rebuffed by having their hair and beards forcefully cut, at their own expense.
In America, even such influential figures as Walt Whitman tolerated bigotry toward the Jews. During his time as editor of the Brooklyn Eagle (1846-1848), the newspaper published historical sketches casting Jews in a bad light.
The Dreyfus Affair was an infamous antisemitic event of the late 19th century and early 20th century. Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish artillery captain in the French Army, was accused in 1894 of passing secrets to the Germans. As a result of these charges, Dreyfus was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island. The actual spy, Marie Charles Esterhazy, was acquitted. The event caused great uproar among the French, with the public choosing sides on the issue of whether Dreyfus was actually guilty or not. mile Zola accused the army of corrupting the French justice system. However, general consensus held that Dreyfus was guilty: 80% of the press in France condemned him. This attitude among the majority of the French population reveals the underlying antisemitism of the time period.
Adolf Stoecker (18351909), the Lutheran court chaplain to Kaiser Wilhelm I, founded in 1878 an antisemitic, anti-liberal political party called the Christian Social Party. This party always remained small, and its support dwindled after Stoecker’s death, with most of its members eventually joining larger conservative groups such as the German National People’s Party.
Some scholars view Karl Marx’s essay On The Jewish Question as antisemitic, and argue that he often used antisemitic epithets in his published and private writings. These scholars argue that Marx equated Judaism with capitalism in his essay, helping to spread that idea. Some further argue that the essay influenced National Socialist, as well as Soviet and Arab antisemites. Marx himself had Jewish ancestry, and Albert Lindemann and Hyam Maccoby have suggested that he was embarrassed by it. Others argue that Marx consistently supported Prussian Jewish communities’ struggles to achieve equal political rights. These scholars argue that “On the Jewish Question” is a critique of Bruno Bauer’s arguments that Jews must convert to Christianity before being emancipated, and is more generally a critique of liberal rights discourses and capitalism. David McLellan and Francis Wheen argue that readers should interpret On the Jewish Question in the deeper context of Marx’s debates with Bruno Bauer, author of The Jewish Question, about Jewish emancipation in Germany. According to McLellan, Marx used the word Judentum colloquially, as meaning commerce, arguing that Germans must be emancipated from the capitalist mode of production not Judaism or Jews in particular.
Between 1900 and 1924, approximately 1.75 million Jews migrated to America, the bulk from Eastern Europe. Before 1900 American Jews had always amounted to less than 1% of America’s total population, but by 1930 Jews formed about 3.5%. This increase, combined with the upward social mobility of some Jews, contributed to a resurgence of antisemitism. In the first half of the 20th century, in the USA, Jews were discriminated against in employment, access to residential and resort areas, membership in clubs and organizations, and in tightened quotas on Jewish enrolment and teaching positions in colleges and universities. The lynching of Leo Frank by a mob of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia in 1915 turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States. The case was also used to build support for the renewal of the Ku Klux Klan which had been inactive since 1870.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Beilis Trial in Russia represented incidents of blood-libel in Europe. Christians used allegations of Jews killing Christians as a justification for the killing of Jews.
Antisemitism in America reached its peak during the interwar period. The pioneer automobile manufacturer Henry Ford propagated antisemitic ideas in his newspaper The Dearborn Independent (published by Ford from 1919 to 1927). The radio speeches of Father Coughlin in the late 1930s attacked Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and promoted the notion of a Jewish financial conspiracy. Some prominent politicians shared such views: Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency, blamed Jews for Roosevelt’s decision to abandon the gold standard, and claimed that “in the United States today, the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the lawful money”.
In the early 1940s the aviator Charles Lindbergh and many prominent Americans led The America First Committee in opposing any involvement in the war against Fascism. During his July 1936 visit to Germany, Lindbergh wrote letters saying that there was “more intelligent leadership in Germany than is generally recognized”. The German American Bund held parades in New York City during the late 1930s, where members wore Nazi uniforms and raised flags featuring swastikas alongside American flags. Sometimes race riots, as in Detroit in 1943, targeted Jewish businesses for looting and burning.
In Germany, Nazism led Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, who came to power on 30 January 1933, instituted repressive legislation denying the Jews basic civil rights. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws prohibited sexual relations and marriages between “Aryans” and Jews as Rassenschande (“race disgrace”) and stripped all German Jews, even quarter- and half-Jews, from their citizenship, (their official title became “subjects of the state”). It instituted a pogrom on the night of 910 November 1938, dubbed Kristallnacht, in which Jews were killed, their property destroyed and their synagogues torched. Antisemitic laws, agitation and propaganda were extended to German-occupied Europe in the wake of conquest, often building on local antisemitic traditions. In the east the Third Reich forced Jews into ghettos in Warsaw, Krakw, Lvov, Lublin and Radom. After the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 a campaign of mass murder, conducted by the Einsatzgruppen, culminated from 1942 to 1945 in systematic genocide: the Holocaust. Eleven million Jews were targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and some six million were eventually killed.
Antisemitism was commonly used as an instrument for personal conflicts in the Soviet Union, starting from conflict between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky and continuing through numerous conspiracy-theories spread by official propaganda. Antisemitism in the USSR reached new heights after 1948 during the campaign against the “rootless cosmopolitan” (euphemism for “Jew”) in which numerous Yiddish-language poets, writers, painters and sculptors were killed or arrested. This culminated in the so-called Doctors’ Plot (19521953). Similar antisemitic propaganda in Poland resulted in the flight of Polish Jewish survivors from the country.
After the war, the Kielce pogrom and “March 1968 events” in communist Poland represented further incidents of antisemitism in Europe. The anti-Jewish violence in postwar Poland has a common theme of blood-libel rumours.
In 1965 Pope Paul VI issued a papal decree disbanding the cult of Simon of Trent, the shrine erected to him was dismantled, and Simon was decanonized.
Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch, says that antisemitism is “deeply ingrained and institutionalized” in “Arab nations in modern times.”
In a 2011 survey by the Pew Research Center, all of the Muslim-majority Middle Eastern countries polled held strongly negative views of Jews. In the questionnaire, only 2% of Egyptians, 3% of Lebanese Muslims, and 2% of Jordanians reported having a positive view of Jews. Muslim-majority countries outside the Middle East held similarly negative views, with 4% of Turks and 9% of Indonesians viewing Jews favorably.
According to a 2011 exhibition at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, United States, some of the dialogue from Middle East media and commentators about Jews bear a striking resemblance to Nazi propaganda. According to Josef Joffe of Newsweek, “anti-Semitismthe real stuff, not just bad-mouthing particular Israeli policiesis as much part of Arab life today as the hijab or the hookah. Whereas this darkest of creeds is no longer tolerated in polite society in the West, in the Arab world, Jew hatred remains culturally endemic.”
Muslim clerics in the Middle East have frequently referred to Jews as descendants of apes and pigs, which are conventional epithets for Jews and Christians.
According to professor Robert Wistrich, director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA), the calls for the destruction of Israel by Iran or by Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, or the Muslim Brotherhood, represent a contemporary mode of genocidal antisemitism.
Dean Phillip Bell documents and enumerates a number of categories and causes for anti-Jewish sentiment. He describes political, social, and pseudo-scientific efforts to separate Jews from “civil” society and notes that antisemitism was part of a larger attempt to differentiate status based on racial background. Bell writes, “Socio-psychological explanations focus on concepts of projected guilt and displaced aggression, the search for a scapegoat. Ethnic explanations associated marginalization, or negative representation of the Other, with perceived ethnic differences. Xenophobia ascribes anti-Jewish sentiment to broader concern over minority groups within a national or regional identity.
There are a number of antisemitic canards which are used to fuel and justify antisemitic sentiment and activities. These include conspiracy theories and myths such as: that Jews killed Christ, poisoned wells, killed Christian children to use their blood for making matzos (the Blood libel), or “made up” the Holocaust, plot to control the world (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion), harvest organs, and other invented stories. A number of conspiracy theories also include accusations that Jews control the media or global financial institutions.
A March 2008 report by the U.S. State Department found that there was an increase in antisemitism across the world, and that both old and new expressions of antisemitism persist. A 2012 report by the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor also noted a continued global increase in antisemitism, and found that Holocaust denial and opposition to Israeli policy at times was used to promote or justify blatant antisemitism.
In Egypt, Dar al-Fadhilah published a translation of Henry Ford’s antisemitic treatise, The International Jew, complete with distinctly antisemitic imagery on the cover.
On 5 May 2001, after Shimon Peres visited Egypt, the Egyptian al-Akhbar internet paper said that “lies and deceit are not foreign to Jews[…]. For this reason, Allah changed their shape and made them into monkeys and pigs.”
In July 2012, Egypt’s Al Nahar channel fooled actors into thinking they were on an Israeli television show and filmed their reactions to being told it was an Israeli television show. In response, some of the actors launched into antisemitic rants or dialogue, and many became violent. Actress Mayer El Beblawi said that “Allah did not curse the worm and moth as much as he cursed the Jews” while actor Mahmoud Abdel Ghaffar launched into a violent rage and said, “You brought me someone who looks like a Jew… I hate the Jews to death” after finding out it was a prank.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran, has frequently been accused of denying the Holocaust.
In July, the winner of Iran’s first annual International Wall Street Downfall Cartoon Festival, jointly sponsored by the semi-state-run Iranian media outlet Fars News, was an antisemitic cartoon depicting Jews praying before the New York Stock Exchange, which is made to look like the Western Wall. Other cartoons in the contest were antisemitic as well. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, condemned the cartoon, stating that “Here’s the anti-Semitic notion of Jews and their love for money, the canard that Jews ‘control’ Wall Street, and a cynical perversion of the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism,” and “Once again Iran takes the prize for promoting antisemitism.”
In 2004, Al-Manar, a media network affiliated with Hezbollah, aired a drama series, The Diaspora, which observers allege is based on historical antisemitic allegations. BBC correspondents who have watched the program says it quotes extensively from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Although Malaysia presently has no substantial Jewish population, the country has reportedly become an example of a phenomenon called “antisemitism without Jews.”
In his treatise on Malay identity, “The Malay Dilemma,” which was published in 1970, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad wrote: “The Jews are not only hooked-nosed… but understand money instinctively…. Jewish stinginess and financial wizardry gained them the economic control of Europe and provoked antisemitism which waxed and waned throughout Europe through the ages.”
The Malay-language Utusan Malaysia daily stated in an editorial that Malaysians “cannot allow anyone, especially the Jews, to interfere secretly in this country’s business… When the drums are pounded hard in the name of human rights, the pro-Jewish people will have their best opportunity to interfere in any Islamic country,” the newspaper said. “We might not realize that the enthusiasm to support actions such as demonstrations will cause us to help foreign groups succeed in their mission of controlling this country.” Prime Minister Najib Razak’s office subsequently issued a statement late Monday saying Utusan’s claim did “not reflect the views of the government.”
Antisemitism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is a list of webshites which may benefit from RationalWiki’s snarkful analysis. Be on the lookout for stuff to submit to our What is going on in the clogosphere? page, and to Fundies Say The Darndest Things, but be forewarned, prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws, broken keyboards and monitors. Remember to keep Poe’s Law in mind.
In the past, RationalWiki has avoided linking to racist sites. Although there is no fixed policy, we err on the side of caution. If you must see them, and they’re not linked from the articles below, Google them by name and read the cached versions of the pages.
These sites tend to go well beyond conspiracies into one-stop nuttery shopping. Here is where you may find besides the conspiracy theories: Christian and New Age woo side by side, anti-Semitism and seeming opposition to same on the same site, alt-meds, UFOs, cryptozoology and those all-knowing lizard people.
Read the original:
RationalWiki:Webshites – RationalWiki
When the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony. Paul Craig Roberts
America has been taken over.
Slowly and imperceptibly, duped by lies and lulled into complacency, Americans have let their country slip into the hands of a fifth column: of a hostile ethnic elite whose primary allegiance is to Israel, a country built on stolen land and engaged in systematic genocide.
This is the rogue state that is arguably responsible for the greatest mass murder in history: the catastrophe of 9-11. If scientific evidence and forensic logic are anything to go on, Israel has to be suspect number one here, given its unbroken record of terrorism and its endless breaches of international law. Any country that can orchestrate such a spectacular crime and get away with itwhile somehow managing to pin the blame on nineteen Arabs with box cuttersis clearly a force to be reckoned with.
More than 200 senior military, intelligence, and law enforcement officials, including two generals, have now questioned the 9-11 Commissions report. They have been joined by over 1500 top architects and engineers, 250 pilots and aviation experts, 400 university professors, and 250 survivors and their families. David Ray Griffin, author of eleven books on 9-11 and a distinguished professor emeritus, has concluded definitively: All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9-11 appears to have been fabricated.
Dr Alan Sabrosky, former director of the Army War College, has upped the ante and unequivocally identified Israel as the guilty party. What we need to stand up and say is not only did they [the Israelis] attack the USS Liberty, but that it is 100 percent certain 9/11 was a Mossad operation.
If any further proof were needed of Americas abject enslavement to Zionist interests, however, it would be Obamas humiliation at the hands of Israels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year. This humiliation has occurred on three separate occasions: in September 2009, in July 2010, and again only last May. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank writes almost gloatingly of Obama flying the white flag of surrender in the White Housewhere he sat routed and humiliated.
He had asked the Israelis to observe international law by stopping settlement construction on Palestinian land. He had pleaded with them to withdraw to the 1967 borders, in accordance with UN Resolution 242a reasonable enough request which every American President before him has asked the Israelis to consider in the interests of peace.
The Israeli Prime Ministers response? Israel will NOT return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967!
So how is it that this rude and recalcitrant ally of America still continues to receive its $3 billion a year subsidy? Is America so besotted with love for the Jewish state that it cannot say No? Silly question. Since it rests on the Chomskyite assumption that America is still the lord and master and little Israel the dependent colony.
The riddle is easily solved if one turns Chomskys assumption on its head: organized Jewry, having taken over America, has transformed it into an Israeli colony. The $8.2 million per day that the American taxpayer pays his Jewish master is not a subsidy. It is tribute money. It is a tax or levy imposed on a vanquished people by their conquerors.
Hear the note of contempt for ones own President in this extraordinary account of Obamas humiliation at the hands of Netanyahu, his Jewish victor:
Netanyahu beat Obama like a red-headed stepchild; he played him like a fiddle; he pounded him like a big brass drum. The Prime Minister of Israel danced rings around his arrogant, professorial opponent. The Prime Minister mopped the floor with our guy.Bibi ripped him to shredsdemonstrating to the whole world that the Prime Minister of Israel has substantially more support in both the House and the Senate than the President of the United States.
I guess that says it all. Poor Obama. He has been symbolically castrated and buried in excrement up to the neck. Those 29 standing ovations Netanyahu received in Congress were equivalent to a lump of spit in the Presidents face.
According to political pundit Philip Giraldi, this was the first time in recorded history that a small nation with less than eight million citizens has subjugated a much larger country with a population of more than 310 million.
The Zionization of America is complete, with AIPAC appointing the government and 60 million Christian Zionists ready to die for their new masters in Jerusalem.
America is now Israels slave.
Ive never seen a President stand up to them. They always get what they want. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. (Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1983)
At this point I feel the need to apologize for the picture of the finger-wagging rabbi at the end of Part 1 of this essay, together with the inflammatory words he is purported to have uttered about the Jewish desire for world domination. I can hear my critics cry: Silly airhead, why do you spout all this Protocolian poppycock? Dont you know the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an anti-Semitic forgery?
Yes, I confess with a sigh that I have heard the word forgery often advanced as a reason not to read this brilliant political treatise, second only to Platos Republic in its profundity.
What I am saying, however, has nothing to do with the Protocols.I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a historian who is interested only in facts. Truth alone stirs my heart.
Lets take another quick look at Zionism.
In a recent essay called Why Palestine is Important, Israel Shamir presents a picture that puts this entire Protocolian nonsense into perspective:
Palestine is important because it is believed to be a linchpin of Empire, one of the key points necessary to control the world. Such was the conviction of the 19th century British Empire-builders of the Rhodes variety.Once an arcane theory developed by HJ Mackinder, it has grown up to become a driving force behind globalism . Mackinder planned the subjugation of the whole planet to the Empire . Napoleon [had earlier] toyed with the idea of planting Jews in Palestine as Frances foot soldiers, but there were no takers among Jews. The Brits achieved what the French could not.
Zionism, in other words, according to Shamirs recent take on the subject, was a British inspiration and a tool in the armory of Pax Britannica. It was the way the Brits intended to conquer the world. They would plonk the unwanted Jews in Palestine as their proxies. Israel, in effect, was to be a British colony. And Lord Balfour, when he drew up the famous Balfour Declaration in 1917, had a glint in his beady little eye. He was more interested in advancing the designs of the British Empire than in being nice to the Jews.
If all this is trueand I think it possibly iswe can see what happened next. By 1948 the British Empire had collapsed in ruins. It was no longer in a position to use Israel as its cats paw. Another emerging nation however, the chief beneficiary of World War II, certainly was. This was America. Yet even as far back as 1948, America was largely controlled by its Jews. Their influence, though it was to grow by leaps and bounds after 1967, was enormous even in 1948.
It was the Jews who twisted President Trumans arm and got him to give his full backing to their fledgling state. It was the Jews again, through the vengeful Morgenthau, as I indicated in Part 1 of this essay, who were to make life a living hell for the conquered Germans in the aftermath of World War II. The Jews were always in the background, it seems, the shadowy lurkers in the cabbage patch of history.
The colony that the Brits had failed to acquire in the Middle East, Israel, was inherited by America. So Chomsky was right after all. To start with, anyway. Israel was to be Americas aircraft carrier in the Middle East. The Americans would use it as a gigantic military base from which to plunder Arab oil. Nor would they have any problems with Ben Gurions dreams of a Greater Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. After all, why not give the Jews what they wanted?
Greater Israel was simply to be an extension of America: its fifty-first state.
Things didnt work out as planned. The best-laid schemes of mice and men, we are told, often go askew. The tables were turned on the simple-minded Americans. The Jews were much smarter than their WASP masters could ever be. They had acquired through three thousand years of bitter experience the arts of duplicity and cunning. Guile was their genetic patrimony. They were the Ultimate Survivors.
One has to hand it to the Jews. The hitherto oppressed decided to become the oppressors. The former victims decided to take on the role of predators. The cats paw decided it would rather be the Cat from now onand it became the Cats Pajamas.
In short, the Jews took over America and turned it into a Jewish colony. As simple as that. Their American hosts were hoist with their own petard.
But why worry? American Jews are Americans, are they not? If theyre smart enough to take over America, as they have demonstrably done, why shouldnt they proceed to the next logical step and take over the worldyes, dominate the world through America? No one denies this is Americas aim: full spectrum dominance. So if the Jews control America, and if America controls the world, doesnt it follow logically that the Jews control the world? The logic is irrefutable.
Jewish world domination takes on a different perspective when viewed through this historical prism. No conspiracy theories here. No hook-nosed Jews grasping the globe in their cruel talons. No Illuminati trying to sodomize your children and drink their blood. Just logic. Just history. Just America striving for full-spectrum dominance with Jews leading the pack.
You could say the wild-eyed dreams of the Protocols have at last been realized, but not in the way their original masterminds intended.
Allow me now to present the testimony of Eustace Mullins, if only for the vivid pictures he presents to the mind of the terrors endured by millions of Russian Christians in Bolshevik Russia when it was under Jewish hegemony. Could this be the fate of American Christians in the not too distant future?
There are too many well documented massacres in history in which the Jews tortured and murdered their victims with the greatest glee, gloating in such barbaric practices as tearing out the hearts of women and children and smearing the blood on their faces.
The orgy of murder, torture and pillage which followed the Jewish triumph in Russia [after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917] has never been equaled in the history of the world. The Jews were free to indulge their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims.
Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain.
Others were placed in boxesthen hungry rats placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion.
Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while the mob attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death.
Mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms.the baby [was] tossed into the air while another member of the mob rushed to catch it on the tip of his bayonet.
Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. (See here)
We should never forget what happened when Jews were a hostile elite in the USSR, Prof. Kevin MacDonald notes bleakly. The loathing and contempt for the traditional people and culture of Russia was a major factor in the avid Jewish participation in the greatest crimes of the 20th century.
MacDonald is referring to the systematic murder of over 50 million Russians under Lenin and Stalin: a period of mass murder spanning 36 years (1917-1953).
The new American eliteas I pointed out in Part 1 of this article, America as an Israeli Colonyis a Jewish elite. Exactly like the elite in Bolshevik Russia and Stalins USSR. And it is essentially a hostile elite that loathes the nation it rules.
So we need to watch out.
Because what happened to millions of Russians in the first half of the 20th centurysystematic genocidecould well happen to millions of Americans in the foreseeable future.
It is quite possible, Kevin MacDonald muses, that we are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty.
The extraordinary success of the Jews, who make up only 2.5 percent of Americas population, can be attributed to meticulous organization, coordination and networking. This advantageous cohesiveness derives from an evolutionary characteristic of the Jews: an exceptionally strong ethnocentricism which has enabled them to infiltrate almost every single organization that could possibly threaten them as a group. In America, highly gifted Jews whose primary loyalty is to Israel have managed to insinuate their way into key policy positions, including the Departments of Treasury and State, the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the White House.
Over the past 24 months not a single policy maker [James Petras tells us] has voiced any criticism of Israels most heinous crimes, ranging from the savaging of Gaza to the massacre of the humanitarian flotilla and the expansion of new settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank.Many of the leading Zionist policy makers rose to power through a deliberate strategy of infiltrating the government to shape policy promoting Israels interest over and above the interests of the US populace.
If the goyim have lost the game of life and their hard-won freedoms to the Jews, it was because they didnt know they were playing a game in the first place. A game for the highest possible stakes.
A game called Survival.
The world that awaits us, if our New Masters prevail, will be a grim dystopia. It will be a spiritual wasteland in which an unprincipled elite rides roughshod over the teeming masses. It will be a cruel world of exploitation, moral darkness, and unspeakable brutality.
Death solves all problems, Stalin quipped cynically. No man, no problem. When mass extermination becomes the miracle cure, exciting times can be expected.
In Otto Friedrichs widely acclaimed Holocaust study, The Kingdom of Auschwitz, a concentration camp survivor is quoted as saying:
Concentration camp existence taught us that the whole world is really like a concentration camp. The world is ruled by neither justice nor morality. Crime is not punished nor virtue rewarded. The world is ruled by power. We are laying the foundation for some new, monstrous civilization.
So this is where we are now: in the eye of the storm.
America, once a democracy, is now a crypto-fascist country ruled by a corporate and cosmopolitan elite. There is no freedom, no democracy, and no government accountability in Amerika, a fascist state, Paul Craig Roberts concludes ruefully in one of his recent essays.
The Jews, fulfilling the wildest dreams conjured up in the Protocols, stand surveying the killing fields of the world they have conquered. Iraq and Afghanistan lie in ruins, thanks to their machinations. Iran lies in the cross-hairs, awaiting its expected doom. And meanwhile in America, as the body bags are flown in from foreign parts and the lurid circus of bread and games grinds on relentlessly, there is nothing much to live for except sex and death.
Stalins willing executioners, the Jews, are now the ruling elite in America. As in Weimar Germany, the Jews make most of the money and help to create a culture of neo-paganism and nihilism, decadence and despair. Nothing has changed except the country.
Russia, Germany, America they all went down like skittles in a row.
Here is the original post:
AMERICA VANQUISHED, Part 2: America under Jewish Rule
NOW AVAILABLE: Why Jerusalem?
Emergency Aid Ukraine
Order Why Israel Resources
Support our ministry
Israel & Christians Today
Biblical understanding about Israel
Our mission is to bring Biblical understanding in the Church and among the nations concerning God’s purposes for Israel and to promote comfort of Israel through prayer and action.
These challenging times ask for clear (Biblical) guidance. Learn new insights on God’s love and plan for Israel and the Jewish people. Order now
Christians for Israel in The Netherlands organized two services for confession and repentance on Monday evening 21st September. We have treated the Jewish people very badly. We have mistreated and misused the words which were entrusted to Israel, said Rev. Kees van Velzen who led the service in Woerden (Netherlands). More…
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, together with other top UN officials and senior diplomats from some 50 nations, have gathered on September 22, 2015 at the UN Rose garden in New York to celebrate the Jewish New Year Rosh Hashana and prepare for the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. The unique event was hosted by the Israeli Mission to the UN and the Forum for Cultural Diplomacy, which is a European Coalition for Israel initiative to the UN. More…
Christians for Israel seeks to bring a Biblical witness to the churches about the coming of Gods Kingdom; to warn the nations; to comfort Israel; and to help the Church to prepare for the Coming of the Lord. We are a network of national ministries, active in over 40 countries worldwide. This Report provides an overview of the activities of C4I International from 1st January 2014 to 30th June 2015. More…
Since the so-called Arab Spring broke out in 2010, the Middle East has been thrown in utter chaos, and with it, the rest of the world. Recent months have witnessed a growing flood of refugees fleeing violence, war and terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea and many other countries. Europe is now confronted with what some describe as the greatest demographic upheaval since WWII. More…
Quite recently (at the end of August, 2015), we helped one Jewish family Korobka, five people in total, to make Aliyah.They fled from Luhansk in the East of Ukraine and lived for two and a half months in our ‘shelter’ in Kiev before all their paperwork was done! On the day of their departure, the Korobka family told us they would love the other part of their big family to join them in Israel. More…
Last August (2015) we were blessed with a visit from Rev Willem Glashouwer, President of Christians for Israel International and a renowned Bible teacher. During the ten day speaking tour Rev Glashouwer taught on the themes Why Israel? Why Jerusalem? Why End Times?. Together with Derek Prince Ministries and Shalom Israel Melbourne, Ebenezer Operation Exodus co-hosted two one-day conferences and arranged visits to several church services and meetings in both Sydney and Melbourne. Rev Glashouwer was also invited to give a lunchtime lecture at NSW Parliament House, hosted by Rev the Hon Fred Nile MLC. His further speaking engagements included a Korean prayer group and two Korean-church evening meetings. More…
Masha and her husband Sergei were peacefully living in Luhansk and had excellent jobs. Sergei is a military veteran and quite recently they were making very good money, however, once perestroika happened in the beginning of the nineties of the last century their lives were completely turned upside down. They bought the usual inexpensive car Lada and were very happy about it! More…
Olesya Bogolei has just stepped on the path to make her dream a reality! Today in the morning I (Nataliya Krizhanovski) met a very interesting passenger an on-coming olim. Right now she makes the first step flies to Israel as part of the Na’ale-program. Its an incredible opportunity for teenagers to enter a school in Israel for 2 years. Some call it: “First children Aliyah, then parents”. More…
Egypt’s War on Terrorism Bears Fruit
This Yom Kippur, we should ask Ethiopian Israelis for forgiveness
Jordan’s Shameful Record
German intelligence chief warns refugees could be ‘easy prey for Islamists’
Man beats girlfriend to death in middle of Tel Aviv street
According to Tel Aviv police, the an argument broke out between the man and his significant other on Chelnov street in south Tel Aviv near the corner of Matalon Street.
IDF strikes Syrian military targets in response to stray fire into Israel
For second time in two days apparent errant fire from civil war in Syria lands in Israeli territory.
Errant projectile from Syria again explodes in Golan, none hurt
For second time in two days apparent stray rocket fire from civil war in Syria lands in Israeli territory.
Christian schools, Education Ministry reach agreement to end strike
33,000 pupils from church schools set to return to studies on Monday.
The rest is here:
Christians for Israel International – Start your biblical …
Ive read the Great Gatsby more than a dozen times. Its one of those reference books for me, in that I find I can come back to it again and again are learn something new each time.
Recently I saw a preview for the upcoming film version of The Great Gatsby (directed by Baz Luhrmann who didMoulin Rouge!). Bazs style fits his name, and is grand, dramatic, over the top and nearly absurd, but also beautiful, shocking and intense. The preview made the movie seem brutal for a book Id thought of as lyrical, more smoldering than explosive. The preview made me wonder how much Id forgotten about the book, since it had been years since last Id read it, so I picked it up and read it in two sittings.
As a sketch of a story there is nothing amazing about The Great Gatsby. Its a writers book in a way, since its so simple and in many way obvious, yet works so wonderfully well, making itirresistibleto try and take it apart.Its a deceptive little book. Its constructed as a series of slow burning time bombs that make you simultaneously want them to both go off to relieve the pressure, but not go off, so you can enjoy the way things are slowly unraveling for as long as possible.
What makes the book sing is the first person narration, and how easy Fitzgerald makes it seem to wind brilliant internal thoughts and commentary between plotting, dialog and observation. He jumps though time and perspective but always makes you, as the reader, feel well cared for by the soft cushion of his narrative powers. But there are some moments that dont age as well: moments of anti-semitsm and racism, which, on afterthought, were probably appropriate for 1920s America. Some of the manners of speech feel staged, but not having been born until 50 years after it was written its hard to argue whether he got it right or wrong. But none of those complaints stand in the way of what has always been a deeplyworthwhile, and easy read.
Some choice non-spoiler quotes from the book:
Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope.
No Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and shortwinded elations of men.
Something in his leisurely movements and the secure position of his feet upon the lawn suggested that it was Mr. Gatsby himself, come out to determine what share was his of our local heavens.
The little dog was sitting on the table looking with blind eyes through the smoke, and from time to time groaning faintly. People disappeared, reappeared, made plans to go somewhere, and then lost each other, searched for each other, found each other a few feet away. Some time toward midnight Tom Buchanan and Mrs. Wilson stood face to face, discussing in impassioned voices
He smiled understandingly much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced or seemed to face the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey. Precisely at that point it vanished.
The Great Gatsby: Book Review | Scott Berkun
Office of The New York Times. Photo: Wiki Commons.
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) told The Algemeiner today that The New York Times has an anti-Netanyahu obsession. The media watchdog made the comments in response to a strongly worded editorial in The Times decrying Prime Minister Netanyahus election victory on Tuesday.
Anyone who wasnt already aware of The New York Times mindset just has to read todays paper on Israels elections torealize how pervasive isthe anti-Netanyahu obsession at that newspaper, said Senior Media Analyst Ricki Hollander of CAMERA.
CAMERA also accused the paper of being anti-Israel. Hollander said that the newspaper makes no secret of its disdain for the Israeli election results and of Israels democracy.
Hollander addedthat she is hard pressed to think of any other foreign election that haselicited such clear and obvious bias at The New York Times.
Entitled An Israeli Election Turns Ugly, The New York Times editorial board used words, such as desperate, craven, racist, outrageous, and fear-mongering in its description of Netanyahus reelection campaign. The board also argued that Netanyahu had forfeited any claim to representing all Israelis.
The New York Times specifically criticized Netanyahus comments this week in opposition to a Palestinian state, writing:
Mr. Netanyahu showed that he was desperate, and craven, enough to pull out all the stops. On Monday, he promised that if his Likud faction remained in power, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state, thus repudiating a position he had taken in 2009.
The publication continued:
But his statement this week laid bare his duplicity, confirmed Palestinian suspicions and will make it even harder for him to repair his poisoned relations with President Obama, who has invested heavily in pushing a two-state solution.
The New York Times editorial board also accused Netanyahu of ugliness:
Mr. Netanyahu added to the ugliness of the campaign when, during Tuesdays voting, he said in a video on social media: Right-wing rule is in danger. Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations.
The editorial further described what it considered fear-mongering:
In his desperation, Mr. Netanyahu resorted to fear-mongering and anti-Arab attacks while failing to address the issues that Israelis said they were most worried about, namely the high cost of housing and everyday living in Israel.
Soon after the editorial was published, Haaretz journalist Chemi Shalev described it as one of the harshest in memory. New York Times greets Netanyahu victory with one of harshest editorials ever, he wrote on Twitter.
The rest is here:
The New York Times Goes Nuts After Netanyahu Victory …