Antisemitism

Gilad Atzmon: And What About Jewish Anti Gentile Studies?

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 3:19PM Gilad Atzmon


American Jewry won a victory last week: Yale University bowed to pressure - it is now starting yet another initiative to study anti-Semitism, after a decision to cancel an earlier programme had sparked criticism.

The earlier programme created in 2006 was cancelled because it had produced "little scholarly work,” and the institute's courses had not attracted large numbers of students, according to Donald Green, the director of Yale's Institution for Social and Policy Studies.

Abe Foxman of The Anti-Defamation League criticised Yale for cancelling the programme and welcomed the new initiative, saying "We are satisfied that Yale University understood the critical importance of continuing an institute for the study and research of anti-Semitism".

The new programme will be led by Yale professor Maurice Samuels, who states that Yale has some of the leading scholars in the world working on anti-Semitism and interfaith relations. He intends to focus on contemporary and historical anti-Semitism.

However, for all Yale’s efforts, I remain convinced that Samuels will not be able to produce any valuable scholarly work either - the reason is simple: almost the entire body of research on ‘anti Semitism ’ conducted in recent decades is solely concerned and obsessed with recording the historical points at which hatred of the Jews manifests itself. And yet, for some bizarre reason, such scholarly work on anti Semitism never seeks to understand, and is totally impervious to the socio-economic, the ideological, theological and historical contexts, motivations, causes and reasoning that have existed behind such outbursts of hatred against the Jews.

These countless studies on anti Semitism rarely look into the causes, and rarely try to understand why anti Semitism arose in so many places throughout history.
Instead of elaborating on the causes that may lead to anti Semitism, the discourse on anti Semitism is a unique chronological account that only ‘starts to tick’ as soon as an ‘anti Semitic’ event is detected. Everything prior to that is a blank slate - and so we are left, once more, none the wiser as to why people ‘turned against the Jews’ yet again.

I’d like to suggest here, that for an academic study of anti Semitism to be scholarly and comprehensive, and if we are to even begin to understand the roots of anti Semitism, then primary attention must surely also be dedicated to the considerable body of anti-gentile views expressed within the Torah, Talmud, and within contemporary Jewish ideology and politics (Zionist and Jewish anti-Zionist alike).
The institute’s scholars would also be well advised to elaborate on Jewish cultural supremacy, and Jewish political lobbying, from Purim to AIPAC.

For a study of anti Semitism to become scholarly and valuable, instead of merely a form of hyper-emotional hysterical ranting, the researcher would also be advised to first assume that, perhaps, anti Jewish feelings might well have root causes which could be rational, and could be explained and understood -- yet not justified -- in terms of causality and reason.

Instead of assuming that the Goyim are just a bunch of crazy blood thirsty lunatics that periodically just went mad again and again throughout history in their dislike for Jews, the scholars would rather be advised to look for the root causes that may well have lead to an anti Semitic event, ideology or text.

Such a study then, would surely be academically and socially valuable, and I believe it would also be crucial for Jews and Israelis, so they may be enabled to understand the world they live in, and to grasp their role in it.

Some commendable studies by Jewish academics have already been done in that area : The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine, The Pity Of It All by Amos Elon and Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak and even early Zionist texts by Max Nordau, Ber Borochov and others all provide some adequate answers to questions regarding the origins of anti Semitism. Interestingly enough, none of the above studies were produced or sponsored by ‘anti-Semitism research institutions’ . The above scholars attempted to grasp the origins of animosity towards the Jews, instead of looking for a symposium in which they could moan about being hated. The three former at least, were driven by genuine intellectual curiosity rather than by a need for collective therapy.

"Like many, I am concerned by the recent upsurge in violence against Jews around the world and I plan to address these concerns," said Samuels the head of the new Yale Anti Semitism research centre.

Might I suggest that Samuel should be far more concerned with the upsurge in violence that is committed by the Jewish State in the name of the Jewish people. Samuels should look into the role of AIPAC in shaping American and world affairs.
Will Samuels be courageous enough to do so? I do not know Samuels, but somehow, I find it hard to imagine.


Print Article Email Article Share Article

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/i-certainly-do-not-want-to-wake-up-next-to-this-joker-1.html

On October 16, 2004, President Bush signed into law
the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. It establishes a special
department within the U.S. State Department to monitor global
anti-Semitism, reporting annually to Congress.
These are definitions of Anti-Semitism which the U.S. government now considers anti-Semitic:

1. Any assertion “that the Jewish community
   controls government, the media, international business and the
   financial world” is anti-Semitic.
   
2. “Strong anti-Israel sentiment” is anti-Semitic.
   
3. “Virulent criticism” of Israel’s leaders, past
   or present, is anti-Semitic. According to the State Department,
   anti-Semitism occurs when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying
   the behavior of a past or present Zionist leader. Thus, a cartoon that
   includes a swastika to criticize Ariel Sharon’s brutal 2002 invasion
   of the West Bank, raining “hell-fire” missiles on hapless Palestinian
   men, women and children, is anti-Semitic. Similarly, when the word
   “Zionazi” is used to describe Sharon’s saturation bombing in Lebanon in
   1982 (killing 17,500 innocent refugees), it is also “anti-Semitic.”
   
4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.
   
5. Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress
   for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community
   (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.
   
6. Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the “New World Order”) is anti-Semitic.
   
7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.
   
8. Diminishing the “six million” figure of Holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.
   
9. Calling Israel a “racist” state is anti-Semitic.
   
10. Asserting that there exists a “Zionist Conspiracy” is anti-Semitic.
    
11. Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.
    
12. Making “derogatory statements about Jewish persons” is anti-Semitic.
    
13. Denying spiritually disobedient Jews the biblical right to re-occupy Palestine is anti-Semitic.
    
14. Alleging that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attack is anti-Semitic.
    

Please note that Jesus Christ would be guilty of #4. Any preacher in a Christian church who reads the New
Testament account of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ violates #7.

LINK: WHO RUNS AMERICA? - William E. Dannemeyer (U.S. Congressman, 1979-1992)

ZIONISM UNMASKED: 'Anti-Semitic' - the Label that Stops Criticism
Dr. Paul Balles for Salem-News.com

When you can’t criticise a propaganda machine for its promotions, both free speech and democracy are dead.



Misuse of "antisemitism" illustration by Carlos Latuff

(BAHRAIN) - If you indulge in ad hominem attacks (attacking the person rather than the issue), you can expect the same in return. The issues related to the anti-Semitic label are many.

First, the expression “anti-Semitic” is a misnomer. It’s defined as “hating Jews or Judeophobia.” The label “anti-Semitism” is wrong because not all Jews are Semites, and many Arabs are.

In 2004, the US Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. The Act defines a person as being anti-Semitic for holding any of a number of beliefs. My comments follow each of the 14 items supposedly revealing anti-Semitism.

1. Any assertion, “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world.”

According to this, it doesn’t matter whether the assertion is true or not. Truth is not an issue. Simply making such a statement violates the Act. In itself, that fact provides strong evidence of control of the US government.

2. The expression of “Strong anti-Israel sentiment.”
Any criticism of Israel can thus be considered anti-Semitic. Israel can mangle Gaza and get away with it.

3. Expressing “Virulent criticism” of Israel’s leaders, past or present.
Menachem Begin may have led the Irgun in the slaughter and dispossession of thousands of Palestinians, but it’s anti-Semitic to say so.

4. Any criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders with its emphasis on the Talmud and Kabbala.

It’s perfectly acceptable, as free speech, to vilify Islam, but any criticism of Judaism violates the Act.

5. Any criticism of the United States Government and Congress for being under the undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community, which would include Jewish organizations such as AIPAC.

Truth matters not to the ridiculous legislators who passed this ludicrous act.

6. Any criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism or what some call the “New World Order.”

When you can’t criticise a propaganda machine for its promotions, both free speech and democracy are dead.

7. Placing any blame on Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ.

In order to accommodate the anti-Semitism label, simply rewrite history.

8. Citing any facts that could in any way diminish the “six million” figure of Jewish holocaust victims.

I violate the act simply by citing the fact that five million non-Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. This goes beyond stifling free speech.

9. Claiming that Israel is a racist state.

That’s not a claim. It’s a fact. Israel is full of racist laws. It insists on preserving its racist character and its right to impose apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza.

10. Making any claim that there is a “Zionist Conspiracy.”

A rational provision for such a claim would insist on evidence as proof of its validity. To disallow making such a claim is existentially (Israelis love that word) dictatorial.

11. Offering proof that Jews and their leaders created Communism and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

It just became illegal to offer proof. Minds are made up. Don’t confuse them with the facts.

12. Making derogatory statements about Jewish persons.
Why limit it to Jewish persons?

13. Asserting that spiritually disobedient Jews do not have the Biblical right to re-occupy Palestine.

Why limit it to the spiritually disobedient?

14. Making any allegations of Mossad involvement in the 9/11 attack.

I just did in a column published a week ago.

The Act passed by the US Congress makes me anti-Semitic. It’s an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I’m a critic of Israel when they commit wrongs and a critic of America when it does wrong. Despite Congress, that’s not anti-Semitic.

LINK: endisraeliapartheid blogspot

The Invention of the Jewish People

by Shlomo Sand

http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/2010/08/the-jewish-daily-forward-discusses-sands-book-and-genetic-research/

Today’s Jews did not descend from the ancient Israelites. DNA science proves that the “Jews” in Israel and around the world are predominantly of Khazar stock. They are mainly a Turkish-Mongol blood mixture, says Dr. Schlomo Sand, a Jew, and distinguished history professor from Tel Aviv University in Israel. Sand’s heavily documented book is turning the Jewish world upside down. One amazing fact is that the “Jews” who went to Israel from Europe in 1948 and set up the new nation have no history as a people of Israel. Instead, their ancestors were converts to Judaism. So those today who say they are “Jews” are not of Abraham.

List of books that call the NT antisemitic:

• Gregory Baum, Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? A Re-examination of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Glen Rock, N.J.: Deus, 1965.
• Norman A. Beck, Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (Rev. ed.: New York: Crossroad, 1994).
• John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti -Semitism in the Gospel Story (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995).
• Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Anti-Semitism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).
• T. A. Burkill, “Anti-Semitism in St. Mark’s Gospel,” New Testament 3 (1959): 34–52.
• W. R. Farmer, Anti-Judaism and the Gospels (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 1999).
• Riemund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and Frederique Vandecasteele, eds., Anti–Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox, 2001).
• L. T. Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 419–41.
• R. R. Ruether, Is the New Testament AntiSemitic? (2d. ed.: Glen Rock: N. J.: Paulist, 1965).

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/videos-2/



Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History



In this long-awaited sequel to his international bestseller The Holocaust Industry, Norman G. Finkelstein moves from an iconoclastic interrogation of the new anti-Semitism to a meticulously researched exposé of the corruption of scholarship on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Bringing to bear the latest findings on the conflict and recasting the scholarly debate, Finkelstein points to a consensus among historians and human rights organizations on the factual record. Why, then, does so much controversy swirl around the conflict? Finkelstein's answer, copiously documented, is that apologists for Israel contrive controversy. Whenever Israel comes under international pressure, another media campaign alleging a global outbreak of anti-Semitism is mounted.
Finkelstein also scrutinizes the proliferation of distortion masquerading as history.

Recalling Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial, published to great fanfare in 1984 but subsequently exposed as an academic hoax, he asks deeply troubling questions here about the periodic reappearance of spurious scholarship and the uncritical acclaim it receives. The most recent addition to this genre, Finkelstein argues, is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's bestseller, The Case for Israel.


The core analysis of Beyond Chutzpah sets Dershowitz's assertions on Israel's human rights record against the findings of the mainstream human rights community. Sifting through thousands of pages of reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and Human Rights Watch, Finkelstein argues that Dershowitz has misrepresented the facts.

Thoroughly researched and tightly argued, Beyond Chutzpah lifts the veil of controversy shrouding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520245989/normanfinkelst00/#_

Exam board criticised for Jewish prejudice question

Ministers have criticised an exam board after one of its GCSE religious studies papers asked candidates to explain "why some people are prejudiced against Jews".

Education Secretary Michael Gove said to suggest anti-Semitism could ever be explained was "insensitive and, frankly, bizarre."

Exam board AQA said the question did not attempt to justify prejudice.

It stressed that it was not intended to cause offence.

But Mr Gove said: "AQA needs to explain how and why this question was included in an exam paper."

Exam regulator Ofqual is in discussions with AQA, one of Britain's biggest exam boards, and said it would take "follow-up action" if appropriate.

'Irrational fear'
First reported in the Jewish Chronicle, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Jon Benjamin told the newspaper: "Clearly this is unacceptable and has nothing whatsoever to do with Jews or Judaism."

But an AQA spokesman said in a statement: "In many exam questions 'explain' is used to mean 'give an account of'.

"For example, in the past we have asked students to explain why some people commit crimes, but we have not intended to suggest that we condone criminal activity.

"The question concerned acknowledges that some people are prejudiced, but we did not intend to imply in any way that prejudice is justified."

It added that it would expect students to refer to the Holocaust and to illustrate prejudice "based on irrational fear, ignorance and scapegoating."

"The board is obviously concerned that this question may have caused offence, as this was absolutely not our intention."

It added: "The principal examiner for this exam has been reviewing the papers and has found that students have understood the question in the sense that was intended and that their answers are in line with the mark scheme."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18207323

...