Dismantling ‘anti-Semitism’


First, many thanks to Tony Greenstein for permission to use the cartoon seen above. Describing himself as socialist, anti-Zionist and anti-racist, Tony is a Jewish peace activist, mercilessly pilloried by supporters of Zionism for being a notorious-antisemite. He has also been expelled from the UK Labour Party over allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ because of his strong support for Jeremy Corbyn. The term ‘anti-Semitism’ is a potent tool of intimidation in the service of powerful state and corporate interests which, in some parts of the world, now demonstrates a terrifying ability to suppress free speech and banish reason.

On 8 March, Sh’ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices (NZ) published an article by Marilyn Garson, entitled The politics of name-calling, or, down the rabbit hole we go. This name-calling expresses itself through the weaponisation of the intentionally misleading term ‘anti-Semitism’, with some defenders of human rights having lost their careers after being labelled ‘anti-Semitic’. The terminology is used constantly in efforts to paralyse movements that seek to bring a halt to over seventy years of crimes against humanity committed by Israel. Because the Zionist state commits its racist human rights abuses in the name of all Jews, world-wide, there is inevitable global resistance from Jews who say firmly, ‘Not in my name! In December last year, a Jewish Voice for Peace Action webinar, which can be seen on JVP Action Facebook, discussed anti-Semitism, sharing experiences and envisaging a “world where we dismantle antisemitism”.

The only way to really dismantle the power of the ‘anti-Semitic’ insult is to expose its deliberate separatism. Further on below, the nature of the term is examined more closely but first let’s look at its history. Israel’s official Declaration of Independence declares its Zionist origin thus: “We, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel . . .” The Israeli state is the result of politically-driven collaboration between British Imperialism and proponents of the 19th Century Zionist political ideology. At the start ot the 20th Century, the majority of British Jews were opposed to Zionism.

In 1917, when the British Government began to be attracted to the strategic advantages that Zionism offered, the only Jewish member of David Lloyd George’s Cabinet was adamantly opposed to the creation of a Jewish state. Sir Edwin Montagu objected to the Balfour Declaration and Zionism because he believed that the ideology was based on the premise that Jews and non-Jews could never exist as equals. In this, Montagu had the support of leading representatives of Anglo-Jewry, the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association, together with three prominent British Jews: Claude Montefiore, David Alexander and Lucien Wolf. The Zionist website, Zionism-Israel Information Centre, describes as ‘fatuous’, Montagu’s criticism of apartheid Zionism, quoting from a document in which he forecast that “you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country . . .” History has, sadly, proved Montagu’s foresight to be tragically and absolutely correct.

Human rights v. nation-states

- Sponsor Promotion -

The establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 was declared the moment the British Mandate terminated, although without announcing its borders. Zionism claims that, Jews have a human right to self-determination in their own nation-state. Can a global multiplicity of ethnicities and cultures who happen to share the same religion, either as a faith or simply in name, have the right to establish such a state at the expense of an indigenous population? Does Israel have the right to keep expanding its borders and seizing ever more Palestinian land? The expired Oslo Accords proved a disaster for the Palestinian people, having placed them as supposedly equal partners in ‘negotiations’ with a state that remains in belligerent military control over every aspect of their lives.

Apartheid settlement

Over half a century of oppressive Israeli military Occupation should, by now, have led to the realisation that the Zionist regime intends never to abandon its ill-gotten territorial gains. It should also be plain that Israel has no intention of stopping its theft of ever more Palestinian land. The magnitude of the resources Israel has already invested in establishing its settlements and their associated infrastructure should make that reality abundantly clear. Add to that, the continuing land-grabs made by settlers and Occupation forces, and it should be clear that Israel is treating the West Bank as its own territory. It is no longer credible that peaceful and just negotiations with the Palestinians could ever result in Israel letting go of its massive investments. These territorial gains have been, and are being, achieved through the exercise of military superiority, coupled with a shameful immunity afforded by Israel’s powerful allies. Not including East Jerusalem, Israel has moved more than 440,000 of its Jewish citizens to the West Bank to live in more than 280 Occupation settlements and outposts.

According to the Israeli human rights movement, B’Tselem, the Zionist regime encourages “Jews to move to settlements and develop financial ventures in and around them. The state offers a slew of benefits and incentives to settlers and settlements, through both official and unofficial channels.” Among the most significant of these are the housing benefits that allow families lacking capital, or substantial sources of income, to buy homes in the settlements. For Palestinians, the Occupation’s geographical and economic transformation of the West Bank has proved ruinous. For instance, Israel has, over the past decade, enabled settlement outposts to seize thousands of hectares of Palestinian farmland and pasture. Under this regime, there is no possibility of sustainable development for Palestinians in their own land. Settlement land seizures, together with associated inter-connecting roads, fragment large areas and isolate Palestinian villages from each other.

Terrorising children on Palestinian land

On 11 March, in Masafer Yatta, Palestinian children gathering wild akoub, a plant similar to artichoke, on local farmland, were confronted by two masked settlers who threatened them and called out the Israeli Army. Unfortunately for the children, the land they were on had recently been seized by settlers from the Havat Maon illegal outpost which, so far, does not even have Israeli Government authorisation. Occupation forces obliged the settlers (see video) by seizing the children, aged from 8-13 years, and removing them to the Kiryat Arba settlement, where they were held for about five hours in a police station. The two eldest children have been ordered to report soon for interrogation by the Israeli Army. At present, according to Defence for Children International, 140 Palestinian children are being held in Israeli prisons. This is but one example of Israeli Army child terrorism – late last month an 8-year-old child and his brother, aged 10, were also treated abominably.


Regarding what is now called The growing issue of anti-Semitism in New Zealand, there is an urgent need for plain-speaking and revision of a terminology that contributes little to understanding. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Semitic means relating to “a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic”. The online Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that the most important Semitic language, in terms of the number of speakers, is Arabic.

That being so, use of the term anti-Semitic should relate to bias or hatred towards all native speakers of Semitic languages. However, Zionist ideology would have the term associated solely in relation to Jews. It is reasonable to ask, therefore, why do Zionists never say anti-Jewish? The principles of democracy demand the right to free expression of arguments, for and against any movement. Jews who object to being associated with the crimes against humanity committed, in their name, by the Zionist enterprise share the same right to free speech as does the rest of humanity.

Resisting foreign interference

On 10 March, the Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) published an article entitled Is NZ Labour more tolerant of antisemitism than Jeremy Corbyn’s UK Labour party? It condemns Labour MP, Dr Duncan Webb, for contributing to what it calls an ‘antisemitic’ Facebook group, Aotearoa Standing With Palestine, and that he “apparently sees all the vile comments and posts as legitimate criticism of Israel.” The article also notes that the “New Zealand Jewish Council condemned Dr Webb for his promotion of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign”, even though it has worldwide Jewish support. The Israeli Human Rights movement B’Tselem totally rejects the idea that BDS is anti-Semitic, stressing that “in fact, the BDS movement explicitly opposes all forms of racism, including antisemitism.” Other movements, such as Jewish Voice for Peace, also wholeheartedly support BDS.

The IINZ article failed to provide a single example of the anti-Jewish “hatred” that it accused Dr Webb of expressing and which its accompanying illustration insinuates. Besides condemning his support for BDS, the IINZ piece also found Webb’s hosting of a lunch for Mike Treen upon his return from the Gaza flotilla to be ‘anti-Semitic’. To support that assertion, the IINZ complained of misinformation regarding the military blockade imposed by Israel and what it called attempted incursions onto Israeli territory.” Oh really! The IINZ shows no concern whatsoever when Israeli forces make incursions into Gaza, coming and going as they please. Can the IINZ really expect the world to see any kind of symmetry between the immense, militarily powerful and destructive Israeli blockade of Gaza and the occasional acts of Resistance to it? Last year, Israeli forces made over 40 Gaza incursions and already, this year, there have been a further 13, laying waste to precious land. On top of this, Israel has put large areas of Gaza farmland beyond the reach of farmers.

Defending freedom of speech

It has to be understood that dismantling the generally-accepted meaning of any word or expression is necessarily very challenging but words have, over time, been known to change their meaning. In the end though, it is how people choose to use or interpret them that determines their fate. In the case of ‘anti-Semitism’, it might help if opponents of Zionist human rights violations were to adopt a policy of never using the term without putting it in single quotes. Where there is an implication of anti-Jewish prejudice or hatred, it should be required of the accuser to say so, in clear and direct language. In other words, those who accuse others of being ‘anti-Semitic’ should be asked if they actually mean anti-Jewish. A growing practice of challenging the term ‘anti-Semitism’ could result in an increased public awareness of the full meaning of the term Semitic. We must hope that in time, the innate racism that pervades the practise of Zionist ideology will become so self-evident, it will no longer be possible to shield Israel from facing full accountability.


  1. Leslie Bravery is welcome to his opinion however I form mine on what I read in the various wiki’s not my father’s opinion.
    You mention “ill-gotten territorial gains”. I assume you are talking about the Six-Day war where Israel was invaded by its Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. With the nations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, and others also contributed troops and arms to the Arab forces. The outcome was that the hugely larger arab force was beaten and land lost.
    I would not describe this as ill-gotten territorial gains more like cowardly loss.

    Speaking of bullying of a small country. Stuff has this article “Chinese consulate voices ‘displeasure’ at Stuff Circuit Uyghur investigation Deleted”. Seems China wants to censor our news.


    • “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
      — Menachem Begin
      Six-Day War, also called June War or Third Arab-Israeli War or Naksah, brief war that took place June 5–10, 1967, and was the third of the Arab-Israeli wars. Israel’s decisive victory included the capture of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Old City of Jerusalem, and Golan Heights; the status of these territories subsequently became a major point of contention in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
      – Encyclopedia Britannica

      • Sooooo, blocking the Straits of Tiran, massing armour in the Sinai after kicking out the UN Peacekeeping force, and continually broadcasting over Cairo radio that the ultimate genocide of the Jewish people in Israel was imminent are not provocations of war? You clearly know nothing about this particular conflict. Try reading Michael Oren’s excelent account.

        • If Menachim Begin’s own words are not enough for you, try reading Norman Finklestein’s excellent takedown of Michael Oren’s farcical account.
          Some excerpts:
          “Although acknowledging that “few Israeli-flag vessels in fact traversed the Straits,” Oren designates them a “lifeline of the Jewish state” and Eilat a “thriving port” (SDW: pp. 81, 83). In fact, only five percent of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat, and oil, which was the only significant commodity possibly affected by the blockade, could have been re-routed (if circuitously) through Haifa. Oren reports extensively on the “frightful” news that Egypt had mined the Straits and otherwise forcibly implemented the blockade, only to note later in passing that actually “the waterway remained mine-free” (SDW: pp. 84, 90, 95; cf. p. 166). Indeed, he makes no mention that just a few days after Nasser announced the blockade, vessels using the Straits apparently weren’t any longer even being searched (I&R: p. 139)…….Reaching Cairo just after the blockade was announced, U Thant elicited a “very significant” (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special UN representative to mediate the crisis, and a two-week moratorium on all belligerent acts in the Straits. Israel peremptorily rejected both of U Thant’s proposals. Its dismissal of the moratorium proposal rates only a scant mention in Oren’s account (he never bothers to mention Egypt’s acceptance and Israel’s rejection of a special mediator), while Nasser’s repeatedly expressed willingness to submit the Straits dispute to the World Court (for Israel inconceivable) is dispatched in a single, negatively charged phrase (SDW: pp. 126, 144; I&R, p. 129 and sources cited).”

          Nasser had received intelligence from the Soviets about the planned Israeli attack.
          “Oren offers multiple tortured speculations in the body of the text such as “the tendency of Communist decisionmakers to be influenced by their own propaganda on imperialist and Zionist perfidy,” and tucks away in a footnote the most obvious explanation: that Israel was in fact planning an attack (SDW: pp. 54-5, p, 342n52). Indeed, just a few pages after reporting the Israeli decision to strike, he dismissively refers to “yet another Soviet claim of threats against Syria” (SDW: pp. 51, 59).

          Nasser did not “kick out” the U.N. force, he requested it moved to the Israeli side to deter the Israeli attack. U Thant agreed but Israel refused.
          “It’s hard to understand, however, why stationing UNEF on the Egyptian side of the border preserved peace while stationing it on the Israeli side wouldn’t have or, put otherwise, why UNEF would deter Egyptian aggression on the Egyptian side but not on the Israeli side. Oren also rapidly disposes of U Thant’s stopgap proposal enthusiastically supported by Nasser (although Oren never mentions this) but firmly rejected by Israel to reactivate the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC) (SDW: p. 74).”

          Probably the most salient fact proving that Nasser desperately wanted to avoid war was that most of his army (55,000 troops) was bogged down in Yemen (Egypt’s Vietnam) at the time.
          That the attack was acquisitive was made clear by Moshe Dayan speaking of the Golan:
          “I know how at least 80 percent of all of the incidents there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow.in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later, even the air force, and that is how it went..We thought.that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.”

          • The worst historical revisionism I have ever encountered. Finkelstein is a Leftist stooge while Michael Oren’s account remains the definitive version of the war. The Soviets admitted they lied about the Israeli build-up on Israel’s border. Israel did everything it could to avoid war and carried out the pre-emptive attack on Egypt’s air force because being so tiny they knew they had to have air superiority or face genocide. You are truly demented. Glad the Arabs lost, though. Am Yisrael chai!!! https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/maps/pages/events%20leading%20to%20the%20six%20day%20war-%201967.aspx

            • As my old Logic Prof used to say: “The moment an opponent tells you what you are rather than offering a counter to the arguments you make, you know he doesn’t have one.”
              Whether the Soviets lied or not is immaterial – Nasser believed them – but as it happened, they didn’t. Even Oren admitted an attack was planned.
              Maybe (to you at least) Roland Popp of the Military Academy at ETH Zurich is also a “leftist stooge”:
              “In the historiography of the 1967 War, the common reading is to portray it as an “inadvertent war.” Using recently declassified documents, this article offers an alternative interpretation. In critically examining existing master plan theories, it is shown that the United Arab Republic’s (UAR) military actions were limited in size and were without aggressive intentions. The Israeli decision to strike was taken not for military reasons but rather to prevent a diplomatic solution which might have entailed disadvantages for the Israeli side”
              “One of the most controversial questions about the onset of the crisis centers on the origin, intention, and effects of the so-called Soviet warning. Given the inaccessibility of the most important Soviet documents, it comes as no surprise that the Soviet warning plays a central role in many of the conspiracy theories woven together after (and even during) the June War. There are also divergent accounts on the actual circumstances of how the warning was conveyed to the Egyptians and of its exact content. It is more or less established that on May 13 the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo, Dimitri Pojidaev, transmitted the information to Ahmad Hassan al-Feki, the Egyptian Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs. Apparently, the information given by the Ambassador was much more than a general warning but was in fact a detailed Soviet intelligence report about an imminent Israeli attack on Syria planned for May 17. The report mentioned the concentration of about a dozen Israeli brigades near the Syrian border. On the same day, Soviet officials gave the same information to the President of the Egyptian National Assembly, Anwar al-Sadat, while he was transiting through Moscow. Thirty years later, Soviet officials claimed that no such information was given to the Egyptians at this time. However, these later assertions do not seem very plausible and can probably be explained by the embarrassment that it was Soviet misinformation which had triggered the crisis. In fact, a recently discovered secret report by Leonid Brezhnev at a plenary session of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party of June 20, 1967, reaffirms the central points of the original version. In it, Brezhnev recounts that the Soviets had received reports in mid-May “that Israel was preparing a military attack against Syria and other Arab countries.” In reaction, the Politburo had decided to warn both the UAR and the Syrian government.”

              • Sooooo, a country the size of South Canterbury was keen for a war involving 5 Arab armies on 3 fronts???? You are not only demented, you’re delusional. David and Goliath, and David won again! Am Yosrael chai!

        • In their own words:
          “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
          Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin, Le Monde on 28 February 1968.
          “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
          Mordecai Bentov, Israel’s Minister of Housing in Al-Hamishmar 14 April 1971.
          “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
          – General Haim Bar-Lev, Ma’ariv, 4 April 1972. In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations during the war, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
          “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war…..Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel………Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
          – General Matti Peled.
          On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote: “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

    • mr smith does not seem to understand his zionist arse licking opinion does not over-rule international law….. Although bullying behavior by the usa and Israel has cowardly sought to pervert many of the international laws that were brought in after, and in response to. the mass crimes perpetrated during WWII.

      Then in a attempt to divert attention from the racism of Israel ,,,,mr smith points his finger and says look at those Big chinese chink bastards ,,, trying to bully poor wee New Zealanders

      Divert from racism with racism ,,, classy mr smith ,,,, perhaps you think its a shame we don’t have the 400 odd illegally obtained Nukes like plucky little law flouting Israel does?.,,,,Then we could tell those chinks to go get fucked ,,, and anybody else for that matter.

      Boris and the piss weak poms understand the “get fucked” power of Nukes ,,,,,,, ““Immoral & Illegal”: US & UK Move to Expand Nuclear Arsenals, Defying Global Disarmament Treaties” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV9OiU1ibPI

    • I’m waiting for Juliet Moses to claim Shulamit Aloni is an anti-Semite now. Remember, kids: if you say anything mean about Uncle Benji and his friends, you’re a horrible Nazi.

  2. I presume that it’s ok for Marama Davis to scream racist if a person says they don’t feel safe in Wellington though?

    • When did Marama Davis “scream racist ” BG? ,,,, where and when did this alleged ‘screaming’, according to YOU, take place?.

      Stump up Big Guy,,,, otherwise by your own post you sound like a misogynist.


        • Right, BG puts up a link which contains no mention of any “screaming ……. to prove he’s not a misogynist when he stated as fact, that a woman member of our parliament ‘screamed racist’.

          You could have used the correct language of ‘accused’ ,,,, but you had to over egg your diversion and go for the ‘hysterical woman’ screaming angle.

          The fact you did not address your apparent sexism in your non-rebuttal proves my point.

          Or do you concede there was no screaming as described in your post??.

  3. A very long winded explanation of why not like Jews having the right to self determination is not anti-semitic

    • If I understand your, shall we say, unusual syntax, you seem to be making a category mistake but first we have to decide whether Jewishness is a race or a religion. To claim the former would contradict much scientific and Historical opinion – for full explanation see comments at: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2021/03/06/sadistic-inhumanity-shameless-silence/
      Religion would not seem to qualify for self-determination – for a start, less than half the Jewish people, even in Israel, are religious. In 2007, a poll by the Israeli Democracy Institute found that 27% of Israeli Jews say that they keep the Sabbath, while 53% said they do not keep it at all.
      Then, when we consider the Palestinian people, things get decidedly confusing. According to Hebrew University Geneticist, Ariella Oppenheim, Palestinians are: “descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times”, albeit religiously first Christianized then largely Islamized, and all eventually culturally Arabized.”
      This would seem to conform with common sense as we know that Palestine became majority Christian (obviously Jews and other indigenes who became followers of Christ) in the 5th century C.E., then embraced Islam which became the majority religion around the 11th.
      One might well ask: “How can it be anti-Semitic to support the right to self determination of the indigenous people of Palestine, many of whom carry the blood of former Jews?”

      • Thanks for your clarification Brewer. Couldn’t work out what DukeEll was on about. Also must add, your research and explanations are very enlightening and much appreciated.

    • Some simple numbers call your assertion into question:
      134 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,172 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.
      1,270 Israelis and at least 10,001 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
      11,895 Israelis and 95,299 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000.

      Before 1948, Palestinians owned and farmed 94% of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
      Before 15 May 1948, when the so-called “War of Independence” began, around 400,000 villagers had been driven off the land they and their forbears had owned and farmed for centuries. To achieve this, Zionist forces, almost all of whom were recent immigrants, committed at least 24 massacres, a dozen or more rapes:
      “The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

      That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres.” according to Israeli Historian Benny Morris

      Despite the acquisition of territory by warfare being utterly forbidden in International Law, Israel now claims to “own” about 80% of the land. Despite numerous U.N. resolutions (Israel has been targeted by at least 77 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by 1), Palestinians who attempted to return to their property were shot on sight and Israel continues to illegally acquire more land almost daily and has refused point-blank to compensate the indigenous owners.
      Nothing in any document from the Balfour Declaration down through the History of this conflict contemplates the transfer of property from Palestinians to Jews – the documents contemplate only Governance or sovereignty.

      To characterise Palestinian acts of violence, in the face of such murderous oppression, as the result of “brainwashing” by “Arab terrorists” is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Even your own head link, the piece from the Independent has this to say:
      “Mr Netanyahu says the attacks are inspired by radical Islam, but his military intelligence officers are reluctant to make such a direct link, saying instead that the motivations are a mix of personal and political factors.”
      Context Andrew. Context.

        • “Ahhh. I get it. I don’t fight you because you came to my land, killed my father and brother then drove my mother and me out of our home. I fight you because I am antisemitic. Thanks for pointing that out. I had no idea!”
          – my favourite Palestinian quote.

        • Hey Gaby are you really Andrew and do you actually work in that nasty little Zionist troll farm in Israel?

          Oh btw, the majority of Israelis don’t identify as religious or Zionist and a lot of them seem to have issues with people like you trying to redefine anyone who opposes any action by the Israeli government as anti-Semitic.

          Luckily you and your fascist friends are so shrill that more and more people are realising the anti-semitic scam you are running for what it is – an attempt to shut down legitimate debate.

        • Coming from Gatestone Institute contributor Tobin, it is unsurprising that your linked article consists of provably false memes, circular argument and gobbledegook. Take his opening paragraph:
          “Did the world need a new definition of anti-Semitism? Actually, no. The meaning of the term was fully explained in the document produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2005. It laid out in detail not only the way it had operated in the past, but created a working definition that incorporated the way anti-Zionism had become the primary mode of expression for contemporary Jew-hatred.”
          Given that the subject of the article is IHRA definition of Jew-hatred, its hard to make any sense of the first bit of gobbledegook. The circularity is also on display – the IHRA definition is correct because…..the IHRA definition says so!
          The second part is simply false. The vast numbers of anti-Zionist Jews (which he acknowledges further down, completely contradicting himself) attest to the difference between Jew-hatred and anti-Zionism, as do the even larger number of non-Jews (I don’t like to use the Yiddish N-word goyim) such as myself who bear no individual ill-will because of racial or religious identity.
          “As such, along with other examples, it included the way Israel was judged by a double standard not applied to any other country on earth.”
          …..is simply false. South Africa comes immediately to mind but in fact, it would be hard to find a country on Earth that is not subject to criticism by the same standard. These very pages are redolent with criticism of our government’s handling of indigenous issues.
          I suggest you find a better source than a Gatestone aficionado, an institute that even Wikipedia tells us: “Multiple viral anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim falsehoods originate from Gatestone.” Kind of ironic isn’t it seeing as how Israel is a nation almost entirely comprised of immigrants.

      • Don’t worry Andrew is either a) not his real name, actually a Zionist zealot working out of that troll farm the IDF operates or b) a brainwashed fool

  4. If there was a logical fallacy in the text of a declaration of independance, would it do any good to quote it later on, when trying to sort out who is right or wrong in a claim of territory, or to disprove that somehow killing people in the pursuit of a “homeland” is always right?

    Is it easy to accept the idea that on both sides of a conflict there are parties not interested in peace?

    If an organisation’s view of itself leaves out important pieces of it’s own history, and the reasoning of those moments, and that those reasons were not directly intended, or directly linked to territory or killing, or to end in violent acts, how effective would it be for it’s opponents to use that source against them?

    If the ability to label someone or some people a derogatory name was maintained, a label known to most English speakers as an “evil”, would it support conflict or settle disputes?

    If the law of The World was changed so that nothing offensive could be said about one’s opponents, could any argument still be won, or dispute settled?

    Is it possible to remain in conflict, without engaging?

    If everyone in the world sided with Palestine, or Israel, what would likely happen next? Peace?

    Would it be a good idea to continue a narrative of any conflict in the World in such a way as to turn all members of both sides into mindless goons, imagining them perhaps sitting out there in the sun dribbling into their bowls while waiting for the next opportunity to kill each other? How acceptable to the average mind is that picture?

    • What a fabulous ‘Look over there story’ Gaby. To put it into context, a Google search, “children steal vegetables” yielded only about 10,600,000 results (0.55 seconds). Admittedly, there were repetitions and some where not pertinent to the search but really??? Rather than hyper-focus it is a case of a writers hyper-sensitivity, served with more than a dash of dishonesty. All the examples of more serious concerns that Micha Danzig (who also has his own recognised agendas) complained about are regularly and thoroughly reported on in the media, along with the sort of fluff click-bait that excited your source. Perhaps if instead of using the Israeli propagandist cheat sheet you seem to have been provided with, you should have done your own research to prove that the same ‘hyper-focus’ exists within the NZ media. It would also strengthen your case if you recognised the difference between main stream media such as Danzig’s gripe was justifiably about, and internet blog-sites such as this one that you regularly frequent.

    • From your link:
      “On March 10, 2021, five Palestinian Arab children between ages 8 and 13 allegedly tried to steal some expensive parrots or vegetables in a Jewish community in Judea.”

      The boys were taken from open land (no buildings or parrots in sight) in the Masafer Yatta area of the southern Hebron hills, Palestinian land which is home to dozens of clusters of Palestinian villages and enclaves, as well as several illegal Israeli settlements and outposts. The boys were picking a wild vegetable called “akoub”, which blooms in the spring time in Palestine. and can be sold in the market.

      From your link:
      “In what can only be described as an astonishing coincidence, a self-described anti-Israel “human rights” group just happened to be on the scene..”

      The abduction was filmed by a field researcher with Israeli human rights group B’Tselem who said “I got a call in the early afternoon saying that there were settlers chasing a group of young Palestinian boys near the at-Tuwani village, and that I should go there as fast as I could. When I arrived, there were dozens of armed and masked Israeli soldiers pulling the children towards a group of military Jeeps. And I immediately picked up my camera and started filming”
      It is legal to pick 5kg of the plant per person in the area where the boys were arrested.
      As it happens, video footage of the moments preceding the arrest of the 5 children has turned up. 2 masked settlers approached them, scared them away and took the buckets and plants they left behind:

      Parrots? Apart from you Gaby, no parrots.

    • So a jew and a Rabbi makes him an impartial commentator. More importantly how is he helping the victims of IDF invasions.

      • It makes him an expert on anti-Jewish racism, obtuse one. You’re such an ‘impartial’ commentator, aren’t you? The people who started the wars leading to IDF defensive measures are NOT victims. They are the oppressors, who refuse to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. You, of course, are on the same page.

        • Stop being a total dick Gaby. Saying the Palestinians started wars with Israel is the equivalent of saying the Jews started the war against Nazism. No doubt you will know that the term ‘intifada’ means uprising against oppression and in the same league as Jewish resistance during the Nazi era.(https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-resistance)

          As for stating, ‘anti-Zionism is the new antisemtism’, there is a not very subtle difference between religious belief and political movements, despite some of the Goebbelian justifications you cite.

  5. Excellent article by Robert S Wistrich that fully exposes the hypocrisy and racism of ‘anti-Zionism’, placing it in a watertight historical context. I like his last sentence.
    “The relentless efforts over the last forty years to equate Zionism with racism, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, or Nazism are indeed among the more pathological symptoms of a universal pollution of contemporary political vocabulary. It is, however, the “anti-racist” pretensions of the anti-Zionist left that make their specific betrayal of socialist values particularly repugnant and shameful.”

Comments are closed.