Let's take that one apart, too...


What we are witnessing today is a new sophisticated, virulent and even lethal anti-Semitism, reminiscent of the atmospherics of the 1930s, and without parallel since the end of the Second World War. This new anti-Jewishness found early juridical expression in the United Nations' "Zionism is Racism" resolution, but has gone beyond that.

Zionism is a racist ideology, when its expression results in the disenfranchisement, suppression, and ethnic cleansing of a group of people because of their ethnic and religious background, and it's not anti-Semitic to say so. Discriminating against any group because of its ethnic and/or religious background is always racist.

Traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit.

This is a correct definition of anti-Semitism.

The new anti-Semitism involves discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations -- the denial of, and assault upon, the Jewish people's right even to live -- with Israel as the "collective Jew among the nations."

No one in this thread is denying the Jewish people the right to live as an equal member of the family of nations or denying the Jewish people's right to live. The right to live in Israel as the "collective Jew among the nations" really is a rather meaningless phrase for the purpose of this discussion. The Jews who currently live in Israel have a right to remain there. The Jews who are there, however, do not have a right to withhold or suppress the rights of the other people who live there, and it is a racist and supremacist thing to say that they do.

Observing the complex intersections between the old and new anti-Semitism, Per Ahlmark, Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, pithily remarked that the new anti-Semitism is marked by attacks on the "collective Jews -- the State of Israel," which then "start a chain reaction of assaults on individual Jews and Jewish institutions." In and around my home city of Montreal, I have witnessed chilling examples of these phenomena -- from the firebombing of my own high school, to the physical assault of Jews in the Laurentians, to the vociferous chants against Israel during recent Gaza hostilities.

If someone is criticizing Israel specifically because it is a collective of Jews, then that is definitely anti-Semitism. If, on the other hand, if people are criticizing it because of its supremacist and racist behavior towards other groups of people based on their ethnic and religious backgrounds, then not only is it not anti-Semitic do that, it is racist and supremacist to call those who do criticize Israel for those reasons anti-Semitic.

Let me be clear: I have never argued that Israel should be immune from criticism. But the protesters at purported anti-Israel rallies who cry "Jews are our dogs" are of common ilk with traditional anti-Semites.

Please show me where I have said anything even resembling the above comment.

The whole underscores Ahlmark's conclusion: "In the past, the most dangerous anti-Semites were those who wanted to make the world Judenrein, 'free of Jews.' Today, the most dangerous anti-Semites might be those who want to make the world Judenstaatrein, 'free of a Jewish state.'"

This is not a valid construct. Let's look at the history of the Roma. Where is their state? They have suffered just as much as Jews throughout their history. They suffered just as much as Jews during the holocaust. They still don't have a state. Is anyone being condemned as "anti-Roma" for not suggesting that an entire group of people should be dispossessed and denied their rights in order to create an independent state for the Roma? Of course no-one is being condemned for this. And why not? Don't the Roma deserve a state of their own based on their history?

The problem with this construct is that any state that is defined as a "Jewish state", is, by definition, a state that discriminates against all of the people in it who are not Jewish. This is not a sustainable proposition. So the above formulation is saying that unless everyone supports a state in which everyone who doesn't belong to the privileged group will be permanently discriminated against, they are discriminating against the privileged group, is a nonsensical formulation. It cancels itself out by its own discriminatory nature.

The indices of this new anti-Semitism are different from those of the old. Today it may be uncommon for a Jew to be refused service in a restaurant. But now Israel remains the standing object of genocidal threat from Iran and its terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas;
Israel is not under a genocidal threat from Iran, or from Hezbollah or Hamas.

the Jewish state is singled out in the international arena while the major human rights violators of our time enjoy exculpatory immunity;

This is a huge lie.

the legitimacy of Israel is discriminatorily scrutinized to the extent that, for the purpose of country groupings at the United Nations, it is considered not even to "exist" in Asia;

All of Asia? I rather doubt it. Some of Asia, perhaps. On the other hand, Israel does not recognize the Palestinian state, either. However, if the reason for including this is to suggest that I have not recognized that Israel exists, that is also a lie.

and less sophisticated voices spread rumors of Israelis injecting Palestinians with the AIDS virus.

Am, I being accused of having done this?

Jews may no longer be denied equal housing, but they are now being denied an equal homeland.

It is impossible for Jews to have an equal homeland that is based on the concept of their being privileged above all other groups. That is the opposite of equal. No Western country is based on the privileging of one group over all of the others or at the expense of all others, because it is commonly recognized in the West that this is racism, and Western countries are trying to eliminate racism from within their borders. Only Israel is claiming that privilege.

As New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman put it: "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanctions, out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

There are two problems with this. Most of the Western world, not only does not single Israel out for opprobrium and international sanctions, most of the Western world, in fact, lets Israel get away (with hardly a peep) with things that no other country is allowed to get away with. But if this is being used as a criticism against me, as long as the government of Israel is being assisted in what it is doing by my tax dollars and my government's foreign policy, it is absolutely my right as well as my responsibility to speak out about and to criticize what the government of Israel does. It is a lie to suggest that I don't criticize any other governments besides Israel. And it is racist to suggest that only Israel should be immune from criticism.

It is this escalation of anti-Semitism that necessitates the establishment of an International Parliamentary Coalition to confront this oldest and most enduring of hatreds. Silence is not an option. The time has come to act. For as history has taught us only too well: While it may begin with Jews, it does not end with Jews. Anti-Semitism is the canary in the mine shaft of evil, and it threatens us all.

At this point in history, it would be more apt to say that it may begin with Arabs/Palestinians/Muslime, but it will not end with them. Racism towards these groups is the new canary in the mine shaft, and if we don't do something about it now, it will threaten us all.