It seems that the definition of antisemitism agreed upon by EU member states and adopted by the United States State Department has gone missing in Europe. HERE and HERE Considering that this American administration likes to take its clues from European elites it probably won’t be long before the US State Department redefines antisemitism as not having any definition as well.
Apparently the sticking point is the criticism of Israel. One of the main points of the original working definition is that calling for the destruction of Israel (aka genocide against another 6 million Jews), accusing Israel of being Nazis and using old-fashioned antisemitic dog-whistles to describe Israel was antisemitism. Seems that is not the case anymore. Actually the breadth of the old definition, based upon Natan Sharansky’s 3-D test, has been a complaint of the elites since the definition was agreed upon. HERE
Sharansky’s 3-Ds of antisemitism seem to hit too close to home for these overly indulged and over-educated societal aprobates. Interestingly enough, Sharanksy never said that Israel cannot be criticized. He merely outlined what is and is not acceptable discourse and purpose. Interestingly at the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism held last spring there was a discussion about the effects of that definition and its real-world applications. HERE
In fact one of the more egregious examples of antisemitism was in the case that a British academic, Ronnie Fraser, brought against the UK Academic Union. Because the Union rejected the EU definition of antisemitism they therefore absolved themselves of antisemitism and basically accused the Jewish people of bringing antisemitism upon themselves. Zionism, the Union also claimed, has nothing to do with being Jewish and those that reject Zionism and Israel have every political right to do so without being called antisemites. Of course they forget that it’s not necessarily what you say, but how you say it and its implications that actually invokes a double standard, delegitimization and dehumanization of an entire people and nation . HERE
This is nothing new in the realm of antisemitism and Jew hatred. Antisemites have never accepted the fact that they are in reality antisemites. They consider themselves truth purveyors. In fact during the debate about the nomination of SecDef Hagel, due to his unmitigated antisemitism, his defenders even tried to change the definition HERE Apparently you are not an antisemite if you accuse the USA of being controlled by a “Jewish lobby,” and refuse to sign a letter condemning Iranian antisemitism and calls for genocide against Israel.You are merely telling Israel and the Jews of America the “hard truth.” Much like we see the esteemed Secretary of State Mr. Kerry claiming he is doing at the present during these inane “peace” negotiations when he threatens Israel HERE.
The question becomes how can it be so hard to define an eons old hatred? Some may say that it is a boon to the growing Islamist presence in Europe that makes it difficult for the European elites to deal with the truth about antisemitism. Codling and cajoling a people who call for mass murder and jihadism on your own soil may lead the spineless Europeans to easily indulge in their own genetic Jew-hatred. It’s easier to throw the Jews to the wolves then to stand up against the growing mass murder threat in their own midst. It’s easier for the selfrighteous European elites to say antisemitism is all the Jews’ own fault or because Israel does “X,Y, and Z,” rather than bring to task those that are brought up with evil malice and intentions, unless of course these persons are on the political right then it seems the Europeans have no issue with condemning the obvious.
It appears that in Europe as long as you claim that your hatred and ignorance is Islam-imported then you can be as despicable as you want. It would be “racism,” according to the European elites, to tell Moslems how to think about Jews, Israel and to monitor the growth of Jew-hatred in immigrant communities. Hence it is now racist to tell someone they are antisemites. Orwell would be so pleased.
Or is it European fear of the third world living in their enclaves? A generalized form of Xenophobia masquerading as soft-racism? Or just plain ignorance on the part of those who simply wish the Moslem population in Europe to go away without actually having to send them away and thus avoid the charge of racism against themselves? Indulge the immigrants and they will turn their violence against someone else? This smacks of political correctness of the indelible European Left run totally amok.
Truth of the matter is that the issues with a definition of antisemitism may actually have very little to do with Israel and more to do with the movements afoot in the EU about kosher slaughter and male ritual circumcision. Would it not be antisemitism to disallow certain ancient rituals and religious rights of one particular people simply because modern thought decides that these ideas are outdated? But if you can’t define antisemitism then why would these political motivations be seen as anything but for the “greater good” of society? It is an interesting note that historically when societies worldwide wanted to disenfranchise their Jewish citizens, they always started with male circumcision and kosher slaughter. Thus, making the basic beliefs of the Jewish religion beyond the pale of any descent people nationwide.
The irony here is that the EU says that it can still monitor antisemitism in Europe. Not certain how that will work since to be able to monitor something you need to agree what you are looking for in the first place. That, of course, simply begs the question, if you can’t define it, how can you monitor it? It is not as Justice Potter Stewart said about obscenity…”I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.” The reality is that it is a combination of both new Islamist and ancient European Jew-hatred and elitist racism, that have joined in a confluence of events to broker this new form of antisemitism: the idea that antisemitism in and of itself cannot be defined. The reality is, that the idea of Jew-hatred as an abstract idea is itself antisemitism.
Interesting post up at Harry’s Place which states that the reasoning behind the absence of the definition of antisemitism isn’t because it was too broad, but because as it existed it was too narrow. HERE