Wider still and wider: The holocaust alliance’s solicited “anti-Semitism” as a reaction to insufficient supply of anti-Semitism

Fishing for contrived anti-Semitism
By Fernando Guevara

From a Zionist perspective, the supply of actual anti-Semitism is insufficient. In 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), therefore, adopted a new concept of anti-Semitism that targets all resistance to Zionism. I intentionally did not say definition, because a definition is the last thing that Zionism could cope with. IHRA’s bundling of all resistance to Zionism under the tag “anti-Semitism” will be treated as solicited – or contrivedanti-Semitism, because it is constructed by the accuser to fulfil the Zionist need for conflict in order to self-defend” by occupying territories, minds and assets. In order to attempt to legitimise, expand and perpetuate the Zionist project, the term anti-Semitism is used on an industrial scale. A cornerstone of contrived anti-Semitism is the IHRA’s completely non-sensical non-definition of “anti-Semitism”. It is a masterpiece of nebulous stabbing in the general direction of the slightest resistance to the Zionist project. Well, perhaps not a masterpiece. But it is quite a piece of work. It is discussed further in Section 3, below.

Zionists wish for you to conflate Zionism with Judaism, as they do, because they believe that conflating Zionism with religion bestows Zionism with legitimacy. Judaism is a religion, where God is the object of worship. Zionism is an ideology, based on severe narcissistic greed-craze and self-worship. Please do not oblige Zionists by conflating the two.

There are people who disapprove of Jews for being Jewish, and their hostility should be treated like all racism, with disdain. This article is not about racism, however, it is about the invitation to racism – most often refused –  that Zionism uses to control us with. The slur “anti-Semite!” by a Zionist is used to deflect attention from the racist ideology of Zionism, as well as to project racism onto the opponent. Any morally based ideology of equality and justice is a threat to Zionism – an ideology based on Jewish separateness and supremacy, and Semitically derived rights (addressed below). The pursuit ofanti-Semitism, and the necessity of finding anti-Semitism in abundance  is the engine that drives Zionism. 

Most accusations of anti-Semitism are launched against people who are not hostile to Jews. Yet I would be surprised to learn that there is even one decent, reasonable, advocate of human and democratic rights for Palestinians who has not been tarred with the slur of anti-Semitism, in order to discredit the cause of justice as well as each advocate thereof. This discussion addresses contemporary political Zionism, as it manifests itself in daily life. It does not discuss what Zionism was intended to be, or might have been, a hundred years ago.

This is one of the most remarkable features of contrived anti-Semitism  claims: far from attempting to prevent, or to end, persecution, the accuser actively solicits the persecution of Jews.

The terms solicited and contrived anti-Semitism  will be used more or less interchangeably in the following: the nuance lying in the focus on whether the condition is requested (i.e. solicited) or constructed (i.e. fabricated). In either case, the concept rests on non-sensical verbal acrobatics, double standards and outright lies.  

The intellectual dishonesty of solicited anti-Semitism is taken a step further by the pretence that the accuser wishes for the alleged persecution to end. The notion that it is objectionable to the Zionist to find manifestations of anti-Semitism serves as a smoke screen for the fact that the finding is not only welcomed but necessary. This is one of the most remarkable features of contrived anti-Semitism  claims: far from attempting to prevent, or to end, persecution, the accuser actively solicits the persecution of Jews. I have noticed that if you bother to explain that you are not hostile to Jews, and that you are in fact equally concerned for any person targeted by racism, the tension tends to rise. The Zionist often ups the allegations, or dances to a new subject, opened with a “but isn’t it true that…” Nothing enrages a Zionist more than the realisation that you are nothostile to Jews and that s/he might not be able to make the charge stick. To admit that the accusation is baseless would be to admit that Zionism has no weapon against you. Zionist terror networks could not be less concerned with the welfare of Jews. Therefore, they do not mind using Jews as human shields against opposition. In addition to placing individuals in acute danger, Zionism’s use of contrived anti-Semitism cheapens relevant analysis of xenophobia towards Jews, thereby cynically exploiting those they purport to protect even further. And Zionists accuse others of anti-Semitism.

Applying the standard of proof “guilt by suspicion”, Zionism places all Palestinian rights-activists within the label “anti-Semite”, by double-talk and deceit of the lowest order. The deceit is necessary because Zionism could never win our hearts, and our minds baulk at its ideas. In short, terror is the only way to fulfil the Zionist plan – which I have previously referred to as the biggest heist since white supremacy. 

Before discussing the widening the scope of solicited anti-Semitism, this article will briefly address the idea of Semitically derived rights, as well as Zionism in relation to the rights of others.

The article is presented in the following four sub-sections:

  1. The concept of Semitically-derived rights.
  2. Zionism and the rights of others.
  3. How solicited anti-Semitism is contrived and used to sustain the Zionist project.  
  4. Standing firm in the face of language pre-emption laws.

In spite of the genocidal policies against others, and the exploitation of the Jews Zionism purports to protect, Zionists suggest that one could be a Zionist without being a sociopath; that one could be a proponent of human values based on equality, while elevating one group above the reach of mores and restrictions that apply to everybody else; that one could be a defender of democracy, but only for Jews – like proposing a white democracy in say, South Africa or the USA. That genocide is self-defence.

What type of ideology relies on the obliteration of all others for its safety? Israel wants peace? Slurs against Palestinian rights activists revolve around allegations that BDS1and SJP 2 and SJP 3 are anti-democratic; that they promote terror; that they are hate groups; that they espouse violence. The main accusation of anti-Semitism  against BDS is that it is alleged to seek to end Israel as a Jewish state, by bringing about a single state, in which all inhabitants would be equal. And that is the allegation? Yet, Zionists accuse you of not embracing democracy and basic human values – the mind oscillates. The tragedy of it notwithstanding, from a certain point of view the Zionist logic is incredibly amusing.

The article concludes that we must be firm in the face of laws that seek to manage our perceptions and our ability to express them. We need to stop tolerating witch-hunts by IHRA-type networks on all voices of reason, and the perilous situation these persecutions create for targeted non-Jews, as well as for “protected” Jews. 

1. The concept of Semitically derived rights 

The most serious misconception connected with Zionism is perhaps the assumption that the question of who is Semitic is relevant. It assumes that it is legitimate to determine whether a person is Semitic, in order to assess whether the person has rights – civil and political rights, or the right to live within a certain territory. We will assume relevance for the sole purpose of trying to make sense of our interactions with Zionists, who invented the concept of Semitically derived rights. (Should our attempt to make sense of interacting with Zionists fail, we will reserve the right to move on to making sense without them, however.)

While some Jews are Semitic, most are not if, by Semitic, one means people descended from the area of historic Palestine.4 This is the interpretation given the term “Semitic” that most accusations of anti-Semitism are entangled with. While I do not agree with the definition (I believe “Semitic to refer to a language group), I will accept it for the purposes of this article. I will, therefore, generally treat “Semitic” as referring to people descended from persons who lived in Palestine thousands of years ago. That would be the Palestinians, regardless of religion. Alternatively, I will sometimes use the term anti-Semitic, in the sense and context that it is used by Zionists, in order to reflect on a specific Zionist argument.

It is a fact that slurs of anti-Semitism regularly come from non-Semites, who accuse Semites of being anti-Semitic, based on the fact that the “anti-Semites” oppose the Zionist dogmas of Jewish supremacy. Zionists insist that the biological  condition of Jewishness entitles the bearer to political rights. Moreover, these politically derived rights, they assert, are linked with legitimate claims to protection, through diabolical ethnic and cultural cleansing of anybody or anything not Jewish, thus excusing 70 years of genocide as “self-defence”. Every concept is turned inside out in order to portray Israel as a humane state in need of protection, and Zionism as an ideology that could possibly live peacefully alongside any other ideology or culture. The fact that Zionism cannot make peace with the religion of Judaism becomes an inconvenience best forgotten.

I am pleased, not surprised, that religious Jews widely reject the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. According to Miko Peled, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, which makes up at least 25 to 30 per cent of UK Jews, reject the notion that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic, they reject Zionism and they reject the IHRA definition.5 Thank God! I have always perceived what I call Jewish Jews to be as non-racist as any other community. The religious concept of the chosen people is different from the chosenness on which Zionism bases its claim to political, cultural and financial empire. 

If I understand correctly, all religions should be practised without arrogance towards fellow humans, and without hubris (arrogance towards God). I suppose the way we practise religion, and the way we exercise power, says the most about who we really are.

2. Zionism and the rights of others

A conversation between a Zionist and a confused listener from the group of “Other,” about the legitimacy of Zionism, might proceed along the following lines: 

Zionist:  Before Christianity and Islam, there was Judaism. Some Jews lived in Palestine. Therefore, a Jew born in Hanoi in 2019, whose ancestors from Kazakhstan converted to Judaism a thousand years ago is entitled to live in Palestine.
Other: What about the Palestinians in between? What if they still live there?
Zionist: They need to make room for the Jews. This is Jewish land.
Other:  How did the Palestinians who stayed in Palestine lose the land
Zionist: They are not Jewish.
Other: What about their houses, their homes?
Zionist: They belong to the Jews. That is not negotiable. Jerusalem is not for sale.
Other: I understand why you can’t sell it. But what if the Palestinians don’t wish to sell?
Zionist: Jews have a right to those homes. Biblical Palestine is Jewish. A birth-right. They lived in Palestine before the Christians and the Muslims. Thousands of years ago. Jews have a right to return.
Other: What about the Palestinians’ right to return?
Zionist: Palestinians need to accept the realities on the ground.
Other: Realities that occurred in the past 70 years?
Zionist: Yes.
Other: Haven’t the Jews had time to adjust to the realities on the ground? Since Jesus and all that?
Zionist: What you need to understand is the uniqueness of Jewish suffering… The law states that “the right to national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” 
Other: Doesn’t everyone’s suffering carry the same weight?
Zionist: Jewish suffering is unique. Jews have been persecuted for five thousand years.
Other: You look like you’re in your early 40s. Isn’t it a bit unfair that you should profit from the accumulated suffering of your ancestors to confiscate the home of a Palestinian family?
Zionist: We made the desert bloom. Palestinians are terrorists. Anti-Semitic too – they’re doing this BDS thing.
Other: Why is BDS anti-Semitic?
Zionist: Because it singles out Israel, the only Jewish state, for boycott.
Other: Isn’t it anti-Semitic to conceive Israel as a Jewish state? The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliancesays that “Manifestations [of anti-Semitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
Zionist: That applies to non-Jews. The definition is there to protect us.
Other: Isn’t that a double standard? Anyway, didn’t Jews boycott Nazi Germany’s goods and services, to bring about the fall of Nazism?
Zionist: That’s different. The Jews were facing extermination. 
Other: And the Palestinians?
Zionist: They’re terrorists. They want to wipe Israel off the map.
Other: Isn’t that what Israel has done to Palestine?
Zionist: We were there first. Besides they’re backward. They rely on the Koran. It’s a terrorist religion. They’re incapable of ruling themselves. Like the Israeli UN ambassador said, the only way the Palestinians can be economically liberated is through their political surrender. We offer them peace, but they hate the Jews more than they love peace. 
Other: An ambassador said that? A diplomat? Could it be that Palestinians just hate apartheid and losing everything they had?
Zionist: They’re animals, stuck in the dark ages. They don’t even love their children like we do. They use them as human shields. 
Other: Would it be wrong to say that Christianity and Islam evolved out of  Judaism?
Zionist: Israel is founded on modern thinking. 
Other: The Old Testament? 
Zionist: Yes.
Other: It’s message of love and brotherhood?
Zionist: Yes.6

I turn, in a state of exhaustion, to questions concerning the usefulness of anti-Semitism. 

3. How solicited anti-Semitism is contrived and used to sustain the Zionist project   

Zionism aims at multi-level confusion by, firstly, conflating anti-Semitism with hostility towards Jews, then compounding the disinformation by the misconception that Jews are Semitic, which, in turn, adds to the misapprehension that Semitic is a biological condition that, moreover, is relevant. This compounded confusion serves to weaken the analytical ability of the mind.  

Personally, I am uncomfortable with linking anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism, because I do not consider them to be related. Relating them as a matter of course implies that someone who believes that Palestinians have rights is likely to be hostile to Jews. That is drivel.  Being anti-Israel7 and anti-Zionist – which I am – makes it neither more nor less likely that I am anti-Semitic, or hostile to Jews, which I am not. 

Be that as it may, you are not meant to understand the slur of “anti-Semitism!” Instead, you are expected to be knee-jerked into obeying by Zionist terror networks that, for too long, have operated under a cloak of the benign label “lobbying”. The long and short of it is that, when a Zionist hurls the slur “anti-Semite!” at you, it is to put you on notice that disobeying the instructions to follow will result in organised persecution by well-trained and extremely well financed racketeers and foreign government agents, operating in your country to overthrow the remnants of democracy there. There is a phenomenal AlJazeera exposé – a report of historic proportions – on the objectives and methods of Zionist terror organisations working together with each other and the Israeli government, forming a world-wide mire of repression.8 I will address, in a separate article, how these networks work in concert to pursue the Zionist project. That article will also address the ultimate goal of Zionism. Here, we will return to contrived and solicited anti-Semitism, Zionism’s preferred tool.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s concept of anti-Semitism

The slur of anti-Semitism for opposing Zionism or Israel is allegedly launched because Zionism allegedly acts in the alleged interest of world Jewry. The interests of non-Jews anywhere are without importance. In the alleged interest of the Jews, therefore, the IHRA adopted the following non-legally binding definition of anti-Semitism: 

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities” (emphasis added).9

The British Labour Party has adopted this definition, and has used it to expel over a hundred of its own members because they mulishly insisted that human values are universal. What does it mean? 

“A certain” = Something
“May” = here: Might
“Jewish or non-Jewish” = Everybody;Someone.

In other words, anti-Semitism is something that might, or might not, be expressed as hatred towards Jews, and is done to someone

I tried using this definition as guidance, but found it to be on the vague side, so I came up with the following, more limited, working concept: 

I understand the term anti-Semitic to be limited to include any person or notion that does not support Jewish supremacy, as naturally manifested by the right of Zionist Israel to create a Jewish democracy that has a right to defend itself against discomfort in any form, by eliminating the suggestion of any threat to its way of life, by any means necessary, limited to the territory of Israel Without Borders.

Alternatively, the definition could be summed up to mean “Stop thinking – obey.” 

In spite of this more limited concept, I found myself frequently referring to the examples provided in the IHRA document, to guide the IHRA in its enforcement endeavours. Examples include statements along the lines of: denying that the number (six million) of Jews exterminated in the German holocaust is sacrosanct and set in steel; accusing Israel of exaggerating “The Holocaust”10; claiming that the existence of a State of Israel isracist endeavour; applying double standards to Israel11by requiring of Israel a behaviour not demanded of any other democratic nation; drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.12

Further, anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some countries). So, while the definition is non-legally binding, the breach of it is criminal?

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations is another example of anti-Semitism given by the IHRA. By that, I understand that such an allegation could not be true about a Jewish citizen. For instance, about Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Addressing an AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs] conference, Pelosi defined the claim of “dual loyalty” as “anti-Semitic”. She then said that “to be anti-Semitic is to be anti-American.”13 By raising this issue, I am not claiming that being loyal to more than one country or entity must be negative, per se – I am addressing the non-sensical argumentation of the IHRA that often provides, likely unintended, entertainment. 

I am left with the question of whether perceiving one’s surroundings is illegal per se,or only if the perception is expressed in speech? Or is it anti-Semitic to ask? Could one be anti-Semitic for not being Semitic? Or for not being Jewish? 

What the IHRA concept boils down to is that almost all relevant fact-based analysis, concerning the dynamics most threatening to democracy today, is anti-Semitic. This provides Zionism with the controversy it set out to contrive in the first place. Voila: the desired excuse it needs to annihilate us all! Self-defence at its finest – in true Israeli fashion. The Oded Yinon Plan14 was written in this spirit; PNAC 15 was written in this spirit, all continuing a long tradition of contrived conflict, upon which Israel was founded. 

The use of the term anti-Semitism often seems to imply that persecution of Jews is more serious than racism in general. This treatment of the Jews as separate from everyone else becomes, at the same time, the basis for the accusation of anti-Semitism, and the bedrock on which Zionism rests. The basis of the accusation is that everybody else distinguishes Jews from themselves. At the same time, Zionism reserves the right to distinguish Jews from the rest of humanity, the mass of “Other,” or goyim [gentiles]. Zionism treats Jews as separate from, and more deserving of protection than, anybody else. I have quoted Eve Mykytyn before, in my writing, and will probably do so again. Mykytyn has posed the question why the Jews, in particular, would need a broader definition of racial hatred? Why Jews would see a need to create a category of hatred that applies only to them?16

What is lacking in the UNESCO definition17 that is covered by the [IHRA definition]? The answer is that the [IHRA definition] serves to restrain speech and restrict thought. It conflates the Jewish State of Israel with Jews as it vets a range of discourses such as criticism of Israeli politics, Jewish culture, Jewish history and Zionist ideology.”18

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines racism as follows:

Racism is a theory of races hierachy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.

The disingenuousness that accompanies contrived anti-Semitism goes far beyond the definitions it uses. However – the main dishonesty lies in the lie that the accusation is accompanied by a desire for relief. Without the allegation of anti-Semitism,Zionism fails. The object of contrived anti-Semitism  is to secure the supply of anti-Semitism, which a Zionist believes provides an excuse for what s/he was going to do anyway: obliterate relevant discourse, arrogate more territory (physical, ideological, economical ), relentlessly pursue greed on all levels, across the spectrum. The confusion you might feel when your gut tells you that not only are you being disingenuously accused, but the accuser doesn’t want the alleged offence to be redressed, is thereby explained. Without anti-Semitism, Zionism is over. Zionists, therefore, affect to be Jews; to be representative of the Jews; and to believe that they are worried that you are hostile to Jews, in order to cloak the Zionist project in the legitimacy it hopes religion will lend its ideology. What, in fact, worries Zionists is that you will not submit to their Jewish-supremacy ideology. 

Obviously, Zionists would be incapable of living up to their own rules, since the logic collapses from all the inherent contradictions. But the double standards and contradictions are necessary to ensure that any application of the rules will result in a finding of anti-Semitism in you. You’re darned if you do, and you’re darned if you don’t. I’m not the first to liken Zionist methods to those used in the Salem witch-hunts. A woman accused of being a witch would, not surprisingly, be found to be a witch if she admitted that she was a witch. Surprisingly, if she denied being a witch that would also be proof of her witchery. Zionists have adopted the same standard of proof – guilt by suspicion. What the IHRA concept boils down to is that criticism of racism committed by a Jewish person is racist for criticising a Jew, and you are guilty if suspected. 

Using the IHRA concept of anti-Semitism, the guilt-by-suspicion standard of proof, and a large trawling net with very fine mesh, every analysis of anything remotely connected with Zionist interests can be moulded into anti-Semitism. There is a lot of training and coaching going into keeping Zionism’s enforcers focused on flooding people’s minds with analysis-preempting slogans and disinformation. Contact your local fishing chapter for training and excursions.

4. No more! Standing firm in the face of language pre-emption laws 

We must be firm in the face of laws that seek to manage our perceptions and our ability to express them, laws that deprive us of permission to narrate our present and our past as we go along.  

It is important to stop playing into the hands of Zionists, who have no intention of solving anything but whose aim is to perpetualise conflict as a means of providing “reasons” to “defend” itself in everlasting wars. 

Zionism uses the anti-Semite slur simply because it has been proven to work in causing people to react with fear and subservience, starting each discussion so far in reverse that it never gets to the point. When attacked, we need to restart the narrative, rather than reflexively respond. Start by framing the relevant issues ourselves, rather than reacting as Zionist accusers have calculated that we will, rather than jumping through their hoops explaining that we are not anti-Semitic… The issue is, usually, that someone is trying to project their racism and support for genocide onto you. They attempt to confuse you and any audience present into thinking that they are interested in supporting human rights and freedoms. A Zionist supporting human rights? Who’s? As for the claim that they are protecting the Jews, what could possibly be more dangerous for the Jews than the way Zionists carry on in Palestine and all over the world? Only the fact that Zionists claim to be doing it in the name of the Jews. 

What language pre-emption laws 19 and history laws (such as the “Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion”20) achieve is to pre-empt discourse, in favour of the worst oppressors around: the Zionist movement. While the official “Holocaust Denial” document, posted by IHRA, is displayed beside a picture of documents referring to genocides against the Roma and others, the “Holocaust Denial” document itself recognizes only the part of THE holocaust that concerns the Jews. Again, in IHRA’s world such reduction of non-Jewish suffering to a matter of no mention does not qualify as an offense.

One could object that IHRA-concepts are not laws, and that the assemblies that adopted these oppressive tools were only “IHRA’s Plenary meeting in Toronto, or Budapest.” But those are not valid objections, at least not anymore. If it rules us, if violating it carries severe civil and criminal penalties, it is a law. A law stronger than our national laws, for it rules them. A law that rules our governments, for it is stronger than our governments. Why is IHRA stronger than International law and the nation states that derive their legitimacy from international law?Because of its terror networks that enforce severe penalties on individuals in contempt of national and international legal systems. Is Britain a democracy? You do the math.

While the IHRA documents, seen separately and out of context, are inane, to the point that it is hard not to smile when one reads them, their impact as tools of oppression is certainly not amusing. Since I insist on the right to think, I oppose Zionists’ exclusive right to the silly abbreviation IHRA. I reserve the right to describe “IHRA” as Inquisition-enforcers’ Horrific Raid on Analysis. I use the silly moniker to describe the unbelievable ongoing attempts to ban all analysis based in fact and relevance, in relation to any Zionist interest. Having failed to convince “Western” governments to have our intellects surgically removed,21 IHRA-revellers might believe they have now instead been successful in arrogating the right to enforce language. But…

Perception management and other discourse controlwill continue for as long as we allow the status quo. In today’s society, relevant discourse is revolutionary. Let’s not submit to that situation any longer. Let’s oppose Inquisition-enforcers’ Horrific Raid on Analysis. Let’s have a peace jihad.22 Let’s talk! And to Zionism, let’s say “NO MORE!”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email