By Fernando Guevara*

This is a follow-up to an article I published on Redress Information & Analysis a couple of years ago.

When a Zionist organisation 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. 

One very powerful Zionist terror organisation is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The IHRA has adopted a completely non-sensical, void-for-vagueness, non-definition concept of “anti-Semitism” that covers all resistance to any Zionist or Israeli interest or aspiration. IHRA uses it to beat down opposition very vigorously. IHRA has stated that, in May 2016, the IHRA’s plenary in Bucharest decided to adopt the following “non-legally-binding working definition” of anti-Semitism:

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

What does the IHRA “definition” mean? 

“a certain perception” = some/any – undefined – perception “may” = here: might  “Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property” = anybody/somebody and/or something

In other words: anti-Semitism is any – undefined – perception of Jews that might, or might not, be expressed as hatred towards Jews, and is directed towards somebody or something, or towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.  

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.

In spite of this more limited concept, I found myself frequently referring to the examples of anti-Semitic behaviour provided in the IHRA document, to guide IHRA in its enforcement endeavours. Examples include statements along the lines of: denying that the scope/number of Jews exterminated in the German holocaust is sacrosanct and set in steel(the number stated is usually 6 million); accusing Israel of exaggerating THE Holocaust; claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour [it doesn’t give IHRA pause for thought that everybody in their right mind, including Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, sees Israel as an apartheid state]; applying double standards to Israel by requiring of Israel a behaviour not demanded of any “other democratic” nation; drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis [the term “policy” to describe ethnic cleansing is interesting]. In IHRA’s world, denying the significance of all other holocausts, in favour of THE Holocaust, does not qualify as holocaust denial. Such reduction of non-Jewish suffering to a matter of no mention does not constitute an offence. While the official “Holocaust Denial” document has been displayed by IHRA beside a picture of documents concerning genocides against the Roma and others, the “Holocaust Denial” document itself discusses only the part of THE Holocaust that concerns the Jews. 

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). Note that while the IHRA’s “definition” of anti-Semitism is non-legally-binding, a breach of its suggestions might carry criminal responsibility. 

Stephen Sedley, former Lord Justice of Appeal, Judge ad hoc of the European Court of Human Rights and past visiting Professor of Law, Oxford University, has made some interesting observations about the IHRA concept of anti-Semitism. Noting that the IHRA is a shadowy organisation, Judge Sedley addressed the genesis of its “working definition”:

Although the IHRA is a publicly-funded intergovernmental body, based in Berlin, it publishes no minutes and does not reveal who attends its meetings. Among its first member-states were the US, the UK and Israel. Recent research, however, has established that the “definition” adopted by the IHRA’s Bucharest plenary in 2016 constituted only of the two initial sentences, taken from an abandoned document produced by a European predecessor body. (emphasis added).

As noted above, the first sentence is “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” Judge Sedley points out that the second sentence 

elaborates the possible reach of ‘rhetorical and physical manifestations of’ anti-Semitism but adds nothing by way of further definition. How then has the supposed IHRA definition come to include such examples as ‘the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity’ and ‘denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour’?… So far as can be ascertained, the grafting on of the list of examples was the work of representatives of two uncompromisingly pro-Israel organisations, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the American Jewish Committee. There appears to be no evidence that the list was ever adopted by a plenary meeting of the IHRA. (emphasis added). 

Nevertheless, the British Labour Party has adopted this “definition”, and has used it to suspend or expel hundreds of its own members because they mulishly insisted that human values are universal. In a single day, 25 members were expelled, on trumped-up charges of anti-Semitism. According to the BBC, the British Labour Party received 673 allegations of anti-Jewish hate by its members between April 2018 and January 2019 alone. The same source indicated that 211 of the allegations resulted in suspensions, but only 12 members were immediately expelled. David Edwards and David Cromwell have noted that it is remarkable how far into the past of (the now unseated) Jeremy Corbyn his detractors would go in search of signs of racism (alleged anti-Semitism) “when a far more lethal form of prejudice is clearly informing current US-UK foreign policy devastating entire countries”. One can only speculate on what levels of threat went on behind closed doors. 

At present, all Scottish politiciansappear to be experiencing attacks similar to those that have eviscerated the core value of non-racism from the UK Labour Party over the past several years. In a 12 September article entitled “Tories call for Greens to be removed from government after concerns by Jewish community,” Gina Davidson of the Scotsman newspaper reports that Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon “has been urged to ensure her two Scottish Green ministers sign up to a globally-recognised definition of anti-semitism, or remove them from her government” (By Gina Davidson. According to the Scotsman, “Jewish groups expressed their concerns that the Scottish Green Party refuses to endorse the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and had also voted in favour of a motion describing Israel as a ‘racist state’ based on ‘Jewish supremacy’ and calling Zionism a racist endeavour’” [as Orwell or someone else noted: During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act]. “Scottish Conservative MSP for Eastwood, Jackson Carlaw, said: ‘If the Green party won’t sign up to a globally recognised position on anti-Semitism, backed by every other party in Scotland, they’re not fit to serve in the Scottish government… “The Greens, especially their government ministers, must endorse this mainstream position or be removed from office. Their views are beyond radical. They are downright dangerous… Nicola Sturgeon cannot turn a blind eye to this extreme view held by her new coalition partners… Scotland’s Jewish communities will be aghast if Nicola Sturgeon is willing to tolerate such extreme views in her government. She must act immediately’” (emphasis added). In other words, emboldened by what happened to the UK Labour Party, Scottish Zionists launched this call to action against all Scottish politicians! 

The Scotsman reports that, asked if the Scottish Greens could continue in [Nicola Sturgeon’s] government if they don’t accept the IHRA definition, she said: “They are in my government.”It is frightening to see, however, that what appeared to be the First Minister’s initial resolve seems to have weakened in the face of Zionist terror. The Scotsman reveals that, when asked about the Greens’ position on the IHRA, the First MInister stated: ”I would hope everyone would sign up to the [IHRA] definition” (emphasis added).

The Scotsman reports that “Sammy Stein, the chair of Glasgow Friends of Israel, said it was “very concerning” that there were now ministers with “such extremist views towards the state of Israel and Zionism… It would be important to know how long the FM [First Minister] will give the two Greens to adopt and agree to the Scottish government’s position on the definition of anti-Semitism’” (emphasis added). Eventual complicity is presumed; the question is only how long it will take. Again, one can only speculate on what goes on in the background. 

Here is an update from the United States, where Zionists have terrorised Congress members to get an extra $1 billion funding for the missile project named Iron Dome, calling everyone who opposes the agenda an “anti-Semite”. The extra $1 billion was snuck into a short-term government spending bill, and is in addition to the $3.8 billion in US taxpayer money that Israel already gets every year. The extra billion was to replenish the Iron Dome project. Earlier this week, progressive House members were able to temporarily halt the additional billion for Iron Dome funding. Mondoweiss reports, however, that a group of rabidly pro-Israel Democrats emerged to secure Israel’s extra billion via a separate vote. 

Republican Ritchie Torres tweeted: “A missile defence system (i.e. Iron Dome) defends [Israeli] civilians from missiles. Hence the name. Only in a morally inverted universe would this be considered a “controversy”. (emphasis added). The arrogance of using the expression “inverted universe” shows just how much Zionists have become accustomed to bulldozing normal human reactions in their attempts to beat people’s minds into the Zionist way of thinking; Zionists frequently invert reality and project the inversions onto their opponents. 

Democrat Rashida Tlaib pointed out that no one ever talks about how Palestinians should be protected from Israel’s bombs. She commented from the House floor: “We cannot only be talking about Israelis’ need for safety at a time when Palestinians are living under a violent apartheid system and… dying.” She added: “We should also be talking about the Palestinian need for security from Israeli attacks. We must be consistent in our commitment to human life. Period” (emphasis added). 

Democrat Josh Gottheimer said that the Iron Dome “protects innocent civilians in Israel from terrorist attacks … We must stand by our historic ally — the only democracy in the Middle East” (emphasis added). 

Democrat Ted Deutch said: “I cannot allow one of my colleagues [Rashida Tlaib] to stand on floor of House and label Jewish democratic state of Israel an apartheid state” (emphasis added). Did you just hear yourself, Mr Deutch? Which is it, Jewish state, or democratic state? You can’t have it both ways. How about a white democracy in the US?

The unmitigated gall of Zionist terror is now unmatched by anything other than their desperation; Zionists everywhere are getting desperate – at the exact same pace as the world population is getting wise to what is going on in Palestine and what Zionism has always been about. 

The way the term “anti-Semitism”is used often implies that it 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” (goyim, or gentiles). Double standards and contradictions are necessary to ensure that any application of Zionist rules will result in a finding of “anti-Semitism”– in you, but not in them. Zionists may treat Jews as separate from everyone else, while you would be anti-Semitic for doing the same. 

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. You’re darned if you do, and you’re darned if you don’t. Zionists have adopted the same standard of proof – guilt by suspicion. Under the Zionist concept, criticism of racism committed by a person who identifies as Jewish is racist for criticising a Jew, and you are guilty if suspected. For example, the new British Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, has said: “I made it clear that we would not support anti-Semitism or the denial of anti-Semitism through the suggestion that it is exaggerated or factional”. Starmer’s statement was made in the course of the persecution of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbin. The intellectual dishonesty of contrived 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 Zionists to find manifestations of anti-Semitism serves as a smoke screen for the fact that the finding is not only welcomed, and therefore invited, but necessary in order to provide an excuse to attack anyone who criticises Zionist aspirations. Without contrived anti-Semitism, Zionism is over. 

Therefore, 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 adept at flooding people’s minds with analysis-preempting slogans and disinformation. Contact your local fishing chapter for training and excursions.

---

*Fernando Guevara can be reached at Fernandoguevara2019@yahoo.com