ZGram - 8/2/2004 - "Let's decide what is and isn't 'anti-semitism'"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

August 2, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

The excerpt below is from a much longer private post that dealt with 
whether or not Jewish censorship should be permitted in a private 
Internet newsgroup.  One of its members tried to criticism against 
Jews and Israel via the well-known and most expedient accusation of 
anti-semitism.  About a dozen people weighed in, one of them a fellow 
named Noel Ignatiev.  Here is his (slightly shortened) insightful 
comment:

[Start]

I do not like the term "antisemitism" (with or without hyphens or 
capital letters); it has come to mean anything from opposition to a 
Jewish State to an aversion to chicken fat to a desire to send 
millions to death camps. Precision in thought demands precision in 
language. For the moment I will employ the term. However, in the 
interests of clarity, I suggest that those who wish to use it 
restrict it to mean only one thing: hating and desiring to harm 
people for no reason other than that they are deemed to be Jews, with 
or without their consent.

Definitions are not right or wrong; they are useful or not useful. 
According to my strict construction, the following acts do not 
constitute antisemitism: 

*	questioning the truth of various accounts of the "holocaust," 
including the claim that there existed during World War II a 
conscious plan, authorized at the highest levels of the German State, 
to exterminate Jews; 

*	postulating the existence of a lobby in the U.S., Britain, 
etc. which depends on the support of Jews, and examining the role of 
that lobby in shaping policy in those countries, both toward the 
Middle East and on other issues, for instance college admissions 
policies; 

*	noting the ownership and control of the New York Times, 
Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, ABC, CBS, NBC, and 
Time-Warner by people who call themselves Jews as a factor in shaping 
U.S. public opinion on the Middle East and other issues; 

*	saying that Jews reacted defensively to the accusations 
against Captain Dreyfus; 

*	asking whether there exist proclivities among Jews -- not 
necessarily embracing all Jews -- to act in certain ways that are 
distinctive; 

*	asking whether there is something distinctive in the history 
of the Jews that could explain such proclivities; 

*	looking at the Judaic religion as a possible source of such 
proclivities; 

*	attributing to Jews various provocations, including the 
bombing of synagogues in various countries and other acts designed to 
discredit the opposition to Zionism; 

*	saying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion accurately 
depicted patterns of conduct widespread among Jews;

*	saying that white nationalist ideology is in part a reaction 
to certain behavior patterns widespread among Jews. 

*	denouncing Jewish arrogance; 

*	asserting that G-d is antisemitic. 

*	Et cetera.

You get the idea. Any or all of the above statements and lines of 
inquiry may be criticized, argued over, and discredited, but they do 
not, either singly or all together, constitute antisemitism (setting 
aside my reservations about that term). 

What do people think of my definition? If they do not find it useful, 
would they please offer a more useful one (not a series of 
accusations, but a definition)?

There is no need for a special term for hatred of Jews, any more than 
for hatred of Poles, or Italians, or Irish. Therefore, I now withdraw 
my temporary assent to the term "antisemitism." While I do not 
propose to introduce a motion to ban its use, I pledge not to use it 
in the future, and call upon others to do likewise.

This issue reminds me of the controversy over "hate-crime" 
legislation: every time someone commits an atrocity against a black 
person or a homosexual in America, the liberals demand new 
legislation against "hate-crimes," forgetting that there already 
exist laws against murder and assault.

[END]