Why does the left downplay antisemitism? All forms of racism should be abhorred

Is antisemitism towards Jews in the Australian diaspora ‘understandable’ because of our link to Israel? As long as those on the left entertain this notion, they dishonour their values.
There is a famous saying in Jewish culture that neatly summarises the history of the Jewish people and the rituals associated with our tradition: “They tried to kill us, we survived, now let’s eat.”

Easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, one of the defining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical (and modern) antisemitism. The festival of Purim, held a fortnight ago, tells the story of Haman’s attempted genocide of the Persian Jewish community. Somewhat more well-known in popular culture are the festivals of Passover and Hanukkah, which celebrate the liberation of Jews from the Egyptian and Greek empires.
Since the 1950s, we have commemorated Yom Hashoa, the Jewish day of remembrance for the Holocaust. Unlike the more historical festivals of liberation and survival, there is no great overriding sense of joy; nor is there a celebratory meal attached to it.

In light of this history, it is little surprise that many Jews had a significant relationship with the left for many years. An oppressed and marginalised people for so long, Jews have a natural political affinity with values like freedom of expression, equality, multiculturalism and, certainly, anti-racism. The concept of Jewish self-determination, Zionism, saw itself as a fundamentally left-wing movement in its inception.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, antisemitism was impossible to ignore and became a central concern of the global left, but Julian Burnside encapsulated the contemporary shift in thinking when he wrote in the Guardian that “Islamophobia is the new antisemitism”, implying, as many often do, that the old antisemitism has been superseded.

It hasn’t. Last Wednesday, a lecture at the University of Sydney by retired British Colonel Richard Kemp became the scene of a heated protest. Kemp was accused of supporting genocide, and, during the fracas, noted Australian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate Professor Jake Lynch was filmed waving money in the faces of an elderly Jewish women and the Jewish student trying to prevent the two from coming to blows.

Lynch explained his actions as a response to having been kicked, saying it was a warning that he would sue, and described his restraint as “almost heroic”, though his account has been disputed by witnesses, with Kemp claiming that the woman was attempting to push Lynch away, who initiated the contact.

Irrespective of who struck first, the image of a leftwing academic brandishing money in the faces of Jewish people clearly evokes the crude antisemitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money and perhaps neatly encapsulates the shift of the left away from Jews.

Whatever Lynch’s excuses or reasoning, and the elderly woman’s behaviour, it was clearly an offensive and provocative gesture, reasonably likely to offend the Jewish community. In the past, a leftwing professor would surely have anticipated this, but the reality is that antisemitism today is not as pressing an issue to progressives as it once was.

Instead we have a new set of attitudes towards antisemitism: that it is of lesser importance in the west than other forms of racism, like Islamophobia; that it is no longer a serious threat to diaspora Jews; and that the gravity of its existence is diminished because of the existence and behaviour of Israel.

The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are ample proof that antisemitism still poses a threat to Jews in the west, especially in light of new recordings from Paris confirming definitively that the gunman targeted Jews. In France, Jews make up 1% of the population yet suffer half of all racist attacks. In Australia, 2014 saw a massive increase in reported antisemitism, including physical attacks in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

But Jews should not be required to parade our suffering, historical or contemporary, in a competition for attention with other forms of racism. Nor should we be expected to tolerate the constant appearance of antisemitic language and imagery at prominent anti-Israel rallies, which does seem to show that the use of antisemitic symbols and language in the west is seen as less threatening, or perhaps “understandable”, when connected with Israel.

That attitude was shown by leftwing Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes’ astonishing performance on a recent episode of the ABC’s Q&A programme. Answering a straightforward question on whether antisemitism garners as much sympathy as Islamophobia, Margolyes’ response was to bring up Israel’s “evil” actions in Gaza as a likely cause of antisemitism. Her solution was for Australians to see that “not all Jews behave in the way Israelis are doing” – suggesting all the Jew has to do is denounce Israel loudly enough, or perhaps wear a sign, that indicates that we aren’t all “evil” like Israelis are, to avoid being victimised.

Ironically, it sounds remarkably like a demand so often made of Muslims. As Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said a week earlier, “I wish more Muslim leaders would say [they are a religion of peace] more often and mean it.” Abbott’s comments were widely denounced by the left and rightfully so, but Margolyes’ comments were not objected to, they were applauded by many in the audience and online.

It is surely obvious that mitigating bigotry or racism with victim-blaming is wrong regardless of the victim’s ethnic or religious background. Yet it persists in some left-wing circles that Jews are the exception to this rule – our communal connection to Israel makes us somehow more legitimate targets, unless we denounce the Jewish state.
The problem with this notion is twofold – firstly, because Jews do not wear signs declaring our position on Israel. A proud Zionist Jew can just as easily be targeted at a kosher supermarket as an anti-Zionist one. More than that though, why should we have a duty to detach ourselves from a vital aspect of our cultural identity to avoid victimisation?
The reality is that we are human beings with complex identities, defined by a wide range of societal, communal and ethnic influences. Must we carry the burden of answering for all of Israel’s actions because we were born Jewish? And are we so unlike other ethnic cultures that care for the safety and security of our relatives abroad, that we can be painted as immoral for not abstracting ourselves from their threatened existence?
In a political climate where fear is a weapon as much as a state of mind, where innocence isn’t automatically assumed, and where wars and foreign affairs can fuel prejudice at home, it is natural that many take great steps to defend embattled Muslim communities from the risk of dangerous incitement. In doing so, they recognise that Muslims deserve to have their rights – freedom of association, of safety, of speech – protected, if necessary by the state.
They also recognise that self-determination of cultural and national identity is not something we can impose on other people. Those rights and understandings must be equally extended to Jews without the expectation that we must first denounce Israel, fight it, answer for it, or be ashamed by it.

Even before the Kemp lecture, the student protesters Lynch became involved with declared that they were there to defend Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the extremist group which has been exposed as having spread antisemitic propaganda and incitement against Jews on the streets of Sydney. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, whatever their legal status, cannot be defended by any genuine anti-racist. If the radical left with which Lynch and his fellow protesters are affiliated are prepared to defend their civil rights, they must not excuse their anti-Jewish racism – a duty of which they have thus far failed.

When progressives downplay or diminish the threat of antisemitism in the diaspora because of Israel – or, worse, fuel it – they do not extend to us those equal rights they purport to stand for. Progressives do more than dishonouring their values in this case, they diminish the unique history of Jews in Australian (and western) society, failing to acknowledge and defend us as equal, regardless of our relationship with or opinions about Israel.

The left must act to repair its straining relationship with Jews and once again take up opposition to antisemitism as its cause. Antisemitism is, like all forms of racism, to be abhorred and condemned unequivocally, not reduced and marginalised by games of comparison and mitigation. It is not a partisan issue and it cannot be up to the right to own the unqualified outrage it deservedly generates. The left, and the values it holds, are far too proud and dear to our hearts for that.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/why-does-the-left-ignore-antisemitism-all-forms-of-racism-should-be-abhorred


Brilliant article backing up exactly what I have been saying in regards to the hate directed at Israel. Again much of the rhetoric now is beyond criticism and is now just pure hate. People need to reaslise what they are doing when not only do some peddle countless lies againstg Israel, thus furthering antisemitism towards Jews. The anger and criticism is directed at Israel and not its head officials. Britain was not at fault for Iraq, the then Labour Government was, because no member of the public got to vote on this. Yet the view has been made by Islamic extremists that it is the British people and the view is it is the British people that invaded Iraq. Some of these far left extremists though throw up some of the worst racism I have seen in a long time. I do not make all Muslims culpable for the extremists, I sperate them on their ideologies and political beliefs, I wil be critical of bad ideas in their religion, but have defended many innocent Muslims and still do from against thuse who attempt to make them culpable. The far right use this tactic and yet how odd is it that that the far left do the same absurd reasoning on to Jews. The far left do not even recognise or wish to recognise Israel as a state, they want to see it also cease to exist, because they buy into poor lies formulated on history. Genuine criticism is fine, or showing your disfavour, anger etc with the Israeli Governemnt and its policies, direct that venom against them, not the people of Israel. The way forward is a two way state solution and why we need to be more vocal against these far left who are anti-semitic.



New antisemitism

A new phenomenon

Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":^[13]

• Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
  
• Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
  
• Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
  
• Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
  
• Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.^[vague]
  
• Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
  
• Holocaust denial
  
• Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
  
• International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena"): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.
  

Cotler argues that classical antisemitism is discrimination against Jews as individuals whereas the new antisemitism, in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism is the same – an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time." This discrimination is hard to measure, because the indices governments tend to use to detect discrimination – such as standard of living, housing, health and employment – are useful only in measuring discrimination against individuals. Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show that the concept is a valid one. Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "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"."
Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."
Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.^[17] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."^[18]
The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that antisemitism based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the identification of Zionism with racism; the use of material related to Holocaust denial (such as doubts about the number of victims and allegations that there is a "Holocaust industry"); a discourse borrowed from third worldism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-Americanism and anti-globalization; and the dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian – the innocent victim par excellence."^[19]
In early 2009, 125 parliamentarians from various countries gathered in London for the founding conference of a group called the "Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism" (ICCA). They suggest that while classical antisemitism "overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews

Is disagreeing with the way the have acted with Palestine anti-Semitic ?
it seeing them steal land and get away with it anti-Semitic?


anti-Semitic is defined as
prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group.

personally i don`t hate Jewish people i just hate what they government is doing

korban dallas wrote:Is disagreeing with the way the have acted with Palestine anti-Semitic ?
it seeing them steal land and get away with it anti-Semitic?


anti-Semitic is defined as
prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group.

personally i don`t hate Jewish people i just hate what they government is  doing

Question 1) No

Question 2) No

That is genuine criticism as already pointed out

If only more people followed your stance and belief on the last point. The problem is thougfh as seen the hate directed against the Jews, who receive the highest hate crimes against them in many countries as a religious and ethnic group. Where does this rise and hatred come from?
For one, religious works. Two, wrongly making Jews culpable for the Policies of the Israeli Goverment. 3) Much of the Rhetoric used by the far left, extremist Muslim groups and the far right which incites hate.

korban dallas wrote:Is disagreeing with the way the have acted with Palestine anti-Semitic ?
it seeing them steal land and get away with it anti-Semitic?


anti-Semitic is defined as
prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group.

personally i don`t hate Jewish people i just hate what they government is  doing

Absolutely spot on, and hundreds of thousands of Jewish people feel exactly the same way.  Unfortunately, if they happen to live within Israel, their lives are made hell.


10,000 protest in Tel Aviv for a just peace, end to occupation

Under a coalition of Israeli left-wing political parties and organizations, thousands gathered in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square in the largest anti-war demonstration since the outbreak of violence in Gaza.

Some 10,000 Israelis flooded Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square under the slogan “Changing direction: toward peace, away from war” in the largest anti-Gaza war demonstration in Israel since the outbreak of hostilities more than one month ago.


Thousands gather at a pro-peace rally in Tel Aviv, calling for a just peace and an end to violence in Gaza, Tel Aviv, August 16, 2014.

The protest was scheduled to take place last week, but was postponed after the police and Home Front Command revoked its permit, ostensibly to stop large gatherings during a time when missiles were being fired at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities. Roughly 500 non-aligned activists flooded Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square anyway, in defiance of the ban.

The major left-wing parties, including Meretz and Hadash, as well as Peace Now and other left-wing organizations, joined tonight’s demonstration, calling for a wide range of demands, from continuing negotiations between Israel and Hamas to an end to the occupation and Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Many who have demonstrated throughout the past weeks of hostilities expressed disappointment at Meretz and Peace Now for their refusal to support anti-war demonstrations until now.

Meretz MK Zehava Gal’on addressed the protest, affirming that her party was against the Israeli military operation in Gaza all along. She lashed out at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not immediately recognizing the Palestinian unity deal and instead choosing war.

To large applause, Hadash MK Mohammad Barakeh stated in Hebrew and Arabic, “We are building a partnership against the occupation, for a free Palestine.” He continued, “We are here for a two-state solution, for life and a future for people in Gaza and the South.”

Famed Israeli author David Grossman addressed the large crowd, saying, “We won’t be able to breathe deeply in Israel as long as people in Gaza feel choked,” adding, “We will always be neighbors with people in Gaza. We must live together.”

Naomi Tzion, a resident of Sderot, called on the crowd to think of those in Gaza who have now been made refugees twice or thrice, adding, ”The true spitting in the face of the residents of Sderot? The attempts to paint us all as a single stereotyped collective.” Gaza is “the biggest jail in the world,” she continued.

Along with anti-war sentiment, protesters expressed their anger at the Israeli government for its lack of leadership, chanting “Bibi, go home!”

According to the protest organizers, the demonstration was organized to send the following message to Israel’s political leaders:

   The next round of fighting can be prevented. No to the way of wars – we must have a political solution! After an agonizing month of war and death, in the face of mounting waves of incitement and hatred, which increasingly tear up the Israeli society, we stand up to demonstrate for peace and for democracy.

The rally at Rabin Square came two days after another demonstration was held to express solidarity with the residents of communities along the Gaza border.

http://972mag.com/10000-protest-in-tel-aviv-for-a-just-peace-end-to-occupation/95569/


And this is what they have to put up with for speaking out:


'Unprecedented' violence stalks anti-war demos across Israel

The recent demonstrations in Tel Aviv and Haifa against the Gaza war have largely failed to reach the global media. And while the end of the bloodshed still seems far from sight, there is a different, violent confrontation being held inside Israel – one that targets Arab citizens and left-wing activists on the internet, and uses physical violence against anti-war demonstrators.

The second weekend of Operation Protective Edge saw the first bout of physical violence at Habima Square – the cultural heart of Tel Aviv. At around 8 p.m. a crowd of several hundred people gathered to protest against Operation Protective Edge, and called for a ceasefire. A second small group, comprised largely of teens and young adults draped in Israeli flags, began harassing the anti-war demonstrators, shouting slogans against their protest and accusing them of treason. The protest got tense as the right-wingers became physically violent.

A few minutes after 9 p.m., air raid sirens began blaring after Hamas shot multiple long-range rockets at Tel Aviv. The leftist protest scattered to find shelter, while the rightists chased them into dark alleys and cafes, where several leftists were beaten. Shortly after, +972’s Haggai Matar wrote the following: “When the sirens sounded into the night, only one thing was obvious to all of us: the fascists in front of us are more dangerous than the rockets on the way.”

The scene was later described by the new, self-ordained nationalist leader – a long forgotten ex-rapper who goes by the name of “The Shadow” (HaTzel). He wrote the following on his Facebook profile shortly after the protest:

   We started with three people against their 800, and finished with 350 of ours and zero of them. It was crazy to do it all with sirens in the background and explosions in the sky.

Haifa, July 16-17

A city with a mixed population of Jews and Arabs, Haifa is known as a bastion of Jewish-Arab coexistence. (In the past it was referred to as “Red Haifa” for its blue-collar port and industry working class politics.) Haifa has held regular Saturday night demonstrations since the beginning of the assault. The July 16 protest was organized by the Balad party and Abna’a Al-Balad – a secular Palestinian movement in Israel – and included prominent Arab political figures such as Knesset members Hanin Zoabi and Jamal Zehalka, both of whom are hated by the general non-Arabic public.

The demonstrators marched and chanted slogans through the streets of the Wadi Nisnas and the German colony neighborhoods, before violence erupted between the protesters and police forces, resulting in 40 arrests. The following day, Hadash, the Arab-Jewish socialist party, held a joint demonstration against the Gaza war as well as against the arrests. In response, leading figures of the far-right, including Kahanist activist Baruch Marzel, called on supporters to attend and “take a stand” against the anti-war demonstration.

The police did not take any chances this time; helicopters hovered above Mount Carmel, police officers on horseback guarded the main entrances to the protest, and a large vehicle equipped with a water cannon was station across the road. The anti-war demonstrators numbered no more than 300, while at least 1,000 counter-protesters stood on the other side of Moriya Avenue. Police presence was heavy and kept the two sides at bay. The rightists yelled slogans such as “Go to Gaza,” “Death to Arabs,” and “Death to leftists.” Water bottles and stones were thrown at the Arabs and Jews who stood together and yelled “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies.”

Young men in their 20s roamed the main road leading to the protest. They were hooligans; we had never seen them in Haifa before. This wasn’t only hostile ground for Arabs, it was hostile to anyone who is not committed to the war effort. When the left-wing protest dispersed and buses began to load people back to their homes, the mob got out of control. They started again chasing and beating leftists, including women and elderly people. The police then used water cannons and stun grenades to disperse the rioters; at least 30 people were injured.

Tel Aviv, July 26

It took three weeks before the anti-war camp slowly materialized. After the events in Haifa, organizers put together an event to be held in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square – where 400,000 people once demonstrated against the Lebanon war in the 1982. Thousands were expected. Three hours before the event, just as people from all across the country were making their way to Tel Aviv in the heavy Saturday evening traffic, the police announced that it was canceling the protest for security reasons, because was slated to coincide with the end of the humanitarian ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. However, the police reversed its decision one hour later. Between 4,000 and 5,000 protesters came to Rabin Square, with hundreds on the nationalist side. The latter were supported by many passersby on the street, who shouted and harassed the leftists.

The demonstration was once again heavily guarded by police, and the two sides were separated by steel fences. Speeches were made by politicians, as well as by members of Combatants for Peace (former soldiers and militant Palestinians who have since come together to renounce violence). Police dispersed the protest at 10 p.m., a full hour before it was scheduled to end. But the nationalists did not stop there. As demonstrators were leaving the square, several were accosted and attacked by right wingers, some of them wielding metal batons. At least eight people were beaten and needed medical attention, while eight nationalist protesters were detained by police.

WATCH: Anti-war demonstrators square off with right-wingers in Tel Aviv:




http://972mag.com/unprecedented-violence-stalks-anti-war-demos-across-israel/94530/


They have my utmost respect, because the hardest place to protest about what is being done in the West Bank and Gaza is Israel.

Sassy still failing to see she creates and incites antisemitism and how she did not address a single valid point the article made and why is that?
Because she wishes to continue with her campaign of hate with no care as to the reprecusions to the Jewish community. That concept would mean you would make all Muslims cuplable also to crimes like terrorism, based off your methodology

Peace protests are fine, but that will not stop you hate directed at Jews:

So this time Sassy, counter the views madde, as nobody is saying genuine criticism is wrong, so try reading the actual article first and my points it may help.


Why does the left downplay antisemitism? All forms of racism should be abhorred
 by Brasidas Today at 10:06 am


Is antisemitism towards Jews in the Australian diaspora ‘understandable’ because of our link to Israel? As long as those on the left entertain this notion, they dishonour their values.
There is a famous saying in Jewish culture that neatly summarises the history of the Jewish people and the rituals associated with our tradition: “They tried to kill us, we survived, now let’s eat.”

Easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, one of the defining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical (and modern) antisemitism. The festival of Purim, held a fortnight ago, tells the story of Haman’s attempted genocide of the Persian Jewish community. Somewhat more well-known in popular culture are the festivals of Passover and Hanukkah, which celebrate the liberation of Jews from the Egyptian and Greek empires.
Since the 1950s, we have commemorated Yom Hashoa, the Jewish day of remembrance for the Holocaust. Unlike the more historical festivals of liberation and survival, there is no great overriding sense of joy; nor is there a celebratory meal attached to it.

In light of this history, it is little surprise that many Jews had a significant relationship with the left for many years. An oppressed and marginalised people for so long, Jews have a natural political affinity with values like freedom of expression, equality, multiculturalism and, certainly, anti-racism. The concept of Jewish self-determination, Zionism, saw itself as a fundamentally left-wing movement in its inception.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, antisemitism was impossible to ignore and became a central concern of the global left, but Julian Burnside encapsulated the contemporary shift in thinking when he wrote in the Guardian that “Islamophobia is the new antisemitism”, implying, as many often do, that the old antisemitism has been superseded.

It hasn’t. Last Wednesday, a lecture at the University of Sydney by retired British Colonel Richard Kemp became the scene of a heated protest. Kemp was accused of supporting genocide, and, during the fracas, noted Australian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate Professor Jake Lynch was filmed waving money in the faces of an elderly Jewish women and the Jewish student trying to prevent the two from coming to blows.

Lynch explained his actions as a response to having been kicked, saying it was a warning that he would sue, and described his restraint as “almost heroic”, though his account has been disputed by witnesses, with Kemp claiming that the woman was attempting to push Lynch away, who initiated the contact.

Irrespective of who struck first, the image of a leftwing academic brandishing money in the faces of Jewish people clearly evokes the crude antisemitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money and perhaps neatly encapsulates the shift of the left away from Jews.

Whatever Lynch’s excuses or reasoning, and the elderly woman’s behaviour, it was clearly an offensive and provocative gesture, reasonably likely to offend the Jewish community. In the past, a leftwing professor would surely have anticipated this, but the reality is that antisemitism today is not as pressing an issue to progressives as it once was.

Instead we have a new set of attitudes towards antisemitism: that it is of lesser importance in the west than other forms of racism, like Islamophobia; that it is no longer a serious threat to diaspora Jews; and that the gravity of its existence is diminished because of the existence and behaviour of Israel.

The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are ample proof that antisemitism still poses a threat to Jews in the west, especially in light of new recordings from Paris confirming definitively that the gunman targeted Jews. In France, Jews make up 1% of the population yet suffer half of all racist attacks. In Australia, 2014 saw a massive increase in reported antisemitism, including physical attacks in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

But Jews should not be required to parade our suffering, historical or contemporary, in a competition for attention with other forms of racism. Nor should we be expected to tolerate the constant appearance of antisemitic language and imagery at prominent anti-Israel rallies, which does seem to show that the use of antisemitic symbols and language in the west is seen as less threatening, or perhaps “understandable”, when connected with Israel.

That attitude was shown by leftwing Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes’ astonishing performance on a recent episode of the ABC’s Q&A programme. Answering a straightforward question on whether antisemitism garners as much sympathy as Islamophobia, Margolyes’ response was to bring up Israel’s “evil” actions in Gaza as a likely cause of antisemitism. Her solution was for Australians to see that “not all Jews behave in the way Israelis are doing” – suggesting all the Jew has to do is denounce Israel loudly enough, or perhaps wear a sign, that indicates that we aren’t all “evil” like Israelis are, to avoid being victimised.

Ironically, it sounds remarkably like a demand so often made of Muslims. As Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said a week earlier, “I wish more Muslim leaders would say [they are a religion of peace] more often and mean it.” Abbott’s comments were widely denounced by the left and rightfully so, but Margolyes’ comments were not objected to, they were applauded by many in the audience and online.

It is surely obvious that mitigating bigotry or racism with victim-blaming is wrong regardless of the victim’s ethnic or religious background. Yet it persists in some left-wing circles that Jews are the exception to this rule – our communal connection to Israel makes us somehow more legitimate targets, unless we denounce the Jewish state.
The problem with this notion is twofold – firstly, because Jews do not wear signs declaring our position on Israel. A proud Zionist Jew can just as easily be targeted at a kosher supermarket as an anti-Zionist one. More than that though, why should we have a duty to detach ourselves from a vital aspect of our cultural identity to avoid victimisation?
The reality is that we are human beings with complex identities, defined by a wide range of societal, communal and ethnic influences. Must we carry the burden of answering for all of Israel’s actions because we were born Jewish? And are we so unlike other ethnic cultures that care for the safety and security of our relatives abroad, that we can be painted as immoral for not abstracting ourselves from their threatened existence?
In a political climate where fear is a weapon as much as a state of mind, where innocence isn’t automatically assumed, and where wars and foreign affairs can fuel prejudice at home, it is natural that many take great steps to defend embattled Muslim communities from the risk of dangerous incitement. In doing so, they recognise that Muslims deserve to have their rights – freedom of association, of safety, of speech – protected, if necessary by the state.
They also recognise that self-determination of cultural and national identity is not something we can impose on other people. Those rights and understandings must be equally extended to Jews without the expectation that we must first denounce Israel, fight it, answer for it, or be ashamed by it.

Even before the Kemp lecture, the student protesters Lynch became involved with declared that they were there to defend Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the extremist group which has been exposed as having spread antisemitic propaganda and incitement against Jews on the streets of Sydney. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, whatever their legal status, cannot be defended by any genuine anti-racist. If the radical left with which Lynch and his fellow protesters are affiliated are prepared to defend their civil rights, they must not excuse their anti-Jewish racism – a duty of which they have thus far failed.

When progressives downplay or diminish the threat of antisemitism in the diaspora because of Israel – or, worse, fuel it – they do not extend to us those equal rights they purport to stand for. Progressives do more than dishonouring their values in this case, they diminish the unique history of Jews in Australian (and western) society, failing to acknowledge and defend us as equal, regardless of our relationship with or opinions about Israel.

The left must act to repair its straining relationship with Jews and once again take up opposition to antisemitism as its cause. Antisemitism is, like all forms of racism, to be abhorred and condemned unequivocally, not reduced and marginalised by games of comparison and mitigation. It is not a partisan issue and it cannot be up to the right to own the unqualified outrage it deservedly generates. The left, and the values it holds, are far too proud and dear to our hearts for that.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/why-does-the-left-ignore-antisemitism-all-forms-of-racism-should-be-abhorred


Brilliant article backing up exactly what I have been saying in regards to the hate directed at Israel. Again much of the rhetoric now is beyond criticism and is now just pure hate. People need to reaslise what they are doing when not only do some peddle countless lies againstg Israel, thus furthering antisemitism towards Jews. The anger and criticism is directed at Israel and not its head officials. Britain was not at fault for Iraq, the then Labour Government was, because no member of the public got to vote on this. Yet the view has been made by Islamic extremists that it is the British people and the view is it is the British people that invaded Iraq. Some of these far left extremists though throw up some of the worst racism I have seen in a long time. I do not make all Muslims culpable for the extremists, I sperate them on their ideologies and political beliefs, I wil be critical of bad ideas in their religion, but have defended many innocent Muslims and still do from against thuse who attempt to make them culpable. The far right use this tactic and yet how odd is it that that the far left do the same absurd reasoning on to Jews. The far left do not even recognise or wish to recognise Israel as a state, they want to see it also cease to exist, because they buy into poor lies formulated on history. Genuine criticism is fine, or showing your disfavour, anger etc with the Israeli Governemnt and its policies, direct that venom against them, not the people of Israel. The way forward is a two way state solution and why we need to be more vocal against these far left who are anti-semitic.



New antisemitism

A new phenomenon

Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":^[13]

• Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
  
  
• Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
  
  
• Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
  
  
• Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
  
  
• Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.^[vague]
  
  
• Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
  
  
• Holocaust denial
  
  
• Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
  
  
• International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena"): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.
  
  

Cotler argues that classical antisemitism is discrimination against Jews as individuals whereas the new antisemitism, in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism is the same – an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time." This discrimination is hard to measure, because the indices governments tend to use to detect discrimination – such as standard of living, housing, health and employment – are useful only in measuring discrimination against individuals. Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show that the concept is a valid one. Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "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"."
Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."
Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.^[17] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."^[18]
The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that antisemitism based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the identification of Zionism with racism; the use of material related to Holocaust denial (such as doubts about the number of victims and allegations that there is a "Holocaust industry"); a discourse borrowed from third worldism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-Americanism and anti-globalization; and the dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian – the innocent victim par excellence."^[19]
In early 2009, 125 parliamentarians from various countries gathered in London for the founding conference of a group called the "Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism" (ICCA). They suggest that while classical antisemitism "overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews

I can show you many Jews who are political, ideological and economic antisemites, proving how ridiculous those definitions are.

Frankly, these new definitions are an act of desperation from a movement (Zionism) on its dying legs.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I can show you many Jews who are political, ideological and economic antisemites, proving how ridiculous those definitions are.

Frankly, these new definitions are an act of desperation from a movement (Zionism) on its dying legs.

The above would also be very racist if some of the writers on this were not Jews, would you not say, because again you are making now another view of jews to be basically lying?
So individuality ios now a bases for a collective argument against Jews then Zack.
You see, when faced with the fact you and many others are promoting hate which is absolutely connected to hate generated against the Jews.
I would stick to criticism if I were you.
There is no deserpation here, you just cannot grasp the methodology behind discrmination and racism.
I understand the parameters around discr ination and racism. Many Muslims are badly judged off what some other Muslims do, neglecting to understand the different ideologies, let alone, of those who only support and would not commit violence. The fact is in France over the last couple of years terrorist murders have been committed on Jews by Muslim extremists. They take the view Israel has no right to exist and to wipe out the Jews.
So lets ask yourself and Sassy and few questions.

Do you believe in the statehood of Israel?
Do you believe in the statehood of Palestine?
Do you believe both can have nations?

Try reading the article again, and actually counter the points he made.
Last if not least

By your methodology on new definitions, "you" must think then Islamophobia is a joke then?


The main article was bang on the money and why it is fine to be critical of bad ideas in religions and political groups, but as seen those on the far left and far right target minority groups (Jews and Muslims) with the same methods of hate, distortions of the truth, inciting others to hate and violence.

One of the experts details below who gave the following views above:

Human rights activity

Cotler has served on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and its sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development, as well as on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In 2000, he was appointed special advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the International Criminal Court.
He is considered an expert on international law and human rights law. As an international human rights lawyer, Cotler served as counsel to former prisoners of conscience Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Jacobo Timmerman in Latin America, Muchtar Pakpahan in Asia, as well as other well known political prisoners and dissidents. Cotler represented Natan Sharansky, who was imprisoned in the Soviet gulag for Jewish activism. After his release, Sharansky went on to become Israeli Deputy Prime Minister.^[3]
Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian democracy activist imprisoned by the Egyptian government, was represented by Cotler and acquitted in 2003. He acted as counsel to Maher Arar during part of Arar's imprisonment and supported demands for a public inquiry. He has also defended both Palestinians and Israelis against their own governments, and participated in a minor role in the Camp David peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.In 1986 he was chief counsel to the Canadian Jewish Congress at the Deschênes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals.
Cotler is on the Board of Advancing Human Rights (NGO).^[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Cotler


So do you wanna argue against his credentials Zack and vastly more experince in this field of Human rights than you could ever hope to achieve?

In June 2011, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jonathan Sacks, said that basis for the new Antisemitism was the 2001 Durban Conference. Rabbi Sacks also said that the new Antisemitism "unites radical Islamists with human-rights NGOs—the right wing and the left wing—against a common enemy, the State of Israel."
In September 2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism of the British Parliament published the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the result of an investigation into whether the belief that the "prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond" that antisemitism had "receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society." was correct. It concluded that "the evidence we received indicates that there has been a reversal of this progress since the year 2000". In defining antisemitism, the Group wrote that it took into account the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report, which was published after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, that, for the purpose of classifying crime by the police, an act is racist if it is defined as such by its victim. It formed the view that, broadly, "any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him is antisemitic" and concluded that, given that, "it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute antisemitism."
The report stated that while some witnesses pointed out that the level of antisemitism experienced by Jews in Britain is lower than that faced by Jewish communities in some other parts of Europe and that the Jewish community is not the only minority community in Britain to experience prejudice and discrimination, that these arguments, provided no comfort to victims of hate and violence, nor should they be used as an excuse to ignore the problem.
The report states that some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for antisemitism, and that the "most worrying discovery" is that antisemitism appears to be entering the mainstream. It argues that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, the report states, traditional antisemitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is "at the core of the 'New Antisemitism', on which so much has been written," adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements

A number of commentators argue that the United Nations has condoned antisemitism. Lawrence Summers, then-president of Harvard University, wrote that the UN's World Conference on Racism failed to condemn human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anywhere in the Arab world, while raising Israel's alleged ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. David Matas, senior counsel to B'nai B'rith Canada, has written that the UN is a forum for antisemitism, citing the example of the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission who claimed in 1997 that Israeli doctors had injected Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. Congressman Steve Chabot told the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 that the commission took "several months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian ambassador that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened bread for Passover.
Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian legal scholar who addressed the UN about its treatment of Israel, argues that the UN hijacks the language of human rights to discriminate and demonize Jews. She writes that over one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations have been directed at Israel. "But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe." a 2008 report on antisemitism from the United States Department of State to the US Congress,

Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices. (...) However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism.

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (superseded in 2007 by the Fundamental Rights Agency) noted an upswing in antisemitic incidents in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and The Netherlands between July 2003 and December 2004. In September 2004, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to ensure that anti-racist criminal law covers antisemitism, and in 2005, the EUMC offered a working definition of antisemitism in an attempt to enable a standard definition to be used for data collection: It defined antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jews and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." The paper included “Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include"

• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;
  
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
  

The EUMC added that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is "similar to that leveled against any other country."





The U.S. State Department's 2004 Report on Global Anti-Semitism identified four sources of rising antisemitism, particularly in Europe:

• "Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice... This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."
  
• "Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."
  
• "Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."
  
• "Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."
  

In July 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Antisemitism report that declared that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism." At the time, the Commission also announced that antisemitism is a "serious problem" on many campuses throughout the United States.
In September 2006, Yale University announced that it had established the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, the first university-based institute in North America dedicated to the study of antisemitism. Charles Small, head of the institute, said in a press release that antisemitism has "reemerged internationally in a manner that many leading scholars and policy makers take seriously ... Increasingly, Jewish communities around the world feel under threat. It's almost like going back into the lab. I think we need to understand the current manifestation of this disease."^[ YIISA has presented several seminars and working papers on the topic, for instance "The Academic and Public Debate Over the Meaning of the 'New Antisemitism'

Brasidas wrote:Is antisemitism towards Jews in the Australian diaspora ‘understandable’ because of our link to Israel? As long as those on the left entertain this notion, they dishonour their values.
There is a famous saying in Jewish culture that neatly summarises the history of the Jewish people and the rituals associated with our tradition: “They tried to kill us, we survived, now let’s eat.”

Easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, one of the defining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical (and modern) antisemitism. The festival of Purim, held a fortnight ago, tells the story of Haman’s attempted genocide of the Persian Jewish community. Somewhat more well-known in popular culture are the festivals of Passover and Hanukkah, which celebrate the liberation of Jews from the Egyptian and Greek empires.
Since the 1950s, we have commemorated Yom Hashoa, the Jewish day of remembrance for the Holocaust. Unlike the more historical festivals of liberation and survival, there is no great overriding sense of joy; nor is there a celebratory meal attached to it.

In light of this history, it is little surprise that many Jews had a significant relationship with the left for many years. An oppressed and marginalised people for so long, Jews have a natural political affinity with values like freedom of expression, equality, multiculturalism and, certainly, anti-racism. The concept of Jewish self-determination, Zionism, saw itself as a fundamentally left-wing movement in its inception.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, antisemitism was impossible to ignore and became a central concern of the global left, but Julian Burnside encapsulated the contemporary shift in thinking when he wrote in the Guardian that “Islamophobia is the new antisemitism”, implying, as many often do, that the old antisemitism has been superseded.

It hasn’t. Last Wednesday, a lecture at the University of Sydney by retired British Colonel Richard Kemp became the scene of a heated protest. Kemp was accused of supporting genocide, and, during the fracas, noted Australian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate Professor Jake Lynch was filmed waving money in the faces of an elderly Jewish women and the Jewish student trying to prevent the two from coming to blows.

Lynch explained his actions as a response to having been kicked, saying it was a warning that he would sue, and described his restraint as “almost heroic”, though his account has been disputed by witnesses, with Kemp claiming that the woman was attempting to push Lynch away, who initiated the contact.

Irrespective of who struck first, the image of a leftwing academic brandishing money in the faces of Jewish people clearly evokes the crude antisemitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money and perhaps neatly encapsulates the shift of the left away from Jews.

Whatever Lynch’s excuses or reasoning, and the elderly woman’s behaviour, it was clearly an offensive and provocative gesture, reasonably likely to offend the Jewish community. In the past, a leftwing professor would surely have anticipated this, but the reality is that antisemitism today is not as pressing an issue to progressives as it once was.

Instead we have a new set of attitudes towards antisemitism: that it is of lesser importance in the west than other forms of racism, like Islamophobia; that it is no longer a serious threat to diaspora Jews; and that the gravity of its existence is diminished because of the existence and behaviour of Israel.

The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are ample proof that antisemitism still poses a threat to Jews in the west, especially in light of new recordings from Paris confirming definitively that the gunman targeted Jews. In France, Jews make up 1% of the population yet suffer half of all racist attacks. In Australia, 2014 saw a massive increase in reported antisemitism, including physical attacks in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

But Jews should not be required to parade our suffering, historical or contemporary, in a competition for attention with other forms of racism. Nor should we be expected to tolerate the constant appearance of antisemitic language and imagery at prominent anti-Israel rallies, which does seem to show that the use of antisemitic symbols and language in the west is seen as less threatening, or perhaps “understandable”, when connected with Israel.

That attitude was shown by leftwing Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes’ astonishing performance on a recent episode of the ABC’s Q&A programme. Answering a straightforward question on whether antisemitism garners as much sympathy as Islamophobia, Margolyes’ response was to bring up Israel’s “evil” actions in Gaza as a likely cause of antisemitism. Her solution was for Australians to see that “not all Jews behave in the way Israelis are doing” – suggesting all the Jew has to do is denounce Israel loudly enough, or perhaps wear a sign, that indicates that we aren’t all “evil” like Israelis are, to avoid being victimised.

Ironically, it sounds remarkably like a demand so often made of Muslims. As Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said a week earlier, “I wish more Muslim leaders would say [they are a religion of peace] more often and mean it.” Abbott’s comments were widely denounced by the left and rightfully so, but Margolyes’ comments were not objected to, they were applauded by many in the audience and online.

It is surely obvious that mitigating bigotry or racism with victim-blaming is wrong regardless of the victim’s ethnic or religious background. Yet it persists in some left-wing circles that Jews are the exception to this rule – our communal connection to Israel makes us somehow more legitimate targets, unless we denounce the Jewish state.
The problem with this notion is twofold – firstly, because Jews do not wear signs declaring our position on Israel. A proud Zionist Jew can just as easily be targeted at a kosher supermarket as an anti-Zionist one. More than that though, why should we have a duty to detach ourselves from a vital aspect of our cultural identity to avoid victimisation?
The reality is that we are human beings with complex identities, defined by a wide range of societal, communal and ethnic influences. Must we carry the burden of answering for all of Israel’s actions because we were born Jewish? And are we so unlike other ethnic cultures that care for the safety and security of our relatives abroad, that we can be painted as immoral for not abstracting ourselves from their threatened existence?
In a political climate where fear is a weapon as much as a state of mind, where innocence isn’t automatically assumed, and where wars and foreign affairs can fuel prejudice at home, it is natural that many take great steps to defend embattled Muslim communities from the risk of dangerous incitement. In doing so, they recognise that Muslims deserve to have their rights – freedom of association, of safety, of speech – protected, if necessary by the state.
They also recognise that self-determination of cultural and national identity is not something we can impose on other people. Those rights and understandings must be equally extended to Jews without the expectation that we must first denounce Israel, fight it, answer for it, or be ashamed by it.

Even before the Kemp lecture, the student protesters Lynch became involved with declared that they were there to defend Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the extremist group which has been exposed as having spread antisemitic propaganda and incitement against Jews on the streets of Sydney. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, whatever their legal status, cannot be defended by any genuine anti-racist. If the radical left with which Lynch and his fellow protesters are affiliated are prepared to defend their civil rights, they must not excuse their anti-Jewish racism – a duty of which they have thus far failed.

When progressives downplay or diminish the threat of antisemitism in the diaspora because of Israel – or, worse, fuel it – they do not extend to us those equal rights they purport to stand for. Progressives do more than dishonouring their values in this case, they diminish the unique history of Jews in Australian (and western) society, failing to acknowledge and defend us as equal, regardless of our relationship with or opinions about Israel.

The left must act to repair its straining relationship with Jews and once again take up opposition to antisemitism as its cause. Antisemitism is, like all forms of racism, to be abhorred and condemned unequivocally, not reduced and marginalised by games of comparison and mitigation. It is not a partisan issue and it cannot be up to the right to own the unqualified outrage it deservedly generates. The left, and the values it holds, are far too proud and dear to our hearts for that.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/why-does-the-left-ignore-antisemitism-all-forms-of-racism-should-be-abhorred


Brilliant article backing up exactly what I have been saying in regards to the hate directed at Israel. Again much of the rhetoric now is beyond criticism and is now just pure hate. People need to reaslise what they are doing when not only do some peddle countless lies againstg Israel, thus furthering antisemitism towards Jews. The anger and criticism is directed at Israel and not its head officials. Britain was not at fault for Iraq, the then Labour Government was, because no member of the public got to vote on this. Yet the view has been made by Islamic extremists that it is the British people and the view is it is the British people that invaded Iraq. Some of these far left extremists though throw up some of the worst racism I have seen in a long time. I do not make all Muslims culpable for the extremists, I sperate them on their ideologies and political beliefs, I wil be critical of bad ideas in their religion, but have defended many innocent Muslims and still do from against thuse who attempt to make them culpable. The far right use this tactic and yet how odd is it that that the far left do the same absurd reasoning on to Jews. The far left do not even recognise or wish to recognise Israel as a state, they want to see it also cease to exist, because they buy into poor lies formulated on history. Genuine criticism is fine, or showing your disfavour, anger etc with the Israeli Governemnt and its policies, direct that venom against them, not the people of Israel. The way forward is a two way state solution and why we need to be more vocal against these far left who are anti-semitic.



New antisemitism

A new phenomenon

Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":^[13]

• Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
  
• Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
  
• Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
  
• Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
  
• Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.^[vague]
  
• Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
  
• Holocaust denial
  
• Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
  
• International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena"): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.
  

Cotler argues that classical antisemitism is discrimination against Jews as individuals whereas the new antisemitism, in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism is the same – an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time." This discrimination is hard to measure, because the indices governments tend to use to detect discrimination – such as standard of living, housing, health and employment – are useful only in measuring discrimination against individuals. Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show that the concept is a valid one. Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "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"."
Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."
Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.^[17] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."^[18]
The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that antisemitism based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the identification of Zionism with racism; the use of material related to Holocaust denial (such as doubts about the number of victims and allegations that there is a "Holocaust industry"); a discourse borrowed from third worldism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-Americanism and anti-globalization; and the dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian – the innocent victim par excellence."^[19]
In early 2009, 125 parliamentarians from various countries gathered in London for the founding conference of a group called the "Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism" (ICCA). They suggest that while classical antisemitism "overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews

It doesn't happen in the US.  The left in the US is the side that is pro-jewish.  US anti-semitism comes from elements of the KKK and white supremacists, etc.

Perhaps because Europe has always had an antisemetic element--read as: Hitler and beyond--you guys associate it with liberals, particularly as liberals there tend to be pro-Palestinian.  Here, antisemitism is associated with white trash and trailer-park drunks.