Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on February 23, 2019

Zionism doesn't have a single meaning, and probably never did.

At one time, it was the movement to persuade the British to create Israel out of the Palestinian Mandate, which Britain occupied from and after WWI, and which comprised FAR more than just what is Israel and Palestine today.

That being accomplished, the original Zionist movement is no more.

Today the term's meaning depends on who uses it. To some it's anyone that wants to see Israel continue to exist. To others it's the secret movement that wants Israel to control the entire world and exterminate all Muslims. The first category is easy to find, they're all over Israel itself, and in many other parts of the world. The second is a little harder to get ahold of, there doesn't seem to be any known leader or even a post office box to write to them, and they don't seem to have a website. People like Achmidenajad seem to know who they are, though.

There are a lot of Christian Zionists, too. They believe that the Second Coming depends on the existence of Israel, so they support Israel more fervently than most US Jews even do.

I guess the bottom line of what it means to be a Zionist is one that goes beyond defining Israel as a sovereign nation, and including any kind of religious significance to Israel. That would include Israelis, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and yes, that makes Mahmoud Achmidenajad a Zionist.

Israel is a sovereign nation. That's it. It happens to be largely Jewish, just like the US happens to be largely Christian or Agnostic, depending on who you ask.

Read more here:
What is Zionism ??? And how is it related to Jews? | Yahoo Answers

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on What is Zionism ??? And how is it related to Jews? | Yahoo Answers
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 21, 2019

Addressing a rise in hate crimes against the Jewish diaspora in France, President Emanuel Macron has supported the expansion of the definition of anti-Semitism to outlaw anti-Zionism as well, fueling public debate over the terms.

Anti-Semitism is hiding itself behind anti-Zionism, Macron said Wednesday, speaking at the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (Crif) and announcing that France seeks to define anti-Zionism as a modern-day form of anti-Semitism.

The rise of hate crime incidents in France, including the verbal abuse of philosopher Alain Finkielkraut at a Yellow Vest rally last weekend and the desecration of a Jewish cemetery near Strasbourg, has prompted the French government to seek new means to fight growing animosity towards their Jewish population, the largest in Europe.

While Macron believes the new definition falls in line with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) interpretation, the organization's own terminology does not contain any reference to Zionism at all.

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews...[and which] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity, the IHRA said, making clear that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

Just a day earlier the French leader had said he opposes criminalizing criticism of the state of Israel, after French lawmakers proposed a bill on Monday that would make anti-Zionism a punishable offense. Yet it seems Macron somewhat changed his mind a day after thousands of demonstrators gathered across France to condemn the rise of anti-Semitic attacks, a 74 percent increase last year, with 541 reported cases.

While the Office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to endorse the new proposed definition, it fueled the long raging debate challenging the assertion that being anti-Zionist automatically equates to being an anti-Semite.

Historically, different forms of anti-Semitism have existed across the world for centuries. Anti-Zionism, however, is a relatively new phenomenon which was born in the late 19th century to oppose the Zionist political movement that was founded by Theodore Herzl and advocated the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, at that time ruled by the British.

It is crucial to say that what is forbidden is to deny the existence of Israel. That has to be made a criminal offense, Sylvain Maillard, an MP with Macrons political party The Republic on the Move (LREM), told RFI. However, you obviously have the right to say you do not agree with the policy of the Israeli government. That is normal in a democracy.

If we consider opposition to Theodore Herzl's theory as anti-Semitic, then were saying that the millions of Jews who do not wish to live in Palestine and the occupied territories are anti-Semites, French journalist Dominique Vidal,toldFRANCE 24. It's historical illiteracy, or worse, stupidity.

The concepts of Zionism and anti-Zionism completely changed since the founding of Israel in 1948. Now anti-Zionism is largely associated with public anger towards the policies of the state of Israel, and not necessarily against Jewish ethnicity. It is most clearly defined in the worldwide Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) which the French president vowed to tackle on Wednesday, and criminalizing anti-Zionism could in theory allow him to do just that.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

Read the rest here:
Anti-Zionism equals Anti-Semitism? Macron fuels debate on how ...

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Anti-Zionism equals Anti-Semitism? Macron fuels debate on how …
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 21, 2019

LOS ANGELES (JTA) I was born in 1995, which means a lot of things. The Twin Towers toppled when I was only in kindergarten. Im a digital native. In my lifetime, Israel has always existed. And most people have no idea what the word Zionism means.

At lunch recently with a friend who is Jewish and deeply knowledgeable about politics, she illustrated just how serious the misunderstanding is. After two hours of talking about progressive activism, her eyes widened in horror when I noted that I am a Zionist.

Doesnt that just mean youre against Palestinian rights? she asked.

Of course not, I replied, and asked her if she knew what the term Zionist actually means.

She didnt.

I explained to her that Zionists are simply people who believe in the right of Jewish people to have self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

Rather than supporting a specific administration or everything Israel does, Zionism is Jewish self-determination, Sara Yael Hirschhorn, visiting assistant professor in Israel studies at Northwestern Universitys Crown Family Center for Jewish and Israel Studies, told me recently. Its co-signing that Israel should exist, that Jews have a right to self-determination no more or no less than any other nationality, that Jews are not only a religion but theyre also a people and a nation, that they have the right to have control over their own affairs, that their existence is not only predicated on being a minority in some other country.

Although some critics would argue otherwise, Zionism does not dictate that Jews deserve self-determination at the expense of the Palestinians, though some Zionists do believe that and have tried their best to make it so in modern Israel. But critically, their discriminatory views did not develop out of their Zionism but rather because of other implicit biases and fears. My Zionism implores me to advocate for the self-determination of Palestinians and other ethnic groups in the broad fight for indigenous rights. No nation should win freedom by marginalizing another one, and many Zionists and anti-Zionists alike make the mistake of assuming we cannot provide statehood and dignity to both.

After our lunchtime conversation, my friend realized that shes a Zionist, too.

Ive had this interaction in every pocket of Los Angeles with countless people my age, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Ive explained what Jewish self-determination and Zionism means over Brazilian food in Century City, lattes in South Central and hummus in Hollywood.

Everywhere I go, it seems that other people are redefining the term and associating it with things I would never co-sign. While Zionism looks different for every Zionist, I am vocally against the oppression of Palestinians, the occupation of the West Bank and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahus administration. Only 3 percent of American Jews identify as generally not pro-Israel, but the majority of pro-Israel American Jews also say that they are critical of some or many of Israels policies.

Jonathan Sarna, the director of the Schusterman Center for Israel Studies at Brandeis University, assured me that my friends are not the only Americans who have a serious misunderstanding of Zionism.

Most American Jews and certainly most American non-Jews, havent the slightest idea of Zionism, Sarna told me. There are many Jews, not just many American liberals, who somehow think that Zionism is about expelling Arabs or doing all sorts of things, which it certainly has nothing to do with.

Among many young people, even young Jews, Zionism has become synonymous with settler colonialism, Islamophobia and sometimes just racism. Yet these very people who have no idea of the meaning of the term are redefining it and even using it as a slur. Many otherwise progressive people have made it clear that they want Zionists out of their spaces and out of existence.

How has the meaning of Zionism been lost on most of my peers? Werent we the generation who reframed feminism to mean gender equality, which is its true definition, rather than whatever misogynists pretend it to mean?

Did the ability to identify with Jewish self-determination vanish once the reality of a Jewish state sunk into the American consciousness?

Perhaps the modern state, warts and all, has made Zionism easier to vilify.

I dont think Zionism is co-signing Benjamin Netanyahus politics, but it is co-signing the idea of a state of Israel that currently exists and not one that we might have fantasized in 1896, Hirschhorn said. We cant rewind the tape of history to come up with a different possibility.

With a modern state, Jews objectively wield more power than weve had in centuries and people find Jewish power inherently threatening, Hirschhorn told me.

There are plenty of anti-Semites in this world that have wanted Jews to be powerless and have taken advantage of their powerlessness, she added. The State of Israel today represents the idea that that is never going to happen again and, removing the Palestinian issue from this calculus, there are people in this world that dont like the idea that Jews now have a state and have the ability to protect themselves and possibly protect others.

Rather than a nuanced and complex appreciation for Jewish self-determination and protection, Zionism on Twitter is #occupation, #genocide, #settlercolonialism, #evil. Thats what Zionism is for our generation, Hirschhorn said. For my peers, that nuance has vanished like a selfie sent through Snapchat.

As a writer, I receive comments that Im a racist Zionist every time Im vocally Jewish on the platform. Lately Ive become increasingly disillusioned with the Israeli government, but Im also standing stronger than ever in my belief that the state itself must exist.

Zionisms supposed to be about creating a safe haven, and that self-determination was the only way to protect ourselves as a people from anti-Semitism, according to Hirschhorn, who said that most young American Jews, unfortunately, see Israel as a vacation spot more than as a necessary homeland. People of our generation dont relate to that idea that Israel or Zionism is sort of a safe haven. Other than Pittsburgh, which seemed to be sort of a shock to a lot of the American Jewish community, we generally have the feeling that we live safely and comfortably in another country under leadership or rulership that isnt necessarily our own.

This may explain why, as Sarna explained, when Jewish safety is threatened, Jewish support for Zionism generally goes up. Thankfully, America has generally been safe for Jews. Unfortunately, that means that not every American Jew appreciates the need for a Jewish state.

After thousands of years of being colonized or sent into [the] Diaspora or disempowered or persecuted or killed, Zionism allowed Jews self-determination in a land that had historically been theirs and to which they returned, Sarna said. Young Jews dont even remember that there was a time when no one would accept Jews. They imagine, Oh, Jews are white folks and theyre powerful and everybody wants them. The president, who is not so fond of Hispanic immigrants, loves Jews. He recognized them at the State of the Union, and they imagine its always been that way.

As the first recent generation of my family not to be displaced by Nazis, I simply cannot forget our history of exile. I do not believe that any country other than a Jewish state is capable of being a truly safe home for Jews. Some may see that as a symptom of intergenerational trauma, but for me its an analysis of history. From Iran to Ukraine, every country weve lived in has turned on us. Many Jews in the United Kingdom and France feel that their nation is in the process of doing just that.

But just like the Black Power, LGBTQ liberation and feminist movements that blossomed in the 1960s, the Zionist movement has been perpetually and falsely maligned by those who view pride in Jewish culture and existence as violence.

In the end, perhaps thats at the root of why the word Zionism has been snatched from under us: Zionism inherently calls for Jewish power, which is something much of the world will always feel unsettled by.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

Read more here:
Nobody knows what Zionism means anymore. Two historians help ...

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Nobody knows what Zionism means anymore. Two historians help …
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 18, 2019

As part of its responsibility to uphold the civil rights of the American people, the FBI takes a number of steps to combat the problem of hate crimes.

Investigative Activities: The FBI is the lead investigative agency for criminal violations of federal civil rights statutes. The Bureau works closely with its local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners around the country in many of these cases.

Law Enforcement Support: The FBI works closely with state/local/tribal authorities on investigations, even when federal charges are not brought. FBI resources, forensic expertise, and experience in identification and proof of hate-based motivations often provide an invaluable complement to local law enforcement. Many cases are also prosecuted under state statutes such as murder, arson, or more recent local ethnic intimidation laws. Once the state prosecution begins, the Department of Justice follows the proceedings to ensure that the federal interest is vindicated and the law is applied equally among the 95 U.S. Judicial Districts.

Prosecutive Decision: The FBI forwards results of completed investigations to local U.S. Attorneys Offices and the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, which decide whether a federal prosecution is warranted. Prosecution of these crimes may move forward, for example, if local authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute a crime of bias.

Public Outreach: Outreach is a critical component of the FBIs civil rights program. The FBI engages with various local and national organizations to identify violations of federal law designed to protect the civil rights of individuals in the United States. ManyFBIs field offices participate in working groups with state and local law enforcement partners, as well as community groups within their area of responsibility. These working groups combine community and law enforcement resources to develop strategies to address local hate crime problems.

Training: The FBI conducts hundreds of operational seminars, workshops, and training sessions annually for local law enforcement, minority and religious organizations, and community groups to promote cooperation and reduce civil rights abuses. Each year, the FBI also provides hate crimes training for new agents, hundreds of current agents, and thousands of police officers worldwide.

Here is the original post:
Hate Crimes FBI

Category: Anti-Defamation League | Comments Off on Hate Crimes FBI
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 18, 2019

Tzadik ((Hebrew: [tsadik], "righteous [one]", also zadik, addq or sadiq; pl. tzadikim [tsadikim] adiqim) is a title in Judaism given to people considered righteous, such as Biblical figures and later spiritual masters. The root of the word adiq, is -d-q ( tsedek), which means "justice" or "righteousness". When applied to a righteous woman, the term is conjugated as tzadeikes/tzaddeket.

Tzadik is also the root of the word tzedakah ('charity', literally 'righteousness'). The term tzadik "righteous", and its associated meanings, developed in Rabbinic thought from its Talmudic contrast with hasid ("pious" honorific), to its exploration in ethical literature, and its esoteric spiritualisation in Kabbalah.

Since the late 17th century, in Hasidic Judaism, the institution of the mystical tzadik as a divine channel assumed central importance, combining popularization of (hands-on) Jewish mysticism with social movement for the first time.[1] Adapting former Kabbalistic theosophical terminology, Hasidic philosophy internalised mystical experience, emphasising devekut attachment to its Rebbe leadership, who embody and channel the Divine flow of blessing to the world.[2]

edeq in ancient Canaanite religion may have been an epithet of a god of the Jebusites.[3] The Hebrew word appears in the biblical names Melchizedek, Adonizedek, and Zadok, the high priest of David.

In classic Jewish thought, there are various definitions of a tzadik. According to Maimonides (based on Tractate Yevamot of the Babylonian Talmud 49b-50a): "One whose merit surpasses his iniquity is a tzadik".[4]

According to the Hasidic Tanya (based on passages in the Tanakh and the Talmud, and the tradition in Kabbalah), the true title of tzadik denotes a spiritual description of the soul. Its true meaning can only be applied to one who has completely sublimated their natural "animal" or "vital" soul inclinations into holiness, so that they experience only love and awe of God, without material temptations. Hence, a tzadik serves as a "vehicle" or "merkavah" [][5] to God and has no ego or self-consciousness. Note that a person cannot attain such a level, rather it is granted from on High (or born with, etc.).[6] This select level elevates the "Intermediate" person (beinoni) into one who never sins in thought, speech or action. Unlike the Tzadik, they only experience divine devekut (communion) during devoted moments of worship or study, while in mundane life they can be tempted by natural inclinations, but always choose to stay connected to holiness. In the Tanya[7] the difference between the former Talmudic-Maimonidean and latter Kabbalistic-Hasidic conceptions is raised. Since the "Torah has 70 facets" of interpretation, perhaps both conceptions are metaphysically true:

As for what is written in the Zohar III, p.231: He whose sins are few is classed as a "righteous man who suffers", this is the query of Rav Hamnuna to Elijah. But according to Elijah's answer, ibid., the explanation of a "righteous man who suffers" is as stated in Raaya Mehemna on Mishpatim, which is given above. (Distinguishing 2 levels of Tzadik: The "righteous who prospers"-literally "good to him" is interpreted to mean that the natural soul in him has become "his own-transformed to good". The "righteous who suffers"-literally "bad to him" is interpreted to mean that his natural soul still exists in his unconscious, but is nullified to his Divine soul, "the bad-is under him") And the Torah has seventy facets. (So the reason for the question)

The Talmud[8] says that at least 36 Tzadikim Nistarim (anonymous tzadikim) are living among us in all times; they are anonymous, and it is for their sake alone that the world is not destroyed. The Talmud and the Kabbalah offer various ideas about the nature and role of these 36 tzadikim. In Jewish folklore they are called "lamedvovniks", from the gematria numerical value for 36. In Hasidism, with its social institution of the Tzadik in the central role of the community, the 36 may not necessarily be unknown, therefore. However, a Hasidic aphorism describes a known Rebbe Tzadik as being among the 36, as their true greatness could be concealed beyond the perception of their devoted followers.

Hasidim adhere to the belief that there is a person born each generation with the potential to become Messiah, if the Jewish people warrant his coming. This candidate is known as the Tzadik Ha-Dor, meaning Tzaddik of the Generation.

While the tzadik status, according to its above definitions, is not necessarily related to the ability to perform or call upon miracles, the term tzadik is often used loosely by the Talmud to indicate those who have achieved especially outstanding piety and holiness. In this context, the tzadik's prayers are considered especially potent, as the Talmud states: "A tzadik decrees and the Holy One (blessed be He) fulfills." This is line with the Talmudic dictum: Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Judah haNasi used to say: "Make His Will your own will, that He make your will as His Will."[9]

In some contexts, people refer specifically to the pious miracle worker as a tzadik. According to the Baal Shem Tov, it is said, this ability is attainable for every Jew. It is told that he stated that every Jew has the power to cross a river atop a handkerchief, through connecting with their soul (which is divine in essence).[citation needed] In Hasidism, the doctrine of "Practical Tzadikism", developed by Elimelech of Lizhensk, involved the Tzadik performing miracles to channel the Ayin-Yesh Divine blessing. In its most extreme version, Hasidic "wonder-workers", predominant in 19th century Poland, emphasised this conception, sometimes criticised by other Hasidic leaders as superficial. To Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, and his reaction against Popular Tzadikism, the greatest miracle was to examine oneself without self-delusion.

According to the first definition above, that a tzadik is "one whose merit surpasses [their] iniquity." According to the definition of the Tanya that a tzadik has no evil inclination, only a select few predestined to attain this level can attain it.

Based on the teachings of Isaac Luria, the Baal Shem Tov and the Chaim ibn Attar, Shneur Zalman of Liadi taught in the name of the Zohar that "He who breathed life into man, breathed from Himself." Therefore, one's soul comes from the essence of God.

According to kabbalah, a tzadiki, because they have completely nullified themselves and their desires to what God wants, their Godly soul (which like every Godly soul is part of God) is revealed within them more than other people who have not completely nullified themselves to God.This concept is based upon many Jewish sources. Here are some:

"..For all that is in Heaven and on Earth.."[19]"-For all (Yesod) joins the Heaven and the Earth"[20]

"The Tzadik is the foundation (Yesod) of the World"[21]

In the system of 10 Sephirot Divine emanations in Kabbalah, each of the 7 emotional expressions is related to an archetypal figure in the Hebrew Bible. The first emanated realm to emerge from God's potential Will in Creation is Atziluth, the World of "Emanation". As it is still nullified to Divinity, so not yet considered a self-aware existence, it is the realm where the 10 Sephirot attributes of God are revealed in their essence. In lower spiritual worlds the sephirot also shine, but only in successively lower degrees, concealed through successive contractions and veilings of the Divine vitality. Seven Biblical tzadikim, righteous figures are considered as embodiments of the emotional sephirot of Atzilut: Abraham-Kindness, Isaac-Restraint, Jacob-Mercy, Moses-Endurance, Aaron-Glory, Joseph-Foundation, David-Kingship. While all seven figures are considered supreme Tzadikim, in particular contexts, either Joseph as Yesod, and Moses as inclusive soul of the community, are identified especially as archetypes for the Tzadik in general.

In the sephirot, Chesed-Abraham, Gevurah-Isaac and Tiferet-Jacob are higher spiritual powers than Yesod-Joseph, which channels the higher powers to their fulfilment in Malchut action. However, traditionally in Judaism, Joseph is referred to with the quality of "Tzadik-Righteous". While the Patriarchs lived righteously as shepherds, Joseph remained holy in Egypt, surrounded by impurity, tested by Potiphar's wife, captive in prison, and then active as viceroy to Pharaoh. As the Heavenly sephirah of Yesod-"Foundation" channels spirituality to our physical realm, so in Kabbalah and the further development in Hasidic thought, its function also parallels the human role of the Tzadik in this world:

"..To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him.."[23]"Cleaving to a Torah scholar is as cleaving to the Divine Shechinah"[24]

The leaders of Israel over the masses stem from the intellect of Adam's soul[25]"In every generation there is a leader like Moses"

Continued here:

Tzadik - Wikipedia

Category: Hasidic | Comments Off on Tzadik – Wikipedia
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 17, 2019

Had the Germans won, they probably would have eliminated millions of other peoples, including the Roma, homosexuals, dissidents of any kind, and other useless eaters. But it was only the Jews whose destruction could not wait until after the war. Only in the case of the Jews could war priorities be overridden. Germany was fighting two wars in tandem, a conventional war and a war against the Jews. It lost the first and, for all intents and purposes, nearly won the second.

The de-Judaization of the Holocaust, as exemplified by the White House statement, is what I term softcore Holocaust denial. Hardcore denial is the kind of thing I encountered in the courtroom. In an outright and forceful fashion, Irving denied the facts of the Holocaust. In his decision, Judge Charles Grey called Irving a liar and a manipulator of history. He did so, the judge ruled, deliberately and not as the result of mistakes.

Softcore denial uses different tactics but has the same end-goal. (I use hardcore and softcore deliberately because I see denial as a form of historiographic pornography.) It does not deny the facts, but it minimizes them, arguing that Jews use the Holocaust to draw attention away from criticism of Israel. Softcore denial also makes all sorts of false comparisons to the Holocaust. In certain Eastern European countries today, those who fought the Nazis may be lauded, but if they did so with a communist resistance group they may be prosecuted. Softcore denial also includes Holocaust minimization, as when someone suggests it was not so bad. Why are we hearing about that again?

What we saw from the White House was classic softcore denial. The Holocaust was de-Judaized. It is possible that it all began with a mistake. Someone simply did not realize what they were doing. It is also possible that someone did this deliberately. The White Houses chief strategist, Steve Bannon, boasted that while at Breitbart he created a platform for alt-right. Richard Spencer, the self-proclaimed leader of the alt-right, has invited overt Holocaust deniers to alt-right conferences, and his followers have engaged in outright denial. During the campaign, he was reportedly responsible for speeches and ads that many observers concluded trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes.

After Hickss defense of the statement, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus doubled down, insisting that they made no mistake. On Meet the Press Chuck Todd gave Priebus repeated chances to retract or rephrase the statement. Priebus refused and dug in deeper, declaring everyones suffering in the Holocaust, including obviously, all of the Jewish people [was] extraordinarily sad.

In the penultimate sentence of the presidents statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the White House promised to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. But the statement was issued on the same day as the order banning refugees. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely what happened at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

See the original post:

The Trump Administration's Flirtation With Holocaust Denial

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on The Trump Administration’s Flirtation With Holocaust Denial
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 17, 2019

The lead item (from 00:28 here) in the February 3rd edition of the BBC Radio 4 statistics programme More or Less related to the results of a survey published a few days earlier by Britains Holocaust Memorial Day Trust that was previously covered on the BBC News website.

Is it true that one in 20 adults in Britain dont believe the Holocaust took place? Those are the findings of a survey commissioned by The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. But Professor Peter Lynn of Essex University explains why the survey is unlikely to be accurate.

Presenter Tim Harford introduced the item:

Harford: Last Sunday was Holocaust Memorial Day; a day of solemn remembrance. But it was also a day of appalled surprise because a poll was published claiming that [recording] as many as one in 20 adults in Britain dont believe the Holocaust took place and 1 in 12 believe its scale had been exaggerated.

One in 20 Britons: that would be about three million people not believing that the Holocaust happened. The survey said that many others were confused about the details.

So to clear up any uncertainty, at least here, the Holocaust is a name given to the genocidal murder of around 6 million Jews led by the German State under Adolf Hitlers Nazi government and part of an even bigger policy of systematic murder of a variety of targets including the Roma, disabled people, political prisoners and many others.

Weve always known that a few people love to claim that this never happened or happened on a dramatically smaller scale but as many as one in twenty?

Programme producer Ruth Alexander subsequently brought in Peter Lynn, Professor of Survey Methodology at the University of Essex.

Alexander: Now when Professor Lynn heard about the results of this survey, he raised an eyebrow.

Lynn: Yes, I was immediately sceptical that this sounded a bitehmunlikely.

Alexander: The number sounds too big?

Lynn: Yes.

With no identification of the additional experts cited, listeners were told that survey participants may have unintentionally stated that the Holocaust did not happen:

Alexander: In fact, Ive spoken to three other survey design experts they all agree, there are some serious flaws with this study. Now its true that 5% of people surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the Holocaust never really happened. However, Professor Lynn thinks they may not all have done so deliberately.

Lynn: I guess the first thing that struck me was that the wording of the question about believing that the Holocaust happened seems to me to have some serious shortcomings and I think that may have caused some people to appear to agree that the Holocaust had never really happened when that wasnt what they intended.

Harford:So the issue here is that people taking part in an online survey like this; theyre ticking boxes, maybe theyre not looking too closely; maybe theyre in a hurry, theyre distracted by whats on TV; theyre thinking more about the shopping vouchers theymight receive for doing the survey than what theyre actually agreeing or disagreeing with and some of them might make outrageous claims just for the fun of it.

Later on listeners were told that the result may have come about by accident.

Lynn:There is always a significant minority of respondents who take short cuts and I think that that could be the case here because the respondents here are presented with a series of statements. Now the first two items in this scale are firstly: It is important to know about the Holocaust in todays world and secondly: More needs to be done to educate people about what happened during the Holocaust. So, at that point you might be beginning to think, ah I can see a battery of statements about the Holocaust, seems like Im the kind of person who tends to agree with them; Ill just agree to the next few and assume that that represents my position.

But the item were talking about here, the third item the Holocaust never really happened is worded the other way round its what we call a reversed item where if you believe that theHolocaust happened, you should now bedisagreeingwith the item. So you could easily fall into the trap of just assuming you agreed with all these items and, therefore, not giving a response to this third item that actually represents your true view.

With the programme makers views of the intelligence of the British public abundantly clear, Harford continued:

Harford: It seems like there is a lot of ignorance out there and clearly Holocaust denial is a real thing and it would be worth trying to measure how prevalent it is. So do we know of any other, perhaps more reliable, research that can give us a better sense of the true numbers?

Alexander went on to cite a study conducted twenty-five years ago in the United States (which obviously has no bearing on the issue of Holocaust denial in Britain) and to quote yet more anonymous experts on Holocaust denial in an equally unrelated location.

Alexander: it turned out that the correct number of Holocaust Deniers in the US was more like 2% of the population. And experts have told me that studies in Europe have tended to give lower numbers still.

Apparently the More or Less team would have the BBCs domestic listeners conclude that a study conducted a quarter of a century ago in a country with a different culture, education system and population make up is more likely to reflect the percentage of people in their own country who do not believe that the Holocaust happened than a survey recently conducted in the UK.

Related Articles:

BBC Radio 4s More or Less does damage control on Gaza casualty figuresarticle

Like Loading...

Related

Read more here:

BBC Radio 4s statistics programme on Holocaust denial in ...

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on BBC Radio 4s statistics programme on Holocaust denial in …
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 15, 2019

From Ian:David Collier: Antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Performing the duck testIs it antisemitism or anti-Zionism? Everyday, semantics are used to deflect what is obvious. When people argue over this it protects antisemitism. It does not matter whether in theory anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same thing or not. It is a straw man argument. When you perform the duck test on anti-Zionist activity across the board, it soon becomes clear that antisemitism overflows in every corner of the anti-Israel movement. The duck test highlights just how seamlessly, blatant antisemitism has renamed itself.

I am in the middle of writing a large report that will hopefully meet my self-imposed end-of-February deadline. This particular post is not part of that and was never planned. It came about because in preparation for a talk I gave last night to students at KCL I needed to spend some time gathering examples of the similarity between anti-Zionism and classic antisemitism. This is what I found:The duck test

What are examples of antisemitism? What are the tropes? I needed to work from a check-list, so turned to Wiki to find one. They have a page titled antisemitic canards. It provides a list of different types of canards used to foster and legitimise hate against Jewish people throughout the ages. There are 20 classic types listed. They added the 9/11 conspiracy, which I ignored because I believe it captured in the essence of all the others.

Below are the results from the twenty I worked with. In those cases where the accusation predates Zionism (such as the killing of Christ), I have only used posts by people who coincidentally are also anti-Israel activists:

A comparative study of the rhetoric and behavior of people who claim only to oppose the Jewish State and of the rhetoric and behavior of outspoken antisemites revealed a 98% overlap in the composition and content of the two groups, which study authors warned does not indicate any inherent relationship between them, since, as every student of elementary statistics knows, correlation does not imply causation. Instead, the researchers advise the public to note the overlap as a curiosity and then return to the everyday work of explaining how opposing the existence of the worlds only Jewish country, established as a refuge from thousands of years of persecution, does not qualify as antisemitism.

We can understand why a facile interpretation of these numbers would lead a person to the conclusion that the two phenomena are in some way related, the authors wrote. But that fails to take into account all the protestations by self-proclaimed anti-Zionists that they do not in fact harbor ill will toward Jews; they just want them to remain at the mercy of the worlds often-hostile majority, with a soupon of human rights verbiage thrown in. We therefore urge people not to misinterpret the near-perfect correlation as anything but an interesting quirk.

This reflects a consensus within Palestinian society that those who commit acts of violence against Jews and Israelis are role models and heroes to be celebrated, rather than to be shunned.

Will it be any different for the murderer of Ori Ansbacher, a teenager from the settlement of Tekoa who was doing national service for her country? The Israeli media has reported that the murderer is affiliated with Hamas and said he wanted to be a martyr. Unfortunately, nothing that has happened up until now gives us much hope that most Palestinians will treat the death of a Jewish teenager as anything other than a victory for their cause, no matter how egregious the crime.

Neither Israel nor its citizens are perfect. But friends of Israel can be proud of the efforts of the Israel Defense Forces to spare innocent lives even when it means that sometimes terrorists might escape. Moreover, its political system, however flawed it might be, rests on democratic principles that ensure that Israeli Arabs are equal before the law and have rights to representation unknown elsewhere in the region.

Those who wish to talk about racism should point their barbs at Palestinian leaders who bear personal responsibility for creating an environment in which nationalist murders like that of Ansbacher are made possible, not at Israel.

More specifically, the United States benefits from its alliance with Israel in very practical ways. In 2012, Michael Eisenstadt and David Pollock, both fellows at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, produced a great report that details these benefitsfrom intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation to cyber and water security. Israel's remarkable technological innovation is critical for American businesses, and its expertise in homeland security and military tactics are critical for keeping Americansboth in and out of uniformsafe.

The number of benefits is too long to list here, but it is extensive. Even Richard Nixon, who peddled his share of anti-Semitic canards, recognized Israel's strategic importance and ordered an essential arms airlift during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The former president also recognized the remarkable character of the Israeli people, and became the first commander in chief to visit the Jewish state on the job. Critics may say the alliance is just a relic of the Cold War, but this is a dangerously myopic view. In such an interconnected world, where security is ever more difficult to guarantee and technology is the economy of the future, Israel is a necessary ally.

In sum, Americans support Israel for both moral and strategic reasons. The two cannot be separated. And together, they create a foundation for an alliance that can resist Omar's corrosive, anti-Semitic charges, which are part of an effort to break apart an essential, mutually beneficial relationship. In defending Israel against the likes of Omar, Americans should remember that they not only have the moral high ground, but also the strategic high ground.

The self-muzzling of the free world

So much of what passes for journalism and political conversation today mimics the pathetic self-abnegation of the greengrocer. People are constantly writing and saying things of highly dubious merit Hannah Gadsby is funny, Islam is the religion of peace, Trans Women are Women, 'Black Panther' deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Picture as if they were religious incantations. The whole lamentable phenomenon is utterly totalitarian in spirit and has been abetted by social media, where one can instantly and constantly display his or her correct opinions and righteous outrage in the hope of keeping the wolves at bay. Depart from the consensus, fail to display the correct slogans in the proverbial shop window, and there could be trouble.

A recent magazine profile of the actor Rami Malek offered a brief summation of his Twitter activity: praised bisexual activist Emma Gonzales and the Parkland survivors-turned-antigun-crusaders; thanked Christine Blasey Ford for her strength and bravery in front of Congress, and suggested people make donations to the ACLU. All that was missing was a pensive selfie of the doe-eyed star holding up a sign imploring Boko Haram to #BringBackOurGirls. The display of personal pronouns in the social media profiles of people who are not transgender have become modern-day equivalents of the Workers of the World, Unite signs Havel lamented.

Asked why he was willing to risk everything over The Satanic Verses, Rushdie responded: This issue is more important than my book or even my life. A society in which we are cowed into silence regarding what we believe, or pressured into unthinkingly repeating the things we dont, is not one worth living in. We owe it to ourselves to learn from Rushdies example and honor his courage in our everyday lives. The threat to free expression arrives not only in the form of murderous Valentines, but in what were doing to ourselves.

Bari Weiss and Deborah Lipstadt discuss the rise of antisemitism at home and abroad

Abigail Shrier (WSJ): Democrats and Anti-Semitism

There is an air of comeuppance in her persistent design to delegitimize Israel, as when she told Yahoo! News last month that I almost chuckle at the idea that Israel is a democracy. Or in her hair-raising proclamation on Twitter , in 2012: Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.

Last month, she apologized for this anti-semitic trope she unknowingly usedas if Jews had a peculiar sensitivity to being accused of using mind control to disguise their evil. It is also unlikely that she meant Israel had hypnotized the world; Israel has famously few friends on the world stage.

She meant Jewsthe people of Israela group that can credibly be claimed to hold some political influence in the West. Thats the power to which she objects. They are the people who irk her so much they are already a constant focus of her first weeks of congressional energies.

Then there are those who arent her allies but still encourage and seem heartened by these apologies. These are good people, some of them Jews and conservatives, who want to believe that the real problem is Omars lack of knowledge and that it can be addressed through greater dialogue. They see in her semi-apologies evidence of an upright and amenable character. This is a nice thought but, as Martin Luther King wrote, shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. These decent people make claims about Omars willingness to grow and change despite all evidence to the contrary.

The truth is, Omar is almost 40 years old, and shes being handled like a child. Her anti-Semitism is in keeping with her worldview. Its no more susceptible to dialogue than is Bernie Sanderss socialism.

If Omar, or any anti-Semite, has a genuine epiphany and renounces her Jew-hatred, thats a different story. In such cases, no one needs coercing to tweet out a fake apology. Repentant bigots tend to be very vocal about having changed their ways. You know them when you see them. Thats not Ilhan Omar. The only proper response to anti-Semites in public life is to expose them and get them out of power. Every requested apology strengthens their position. Thats what its supposed to do.

".@IlhanMN tweets were a disgrace & her apology was inadequate," Pence tweeted. "Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress, much less the Foreign Affairs Committee. Those who engage in anti-Semitic tropes should not just be denounced, they should face consequences for their words."

Pence's call for action against Omar follows President Donald Trump's call for her to either resign from Congress or at a minimum step down from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"Anti-Semitism has no place in the United States Congress," Trump said on Tuesday. "And Congresswoman Omar is, terrible what she said, I think she should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee."

"What she said is so deep-seated in her heart, that her lame apology, and that's what it was, it was lame, and she didn't mean a word of it was just not appropriate," Trump added. "I think she should resign from Congress, frankly."

"But at a minimum, she shouldn't be on committees, certainly that committee," Trump concluded.

Some of Omars defenders also engaged in a little whataboutism by pointing out that Republicans have had their own anti-Semitic problems. Im sure they do. But I hate to break the news to people: being critical of billionaire activist George Soros, who happens to be Jewish but holds positions on Israel that are generally in line with Omars, is not automatically anti-Semiticor no more than attacking Sheldon Adelson is anti-Semitic. Omars Jewish stereotypes were aimed at all defenders of Israel.

It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Partys presidential hopefuls react to Omars comments, which has increasing currency in the activist wing of their party. On this issue, there is a big rift opening between young and old. That does not bode well for the establishment or Jews.

Im asking you, no, Im challenging you, as American leaders to reconsider your positions. Recognize the great pain your animus causes to millions of people. Intentionally or not, youre echoing traditional Jew-hatred.

Anyone who belongs to minority groups, who has been hit by the poison dart of prejudice, understands that bigotry unleashes exponential anguish. When youre bullied as women, or insulted as people of color, the punch lands extra hard, the blood rushes head-ward extra fast, the hands tremble much sooner, the wound takes that much longer to heal. Thats because the hurts are cumulative. Your ache echoes the agony of so many others while snowballing with generations of historic attacks.

For Jews, too.

Some find us hypersensitive. Unfortunately, like you and your various affiliate groups, a hard history made us hyper and sensitive. That doesnt mean we or our state are beyond criticism. Neither people nor democracies can heal by squelching critical conversations. But if you can locate your own identity-aches horizontally and vertically resonating with other communal suffering and linked in a chained of historical hurts why are ours invisible to you?

Abrams testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the U.S. response to the crisis in Venezuela, which has collapsed under far-left policies that have decimated its economy and caused hyperinflation, starvation and medical shortages. The Trump administration is supporting Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido and said authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro must step down and leave the country.

Omar opened her questioning by calling Abrams "Mr. Adams" and recounting Abrams' misdemeanor guilty pleas for withholding information from Congress over the Iran-Contra scandal while he worked in the Reagan administration. He was later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

"I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful," Omar said.

Abrams sought to respond, but Omar said it wasn't a question as the two spoke over each other.

"It is not right that members of this committee can attack a witness who is not permitted to reply," Abrams said.

Donors Give Money to Support Ilhan Omars Antisemitic Remarks Will She Return Them?

After the freshman Congresswoman was called out by her own Democratic Party leadership for antisemitic tweets implying Jewish money controls the Congress, her ideological allies took to social media encouraging people to donate to Omars 2020 campaign.

Many of them linked to a fundraising page hosted by Act Blue, a self described nonprofit, building fundraising technology for the left.

Zahra Billoo, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)s San Francisco chapter, said that she made a donation to Omars reelection campaign on Monday, and urged her followers to do the same. Tweets to support her are important, Billoo wrote, but lets also ensure she can keep on doing the important work shes doing.

Billoo has a well-documented blind hate towards the Jewish state, comparing Israeli soldiers to ISIS terrorists; she also has no qualms saying that Israel has no right to exist. She was joined in her calls by fellow CAIR chapter director and rabid Israel hater Hussam Ayloush, and American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee policy director Abed Ayoub, who said that Omar is speaking the truth.

And CAIR not only has a PAC, it is a lobbying organization. On Jan.10, 2019, CAIR hosted the Community Congressional Reception at which Omar spoke.

In all, Omar received tens of thousands of dollars from lobbying groups. None of her money came from AIPAC or the NRA or the fossil fuel industry; That must be a coincidence.

Ilhan Omar is a Problem for America, not just the Jews and not Just the Democrats

Democrats Who Criticized Omar Are Not Heroes

Milbank elevated Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic House members to the status of heroes for waiting two months to criticize Omar for her latest tirades against Jews.

Note also that Omar repudiated only her use of anti-Semitic tropes but not her vicious slanders of Israel, or her support for the BDS movement, which we now know is in league with terrorists.

Milbank piously concluded that, Those who believe in a tolerant, multicultural America need to speak with one voice against the scapegoating of minorities by the likes of Trump and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

But that is is hardly a ringing moral condemnation of antisemitism.

A front-page Times news article from April 2017 was headlined, Trump Inaugural Drew Big Dollars From Donors With Vested Interests. That article began, The casino magnate and philanthropist Sheldon G. Adelson wants some big things from the Trump administration: banning the online poker sites that compete with his luxury casinos, for example, and moving the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. And while President Trump was not Mr. Adelsons first choice during the Republican primary season last year, he has been generous since: The billionaire donated $5 million to the committee organizing Mr. Trumps inauguration festivities the largest single contribution given to any presidents inaugural committee.

The New York Times used to have a brand campaign promoting its help-wanted classified advertising, I got my job through the New York Times. In this case, Omar could have legitimately claimed, I got my anti-Semitic tropes through the New York Times. Perhaps if the Times news and opinion articles were greeted with the same waves of outrage that Omars tweet was, the newspaper would back off.

The different reaction may suggest that Omar is being singled out for severe criticism for some other reason. Or it may just be that the Times has been so bad on these issues for so long that at this point, no one other than perhaps me and my readers even expects the paper not to spread anti-Jewish myths. Perhaps, at this point, the Times has lost so much credibility that no one takes the paper at all seriously when it does spread such anti-Jewish myths. Either way, the Omar episode is an excellent opportunity for the pro-Israel community to consider revisiting its approach to the way the Times covers these issues.

We wanted to reach out to her, Latz recalled. We were a bit troubled about several things she had said.

Among their concerns was a 2012 tweet in which Omar wrote: Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. The language evokes an anti-Semitic trope of Jews as practicers of some type of sorcery that allows them to control others. It wasnt until last month that Omar apologized, when the tweet gained national attention after she had taken office in Congress, but many in the local Jewish community were aware of it well before. As of Tuesday morning, Omar had not deleted the tweet.

In local political discourse during the Democratic Partys endorsement process, Omars phrasing as she spoke of Middle East policy troubled some. But Latz who has defended Omars predecessor, Keith Ellison, against accusations of anti-Semitism emphasized that the problem wasnt in the policy dispute, but the diction and tone.

I dont mind a policy disagreement. Thats fine, Latz, who said he has qualms with some Israeli policies, said in an interview. I accept that she comes from a different place and has a different policy, but those can be expressed in a matter that does not express anti-Semitism with it. She grew up in a refugee camp, and her perspective is different, but I would also respect a very serious attempt to understand the history of the Jewish people and the way that they have been demonized and murdered for their faith.

Omar also admitted last month she used "unfortunate" language in this 2012 tweet, still active on her account, where she wrote, "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." She's also compared Israel to Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, and said she's amused at the idea Israel is a democracyit is.

If only it stopped there.

Her fellow freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) recently criticized a Republican-led bill allowing governments to not do business with pro-BDS companies by saying, "they forgot what country they represent." An old anti-Semitic canard is accusing Jews of dual loyalties, although Tlaib claimed she was simply criticizing U.S. Senators who supported the legislation.

Omar and Tlaib both support the BDS movement against Israel, which has been condemned by the Anti-Defamation League and called anti-Semitic by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.).

There's also Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), who touted a phone call last week with U.K. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, a notorious anti-Semite.

Women's March becomes a goose step

A few days before this years march, Sarsour posted to Facebook an appearance of herself on CNN with the caption: I have done many interviews in my lifetime but my clapback on Debbie The Election Rigger is everything. The list of enemies of the March is growing and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is now on it. Sarsour ripped into Wasserman Schultz, saying no one was waiting for her opinion but then added that the focus should stay on the Trump administration, the focus shouldnt be about any one controversy.

In her speech from the stage this year, Sarsour blamed the media for the Womens Marchs troubles. If youre not careful, she warned, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. She added another shot at critical coverage, saying, the media can talk about whatever controversy they want, but the real controversy is in the White House.

For all the women who marched despite the anti-Semitism because they wanted to oppose Trump, Sarsour still made it a point to mention boycotting, divestment, and sanction of Israel, the BDS movement, from the stage. For someone who wanted to keep the focus on the administration and not on any one controversy, this was a perplexing way to do that. It shows what she is really made of.

The march, for so many marchers, was always about opposing Trump. But for the march leadership, its about something else entirely.

Ocasio-Cortez's defense of Omar came after Omar's latest anti-Semitic incident over the weekend when Omar "displayed her blatant anti-Semitism by tweeting that GOP support for Israel was 'all about the Benjamins,' and followed by accusing AIPAC of paying American politicians to support Israel," The Daily Wire reported.

Ocasio-Cortez, who has a long history of walking lockstep with anti-Semites, waited a couple of days to weigh in on Omar's anti-Semitic comments, which drew widespread condemnation from both sides of the aisle.

Ocasio-Cortez responded by falsely suggesting that President Donald Trump was the one who has a problem with anti-Semitism.

"Unlike this President, Rep. @IlhanMN demonstrated a capacity to acknowledge pain & apologize, use the opportunity to learn abt history of antisemitism,+grow from it while clarifying her stance," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, later adding: "Im proud @IlhanMN raised the issue of lobbyist in politics & equally proud of her sensitivity to communities."

I will not be silent in the face of attacks, harassment and targeted policing of speech from a Black Muslim woman elected official, our sister Ilhan Omar in the name of combatting antisemitism. We can stand up for Ilhan knowing her record and what she stands for and also combat antisemitism.

Notice she seems to be blaming this entirely on Kevin McCarthy. Today, Tamika Mallory, who has faced her own anti-Semitic controversy for her support of Louis Farrakhan, joined in the defense of Rep. Omar on Twitter:

Rep. Tlaib: My Anti-Semitic Views Are Being Shushed Because Im a Woman of Color

In response to the discovery, a spokesman for the freshman Michigan Congresswoman told Business Insiders Joe Perticone that the piece was not an endorsement of Farrakhan or anyone for that matter. The Congresswoman has not had any direct contact with Farrakhan and condemns his anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ views.

Not having any direct contact with Farrakhan does not and should not absolve Tlaib nor Omar, for that matter of their well-known hostility towards Jewish people.

In seeming exasperation over the last two days of events, Tlaib took to the Twitter machine last night and pulled out the Woman of Color card:

Antisemites jumped at the opportunity to expose what they termed the true face of global Jewry this week as they shared a book called the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on social media, which they claim contains passages with damning evidence of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world and make all non-Jews subject, and which some also claim to have downloaded from the Jews official website. Jewish representatives countered that the text in question is not authoritative, and does not demonstrate anything of the sort, and they accused their opponents of distorting it for libelous ideological ends.

Here it is in the Jews own words, gloated David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Theres no whitewashing this. They plan to subjugate everyone to their rule, and they make no bones about how to accomplish it. My colleagues and I have been warning the world for a hundred years, but the Jewish-controlled media always depicts that as some far-fetched conspiracy theory. They want to deprive you of everything your houses, your cows, your air travel, everything! Well, far-fetch this, Jew-dogs!

I take back my apology for my tweets about AIPAC buying off member of congress, stated Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN). It turns out I was right all along.

Osama Abuirshaid and Rafeeq Jaber are listed as donors to Samirahs delegate campaign, according to the Virginia Department of Elections. Samirah is up for delegate on February 19th, running against Republican Air Force veteran Gregg Nelson. Samirah erased his state senator Jennifer Boyskos endorsement after his anti-Semitic posts came to light.

Both of these men Abuirshaid and Jaber were named by the Israeli government in a February 3 report on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movements links to terrorism. Both of these men, Osama Abuirshad and Rafael Jaber, are top-ranking officials of the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).

The AMP is spun off from a group that was found guilty by a federal court of providing financial aid to Hamas. Abuirshaid and Jaber were also part of that parent group.

At Spanish national film awards ceremony, filmmaker calls for Israel boycott

Director Julio Perez del Campos Gaza, a Look into the Eyes of Barbarism, won the 2019 Goya Award for best documentary film, the equivalent of an Academy Award. Critics say the film is one-sided and inaccurate.

No to Israel and the Eurovision, long live the fight of the Palestinian people, he said in his speech Thursday.

Israel will host the Eurovision Song Contest in May after winning last years contest.

Del Campo also said We should not legitimize countries that violate systematically human rights, we must not be complicit in Israeli apartheid.

Israels embassy in Spain called the speech a discourse of hate.

The more studies appear on anti-Semitism in Germany, the darker the picture becomes. This results from the many facets of hatemongering in the country against Jews and Israel. A new study addresses the structural elements of anti-Semitism in German schools. Its authors, are Samuel Salzborn of the Center for Research of anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin and Alexandra Kurth from the Justus Liebig University in Giessen. The two universities published the study, which they call a stocktaking, jointly.

A prime conclusion of the study is that distorted schoolbooks are a crucial problem. Many of them are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. These deficiencies are one of the key topics of the study. It often quotes a German-Israeli schoolbook commission which investigated between 2010 - 2015 schoolbooks on geography, history and politics in the two countries.

The part of the study concerning schoolbooks focuses on three issues. The first concerns the question of whether and how anti-Semitism is discussed. The authors state that in many schoolbooks the Shoah is mentioned as just one among a variety of aspects of national-socialism. By linking anti-Semitism exclusively to national-socialism, the connection with the long pre-history of hate mongering against the Jews as well as that of post-Holocaust anti-Semitism is diminished.

Dealing with the subject of the hate of Jews in this way leads to another misrepresentation. It gives the impression that anti-Semitism belongs exclusively to the political right. Even there it is seen mainly as a historic event. This conceals the anti-Semitism in the political left and in society's mainstream. The authors stress that anti-Semitism is not a Jewish problem but that of antisemites. Such hatred cannot be explained from the history and culture of Judaism, but only from the projections of antisemites on the Jews.

The omission occurred in a textbook about social issues titled Plein M by Nordhoff Publishers for preparatory middle-level applied education level schools, including public schools. It states Jerusalem is holy to Muslims and Christians, but does not mention its holiness to Jews.

It also states that Jews and Christians were mostly treated well by Arabs throughout history. It does not mention capital taxes and many pogroms perpetrated against Jews in Arab countries before and during the flight of at least 800,000 Jews from those countries in the 20th century. Today, there are fewer than 7,000 Jews living in Arab countries.

Likoed Nederland, a pro-Israel group, called the book a form of historical falsification in a statement Sunday, adding it reads like Palestinian propaganda.

Go here to see the original:
02/13 Links Pt2: Antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Performing ...

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on 02/13 Links Pt2: Antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Performing …
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 14, 2019

Pittsburgh -- A truck driver accused of killing 11 people during an attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue has pleaded not guilty. Robert Bowers, 46, was in federal court Monday and pleaded not guilty to a new indictment that added 19 additional counts.

The hearing lasted less than 15 minutes, reports CBS Pittsburgh. Bowers arrived in a red jumpsuit with his ankles and wrists shackled.

His attorney, Judy Clarke, says the defense is hoping the case can be resolved without going to trial. Clarke is a noted death penalty lawyer whose past clients have included one of the Boston Marathon bombers, a 9/11 conspirator and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

A grand jury on Jan. 29 added 19 counts to the 44 Bowers was already facing. The additional charges include hate crimes violations, obstruction of religious belief and the use of a firearm during crimes of violence. The charges in the new, 63-count superseding indictment include:

Eleven counts of obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs resulting in death; Eleven counts of hate crimes resulting in death; Two counts of obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs involving an attempt to kill and use of a dangerous weapon and resulting in bodily injury; Two counts of hate crimes involving an attempt to kill; Eight counts of obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs involving an attempt to kill and use of a dangerous weapon, and resulting in bodily injury to public safety officers; Four counts of obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs involving use of a dangerous weapon and resulting in bodily injury to public safety officers; Twenty-five counts of discharge of a firearm during these crimes of violence.

Bowers, of Baldwin, Pennsylvania, is accused of targeting worshippers from three Jewish congregations when he attacked Saturday, Oct. 27, while Sabbath services were being held. Authorities say Bowers raged against Jews during and after the attack.

Eleven were killed and seven people were wounded, including five police officers.

Investigators say Bowers posted criticism of a Jewish charity on social media before the attack, claiming the immigrant aid society "likes to bring invaders that kill our people." Authorities said he told investigators that "all these Jews need to die."

Bowers has been jailed in the Butler County Prison, about 35 miles north of the shooting scene. If convicted of the most serious offenses, he could be sentenced to life without parole.

A spokeswoman for federal prosecutors in Pittsburgh said a decision about whether to pursue the death penalty against Bowers remains under review.

Two members from the Dor Hadash congregation, which is part of the Tree of Life Synagogue, attended the hearing, CBS Pittsburgh reports.

"We have to be present, and strong, and not afraid, and make ourselves be known as human beings, all of us in this process, that's all I know," said Donna Coufal, one of the Dor Hadash congregants.

Excerpt from:

Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect pleads not guilty

Category: Synagogue | Comments Off on Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect pleads not guilty
Tags:

Posted By admin on February 14, 2019

Nazi policy did a great deal to facilitate denial of the Holocaust even as the killing operation unfolded across German-occupied Europe during World War II.

The Holocaust was a state secret in Nazi Germany. The Germans wrote down as little as possible. Most of the killing orders were verbal, particularly at the highest levels. Hitler's order to kill Jews was issued only on a need-to-know basis. The Nazi leaders generally avoided detailed planning of killing operations, preferring to proceed in a systematic but often improvised manner. The Germans destroyed most documentation that did exist before the end of the war. The documents that survived and related directly to the killing program were virtually all classified and stamped Geheime Reichssache (Top Secret), requiring special handling and destruction to prevent capture by the enemy. Heinrich Himmler, Reich Leader of the SS and Chief of the German Police, said in a secret speech to SS generals in Posen in 1943 that the mass murder of the European Jews was a secret, never to be recorded.

In order to hide the killing operation as much as possible from the uninitiated, Hitler ordered that the killings not be spoken of directly in German documentation or in public statements. Instead, the Germans used codenames and neutral-sounding terms for the killing process. In Nazi parlance, for example, action (Aktion) referred to a violent operation against Jewish (or other) civilians by German security forces; resettlement to the East (Umsiedlung nach dem Osten) referred to the forced deportation of Jewish civilians to killing centers in German-occupied Poland; and special treatment (Sonderbehandlung) meant killing.

Both at the time and later, such euphemisms impeded a clear understanding of what the Nazis were doing. This was partly to facilitate the killing process by keeping the victims in the dark about their fate as long as possible. Widespread Jewish resistance was only possible once Jews understood that Nazi policy was to kill all of them. Furthermore, Hitler could not just assume that almost no one would protest the killing of Jews. Even within his own party there were those who agreed with the campaign of persecution against Jews but who occasionally balked at systematic murder. For example, Wilhelm Kube, the German civilian administrator of occupied Belarus, fully supported the murder of the Belarusian Jews, but protested when the SS deported German Jews to Minsk and shot them there.

Hitler had reason to fear possible unfavorable reaction should all the details of the Holocaust become public. Euphemistic language aided secrecy since only those who knew the real meaning of the words would understand the deeper meaning of public statements or accurately interpret the documentary record.

In addition to the use of coded language, Heinrich Himmler sought to destroy the physical remains of the victims of killing operations to hide the killing process from advancing Allied armies. He assigned SS officer Paul Blobel to command Operation (Aktion) 1005, the code name for German plans to destroy the forensic evidence at mass murder sites. The SS forced prisoners to reopen mass graves at both the killing centers in German-occupied Poland and at the open air killing sites in the former Soviet territory and to cremate the bodies, thereby removing evidence of mass murder. For example, at Babi Yar in Kiev in the summer of 1943, at Belzec in late 1942, and at Sobibor and Treblinka in the fall of 1943, the mass graves were reopened and the bodies burned to ashes. In this way, the Germans and their collaborators destroyed muchbut by no means allof the forensic evidence of mass murder before advancing Soviet armies overran the scenes of these crimes.

Late in the war, after word of the Holocaust had reached Britain and the United States, the Nazi leadership sought to counter Allied condemnation of Nazi policies toward Jews with a coordinated campaign of disinformation. On June 23, 1944, the Nazis permitted an International Red Cross commission visit to the Theresienstadt ghetto in occupied Bohemia in what is today the Czech Republic. They hoped to mask Nazi killing operations in the occupied eastern territories by showcasing good conditions for Jews in Theresienstadt. The Red Cross commission consisted of two Danish officials and one Swiss representative and the visit lasted only six hours. It was an elaborate hoax. The SS authorities intensified deportations of Jews from the ghetto to alleviate overcrowding and spruced up the ghetto by planting gardens, painting houses, opening cafes and theaters and the like in preparation for the visit. They even instructed the prisoners how to behave during the inspection and to give positive reports about conditions in the ghetto. Once the visit ended, however, the SS authorities resumed deportations of Jews, overwhelmingly to the Auschwitz killing center in German-occupied Poland. The visit had served its purpose: to confuse international public opinion about the true nature of Nazi policies towards Jews.

Despite Nazi efforts to keep secret the unfolding Holocaust, information did leak out. The perpetrators themselves talked about what they were doing. Occasionally, survivors of mass killing operations bore witness to the killing program. Both Jewish and Polish underground organizations made great efforts to let the outside world know what the Germans were doing in eastern Europe. The information was sometimes incomplete, contradictory, and inaccurate in some of the specific details, but the general policy and pattern of events were clear by the second half of 1942.

Yet the psychological barriers to accepting the existence of the Nazi killing program were considerable. The Holocaust was unprecedented and irrational. It was inconceivable that an advanced industrial nation would mobilize its resources to kill millions of peaceful civilians, including women and children, the elderly, and the very young. In doing so, the Nazis often acted contrary to German economic and military interests. For example, they intensified the killing operation, killing skilled Jewish laborers even while labor shortages threatened to undermine the German war effort.

All too many people responded to reports about German killings of Jewish civilians by comparing these reports to news stories about German atrocities in occupied Belgium and northern France during World War I. The British media in World War I charged that the German occupation was monstrous, that German soldiers committed many outrages against defenseless civilians in German-occupied Belgium. They charged that German soldiers bayoneted babies, disfigured women, and killed civilians with military-issued poison gas. It turned out after the war that the Allies had invented many of those stories in order to maximize popular support for the war effort. As a result of that experience, many people were skeptical of reports of mass murder operations during World War II. In this case, however, the reports turned out to be generally accurate.

While some people today are misled as a result of the Nazi policies described above into doubting the reality of the Holocaust, others deny the Holocaust for more overtly racist, political, or strategic reasons. These deniers begin with the premise that the Holocaust did not happen. This premise suits their broader purposes. They deny the Holocaust as an article of faith and no amount of rational argumentation can dissuade them. This denial is irrational, largely unrelated either to the facts of the history or to the enormity of the event. Some people deny the Holocaust because of innate antisemitism, irrational hated of Jews.

In fact, Holocaust denial has been called by some scholars the new antisemitism for it recycles many of the elements of pre-1945 antisemitism in a post-World War II context. Holocaust deniers argue that reports of the Holocaust are really part of a vast shadowy plot to make the white, western world feel guilty and to advance the interest of Jews. Even at the time of the Holocaust, some people in the United States thought reports of German massacres of Jewish civilians were actually propaganda reports designed to force the government to grant Jews special treatment and consideration.

Many people who deny the Holocaust argue that the supposed hoax served above all the interests of the State of Israel. Holocaust denial is, for these people, also an attack on the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Finally, others deny the Holocaust because they want to see a resurgence of Nazi racism. They insist that Nazism was a good political philosophy and that only negative press resulting from reports of the genocide the Nazis perpetrated prevent a revival of the Nazi movement today. They deny the Holocaust so that they can attract followers to a new Nazi movement.

Holocaust denial, then, unites a broad range of radical right-wing hate groups in the United States and elsewhere, ranging from Ku Klux Klan segregationists to skinheads seeking to revive Nazism to radical Muslim activists seeking to destroy Israel.

Holocaust deniers want to debate the very existence of the Holocaust as a historical event. They want above all to be seen as legitimate scholars arguing a historical point. They crave attention, a public platform to air what they refer to as the other side of the issue. Because legitimate scholars do not doubt that the Holocaust happened, such assertions play no role in historical debates. Although deniers insist that the idea of the Holocaust as myth is a reasonable topic of debate, it is clear, in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence that the Holocaust happened, that the debate the deniers put forward is more about antisemitism and hate politics than it is about history.

More here:

Combating Holocaust Denial: Origins of Holocaust Denial ...

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on Combating Holocaust Denial: Origins of Holocaust Denial …
Tags: