The Fallacious New "Anti-Semitism"

Before we dive into the “new” and “modern” definition of “anti-Semitism” to see how logically fallacious it is, we will first go back in time to the origin of the term.

Although the jews have been hated by virtually every people they have encountered throughout human history for thousands of years, the term “anti-Semite” was coined, or at least popularized, by German politician Wilhem Marr, only 143 years ago.

During Marr’s time, the “hatred” of jews began to change from the rejection of judaism into a hatred of jews as a race, as Darwin’s evolutionary theory changed the way humanity look at itself. Thus, the “anti-Semite” was a person who didn’t just reject jews on a religious basis, but primarily on a racial one.

From My Jewish Learning:

In Germany, Wilhelm Marr … thought of himself as a modern man, a student of history and science. Anti-Semitism allowed him to distinguish the party he launched in late 1879 — the Anti-Semites’ League — from the religious bigotry of medieval Jew-hatred. Like many (but not all) who shared his goals, Marr defined the Jewish Question as one of race, not religious deviance. In the past, persecution had been episodic; outbursts of terrible violence alternated with long periods of quiet relations between Jews and their neighbors. In Marr’s view, such lackadaisical Jew-hatred had allowed Jews to grow stronger and, in fact, launch plans for conquest of the non-Jewish world. Mere religious prejudice had failed to halt their rise. The Jews had become too powerful, too entrenched in society, to be beaten back by the occasional pogrom. 

---

The IRHA Definition

I’m sure you’ve heard the saying: “An anti-Semite used to be a person who disliked jews, now it’s a person that jews dislike.” Looking at today’s sociopolitical atmosphere, we can certainly see that this statement is 100% accurate.

The jews have turned the term “anti-Semite” into one of their most powerful weapons they use to defame and disarm their adversaries, and they have no qualms about using it . . . constantly.

As jewish NGOs continue to exert more and more power over Western governments, one global body, The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, has come up with its own definition of anti-Semitism and is currently trying to make nations across the world accept it.

From “Defining Antisemitism” at State.gov. (I numbered the bullet points for later reference.)

• 1.) Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

• 2.) Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

• 3.) Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

• 4.) Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)

• 5.) Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

• 6.) Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• 7.) Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• 8.) Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• 9.) Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• 10.) Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• 11.) Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

I want you to notice: points 1-4 have to do with jews as people; points 5-11 all have to deal with Israel/Zionism. This indicates that the IRHA’s “unbinding” definition is really about tying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, which is a fallacy since one is a rejection of a people, whereas the other is a rejection of an ideology.

I will breakdown which of these could legitimately be considered anti-Semitic and which are nothing but fallacious attempts to silence opposition.

---

Breaking It Down

1.) Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

I think we can all agree that anyone engaging in this behavior is anti-Semitic.

2.) Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Aside from the dehumanizing part, which may be an indication of a strong dislike or hatred of jews, the rest of this statement is objectively verifiable: jews do most certainly dominate and control the institutions listed, and they are conspiring on a global level via thousands of NGOs across the world promoting their agenda of “Tikun Olam”; they even have a World Jewish Congress that spans six continents, with located in over 100 countries.

3.) Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Although it is a fallacy of composition to accuse or blame all members of a group for some wrongdoing, even if one did so, it doesn’t mean they hate that group, especially if that wrongdoing is a fact—which most of the time with jews, it is. Furthermore, to erroneously blame a jew or jews for the actions of a non-jew would simply be a mistake based on a false belief, not necessarily intentional anti-Semitism based on hatred.

4.) Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

This is a false equivalence fallacy: one’s disbelief in the Holocaust™ has nothing to do with whether or not they hate jews. A person can doubt parts of or even completely deny it, while simultaneously being a philosemite (lover of jews). In fact, some of the most infamous Holocaust™ deniers are jews: e.g. David Cole and Arye Friedmann.

5.) Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

It is anti-Semitic to claim that every jew on earth is lying about the Holocaust™, because you would be implying that they are all intentionally doing so, rather than them also being fooled by a false narrative. However, it is possible that the State of Israel, as a political weapon, has used and does use the Holocaust™ to bludgeon its opposition. And since we have irrefutable video proof of several jews exaggerating and inventing stories about the Holocaust™, one could claim Israel does the same on a state level to achieve its political aims, and such a claim would not be anti-Semitic at all, but it would be an anti-Zionist one.

6.) Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

This is not anti-Semitic because we have plenty of recent examples of jews putting Israel first in our time, along with centuries of examples of jews betraying their host nations for the interests of world jewry throughout history. In fact, in the video below, Professor Barry Trachtenberg argues against this very part of the IHRA definition, precisely because Zionism demands loyalty from all jews to Israel above all others.

7.) Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

I agree telling jews they have no right to self-determination would be anti-Semitic, although judaism would disagree, but stating the fact that the State of Israel is a racist endeavor, when it literally has “birth right” citizenship based on jewish DNA, is not. Thus, this argument commits a non sequitur fallacy.

8.) Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Although it would be a double-standard to demand Israel to act in ways we don’t of others, it would only be anti-Israel and not a hatred of jews; thus, this point is another false equivalence fallacy, supported by the fact that many anti-Zionists are jewish. The irony is the jew has the chutzpah to put this in here, while Israel is clearly above International law, as it violates every single human right by doing anything it wants to whomever it wants at anytime, without any facing consequences at all.

9.) Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Notice they are claiming that using these things to characterize Israel is anti-Semitic, which is nonsensical since Israel is a state, not a people. Moreover, millions of non-jews live in Israel, so how is using such symbols and images against Israel be anti-Semitic against these non-jewish, Israeli citizens? Oh, and about Christ . . .

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

10.) Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Again, another false equivalence fallacy. One can absolutely make similar comparisons between Israeli and Nazis policies and it doesn’t mean they hate all jews. As stated before, many jews are anti-Zionists and do this very thing, constantly.

11.) Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Although it is a fallacy of composition to hold all jews collectively responsible for Isarel’s actions, even if someone did, they wouldn’t be too far from the mark, as the majority of jews on the planet support Israel. Furthermore, someone holding people responsible for something doesn’t necessarily mean they hate those people. For example, most of the world holds Americans responsible for their inability to stop their politicians from starting wars, does that mean they hate all Americans on a personal level? No. Likewise, it is not anti-Semitic to hold world jewry responsible for their genocidal brethren in Israel from doing what they have been doing for 75 years, especially when they cheer them on and support them fully.

---

To Summarize

The only point that is truly anti-Semitic, is the first one, which is calling for the physical harm of jews, whereas the following three (2-4) are simply an attempt to criminalize having the “wrong opinions.” But it is clear that rest of this definition’s seven out of the eleven points (5-11), are all about having the wrong view or opinion on Israel, fallaciously conflating the hatred of jewish people (anti-Semitism), with a hatred of the so-called “jewish state” (anti-Zionism).

Ultimately, what this new definition of “anti-Semitism” is trying to instill into the mind of the Gentiles, is that they can’t even have the “wrong opinions” on jews and/or Israel, even when many of the things claimed to be “anti-Semitic” are objectively verifiable facts.

The chutzpah!

---