The IHRA Leaders Insult Our Intelligence
Not only human intelligence, but artificial intelligence as well
This essay is in response to the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism, found in the following link:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
_____________
The recent working definition of "antisemitism" by the IHRA (above link) insults human intelligence and is an attempt to stifle any criticism of wrongdoing by Jewish leaders both inside and outside Israel, hide their role in Israeli land theft, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, and insulate the roles and association of Judaism with such wrongdoing. For instance, one cannot identify “Jews” as the perpetrators behind wrongdoing without being identified as an “antisemite.” We are allowed to identify “Jews” only with favorable and admirable action, but in the case of wrongdoing, “Judaism” doesn’t exist. Only “Zionists” or “Israelis” can be so identified, as if they have no association with Judaism.
An important question is, why are Jews murdering babies by the city-block-loads in Gaza and the West Bank and believing it’s a right moral thing to do? Is this what they mean by “Jewish Values?” Such correct and logical questions could never be asked in public by any public figure without severe character assassination, and the reasons have much to do with the IHRA efforts discussed here.
We know that during WWII, Germans were intimately associated with Nazis, and the nouns, “Germans” and “Nazis” were used interchangeably. Many Jews then hated Germans for their Holocaust, and rightly so. When the Germans were required to make restitution after the war, they couldn’t excuse themselves by saying, “It wasn’t us, it was the Nazis,” or, “Not all Germans were aware of, nor in support of, genocide.” The condemnation meted to the Germans is the same condemnation we must apply to Judaism. Only then will Judaism correct itself and make restitutions.
We describe here only Jewish political activity, as conducted by the organized political arm of Judaism, which heads an enormously powerful political lobby, primarily in the US, but also the EU. We are not concerned with religious, cultural, or ethnic activity, although politics can be enmeshed in such activities.
The label used in this definition, "antisemitism," is a misnomer and is self-contradictory. Instead of using the label, "anti-Jew," which would be consistent with the labels used by most ethnic groups to describe hateful behavior against members of their groups, the IHRA chooses a nebulous term that requires definition and explanation. Here, we make the case that the IHRA strategy is to assume a central role in Judaism and make a definition that is best suited for propaganda control of our government and society. The appropriate label, "anti-Jew" is too clear and direct to be amenable to that strategy, and we denounce here any true anti-Jew activity of a personal nature.
Concerning mislabeling, the major portion of Jews have relatively little Semitic genes compared to other groups such as Palestinians, thus the label “antisemitism” implies concern for non-Jews as well as Jews. This is misleading. On self-contradiction, the fact that the vast majority of Israeli Jews hate the Palestinians and the fact that a vast majority of US Jews support such bigotry both lead to the conclusion that the world's largest concentration of true “antisemites” lies within Judaism.
Apparently, IHRA leaders believe the propaganda value of such a definition is worth the risk that we citizens - both Jew and non-Jew - will realize how absurd it really is. Importantly, their influence is strong enough to direct western governments to incorporate this definition into legislation intended to stifle political criticism of Jewish leaders both inside and outside Israel. There are bills and resolutions currently in the US Congress intended to formulate the IHRA definition and/or similar language that would sanction rightful criticism of wrongdoing by the political leaders of Judaism.
H.R.6090, the “Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023,” by Rep. Lawler already passed the House and was introduced to the Senate under S.3141 and S.4127 by Sen. Scott.
H.R.7921, “Countering Antisemitism Act,” by Rep. Manning, was introduced to the House.
S.4091, “Countering Antisemitism Act,” by Sen. Rosen, was introduced to the Senate.
H.R.380, “Encouraging the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to continue its critical work, in person and online, in educating the public about the dangers of antisemitism and the origins of the Holocaust,” by Reps. Schneider and Scott was introduced to the House.
H.Res.894 – “Strongly condemning and denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism in the United States and around the world,” by Rep. Kustoff was agreed to in the House.
There are other lines, clauses, and resolutions, in official Congressional proceedings and in other bills that conflate rational and reasonable protection of individual Jews with efforts to insulate Jewish leaders from their wrongdoings.
- - -
On their website in the above link, the IHRA says that antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
This example seeks to deny the fact that settler colonization by Israeli Jews in Palestine has been historically and overwhelmingly supported by the US Jewish community – both leaders and followers - for many decades now. Jewish children have been indoctrinated to such an ethos by care givers that were likewise indoctrinated. Although there are recent adjustments, primarily among younger Jews, Judaism is still in overwhelming agreement to expand Israel to most the lands of Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel), according to the stated intentions of early Jewish Zionists. Since the 1967 Arab-Jew war, this ethos has been firmly established within Judaism as surely as was the Nazi ethos within Germany. The IHRA now seeks additional ways to intensify this ethos, and since we cannot bring a perpetrator to justice unless we identify who it is, the propaganda intent is to keep identification of the culprits – Judaism’s political leaders - hidden from public scrutiny.
With this approach, the IHRA relies on the respect non-Jews have for Judaism as a religion, culture, and ethnic minority to further the genocidal intentions of Israel. But as Israel commits more atrocities, the reputation of Judaism suffers; the importance of the Holocaust and other pogroms as reminders of the horrible historical treatment of Jews, weakens; Arab nations increase their animosity towards Israel, and tensions in the Middle East grow, threatening the entire world. Also, more unstable, frustrated people become angered, bringing more violence to individual Jews. Such violence only validates the propaganda value of the IHRA approach, with self-reinforcement, and these leaders declare to their followers, “See, the Goyim kill us just because we’re Jews, so Judaism needs us, your leaders, to protect you.”
Such escalated scrutiny and criticism of Israel also spills over to criticism of Jews, which causes the IHRA and other Jewish leaders to heighten their efforts to protect Judaism, in a self-reinforced escalation of public censorship, which is the reason for this essay.
The IHRA is thus willing to increasingly sacrifice individual Jews in preference to the goal to protect the name of Judaism from the wrongdoing committed by its political leaders. This is intention, not irony, and leaders of powerful groups have often been willing to sacrifice their people for their own wealth and power.
A false premise behind Example 1 is that Israel is not a Jewish collectivity, a denial of fact. This example seeks to condemn those who know and publicly express that fact, and the real purpose of this example is to stifle public awareness of this collectivity and thus insulate the role of the Jewish diaspora in the wrongdoing of Israeli Jews: you’re a bad person if you acknowledge that collectivity. In truth however, you’re a good person when you criticize the wrongdoing of any individual or group.
The Israeli Jews would never get away with their wrongdoing if it weren’t for their unconditional political and military support by the USA, and that support in turn is guaranteed by the US Jewish community through its US Jewish Lobby (cf. link near end). This Lobby is also most likely supported by Israel through either direct or indirect funding, which would clearly be in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Israel and its goals are deeply in the heart of Judaism, especially since 1967, and it's certainly a collective product of Judaism via its political leaders whom the community supports. That's as surely true as is the fact that the genocide of indigenous peoples was a collective product of the European settlers in the Americas, Australia, Rhodesia, S. Africa, etc., and by extension, an outcome even of the nations from which the settlers originated. We very often speak in ways that illustrate collective responsibility for groups, and Judaism should be no exception. These Jewish leaders, acting within a de facto political entity, display unprecedented chutzpa by demanding different usage for the noun “Jew” than for any other noun in the English language.
As a dramatic proof that this example of the IHRA definition blatantly insults human intelligence but also artificial intelligence (AI), we present below the results of two suitable queries to Copilot, MS’s AI web search client:
- -
Copilot query: Does Judaism act collectively?
“Yes, Judaism does have elements of collective action. The Jewish religious and spiritual tradition has been largely concerned with regulating behavior through a wide-ranging legal system (1). This system is intertwined with a parallel literary tradition concerned with the practice and theory of ethics (1).
“On an everyday level, this focus on peoplehood is translated into an emphasis on the community as the primary organizing structure of Jewish life (2). Wherever Jews have lived, they have built synagogues, established communal organizations, and created systems of communal governance (2).
“Jewish life remains centered on individual and collective participation in an eternal dialogue with God through tradition, rituals, prayers, and ethical actions (3). This implies that the full ethical responsibility of Jews cannot be carried out solely within the realm of individual relationships but must include involvement in the life of a fully articulated community (4).
“So, while individual Jews may have their own beliefs and practices, there is a strong tradition of collective action within Judaism, particularly in the realms of ethics, community organization, and religious practice. However, it’s important to note that the degree of collective action can vary among different Jewish communities and individuals.
“References:
1. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-ethical-behavior/
2. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/community-focused/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Judaism
4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Judaism/Ethics-and-society
“Also:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5778740/jewish/18-Myths-Facts-About-Judaism-Jewish-People.htm”
- -
Copilot query: Does Judaism express collective political behavior?
“Yes, Judaism does express collective political behavior. This behavior is manifested in several ways:
“Collective Mobilization: Jews have been involved in political movements, both Jewish and non-Jewish (1).
“Self-Advocacy and Self-Representation: Jews have engaged in formal self-advocacy and self-representation in domestic, regional, and global political frameworks (1).
“Legal Activism and Diplomatic Work: Jews have undertaken legal activism and diplomatic work on behalf of local and distant Jewish communities, especially with regard to issues of citizenship, migration, anti-Semitism, and violence (1).
“Intellectual and Legal Projects: Jews have participated in intellectual and legal projects of collective self-definition within or in opposition to existing conventional categories of modern politics, such as state and nation (1).
“Political Sovereignty: The exercise of political sovereignty in the State of Israel is a significant example of Jewish collective political behavior (1).
“Historically, Jewish communities were organized politically and regularly elected both secular leaders and rabbis (2). They maintained courts, established extensive welfare systems, passed laws regulating all aspects of life in the community, and appointed agents as “diplomats” to represent the community in its relations with external authority (2).
“However, it’s important to note that the degree of collective political behavior can vary among different Jewish communities and individuals, and it is influenced by a variety of factors including historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts (1,3).
“References:
1. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199840731/obo-9780199840731-0150.xml
2. https://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/jewish-political-traditions.pdf
3. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-793”
“Also read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_politics
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.793”
- -
What gives the IHRA leaders the right to condemn those that speak the truth, and why should anyone listen to such a ludicrous attempt to deny facts that are published all over the world and easily accessible on the www with both human and AI searches? The answer is that there is no right, and this is only a scheme by these Jewish leaders to control our governments and society for their own selfish intentions.
Importantly, notice that with this cited “example,” the IHRA does not deny the fact that Israel is “conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” It simply states that to acknowledge such a fact “might” be interpreted as antisemitism. Since it is indeed factual that Israel is a collective result of Judaism, such an “example” illustrates the excellent mastery of double speak propaganda by Jewish leaders. It’s so convoluted that a literal interpretation of this IHRA definition of “antisemitism” is that all morally conscious humans should be antisemitic, and proud of it.
- - -
Example 2 in this definition is that "antisemitism... is often used to blame Jews for 'why things go wrong.'" A factual example of “things gone wrong” is that the US has long been complicit in Israel’s land theft, Apartheid, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. As mentioned above, this collusion is largely the outcome of the US Jewish Lobby, the organized political arm of the US Jewish community, with undoubtedly much help from Israel. This outcome comprises the US Jewish community’s contribution to the world’s political effort of Judaism. The intentions to commit war crimes and likely genocide announced by Israeli on October 8, 2023, and the additional unconscionable bombing of Rafah in May 2024 as a supreme “thumb of the nose” by Israeli leaders against the then recent ICC and ICJ rulings is certainly an example of "things gone wrong."
Things are very wrong, thanks to these Jewish leaders and to the cowardice and corruption of US government officials, with even much of its citizenry giving its support. The country is overcome by a worship of Jews. Such is the power of Jewish propaganda, and hence this current push by the IHRA to increase it.
Because of recent extreme demonstrations of Jewish depravity in Gaza and increasingly in the West Bank, US citizen support for Israel has significantly decreased. But that’s too little too late. The awesome power of Jewish propaganda proved well enough, resulting in the overwhelming destruction of increasingly more than 85% Gaza infrastructure and society, with the human death toll measured ultimately by five zeroes. This current IHRA definition is an example of the mechanisms behind such successful propaganda and atrocity.
In Example 2, the IHRA does not deny the fact that Jews have been critically involved in “why things have gone wrong.” But they warn us that anyone who acknowledges such a fact, “might” be antisemitic. The choice of the word “might” amounts to a Scarlet Letter, and when weaponized into legislation, such a guideline is sure to destroy lives and careers of those seeking truth and justice.
The literal interpretation of Example 2 is again that good people should be antisemitic and proud of it. It is our moral duty to publicize the wrongdoing of any political group of people.
- - -
Example 3 by the IHRA is that antisemitism is "accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel... than to the interests of their own nations." An absurd premise alluded to here is that it’s not possible for a US Jew to be more loyal to Israel than to the USA, so if you point out an errant Jew, you’re an antisemite. But again, the definition doesn’t really say that Jews cannot be more loyal to Israel, it just says that accusing Jews of such a thing is antisemitism, even if the accusation is valid. Again we see a creative psychological application of propaganda intended to shelter Jewish leaders from rightful criticism.
In truth, there are many examples clearly showing that many US Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, especially among Congressmen and other government officials.
As example, virtually all US Jewish congressmen relentlessly demand that our government unconditionally support their beloved Israel no matter how much damage occurs to our society in both blood and treasure and to our relations with other countries and world peace. They are adamant that the US continue to give Israel as much military weapons, equipment, and support as this rogue nation wants to fulfill its genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
It’s astonishing that a group representing only 2% of our democracy demands so many national resources for their own pet interests. There’s little awareness by these leaders of their own selfishness and presumptuous attitude, as if Jewish values are outside the scope of humanity. As a result, the US has done enormous damage to itself with its obeisance and reliance on these Jewish leaders. The scholarly essay, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," by Mearsheimer and Walt in 2007 documents some of this, though it’s unfortunate that even these authors fail to identify the true political nature of this Lobby, erroneously calling it the “Israel Lobby.” In any event, such a major influence on our government is an attack on our democracy as is the case with any other powerful and selfish interest group, such as the Fossil Fuel Industry, the Military, and other corporate sectors.
Even the majority of non-Jewish congressmen often show more loyalty to Israel than they do to US society, outcomes that are often the direct effect of the US Jewish Lobby. Ilhan Omar wisely tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamines, baby.” After making such an accurate statement, she was lambasted into submission and apologies by the Lobby and those politicians loyal to the Lobby, who in some Jewish circles are referred to as “useful Goyim.”
In a 2019 appearance with Jewish Senator Chuck Schumer before the Israeli American Council, Nancy Pelosi illustrated such loyalty when she asserted, “I have said to people when they ask me, if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid - I don’t even call it aid - our cooperation - with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.”
In a more recent example, which is just as bazaar, US House Representative Elise Stefanik in a trip to Israel addressed a caucus of Israel’s Knesset in May 2024 and said the U.S. should supply "the state of Israel with what it needs, when it needs it, without conditions, to achieve total victory in the face of evil." Such a display gives credence to the term, “The United States of Israel.”
Another past example is the behavior of several US Jewish Neocons in 2003 when they expended enormous political influence in pushing Israel’s wish on the Bush Administration to attack Iraq, an immoral debacle that eventually claimed millions of lives, some fifty million refugees, and trillions of dollars of US treasure.
There are uncountable examples where US Jews, both politicians and laymen, many of whom have dual US/Israeli citizenship, demonstrate loyalty to Israel with no concern for the costs to their own country. With its blind assertions, the IHRA insults our understanding of these facts, attempting to censor public expression of them. This part of the definition thus obfuscates reality, is purely for propaganda value, and again reflects unprecedented shameless arrogance and dishonesty.
We must also realize how subjective it is to judge a relative loyalty towards a nation, and there’s much subjectivity associated with many other of the cited “examples” in the IHRA definition, indicating that the IHRA has a superior moral self image. Considering the fact that the Jewish Lobby is pushing government to weaponize this definition by incorporating it into law, and instead of leaving such subjective issues open to public debate, the IHRA cheats the debate by compelling government to prevent the debate. Such an arrogant approach is extremely deceitful and manipulative, demonstrating insult to the US public, a gross violation of first amendment rights, and another severe attack on our democracy.
- - -
Example 4 by the IHRA is that antisemitism claims "that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." First note that the word "a" is used before "State," implying that this example applies to any possible state of Israel, and its premise is that it’s impossible for Jews to form a state that incorporates racism. This is clever propaganda double-speak, implying that Jews are perfect human beings. And again like other examples, it doesn’t deny the fact that Israel is a racist endeavor.
But we do know the Israel has no Constitution or Bill of Rights but rather governs by “Basic Laws” that clearly distinguish between Jews and non-Jews. Israel's behavior towards Palestinians, both inside and outside Israel, since from the Nakba at its inception, has been utterly bigoted and racist, to the point of land theft, war crimes, Apartheid, and likely genocide – the crime of crimes.
In fact, the General Assembly of the UN, in 1975, passed a resolution declaring that Zionism is a form of racism, which stood for 16 years until the US put enough pressure on the UN to rescind it in 1991, with the cancelling resolution presented to the UN by the US president himself. The history of unconditional and embarrassing protection of Israel’s atrocities by the US at the UN is an abominable assault on a fragile democratic process among nations. For that, we must again thank the political influence of the US Jewish Lobby and the egregious self-interest of those who capitulate to this Lobby.
- - -
Example 5 of the IHRA says that antisemitism is "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." First off, notice again that the IHRA does not deny that there are legitimate “comparisons.” Israel has incorporated a political form of Zionism, which identifies the state with a category of people - Jews - as a superior group that reaches deep to blood level and familial decent. This is characteristic of fascism. If you’re a Jewish citizen of Israel, you belong to the privileged class and have full rights by Basic Law. If you’re any Jew born outside of Israel, you have full rights when you move to Israel and automatically become an Israeli citizen. But if you’re a non-Jew with a line of ancestors going back hundreds of years on the same land, you don’t, and the laws are tailored to suppress your group in order that the superior group of Jews keeps its majority rule. And the Jews then claim that this proves Israel is a democracy. In the Israeli streets, indigenous non-Jews are kindly referred to by Jews as “guests.” Ironically, the vast majority of the Israeli Jews who refer to indigenous people with such a term are part of the true Jewish diaspora, which descended from Ashkenazi European Jews who hadn’t lived in the Holy Land for 65 generations and thousands of years. Such a fact exposes another item of Jewish lies and propaganda that says only those Jews currently living outside Israel are “diaspora.”
Jewish leaders often complain, “they kill us only because we are Jews.” It’s ironic because Jews kill Palestinians only because Palestinians are not Jews.
Importantly, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and other notable conscientious Jews in a 1948 letter to the NY Times characterized Israel's then-current Herut party (“Freedom” party) as, "a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist Parties." According to this IHRA definition, Einstein and these other Jewish writers were antisemites. This Herut party was a precursor to the Likud Party, both of which were formed by Menachem Begin, and the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a member of the latter party.
Menachem Begin in 1948.
- - -
Example 6 by the IHRA says antisemitism is "holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." This example is related to Example 1, and our rebuke here is similar. We note also that the IHRA again does not claim it’s invalid to hold “Jews collectively responsible.” It is valid to hold groups collectively responsible, as the world has done to Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Stalin Russia, colonial England, etc. With proper English usage, we attach collective attributes to many groups in the act of “naming” as a way to discuss ideas. Groups such as Republicans, Democrats, Whites, Blacks, Catholics, Buddhists, etc. are all discussed in collective terms. To say, “Polar bears are dying in the North” conveys information that is informative and useful, despite the fact that not every single Polar bear is dying. Example 6 is thus another attempt to trick us into believing we’re bad people if we understand the facts about what Jewish leaders are doing. It seeks to deny the fact that those leaders could not lead if it weren’t for the aggregated consent of the followers.
An even further example is that Jewish leaders argue that since not all Jews are Zionists, only “Zionists” can be accused of genocide and not “Jews.” But we know that not all Zionists are in favor of genocide. Thus, the same argument could be used to invalidate the accusation that even Zionists are the responsible group. The fact is that Jewish leaders use the philosophy of Zionism to justify their genocide. Zionism is not the source of wrongdoing. Jews are the source. Any individual Jew is free to reject his/her support for this wrongdoing and dissent from this collective outcome of Judaism.
The Jewish Lobby:
Who is the Jewish Lobby? The lobby consists of the leaders of some 450 worldwide Jewish political organizations. About 350 are in the US, and they are funded with billions of dollars by the Jewish community and Israel, dwarfing all other ethnic lobbies combined, including the African American Lobby, which represents almost ten times the population of Jews in the US. This is the organized political arm of Judaism. Cleverly, the US Jewish Lobby insulates itself from its wrongdoings by demanding that all public speakers use the label “Israel Lobby,” instead of one that reflects its true identity. We can expect that Jewish leaders will do their best to make such terminology a legal issue.
Their demand for the term, “Israel Lobby” absurdly implies that the people in this lobby are Israelis and that its concerns are only with regard to Israel, with none of it having anything to do with “Jews.” That’s a lie, because the people of the Lobby are US Jewish citizens, and its political concerns go beyond Israel. Examples of the latter concerns are the definition and legal implications of “antisemitism” – proven by our discussion here - the dominant roles Jews play in US government and society, the control of the national Jewish Narrative, the determination of what is politically correct public speech, and many other concerns that are beyond the scope of this essay. A list of these Jewish organizations can be found at: https://iwasathought.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/145642569?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts.
Zionism is a product of Judaism and Israel is a product of Judaism in the same way that Nazism was a product of Germany. It's incorrect to label the enemy of the Palestinians as "Zionists" or "Israelis" as if those categories have nothing to do with Judaism. Zionism is a set of beliefs that Jews have used to justify their aggression, in the same way that "freedom" or "democracy" is often used by Americans to justify their aggression. For instance, in the Afghan war, it's not correct to say that the Afghans were fighting "freedomers," as if they had nothing to do with Americans. No, the Afghans were fighting Americans who justified their aggression with the ideal of “freedom.” In the same way, Palestinians are fighting Jews who justify their aggression with the erroneous beliefs of “Zionism.” Zionism is not the source of atrocity, Jews are.
Many societies have conducted despicable political behavior, which can become the dedicated activity of groups within those societies. This specialization is inherent to human society, and we can include here Germans, Italians, Russians, Chinese, etc., in which such dedicated groups existed. Thus, Judaism has only “joined the club” with its dedicated group called “Zionist Jews.”
It's not complicated. We routinely assign responsibility for the overall actions of a group of people, despite the fact that not every single member of the group is culpable. If we can criticize the US for its wrongdoings, we can criticize Judaism for same, and through the decades, Judaism has become a political monster in the US that successfully stifles such discussion. We say, "Americans committed war crimes in Vietnam," despite the fact that there were many protests by Americans against that war. We now say that the US is complicit in Israel’s genocide. That’s true despite the protests on 120 college campuses in the USA. Likewise, "Jews are committing war crimes and genocide in Gaza," despite the fact that some morally-sound Jewish individuals and groups criticize the Jews in Israel. This last statement is a proper and accurate use of the English language, proven by precedence in other examples, despite Jewish attempts to change the rules of usage for propaganda value.
Moreover, our criticism of any group doesn’t mean we hate the individual members of those groups. These criticisms are in the realm of politics, which is a property of the group collectivity, not of the individuals in the group. What can be simpler? Thus, in the same way that criticism of the US for its wrongdoings does not imply hate for individual Americans, criticism of Judaism for its wrongdoings does not imply hate for individual Jews. The latter offense is adequately described by the label, “anti-Jew.”
The Biden administration has adopted this absurd definition of antisemitism, with movement in Congress to incorporate it into law, despite its obvious violations of our First Amendment rights, which will lead to the destruction of many careers and lives among morally concerned US citizens, both Jew and non-Jew. Such legal activity only illustrates the power of the organized political arm of the current US Jewish community. In the same way the Allies put an end to German support of the leaders of the Nazi party, we must also put an end to Jewish support of their leaders who damage our democracy in pursuit of their final solution to their Palestinian problem. Hopefully, this solution can find ample support within the Jewish community sooner than later.
When all those who identify with Judaism say to themselves and to fellow Jews, “We are committing genocide,” Judaism will experience what the Germans experienced shortly before the end of WWII. Only then could there be the reform needed within Judaism.
With this IHRA definition of antisemitism, Jewish leaders are empowered to further their immoral political agendas. They continue to make both truths and constitutional freedoms disappear, with disrespect for their own Jewish followers, and they thumb their noses at non-Jews. Are we – both Jew and non-Jew - going to continue to let them get away with it?