I believe its possible for a person to have genuine affection for the Jewish people and still produce antisemitic expressions and not realize it. I know that sounds strange and maybe even impossible, but one has to view the core root of antisemitism to get an idea of what I’m talking about. Antisemitism goes much deeper than any racial or national issues. Its base is a spiritual one. Adolph Hitler’s hatred for the Jew was not a physical based ideology but rather a spiritual based ideology. Hitler himself is reported to having told his associate, Hermann Rauschning: “I know perfectly well that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as a race. As a politician I need a conception which enables the order which has hitherto existed on a historic basis to be abolished and an entirely new order enforced and given an intellectual basis. And for this purpose the conception of race serves me well.” .
Race, Jewish blood, and National Socialism, was only avenues by which Hitler’s spiritual hatred could be expressed in the physical realm. When we understand the full spiritual concept of what a Jew is, and what the Jew represents, it is only then we can begin to see the full concept of what antisemitism actually is. Without using the Bible as a spiritual guide, antisemitism is just another form of racism.
Any form of expression that seeks to separate the Jew from the covenant by which the God of Israel has appointed them is in reality antisemitic! Therefore, any attempt to convert the Jew away from his covenant with God (regardless of the honesty and compassion one might have for the Jew while doing so) is still an act of antisemitism against the Jew and the God of Israel.
.
Think of what converting the Jew away form the covenant really is doing. It's converting them away from the very element that made them "Jews" to begin with! In a sense it is spiritually and physically "Gentilizing" them. More importantly, it not only dishonors the Jews themselves but the very covenant God made with them. Seeking Jewish conversion can be an willful or an inadvertently expression of denying God’s covenant with Israel. If Jewish conversion were able to run its full course the way missionaries envision it, the Jews as a people along with the covenant itself would be annihilated. My challenge to any Christian disagreeing with me on this, is to examine and ponder what the results would be if the entire Christian world were to abandoned their Christian heritage and be converted to Islam? The same results that would happen to the Christian world are the results that would happen to the Jewish world if they all converted to Christianity.
.
Islam seeks to destroy the Christian world by converting Christians to Islam and they are doing so at a rapid rate. Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion in the world. The Christian world is becoming well aware of Islam’s threat to Christianity. While the Christian leaders are disgusted with Islam’s goal towards Christianity they forget that the same conversion rule applies to the Christians who fervently seeks Jewish converts. Remember, the Muslims believe they are right in their religion just as much and even probably more so than most Christians believe they are right in their religion. It takes an awful strong faith in Allah to blow oneself into a million pieces in their devotion to him. It’s a strange thing that Islam goes all out to try and convert Christians and Jews, while Christians go all out to and try convert the Muslims and Jews, but the Jews being the tiny minority of the three great monotheistic faiths, don’t attempt to convert either one of them to Judaism. There is a spiritual reason behind this that I will get to.
.
The annihilation of the God of Israel, or the effect of making the God of Israel powerless, (basically making His word return to Him void (see Isaiah 55:11) is the ultimate goal of antisemitism. General God-haters and antisemites alike know that once they can find a way to annihilate the Jews in any form, (either by physical death, religious conversion, and assimilation) they will in effect have killed God (see Psalms 115: 2,3) because the God of Israel is known by His covenant that He has established with the Jews and the nation of Israel (see Jeremiah 31:36). So I would encourage the Gentile Christians of whom many really do have a compassion for Israel and the Jews, not to try and pull the Jews away for what God has already laid down as a requirement for them which is their Torah (see Deuteronomy 4:2). If nothing else, encourage them to be Torah minded and let God deal with Israel as He so chooses.
.
It was never the intention of the All-Mighty that His Jewish nation to become like the other nations (Deuteronomy 7:6 / 14:2). Christianity and Islam are Gentile faiths of those other nations (see Deuteronomy 6:14). Though they use the Jewish scriptures as the foundation to their faith, their faith is Gentile oriented and Gentile maintained. Paul's conversion to Christianity caused his name to be changed from a Hebrew name of Saul to a Greco-Roman name of Paul (Acts 13:9). The name "Paul" remains a popular name among Gentiles while the name "Saul" (Solomon / Shlomo) remains popular among the Jews. I love to ask Messianic (Jew-want-to-be) Christians why that is. Paul, being the main author of the New Testament, traveled all over the Gentile world taking his message to them (see Romans 15:16) while Islam rejects God's covenant with Israel via Isaac (see Psalms 105:9,10) in order to accept their Gentle version of the Abrahamic covenant through the Gentile Ishmael (see Sura 37: 101-113). Christianity spread to the Gentile West via Rome while Islam spread throughout the Gentile Middle East via Mecca. But between both of these two massive bodies of land lies a very small strip of land that connects and a particular people with a eternal covenant. As with the onslaught of conversion efforts, isn't it spiritually strange that the Jews historically have received great persecutions in the form of physical attacks from both of the Christian and Islam nations (about 54% combined) while at the same time seeking the total conversion of the tiny Jewish nation, but you never hear or read about the Jewish people attacking either of them on the basis of their religion nor seeking their conversion to their faith?
.
Here are some amazing facts:
- The two great world faiths of Christianity and Islam that makes up more than half of the world’s population (54% combined) seeks the total conversion of the tiny Jewish nation (0.22% of the world’s population) to their religion and belief system. To really get a good mental picture of just how offset Judaism is in population compared to the top two major religions of the world (which just happen to be the only two rivals of Judaism) take a look at the graph at the top of this article and notice the big green and red areas representing Christianity and Islam world populations. Then compared those areas to the tiny (hard to see) thin blue line representing Jews in Judaism between the colored areas of Buddhism and the other minority religions.
- Evangelicals spend approximately 250 million dollars every year on Jewish evangelism including missions to Israel for the sole purpose of converting the Jew, while the Jews spend about 250 millions dollars less then the evangelicals in Gentile proselytizing. How about that for one-sided spending figures? Muslims countries spend billions per year on weapons and political methods intended for the killing off the Jews who will not convert to Islam. Any Jew who converts to Islam can become worry free of any terrorist attacks, just as any Jew who converts to Christianity no longer has to put up with eager missionaries looking for that Jew-feather to put in their Christian hat.
- It is possible for a Gentile to be righteous outside of Judaism, but in the eyes of both Christianity and Islam, a Jew cannot be righteous hanging onto Law of Moses while converting to Christianity or Islam. This fact has made Judaism the most tolerant of the three monotheistic religions towards those outside their faith. A good question to ponder: During the Crusades when the forces of Christian Europe were fighting the Islamic empire from which both sides included the killing of Jews, who during this time were the Jews striking up a war with?
- Both Christianity and Islam have made their boasts throughout their history that they, and only they are the new chosen people and are the spiritual replacement of the physical seed of Israel while the nation of Israel bends over backwards to downplay their being chosen of God.
“God's Only 'Chosen Person' is Jesus Christ, and those in Him” - The Preterist Archive -
web-site / Dennis Todd
“The people who are really chosen by God are the Muslims community which has gathered under God’s banner without regard to differences of races, nations, colors, and countries.”
- Sayid Qutb, Milestones along the Road, p. 238
According to the ancient Talmudic traditions, Israel was the very last (far from the first choice) that God picked to be His chosen people. According to the tradition, it was only because Israel accepted the covenant at Mt. Sinai after all the other nations refused it was how Israel came to become God’s chosen people. - Islam and Christianity which together makes up more than half of the world’s population have their foundations based on Judaism. Muslims will not recognized the New Testament as being from God, nor will the Christians recognize the Koran being from God, yet both Christianity and Islam recognize the Torah being from God. This fact is even more amazing when one considers the Jews were not liked and appreciated in both Christendom and Islamic worlds, yet their Torah was.
- Christianity and Islam are both based only upon religious creeds while Judaism is based on faith and a nation of people. If a Christian stops believing in Jesus he is no longer a Christian. If a Muslim stops believing in Muhammad he is no longer a Muslim. A Jew however, can stop believing in the Torah but he will still remain a Jew - an apostate Jew.
- Looking at the three great monotheistic religions from the outside, it is impossible for Judaism to be wrong in foundation while the other two monotheistic religions are right in their foundation. This is because without the Torah the New Testament and the Koran has no foundation thereby voiding any claim as the true religion. Therefore, is possible for Judaism to be right in its foundation and the other two be wrong because the Torah is not dependent on either the New Testament or the Koran in establishing its foundation as a true religion. Likewise, If you were to ask a Muslim that if he found out that Islam’s foundation was indeed proven to be false, what religion would he perceive as the next obvious choice as the correct religion? He would more than likely choose either Christianity or Judaism as the correct true religion. If you then were to ask a Christian the exact same question about Christianity, he would pick Judaism as the obvious correct religion. But if you would asked an observant Jew the same exact question regarding Judaism, there is no religion outside of Paganism that he could point to as the next best, obvious choice. There is a spiritual reason for this that goes beyond the time-line as to when each religion began. At the End of Days, when all things then becomes obvious, the world comes seeking the Jews for spiritual guidance.
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you. - Zechariah 8:23
- Q. If all of Israel would have become Christianized in the first century would there be a modern Israel today?
A. Christian teaching in all of the New Testament reserves no special physical place on earth for the Christian believer, not even the physical land of Israel. The teaching of Jewish Zionism is nowhere found in the New Testament, only the doctrines of “spiritual Jerusalem” and of the spiritual “Israel of God” are taught. If all the Jews converted to Christianity in the first century there would be no peoples of the earth to embrace the spiritual concept of living in the promised land God gave to the ancient Israelites, for there would be no spiritual significant reason to do so. See: Romans 2:28, Romans 9, Galatians 4:26, Galatians 6:15,16 , Revelations 21:2 - Q. If all of Israel would have become Christianized in the first century would there be a people identifying themselves as descendants from Jacob (Israel) today?
A. The New Testament teaches that true Jews are the ones who become Christians and that the physical seed of Jacob has been replaced by a spiritual seed of faith to the believer. Therefore, had all of Israel converted to Christianity in the first century there would be no peoples of the earth identified as the descendants of Jacob for there would be no spiritual significant reason to keep track or a remembrance of that physical seed. It is also note worthy that the apostle Paul (the main author of the New Testament) did not have any physical seed of his own and instructed others to follow him in a vow of abstinence if they were spiritually able to do so (I Corinthians 7:8). While this type of vow may not be harmful to a “spiritual seed” doctrine, it can only deplete the physical seed of Israel while directly avoiding the promise that the physical seed of Israel will as numerous as the stars heaven and as the sands of the sea. Therefore this type of revelation also undermines any promises concerning the land of Israel, being that this physical land, spiritually and eternally belongs to a very physical people.
See St. John 4:20-23, Galatians 4:25,26, Acts 15:14-17 (the temple in Jerusalem) - Q. If all of Israel would have become Christianized in the first century, would the Law of Moses (by which Jews have remained Jews) be observed by any people on the earth today?
A. The New Testament teaches that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled and is no longer valid to the Christian believer. Paul’s letter to the Galatians clearly confirms this many times over. Therefore, had all of Israel converted to Christianity in the first century there would be no people remaining on the earth today recognizing themselves to be under the Law of Moses. This would also cause there to be no religion in the earth that is totally based on the Law of Moses - which is exactly how Jews are known as Jews today! Therefore, had all of Israel converted to Christianity in the first century there would be no people on the earth whose spiritual foundation is the Law of Moses, because there would be no spiritual significant reason to keep the Law of Moses. This would result in there being no Torah-believing Jews (therefore no Jews) on the earth - only complete Christian assimilation. See Acts 10:13-16 (symbolic) Romans 3:20, Romans 7:4-6, Romans 10:4, Galatians 2:16,21, Galatians 3:13, Galatians 5:2-3,6.
It is an absolute fact that the total conversion of today’s Jewish people (which again, is the aim of every evangelical missionary Christian) would wipe out the Jewish nation from the earth. There would be no more physical seed (a.k.a. chosen people) identified as physical Jews on the face of the earth. I know this sounds mean but it’s the truth in principle, that today's evangelicals are no different (other than not being violent) than Hamas or any other terrorist group that seeks to destroy God’s covenant with the Jews of which the Law of Moses is connected! They just simply use different techniques and methods from those who use terrorism tactics, but which this wasn't always the case. Crusade Christianity and Inquisition Christianity were as every bit evil in terrorizing to Jews as today's Islamic terrorists. Hamas tries to murder the Jews away from their covenant while evangelicals try to covert the Jews away from their covenant. One of their biggest techniques is trying to convince the Jew that the Law of Moses is no longer in effect. There is an onslaught by both the Arabs and the Christians (the basic whole of the Gentile world) to takeover Jewish Israel. The Arabs want to make Israel an assimilated Muslim nation like all the other Muslim nations under the name of Palestine, while the Christians wish to make Israel an assimilated Christians nation like all the other Christian nations, and it’s sad that the secular Israeli government is at fault for allowing both fronts to continue as well as to grow.
I can understand a caring Christian’s true desire for a spiritual revival among the Jewish nation with the belief that only through the Jewish conversion to Christianity can a such a revival occur. However, Christians, and especially the evangelical missionaries, must realize that is wasn’t through the conversion to Christianity that the nation of Israel has been preserved and still survives to this day after three thousand years of persecutions. On the contrary, the fact remains that it was the Jewish people’s dedication to the Torah and the Talmud that has kept the Jewish nation intact as a people and as a nation throughout their tough history. It was not through the conversion to Christianity that brought about the modern phenomenon of the in-gathering of Jews back to Israel during this last century. If the Jews hadn’t been Torah minded during the past two thousand years, there never would have been a physical Jewish people for God to gather back into Israel in the first place. Therefore the great spiritual phenomenon of Jews living once again in their ancient biblical homeland is directly based both spiritually and physically to the Law of Moses and not to any forms of Christianity or Jewish conversion into it. The ingathering of Jews back into their homeland is based on God’s promise through Israelite prophets who just so happened to believe in keeping the Torah of Moses at the time.
If God was wanting all the Jews to become Christians instead of remaining as Jews, He wouldn’t have allowed the Holocaust to happen. Why would He, when in the eyes of the Christian world, the Jews of Germany were supposedly turning their hearts towards Jesus in massive numbers? It is important to understand as well as it speaks volumes, that the two greatest times of mass Jewish conversion to Christianity (as well as mass assimilation) was just before the destruction of the second temple in Israel and just before the Holocaust in Germany! Isn’t that strange? Christian missionaries should realize that God has a special and unique way of doing things when it comes to the Jewish people. He always deals with Israel as a nation, not by a conversion here and a conversion there. It would be in the best interest for the Jews if the evangelicals would stop trying to convert the Jews and interfere with what God has planned for them according to His word that He has specifically spelled out by the Hebrew prophets..
But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more. - Jeremiah 31:33,34
5,625 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 5601 – 5625 of 5625The person Also typed
"In my earlier post on Mahmood Mamdani—father of Zohran Mamdani—I should have included one particularly telling detail. His critique of the Save Darfur campaign didn’t just claim that the genocide framing was a tool of Western imperialism. He specifically pointed to the involvement of American Jewish communities, describing the campaign as a product of the “Zionist lobby.”
In Mamdani’s worldview, Jews cannot be victims of institutional racism, because they are presumed to control the institutions themselves. That’s why he cannot recognize the inversion now taking place—where a fabricated genocide is projected onto Jews by the very systems he once claimed were irredeemably imperial. The very idea that Jews might be the targets of global ideological inversion is structurally unthinkable to him—because for Mamdani, Jewish power is the frame, never what’s being framed."
& Also typed
"It’s important to understand the intellectual genealogy behind Zohran Mamdani’s politics. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is not merely a prominent anti-Israel professor at Columbia—he is one of the most influential theorists of genocide and postcolonialism in the academy today. One of his most notorious arguments is that calling the Darfur genocide a “genocide” constitutes a form of Western colonialism. In his view, the language of international law is selectively applied—instrumentalized by the West to intervene in the Global South under the banner of humanitarianism.
But what does it mean to argue that naming a genocide—where Black Africans were systematically murdered by an Islamist regime espousing White supremacist ideology—is itself a colonial act? Mamdani’s position effectively exonerates the perpetrators by redirecting blame toward those who would stop them. The very notion of moral responsibility is inverted: genocide becomes a Western narrative, while the killers are reframed as victims of imperial discourse.
But here lies the deeper paradox. Mamdani insists that international law is biased and politically motivated when used to condemn an Islamist genocide in Sudan—but that same skeptical lens is nowhere to be found when it comes to Israel. In the case of the Jewish state, suddenly these same international bodies are treated as neutral, infallible arbiters. Accusations of genocide against Israel—no matter how distorted or ideologically charged—are taken at face value. The claim of politicized lawfare vanishes, replaced by a dogmatic faith in global institutions that, only moments earlier, were dismissed as tools of Western domination.
This double standard is not accidental—it is structural. A postcolonial ideology that once prided itself on exposing the political uses of law and language has become rigidly selective in its skepticism. And it is this very selectivity that enables the re-legitimization of genocidal politics under an anti-colonial banner.
It is no surprise, then, that support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its genocidal aims against Israel finds sympathy in these same circles. The same framework that denied the Darfur genocide now helps rationalize, or outright justify, the elimination of the Jewish state. The inversion is complete.
And Zohran Mamdani—who openly supports Hamas, traffics in slogans like “globalize the intifada,” and echoes every accusation leveled against Israel—can be seen as the symbolic distillation of this intellectual inheritance. A politics that once claimed to resist colonialism has mutated into a theology of anti-colonialism so rigid, so selective, and so perverse, that it ends up defending Islamist genocide as liberation and casting the Jews—again—as the obstacle to be removed."
A person posted an article from
blogs.timesofisrael.com
by
Adam Louis-Klein
"The ‘Antisemitic Laugh React’ "
June 12, 2025
Some people typed in reply
"It marks an adolescent inability to simply engage any position that differs, the emoji equivalent of a dumpster fire."
"Man, have I been experiencing exactly this! Any effort to engage, question, or challenge antizionists online is immediately shut down, no matter how politely or gently that challenge is presented. In one case, I was called a liar in pretty harsh terms, and when I asked simply for the other party to point to one of my lies, the response was even harsher (ending with “Shut the f*ck up”). They never addressed anything that I actually wrote"
"I call it the “laughing face of contempt,” and always point out that these short hand expressions are ridiculous replacements for learned debate. And get more of them in response. Yet, I am undeterred by their idiocy. I usually challenge them to put in that hard work of research. There is that Yiddish proverb “ When a wise man addresses a fool, two fools are talking.“ I am that stubborn fool trying to find, in futility, someone willing to listen and learn. But yeah, I find this little laughing face of contempt broadly. Our own values of scholarship are being supplanted by that need for so many to belong to the outrage de jour. It’s addictive for the ego. Human evolution is proving too slow. 😞"
A person posted the article from
blogs.timesofisrael.com
by
Adam Louis-Klein
"The Many Names of Jew-Hatred"
June 11, 2025
Some people typed in reply
"I believe you might be right…
As you state - historically all words fall in and out of favor for all kinds of reasons.
It seems to me the most succinct (while not neatly packaged into one word) is Hatred of Jewish Peoplehood. Whether we live in the diaspora or in our indigenous homeland it seems that the idea of Jews as a “People” with an indigenous homeland,
a language, culture, traditions,
Rituals, that have endured, along with the fact that anytime throughout history Jews have been dehumanized, displaced,
enslaved, ghetto’d, murdered including genocide -
We persevere, survive, and in many cases thrive. And the fact that we cannot be vanished or made to completely assimilate is infuriating to many. And so while the scenes and script change the hatred of our People remains."
" I agree. This is the core. And whether what is hated takes the form of a supposed race, faith, or nation-state, it is the People themselves, as a People, who are targeted."
"I suspect that a significant number of “anti-Zionists” do not believe themselves to be antisemites. It’s an easy way to self-satisfy the cognitive dissonance of feeling resentment toward Jews as an othered group while attempting to claim adherence to a tolerant mindset.
I think for antizionism to 1) become recognized as a form of bigotry [which in most cases it is, though perhaps not in a minority of cases] and 2) replace antisemitism semantically, academia must recognize the hypocrisy of denying the voice of the Jewish majority (i.e., the majority of Jews, not Jews as a majority class), and the history of Israel as a lived experience and a situated knowledge. The irony is that, I believe, it’s antisemitism that prevents that from happening."
Some More people typed
"I think it is ALREADY the dominant term, and that is why I (a Spanish gentile with no relation with Israel) try to write "anti-Zionism" ALWAYS in quotation marks and always adding behind it something like "aka modern Judeophobia" or "aka neo 'protocolism'" or something similar, to show that we are NOT fooled and to make it clear that we know what they are and also to try to "civilize" the largest percentage we can (however small it may be; I'm not too optimistic about it, but I don't mind giving it a try) of disoriented (in their moral compass) and confused "candid souls" or useful idiots.
🙄🙄🙄"
"One more point, which is that while "antizionism" is playing out more and more as old-fashioned Jew hatred, those same antizionists are busily trying to dilute the meaning of "antisemitism" with the old, tired, and severely ignorant argument that Arabs are semites, too. Not only does this willfully ignore the established definition of "antisemitism," it's a duplicitous means of trying to claim that what they're often doing or saying can't possibly be antisemitic. Such people refuse to acknowledge that to try to dilute the meaning of "antisemitism" is to take away Jews' own power to define and identify bigotry against them, which those on the (far) left would never do to any other minority group."
"Yes, it dilutes the meaning of the term—but in a sense, that’s precisely the point. While “anti-semitism” on one level simply means “hatred of Jews,” it also refers to a specific racial ideology. Removing the hyphen helps clarify that “antisemitism” has nothing to do with “Semites” as a linguistic or ethnic category. Still, the trace of that constructed association lingers in the term itself."
"Antizionists know that 'Zionism' can have a myriad of distinct meanings, including those external to how most Jews understand the term. So by positioning themselves as opponents of 'Zionism,' its not always clear to others what they are rejecting, allowing them to claim that they aren't hostile to Jews as such."
"Well-expressed. I realize I may be stating the obvious: The commonality is: Invent a reason why Jews must be despised, distrusted, attacked, destroyed, and controlled, and then one has their justification for violence and hate.
Judenhass to antisemitism to antizionism is all tinged with, "We're not coarse haters like those earlier people; we have reasons!" ... but of course this is just self-deception that, for most Jews and their allies, is disappointingly, dismayingly easy to spot. It's like a really poorly done magic trick that too many people want to believe."
Some More people typed
"You're exactly right—it is stunningly easy for most Jews to see through the trick. That’s what makes it so surreal: the illusion is paper-thin, and yet those performing it seem entirely undeterred. We increasingly inhabit different realities. For them, the trick isn’t just convincing—it’s self-evident. They genuinely believe in the righteousness of the performance and in the truth of every accusation made against Israel and the Jewish people.
You’d think they might care about how we perceive this—how we experience this rhetoric as prejudice, as violence. But they don’t. And that’s precisely the point of the trick: it’s designed so they don’t have to. It redefines us in advance as liars, manipulators, bad-faith actors. So any protest we make becomes more proof of the original charge. It’s a perfect self-sealing logic—and it’s not a new one."
"And social media (of course) as well as traditional media - especially on the left, which seems increasingly populated by people who employ the "trick" - make it easier for the sanctimonious haters to be convinced that they are unassailably right and virtuous.
That wall, and the self-perpetuation, makes it difficult to break through with facts and different perspectives. I've seen this utter refusal to even hear arguments that poke holes in the destructive "antizionist" worldview up close, and it's deeply troubling. I increasingly feel like I have to write off certain segments of society, and concentrate on people - "swing voters" - who haven't tumbled down the rabbit hole."
"And yet many Jews do not see through this trick! Too many Jews in the United States have fallen for the "Israel is committing genocide of Palestinians" narrative, largely because they are ignorant of the factual history relating to the State of Israel and of the history of antisemitism, and have no idea of what the term "genocide" originally meant."
" And they are happily being tokenized by antizionists every day, while risking the rest of us."
"Antizionism is a harmful word. More specifically, it is unsuccessful as a communication tactic for Jews and is successful as a communication tactic for Jew haters.
Decades ago, LGBT researchers were evaluating the terms "heterosexism" and "homophobia". "Heterosexism" is conceptually aligned with the idea of "antisemitism" / "antizionism".... essentially the former is bigotry against LGBs, and the latter is bigotry against Jews. But LGBT researchers found that calling someone a "heterosexist", did not work to encourage them to re-evaluate their views or underlying biases. Rather it encouraged them to promote their bigotry because it made them part of a club of people who shared their views, instead of just having personal biases.
In contrast, "Homophobia", sounded like a disease. It made people re-evaluate their underlying biases, and it made it sound like people had an underlying fear of something they did not understand. This word... as a tool of communication... proved extremely effective and was part of the reason that public opinion on LGBT issues changed so rapidly over recent decades.... despite millennia of deep, widespread, stubborn cultural biases.
For the same reason, propaganda researchers started adopting the term "Islamophobia". It disarms people who are opposed to Islam. But it goes beyond that. You may have noticed that the term "Islamophobia" even convinces many people that being opposed to Islamists, or Islamic Supremacism, is also "Islamophobic". The term is doing cognitive work on people who use it.
Jews who care about how our vehicles of language drive the cultural discourse, ought to change the terms we use. We really ought to be calling people who oppose us "Judeophobes". Particularly in this cultural moment.
It would be amazing if you reflected on this, and if you agree, help to change the discourse."
Some More people typed
"I don’t think we have as much control over the evolution of language as you’re suggesting. Terms don’t evolve at our command—we’re always working within linguistic conventions that shape and limit how we can intervene. “Antisemitism” still means, for most people, hatred of Jews. By contrast, “Judeophobia” sounds unfamiliar and awkward, and it doesn’t clarify the connection to antizionism, which often disguises antisemitism as mere criticism of Israel. It’s still important to point out that antizionism is, at its core, continuous with older forms of Jew-hatred. But we also have to acknowledge that these terms are shifting beyond our control. “Antisemitism” and “antizionism” now function differently in public discourse—and that difference reflects a deeper mutation in both ideology and rhetorical strategy."
"Yes. It is the very unfamiliarity and awkwardness of the word that gives it real power.
But I don't think you are appreciating how much control we do have over the words we use. The word "homosexual" was coined in the late 1800s and aimed to transform the idea that gays were sinners or criminals into a disease... something with a biological basis which meant it could not be a sin or a crime. It spread pretty quickly and became an effective tool... even though it then burdened gays with the idea of being diseased. The word "Gay" was a deliberate choice that gays adopted for themselves and we just used it, repeatedly and adamantly, until it was adopted. The term "Queer" used to be extremely pejorative... like "f@gg@+", but was reclaimed. Even if it is not universally used, it no longer is a pejorative.
It's pretty amazing how rapidly the term "Islamophobia" has spread over the last decade. It is a real problem for us, because it makes it sound like our oppressors... the Islamists... are themselves victims created by our ignorance and biases.
We need to root out Judeophobia in our own communities. Part of that means making the deliberate choice to use the word Judeophobia, after we recognize the power of words to act in ways independent of their denotations."
"Remember that antizionism was deliberately constructed to appear distinct from the Nazi form of antisemitism that became taboo after the Holocaust. The shift wasn’t accidental—it was a strategic rearticulation. By recoding hatred of Jews as political opposition to Zionism, antizionism was able to disavow its antisemitic roots while continuing their function. The emphasis was moved from race to politics, and from “Jews as Jews” to “Zionists” or “Israel,” in order to evade the moral stigma attached to explicitly racial Jew-hatred. In this sense, the language of antizionism has been deliberately crafted to elide the associations carried by the term antisemitism itself, and that's the double bind they've put us in."
Some More people added
"Yes... they've manipulated the discourse to deliberately put us in a double bind. We must adapt and not accept it."
" totally…..and the double bind is not helped by the “As A Jew” types who openly and proudly tout their Jewishness….but only when it comes to opposition to Israel. Giving antisemites/antiZionists a gift on a silver platter, the old “I can’t be an antisemite because <insert name of antiZionist Jew) feels the same way…..”
Another person typed
"I’m generally less concerned with those who use opposition to antisemitism as a political tool—some, though not all, Republicans—than with those who use antisemitism itself, the hatred of Jews, as a means of mass mobilization—like Mamdani or the DSA.
One exploits a moral cause, and may at times draw objectionable conclusions—such as harsh immigration policies that contradict core Jewish values of compassion and refuge. The other exploits an immoral cause—antisemitism itself—in the name of real struggles like housing, healthcare, or inequality.
The latter is far more dangerous. Because when Jews are cast as the obstacle to justice—when their safety becomes the price of political clarity—then justice is already corrupted. A movement that needs a scapegoat will never deliver true liberation.
The former is opportunism. The latter is incitement. What we need is a principled moral stance—one that refuses to instrumentalize Jews, whether as symbols or scapegoats, and insists: no justice that demands Jewish exclusion can ever be just."
A person posted an article from
blogs.timesofisrael.com
by
Adam Louis-Klein
"Mamdani and the Replacement of the Victim"
June 19, 2025
Some people typed in reply
"Exactly. This is the macro version of the DARVO method that anyone who has ever lived or worked with a cluster b personality disorder has experienced: only they suffer, your pain is not real and if it is - it’s only intended to make them suffer more, and your probably deserved it, etc. How an entire ideology “caught” a mental illness is an interesting question to explore; clearly the western support draws those types of people to it - why the protest movement seems hysterical and unhinged. It literally is."
"As a "brown" Jew from India, it is clear as an inverted red triangle to me, and to all Jews anywhere in the world, that 'Globalize the Intifada' actually means 'Kill Jews everywhere'. In fact, Jew haters aka antisemites have been murdering Jews long before the Intifada or the establishment of the State of Israel, simply for the "crime" of being a Jew. Imagine the reaction of decent folks to slogans like 'Kill all Blacks/Native Americans/Homosexuals'. But this is ok in the case of Jews, as their blood has already been permitted by millennia of antisemitism in the West and East."
"Its all Darvo on steroids!
"Show me what you accuse the Jews of, and I'll show you what you're guilty of." -Vasiliy Grossman."
"Accusations are confessions."
"Crybullies"
"Well-written; thank you.
So a key part of his strategy is:
“I was hurt by Islamophobia. In response, I’ll latch onto, and spread, a much more prevalent hate, against Jews. And when they complain, I’ll accuse them of playing the victim.”
That’s, of course, detestable. But what’s even more concerning to me is that, rather than being a lone crackpot whose rants on the street corner are ignored, he’s gained massive traction with the public, who may now elect him as a leader."
"God help NY if he becomes mayor."
"Yup"
A person Also typed
"The concept of “indigeneity” has become politically charged and analytically unstable. It often collapses two distinct meanings into one:
First, indigeneity as genealogy—the association of a people with a specific land through origin traditions, language, ancestry, and continuous civilizational presence.
Second, indigeneity as dispossession—a political status defined by being conquered, colonized, or marginalized, especially by external imperial powers.
In the settler-colonial contexts of the modern West—like the Americas or Australia—these two meanings overlap. The colonized were also the ancestral peoples. As a result, “indigeneity” comes to imply both firstness and oppression—producing a powerful rhetoric of double moral legitimacy: the right of original belonging fused with the moral capital of the victim.
But this fusion breaks down in other regions—especially the Middle East. Arab-Muslim empires expanded far beyond Arabia, displacing or absorbing pre-existing peoples: Jews, Copts, Arameans, Assyrians, Berbers, Persians, and others. In these contexts, Arab Muslims are not genealogically indigenous to the lands they now dominate. Their presence originates in historical conquest.
While Arab-Muslim identity may be globally subordinate relative to Western power, it remains regionally hegemonic. Across much of the Middle East and North Africa, Arabization and Islamization have rendered other peoples marginalized minorities within their own ancestral lands. Yet in global discourse, this regional dominance is often ignored, and Arab identity is conflated with indigeneity by default.
This conflation is central to the discourse around Israel. Zionism is frequently framed as European colonialism—erasing the fact that it was a civilizational return movement, not an imperial project. Jews are cast as foreign settlers, and Arab Muslims as the indigenous victims. But this framing only works by collapsing the distinction between genealogy and power—by treating Jews as inauthentic because they now have a state, and treating Arabs as indigenous even in lands they conquered.
This rhetorical inversion is now one of the central engines of contemporary antisemitism. It denies Jewish peoplehood, erases Jewish continuity, and reframes return as invasion.
We may be at the point where more formal and public articulations of Jewish indigeneity are necessary—not to replicate the identity politics of others, but to resist a new form of narrative erasure. Jewish continuity, descent, language, law, memory, and land are not abstractions. They form a civilizational structure tied to a specific geography. If “indigenous” means anything in this world of contested belonging, Jews must be recognized among its clearest examples."
Some people typed in reply
"I think you are correct that the definition of indigeniety breaks down regionally - specifically in the ME here- and that invites the question as to why?
Is it because Jewish people and their ancestral - and present- connection to Judea and Samaria is cynically dismissed as metanarrative because in the power dynamic of Israel/Palestine, Israel is suddenly viewed as the powerful, a national state? If this is the case, it seems to me that the dominant academic ideology is flawed.
Or is it antisemitism? I suspect this is also a large part of the answer, and feeds the former with the trope of the ‘rich, powerful Jews.’ "
Some More people added
" I believe it’s all three of the dimensions you allude to:
1) The academic and activist narrative has become flawed and simplistic.
It reflexively aligns with those perceived as victims of “Western” power, without scrutinizing their own ideologies or regional dominance. This leads to moral inversion, where movements that violate progressive values—on gender, LGBTQ+ rights, or minority protections—are embraced so long as they appear anti-Western. The result is a distorted political map that erases actual power dynamics and agency.
2) Jewish indigeneity and peoplehood are being erased—and this erasure is antisemitic.
At its core is a logic of supersession: the belief that Jews once had a claim to the land, but lost it—through sin, conquest, or history. This view, inherited from Christian and Islamic theology, now appears in secular form, casting Jews as disinherited and Israel as an illegitimate return. It reframes Jewish survival as transgression, aligning with age-old antisemitic ideas of divine rejection and historical obsolescence, and justifying conquest and exclusion in progressive language.
3) Antisemitic tropes of Jewish power are projected onto Israel.
Israel is no longer seen as a small state facing existential threats, but as the embodiment of global oppression. Classic conspiratorial images—Jews as powerful, manipulative, unaccountable—are mapped onto the state, which becomes a symbol of imperial evil. This fantasy erases Israel’s vulnerability: the violence it faces, the genocidal ideologies arrayed against it, and its submission to endless international rituals of condemnation. Israel becomes the Jew of nations—uniquely guilty, uniquely suspect.
These aren’t separate explanations—they converge. Together, they form a single framework in which antisemitism and anti-"Western” ideology reinforce one another: erasing Jewish peoplehood, recoding survival as domination, and rewriting history to render Jews illegitimate in their own land."
"A remarkable analysis! Many won’t like it, especially anti-Semites masquerading as anti-Zionists."
" there is a problem with making indigeneity about disposession, which as you note is a key aspect of the use of the term and is in the Cobo version, since it paradoxically makes indigenous protections conditional on disinfranchisement. Indigenous populations can become sovereign, win without losing their idigenous status."
"Brilliant post. I've read the related book by Adam Kirsch 'On Settler Colonialism' which basically demolishes the entire field with respect to Jews and Israel. "
Another person typed online today
"Jews need to understand, we are not here to justify our existence to the World
The World hates us,
but G-D, Hashem loves us.
To Hell with the World 🔥"
Some people typed in reply
"There is a percentage of people on this earth that do not hate Jews, but the larger percentage are anti-Jewish and certainly anti-Israel."
" In all western countries, at least 60% of people are antisemitic, even if they are not aware of it and generally OK people. 3000 years of slander conditioning permeated everywhere."
The person Also added
"We do not have to justify our existence as Jews and Israel does not have to justify itself as a JEWISH nation to the world."
A person typed in reply
" in this short comment ...you have summarised the entire reality of Israel...and of the Jewish People"
A person Also typed
"One of the ways antisemitic assimilation works in academia is through the structures of authority, respect, and citation. If a scholar embeds antisemitic assumptions into their work—framing Jews as settler-colonial, denying Jewish peoplehood, erasing Jewish indigeneity—and that work gains traction among the (mostly non-Jewish) academic majority, it becomes something everyone is expected to cite and “engage with.” Those who refrain from doing so are often regarded as unserious or uncritical.
This creates a structural trap: Jews are pressured to acknowledge and reproduce frameworks that erase or attack them. The rules of scholarly legitimacy—engage the literature, cite the big names, show respect—end up enforcing conformity to discourses that deny Jewish continuity and identity. And many Jews, in order to be seen as legitimate within the field, internalize these frameworks. They assimilate into a version of academic professionalism that comes into deep tension with their Jewishness.
A clear example of how this works can be seen in Nadia Abu El-Haj’s Facts on the Ground (2001), a book that presents Israeli archaeology as a fabricated enterprise—rooted not in scientific or historical inquiry but in a racialized, eugenic Zionist ideology. Jewish interest in our own history and ancestry—exactly the kind of concern that is celebrated when Indigenous peoples engage in archaeological reclamation—is framed here as a sinister plot to dominate and dispossess. Even more troubling is the book’s uncritical reproduction of Islamist and pan-Arab conquest narratives, which deny any deep Jewish connection to the Land of Israel.
These narratives, themselves products of imperial erasure, are taken as self-evident counter-discourse rather than interrogated as political and theological projects of their own. Despite these basic distortions—framing Jews as a foreign, alien presence; employing antisemitic tropes; erasing Jewish identity—the book was institutionally rewarded and widely praised. Once established, it became part of the legitimate critical canon. To challenge its errors is to be marked as uncritical or ideologically compromised. The frame is already set, and dissent becomes structurally illegible.
This isn’t just an unfortunate side effect—it’s a textbook case of institutional racism. The term was coined in the academy to describe exactly this: systems that appear neutral but are structured around the assumptions of a dominant group. And yet, when Jews are the ones harmed, the academy becomes unable—or unwilling—to apply its own critical tools to itself.
In response, some thinkers have begun to call for a meta-critique—a mode of reflection that interrogates the very structure and authority of critique itself. When academic prestige is wielded not as reason but as force, critique risks becoming indistinguishable from ideological aggression. What once aimed to expose domination now often serves to entrench it. The distinction between critique and bigotry begins to erode."
The comment continues
"And this dynamic doesn’t only affect Jews. It creates new asymmetries, producing stereotyped figures of the always-evil and the always-innocent. “White Christians” become the designated targets of critique—flattened into a monolithic symbol of oppression, depicted only in negative terms—while Arabs and Muslims are cast solely as romanticized revolutionary victims. These racialized and civilizational scripts are not critical thinking—they are narrative dogmas. And the actual moral principles that originally motivated critique—consistency, self-reflection, a commitment to justice—are discarded the moment they become inconvenient.
Reclaiming the space for meta-critique—where the academy’s own assumptions, power structures, and hypocrisies can be examined—is not just a Jewish concern. It’s a concern for anyone who believes that intellectual honesty, moral clarity, and civil discourse still matter."
Some people typed in reply
"I disagree with your framing. To describe Israeli policy as “oppression” mischaracterizes the nature of the conflict and inverts the underlying structure of power. Oppression refers to an entrenched system of domination that systematically denies a people’s legitimacy, security, or right to political existence. And in this case, that entrenched structure runs the other way."
& continues
"For over seventy-five years, the Jewish state has faced a sustained campaign—military, ideological, diplomatic—to deny its legitimacy. From the Arab League’s refusal to recognize Israel, to the cult of jihad that defines its annihilation as a religious duty, to the Western left’s absorption of Islamist narratives of conquest—Israel is cast not as a nation among nations, but as an aberration. A tolerated mistake. A provisional state whose moral standing is endlessly in question.
That is not critique. That is a system. A global, institutionalized structure of discrimination in which Jewish sovereignty is uniquely revocable. And it operates not only through narrative and rhetoric, but through formal mechanisms of power. International law becomes a selectively applied instrument of punishment—invoked rigidly in Israel’s case and suspended elsewhere. Legal definitions are stretched, fabricated, or ignored to produce a constant presumption of Israeli guilt. Jews are excluded from frameworks of indigeneity, denied the protections of anti-racism, and cast outside the boundaries of political legitimacy. What emerges is not merely a double standard, but a structurally enforced two-tier global order—one in which Jews are not treated equally under the law.
This is not to deny that abuses exist. Like any state navigating a deeply complex and often tragic security situation, Israel has committed errors—failures of restraint, of dignity, of judgment. These must be addressed seriously. But they do not amount to oppression in the structural sense of the word. The key feature of oppression is that it is systematic, imposed unconditionally, and aimed at permanent subjugation. That is not the case here. The security restrictions Palestinians face are a direct and ongoing response to a movement that seeks Israel’s elimination. Were that goal abandoned, those restrictions would end. The notion that a group is oppressed only so long as it insists on the right to destroy another people makes a mockery of the term. It reverses both responsibility and causality.
The real failure is not Israeli policy, but the international fantasy that this conflict is merely territorial—or that it can be resolved through compromise alone. What these frameworks refuse to confront is the ideological core: a system that casts Jewish political survival as a crime, and Jewish self-defense as oppression.
The result is a deeply entrenched global order in which Israel’s very right to exist is treated as conditional. This is not simply bias. It is the modern form of institutional racism—enforced through legal frameworks, moral language, and diplomatic convention.
To say this is not to indulge in chauvinism or to demand immunity from critique. It is to insist that the same critical tools—genealogy, power analysis, structural critique—that the academy claims to value be applied consistently, even when the object of analysis is antisemitism."
Some More people typed
"Contrary to what is generally touted, Israeli government policy did not incentivize or transfer Jewish Israeli citizens after the 1967 war and the famous 3 No’s of the Arab League in Khartoum, to establish communities across the 1949 Armistice Lines.
Rather, some Israeli Jews took it upon themselves to re-establish Jewish communities across the 1949 Armistice Lines in locations where Jewish communities had been ethnically cleansed during the 1948 war such as Hevron, Gush Etzion, in Eastern Jerusalem neighbourhoods (Kfar Shiloah, Atarot, Shimon Hatzadik and Neve Yaakov) and B’nei Yehuda in the Golan Heights.
There is no legal credence to the Arab propaganda (now accepted as fact by most of the international community and among some in Israel) that argues that unless territory whose last legal* owner and High Contracting Party was the now defunct Ottoman Empire is maintained and rendered as Judenrein, that Arab, later Palestinian communities across the 1949 Armistice Lines, will necessarily be oppressed.
* Even though the Ottoman Empire was the last High Contracting Party to possess legal claim to territory across the 1949 Armistice Lines, under the customary International Law principle of ‘uti possidetis juris,’ Israel since May 1948 becomes the High Contracting Party with a de jure claim to all the territory administered by the British Mandate for Palestine. From an interview with lawyer and scholar of International Law, Natasha Hausdorff:
“[O]ne of the most important examples dates from May 1948, because more or less every single argument that is raised against Israel citing international law misapplies a very significant law about a state’s borders. There is a customary rule in international law called UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, which means when a new state forms, unless there is another resolution, then the new state inherits the preexisting administrative lines of the previous administration. This rule goes back to when South America was achieving independence from the Spanish, and has been used in modern cases like the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Except for when it comes to Israel. When the British Mandate ended, Israel was the only state to be formed in that area. There had been a political proposal at the UN to split into two states, but that had not been accepted. So Israel was the only state to form, and thus by customary law, Israel’s borders would be the administrative lines of the British Mandate – meaning, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza. So then, when Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria, it was occupying Israeli territory, and when Israel liberated those areas in 1967, it cannot be considered an “occupation,” as it was legally already part of Israel. So this basic international law utterly destroys this basic belief that Israel is “occupying” land in those areas.
I have spoken to people who have written books on uti possidetis juris, and they are convinced this rule doesn’t apply to Israel, without being able to give any reason. Just to give an example: uti possidetis juris is the reason that Crimea is considered part of Ukraine. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. If Ukraine pushes Russia out, no one would say Crimea is occupied Russian territory!
It’s inexplicable, but international law is thrown out when it applies to the Jewish state. This example undermines every argument that Israel is an “occupier” or a “colonizer.” This is the actual legal position, rather than simplistic soundbites and one-liners.”
https://mizrachi.org/hamizrachi/law-lies-and-justice-an-interview-with-natasha-hausdorff-on-israels-legal-battles/"
"so that you are fully aware the origin of the Palestinian movement was started by the Soviet KGB - a fact that is conviiniently ommited by the academic experts these days"
"respect, but I might hesitate twice before citing enemies of Israel—and especially now, when Israel is at war. Sigh."
A person typed online in
June 2025
"There are at least two distinct tendencies among Jews today who are detaching themselves from Israel—tendencies that are often conflated but must be carefully distinguished.
The first is a product of assimilation and alienation: Jews who no longer feel connected to Jewish peoplehood, and who have little engagement with Jewish tradition or communal life. Often found in elite academic or cultural spaces, they are fully assimilated into environments where antisemitism—especially in its contemporary antizionist form—is normalized. For them, distancing from Israel functions less as a principled critique and more as a performative disavowal, a way of signaling conformity to the ideological demands of their surroundings.
The second tendency comes from within Jewish life itself: a diasporic, often progressive Jewish impulse that seeks to reclaim autonomy outside the frame of Israeli political centrality. This detachment is not necessarily hostile to Israel’s existence but is a reaction to its institutional failures—particularly its privileging of Haredi and Hardal Orthodoxy, its exclusion of non-Orthodox denominations, converts, and women, and its unwillingness to reflect the full diversity of global Jewish life. For these Jews, Israel’s monopoly on religious authority and its political entanglements have made it difficult to locate a meaningful spiritual or moral center in the state.
While these two movements can occasionally intersect—especially when the second group becomes vulnerable to the framing of the first—they are not the same. The former is explainable largely through the corrosive effects of antisemitism and the pressures of cultural assimilation. The latter arises from real shortcomings in Israel’s capacity to represent or include the evolving multiplicity of the Jewish People. Recognizing this distinction is crucial. One path leads toward Jewish erasure; the other, potentially, toward a renewal of diasporic vitality that does not abandon peoplehood, but reimagines its forms."
Some people typed in reply
"I’d also like to add a third but opposite category of those who are called Oct 8 Jews- those who had drifted away from their communities and Israel for various reasons but have turned back to them since the world turned away from Jews. They have sought out and become involved and been welcomed. This is one of the few positives of the last 21 months and I hope they are welcomed and cherished by us all"
"The leaders of Western Jewish communities must confront class issues within Jewish communities. Jews from working class backgrounds are often silenced by powerful and affluent leaders or those who have appointed themselves as leaders. Time to include Jews from all classes of society as well as MENA Jews, whose voices have also been silenced by powerful leaders & “influencers”. Our experience should be acknowledged and included."
Some people also typed in reply
"Much of it seems closely connected to traditional forms of Marxist antisemitism/anti-Zionism.
We’ve always had some Jewish antisemitism; its a natural desire of people to conform with the majority if they live in antisemitic environments.
But Marxist antisemitism is ideologically driven and plays on human’s natural tribalism. They identify with the “Marxsist”, “Socialist”, “anti-imperialist” tribe.
Deep down these people don’t tend to identify as Jews at all; they only use the word as a fig leaf, and attacking Jewish majority is important for them to prove that they belong."
"Sadly, these are relatively intelligent folks who usually end up getting co-opted by tyrannical regimes."
"for sure. Up to a point. Eventually YevSektziya outlived its usefulness and most members died in the GuLag or got shot."
" Yes, I meant co-opted to include their betrayal and execution."
"Excellent observations. Re the first category: The desire - often subconscious and unarticulated - to be accepted is powerful. As you point out, one dangerous, if not deadly, manifestation is Jews, bombarded with messages about how "those Jews" are so evil and devious, distancing themselves from "those Jews" and joining the antisemites (to the delight of the propagandists) in their use of antisemitic tropes condemning Jews. If you push back against the tropes, double standards, conspiracies, and exaggerations, you're one of "those Jews" and expelled from the group."
"You’re talking about liberal and assimilationist Jews. It’s easy to forget the extreme Haredim who have always rejected the idea of Jews having a state in what they call Palestine."
A person Also typed online this June 2025
"One of the most disturbing dynamics at play today is how cognitive dissonance itself intensifies antisemitism—even among those who may not have harbored it initially. As the disinformation war drags on and the blood libel gradually mutates into mainstream consensus, people who once felt no particular animus toward Jews begin to perceive them as somehow repulsive, shameful, or suspect. They come to accept the accusations as if they were facts. And when they encounter a Jew who refuses to accept this manufactured narrative, they are unable to process the dissonance. The Jew must be lying. His refusal to confess becomes evidence of guilt. What ought to be recognized as moral clarity is instead recast as deception.
Thus the self-fulfilling prophecy of the so-called Jewish conspiracy completes itself: the Jew’s denial of his assigned guilt is taken as proof of a hidden power structure. The imagined conspiracy is sustained not by secrets, but by the refusal of Jews to accept their role as the world’s villain.
Antisemitism becomes a discourse that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps, auto-generating its own “truth” through the sheer force of recursive rumor. It fabricates a Jewish conspiracy out of nothing but its own conspiracy against the Jews.
Antisemitism ex nihilo."
Some people typed in reply
"Your writing supports my understanding of what I have termed “the 3D virus” that plague all society -
“Disinformation, (cognitive) Dissonance, and Denial”
However depressing it may be it is important to know all that we are facing."
"Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the effects of this foreign influence operation is that most of our governments have been briefed on it by their security services, but have chosen to do nothing to counter either its narratives or its mechanisms.
(The Trump administration, despite its bizarreness in other domains, stands as an exception here. Its actions may or may not prove effective, but at least they are doing something.)
The most we've gotten out of other governments is some variant of "antisemitism is bad".
No PSAs, no counter-campaigns, no attacks on disinformation farms, no sanctions tied to hosting these farms, no seizure of Qatari assets, nothing. They're just letting all this continue and grow -- the content, the infrastructure and the number of people absorbing the libels.
Only governments (and maybe a select few large corporations) have the resources to combat these influence operations effectively. This is what we must demand of them. This is the standard they must be held to if they are to be taken seriously in their claims of "concern" for rising antisemitism."
"That your thoughts are entirely original, clear as the summer’s sun and beyond compelling makes them all the more perturbing and hurtful to read. Is everyone gonna hate us forever again ? Doctor?"
" This probably is not too comforting, but I don’t think they ever really liked us. They pitied us—tolerated us—as long as we stayed in the role of pure victim. The moment they could recast us as villains, the floodgates opened. Maybe they were always waiting for that chance."
Some More people added
" not comforting, no. But clear as the summer’s sun, so thank you."
"Antisemitism cloaks itself in the language of resistance, claiming to punch up against some imagined structure of Jewish domination. But as ------- has pointed out, what it really enacts is a performance of dominance over a minority it knows to be ultimately weaker and more vulnerable than the majority. The fantasy of Jewish power is not a reflection of strength, but a projection—one born of resentment that a people marked for destruction continues to survive, and even succeed.
This is the paradox: our vulnerability emboldens them, confirms their sense of superiority. But our strength enrages them, because it defies the role they’ve assigned us. Whether we hide or speak, bow or resist, they find a way to turn it against us.
So I don’t know if being feared will save us—or if it's even possible. But I do know that whatever sympathy they once extended to us as victims has evaporated. There is no use, at this point, in appealing to their conscience. They no longer see us as deserving of any compassion."
" or to put it another way, scary as it seems, Dara Horn was not exaggerating with the title of her book, "People Love Dead Jews"
A person posted an article from
blogs.timesofisrael.com
by
Adam Louis-Klein
"The Sentimental Ethos of Antisemitism"
June 10, 2025
Some people typed in reply
"Exactly
This "righteousness" [ do you or do you not claim genocide ...do you or do you not condemn Zionism...do you or do you not seek a Free Palestine.] so reeks of righteousness from eras past..."do you or do you not kiss the cross"
"This has always been the foundation of antisemitism - projecting whatever the particular zeitgeist determines as evil onto Jews, thus casting Jew-haters as virtuous.
The blueprint hasn't changed. Just the images and some of the rhetoric."
"Thus are Jews always cast as the “villain du jour.”
""In my view anti-semitism began with the Jews being called out by God to be separate from the world and a people for his own possession. They were to be a light unto the Nations sharing with them the knowledge of the one true God. They refused to follow the ways and practices of their pagan neighbors. That bread suspicion and animosity. And it escalated from there. The Jews were the original Other. 🕎"
"Antisemitism originates from colonialism.
And, like all colonialism, it presents the natives (Jews in this case) as evil, backwards, and barbaric to justify their dispossession.
The anti-Zionists of today are repeating these same patterns. Often without realizing it."
Another person typed online today
"82-year-old Holocaust survivor Karen Diamond was burned to death in Boulder, Colorado, for marching in support of the hostages. 💔
30-year-old Yaron Lischinsky and 26-year-olo Sarah Milgrin were shot and killed in Washington, D.C., for attending an event at a Jewish museum. 💔💔
28-year-old dentist Benjamin Harouni was shot and killed in San Diego, for being Jewish. 💔
69-year-old Paul Kessler was beaten to death, in Los Angeles, for holding an Israeli flag. 💔
This is what "globalize the intifada" means. Note to Mayoral candidate Momdani and his supporters- they are far more than just words! And it does NOT mean a mere "struggle" - it implies a violent uprising!"
A person also typed online today about Columbia "President"
Claire Shipman privately saying
School needed to add an
'Arab' Board Member and remove a Jewish one
"Like both of her predecessors, Shipman is part of the problem rather than the solution, and cannot be allowed to continue in her role as president of Columbia. This is sickening, especially because the Jewish board member that Shipman wanted to purge from the board was a Persian Jew who had fled Iran’s terrorist regime. If Shipman had said this about any other minority, she would have been immediately fired, but it’s open season on Jews who dare to speak out against Jew hate."
Then this one time
in New York City in early 1995
A Jewish Father and His
Teenage Son were
Talking in a local Restaurant about the Catholic
Church , it's History of Anti-Semitism and the
Second Vatican Council , the changes made by
Vatican II and it's improved Relations with the Jewish people and Israel
The Teenage Son asked his
Father
"If there is a Second Holocaust against the Jewish people in Israel, America or Elsewhere in the World, will the Pope and the Vatican, Catholic Clergy Speak Up in Defense of the Jewish people and Try to Save Jews"
The Jewish Father Replied
"Don't Count on it ,
The World doesn't care about Jews"
Hearing this Answer from his Father made the Teenage Son
VERY UPSET
Also we Must Ask Ourselves
Not trying to offend , but anyone wonder how Many Jewish people in America, Israel and Worldwide are deciding Not to have children because of the Always Rising
Anti-Semitism, Jew-Hatred , Especially After October 7th, 2023
That they don't want to bring Jewish children into a World where they will sadly be Hated , Unwanted , Bullied, Discriminated Against, Persecuted, Despised, Murdered for the "crime" of being Jewish
That they don't want any Child to Endure that type of Suffering or to Endure that type of Hatred as they get Older
How many Jews have Decided Not to have Children Because of the Always Rising Anti-Semitism
No Children, No Adoption, No Children at all because of All the Rising Hatred Against Jews and Israel
How Many Jewish people are Not having Children because of Rising Anti-Semitism , the Always Rising Jew-Hatred
Post a Comment