WHOSE AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD DEFINITION.

If you are not a fan of The State of Israel, and I hope you aren’t, you are likely to be confronted with something called The International Holocaust Rememberance Alliance Definition of Antisemitism. If you are anybody that is somebody in the Labour Party it is a near certainty.

Fear not, it can’t hurt you if you don’t get into too detailed a discussion about it and thereby get seen to be taking the thing seriously. Nothing excites Israelists more than people taking their garbage seriously.

I have found it very effective to simply say ” it doesn’t apply to me“.  They will then say “why “?  The correct response to this is ” Because I haven’t adopted it”. They will then rattle off a list of those that have ” adopted ” it. This list will include the blatant, shameless lie that the thing has been adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service ( the function of this lie will be discussed in a subsequent post). The best response is to just keep saying “So” ?

Be warned. If there is antisemitism in your heart it will, and should, be revealed. If that is the case please feel free to burn in hell. If not you can safely adopt a completely no pasaran attitude. Engaging with these people, if you have little experience of them, will take you down a rabbit hole that it will be extremely difficult to extricate oneself from. Mark Braverman refers to this experience as The Fatal Embrace.

Note: Being called antisemitic by the Tories of the Israelist establishment, and their vast army of nut job internet trolls does not count as a revelation. You are just going to have to roll with it. After all, as the man said, ” If you are working to alleviate the heinous oppression of the Palestinian people and you haven’t been called antisemitic, you probably haven’t been working hard enough” .

I tend to get challenged with, “ Do you deny you are an antisemite ” I just say ” no and I don’t deny that I am a Martian either”.

No pasaran. Geddit ?

Now while you can say too much you can’t know too much. It is worth taking a little trouble to understand why and how we got to this situation vis a vis  this ” definition” . This maximises the confidence to adopt a healthy attitude to it all, and maximises  your ability to help others that are targeted.

First of all we should understand that the need for the ” definition” is central to what we might call the Israelisation of antisemitism.

Then we should understand the absurdity of the notions underpinning the thing.

The very idea that the meanings of established words and expressions can be determined by a few bums on chairs around an IHRA table is ludicrous. Natural language is the most democratic of phenomena. When we want to know the meaning of a word or expression we ordinarily turn to a dictionary. Your dictionary will tell you that the expression “ antisemitism” means something like a hatred of Jews, a wish to discriminate against Jews, persecution of Jews  or some combination thereof. For example the Oxford Dictionary simply says ” hostility to or prejudice against Jews “. Only Israelists find the definition inadequate.

The dictionary compilers are not Gods. They have no power. Dictionary definitions are not STIPULATIONS. The compilers arrive at the definitions by OBSERVATION. Observation of the sum force of the uses of the expression by the speakers of the language. In the case of English, the 1.5 billion speakers.

Now if you or I want to use the expression differently that is not invalid, it is input. This is a democracy, after all. But it is a grain of sand on a very large beach. It doesn’t change the meaning of the expression. For the meaning to change the overwhelming majority of speakers of the language have to overwhelmingly use the word with different force. Doubtless the change will be reflected in the next edition of the dictionary in question. See the process whereby the meaning of ” gay ” changed.

Until such time, if we try to stipulate the meaning of the expression we have quit speaking English, French, German, Hebrew, or whatever is our native natural language,  and have  started speaking a private language. And ,of course, a private language is no language at all. A word means whatever I ( or the IHRA, or CST ) mean by it is one of the surer signs that Humpty Dumpty was nuts

Then we need to understand the central role played by The Security Trust in bringing about all this nonsense. Their dirty fingerprints are everywhere.

The CST started out ridiculous and gets more so with each passing day. We have now reached the point where it has become a parody of itself. Now, no two or more Jews can meet together, even in the pub for a pint, without then issuing a statement thanking the CST  for keeping them safe. Following a recent Labour Friends of Israel ( overwhelmingly not Jewish )  dinner I tweeted to them, ” You forgot to thank CST for keeping you safe “. You would have thought this was a pretty obvious sarcasm and CST were not really keeping them safe. But no. Within minutes they tweeted ” thanks to CST for keeping us safe.”

Safe from what is never specified. Probably safe from the likes of me and you.

CST is the brand leader in the highly lucrative antisemitism industry, and is the brain child of the old lag mega fraudster Gerald Ronson. The very same Ronson that  Sadiq Khan describes as ” a close friend“. As the Chair of CST, Ronson rubs shoulders with big time  politicians of all shades, and with many of the senior police officers in the country. The senior partner in this CST/police ” partnership ” is NOT the police. I am not sure if there are rules relating to senior police officers hob nobbing with the criminal fraternity, but there surely must be guidelines.

The CST has a very specific and well defined role in the Israeli governments Hasbara efforts in this country. It doesn’t get diectly involved in arguments about Israel. In fact it keeps a very low profile in this respect. It concentrates on DISCOURSE about Israel and on working to circumscribe such discourse so that it is kept within ” safe ” bounds.

False accusations of antisemitism, and the talking up of perceived levels of antisemitism is a much favoured weapon in this undertaking and it is CST’s job to keep this weapon fully sharpened and effective.

It’s problem is that there really isn’t much antisemitism about, and certainly not enough to adequately serve the political purpose. Worse an analysis of this perfectly well understood concept reveals nothing whatsoever about  Israel. If you stood on any random street and asked, say,  500 passers by what they understood by ” antisemitism “, it is as near certain as makes no difference that Israel wouldn’t get a mention. In response to this it has developed effective strategies. They include stipulation, promoting half baked notions of ” antisemitic tropes ” and telling the people that the expression ” antisemitism ” doesn’t mean what they think it means and certainly not what their dictionaries tell them it means. It means what the CST say it means. This is continually re emphasised in their laughable six monthly reports under the head ” Antisemitic Discourse”.

They are quite explicit about this.They recently tweeted ” Want to know what antisemitism means? See here”  The ” here ” of course, was a link to their own web site, not to a good dictionary.

You wouldn’t of course buy a used car off Gerald Ronson. So why do you unquestioningly swallow output from his organisation? And you do don’t you? And why do socialists allow themselves to be bullied by these hard right Tories ?

If their dodgy methodology and fanciful figures were not enough to convince you, the CST role in the ” definition game ” clearly demonstrates that the organisation is, to be frank, as bent as a wad of £9 notes.

At top of the CST home page there was a menu. Included in the menu was “ ANTISEMITISM ”. The drop down from here included “ DEFINITIONS ”.

Upon clicking on the DEFINITIONS option on the drop down I got a big surprise. I found an introduction to the dogs dinner that the Israelist Ultras used to call  ” The EUMC working definition.”

We were introduced to this working definition” thus….

the EUMC, in collaboration with key NGOs drafted a single, comprehensive definition for use in the field. It employs plain language to enable the definition to be easily accessible to a wide range of law enforcement, justice and government officials, as well as to NGOs and experts who assist in the monitoring process.

This “working definition” was adopted in 2005 by the EUMC, now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and disseminated on its website and to its national monitors. “

Here we have a rolling series of categorical, blatant lies. For the moment  note, in particular,  “…. was adopted in 2005 by the EUMC “, and  “………disseminated on its web site and to its national monitors” and “in collaboration with…….representatives of the newly-formed Tolerance and Non-Discrimination section of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)”

Here is how it really was.

In 2005 the EUMC  put on its web site what it called a working definition of antisemitism as follows…

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This may not be wonderfully coherent but it is something akin to THE  concept.

No mention of Israel note.

This was put up as a DISCUSSION document. This is ALL the EUMC EVER did. It adopted NOTHING. Then heads of certain  Jewish NGO’s entered into a conspiracy  ( oops another antisemitic incident) to hijack the document. Since it was a discussion document they  entered the discussion and they addended to the document a whole heap of stuff concerning discourse about Israel. Prominent among these conspirators was Kenneth Stern of the American Jewish Committee and Michael Whine CEO of CST !!!!!

That is, CST were directly and prominently  involved in the heist.

The purpose was to create a situation in which was extremely difficult for anyone to talk about The State of Israel in anything less than eulogistic terms without also having to defend themselves against charges of antisemitism. This enterprise had some success.

However, in 2013, disaster struck.

The EUMC’s name had been changed, in 2007, to the Fundamental Rights Agency. Late in 2013, the now named FRA, decided to clear out some junk from the garage. Among the junk it removed from its web site was the so called working definition of antisemitism.

It is impossible to over state the impact of this. For years Zionist ultras have used reference to this ” definition” as a stick to with which to beat anyone who over stepped THEIR mark vis a vis Israel.

Their sense of loss was akin to bereavement.

They  were apoplectic and  a crescendo of pleas and threats rained down on the FRA. The Simon Weisenthal Centre bemoaned the ” loss of a valuable WEAPON”.

The FRA  responded as follows.

” We are not aware of any official definition of antisemitism.” 

” We have never viewed the document as a valid definition of antisemitism”.

” The document has been pulled along with other NON OFFICIAL documents”.

” The Agency does not need to develop its own definition of antisemitism in order to research these issues” .

” The Agency has no mandate to develop its own definitions.”.

When it was pointed out the The Agency had in 2008 published a document that contains definitions of homophobia and transphobia The Agency replied….

The Agency has defined neither, but has used international standards of certain definitions, terms and concepts”.

In other words in those cases they had simply restated THE concepts.

So there you were and there you had it. Or so you would have thought. However, to have thought that would have been to grossly underestimate the duplicity of CST and other organisations it works closely in conjunction with.

I, and probably others, confronted CST on this issue. There was of course no direct response. Except that changes were made to the web site. One would have hoped that the CST would have held its hands up, declared it a fair cop, and quit with the batshit. But no. The changes are even more duplicitous than the original.

If you now chose the definitions option you found an intro to  “The Working Definition “. Notice they have gotten bolder. No longer the EUMC working definition but THE working Definition.

However, once again we were given the same drivel as before, about how it was created and disseminated in order to blah blah blah…This was to create the impression that  we were about to be exposed to an official document of the European Union. Then if you clicked the working definition  hot link you found yourself on the web site of something calling itself The European Forum on Antisemitism. There you would have found a copy and paste of what they called the EUMCWD, which was then padded out with even more constraints on how you may talk about Israel without being dismissed as antisemitic.

What is the European Forum on Antisemitism ? Well nothing really. You may as well consult the publications of my local ferret fanciers club. The easy way to grasp it is to think of a bunch of self appointed John Mann type characters getting together and giving themselves a fancy name. If you look at their logo it even is designed to kinda look a bit like the EU logo. Stars and stuff. It is a creation designed to keep alive the spirit of the much loved EUMCWD.

It is in fact another creation of the American Jewish Committee, the CST and their co conspirators.

https://european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/definition-of-antisemitism/english-english

The EFOA wheeze was all too transparent and it  didn’t fly. LFI made a desultory show of getting behind it. For example the execrable Joan Ryan went around for a while saying stuff like ” That’s antisemitic see the EFOA definition”. But it soon fizzled out.

For a good while the ” definitions game” was nowhere to be seen. The Israelists had to get along without it. Except for a few die hards like the nut job Jonathan Hoffman who were still going around demanding ” compliance” with the ” EUMC Working Definition”.

Then in 2016 new life was breathed into it. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance was “persuaded” by two members to ” adopt” its own definition of antisemitism. You can’t keep a good Humpty Dumpty down. Who ” persuaded ” the two sponsors is anyone’s guess.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

While this may be incoherent it is harmless enough. Then the two sponsors issued a press statement addending all the usual batshit about Israel that had been addended to the EUMC ” definition” and had appeared on the EFOA thing. The two sponsors subsequently managed to get the addended material onto the IHRA web site.

UK Israelists notably CST and its ” partner organisations” were once again beside themselves with joy. What could be better than having  the explosive word ” holocaust” behind the wheeze? If someone disputes or refutes a definition of the IHRA, well they are of the same ilk as holocaust deniers aren’t they ? A shameless political exploitation of the holocaust disturbs them not one iota.

To cut a very long story short the Tories of the CST set out to get the ” definition” adopted by the Tory government, confident that they had the connections and the leverage to do so. This confidence was not misplaced. Subsequently Theresa May announced that the government had ” adopted” the definition.

There are two particularly interesting things about May’s statement.

Where would you expect May to make this declaration ? In parliament ? Via some official government organ ? She in fact made the announcement at a Conservative Friends of Israel dinner !!! It is impossible to imagine a clearer confirmation that this entire business is not about antisemitism at all, but is all about The State of Israel.

In October 2016 the allegedly “powerful” Parliamentary Committee On Home Affairs published a report on ” antisemitism”  in the UK, in which it broadly accepted the IHRO definition. It did, however, recommend a caveat …..

It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.”

This they said, was in order to protect free speech.

The government rejected this as ” unnecessary”.

Now governments, generally, take the line of least resistance in these circumstances. There was not, after all, a compelling national interest here. Not a British national interest at any rate ( unless you count our hard won civil liberties). So why was the caveat rejected ? It is not rocket science. The CST vetoed it. The very last thing CST and their ” partner organisations” want is Israel being held to the same standards as liberal democracies.

The Home Affairs Select Committee is obviously not as powerful as we are led to believe.  Certainly not as powerful as Gerald Ronson.

This assault on the above mentioned civil liberties, in the service of a foreign power, must be resisted at all costs. Liberal socialists must be in the van of this resistance, not in the van of the facilitation of the assault. Stand up Jon Lansman.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism

http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/ihra-opinion/#sthash.vpJnZyUL.dpbs

There is one country, and one country only, that we may not speak freely about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An offer to my Zionist friends that want to talk about antisemitism. I won’t mention Israel if you don’t. Deal ?

 

 

 

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “WHOSE AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD DEFINITION.”

  1. Stephen,

    When making any reference to the IHRA definition of what supposedly constitutes actual Antisemitism, its usually helpful to link to Alison Weir’s 2017 article that documents the actual history behind the IHRA itself and the money links – follow the money as they say. Anyhow, here’s Ms Weir’s article that offers a good historical analysis – obviously, as with many others, she’s labelled an Antisemite, which is strange given so many of these ‘New Antisemites’ are actually committed humanitarians and anti-racists, their only crime, supporting Palestinian human rights and questioning Israel’s more than 50 year occupation of Palestinian territory, territory detailed by the UN itself in 1948: http://ifamericaknew.org/history/antisemitism.html

    Like

      1. Collier has huge issues with his associations with fringe, UK rightwing extremists, which is strange as his bedfellow in much of the crap he undertakes is quite happy associating with openly fascist/racist Groups and individuals – he ain’t no angel and he knows it, hence my own ban now from his ghastly site – if only UK Journalists would check out the bugger!

        Like

  2. Not much in the way of discussion here lads
    Not much in the way of an interesting read
    Bellamys pet enmies; the ‘Jew’ organisations and people that have overtaken his dear old brain
    And bodgers attempt to sanitise the dear old Weir
    That same band of insurgents from Davids blog talking to each other with that dreary manner
    Suppose it satisfies the boredom crisis if nothing else
    Ho Hum and tra-la-la

    Like

    1. Galber,

      Given the the entire global population, and more, are Antisemites in your humble point of view, your comment holds little validity, except for the fact you seem to have issues with an Article printed by ms Weir, one, that gives an historical overview to the IHRA – do you contend said historical overview is incorrect, if so, please detail where it is inaccurate, otherwise, fuck off.

      Like

    2. Not much discussion of the blog subject here because it’s factual.

      Can’t be challenged. Unlike your favourite haunt by ‘Tisemitic Tourettes Collier.

      Refutting the blarney was what made it popular., and he took the coward’s way out.

      The Truth in Tatters

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

An offer to my Zionist friends that want to talk about antisemitism. I won't mention Israel if you don't. Deal ?

%d bloggers like this: