I do not like the term “antisemitism” (with or without hyphens or capital letters); it has come to mean anything from opposition to a Jewish State to an aversion to chicken fat to a desire to send millions to death camps. Precision in thought demands precision in language. For the moment I will employ the term. However, in the interests of clarity, I suggest that those who wish to use it restrict it to mean only one thing: hating and desiring to harm people for no reason other than that they are deemed to be Jews, with or without their consent.
Definitions are not right or wrong; they are useful or not useful. According to my strict construction, the following acts do not constitute antisemitism:
- questioning the truth of various accounts of the “holocaust,” including the claim that there existed during World War II a conscious plan, authorized at the highest levels of the German State, to exterminate Jews;
- postulating the existence of a lobby in the U.S., Britain, etc. which depends on the support of Jews, and examining the role of that lobby in shaping policy in those countries, both toward the Middle East and on other issues, for instance college admissions policies;
- noting the ownership and control of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Time-Warner by people who call themselves Jews as a factor in shaping U.S. public opinion on the Middle East and other issues;
- saying that Jews reacted defensively to the accusations against Captain Dreyfus;
- asking whether there exist proclivities among Jews — not necessarily embracing all Jews — to act in certain ways that are distinctive;
- asking whether there is something distinctive in the history of the Jews that could explain such proclivities;
- looking at the Judaic religion as a possible source of such proclivities;
- attributing to Jews various provocations, including the bombing of synagogues in various countries and other acts designed to discredit the opposition to Zionism;
- saying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion accurately depicted patterns of conduct widespread among Jews;
- saying that white nationalist ideology is in part a reaction to certain behavior patterns widespread among Jews.
- denouncing Jewish arrogance;
- asserting that God is antisemitic.
- asserting that violence is as addictive as pornography because both are produced and marketed by Jews for billion-dollar profits.
- saying that KLEBOLD (He of Columbine High School-fame) was a racial and religious Jew, the grandson of a wealthy Jewish philanthropist
- noting the disgusting and barbaric actions of Israel.
- noting that the Bible contains 137 descriptions of mass murder committed by Jews on God’s orders.
- noting that Stalin killed 10 times as many people as Hitler.
- Et cetera.
You get the idea. Any or all of the above statements and lines of inquiry may be criticized, argued over, and discredited, but they do not, either singly or all together, constitute antisemitism (setting aside my reservations about that term).
What do people think of my definition? If they do not find it useful, would they please offer a more useful one (not a series of accusations, but a definition)?
There is no need for a special term for hatred of Jews, any more than for hatred of Poles, or Italians, or Irish. Therefore, I now withdraw my temporary assent to the term “antisemitism.” While I do not propose to introduce a motion to ban its use, I pledge not to use it in the future, and call upon others to do likewise.
This issue reminds me of the controversy over “hate-crime”
legislation: every time someone commits an atrocity against a black person or a homosexual in America, the liberals demand new legislation against “hate-crimes,” forgetting that there already exist laws against murder and assault.
The following text has been archived from HOLOCAUST HISTORY ARCHIVE (i.e litek.ws, holocaust-news.com, holocaust-history.net, etc)