4 comments

1. The more open Israelis claim that what they want to do is to get Palestinians to relocate elsewhere, not to kill them. They claim that coexistence, sharing a land that has always been shared, is not possible. They seem to have forgotten that this is exactly what the Nazis said before they turned to killing. Just as the Nazis wanted to make Germany “Judenfrei”, many Israelis would like to see Palestine free of Palestinians. When the Nazis saw that ethnic cleansing was not working, the leadership at a conference held at Wannsee decided on the the “final solution”. Don’t let history repeat itself,

2. Holocaust inversion is the use of Holocaust imagery or comparisons in which Jews, Israel, or Zionists are portrayed as behaving like the Nazis, often with Palestinians cast in the role of the Jews persecuted by Nazi Germany.

   Typical examples include statements such as:

   • calling Israelis or Zionists “Nazis”;
   • describing Gaza as “Auschwitz” or Israeli policies as a new Holocaust;
   • using Nazi symbols or imagery to depict Israeli or Jewish figures;
   • saying that Jews have “become what they once suffered from.”

   The term is used especially in discussions of antisemitism. Under the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, one listed example is “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

   1. Hi Ahik,
      Thanks for your comment. What you say about the IHRA definition is true, which is why so many oppose it. Under the IHRA definition no matter what Ben Gvir says, no matter how racist or bloodthirsty his remarks, he has automatic protection from anyone saying he is acting like a Nazi because this would be antisemitic. Seems ridiculous.

   2. Hi Ahik,

      The IHRA’s  purported definition of antisemitism is so defective as a definition that I am always surprised when intelligent people either cite it or quote from it. It consists of two parts – a “definition” and a number of illustrations. 

      The definition part is “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.”

      If you think about it, this text is completely meaningless, “a certain perception of Jews” says nothing. The next two words, “which may”,  mean that what follows is not required.  After that, we read that the antisemitism may be directed “toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals” – i.e. anyone.   

      Because the “definition” is so obviously vague, the IHRA supplemented it with a list of examples. If there is any meaning in the document it is in the examples.  However, a finite list of examples cannot define the meaning of a general term.  For example, you cannot define the meaning of “even number” by giving a finite set of even numbers unless you add “and nothing else is an even number” (which would make the definition incorrect).  

      Some of the examples are themselves poorly formulated. For example, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” Were someone to write, “Unlike the Nazis, Israel is not keeping detailed lists of its victims”, that comparison would be antisemitic by IHRA’s definition.

      The examples that you give here suggest that you do not understand historical labels such as “Nazi” are being used as metaphors or analogies. Analogies are intended to point out similarities, not to say that two situations are identical. For example, those who liken Gaza to Auschwitz are fully aware that there are no gas chambers in Gaza; they are pointing out that both Gaza and Auschwitz are fully enclosed areas  with armed guards at a small number of entrances and that those within cannot easily leave. My earlier posting pointed out similarities between the preliminary stages of the Holocaust and Israel’s present beliefs. It was not a suggestion that present events are identical to the Holocaust. 

      The demonstrators were pointing out similarities not equating present events with historical ones. 

      The section of the document most often cited by the IHRA defenders is “However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. The problem with that condition is that no two countries are alike. I am critical of many countries (including Canada, Israel, the US, and others). My criticism of one country is not similar to my criticism of any other country because what I consider to be their “crimes” are not similar. Israel is unique and criticisms of it are not similar to criticisms of the others. That means that the IHRA “definition” might brand any criticism of  Israel as antisemitic. 

Comments are closed.