Antissionism is Antissemitism?

The case against Israel and the Jews (Blog Estadão)

IMAGE_164

 

Posted by Paulo Rosenbaum in Articles

In a recent talk at the Bait Jewish Center, located in Sao Paulo, Brazil, poet, essayist, and writer Nelson Ascher focused on a theme that was often banned or superficially addressed: is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism? The Tale of News blog summarized its considerations and added reflections that also involved the issue of the reliability of news and fake news, the political turmoil in Europe, the role of mass immigration and Islam-fascism, who is not a leftist. right or maybe just non-left?

Ascher began by using an absolutely synthetic statement to answer his own question.

“Why does anti-Semitism exist and endure?”

“Because it always worked”

How does it work and what is the contemporary and prior meaning of its effectiveness?

By stating that Zionism was a kind of “second degree nationalism” and that there are other “Zionisms” being born in Europe due to a lack of identification between the social democracy practiced by the European Parliament and the countries it governs. It is deduced that “second degree nationalism” can be understood as a reactivity of peoples to attempts to interfere with their customs beyond territorial and financial unity. In this sense, is Europe threatened soon after by several movements similar to Brexit?

In 2018 we had a disturbing record number of anti-Semitic attacks in Germany, France and more recently in the United States. In the European case, there is no way to disconnect the current status quo from the refugee crisis that has allowed almost 2 million people (immigrants from North African countries – mostly non-refugees) to come in – from intolerant cultures. violently anti-Semitic. The problem therefore lies more in immigration policy which seems to have no clear criteria than the immigrants themselves.

The debate has been blocked by the systematic evocation of terms forbidden by a censor euphemism better known as “politically correct.” Any mention of wild immigration has been labeled “Islamophobic.” It is also self-evident because the same treatment for the expression “Judeophobia” is not given. The insistence of much of the media to a priori condemn Israel, in headlines and statements, attests to this. In recent crises with the Gaza Strip ruled by the Hamas terrorist organization – and its Iranian proxies – the forefronts show the nonsense and bias of a significant part of the news media. “Israel attacks Gaza” is the most common call, after Israel had received nearly 500 rockets against civilian populations in less than 48 hours. Importantly, as has been emphasized more than once, such terrorist organizations have nothing to do with the official Palestinian government and its president. These are illegal fronts, which actually oppress and hold Gaza’s people hostage.

According to Ascher there is a particularity in the case of European anti-Semitism that often uses the justificationism of the anti-Zionist alibi. It is essential to analyze the role – direct or indirect – played by Angela Merkel and other leaders of that continent.

Still according to his analysis, some of these self-styled governments of social democracies regularly pay tribute to Jews killed in the Shoah (Holocaust) and in fact publicly condemn anti-Semitism, progress. However, while giving funeral speeches under self-whipping they neglect the dramatic and explicit aggressive mood against the Jewish communities. While other countries seem to do the reverse movement. In the case of Hungary – a country that you follow politics with particular attention – we have an example of this apparent paradox: here we have a government classified as extreme right (sic), but it is at the same time one of the places where contemporary Jews seem to be. safer when compared to the situation in other European countries. The paradox is only apparent: while a significant part of leftist parties choose to coalesce around old anti-Jewish conspiracy theories – formerly a far right monopoly argument – there is today a new and incendiary component to be reckoned with: as defined by Umberto Eco, it deals with from islamo-fascism.

As it is explained then, nations that even frequently meander their responsibility for the genocide practiced by the Nazis with co-participation from various other countries, but remain inert in the face of the epidemic of anti-Jewish intolerance that is sweeping Europe today, if not with impunity, counting. with the carelessness of governments.

Ascher then recommends the following inflection: what is the “Democratic Rule of Law”. Former President Mubarak, for example, was directly destabilized by Obama’s foreign policy and following the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections in Egypt. As we all know, the “Brotherhood” is one of the oldest radical Islamic associations. The Nazi party’s strategic ally is today an admittedly jihadist entity. He won by far by defeating all moderate parties in what would be one of the first elections in the Arab country in decades. Shortly thereafter the people themselves understood the error and took to the streets – in an event that was mistakenly classified as “Arab spring” – calling for the overthrow of the newly elected, which effectively ended up through a military coup led by General Sissi.
At the time, several analysts attributed the phenomenon of Morsi’s election – recently killed from a heart attack – to an error in the timing of the democratic process: IM had been the only organization to keep its structure intact during subsequent dictatorships that lasted, and thus the only one able to compete in the election as an almost exclusive option in that suffrage of plebiscitary character. Considering the episode what is the democratic rule of law anyway?
If only understanding the historical-political context can define it, what is its consistency?
Right and left have their wild addictions and rankings. In turn, those who do not fit the postulates of the left are subject to being called right or extreme right. Not just “not left” or “not right” is allowed. Many members of the US Democratic Party and the English Labor Party – centered on the figure of Corbyn – have instrumented the Palestinian struggle for rights discourse by sacrificing historical principles by openly defending anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic postures. This includes profiling in the defense of the Aitolás theocratic regime and advocating for jihadist organizations – officially recognized by the European Parliament as terrorist entities – such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These are complaints that come from within the English Labor Party itself.
What would be the ideological and tactical significance of this political turn?
It is disturbing to know that many journalists have acted militantly. Selecting news according to more ideological standards than reporting facts. It seems obvious that the hermeneutic bias took a much more powerful shape than the facts. Even though neutrality is an idealized function, would not the original role of journalism be closer to stimulating the reader to make his own decisions than to indoctrinate it? Not today, when fake news coming from official sources is far more compromising – because it is supposedly unsuspected or less suspicious – than the spread on social networks – always subject to double checking by the most careful users.
After the episode of the accusations of the defeated candidate for presidency of the Republic Ciro Gomes who externalized his prejudice when he evoked “corrupt from the Jewish community”, the most recent Brazilian case of statement accusing the Jews fell to “Isto É” magazine. The pamphlet published a pitifully explicitly anti-Semitic article – on the pretext of accusing the current government’s secretary of communication – using it as its motto comparing it to the infamous head of propaganda, the infamous Josef Goebbels (SIC), the fuhrer’s marketer. The magazine also used the accusatory term fabulating and identifying the enemy, once again, “the Jewish community.” The title of the libel would not need further explanation “The Goebbels of the Plateau.”

In this sense, the attempt to sabotage the right of any individual of a certain ethnic group to work or act politically for a government that the writer and the editorial board of the pamphlet deem inappropriate. In the absence of consistent arguments, the accusation will always fall on the most at hand ethnic condition. Sound happens more often against the Jews.

This is where we are very close to the cassation of citizenship. And the suspension of the idea of ​​the secular state by those who should most defend it. And so it was once again possible to evoke the myth, this clearly neo-Nazi myth, that there would be a “Jewish plot.” Now there are Jews of all political strains and shades, and the ethnic-religious condition could never be used as an alibi to generalize anything. Unless it is clear that the journalist or writer is already in the fragile intellectual condition of post-analysis. That is, what matters in any story is your personal beliefs and the starting point is the point of arrival. Unfounded generalizations such as those that routinely appear always start from an ideological, devotional, that is, fanatic bias.

Is this not one of the roots of the very discredit attributed to regulated media today? Is the fabrication of misinformation – increasingly identified by the speed and expansion of access to media diversity – not the very genealogy of false news? News that now with the webmaster is spreading with frightening resourcefulness? Does this occur while it is paradoxically possible to see a considerable advance of confidence in what is conveyed through social networks?

What are fake news anyway? And what is its impact on the national and international political scene? Especially in the case of Israel which suffers a considerable number of attacks with funded media and paid blogs to spread, for example, hate speech and intolerance.

In this sense, it can be said that modern anti-Semitism has been transgressed with an anti-Zionism on occasion. It is however a makeshift garment. Under the dismountable cloak that deserves to be demystified by serious journalism is a selective respect for freedom of expression.

Just over 74 years after the end of World War II and the deaths of more than 60 million people including 6 million and 250,000 Jews (who died after the end of the war when they tried to return to their European homes) the reality only reaffirms the vital importance of the existence of the State of Israel to the Jewish people and its security in the present historical moment. And despite the threats and rebirth of the virulent wave of intolerance against the Hebrews, there has never been a time in human history when so few Jews died in massacres. Anti-Zionism then finally unveils itself as just another veiled face of one of humanity’s most primitive and recurring archetypes.

Perhaps the great frustration of hate preachers is that this time the scapegoat has a way to defend itself.