"Anti-Semitic" - the label that stops criticism

digme

Paul J. Balles – Zionism Unmasked: "Anti-Semitic" – the label that stops criticism

By Guest Post • Feb 13th, 2010 at 9:22 • Category: Features, Israel, Newswire, Opinions and Letters, Palestine, War, Zionism Illustration by Carlos Latuff

By Paul J. Balles*
If you indulge in ad hominem attacks (attacking the person rather than the issue), you can expect the same in return. The issues related to the anti-Semitic label are many.
First, the expression "anti-Semitic" is a misnomer. It's defined as "hating Jews or Judeophobia." The label "anti-Semitism" is wrong because not all Jews are Semites, and many Arabs are.
In 2004, the US Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. The Act defines a person as being anti-Semitic for holding any of a number of beliefs. My comments follow each of the 14 items supposedly revealing anti-Semitism.

1) Any assertion, "that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world."According to this, it doesn't matter whether the assertion is true or not. Truth is not an issue. Simply making such a statement violates the Act. In itself, that fact provides strong evidence of control of the US government.
2) The expression of "Strong anti-Israel sentiment."
Any criticism of Israel can thus be considered anti-Semitic. Israel can mangle Gaza and get away with it.
3) Expressing "Virulent criticism" of Israel's leaders, past or present.
Menachem Begin may have led the Irgun in the slaughter and dispossession of thousands of Palestinians, but it's anti-Semitic to say so.
4) Any criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders with its emphasis on the Talmud and Kabbala.
It's perfectly acceptable, as free speech, to vilify Islam, but any criticism of Judaism violates the Act.
5) Any criticism of the United States Government and Congress for being under the undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community, which would include Jewish organizations such as AIPAC.
Truth matters not to the ridiculous legislators who passed this ludicrous act.
6) Any criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism or what some call the "New World Order."
When you can't criticise a propaganda machine for its promotions, both free speech and democracy are dead.
7) Placing any blame on Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ.
In order to accommodate the anti-Semitism label, simply rewrite history.
8) Citing any facts that could in any way diminish the "six million" figure of Jewish holocaust victims.
I violate the act simply by citing the fact that five million non-Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. This goes beyond stifling free speech.
9) Claiming that Israel is a racist state.
That's not a claim. It's a fact. Israel is full of racist laws. It insists on preserving its racist character and its right to impose apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza.
10) Making any claim that there is a "Zionist Conspiracy."
A rational provision for such a claim would insist on evidence as proof of its validity. To disallow making such a claim is existentially (Israelis love that word) dictatorial.
11) Offering proof that Jews and their leaders created Communism and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.
It just became illegal to offer proof. Minds are made up. Don't confuse them with the facts.
12) Making derogatory statements about Jewish persons.
Why limit it to Jewish persons?
13) Asserting that spiritually disobedient Jews do not have the Biblical right to re-occupy Palestine.
Why limit it to the spiritually disobedient?
14) Making any allegations of Mossad involvement in the 9/11 attack.
I just did in a column published a week ago.

The Act passed by the US Congress makes me anti-Semitic. It's an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I'm a critic of Israel when they commit wrongs and a critic of America when it does wrong. Despite Congress, that's not anti-Semitic.
* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.






A well written piece about how to argue your point when someone tries to nullify your argument by using special words.

humanji

Can you give me a reason why this is here an not in politics?

Truthrevolution

You think thats bad, over in the States the White House regulatory executive Cass Susstein has called for a ban on conspiracy theories, looks like were more of a threat than we realise.....

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Time Magazine

digme wrote: »

In 2004, the US Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act.

Is a short, two-page law that tells the US State Department to write a report on anti-Semitic events worldwide.

His 14 points have nothing to do with the Act, and the Act has nothing to do with the 14 points. He's talking shit.

Time Magazine

Truthrevolution wrote: »

You think thats bad, over in the States the White House regulatory executive Cass Susstein has called for a ban on conspiracy theories, looks like were more of a threat than we realise.....

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

LMAO!

Sunstein did not call "for a ban on conspiracy theories"! That's an academic paper looking at how conspiracy theories spread and, basically, how an honest government should respond to conspiracies if conspiracy theorists think the government is dishonest. It's not a call for a ban on conspiracy theories, where did you get that idea from?

humanji

I'm closing this. It's got no real relevance on this forum.