The Systematic Erasure of Jewish History
5 min read
5 min read
4 min read
11 min read
This year’s prestigious Munk debate persuaded a decisive majority that hating the Jewish state is antisemitic.
Is anti-Zionism antisemitism? That was the provocative question put to a packed audience at the Munk Debate on June 17, 2024 in Toronto’s Roy Thomson Hall. Over 300 listeners heard from speakers debating whether calling for an end to the Jewish state is antisemitic or not.
After listening to four polished debaters spend 90 minutes discussing Israel, Gaza, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the current war in Gaza, a decisive majority voted in favor of the statement that anti-Zionism is indeed antisemitism.
The occasion for this in-depth dive into the current Gaza war was the 30th Munk Debate, sponsored in Canada by a charitable foundation. Host Rudyard Griffiths explained “that’s it through more and better debate that we learn and confront difficult ideas… We do this both to sharpen our own thinking, our own perspectives, (and) we also do it as part of our commitment to a free and open society to listen to each other, to debate each other, to respect each other's free speech rights.”
British journalist Douglas Murray opened the debate by describing some of the common charges that are leveled at Zionists these days. Just days earlier in Toronto, Murray pointed out, anti-Zionist protestors disrupted a Jewish Community Center’s Israel-themed event, screaming “F**ing filthy, f**ing Zionist pig,” waving Palestinian Authority flags, tearing down posters of Israeli hostages, and yelling at Jewish attendees: “You’re a dirty Zionist rat. That’s what you are. Happy about killing babies, right?” This sort of raw hatred isn't a measured debate about Israeli policies, Murray pointed out. No other country is singled out in this way.
The Munk Debate with Douglas Murray, Natasha Hausdorff, Mehdi Hasan & Gideon Levy
He took the case of Pakistan, founded just a few months before the State of Israel. A complex country, Pakistan has been involved in regional wars and violence. Some people might take issue with policies pursued by the Pakistani government. Yet nobody calls for the elimination of Pakistan, or argues that its creation was a mistake, or hurls abuse at Pakistani-Canadians. Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are indistinguishable.
His debating partner, British international law expert Natasha Hausdorff, described how hatred of modern-day Israel stems from age-old hatreds directed at Jews, particularly the blood libel myth that Jews enjoy killing children. “Modern blood libels are widely believed: as widely believed as the ancient blood libel,” she noted. Whereas in the past (and even sometimes even today), Christians and Muslims erroneously claimed that Jews murdered children, now this sinister belief is expressed through claiming Israel, the sole Jewish nation, is the very embodiment of evil.
Hausdorff identified four modern-day blood libels: that Israel is a Colonial entity; that it ethnically cleanses Palestinian Arabs; that it employs Apartheid; and that it engages in genocide.
Hausdorff demolished these slanders one by one. Israel is a colonial state? Nonsense: she explained Israeli history and the fact that Jews have always lived in modern-day Israel. (Her own Jewish family has lived in Israel for many generations, Hausdorff pointed out.)
Ethnic cleansing? Far from being subject to genocide, the Arab population of Israel has grown tenfold since the establishment of the state.
Apartheid? Israeli Arabs enjoy the same rights as all other Israelis, and serve as mayors, police officers, teachers, diplomats, and professionals of every stripe. Hausdorff even described her time interning in Israel’s Supreme Court alongside an influential Arab Supreme Court Justice.
The genocide libel inverts reality. Hamas has spent 16 years embedding its terror infrastructure in mosques, schools, hospitals, and every second house. Its central military tactic is to use civilians as human shields. Genocide is the latest modern blood libel that antisemites use to justify their anti-Zionism.
She also tackled the most potent slander: that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The reality is that Israel’s military takes extraordinary steps - beyond that of other western armies - to limit civilian casualties. Accusing Jewish Israelis of genocide is a potent way of turning the experience of Jews who’ve been the subject of genocide into a slander of the Jewish state.
“This debate is about racism and creating a double standard, where you make exceptions for the Jews. The genocide libel inverts reality. Hamas has spent 16 years embedding its terror infrastructure in mosques, schools, hospitals, and every second house. Its central military tactic is to use civilians as human shields. Genocide is the latest modern blood libel that antisemites use to justify their anti-Zionism,” Hausdorff explained.
Opposing the motion - arguing that it is not antisemitic to be an anti-Zionist - were two well-spoken, well-regarded, clever and funny journalists, Gideon Levy and Mehdi Hasan.
In some ways Gideon Levy was the most poignant figure in the debate. He reminded the audience that he was the only person on the debate stage who’d grown up in Israel, who’d served in Israel’s army, who’d raised his children in Israel. An award-winning journalist whose work has appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in Al-Jazeera, and elsewhere, Levy spoke poignantly about the way that Zionism - the belief that Jews deserve to have a homeland, and the infrastructure to bring about and maintain that state - saved his father’s life:
If not (for) Zionism, I wouldn't have be(en) here. My late father said goodbye to his parents, to his fiancé in the railway station of Prague in 1939. He went on a boat, illegal boat. Five months in the sea: no port would accept them. Detention in Beirut, Lebanon. And finally he illegally arriving in Israel.
Yet, Levy surprisingly asserted, now that Israel is established, he believes there’s no more need for Zionism. He advocates for the elimination of the Jewish state and its replacement with a majority-Arab state “from the river to the sea” encompassing all of current day Israel, the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank, and Hamas-controlled Gaza. A far-left, marginal figure in Israel, Levy’s ramblings came off as the irritation of a grumpy grandfather for whom the present can never compare with an idealized past.
His debate partner Mehdi Hasan was more on-point. A former MSNBC and Al Jazeera anchor, he now runs the media company Zeteo. Even though Hasan wrote a book called Win Every Argument, he lost badly on June 17, losing his cool over and over as he shouted at Murray and Hausdorff. One of Hasan’s most trenchant points was that many of the extreme anti-Israel activists are Jewish: “They’re all idiots, they’re all self-haters?” he asked sarcastically. Surely, if some Jews oppose the state of Israel, he reasoned, then being anti-Zionist - opposing the existence of the state of Israel - cannot possibly be antisemitic?
As Medhi got more excited, he yelled over Murray, preventing him from speaking, making fun of him instead. “Just stop it for a moment, Medhi, and listen,” Murray said. To his credit, Medhi paused and let Murray reply and provide crucial context that’s too often missing from conversations about Israel these days. The audience got to experience a measured, in-depth discussion instead of cheap point scoring and empty slogans.
Yes, some Jews are highly critical of Israeli policies, Murray explained. Many Jews desire a two-state solution, with a negotiated settlement leading to a peaceful Palestinian state. Yet pointing to these facts doesn’t excuse the antisemitism of wanting to eradicate the State of Israel or asserting that Jews, alone among all the peoples of the world, do not deserve to have political self-determination. Those who do so are either antisemites or fools, Murray said.
The fact that there is no independent Palestinian state is the fault of generations of Arab denialism, not Israeli policy, Murray described. He discussed the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, which were meant to lead to a Palestinian state. Rather than conclude negotiations however, Palestinian negotiators walked away from the accord and encouraged the Intifada, a multi-year violent campaign against Israeli Jews. Instead of peace, Israelis got nightclub bombings in Tel Aviv. Murray’s reply was just the sort of deep dive into history and politics that’s missing from so much political discourse.
Murray then shared a powerful personal story. The largely left-leaning towns and kibbutzim near the border of Gaza, which bore the brunt of Hamas’ October 7 attack, fervently hope for peace. The hundreds of concert-goers at the Nova music festival which was also attacked hoped to someday dance with their Palestinian neighbors. In fact, in the six months before Hamas’ attack, there were 400,000 instances of Gazans leaving Gaza to go into Israel. Most of these were workers going to jobs in farms and other locales in Israel. Tragically, these workers seem to have carried out reconnaissance work for Hamas, helping them draw maps of just where Hamas terrorists attacked.
Medhi jumped in, accusing Murray of lying, saying the claim Hamas terrorists had maps of Israeli towns and farms on October 7 had been soundly debunked by the Israeli Army. Calmly, Murray explained that he’d seen just such a map with his own eyes, through his work as a reporter on the ground in Israel and in Gaza immediately after October 7. In a voice heavy with emotion he described:
The terrorists who came to (the Israeli town of) Ofakim, which is many miles from the border (with Gaza).... On the bodies of the 12 terrorists who made it into that settlement, that community there. I have seen the map on the body of at least one of the terrorists, and it had on the map the house of the member of the Knesset (Parliament) who lived there, the house where the synagogue was going to be, because (October 7) was a holy day, and the kindergarten.
A particularly troubling aspect of the blind hatred that characterizes anti-Zionism is the utter lack of compassion or concern for the over 240 hostages taken captive by Hamas, an unknown number of whom - including children, women, the elderly, and the wounded - are still being held in Gaza today. Both Murray and Hausdorff wore yellow lapel pins in solidarity with these hostages, while Levy and Medhi declined to do so. Murray pointed out that instead of holding rallies and demonstrating against Hamas, much of the world is instead echoing Hamas’ calls for the destruction of the Jewish state:
You would have thought there would be some sympathy from the world. You might have thought the world would pay attention to the attack and at least pay attention to the people behind it. You might have expected, like me, that there might have been worldwide opposition to the terrorists and rapists and murders of Hamas. But no, there was immediate outpouring of rage against the state that had been attacked.
This Munk debate nearly didn’t happen. Like so many Israel-related events, it was targeted by protestors and those who wanted to shut it down before it even happened. “Some people thought this debate wouldn’t happen, that the risks of protests would be too great,” described moderator Rudyard Griffiths. “Others went further…and lobbied me, the Munk Debates, people associated with our organization, that these proceedings shouldn’t happen….”
Yet the debate went ahead and was a resounding success. Listeners got to hear an hour and a half of in-depth debate. A poll before the debate found that 61% of the audience agreed with the proposition that anti-Zionism is antisemitism; 39% disagreed. After the conclusion of the debate, 66% of the audience voted that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. The proportion of audience members disagreeing fell to 34%. Because they took the time to sit and truly listen, over a dozen Toronto residents now have changed their minds about one of the most contentious issues of our time. We can all learn from their example.
Israel is constantly slandered with the modern-day blood libels that Natasha Hausdorff described in her debate remarks. We all owe it to ourselves to pause and take the time to truly listen to others, to educate ourselves, and to learn the truth about Israel.
Yes, anti zionism=anti semitism, anti zionism is a code for Jews, in public schools and other places of education the anti Israel/anti zionist don't let Jews go to class, harass Jewish students, beat them up and say they want to kill us(that sounds like anti semitism) to me, plus hate speech is not free speech, in a school graduation in America the principal let the Muslem student wear on their cap "free palestine" and carry a so called Palestinan flag and then when a Jewish family took pictures the Muslim family first verbal harassed the family, and then the Muslim family beat up the Jewish family and pulled the hair of the Jewish lady, and now the Jewish family is suing the city and school for millions of dollars
Vera, you have a kind heart. Your interest to address this issue is appreciated. I would like to recommend James Carroll's book Constantine's Sword. It will provide great detail of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism from Christianity's beginning up to just short of the present. It will answer many of the questions you raised in your postings.
thank you so much for this. Also thank you for the recommendation of this book Constantine's Sword. I am just about to go to the public library to return a book. It is Chinua Achebe "Things fall apart" which is the story of a traditional African communtity into which Missionaries and a new Government (There the Brits) come into and after that what happens there.
The missionary stuff about Christians and the togetherness of Christianity with Power and Empires is what really is what turns me personally off from Christianity and also makes me ashamed or just unhappy about it. And this has brought great pain into the world. I love that Judaism or Hinduism don't do missionary. But even if they do, the togetherness of the church with the governments and the empires ist what made this so toxic.
I tell anyone who will listen that criticizing the government is not inherently
antisemitic. But calling for the destruction of Israel is blatant antisemitism.
I attended the Monk debate in Toronto. There were over 2000 people in attendance. Not 300. hall seats over 2600 people and it was full.
Ok I need to shut up now, I am having some sort of talkactive crazy day, I wish things be ok for all ppl and that there is peace and happiness and no hatred, but again this is so naive and there is war and hatred and bloodshed and wrongdoing in this world and what am I gonna say, nothing I can say, I am happy that I am not a target right now and I can sit here and just write a comment on the webs and later google a cat pic, what shall I really say, I cannot say a thing. I am probably procrastinating what I should do instead. Sending love and strenght and hope and that always too it is possible to see something that is not the hatred, but the love.
Look here one last take from me. Why do the jewish religious leaders not seek reconciliation with the pope and mekka for judaism is the father religion of both, christianity and islam. Like, why can't the jews not seek to forgive the romains for the distruction of the temple and maybe even go further to recognize Jesus as a Prophet or someone important (not the Messiah, but someone of importance) and seek the common ground of all the three religions. I am not saying this for blasphemy, I am saying it bc of utilty and just a recommendation for any minority. As a minority and being different you kinda are always in danger to be run over (thats in kindergarten and in world history). Is this thought naive, dumb or nasty? I hope not. I do not mean to be so.
like go for more ecumene and more pointing out the common ground than the differences. Maybe the church owes you even a lot. Iike reparations. I am just writing off my chest. Sorry if I am sounding funny. Amen. Not only the Nazis and the antisemites, But the Church. Politics is politics and it is a power game always. But maybe common ground is found elswhere not firstly in politics.
Vera, it is naive to imagine that the Jews can take some sort of unilateral action that would end antisemitism. A process of reconciliation takes a willingness on BOTH sides to find an solution. Jews are never going to accept what Christians say about Jesus nor what Muslims say about Muhammad, nor should anyone expect them to. Reconciliation would involve Christians and Muslims accepting this very basic reality. This is the starting point. Acceptance of Jesus or Muhammad as a prophet cannot be a precondition for reconciliation.
If you read the Qur'an, you'll see that the root of Arab Anti-Zionism is founded on the Jews refusal to accept Jesus (also an Islamic prophet, BTW) and then their refusal to accept Muhammad. So it is written in Allah's book.
Now what?
and yes you're right that when being bullied, it is of no use to go to the bully and ask him to please stop bullying, he will gaslight you or lie or play innocent or laugh... the only thing is to go to the boss of the bully with evidence and proof and facts or bully him back so badly that he will respect you.... (that be pro war then I assume... but, maybe there be other ways then brutality, to bully him back so he is exposed!) or walk away alltogether...
Muhammad destroyed the Jewish communities around Medina in the 7th Century. He was the bully.
His successors expelled the remaining Arab Jewish communities during the decades following Muhammad's death. They were the bullies.
Since then, Muslim rulers have, with rare exceptions, treated Jews as second-class citizens. They discriminated against them, persecuted them, and abused them. They were the bullies.
When a partition of Palestine was proposed based on where there were majority Jewish populations at that time, the Muslims refused to accept the statehood for those people and determined to prevent a Jewish State to this day. They are the bullies.
The Israelis can't walk away and they haven't been respected when they "bully back".
So what are you saying?
I agree that it would be helpful if Jews would read the New Testament and the Qur'an with an open mind. The authors of the New Testament (explicitly not Jesus) were, as you say, teachers. Jews should not be afraid that the book may contain valuable lessons. By the same token, Christians should be open minded about criticism of the New Testament. Christian teachers are not perfect.
The Qur'an is very different. Islamic antisemitism is not the same as Christian antisemitism. We need to understand clearly that the antisemitism today is primarily being driven by Muslims and their libels.
Because the terms "anti-Zionist" and "antisemite" are broadly defined, the premise of the debate is flawed. We need to be careful with broad labels like these. Most people do not fall neatly under a label or fully outside of a label; people within a group may have quite divergent ideas.
I believe that a more accurate description of the conclusion might be that MOST of the people who are now advocating for the destruction of the Jewish state are motivated by antisemitic lies.
Levy's motivation seems to be different and, IMO, is not antisemitic. He seems to be someone who believes that a one-state solution is workable and the only pathway to peace in the region. This is a matter of opinion.
Hasan is using the existence of people like Levy to "prove" that not all anti-Zionists are antisemitic. His "proof" is successful in a "logical" sense, exposing the flaw in the choice of topic. However, what matters is that MOST anti-Zionists are antisemitic and they are the ones driving the anti-Israel protests.
I could also point out that there are people who are genuinely antisemitic and think that all the Jews should be rounded up and shipped to Israel. These are antisemitic Zionists! Many of the Brits who supported the establishment of the Jewish State fell into this category.
Thank you so much for this detailed summary of the Munk debate, a debate which I had been unaware of. I hope that your article, or other factual ones about the debate, circulate broadly. This is what a true debate should be: two sides calmly and respectfully sharing historical background and facts and listening with an open mind to the opposing opinion.
Thus, the majority voted that Gideon Levy is a Jewish anti-Semite (not just a vocal anti-Zionist)
https://aish.com/for-jewish-anti-semites-a-cautionary-history-lesson/
And so it follows that all these people-anti Israelists and anti Zionists are antisemites since since Israel is the Jewish State-full of Jews!
I think the word Zionist is lovely and I am one !.:Period.! I think a lot of Jews and others are intimidated into avoiding that word Zionist(afraid they will be called racist). They will say" I am pro Israel "Or" I love Israel"- not proudly say "I am a Zionist". Of course this is a
word shouted at the anti-Israel rallies all the time: "kill the Zionists" etc.. and so the Israel lovers dare not say I am a Zionis(same difference).
Anti.
For me, as a non-jew, I see the imperialist tendencies in Zionism. I see too that the word Zionism nowadays is used to spread Antiwar, Antiimperial or Antisemitic Paroles, sadly sometimes all mixed at the same time. But only bc some fools yell out antisemitically loud (zionist war pigs or so), there is still a difference between these 3 and yes, I am pro Jew but too anti war, and also anti imperialism and yes I think I still miss a a good article on the differences and the use and abuse of these words. The attack was vicious, but, a little bit also it was dumb to make a festival next to the Gaza strip without protecting it by police. We had Charlie Hebdo, we had Sept 11, we had many of these and Israel is imperialistic in the region, so no wonder Hamas is aggressive back.
You clearly do not understand what imperialism is. Imperialism is France ruling Algeria or England ruling India. Israel does not rule over any territory in the name of some other country. It rules only over Israel. The Jews were granted ALL of mandatory Palestine by the League of Nations in 1921. In 1922, mandatory Palestine was split 80/20 by Churchill, with the 80% going to create the Hashemite kingdom of Transjordan, now Jordan
In 1937 (Peel Report], 1948 (UNGA Resolution 181], 1967 [the three Nos of Khartoum) 1993 (Oslo) 2000, Camp David, 2001 (Taba) 2008 (Jerusalem), the Jews offered to share the remaining 20% of mandatory Palestine with the Palestinians in a 2 state solution. The Palestinians said no every time.
In addition, in 2005, Israel withdrew every last Israeli (even the dead ones), from Gaza, destroying thriving communities and leaving successful greenhouses. The gazans trashed the greenhouses and within 2 years, were firing thousands of rockets into Israel. That is how we got to where are today.
In short, Israel is about as far from being imperialistic as it is possible for any country to be. It has conceded territory, withdrawn from territory and offered to live in peace time and time again.
yes but when the UN decided to give the Jews Israel, some Arab Countries were never asked or have never agreed, so just from them, it was like offering peace for something that for them never was just nor fair (from their point of view not mine, just that saying for understanding where their ressentiments might come from)
Arabs were Ottoman subjects and the French and British carved up the Ottoman Empire after the war which it lost. The Arabs got states of their own, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait , Saudi Arabia, etc. and the the Jews got a future homeland, the British Mandate for Palestine. Then 78% of that was carved off because the British needed some more land to reward the Hashemites, and made Jordan. So the Arabs weren't asked but got lots of countries, but still didn't want to let Jews live in Palestine. So that territory was divided again, the Jews accepted, the Arabs refused and attacked Israel, and there we are.
offering peace in the end will be the only way always... it is like this and war and violence will always lead to more war and tears... I am sad about oct 7 and about the Gaza war and about any antisemitism, and yes it is important to differ between Antiwar paroles, Antizionist or zionist (nationalistic) Paroles and Antisemitic paroles.
all the best, sorry if I came across too strong. I have no solution either... compassion is the only way and dialogue and finding common interests and common ground.
Thank you for reply.
imperialism
/ɪmˈpɪərɪəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: imperialism
I'd be referring to annexation of the Golan Heights and Westbank or maybe too the Takeover of Gaza from Egypt in the war 1973 could be seen as an imperialistic.
Secondly, I'd be using imperialism when thinking that in biblical times there have always been other people living in Judäa and Israel, such as the Baal prayers, and the biblical Philistines (Palestinian towns and these feuds are mentioned in the old Testament as we know). There were other people besides Hebrew people in the region for a long time.
Also the Beduins nowadays.
Thirdly, settler violence in the Westbank, bc the westbank is seen as an occupation.
But Israel dominates the region, which can be called imperialistic tendencies.
The original Article is about antizionism and antisemitism in the ongoing propalestine or antiwar protests and debates. These protests and debates are globally, as much as Jews or palestine ppl live everywhere and as much the world and Newspaper News are. Therefore, I am allowed to have opinions outside just my home. And besides, I personally believe that the antiwar protests are important that they exist. Not all what they say is smart always, but it is good that there is protest against the Gaza War or any war. AMEN.
it is a very sad thing that some protestors fall into the jew hate trap.
it is a pity also that the israeli government went for war instead for investigation. A Terrorist Attack should lead to investigation and not to war. my humble opinion. Amen Second time.
I do feel that Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are synonymous with each other. I also feel that a lot of people are ‘closet anti-Semitic’ and this is a feeble excuse to say something hateful if it was just Zionism meaning they also hate Judiasm. I have had discrimination hurled at me so I have had that experience.
Having watched the debate in full, this précis provides a fairly reasonable overview of the 4 debaters’ positions. Sadly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, very few minds were changed.
This was settled a long time ago. Debate is useless. Anti-Zionism is a liberal, woke term for Jew hatred. Anti-Zionism replaced antisemitism and antisemitism replaced Jew hatred because it seemed like a nicer, more polite term. Tomato, tomato. I can’t believe there are actually people who think there is a difference.
I feel that a self that is herself pro zionist and jew and that is herself full of emotions while writing, is not the right person to decide or write about this question. The article is written in a style that is lurid.
For me, a Christian from Switzerland, this is how this felt. I feel a lot of fear here while reading, and this is understandable due to generational trauma and recent events, but No, for me it is not the same, anti-zionism and anti semitism are too two different words, so the question should rather be how anti-zionism an antisemitism differ. And then a writing about that that is not lurid but just dry and as written and done researching as professional and objective as possible and not falling into the trap of calling out emotions, blame and going for popular polls.
Antizionism is not just criticism of the current Israeli government. That would be “anti Netanyahu” or “anti Likud”, something millions of Israelis feel and express all the time.
No. Antizionism says that the Jews, and only the Jews, are not entitled to live independently in their indigenous homeland. That IS antisemitism, without a shadow of doubt.
Thanks for bringing up the current government bc yes, their politics is part of the mixed up terminology too.
I just looked up "semitic people", which, according to quick lookup on google are not only the Jews. So maybe nowadays antizionism and antisemitism should be switched when referring to antijew stuff. Personally I am not into too much patriotism bc in modern multiethnical societies this is just not helpful. And some patriotism goes too far, like they want "auslànder raus" etc, are anti-foreigners etc anti immigrant etc... about indigenous, it's just sad, bc our indigenous ppl on earth are literally dying. Due to globalism, also the terminology "indigenous" doesn't make too much sense anymore, bc people are spread everywhere, are mixed and the world became "white trashy" generally.
And also bringing up "imperialism" I need to add "Christianisation", bc, speaking of "indigenous", me, for example, guess I am stemming from some pagan folks waay wayy long time ago before christianity came, and Christianity conquered all of these cultures that had not written down their holy stuff (unlike the egyptians, the hebrews, the old hindu, the chinese and babylonian, so ok, you guys have had great suffering, but at least you guys where not wiped out entirely of your culture. What shall I say? Just don't do to others what you don't like to be done to yourself, it is always this and only this. So be happy too about what ya got, and stop crying all the time bc life is hard, and men are full of hatred throughout history, and in the end everyone who is alive today is a survivor somehow
dont do to other what you dont like to be done to yourself
so first shut up
maybe you should experiance an oct 7yourself and and your family before you talk and judge??maybe you would like to experience terrorist attack everyday???
im also swiss but jew and your comment feel very mean to me
we have only one country full of arabs that ruin our lives
the arabs have tons of countries think about it
and we never attack for fun we just had to defend ourself for a long time...
I agree with you, Switzland was supposed to be netural in the time of the Holocaust, but in fact they helped the Nazis(may their name be erased) hide stolen assets from the Jews, also the Swiss banks did not let the heirs of the Jews that sent their money to Switzland get their money, until a security guard from the banks stopped the shreding of the evidence, that Jews can get their money back, and now a Swiss character that has a lot of nerve telling Jews that were attacked brutely what to do let her stir the Swiss pot not Jewish/ Israeli pot
There is a simple, practical reason why being against Israel equals being against the Jewish people. Most Jewish children live in Israel. There are more Jewish children in Israel than the total of Jewish children in all other countries combined. Jewish populations in Diaspora communities are aging and shrinking. Israel is the only country in the world with a growing Jewish population and a relatively high birth rate. (This includes secular Jews as well as religious Jews.) Anyone who is against Israel is against the future of the Jewish people.
But to our sorrow Israeli children are not recognised as such. The cry that Palestinian children are innocent is not invoked for Israeli children killed or displaced.
or kidnapped
Too true - or kidnapped.
Right, once again non Jews think Jewish blood is cheap, before that it was during the Holocaust which happened around 80 years ago, and the world is so anti semitic and now anti zionist/ anti israel which is really anti semitusm
You are right, and unfortunely after the Holocaust there is still rampant anti semitism that is disguised has being anti zionist/anti israel, but in fact is one and the same