We have to walk on eggshells it seems, when it comes to any speech or text concering the Jewish people. And to a large extent, this is justified. After all, they have experienced a series of the most incredulous attacks on their race and religion – not just the Nazi holocaust: we forget the Russion pogroms, which, while not involving gas chambers, were concerted efforts against the lives of the Jewish people.

I talked to a woman whose child had died from influsenza. She claimed that the “anti-vaxers” had killed her child, because he had contracted the flu from another child, who had not been vaccinated. I replied, “what a terrible thing to lose a child.” And to everyone else I say, “a brereaved mother has the right – via our human compassion – to say whatever she likes.” This woman will seek blame until the day she dies, and there is not any judgement there.

Hope it’s clear that I am comparing the enourmous grief of the holocaust with the enormous grief of the loss of the child. I surely hope that this is not interpreted as anti-semtic. I can hear someon say that to compare the horrific murder of 6 million people to the death of just one child is heinous. But I stand my ground. In my opion, the death of a single child is just as tragic as the deaths of 6 million children. Every child is sacred.

There is an organization, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), has been charged to create a non-legally binding, working definition of anti-semitism:

“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.”

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

I’m afraid it’s not a very effective definition, in my opionion. Should it become legally-binding, it leaves open a wide berth of interpretations. Word like “certain perception of Jews” require one to know what that certain perception is, which is very dangerous in the law.

However, they give examples (a practice which is not available in the legal system; instead, cases must be first tried, and from these trials, precedents are set by judges, for future cases). The first example is:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.

Ibid.

This is a little confusing for someone like me, a non-Jew. Although I have lived in densely populated Jewish neighborhoods in the United States and Europe, and although the two men I consider by best friends in life were Jewish, one, the son of a holocaust survivor, I don’t pretend to understand the relationship between Israel, versus “a Jewish collectivity.” Israel claims to support religious freedom:

The country’s laws and Supreme Court rulings protect the freedoms of
conscience, faith, religion, and worship, regardless of an individual’s religious
affiliation.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/441219-ISRAEL-2022-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf

But, back to the definition: speech “targeting” Israel is understood to be anti-semitic. That is clear. But the IHRA introduces a caveat:

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

Confusing, for me. But it seems to mean that Israel, as a country, can be criticized. I wouldn’t suggest trying it, though. In this regard, the following example (of anti-semitism) seems relevant and topical:

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Ibid

The latest “test case” involves Elon Musk, branded (by the media – non-Jewish media, to be clear) as being an anti-semite. From the Wall Street Journal:

the social-media network’s owner described an antisemitic post as “the actual truth” and again lashed out at the Anti-Defamation League.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/elon-musk-antisemitism-social-media-fc5ec321

So, from the start, the original post is labeld “antisemitic”. No debate here. Oddly, the actual text is never included in the headlines; instead, one must read down in the article to find the quote:

Musk agreed with a post this past week on X that said Jewish people hold a “dialectical hatred” of white people

Ibid.

So the antisemitic post states an opinon about all Jewish people, that Jewish people, “dialectically”, hate “white people”. The IHRA definition cites “hatred of Jews”, but not hatred by Jews. So, that does not seem to be antisemitic, per se. It must be this IHRA example:

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

In fact, Musk did not make the statement, but said it was “the actual truth.” So, for me the debate is, is anyone allowed to debate such a statement, or, entertain the idea that such a statement is/is not true? That is, going beyond the anti-semitism (alleged) of the original statement, is Musk’s claim that the statement is true also considered anti-semitism? Seems to be the general consensus.

“Dialectical” means in direct opposition, as in the Helgelian dialectic. (not sure if I can cite Hegel, a German, who might have been anti-semitic. I have no evdidence, though). So the statment means that, collectively, all Jews are in (hateful) opposition to all “white people.” It’s a pretty dumb quote, actually, and doesn’t feel worth it to me to defend its veractiy. Who are the “white people?” Pretty sure there is a significant Jewish population that looks pretty “white”, but I doubt the writer of the statement really looked into this idea too deeply. Feels like there could be some “white” supremecism in there. But again, I have no evidence – the actual quote is never linked, anywhere. Why not? Do we not ever want to examine the original, for the sake of making our own decisions? Sad day for thinking.

The Times of Israel changes the quote:

Musk endorses tweet claiming Jews stoke hatred of white people as ‘the actual truth’

https://www.timesofisrael.com/musk-endorses-tweet-claiming-jews-stoke-hatred-of-white-people-as-the-actual-truth/

“Jews stoke hatred of white people” DOES fit very well into the IRHA’s definitiion:

Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity,

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

In the Times of Israel, the quote changes again:

that accused Jewish people of driving hatred against white people.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/musk-endorses-tweet-claiming-jews-stoke-hatred-of-white-people-as-the-actual-truth/

Again, I have yet to see the quote in its original form. It has probalby been judiciously taken down from X. But I can see how this is playing out: like a wildfire.

Finally, near the end of the article, we get to the source:

Elon made the comment when a user posted a video that is part of a campaign against antisemitism, depicting a father reprimanding his son for making antisemitic remarks on the internet.

Another user responded, “Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/musk-endorses-tweet-claiming-jews-stoke-hatred-of-white-people-as-the-actual-truth/

And here it is:

Just in case you are confused, I don’t have any particular love for Elon Musk. I have less love for this kind of rhetorical banter, and name calling, if it is done sloppily and without clear intent. Anti-semitism is REAL. Always has been, and always will be, it seems. It is really the nature of humanity to single out easily recognizable groups, and conjure up reasons to hate them. It’s a sickness, and we need to find a cure.

On the other hand, there is grave danger in sweeping classification efforts, bearing only a single “moniker”. Please agree that there ARE cases where the “anti-semitism wand” is waved in anger, and/or without justification, and that this can pose a threat to freedom of speech. This is very, very slippery issue, and MUST be treated with exactitude, or it will do damage.

Back to my anecdote about the woman who lost her son: Jews are justified in their agrressive search for anti-semitism in this world. If they let down their guard, we know what happens. It’s no one’s imagination that there is “hatred of the Jews” in many crevasses of human society.

But the rest of you don’t get to jump on the bandwagon, and use all your tricks to enflame an issue which does not belong to you. Traditional media is a fucking joke in this regard, and I hope that these old media players go bankrupt. I applaud Twitter/X for providing the most comprehensive, if, necessisarily, messy coreage of the actual news. Traditional media are traditional liars, in major and well-documented cases, and should be flushed forever.

Let’s duke it out on free platform, where everyone has the right to state opinions. Then, when problems like this arise, let us have the sense to deal with them like evolved world citizens, instead of trying our hardest to maniuplate them to our own advantate.

If Elon Musk is an anti-semite, please prosecute him – with the evidence required under the US Constitution.