When 200 of the world's leading academic authorities on the subject of antisemitism and related studies, all of them Jewish and the majority Israeli, come together to produce such a document as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism then it becomes much more awkward to label these people antisemites. This is the reason the media aren't covering its contents. Despite their obsessive coverage on the topic of antisemitism the BBC hasn't run a single article about the JDA.

When Starmer speaks of the neoliberal Labour party's being 'against antisemitism' - he is really just saying "we hate muslims" so that islamophobes will vote for him, his beef is not with real anti-semites. He is, as David Graeber said of similar behaviour by Margaret Hodge, crying wolf. The term 'anti-semite' is really just used to mean a muslim or someone who objects to invading muslim countries in the manner of colonialists and imperialists. Indeed Israel's ally Viktor Orban is hardly an opponent of Hitler's third reich, hardly someone you could honestly describe as "not anti-semitic" - at least, I would imagine, in George Soros's opinion or indeed the opinions of other Hungarian-born jews of his generation.

Now, how many of you have heard about the Jerusalem declaration on anti-semitism, which very recently was published by 200 of the world's leading academic authorities on the subject of antisemitsm and related studies, all of them Jewish and the majority Israeli? Well, dig in, and then visit the url and read the whole thing, eh? IF you are sincere about eradicating anti-semitism.

<< So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations. >> (The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism)

<< We, the undersigned, present the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, the product of an initiative that originated in Jerusalem. We include in our number international scholars working in Antisemitism Studies and related fields, including Jewish, Holocaust, Israel, Palestine, and Middle East Studies. The text of the Declaration has benefited from consultation with legal scholars and members of civil society.

Inspired by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1969 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, and the 2005 United Nations Resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, we hold that while antisemitism has certain distinctive features, the fight against it is inseparable from the overall fight against all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender discrimination.

Conscious of the historical persecution of Jews throughout history and of the universal lessons of the Holocaust, and viewing with alarm the reassertion of antisemitism by groups that mobilize hatred and violence in politics, society, and on the internet, we seek to provide a usable, concise, and historically-informed core definition of antisemitism with a set of guidelines.

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to "the IHRA Definition," the document that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls itself "a working definition," we have sought to improve on it by offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines. We hope this will be helpful for monitoring and combating antisemitism, as well as for educational purposes. We propose our non-legally binding Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA Definition. Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.

The IHRA Definition includes 11 "examples" of antisemitism, 7 of which focus on the State of Israel. While this puts undue emphasis on one arena, there is a widely-felt need for clarity on the limits of legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine. Our aim is twofold: (1) to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested, (2) to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine. We do not all share the same political views and we are not seeking to promote a partisan political agenda. Determining that a controversial view or action is not antisemitic implies neither that we endorse it nor that we do not.

The guidelines that focus on Israel-Palestine (numbers 6 to 15) should be taken together. In general, when applying the guidelines each should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker, especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations. >>

So what is it which the Jerusalem Declaration says which has the anti-semitism smearers so on the defensive? Well articles 8 and 9 are about how some people conflate being jewish with being responsible for Israel - just as people equally wrongly conflate being muslim with being responsible for what any given muslim does in the world - hence 'satirists' like Vilk gladly ridiculed all muslims in the world, whether those being bombed by Americans, bombed by Israelis, abused by European or American police states in their European or American homes - to Vilk all muslims were fair game, he conflated all of them with some belief in his mind that Islam itself is 'evil' - clearly. And someone taking the same view about jews is anti-semitic, to use the accepted jargon. What terrifies people like Tony Blair and Margaret Hodge is that what the JDA points out is twofold - first it says that anyone trying to suggest that all jews are responsible for any crime Israel commits are, on the face of it, being anti-semitic, and secondly it says that anyone trying to suggest that people criticising Israel are criticising all jews - they, the people saying that you are 'anti-semitic' if you criticise Israel because in their view criticising Israel is the same as criticising jews, they, these people conflating criticising Israel with criticising jews, they too are being anti-semitic on the face of it. Why do some jews say the latter (ie that criticising Israel 'is anti-semitic'), then, you may ask? Well I would say that they are the Osama bin Ladens of judaism or jewish (secular) society who say that. See: http://0.tvhobo.com