Saturday, October 14, 2006
THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S DEFINITION OF ANTI-SEMITISM
In the same "Culture Wars" article to which I have previously referred, titled "The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew", E. Michael Jones writes:
On October 16, 2004 President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which established a special department within the U.S. State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism, reporting annually to Congress. As one of the major steps in the implementation of that law, Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice swore in Gregg Rickman as head of the State Department's office of global anti-Semitism on May 22, 2006. Rickman had ties with both Jewish organizations and congress. ...
Mr. Rickman will not have to define anti-Semitism. His state department office has already done that for him. In its "Report on Global Anti-Semitism" and its "Global Anti-Semitism Report," the U.S/ State Department lists the following set of beliefs as anti-Semitic:
1) Any assertion "that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world" is anti-Semitic.
2) "Strong anti-Israel sentiment" is anti-Semitic.
3) "Virulent criticism" of Israel's leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic. According to the State Department, anti-Semitism occurs when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behavior of a past or present Zionist leader. Thus, a cartoon that includes a swastika to criticize Ariel Sharon's brutal 2002 invasion of the West Bank, raining "hell-fire" missiles on hapless Palestinian men, women and children, is anti-Semitic. Similarly, when the word "Zionazi" is used to describe Sharon's saturation bombing in Lebanon in 1982 (killing 17,500 innocent refugees), it is also "anti-Semitic."
4) Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.
5) Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.
6) Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the "New World Order") is anti-Semitic.
7) Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.
8) Diminishing the "six million" figure of Holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.
9) Calling Israel a "racist" state is anti-Semitic.
10) Asserting that there exists a "Zionist Conspiracy" is anti-Semitic.
11) Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.
12) Making "derogatory statements about Jewish persons" is anti-Semitic.
The State Department criteria has serious implications for anyone alive today. The most serious is that it turns many Jews, who have made many of the above claims in books and articles they have written, into anti-Semites. But the State Department's definitions have serious historical implications as well. If we take numbers 4 and 7 for example, it seems clear that not just ordinary Catholics but Catholic popes and saints were guilty of anti-Semitism, according to the State Department's criteria. Numerous popes beginning with Pope Gregory IX in 1238 have condemned the Talmud as a blasphemous assault on the person of Christ and the Christian faith and have urged Christians to confiscate and burn it. Concerning #7, St. Peter, the first pope claimed in the Acts of the Apostles that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Even Nostrae Aetate, the declaration of Vatican II on the Jews which ushered in an era of good feeling and "ecumenism" claimed that some Jews were responsible for Christ's death. By their promiscuous use of the term anti-Semitism Rickman and his cohorts in the State Department have turned traditional Catholic teaching into a hate crime.
In spite of 40 years of Jewish exaggeration and chutzpah, certain facts remain. The Church is not and cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, because the term refers primarily to race and racial hatred. The Church cannot promote racial hatred of any group, certainly not of the Jews because its founder was a member of that racial group.
So it would seem that not only will Benedict get into trouble quoting words of an historical figure when those words are not complimentary to a certain religious group, but he will also get into trouble with the State Department when teaching certain aspects of the faith that are uncomplimentary to another religious group.
Also apparently censorship of certain inconvenient truths is the name of the State Department's game. What happened to religious freedom?
Of course anyone can criticize and denigrate Christians with impunity, and Catholics in particular, anywhere and anytime they choose with no fear from a terrorist or the censors in the offices of the State Department.
I am not in favor of blanket endorsements. Sometimes Jewish people, just like Catholic people, do things which are simply wrong. Sometimes their leaders do as well. Pope John Paul II issued apologys for what he considered had been errors on the part of previous popes. To say that all Catholics are always correct is foolishness. Can't the same be said of all Jewish people?
I did some checking and found the State Department's "Report on Global Anti-Semitism" here. While the incidents of concern are not numbered as Mike Jones has numbered them, the main points he lists seem to be there. The report indicates:
The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies. While there is no universally accepted definition, there is a generally clear understanding of what the term encompasses.
For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character. The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue.
Global anti-Semitism in recent years has had four main sources:
* Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world.
* Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.
* Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq.
* Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both.
There is wiggle room for legitimate criticism in the statement "An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticim of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character," but the distinction seems to be arbitrary. It appears to depend upon subjective enforcement, leaving the door open to criticize anything even vaguely Jewish if someone with the power is so inclined.
In any case, the ADL is pleased with the State Department's response so far.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
