An Improved Model Definition of Antisemitism

1. The need for a clear definition of "antisemitism"
A few years back, I blogged about the savvy tactic of the Netanyahu government to accuse virtually all criticism of the Israel occupation policy as antisemitic. Since then, more complex disputes have evolved at higher levels, not least the debate and controversy around antisemitism within the Corbyn led Labour party in the UK. Also in my own country, the thorny issue of how to draw the line between legitimate (not meaning necessarily sound) criticism of decisions made by the government of Israel and judgements that deny jewish people equal rights or has taken public stage, connected to repeated reports of antisemitic harassment and hatespeech in the city of Malmö, and an harassment case regarding Jewish phycisians at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm. All of these cases have actualised tricky issues on how to define the line between legitimate political criticism against acts of the Israeli government, and (ethno)racist harassment or hatespeech targetting jewish people.

The issue has become extra complicated with the rise of a new "nationalist" far-right conservative political (more easily, Fascist) movement  across Europe. Albeit targetting muslims and "migrants" has been a main theme in the political rhetorics in these circles, antisemitic themes and tropes are commonplace. This regards, of course, the now well-known cases of the Fidesz-ruled Hungary, and the PiS-ruled Poland (both countries with a long history of widespread antisemitism in the culture, no matter the regime). But also in Sweden, where antisemitic attitudes have a comparably weak hold, open hatred against Jews and open antisemitic attitudes have been a standing occurrence from the Sweden Democrats party, even its highest circles of leadership. Even political pundits linked to the more traditional conservative side of politics have been starting to flaunt obvious antisemitic tropes in their public statements. The perhaps most well-known and obvious case being the former op-ed editor, now mainly op-ed writer, of the Göteborgsposten daily, and ideaological consultant of the Moderaterna classic conservative party, Alice Teodorescu, who shortly before the Swedish general election of 2018 labelled holocaust survivors who went public with parallels between the current political development in Europe and Sweden and that in 1930's Germany as "agents of the political left", ironically proving said holocaust survivors right by using the classic trope of porttraying Jews as spokespersons and forerunners of a leftwing conspiracy.

In this landscape, it has become increasingly difficult to navigate, as the Israeli government marks any criticism as antisemitic, obvious antisemitic hatespeech, tropes and images within the Palestine movement and other critics of Israel are shrugged off as legitimate criticism of Israel, while many feel an increasing need to protest against the increasing antisemitism from the new fascism and politically conservative right. As the fight over the concept of antisemitism continues, Jews as well as all anti-racists are being caught in the middle.  At the heart of the problem is that there is no well-designed and generally approved definition of "antisemitism". In fact, I was stunned to find out, the only thing there is, is a "non legally binding working defintion" issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. As no alternative determination of the concept exists, this definition has been used (though not officially adopted or approved) by the European Commission and Parliament, and adopted by the federal US government.

However, the definition has also drawn criticism for confusing the line between legitimate political criticism of the Israeli government, and hatespeech, harassment etc. targetting jews. I agree with portions of this criticism and, in addition, as a philosopher, I find the definition poorly constructed from a technical point of view. In this post I will therefore use the IHRA working defintion as a stepping stone for presenting a more accurate and better constructed defintion. The result, I will call a "Model Definition of Antisemitism", thereby signalling that I believe this suggestions to move the work of defining "antisemitism" from the "working" stage to the stage of presenting an actual prototype for use in legislation and political and moral judgement.

2. Improving the IHRA Working Definition
The IHRA definition starts off with a generic characterization of "antisemitism", and this is the part that a philosopher would call an actual definition:

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.

Immediately following this rather vague statement (what counts as "hatred", and what "manifestations" are implied?) comes a generic clarification, which must be sen as part of the diefinition.

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Thus far, the definition looks pretty ok. However, one unclarity can be found in the first two sentences of the second quote. Together, these may be read to imply that the state of Israel is "a Jewish collectivity", not only that criticising the Israeli government's actions in terms of condemnation of "jews" is antisemitic. This muddle is unfortunate. Of course, jews may be citizens of any country, and the state or government of Israel cannot be assumed to represent jews everywhere, and citizens of Israel need not be jews (so the collectivity of Israel is thereby not "Jewish", albeit a lot of israelis are jewish and Jewish culture is central to israeli life).

Additionally, these descriptions fail to make a distinction that, if ignored, often causes confusion in debates on whether or not some phenomenon or person is antisemitic. This is the distinction between, on the one hand, a person harbouring antisemitic ideas, and, on the other, some manifestation communicating, expressing and/or spreading antisemitism. For instance, when I pointed out on Twitter how Alice Teodorescu's inciting attack on holocaust survivors fitted several counts of the IHRA definition of "antisemitism", I had a storm of responses from her supporters that it was preposterous to suggest that she is antisemitic. This is, of course, is completely irrelevant when assessing her statements – a person may express antisemitism without being antisemitic. At the same time, if the antisemitism of some manifestation is pointed out but the person behind them continue to use them, this will be empirical evidence supporting the idea that this person actually endorses antisemitism.

To improve the definition in this respect, I therefore suggest the following revision:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews, or rhetorical and physical manifestations directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. This perception may be held by a person, and communicated through different types of manifestations. While criticism of the government of Israel similar to that leveled against any other government cannot be regarded as antisemitic, manifestations that has such criticism take the form of targeting Jews or Jewish people rather than political decisions and holders of political offices is antisemitic. Antisemitic manifestations frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

 Following this opening, generic characterization, the IHRA working definition then adds a list of examples of what may be included in contemporary antisemitic manifestations. In tghis quote, I have added numbers for more easy referral to items on the list, in the original the items are seprated by dots:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 

6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 

7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. 

8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 

9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 

10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. 

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

It is important to note that this kind of list is, from a conceptual analytical standpoint, an entirely different animal than the proper definition given earlier. A list like this is more like an amendment, or implementation guide, and not really part of the definition itself. The list must therefore not serve to arbitrarily expand the concept, as it has already been characterised in the generic definition. Moreover, the list shoud ideally be brief, and items that could be subsumed as instances of other items should be taken off the list to avoid confusion. With these aspects in mind we may match the items on the list against the revised generic characterisation, and the other items of the list. I will start with the question if some items can be sorted under others.

Of the items, 1-4 seem perfectly legitimate. No. 5, however, while being an accurate example of typical antisemitic manifestations, it falls under the domains of items 2-4, as one of many specific examples. Likewise, item no. 6 falls under item 2 and 3. Furthermore, item no. 11 seems to be a particular instance of item 3, especially if item 3 is clarified to include states. Finally, item 10 would seem to sort under item 4. A first revision of the list in view of making it more coherent and brief, would therefore read: 

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: 

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion

 2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

3. Accusing Jews as indivuals or a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by another Jewish person, group, institution or state, or even for acts committed by non-Jews

4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

5. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

6. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 

7. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 




We come now to the question if all the remaining items can be supported by the generic characterisation. Here, I find only one item problematic, namely no. 5. The problem with this item is that it is perfectly possible to hold the political philosophical view that no people of any kind have any right to self-determination without being antisemitic in the sense of the generic characterisation. This view is a general scepticism to the notion of the nation state as a moral (rather than practical) category. This view implies that also Jewish people lack such a right (thus falling under item no. 5), but without in any way treating Jewish people worse than any other people, or discriminate against jews. What would be antisemitic would be to afford a right of self-determination to other peoples, but not to the Jewish people. A case in point would, for example be, if the Palestinian people is afforded a right to self-determination while the Jewish people is denied such a right (conversely, affording the right to the Jewish people but not to the palestinian people would be "anti-palestinianism"). But if the item is rephrased to that effect, it will fall under item 6 (regarding double standards). Therefore, my suggestion is that also item 5 on the revised list is removed.

3. A Model Definition of "Antisemitism"
The outcome of this little exercise is, then, the following proposal for a model definition of the notion of "antisemitism". This definition provides a more coherent, brief and applicable guide for determining whether or not some phenomenon is antisemitic or not. For example, the Teodorescu statement about holocaust survivors who bear witness of the 1930's being "agents of the political left" clearly falls under item 2, and possibly also under item 4 (if historical facts regarding the Holocaust include its political precedence. many of the examples from islamist propaganda, as well as propaganda within the Labour party of the UK (such as classic antisemitic trope images that have been used for centuries for antisemitic purposes). But claims from any of these parties regarding the justification of, e.g., Israeli settler policy on occupied land, or the "shoot to kill" policy of IDF forces at the border between occupied territory and Israel proper would not be antisemitic at all. I believe this definition, unlike that of IHRA, to be fit for incorporation into actual legal statute, as well as policy declarations that guide the actions of international institutions, states, business as well as NGO's.


Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews, or rhetorical and physical manifestations directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. This perception may be held by a person, and communicated through different types of manifestations. While criticism of the government of Israel similar to that leveled against any other government cannot be regarded as antisemitic, manifestations that has such criticism take the form of targeting Jews or Jewish people rather than political decisions and holders of political offices is antisemitic. Antisemitic manifestations frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
 
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: 

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion

 2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

3. Accusing Jews as indivuals or a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by another Jewish person, group, institution or state, or even for acts committed by non-Jews

4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

5. Applying double standards by requiring of the state of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 

6. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 

*

On the "One State Solution" to the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Since the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 initiated what has become known as the "Oslo Process", the recognised vision of how to resolve the longstanding violent conflict between the state of Israel and Palestinian representatives, organisations and people have been the so-called  Two State Solution, where the state of Israel is to mostly withdraw to its original 1947 borders, and a state of Palestine reign over the remaining territory of what used to be the British colonial "protectorate" of Palestine. This resulted in the creation of the Palestinian Authority reign over the Westbank and Gaza territories, pending final negotiations about nation state borders, which have never so far taken place. In the meantime Israeli seizure of Palestinian property and land, and colonial settlements in occupied territory have continued, as have violent rhetoric and activities both within the Palestinian territories (since the militant islamist Hamas movement seized power over Gaza and effectively put a stop to democracy there), and between the Israeli army and various militias and activists from the Palestinian side. Of course, mostly with the result of massive domination and show of force from the Israeli side, to the repeated disbenefit of people living in the areas, especially the blockaded Gaza strip. Very recently, some initiatives from Hamas has signaled attempts to overcome the infighting with the Palestinian Authority, but so far with no notable political result. Even more recently, US president Donald Trump stumbled into the conflict in the rogue elephant manner he has made himself known for and designated Jerusalem from now on to be the recognised capital of Israel, albeit the US (or the UN) does not recognise the territory where Jerusalem is located as part of Israeli territory, but as occupied land. Not surprisingly, this gave rise to a new wave of violence from military, militants and activists on both sides. The idea of the two state solution seems less politically realistic than it has ever done.

Against this background, a number of debaters have suggested an alternative idea, The One State Solution, which to a lot of people makes a lot more sense than the fiasco and resulting mayhem that has been going on since the creation of the state of Israel in 1947. This idea, simply put, is that all of the territory currently contested is made into one single state, that this state is made ethnically unaligned (abolishing ideas about a Jewish or Palestinian homeland), democratic, and secular, and that a deal is struck on the question of how people in various forms of exile may return (or not return) to the area to settle. One idea would here be to allow Palestinians housed in refugee camps, e.g., in Syria and Lebanon, since generations a "law of return", just as the present state of Israel allows a "law of return" for Jews who can prove appropriate lineage. Another notion is to stop the current Israeli practice, and to instate normal migration laws based on ethnically and religiously neutral criteria. All who discuss this idea recognise that no such deal will be satisfying chauvinists and extremists on either side, as it means abolishing the notions of a "Jewish", a "Muslim" or "Islamic", a "Palestinian", an "Arab", etc. state. Nevertheless, having one state, with one administration, one judicial apparatus, one police force and one military, will be in a better position to control such elements than in the current state of a nasty mix of virtual anarchy and martial law, where extremist on both sides continue to perpetuate a state of chaos and violence to no benefit for most people on either side. Some examples of proponents and critics of this idea can be found here, here, here, here.

However, the practical way towards a one state solution is making a lot of people uneasy, as it necessitates breaking with some cherished ideas and longstanding practical solutions. The most obvious way to instigate the one state solution is for the current state of Israel to simply annex the territory it presently illegally occupies; the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. Thereby, these areas are declared to be parts of the state of Israel, its settlers are recognised as Israeli citizens, with the same rights and obligations as any other current Israeli citizen. Those who want to hold on to ethnic or religious chauvinist political ideas don't like this, of course. Besides the obvious dissatisfaction from islamist camps (such as Hamas), there is also a lot of Israeli orthodox chauvinists and rightwing politicians, who quite like the present situation of occupation, as it allows the military to rule with martial law style arbitrary discretion. The whole Jewish settlement and land grabbing operation pretty much rests on this situation of (lack of) law enforcement. That, by itself, should be excellent reason for reasonable people to like the one state solution. But also many people of this sort I have talked to hesitate to support the one state road ahead, and I have heard two reasons for this: First, the fear of enlarged interstate military conflict though having surrounding countries interpret the move as hostile and react accordingly. This is an important point, but this risk is present also – if not more – with the current two state debacle. Whatever solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is reached needs to contain agreements with neighbouring countries in the region that guarantee sustainable, stable and peaceful conditions for all.

The second reason for hesitation is a distrust of the current state of Israel's ability to maintain itself as the kind of democratic, ethnically neutral and secular state, committed to rule of law and equal treatment, that is necessary for the one state solution to function. This reason, in contrast to the first one, is a game changer issue. This since it will force the state of Israel – and its present government – to finally put down its foot with regard to its political identity. With the one state solution, either Israel takes the consequences, and abolishes all notions of ethnic or religious identity as its basis, or it will have to abolish its often held out liberal democratic aura and turn itself into a bona fide apartheid state within its own lawful borders (in contrast to the virtual apartheid currently practiced via the partition into "real" Israel and occupied territories). Likewise, should citizens of Palestinian origin reach political power in the new one state of Israel/Palestine, they will face a similar choice between maintaining the ethnically neutral and secular democratic solution of a one state Israel/Palestine, or pursuing the islamist/Palestinianchauvinist agenda lurking within the notion of this territory "belonging to" a certain "people", thereby promoting their own apartheid solution. That is, the very same basic notion that drives the Jewish chauvinist notion of present day Israel, only with another "people" as the supposedly chosen one. Both, of course, can only lead to genocide, should they prevail.

This, I suggest, is what makes the one state solution both very scary for many people, and at the same time immensely attractive. It is the best solution under ideal conditions, but given the still apparently strong commitment of dominant parties involved to ethnic/religious chauvinism, and the infantile notion of a possibility to "win" over the opposing side, it may seem politically infeasible. At the same time, the alternatives of continued anarchy and war or one or the other version of genocide are hardly more appealing. I'm torn.

***

A Brief Note on Palestine's Bid to Join the ICC and Have War Crimes in Occupied Territories Probed

It has been reported recently that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has made a bid to join the Rome Statute and thus recognise and be recognised by the International Criminal Court, and that this move has been recognised and affirmed by the U.N. general secretary, who have stated that the State of Palestine will join ICC by April 1 this year. ICC itself has welcomed this move by the PA as being consistent with the ICC's general striving to make the Rome Statute and the ICC universally recognised as a legitimate international legal institution. As an immediate effect, the ICC has opened a preliminary investigation of war crimes committed in the Israel occupied Palestinian territories since June 13, 2014 – as that is the date from which the PA has accepted ICC jurisdiction in its ratification of the Rome Statute (see also here and here).

As before, Israel and the USA has reacted strongly against this sort of development (see here and here). The basic point of the rhetoric this time is that it is a "tragic irony", that Israel or Israeli forces possibly might be found guilty of war crimes when Israel and Israelis have in the past been victims of terror attacks. As I have commented on similar responses from Israel and USA before, however, this is wholly hollow words. First of all, none of these states have ratified the Rome Statute, and thus do not recognise the ICC in the first place – what is more, both states have actively withdrawn former intentions to recognise the ICC (here, here), thus clearly declaring that they do not, repeat not, belong to this particular club in international politics. But this also means, that they have no say whatsoever on ICC policy - that is the choice you make when not becoming a member. Both the US and Israel could have ratified the Rome Statute, in Israel's case this used to be the intention until 2002, and thus have the court probe whatever terror activity of other states instigated against them. They have however, voluntary chosen not to, so whatever "irony" is present here is of purely Israeli and US manufacture. To this may be added, that these choices most likely were made to able to "get away with" violent actions on foreign (or occupied) soil.

Moreover, this criticism fails to recognise the elementary fact that the PA move will also mean that any action from Palestinian territories towards Israel will be open to prosecution. This aspect has been deliberately blinkered by the Israeli government propaganda before as well. That is, to the extent that there are war crimes being committed towards Israel from PA territory, these are now – thanks to the PA bid to join ICC – possible to prosecute under international law. In other words, Israel cannot validly argue that this expansion of ICC jurisdiction is a one-sided action against Israel. What does remain, of course, is that Israel is unable to demand that ICC prosecutors open investigations into such things, since Israel has actively chosen to stand outside the ICC. But, then again, this situation could be easily remedied if only the Israeli government chose to reverse its past withdrawal and ratify the Rome Statute.

So much for rhetoric and propaganda. But how should the present development be assessed from the standpoint of someone who desires increased stability, peace and justice for the people burdened by the seemingly never ending conflict in this region? My own assessment, for the time being, is this: The bid of the PA to join ICC is a good thing, as it puts pressure on the violent extremists on both sides to temper their actions, and on both states to actively restrict the ability of these groups to keep on to sabotage the peace process – and fuel the support of each other. This will also mean that political movements such as Hamas and its more or less openly aligned violent branches, will have to chose a more moderate political course, or face the force of international justice – this will go for, e.g. the Likud party in Israel and the various religious fundamentalist extreme right wing groups allied with it as well. It is obvious that all of these groups have self-interested reasons to resist the current course of development – much of their support arises out of a reality where violence prevails and both sides can point to each other as the rationale for their own excesses. This also goes for their respective financial bases – the dignitaries of each of these political organisations living comfortably thanks to the prolonged and deepened violent conflict, while the overwhelming majority of people on both sides suffers the consequences. My own hope is that, when spirits have settled down a bit in Israel – as it may do also due the obvious counter-productivity and self-destructiveness of the current policy – its government chooses to join the ICC as well, further strengthening the bonds holding back extremist violence while also restricting its own actions in the occupied territories. That would, indeed, be a wide step forward for anyone interested in sustainable peace and the interests of ordinary people in the region.

'The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled': Exploiting 'Jewishness' for the Sake of Violence: The Core of Israeli Hardliner Political Rhetoric

This is of some interest in the aftermath of developments globally following the longstanding and growing global criticism of the Israeli apartheid politics and the latest round of Israeli state run carnage in illegally occupied Palestinian territories, and the official Israeli responses to my own country's recent decision to recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. For me as a philosopher interested in reasoning on value issues, including political issues, this development is of particular interest, as it has gradually unfolded what seems to be a core of Israeli political hardliner rhetoric all the way back to the ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948 that laid the foundation for the state of Israel as we know it today. The core is this:

Political decisions made by Israeli state representatives implying violent or restrictive action towards Palestinians or in occupied territories are ...

1. Necessary for the persistence of the state of Israel, thus any opposition is against the state of Israel and willing its destruction.
2. In the interest of "Judaism", "Jewishness", "Jewry" or "Jewish people" defined as an ethnic category, bound by a certain mix of religious and cultural tradition, thus any opposition is antisemitic in terms of racial discrimination on ethnic/religious grounds and wills the destruction of these people, and if you are a Jew and mount such criticism you're a "self-hating" Jew.
3. Ditto, defined as a genetic or heredity category, encompassing all people who are eligible for Israeli citizenship in accordance with the Law of Return, thus making any opposition antisemitic also in a biologically racist sense, and opposing Jews ditto "self-hating".

Of course, for all Jews (identified in whatever way you may prefer) and Israelis who have for many, many years been opposing and working against the hardliner policies which have brought the political situation related to Israel and Palestine to its current sorry state, the falsity of these assumptions has been crystal clear for a long time. However, the Israeli hardliners have kept on using the rhetoric built on it, and it has had a particular pull and persistence, not least in the USA. This is where the recent developments come in, as now even official US top politicians have stopped accepting it and a sort of criticism against Israeli policies in occupied territories have become possible to wield, without the predictable slandering about "antisemitism" sticking. It has gradually become obvious also across broad spectra of the US political landscape, what has been accepted across Europe for a few decades now, that current Israeli policy is not identical to or necessary linked to either the existence of the state of Israel or the interests or opinions of Jews, however identified. It is simply nothing more than exactly that: current policy; and just as any other current policy of any other state, it could have been different in a number of ways and it can be revised in a number of ways. Thus the "not in my name" movement has recently been starting to catch a surge of support and acceptance after for a long time having been denounced as traitors to their people.

The most fascinating thing with this course of change, however, is not the direction of it, but how long the formula has been able to stick. It should have been obvious from day one, shouldn't it, that Bibi (Benjamin Netanyahu's popular nickname in Israel) ≠ Israel's interests and Israel's interests ≠ what's in the interest of Jews and, in particular, Bibi ≠ what's in the interest of Jews. It is, of course, a genius propaganda move of the Israeli hawks, though, to have people tacitly believe the opposite, thus being blinded to criticism of whatever carnage is mounted in the occupied territories. That's the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, and it would make up fascinating study material for politically oriented social psychologists for some decades ahead.