Antisemitism redefined

There is a new definition of antisemitism.

The new definition was drafted by leaders from the eight largest Australian universities in consultation with Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Ms Jillian Segal and the Jewish community.

In a statement Ms Segal said; “Universities Australia’s definition is an important step to understanding antisemitism and places universities in a better position to respond to the concerns of Jewish students.”

The definition in part reads:

“Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life.

Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions.

For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity. Substituting the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.”

We live in a multicultural society, people have come from all over the world to find a safe place to live, yet many people who have come here face discrimination, many people who have arrived here as refugees fleeing dangers, seeking a new life face prejudice, face exclusion, face vilification face intimidation and violence.

Further, the term ‘semite’ according to the Oxford Dictionary defines; “a member of any peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.’

The Greek origin of the term comes from ‘Shem’, which in modern Latin becomes ‘Semita’ and the contemporary language, ‘Semite’, as a descendent of ‘Shem’, son of Noah in the Bible, in the story of the Flood as described in Genesis verse 9 through to Genesis 9 verse 17.

According to that text, Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Shem, being the first born son was Noah’s successor, he was received the leadership of his people and was endowed with prophetic knowledge and enlightenment.

Ham was the father of Canaan who carried the curse of Ham who saw his father Noah naked and drunk, and so Noah cursed Ham for the sin of his father Ham, but what the sin and the reason for Canaan being cursed in unclear, but may be to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites, or perhaps that under the curse, his skin turned black, giving rise to legitimising the enslavement of black people.

Japheth was a bit more fortunate. Noah prophesied that he would cultivate civilisation and the powers of the intellect. He was the smart son.

And so the mythology of the new creation of the world after Noah’s flood created the divisions of racism and elitism based on the wisdom of a drunken flood survivor.

Now we need to take a little trip through mythology and/or history.

Firstly, is the Bible history? How credible is the story of Noah’s ark, Noah’s flood? If the Bible is history, there would need to be evidence that such a flood actually occurred, or the alternative is that the story is a teaching story, a myth, placing humans under the authority of a god who punished an entire population, drowning them except for Noah and his family…. And all the animals (except those dinosaurs and other extinct ancient animals whose remains are found in fossils throughout the world).

And if that story is history, then the promise that same God gave to Abraham that the lands he was travelling through would be the land of his descendants, but if that too is mythology, the story falls apart.

But the history which we do know, which is recorded history, is that during the time of the Roman occupation of the land now known as Israel/Palestine, there was an uprising and expulsion of the Judean people (Jews) from the land, or is it as the historian Shlomo Sand writes in The Invention of the Jewish People published in 2009, where he claims that it would have been most unlikely that all the Judean people were expelled, but only the leaders, whether they were the religious leaders or the rebels who stood up to the Romans, the logic being that the larger population were farmers, fishermen and trades people. They were needed by the Romans to feed the military and to work at their behest. The rabble-rousers were the religious elite and armed gangs opposed to the Roman occupation. Most people just wanted to get on with their lives.

The development of scientific descriptions or definitions on race led to various attempts to define Jews as different, physically, biologically different if you will, culminating today in DNA and genetic analysis, but each time confirming that Jews are in fact human, just like every other human being on earth. In commenting on the repeated attempts to scientifically demonstrate Jewish difference, as opposed to religious or cultural difference, the results, as cited by Shlomo Sand are disappointing: “The conclusion reached was that two thirds of the Palestinians and roughly the same proportion of Jews shared three male ancestors eight thousand years ago.” (Could that be Shem, Ham and Japheth perhaps?) In actual fact, the expanded scientific paper showed a somewhat more complex, and much more confusing, picture: those mutations in the Y-chromosome also indicated that the “Jews” resembled the “Lebanese Arabs” more than the Czechs, but the “Ashkenazis”, as opposed to the “Sephardics”, were relatively closer to the “Welsh” than to “Arabs”. (The invention of the Jewish People, Page 276)

The reference to scientific definitions goes on for a few more pages, but essentially says that, guess what, Jews are people, just like all other human beings, no matter what descriptors are applied to those claiming semitism as their biological roots.

The Jewish diaspora dating back to the expulsion from Jerusalem of those rabble-rousers mentioned earlier, brought with them the baggage of their religion and proselytised as they sought refuge in other parts of the world, converting others to Judaism, and as time progressed and the Roman world became ‘Christian’, and a refusal to be baptised, Jews were excluded from mainstream communities. The recording of births was through baptism, so Jewish births were not recorded, they had no legal entitlement, were thereby excluded from owning property. They effectively were marginalised because of their religion.

Zionism was a redefinition of Jewishness as a special people, as God’s people who were promised the land of Israel, then known as Palestine, and a determination to reclaim that as their rightful land, fulfilling the Biblical promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 verses 1-3. The mantra of ‘Next year in Jerusalem’ was a common salutation between Zionist Jews.

But what of the other sons of Noah and their descendants?

The curse of Ham and the colour of the skin of Ham’s descendants, Canaanites, were black and able to be enslaved. So black enslavement was legitimised through the first generation after Noah’s flood. (The Bible is actually a very difficult text to read, especially when we consider the shortest verse in the book which reads “God is love” (1 John 4:8)

Japheth’s offspring were the intelligent ones apparently, if we can go by the ancient writings, so possibly the first intellectuals, perhaps the forerunners to the woke generation of liberals today?

I find it distressing that there is felt to be the need to write a definition for a part of our population because it feels unsafe, that it feels the need to dictate how they need to be treated respectfully, more respectfully than others, whether it be at university or in any other place of work, learning, leisure, or other endeavours. But more on that later.

Surely others in our communities also face discrimination. We are a diverse nation, a nation of immigrants and we see that reflected in the various places of worship around us. There are churches of many denominations, Coptic, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Mormon and many more, there are temples for the Hindus and Sikhs, the are Mosques and Synagogues. So many opportunities to worship however you define your god or gods.

But with difference comes the ability to judge, especially when there is a religious divide. The ‘My god is better than your god’ argument rages in various guises, but if you do not follow my god, it will be an eternity in the flames of hell for you. Along with that judgement comes the moral judgement on sex and sexual preferences and definitions. It was not long ago homosexuality was illegal, punished by imprisonment. Or single mothers slut shamed, ostracised.

Religious or cultural clothing, and yes, certain branches of Judaism have their strict dress codes, as do Sikhs, as do Muslims, as do various denominations of Christian churches. But Muslim women are harassed for wearing their various dress codes, whether it is the full head to foot covering the Burqa or just a Hijab, a scarf to cover their hair. And each difference attracts its own special form of harassment.

Name calling, abuse both online and in verbal exchanges are directed at people who are deemed ‘different’, as the Zimbabwean woman I was door knocking with in the current election campaign. The only thing one person could think of when asked what issues were seen as important, was African crime gangs, of which none have occurred in the fifteen years I have lived in that suburb.

And so as we glance through the demands being made for Jews to feel safe in this country, we can see that any one who stands out as different can suffer the same abuse, can suffer intimidation, violence. Sometimes the ‘difference’ can be as simple as being a woman in the company of men.

But there is one last comment that needs to be made.

The demands enshrined in the definition of antisemitism are the very ones being denied to Palestinians in Palestine/Israel.

How safe do Palestinians in Gaza or on the West Bank or the Golan Heights feel? Do they suffer discrimination, prejudice, harassment, vilification, intimidation or fear of violence in their day to day dealings within their homelands? Palestinians are as much a semitic people as the Jews who live in Palestine/Israel, claim the same mythological bloodline of Noah’s son Shem, yet are not afforded the respect being demanded in the redefinition of antisemitism.

Is the demand a sham, a hypocrisy or is the discrimination felt by the Jewish community so much different that others feel that is demands a special definition?

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969