call me Adaptus the way Pharma lives rent free in my brain

“weaponizing antisemitism”

“weaponizing the holocaust”

“essentializing antisemitism”

“eternal victims”

“victim card declined”

The Wikipedia page for the French referee who took charge of the Round of 16 match between Argentina and Egypt on Tuesday was changed this week to state that he is Jewish, leading Egyptian fans to blame Israel, Jews and Zionism for their team’s loss.

Francois Letexier has been subjected to a slew of online abuse from disgruntled viewers following a number of contentious calls during the game.

These included calling a foul, with the help of VAR, that ruled out an Egyptian goal and giving Argentina what would ultimately prove a decisive penalty.

Much of the ire centred around claims that football’s governing body, Fifa, is biased in favour of Argentina and its star player, Lionel Messi, which have been prevalent on social media during the World Cup.

However, an Egyptian YouTuber with around 300,000 followers made a video the day after the match claiming that Egypt had “lost to Zionism”, citing Argentine President Javier Milei’s staunch support for Israel and suggesting a Zionist conspiracy is active within Fifa to advance the South American nation’s prospects in the tournament.

Subsequently, the “early life” section on Letexier’s Wikipedia page was altered to suggest he was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Brittany and that his grandfather was an active member of the French Resistance during the Second World War.

The edit was made by a Bangladesh-based user, who later removed it citing lack of evidence, while another editor under the username “thepharoah17” added Letexier to the topic page for prominent French Jews.

In the wake of the change, several Egyptian fans shared screenshots of the page claiming that the referee’s now-debunked Jewishness played a role in his alleged bias against their team.

It was also shared by a number of prominent pro-Palestine accounts, including Rahmeh Aladwan, a British doctor currently charged with four counts of inviting support for Hamas.

The claim was even “confirmed” as factual by X, formerly Twitter’s, built-in AI chatbot, Grok, in response to users’ questions, though it later reversed its position.

The place Israel occupies in these people's imagination is ridiculous. Israel as the linchpin of colonialism, capitalism, white supremacy, ecological devastation - whatever bugs you most, Israel does it worst. Get rid of Israel, save the entire world. It is much bigger than Rooney. Over the last few years, artists, activists, and academics have repeatedly advanced versions of the same claim: Israel as humanity’s arch-nemesis, the disappearance would somehow solve everything. Example: Jason Hickel, visiting professor at the London School of Economics, claimed that “A liberated Palestine means a liberated Middle East. A liberated Middle East means capitalism in the core really faces a crisis.” Because why not. Israel has become a western totem, personifying the cumulative sins of the West’s entire history. In an incredible historical irony, the Jews are now not an oriental, semitic pariah nation nor a degenerate sub-human race, but the purest representatives of the West and the most atrocious white supremacists. As the West’s original essence Israel naturally carries the West’s original sins: colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, etc. Because the Jews are now considered the very essence of the West, Israel's sins are understood as the carrying the collective blame of all westerners. Making Israel pay is thus not only a step on the long arch towards justice, but serves as a purgative practice for all westerners. As the effigy of the West, burning Israel will cleanse the West from its past transgressions. The wish to eradicate Israel is therapeutic, salvific: the sins of all western forefathers, those imperialist, colonialist, slave-holding Europeans, will finally be atoned. Capitalism will fall, the environment will be saved. Redemption is nigh, we just have to eradicate that wart of a nation. As the eternal alter-ego of the West, Jews will always function as its scapegoats. When the West loved itself, we were the alien element supposedly defiling it. Now that the West despises itself, we have become its distilled essence: the figure through whose destruction it fantasizes about purification.

More of Dr. Persico:

- about 582 BCE

The last part about Jerusalem has been recited in Jewish weddings, the earliest document example of that is from around the third century and has lasted till this day.

My heart is in the east, and I in the uttermost west-- How can I find savour in food? How shall it be sweet to me? How shall I render my vows and my bonds, while yet Zion lieth beneath the fetter of Edom, and I in Arab chains? A light thing would it seem to me to leave all the good things of Spain -- Seeing how precious in mine eyes to behold the dust of the desolate sanctuary.

Was written during the middle ages

Nationality became a thing in the very late 1600s.

Zionism as a movement proper started in the very early 1900s.

And while I can’t find any sources for this (for some strange reason) I wouldn’t be surprised if it took some influence from the on and off again “Back to Africa” movement. Which argued that all black people should go back to Africa.

The issue with that movement is; Black Americans aren’t culturally African. They’re culturally American. Because that’s where they were born and raised. They’re a subsection of American, but still American.

And it’s the same for Jewish people.

I get it, it’s displaced frustration from the place you belong not wanting you and actively harming you. That’s completely understandable. And when you’re told over and over again “well actually this is your land, not this place that clearly hates you” you start to believe it come hell or high water.

But is it really your land? When you haven’t been there for so long. When you haven’t grown and changed with the culture that continued to exist there since you left? Not all the Jews from back then left with the diaspora. And their descents are culturally Arab even if they stayed religiously Jewish and didn’t convert to Islam.

Meanwhile, Your culture left with you. It changed as you moved to other places. And those changes are disconnected from the cultural changes that happened in Israel overtime. To put it another way, your home left with you.

two things.

1:

Youre welcome to go ahead and make any connection youd like for yourself, but zionism as a national movement did not in fact start 300 years after nationality became a thing. There is a direct documented tie between the rise of other european national monuments and the conception of zionism, also following along the last stages of jewish emancipation and the rise of haskala, both movements which lead jewish thinkers to combine current political movements with long lasting jewish ideas. The idea that a european jewish movement is more easily comparable to an american movement then other jewish movements or other european movements is ridiculous.

2: this post is explicitly not about the political aspect of the zionist movement, but about the cultural and religious roots of it. the concept of returning to Israel as our homeland has had in judaism for centuries before zionism became a political movement. You cannot understand zionism as a modern political movement without understanding that the great grandparents of the jews that started it have been expressing their desire to go back to Israel and jerusalem at least 3 times a day, in every prayer. Probably more, also after every time they ate. And in every holiday. And so did their parents. And so did their parents. Repeatedly. For centuries. You are making some solid points, which i disagree with, but i dont want to get into that because the conversation in this post isnt meant to discuss if zionism is wrong or right but explain why is was created in the first place. You know how meaningful israel is to jewish religion and culture? You know what other movements were going on at the time in europe? You know what movements eueopean judaism was going through before zionism? Good, now you can start understating zionism. And then you can start understating antizionism. I wrote this post specifically about why so many jews are zionists, and about the importance of letting jews define what zionism is using their own history instead of just barging in and deciding that actually, its identical to this non jewish movement because that fits your narrative. Especially in a age where "antizionism" is rampant among people who have never actually spoken to a jew in their life.

Taking being queer, for instance; just because you don’t understand yourself as gay/trans/etc until your 20s or even later doesn’t mean you weren’t that beforehand; and to use your life before that label to paint you finally being able to live into your sexuality or gender presentation as less valid would be understood by most queer people as ridiculous, and even bigoted.

Jews have understood the Jewish people as an Am for as long as we have existed as a people. Yes, this is technically distinct from modern concepts of religion, ethnicity, and nationhood, but these concepts are language that gets closest to communicating aspects of Judaism/the Jewish people outside of Hebrew and the context of the Ancient Near East. Jews understanding Am Yisrael through the lens of modern nationalism is no more strange or aberrant than us understanding Am Yisrael through the lens of religion or ethnicity. It just happens to be the political structure of most countries in the modern day.

As for the entire argument that culture being different has any bearing on whether Jews “should” have returned to Israel or not, the same argument applies equally a) to Jews moving into countries in the diaspora to begin with, and b) to any course of action that could be taken now, in every direction: in regards to having to pull apart the culture that exists in Israel now, in regards to the culture of Jews in Israel vs that of Jews in other countries, in regards to the culture of Palestinians in Gaza & the West Bank vs that of Arabs living in Israel. So even if it weren’t an extremely problematic and bizarre way of looking at human culture and migration, it’s a moot and meaningless point, with no practical bearing on reality.

The “Back to Africa” comparison is also an ill-fitting one. A huge notable difference between Jewish return and Back to Africa is even extremely different Jewish cultures can still trace fairly unbroken continuity back to a single shared culture, while that is often not true—by no fault of their own—of Black people in the African diaspora. Their descendants were kidnapped from across an entire continent, and often weren’t able to pass down knowledge of their specific culture & ancestry under Slavery. I don’t buy the logic that that has any bearing on whether they “should” or should not be “allowed” to return, and in fact some countries in Africa do have right-of-return initiatives to return members of the African diaspora, like Israel does for Jews.

“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.”

That’s the definition. That’s it.

That’s what’s supposedly such a threat to your free speech.

Oh? I don’t see that in the definition.

How about the guidance?

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

So… which part of that is supposed to be chilling “ethical criticism of Israel”?

here are some entities that have endorsed or adopted the ihra definition:

the ahmadia muslim community argentina (note: from what I recall there is some dispute about the muslim-ness of ahmadiyya muslims. i am not an expert on this.

almost every major american jewish group: the american jewish joint distribution committee, the american sephardi federation (the board adopted it unanimously, do you know how rare that is among jews!), the american jewish committee, the american jewish congress, the adl, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Jewish Federations of North America, the National Council of Jewish Women, ORT America, the Rabbinical Assembly (Masorti), Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox), Union for Reform Judaism, Orthodox Union most as part of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

the bavarian red cross (reminder that in germany the red cross functioned as an outgrowth of the nazi party -- i made a post about it somewhere)

the bloc quebecois

the church of england, church of scotland and church of wales

the Counter Extremism Project

the Council of the European Union, European Commission, and European Parliament

the French Senate

the Global Imams Council -- again, I am not well versed enough in Islam to know if it is a tokenizing group akin to JVP or not, however I do not believe so.

the Green Party of England and Wales, the UK Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK, the Scottish National Party, and the UK Conservative Party (not that I put much stock in their opinion, but...)

the Latin American Parliament

the Muslim American Leadership Alliance (I don't know if it's tokenizing)

the Organization of American States

Student governments, senates, etc at Boston University, California Polytechnic (unanimously), Duke University, Indiana University, Northeastern University (passed with no no votes, but 27 abstentions), Syracuse University, UCLA Undergraduate Student Assembly Council (adopted the State Department definition in 2015), University of California San Diego and Santa Barbara, University of Minnesota

Cambridge University, Imperial College London, King's College London, London School of Economics, Pennsylvania State University, University College London, University of Oxford, University of Pittsburgh, University of Tirana (the largest university in Albania, a majority-Muslim country)

Alberta, Alsace, the province of Amazonas, Bavaria, British Columbia, Catalonia, Buenos Aires, the Greater London Authority, London, Los Angeles, the City of London Corporation (what the fuck is up with London government???), Montreal, Florence, New Brunswick, New South Wales, New York for six months, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, the Paraguayan Chamber of Deputies, Paris, Quebec, Rio de Janiero (both the city and the state), Sao Paulo (both the city and the state), Saskatchewan, Scotland, South Australia, Tuscany, Victoria (in Australia), Vienna, Wales, Warsaw, Washington DC (in 2022), and states such as Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Vermont

Several countries, such as majority-Muslim Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain which I think follows Sharia law, Bosnia and Herzegovina (just barely majority Muslim these days), Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Kosovo (majority Muslim), the Philippines, South Korea, Sweden, etc.

Many other scholars (and others) support it:

Irving Abella (I think he co-wrote none is too many)

Mehnaz Afridi

Majid Al Sarrah (CEO, Sharaka, UAE)

Sunni Ali

Najay AlSaie (UAE)

Jan Grabowski (prominent historian of antisemitism in Poland)

David Hirsh (antisemitism scholar)

Lesley Klaff (antisemitism scholar)

Sara Mahmoud

Salim Mansur

Said Musayev (Azerbaijan)

Cary Nelson (antisemitism scholar)

Olusegun Olanipekun (South Africa)

Haras Rafiq

There are few if any organizations more qualified to define antisemitism, and this definition is the result of extensive Holocaust research and input from experts in the field.

It’s incredibly reasonable.