Is there a “Ferocious Surge” in Antisemitism in the U.S. Needing New Antisemitism Laws?

0
331

by Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News:

If there is one political topic in the U.S. today that is uniting both Republicans and Democrats, it is the topic of antisemitism and the belief that the U.S. needs tougher antisemitism laws.

Democratic President Joe Biden joined together with Zionist Republicans this week and announced that there is a “ferocious surge of antisemitism in America” today. (Source.)

But is there really?

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

If you listen to the pro-Israel Zionist lobby, led by such groups as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) with their nearly $2 million annual revenue, and AIPAC with their $300 million annual revenue, not to mention the Zionist Christian lobby led by Christians United for Israel with their $10 million annual revenue, you would think that we have a national crisis right now over anti-Jewish hate crimes that requires new legislation to “protect Jews.”

When groups like this publish statements about the “ferocious surge” in antisemitism, they never actually give any hard data to back up their claims, but usually just give percentage statistics, such as this explosive headline:

US antisemitism up 337% since October 7 in all-time record, ADL says

Using percentages of increase without actual data has always been a very clever propaganda tool.

For example, to use the absurd to prove a point, suppose that last year there was one actual hate crime litigated for someone who attacked a Jewish-hot-dog-street-vendor-selling-kosher-hot-dogs-in-New-York-City, and then this year there were already 2 hate crimes charged against someone who attacked 2 Jewish-hot-dog-street-vendors-selling-kosher-hot-dogs-in-New-York-City, that would be an annual increase of 100%!

So let’s look at some of the actual data that these wild percentages are being reported on to the media.

Based on statistics supplied by the FBI for 2022, the last full year that statistics are currently available, there were 809,381 violent crimes (source), of which only 11,613 were “hate crimes” (source), or about 1.4% of all violent crimes.

And of those 1.4% of hate crimes, surely the highest number of those hate crimes were committed against Jews, right?

No, actually there were about 3x MORE hate crimes committed against Blacks, than against Jews.

Well, since these are 2022 statistics supplied by the FBI, surely antisemitic hate crimes against Jews have vastly increased since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, right?

Actually, there are more reported hate crimes against Muslims since the recent war in Gaza, than there are against Jews, based on their own reporting.

  • 2,171  increase in Islamophobic incidents (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
  • 2,031 increase in antisemitic incidents (Anti-Defamation League) – Source.

So this is the actual data behind the push for a new antisemitism law that just passed the House of Representatives last week, that will seek to change the definition of “antisemitism” to broaden the kind of language that is considered “criminal speech.”

This new proposed legal definition of antisemitism is based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which, ironically, states that their definition of antisemitism is a non-legally binding definition.

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.” (Source.)

Besides this statement being a non-legally binding definition, notice how it is also referred to as a “working definition” of antisemitism.

What does “working definition” mean?

  • noun A definition that is chosen for an occasion and may not fully conform with established or authoritative definitions. Not knowing of established definitions would be grounds for selecting or devising a working definition.
  • noun A definition being developed; a tentative definition that can be tailored to create an authoritative definition. (Source.)

We could say “they are still working on a definitive meaning.”

Because it is not an “established or authoritative definition” the IHRA gives examples of what it could mean as “illustrations”.

I (and many others) have already highlighted one of those “examples” that the IHRA gives as an “illustration” which is “claims of Jews killing Jesus“, which is a New Testament biblical fact that Zionist Jews don’t accept.

But Zionist Jews do not accept ANYTHING written in the New Testament, including the fact that Jesus Christ claimed to be the Jewish Messiah.

Read More @ HealthImpactNews.com