This is exactly what is also going on in Britain, as the "antisemitism" attacks on the Labour Party leader Corbyn are used by Tories to keep power and Israeli interests to insulate themselves from criticism. Corbyn is caught between, and that is the point for both. Now they want to do the same thing here. It will be Democrats targeted here, because Republicans have adopted Netanyahu.

Anti-Black racism is that set of ideas stemming from the notion that having Black skin and being of subSaharan African descent suits one to slavery; Jewbaiting is that set of ideas stemming from the notion that being Jewish or having Jewish ancestors suits one to being slaughtered.
The latter really starts with the Christ killer charge and associated anti-Jewish teachings.
Do you agree that uttering the Christ killer charge is a murderous thing to do?

No, I do not agree. There is sufficient distance between the utterance and any causative connection to any violence against anyone who is Jewish.

There is more to my answer, but I fear running afoul of the moderator, so if you want to see my entire response, you must find it on my blog "whimsical dog".

If you fail to see this vital point you will very likely fall into, ukrimately, Jew baiting explanations. For there is nothing but religious antipathy that explains the near continuous hatred of Jews for 2,000 years.

"For there is nothing but religious antipathy that explains..."

"Religious antipathy" is one commonly proferred explanation for the origin of anti-Semitism. The "Christ killer' explanation. Clearly, that is your view.(Yet animus toward the Jews clearly predates Christ, as as seen in the Hebrew experience in Egypt.)

However, others, reasonable, civil, intelligent people, ethically unimpeachable people, have suggested a different origin, in human tribalism, which then manifests in, among other things, predatory economic practices.

Mark Twain in "Concerning the Jews" develops this view. I recommend it to you.

This is the view I find persuasive: that tribalism is the origin of animus toward "the other", and that religious doctrine and practice are simply tribal markers that identify tribal affiliation.

By the way, I'm an American and a Jew.

I doubt you are a Jew, if so, you are like that Paul guy in Spain that Luther plagiarized.

In sum, you blame Jews for being oppressed, murdered, and raped. The economic oppression argument failed to account for the poverty of the Jews.
It was also simply untrue and remains untrue. This is, of course, part and parcel of the Christ killer charge, where Christ tossed the money changers out of the temple, where Christ was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver.

You need to read several books. There is zero doubt that without the Christ killer charge, the Holocaust would not have occurred.
One book - Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate, is a bit long.
Another book - The Holocaust, the Church, and the Law of Unintended Consequences: How Christian Anti-Judaism Spawned Nazi Anti-Semitism, A Judge's Verdict, is a perfect introduction.
The most important civil rights document of the Twentieth Century is Nostra Aetata.
Long distance racist slavery ended in the US 150 years ago; it had been practiced for about 1,000 years, with a trans-Atlantic presence of about 500 years. There are still those proclaiming the Christ killer and its Islamic variants today. The history of that foulness goes back two thousand years,

Holocaust victimhood (unlike the victimhood suffered by millions of other humans during WW2) has been forged into an untouchable, sacrosanct icon. Therefore, the awareness of “anti-semitism awareness” is like no other. Not only has it created, and continues to uphold, the Israeli nation-state, it has assumed the inviolate authority which allows it to malign and criminalize the New Testament.

Shmuel Golding, in an article, _Anti-Semitism in the New Testament_, writes of the “numerous verses found in the New Testament which have caused the blood of countless Jews to be shed throughout history… These anti-Semitic accounts in the New Testament have taught mankind to hate the Jew. As long as the New Testament continues in print (at least in its present form) the Jew will be hated.”

“The Invidious Conflation” here, is the one which equates the vilest anti-Semitism with _the content of_ (not the misuse of) Christian Scripture. The ‘anti-semitism awareness’ of a Golding, et alia, is pure anti-Christian, anti-Gospel, religious hate-literature. However, the exceptional sanctity of Holocaust Victimhood justifies this rancorous slander of Christian scripture.

When Golding whines, “As long as the New Testament continues in print (at least in its present form) the Jew will be hated,” we are hearing the voice of a pharisaic book-burner who’s been identified and condemned by the Jewish Christ of God: “You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him (John 8:44).”

The truth is—New Testament "killers" will continue to murder what they hate.

We live in the north american province of Israel, ruled by Israelis. Ooops, am I being an anti-semite?

Assuming that you are referring to the nation-state regime organization which identifies itself as "the State of Israel," as opposed to its citizens, no. But nice try at pre-positioning yourself as some kind of victim.

We are victims of Zionist supremacists. You deny this? Fighting their wars, shelling out billions of $$ to them every year, careers and reputations destroyed, free speech being criminalized. What the Hell do you call it?

I don't see where either of your claims or either of your questions has anything to do with, let alone contradicts, what I said, but let me simplify it for you:

"Anti-Israel" does not mean the same thing as "Anti-Semite."

The former does not violate the site's guidelines (which explains why no one has ever been banned or otherwise sanctioned at Antiwar.com for criticizing Israel or the Israeli lobby).

The latter does violate the site's guidelines (which explains why some people who would like to get away with the latter try to conflate/confuse the two to falsely position themselves as having been, or fearing being, banned/sanctioned for the former).

Thanks for the non-answer.

Every criticism of Israel or Jews in general (example, any discussion of any Jewish role in the slave trade, of Jewish influence in media, politics, etc.) is met with howls of anti-semitism. This is the truth...yet the type of truth that will get people banned from websites by people like you.

See, there you go with the conflation that you hope will be swallowed: "Every criticism of Israel or Jews in general."

No "criticism of Israel" will get you banned at Antiwar.com, nor has any criticism of Israel ever got anyone banned at Antiwar.com.

"Criticism of Jews in general" will get you banned at Antiwar.com just as any other slur or supremacist claim based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity will get you banned at Antiwar.com.

You deny that discussing the Jewish role in slavery or influence in the media or politics will get you labeled an anti-semite and could cost you your career? If so, you are in denial. Anti-semitism is not a real phenomena, pretending that it is is a cottage industry. Sad that you will not admit this.

You don't even have a clue what this conversation is about, do you?

It's not about anti-semitism. It's about the implication that criticizing Israel gets one treated as an anti-semite at Antiwar.com.

Exactly. It's about you accusing JDo and myself of anti-semitism for being critical of Israel and not having the decency to admit it.

I didn't accuse JDo of anti-semitism. I simply pointed out that he was trying to set himself up as a victim of persecution on the implied -- and false -- claim - that Antiwar.com treats criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.

As for you, yes, you're an anti-semite. I don't have to "accuse" you of that -- you don't bother to hide it when commenting on other web sites. It just chaps your ass that you have to hide it a little bit here by limiting yourself entirely to:

1) "Criticism of Israel," and

2) Whining about not being able to fly your Jew-hater flag openly.

Which is fine. Yes, the whining is annoying, but It's not against the guidelines to be a whiny anti-semite here. It's just against the guidelines to post anti-semitic content here.

Thank you so much for an absolutely coolest post on the subject.

Could you please indicate which of his many responses you are referring to?

No I wouldn't thank you very much

And you, sir, are a gutless gate-keeper for the powers that be.

Yes, I am, if by "the powers that be" you mean the people who run Antiwar.com, and if by "gutless" you mean they pay me to do a job and I do that job.

There is nothing to be assumed because it is crystal clear: when I say "province of Israel" then I mean exactly that - province of "Israel" (and not province of "Israeli citizens").

Nice try to conflate an unambiguous anti-Israeli comment with anti-semitism. The fact that we are being ruled by Israeli interests, is a fact and not victimhood. I don't believe in victimhood.

"Nice try to conflate an unambiguous anti-Israeli comment with anti-semitism."

Well, yeah, except that I did exactly the opposite of that. You are the one who pre-emptively introduced the conflation in an attempt to claim the persecuted status you claim to not believe in.

Oh-vey... It is well within my vocabulary to use the term "Israeli citizen" but I used "Israel" because that's what meant.

Similarly, it is also within my vocabulary to use the term "victimhood" but I did not use it. Rather I stated the fact that American policies, especially foreign policies, are done in the interest of Israel. More importantly, do you understand that the acknowledgement of a reality is not victimhood, rather it is "a specific way of reacting" to that reality?

I should have learned from Glen Greenwald (or was it The Saker) who on principle refuses to argue with people who intentionally put words in mouth that the author did not use, in order to criticize. I said what I said and don't have the time or the intention to argue beyond that.

Down with Israel, boycott Israel. Israel is a genocidal, racist and apartheid entity. It is a western colonial enterprise.

You're the one who tried to conflate all the above with anti-Semitism. I simply pointed out that you were dishonestly positioning yourself as a prospective "victim of censorship" by doing so. It's a neat trick if you can get by with it. But you can't, not even if you whine at length about it when someone notices what you're doing.

Exactly, and here's a bit of edgy irony. We hear the term anti-Semitism and anti-Semite bandied about promiscuously by people who declare with puffed-up moral outrage that ***THEY*** are not anti-Semites. Fine. But isn't it at least a little bit presumptuous to have someone who declares most strenuously that they are not one of ***THEM*** to be the authority on the nature of ***THEM*** -- to control the definition of those they condemn. That is, to never allow one of ***THEM*** -- a declared anti-Semite -- to offer their own self-definition?

Mark Twain once wrote the following:

"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show.

All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus could not have been condemned.

Of course Satan has some kind of a case, it goes without saying. It may be a poor one, but that is nothing; that can be said about any of us. As soon as I can get at the facts I will undertake his rehabilitation myself, if I can find an unpolitic publisher. It is a thing which we ought to be willing to do for any one who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents.

A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence the other popes and politicians shrink to midges for the microscope. I would like to see him. I would rather see him and shake him by the tail than any other member of the European Concert."

So I say, "Shall we not hear the other side of the matter from a bona fide "anti-Semite", or at least his "unpolitic" advocate? Not, I fear, on AW.C."

"So I say, 'Shall we not hear the other side of the matter from a bona fide 'anti-Semite', or at least his 'unpolitic' advocate? Not, I fear, on AW.C.'"

Correct.

I know of no one at Antiwar.com who in any way objects to your right to build or find a sewer to roll around in if that's what you want to do.

But we're not going to provide that sewer for you here, nor are you invited to build that sewer (or a porn site, or a marketplace for penis enlargement pills or Dubai escorts, etc.) in our comments sections.

I leave it to the readers to judge which of us is civil -- if not erudite -- and which rolls around in the sewer.

Mr. Richman makes an excellent point today about this matter. It is not legitimately arguable that by banning speech or open discussion about a subject then you can therefore 'win' a debate or otherwise persuade those who may disagree that your view is correct. Suppression of debate only creates suspicion that you are hiding the "real truth" or deliberately falsifying facts, etc. Sunshine and openness is the only cure for this.

This is why supposed 'hate speech' laws or even private rules are bad, generally. Aside from calls for violence against others, speech should be unfettered. The appeal of the 'forbidden' is well known in psychology.

It is commonly accepted that a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of Jews living elsewhere do not support all or most of the repressive policies of the current (and former) Israeli governments towards non Jews. Most Jews elsewhere don't automatically support the Israeli govt policies any more than Irish living outside of Erie support that government's policies. Why would they, or should they? In my limited experience, the American Jews I have known who have actually visited Israel didn't care much for it. People were rude and pushy. Didn't find it appealing. So much for the "homeland" idea.