Larry Summers recently tricked the populace with his call for banning the $100 while failing to inform the masses as to the real reason. Now he is saying that colleges should permit antiSemitism in speech and deed, and then fails to accurately define what antiSemitism is. I will discuss the British court case that explains that Zionism (the Rothschild project) is not the essence of Judaism at the end of the article.

In seeking to ban the $100 bill, Summers said it was all about preventing crime, when it really is all about doing away with cash in order to permit a freer use of negative interest rates!

Now Summers is saying that antiSemitism should be permitted, but the main focus of the article is defending the State Department's analysis that antiZionism is antiSemitism! But he even doesn't get that right either. Summers says that considering whether antiZionism is antiSemitism is the requirement that Israel be treated no worse (regarding sanctions) than other nations that do bad things.

Now, there is a tension in his article. He wants more free speech, but then says if you aren't going to allow free speech as racism for other groups you should ban it when it is antisemitic. Summers actually is saying two contrary things in one article. I think he wants free speech to be expanded for all, and so there would be more antisemitic speech, but he wants it quickly identified as antiSemitic when it may not be antisemitic at all.

As for the State Department, he said:

The State Department has made clear that it regards demonizing Israel or “applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” as anti-Semitism. This makes obvious good sense. Does anyone doubt that applying standards to African countries that were not applied to other countries or singling them out for sanction when other non-African countries were guilty of much greater sins would be deemed racism?

I get that vanilla definition as the State Department says:

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

However, I believe that unique demands for South Africa based upon apartheid is also legitimate regarding Israel. I also believe that the Palestinians are an occupied people. That occupation has existed for over 60 years. That occupation is not the behavior of other democratic states. As one who has Jewish people in my family line, (I am adopted), I am personally appalled by this occupation!

But that criticism of Israel, whether it lives up to Summers' standard or the State Department's standard is not antiSemitism, it is antiZionism. So, again, Summers is not coming clean on this issue.

I hate antiSemitism, and yet Summers goes on to say that antiSemitic speech should be permitted on campuses but broadly defined. Free speech that makes people angry at Jewish kids even more is the Charlie Hebdo tactic. Summers is cunningly smart, but if this is what he wants he is a moral failure, again. 

Young Jewish kids are abandoning support for Israel in droves as we see here and here. This fact is not lost on Netanyahu or Summers. 

I agree with Summers that there are antiSemitic forms of antiZionism. I, for example, do not advocate the destruction of Israel and I do not believe all Jews are Zionists or are responsible for Israel's behavior. There are bigoted AntiZionists, but they can go away. They are useless in advancing the discussion through a rational discussion. They inflame. I repudiate them. They are simply racists.

And I believe that destruction of Israel would hurt the Palestinians and the True Torah Jews, who predated the Zionists in Palestine by 100 years. If Jews want to leave Israel, I would personally encourage it. But no violence against Israel, because it is a futile fools game that would only hurt the innocent who oppose the government.

I do not support the Israeli requirement that True Torah Jews, [who, like New Covenant Christians, interpret the prophets regarding Zion being established by the Messiah and not by Ben-Gurion], serve in the armed forces of Israel, because the True Torah Jews simply do not recognize Zionism as being a real Zion. They have been persecuted for their beliefs. To them, the Zionists behave like fascists. Video exists showing this persecution.

As for the Palestinians, they simply have to be given a large chunk of their land back. It defies rational explanation why the world does not call for this. This is a legitimate subject for boycotting Israel.

Summers does need to understand that since the True Torah Jews do not recognize the Zionist state and maybe want it terminated, that they are antiSemitic according his narrow definition, and in the definition of the State Department, and in the definition of the University of California. Of course, that is absurd. The weak link to this argument defending Israel are the True Torah Jews and the Zionists know it.

But then we get rational thinking from the court case in the UK. Finally someone sensible in government speaks the truth. The truth is, many Zionists are not Jewish. And many Jews are not Zionists. Zionism is a recent doctrine, established in the late 1800's. It is not and ancient religion, and it does not put the Torah and prophets first. The men who formulated Zionism were atheists, and David Ben-Gurion, who established it was a self proclaimed atheist, according to Israel Shahak, a Jewish hero. Shahak, taught chemistry in Israel and who interpreted the regime change works of Oded Yinon over 30 years ago.

Back to the court case:

 The court ruled that the Zionism that exists in Israel, supported by the highest ranks of British Jewry, is not Abrahamic Judaism. This is true, but it is huge for comprehending that Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism. This destroys the facade built up by the Rothschild Zionists, who include non Jews like the Rockefellers and Richard Cheney, Jeb Bush and other non Jewish neocons.

The specific point addressed by the court was that:
 

"...a belief in the Zionist project, or an attachment to Israel any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness."

I repeat, a belief in the Zionist project
or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a
protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=edf_1397166652#oreofl5oO70wJh2m.99

 A. M. Snelson was the lead judge in the case. So, we see that the essence of being Jewish is not Israel. The Zionist government in Israel, it could be interpreted, is decidedly not "Jewishness", nor is Zionism worldwide. Indeed, J.D. Sarna, professor at Brandeis University has said that rabbis "converted" from Judaism to Zionism in large numbers in the early 20th century. Converting to a religion founded by atheists makes absolutely no logical sense, but that is what happened.

So when you see that someone is a rabbi, you have to dig deeper to see if they practice Judaism at all!

So, the whole thing is a muddled mess. But it is possible to fine tune our definitions and we certainly don't want acts of antiSemitism committed against Jewish kids on American campuses because of "free speech" that is a dialogue controlled by Zionists. Got that Larry Summers? Tolerance, peaceful tolerance is the American way.