Hate speech is legally considered hate crime last time i checked.
Edit: i am wrong, however:
Not all hate speech is hate crime. However i would find find tweets calling for a global intifada or the genocide of jews to be an antisemetic incident since they promote the mass genocide of a minority (not okay under any circumstance)
Yes, i was wrong. Not all hate speech is hate crime. However i would find find tweets calling for a global intifada or the genocide of jews to be an antisemetic incident since they promote the mass genocide of a minority (not okay under any circumstance)
I do not. I respect everyone's right of free speech. However i do consider threats made to someone/ a group they belong in hate speech (e.g. calling for a global intifada, or genocide of the jews)
Tel Aviv is extremely progressive and pro-Palestine, and the University more so.
Also, as another comment mentioned, the incidences they recorded were people yelling "Free Palestine" to harass random Jews who have nothing to do with Israel.
Israel considers anything anti-Israel and/or Pro-Palestine to be antisemitic which is messed up as a lot of Pro-Palestine people are smart enough to respect Jews and if being anti-Israel and/or Pro-Palestine is antisemitic, then it means I grew up in an antisemitic household.
Anyone who claims being anti-Israel and anti-genocide is antisemitic, is an antisemite themselves. Conflating Israel with Jews, as nearly all Zionists do, is inherently antisemitic. Claiming criticism of Israel’s continuous crimes against humanity is antisemitic is itself antisemitic.
This is the etymological fallacy. Words are defined by their usage, not their etymology; anti-Semitism means hatred of the Jews, not other Semitic groups. This isn't Israel's doing, it's simply the definition of the word.
That wikipedia entry is btw historical factually wrong, the word was first used to include all semitics as a race and not just jews
The origin of "antisemitic" terminologies is found in the responses of orientalist Moritz Steinschneider to the views of orientalist Ernest Renan. Historian Alex Bein writes: "The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his 'anti-Semitic prejudices' [i.e., his derogation of the "Semites" as a race]."[28] Psychologist Avner Falk similarly writes: "The German word antisemitisch was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider (1816–1907) in the phrase antisemitische Vorurteile (antisemitic prejudices). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan's false ideas about how 'Semitic races' were inferior to 'Aryan races'".
I also think thats funny that the only example for etymological fallacy on your page is antisemitism which like I said is factually completely wrong
The term antisemitism, as coined by the Göttingen School of History in the 18th[citation needed] century, refers to anti-Jewish beliefs and practices.[3][4][5] The etymological fallacy arises when a speaker asserts its meaning is the one implied by the structure of the word—racism against the Semitic people.[6][7]
Göttingen school coined the term 'Semitic' in the 18th century, which included not just jews, the term antisemitism was coined in the 19th century and that also included more than just jews
I personally never heard anyone associate the decades old Palestine-Israel conflict with antisemitism until like last year, and if you look at the wiki history, that example of antisemitism was also added just last year on that page, what a coincidence, isnt it?
Nah I’m not gonna let you decide what we call hatred of our people. Islamophobia already exists, you don’t need to take away the meaning of Jew hate. Also, ‘Jew hate’ stopped being used for the same reason you’re trying to get anti semitism to stop being used. Non Jews made the word seem trivial so they switched to anti semitism. People like you are the reason it switched.
okay, I'm sorry for suggesting that, but zionists do mock the notion of/encourage islamophobia, often splitting hairs that Islam's not a race, but they deserve it.
However, this overall conversation, not just with you, but others, has revealed to me and others that I may have some sort of subconscious antisemitism, if that makes sense.
Who/what forum/source could I refer to, or what I could do, in order to get started on removing such hubris? The last thing I want to do is downplay/spread hate towards any ethnic group, despite my intentions.
It’s amazing that you’re identifying it and want to stop it. I would suggest reading Anne Frank’s diary. I’m personally not a European Jew, I’m a middle eastern one (half Persian and Iraqi) but anti semitism existed everywhere and of course the holocaust is the worst example of it.
I agree with the last part. Hate, in general, is an ugly thing, which has historically killed millions of Jews, particularly. It's why I find accusations of me myself being antisemitic to be frustrating/disheartening, as that's never my intent to begin with. I'm just not very good with wording my thoughts sometimes.
Now that I've given thought, I'm in no position to judge how a group speaks. I was just pointing out how the word islamophobia is just as easy to misinterpret in bad faith.
Of course not everything anti Israel or pro Palestinian is antisemitic, but surprisingly there's a pretty big overlap between those 3 "groups".
It's like the saying that "Hamas dosen't represents Palestinians" and yet I don't think I ever seen/heared any calls against them in pro Palestinian protests. On the contrary - most people openly support "The Resistance" or whatever other euphemisms they use for them.
It's one thing to be pro 2 state solution (Being pro-Israel and pro-Palestine)
But if you want the only Jewish state in the world that contains nearly half of the global Jewish population to stop existing, and for those Jews to end up at the mercy of the rabidly and violently antisemitic nations which surround them, then yeah I would label that as an antisemitic ideology.
In the same way people argued that Rhodesia shouldn’t exist, and that the British colonizers who settled and segregated the land should leave, integrate, or die. This sentiment was not rooted in some weird sense of “anti British-ness”, it was a sentiment against settler colonialism and apartheid
And of course that's ridiculous, the Israeli government can be criticized the same as any other. But "anti-Israel" is most commonly understood to be synonymous with "anti-Zionist", an ideology which by definition is against the existence of the state of Israel. Could you imagine if it was socially acceptable to be against the existence of any other nation? Not just the government, but the nation itself. It's a ridiculous double standard.
It's not "weird". It actually makes a LOT of sense. Every far right lunatic loves Zionism... It's really easy to see why: no Jewish people in "my country" if we can send them"over there". It's transparent as hell, and based on the same evil antisemitic prejudices that have always motivated the far right in Europe/USA 🤷🏻♀️. Incidentally it's also why rather than fixing antisemitism and making Jewish people safe and welcome in our European societies it was sooo much easier to just "send them away to be someone else's problem" 🙃 (a gross view imo)
They now just have a PR friendly mask to say "I'm not an antisemite bc look loook I support Israel !!" 💀 One which only works whilst the govt of Isreal conflates zionism with Judaism. A completely false notion given how many Jewish people are anti-zionist themselves and support Palestinians (see: Neiturei Karta for just one example).
But no one ever said the far right were known for their critical thinking skills...
You're right that some antisemites do use their support of Israel to mask their hatred. However, your comment about "how many Jewish people are anti-Zionist" is misleading. Every credible poll and estimate shows that somewhere between 90-99% of Jews are Zionist. The example you mentioned, Neturei Karta, is literally an extremist fringe minority. Their estimated numbers are under 2000 people total lol. They're a fraction of a fraction of the already relatively small global Jewish population, yet they're always tokenized. When you look at pictures of them at protests and other events, it's almost always the same 5-20 individuals shown. It's also notable that many prominent white supremacists are also publicly anti-Zionist, such as David Duke being a notorious example.
This survey would tend to suggest that as of 2022 15% of the Jewish people polled were actually in favour of a single democratic state solution? Obviously it's a very limited scope, by all means share if you have more accurate info!
It's also a stat which I'm pretty sure will have shifted drastically given the government and Bibi's recent onslaught that any regular human is horrified by. Israel's own actions seem to be pushing a lot of Jewish people into studying the history of the state and questioning it more and more (there are a couple of examples from the Not In My Name org too https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2023/10/23/not-in-my-name-the-european-jews-condemning-israels-war-on-gaza)
I absolutely agree that NK are a minority, but significantly, they're the Jewish people who were living there prior to the Zionist project for the most part.. Which is why they do in fact remember living in peace alongside their Arab/Muslim Palestinian neighbours. Unlike the colonial post-ww2 arrivals. Despite some of their (imo ofc!) huge failings by virtue of being religious 'extremists', they could in fact on this one topic prove to be the guiding influence people need to see that a life without constant hatred of the Palestinians is possible?
As for the prominent white supremacists: yes I agree. The older generation absolutely are and always were fundamentally antisemitic. It's thanks to their abhorrent views that we have a ton of disgusting "new world order" conspiracy theories or things of that ilk. Having said that - those guys are incredibly old or already dead by now. The new generation of far right has majoritarily sought to "mend" their public image, and sustain their white supremacist views, by supporting the (predominantly also white) Israelis over the Palestinians. You can't apply a logic from a situation that no longer exists in reality. The far right parties have shifted their narrative, but it is no less abhorrent than it was, they've just temporarily sided with a great deal of Jewish Zionists who somehow seem to think they are safe "allies"... It feels about as uncomfortable (to me) as when you see POC or queer people advocating for the far right, until it inevitably blows up in their face... If I were Jewish the last people on EARTH I'd want supporting me are the hereditary/political descendents of ACTUAL nazi parties (literally in the case of the Rassemblement National - they used to be called "Ordre Nouveau") https://information.tv5monde.com/international/quelles-sont-les-origines-du-rassemblement-national-2726472?amp
Personally, I trust the Pew research polls the most, which is mentioned/linked in the article you shared. But one important aspect to mention here is that this data is only for American Jews. About half the world's Jews live in Israel and there are also smaller populations across various other countries. From what I've seen, for whatever reason, Anti-Zionism does seem to be mostly an American Jewish phenomenon. So even if the 15% of American Jews is true, that would translate to something more along the lines of maybe 7% global Jewry.
You could be right in general sense, but in this particular case Inhave the feeling it has more to do with his extreme anti islam views. My enemies enemy is my friend kind of thinking
True dat. Also an overwhelming majority of European Jewish people tend to (not all ofc!❤️) be white... So it definitely taps into their white supremacist views (as opposed to "all those migrants" who are on average more likely to be POC). Either way... Absolutely abhorrent views that are sickening to see in the 21st century 💔
coughs So erm.. You forgot Rhodesia existed then? Bc personally I'm pretty glad it was "socially acceptable to be against the existence of [THAT HORRIFIC] nation"... 😅
If we're speaking about Rhodesia, it is notable that Israel was one of the few countries at the time which actually made a statement opposing the UN recognition of its government. I would also compare Israel directly to Zimbabwe as Zimbabwe is also the indigenous people reclaiming their country and their original native name after shedding the colonial name used by the British.
So you're saying Palestine should drop the (mostly) white-colonialist-creation state of Israel then? Good. I'm glad we agree. One secular state all the way 👍Same as what was there for approx 400 years before zionism came along.
You're talking about something that has existed as a state for what 70 years? And only exists because it is a fully funded colony of America.
If they weren't being propped up they would have to find a solution to work with each other, like it was before America and the UN decided to artificially create a state there.
You're historically ignorant. America had relatively little to do with the creation of Israel. Israel was on it's own when it declared independence and the surrounding Arab nations declared war. Won the war anyway, despite an arms embargo put in place by Britain.
You need to expand your historical knowledge beyond adolescent 'America bad' blame-games.
Israel exists as a state because Jews spent decades building the infrastructure and participating in diplomacy for it in the land. It's only a "colony of America" as much as Ukraine, Taiwan, or South Korea is.
Please explain to me what an "artificially" created state is? What is a non-artificially created state?
The anti-Zionist/anti-Israel position is almost always founded on double standards for Israel which are not held to other nations, the denial of Jewish identity and connection to the land, blatant bigotry, or some combination of these factors.
And I would argue that Israel has desperately tried to work out solutions throughout its history but has been met with unwilling negotiating partners on the other side, but that's a whole different topic and has nothing to do with the nation's right to existence.
The US literally pays for its existence. Ukraine is currently being supported, but unlike Isreal, it is being loaned money, not given it.
Isreal was created by America and the UN at the end of the 2nd world war. They displaced 1.7million Palestinians to create it, something they were shockingly upset by.
Jews existed in the Mandate of Palestine before Isreals creation and largely had to work with the muslims to coexist.
They've not seriously attempted to negotiate anything, and have categorically rejected any two state proposals.
Isreal was created by America and the UN at the end of the 2nd world war. They displaced 1.7million Palestinians to create it, something they were shockingly upset by.
You are full of shit. The US and the UK were against Israel in the beginning. It took until the 1950s for them to switch to supporting them. The UK explicitly wanted to prevent a Jewish state and have Muslims control the region.
and largely had to work with the muslims to coexist.
Yes, they had to pay extra taxes, had no right of self-defense and were subject to massacres whenever their Muslim neighbors wanted to rough somebody up, eg. the massacre of Hebron.
The UK explicitly wanted to prevent a Jewish state and have Muslims control the region.
Correct, because the officials at the time correctly predicted the fallout.
Yes, they had to pay extra taxes, had no right of self-defense and were subject to massacres whenever their Muslim neighbors wanted to rough somebody up, eg. the massacre of Hebron.
Most of Israel's foreign aid comes in the form of credits to be spent on the US arms industry. It's basically just a coupon, and it comes with strings attached where Israel is limited on what weapons it is allowed to develop on its own or what trade it can do with other nations.
Israel was created when Israeli leaders declared independence from Britain in 1948, and defeated 6 Arab armies which immediately attacked in the independence war with the intention to annihilate the Israeli state and its Jewish population.
Jews that lived in the British Mandate had to defend themselves against frequent Muslim attacks/raids, and against restrictive and discriminatory British policies. All while being responsible for building much of the modern infrastructure that existed in the country at that time.
The Palestinians have not seriously attempted to negotiate anything. Why did Arafat reject the 2000 Camp David offer? Why did Abbas not accept the generous 2008 Olmert plan? Why did Arab leaders literally reject the 1939 White Paper which only required of them to tolerate a small Jewish minority with restrictions on immigration and land purchases? The history simply shows time and time again that the Palestinians do not want peace.
Most of Israel's foreign aid comes in the form of credits to be spent on the US arms industry. It's basically just a coupon, and it comes with strings attached where Israel is limited on what weapons it is allowed to develop on its own or what trade it can do with other nations.
US gives 3.8 billion a year to Isreal, and yes, most of it goes on the military. It also funds their national healthcare and some other services. (Yes, America covers the cost of national healthcare).
Jews that lived in the British Mandate had to defend themselves against frequent Muslim attacks/raids, and against restrictive and discriminatory British policies. All while being responsible for building much of the modern infrastructure that existed in the country at that time.
The hard right Jewish parties were seen as terrorists in the British Mandate because of the repeated terror attacks. Correct, though "defending themselves" again is not the correct term.
The Palestinians have not seriously attempted to negotiate anything. Why did Arafat reject the 2000 Camp David offer?
Because he believes the Palestinians should have the right to return to their country. Isreal refused to give the Palestinians full rights to return in a 2 state solution.
Why did Abbas not accept the generous 2008 Olmert plan?
Because it meant permanently ceding control of stolen land. Logically, I agree. They might as well have agreed because they are unlikely to ever get it back.
Why did Arab leaders literally reject the 1939 White Paper which only required of them to tolerate a small Jewish minority with restrictions on immigration and land purchases?
The Jews in the British Mandate were indeed defending themselves. Multiple massacres occurred by Arabs against Jewish communities prior to any Jewish militias being formed. It was a tradition continued from Ottoman times of persecuting non-Muslim minorities; you can see the same throughout the Middle East with other groups.
A two state solution where the Jewish state is required to be flooded by Arab immigrants who oppose the very existence of that state and the Arab state is unwilling to accept even a tiny Jewish minority is no two state solution.
And of course Zionists rejected the White Paper, it was incredibly discriminating and anti-Jewish. But the point still stands that the Arabs rejected it even while it met their every possible wish outside of "we want to murder and expel the Jews"
Edit:
Seems like someone was scared of my arguments 😂 pretty shady to respond and then block me before I can respond back again. Anything to make sure that you get the last words in I guess 🤷
The Jews in the British Mandate were indeed defending themselves. Multiple massacres occurred by Arabs against Jewish communities prior to any Jewish militias being formed.
They were also regarded as terrorists because of the extremist actions they took against the muslim goverments. To the point that the British attempted to limit Jewish immigration to try and stop incidents from increasing.
A two state solution where the Jewish state is required to be flooded by Arab immigrants who oppose the very existence of that state and the Arab state is unwilling to accept even a tiny Jewish minority is no two state solution.
So we're just pretending one side is the issue when it is convenient huh?
And of course Zionists rejected the White Paper, it was incredibly discriminating and anti-Jewish. But the point still stands that the Arabs rejected it even while it met their every possible wish outside of "we want to murder and expel the Jews"
So again, your claims that these failed because of the muslims is a lie?
Jews who moved to Israel are as connected to that land as me, an ethnostate doesn't magically become more acceptable just because the ethnicity in question wears funny hats.
Somewhere along the thousands of years of only knowing about the place through myths. What other people suggest being given already settled land because their ancestors sporadically resided there over two thousand years ago? It's insanity.
Which means America has been sending Americans Jews to colonize the region since the 19th century and Israel today is American.
Nope. That is not what colonisation meant for most of the world. Only America which was largely empty before Euopeans landed.
Britian, for example, had colonies all over the world. But you wouldn't say India was now British because they were under British rule for nearly 100 years.
means you have no idea what the world colonize means and have zero knowledge of the history of the region since 1882.
I seemingly have far more knowledge of both the area before 1882, and the word colonise means.
What is my argument? I don't remember writing that Jews that were born in America don't live in Israel. That would be a rather dumb opinion to have.
Britian, for example, had colonies all over the world. But you wouldn't say India was now British because they were under British rule for nearly 100 years.
Fascinating! Please do go on :) I find the example quite good because you take the part where Britain colonized India and India was full of Indians, yet leave out the Britain being the colonizer part.
So in your example America is the colonizer of Palestine but it isn't America that is colonizing (like in your example) rather it is Jewish refugees from 1882 until 1947, literally forced to move to any area that would take them in (which in the end turned out to only be Palestine).
Thus Israel is an American Colony because you say so!
A colony isn't just your own people moved to another place. Though that is one definition.
A colony can also be a country or area created and controlled politically by another country. Britian had dozens, if not hundreds of colonies all over the world. Colonies an American is used to isn't the same as the whole world would understand them as.
Isreal doesn't do anything once the US says stop. It pays for most things with US money. It only continues to exist because of US funding.
the most exhausting and repetitive zero-intelligence comment
I'm not here to argue with you about the definition of antisemitism, if you'd like to you can just substitute it out for "anti-Jewish" instead of deflecting from the point being made
So what do you call people who are against semitic people, if antisemitism is apparently only exclusively for jews? If you mean anti-Jewish then say that, because calling semitic people antisemitic makes no sense
I mean generally the idea of a "Semitic people" is understood to be an outdated terminology anyway. The term "Semitic" in modern usage typically only refers to the group of languages.
I'm not familiar with anyone who is specifically against Semitic peoples in general, maybe there are people who are racist against Middleeasterners, but that is a term which would not include all Semitic language speaking peoples (such as Maltese and Amharic) and would also include people who speak non-Semitic languages (such as Turkish and Farsi)
Whilst a possibility, in my experience the amount of times that someone identifies as 'Anti-Israel' without a) Specifically applying the logic to get there only to this scenario and no other international conflicts b) being hypocritical c) accidentally/without realising but sometimes purposefully just hating Jews, is basically zero.
Every year they are murdering civilians and calling it defence. Yes, they are.
Between 2008 and the current "war" (read: genocide).
6300 Palestinians were killed, with 300 Israelis killed.
Since the "war" started. 42,000 Palestinians have been killed, to 1200 Israelis. Pretending the two sides are equal is just propaganda supporting the genocide.
Roughly 70% of Gaza has been displaced because of the "war".
Ah, in a thread about the global rise of antisemitism, a Jew can't even tell an ally that something made him chuckle without an antisemite accusing him of being a paid Israeli.
I have completely run out of patience for bigots like you. Go away.
Hell, Palestinians are almost exclusively semitic people, while many jews in Israel don't have any genetic tie to that region and are instead descended from converted europeans.
Edit: the downvotes for a factually accurate statement, lol.
Israel controls European hate speech laws? Interesting take.
Also Pro-Palestinian people only tolerate Jews who also hold their opinion. Any Jews who perhaps believes that Jews are allowed to have autonomy and their own state magically becomes a target. But no worries, it isn't antisemitism. It's "Anti-Zionism"
And everyone loves telling Jews how they should think.
Guess what asshole, you don't get to tell a group of people with 2000 years of well known history culminating in them almost being completely wiped out, how they are supposed view the world.
CST recorded at least 210 incidents wherein offenders shouted or wrote “Free Palestine” in the first half of 2024. Although not inherently an antisemitic phrase, in each of these examples, it was directed at Jewish people or institutions simply for being Jewish, or constituted part of a wider outburst that included other overtly anti-Jewish abuse.
It seems that Tel Aviv university does have an agenda but I don't think there's an issue with including this data, the report is purely reported incidents of anti-Semitism.
How did they substantiate “simply for being a Jewish institution”? Some “simply Jewish institutions” also directly promote Zionist talking points and the IDF
I have no idea how they substantiate that. I assume they wouldn't investigate as it just shows reported anti-semetic incidents, if it's reported it's added to the data. Obviously this isn't bulletproof but is very common in these types of reports
Targeting of holocaust memorials and similar incidents all end up turning out to be committed by either literal Israeli nationals or extremely vehement local Zionists. Agent provocateurs.
Free Palestine said to an Israeli (in how must be Jewish) gets counted automatically as anti semitism then even if it's said by a Jewish person if you follow this definition
But the report claims that it was said it was said to Jewish people or institutions just for being Jewish. This might not be true in all cases but if it is it would be valid.
How do you determine it was said in that context? I think it's slight of hand.
If a person is shouting Free Palestine at a pro Zionist rally or the Israeli embassy how do you make the connection it was cause the person is Jewish and has nothing to do with their Pro Israeli stance?
You can't determine that. This report refers to reports of anti-semetic incidents. So anything reported will be included in the figures. This is how most of these reports work.
There's no recording honestly in data sets like this. It's just reported incidents. If an incident is reported, it is recorded. It does seem though, if this level of scrutiny was applied to reports of racism towards another group, questions would be asked.
They wouldn't record it for the embassy, or the rally. They would if you went up to a guy with Kippah and yell it in his face, or if you spray paint it on a synagogue or a Jewish museum
Because shouting “free Palestine” after the free Palestine crowd massacred 1200 people in the name of their cause is legitimizing the massacres as an acceptable political strategy
The Israelis made a strategic blunder by assuming that they could bomb their way out of whatever problem Hamas created for them, 18 years in the making. Clearly the government underestimated everyone’s willingness to blame Israel for Hamas’s decision to put their own civilians in harms way.
How many Israelis should roll over and die before they’re allowed to defend themselves? 1200? 5,000? 10,000?
Why are terrorists permitted to wage war against civilians, while governments should be forbidden from protecting their people?
I don’t get your argument, if it’s that civilian deaths justify mass killings of civilians then you’re the one inadvertently justifying Oct 7 because Palestinians were being massacred prior to that regularly. Also, that same government facilitated and funded the growth of Hamas, that government is the reason Oct 7 happened in the first place. Maybe then it’s not that they’re forbidden from protecting their people but rather it’s clear that they’re responsible for a significant amount of needless deaths and that they’ve been allowed to act with impunity
Nothing justifies October 7th. Nothing justifies the taking of hostages. Trying to justify any of Hamas’s actions retrospectively leads to historical revisionism. They are a gang of criminals who take money from regimes that want to sow chaos in the region, as evidenced by the last 11 months of fighting. Full stop.
They could sue for peace by returning the hostages, and they never will because the death and chaos and destruction that they have brought to Gaza is ultimately all that Hamas is after.
And hateful people have proven time and time again that Jews aren't welcome on this planet. Labeling all Israelis as liars isn't a good look. Reminds me of the characteristics of a certain form of hatred.
You need to learn the difference between Israel and Jews though. Israel is a right-wing ethno-state that churns out constant propaganda and oppresses and massacres Palestinian people. Jewish people are simply an ethnoreligious group and many are not Zionist. Just like not all Muslims are Iran or Saudi Arabia.
90% of global Jewry are Zionist or have sympathy for Israeli Jews or the Zionist cause. Just because you cite your token Jews that are on your side doesn't make it any less hateful. The vast majority also feel that there is Jew hatred deeply entrenched in the Pro-Palestine movement. I'm not saying that to delegitimize it, just pointing out the issue. Many people feel as though they aren't hateful towards Jews so that must mean what they stand for can't be hateful towards Jews, but this is flawed thinking. I hate that I have to add this as a qualifier but I'm deeply opposed to Zionism, it was and continues to be a deeply flawed ideology that has brought the region so much suffering. Although, just because you see war mongering hateful Zionists doesn't mean they all are, they can be misguided but not necessarily evil. I have to ask you though, who is allowed to define antisemitism? Jews you like or Jews you don't like?
366
u/29adamski 6d ago
But why would Tel Aviv University include that in anti-Semitism??