Pictures of "starving" people dumping flour to use sacks to carry other aid, and non-starving mothers displaying "starving" children, expose the absurd situation. Meanwhile, Hamas releases videos proving they are systematically starving helpless hostages, correctly assessing that global antisemitism will do its work regardless of their actions.
"Most antisemites," said Professor David Hirsch, sociologist and founder of the movement against the academic boycott of Israel, "don't think they are antisemites." The starvation campaign now includes heads of state and organizations that signed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, which specifically addresses the possibility that certain ways of relating to Israel constitute antisemitism. "Starvation," when presented this way, means not only that hunger exists in a specific place, but that someone is intentionally and systematically organizing that "starvation." This campaign provides an opportunity to revisit the antisemitism at the core of these matters.
About a decade ago, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance published a new working definition of antisemitism, which sparked considerable debate. Unsurprisingly, many of the leading anti-Israel organizations that have conducted anti-Israel campaigns for years vehemently opposed the definition signed by 35 countries and hundreds of institutions and organizations, such as parliaments, sports clubs, corporations, and others that adopted it as a working definition, even though it was emphasized that this did not constitute legal status.
The definition did not remain at the level of general abstraction and was supplemented with illustrative examples. Almost all debates about the new definition focused on sections directly relating to Israel, and summarizing the debate exceeds the scope of this column. Particularly important is the explicit example given of antisemitism in its new, anti-Israel form – "Applying double standards by requiring of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
However, those well-funded anti-Israel organizations, operating under the guise of "human rights," immediately understood they would be considered antisemites, since applying double standards to Israel is their bread and butter.
The starvation campaign now includes heads of state and organizations that signed the new working definition of antisemitism, which specifically addresses the possibility that certain ways of relating to Israel constitute antisemitism.
This leads to the starvation campaign. In what similar cases of "starvation" have the "starvers" introduced and continue to introduce thousands of aid trucks to the "starving"? The "starvers" enable countries to stage media airdrop shows, where it's evident that one truck carries more aid than any well-documented airdrop. Organizations that pride themselves as "humanitarian" delay aid to the "starving" simply because they demand exclusivity without competition in bringing aid. This is the only "starving" area from which pictures emerge of "starving" people dumping flour on the ground to use flour sacks for carrying other aid products. Mothers displaying "starving" children appear very un-starved themselves. One of the countries supporting the starvation campaign has a border with the "starving" area, and if only they agreed to open it, the "starvers" would allow the "starving" to leave happily.
Above all, during the "starvation" campaign, the leaders of the "starving" people released videos proving they are systematically starving helpless hostages. Why would Hamas do this when it could harm the success of the starvation campaign working in their favor? Could it be that, as particularly pronounced antisemites – murderous and barbaric as always – they deeply understand global antisemitism and assess that it doesn't matter what they do, antisemitism will already do its work for them?
