Buddhists Against Antisemitism

Just Another Zionist Buddhist Wordpress Site

Welcome to Buddhists Against Antisemitism

Sticky post

Buddhists should oppose antisemitism. Duh. But what is antisemitism?

The following is from the “Working definition of antisemitism” by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  8. Applying double standards by requiring of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Graham Platner and the Double Standard of Salience

There was the SS tattoo. There was the fact that he had in the past publicly stated that rape victims bear “some responsibility” for being raped, and that women should “not get so fucked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to.” Platner is also an AR-15 owner, an AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) opponent, and a former Blackwater contractor.

Overlooking all the red flags, Platner was presented to the world as the “progressive” alternative to Janet Mills, who is staunchly pro-abortion rights, pro LGBT rights, and pro universal healthcare. So what was it that made Platner supposedly so much more “progressive” than Mills? Prior to 2025, Platner had never been involved in any political activism. He was never a union member or had shown any interest in labor organizing.

On almost all issues where Platner and Mills differ – it is a matter of degree. But there is one issue that clearly distinguishes them: Israel. So it’s ok to have Nazi tattoos, be soft on rape, and be pro-gun – as long as you show sufficient hatred for the world’s only Jewish state, you’re OK. Apparently.

This isn’t some new phenonmenon. It even has a name: The Double Standard of Salience.

Below is a quote from: Antisemitism and the Left: Confronting an Invisible Racism by Sina Arnold & Blair Taylor
Journal of Social Justice, Vol. 9, 2019
https://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Blair-Taylor-and-Sina_Arnold.pdf

The double standard of salience translates into a political context where the left assigns vastly more attention and importance to the issue of Israel/Palestine than any other conflict in the world today. Israel is one of the few issues that unites a typically fractious left. This one conflict is so central to the U.S. left’s self-understanding that that it is often a highly visible element even in demonstrations for completely unrelated topics like climate change, police brutality, or gay rights. This ideological omnipresence suggests that the left views Israel as both a unifying factor as well as a political lynchpin upon which various other forms of oppression rest. Yet at the same time, various other occupations, civil wars, and violent conflicts receive little or no attention from the left–there are no sustained left campaigns targeting other contemporary examples such as India’s annexation of Kashmir, Turkey’s brutal suppression of the Kurds, Russia’s occupation of the Crimea or Iran publicly executing gays.

.

Mary Thanissara calls for the destruction of the State of Israel (and renounces the two-state solution)

A quote from Mary Thanissara’s instagram, dated December 11, 2025:

The two-state solution is a convenient political myth to distract attention. This is not a centuries-old conflict. Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived for centuries in relative peace, cooperation, and harmony in Palestine.

Like South Africa, a dignified future for all can only exist through a just transition from Apartheid into a one-democratized region, called, once again, Palestine.

While she continues to try to dress her antisemitic political extremism in pseudo-dharmic language, Thanissara’s real colors are starting to show ever more clearly. She is now taking a position that is considered extreme even among Palestinians themselves! At least in public, many Palestinians continue to claim that they recognize Israel’s right to exist and wish to form a separate Palestinian Arab state alongside the Jewish state of Israel. But Thanissara is now explicitly endorsing the “one-state solution” that seeks the eradication of the world’s only Jewish state.

Engaged Buddhism Has Jumped The Shark, Part One

The main problem with so-called “Engaged Buddhism” is that this “engagement” has always amounted to an uncritical (and invariably superficial) adoption of bits and pieces of western leftist ideology, which are then dressed  up with pseudo-dharmic phraseology.

The result is twofold: (1) a dharmicized politics that claims to be non-political, and, worse (much worse), (2) a politicized dharma that claims to speak for all right-thinking Buddhists.

The resulting moral absolutism leads to (indeed, demands) attacks on all Buddhists who fail to live up to a set of newly minted political litmus tests.

And now in the wake of the October 7 pogrom in Israel, we have the spectacle of a smal number of outspoken Buddhists who uncritically repeat the most extreme antisemitic rhetoric of Israel-hatred, while demanding that all Buddhists must join them in their denunciations of the new great enemy of the Dharma, the new Mara incarnate: Zionism.

Happy Shining Antisemites

 

“They Don’t Want a State” (Einat Wilf)

“The reason the Palestinians don’t have a state is that they actually never pursued a state.”

What She Said: Einat Wilf’s latest interview on “Palestinianism”

“I always bring a quote by Ernst Bevin, the British foriegn minister after WWII, who in February, 1947, after having researched and spoken to the side [th landthe Arabs], he didn’t make it up, goes to the British Parliament to explain why Britain failed to fullfill the Mandate, the trust that it received unanimously from the League of Nations after the fall of the Ottoman Empire to help the Jews acheive soveriegnty in the land. It [the British] did fail the Arabs, it created trans-Jordan and Iraq, and France helped create Syria and Lebanon, but the Jews don’t have a state by that time. And he [Bevin] says that His Majesty’s government failed because they’re faced with an ireconcilable conflict. Now this is February 1947, which means there’s no settlements, there’s no occupation, there’s no blockade of Gaza, there are no Arab refugees, there’s no Nakba, and there’s no Bibi [Netanyahu]. So basically all the things that we are now told are the reasons for Palestinian violence don’t exist yet.”

Page 1 of 8

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén