The Worst Anti-Semitism No One Talks About

Semitic and Hamitic Peoples: Origins and Misconceptions

The terms “Semitic” and “Hamitic” originate from Biblical classifications based on the sons of Noah—Shem and Ham. In historical linguistics and early ethnography, Semitic peoples were associated with the Middle East (Arabs, Jews, Babylonians, Canaanites), while Hamitic peoples referred to groups in Africa, including ancient Egyptians, Berbers, and Ethiopians.

In the 19th century, Wilhelm Marr, a German racial theorist, coined the term "anti-Semitism"—a term now almost exclusively applied to Jews, despite Arabs being equally Semitic. This limited definition has profound political consequences today, particularly in Germany.

Silenced in the name of remembrance: Germany's laws to stifle freedom of expression

Germany enforces some of the strictest antisemitism laws in the world, primarily aimed at combating Holocaust denial and protecting Jewish communities. While noble in origin, critics—including Jewish intellectuals, human rights groups, and civil society organizations—argue that these laws now disproportionately suppress Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim voices.

One major point of contention is Germany’s adoption of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism. This definition has been used to conflate criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitic hate, even when such critiques are grounded in human rights law or solidarity with oppressed Palestinians.

In 2024, Germany reaffirmed its resolution barring public funding to organizations that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This policy effectively criminalizes peaceful Palestinian advocacy and stifles free expression—particularly within Arab and Muslim communities. In practice, antisemitism laws are being selectively enforced, mostly used to silence dissent against Israeli state violence and to marginalize voices demanding justice, fairness, and racial equity.

The Founding of Israel and Its Violent Origins: How Zionist Terrorists Paved the Way

Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, three paramilitary Zionist groups—Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi (Stern Gang)—waged an often brutal campaign against British authorities, Arab civilians, and each other in pursuit of a Jewish state.

These groups were at various points condemned as terrorist organizations by the British and were responsible for high-profile terror attacks:

• Irgun's 1938 attacks killed around 80 civilians in marketplaces.

• The 1946 King David Hotel bombing killed 91.

• Lehi’s 1947 assassination attempt on U.S. President Truman.

• The 1948 Semiramis Hotel bombing killed 25.

• Deir Yassin massacre (April 1948): Over 100 Palestinian civilians killed in a joint Irgun-Lehi operation.

• The assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, a UN peace mediator who had negotiated the release of over 30,000 prisoners from Nazi concentration camp, by Lehi in September 1948.

Leaders of these terrorist groups later became Israeli prime ministers: David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir. Their violent methods and ideological visions laid the foundation for what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba (“catastrophe”)—the mass expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians, the slaughter of countless people and the destruction of hundreds of villages.

A Legacy of Massacres: 1948 to Present

The terror did not stop with Israel’s founding. The following is a partial record of major massacres of Palestinians:

• Deir Yassin (1948): Over 100 civilians slaughtered.

• Abu Shusha (1948): 60 villagers killed, including reports of sexual violence.

• Tantura (1948): 200 killed after surrender.

• Lydda and Ramle (1948): Over 400 killed and tens of thousands expelled.

• Al-Dawayima (1948): 455 killed, including women and children.

• Qibya (1953): 69 killed under Ariel Sharon’s command.

• Kafr Qasim (1956): 49 killed for unknowingly breaking curfew.

• Khan Yunis (1956): 275–400 killed in Gaza.

• Sabra and Shatila (1982): 3,000 Palestinians slaughtered with Israeli complicity.

• Ibrahimi Mosque (1994): 29 killed by a Jewish settler.

More recent events include the 2008, 2012, and 2014 Gaza wars, the Great March of Return (2018–2019), and the 2021 Sheikh Jarrah escalation—all resulting in massive Palestinian civilian casualtiesm, including countless children, and raising credible accusations of war crimes by international observers.

October 7 and the War on Gaza: Context Ignored

Just as with the conflict in Ukraine—officially framed as beginning with Russia’s invasion in February 2022, if one accepts the Western narrative that omits the Western-backed coup against a democratically elected government in 2014 and the rise of an illegitimate ultranationalist regime hostile to Russian speakers and bombing them in the Donbass since then—the story of the Palestinian conflict is similarly distorted.

According to mainstream Western politicians and media, it began on October 7, 2023, with yet another allegedly unprovoked attack on a peaceful Israel. That day, the military wing of Hamas launched a large-scale operation against the Zionist state. But before this, Hamas had repeatedly called for the release of thousands of Palestinians—many of them women and children—imprisoned by Israel, often without trial and under harsh, inhumane conditions. Numerous human rights reports had documented cases of torture and sexual violence in Israeli detention centers. These appeals were ignored by the Israeli government—and largely buried by Western media. Contrary to wide-spread propaganda, the operation on October 7 was therefore not intended to murder Israeli civilians. Rather, Hamas's aim was to take hostages in order to force the release of Palestinian prisoners.

Israel’s initial narrative of the October 7 attack—alleging mass rapes, beheaded babies, and other atrocities—was widely circulated in international media but has since been questioned or debunked by Israeli journalists and independent investigations. Meanwhile, Israel reportedly invoked the Hannibal Directive, which allows the use of lethal force in areas where Israeli hostages are held to prevent their capture—resulting in significant civilian deaths, including of its own citizens. One bereaved Israeli family even threatened legal action against the government, accusing it of exploiting their relatives’ deaths for propaganda, amid mounting evidence that an Israeli airstrike, not Hamas, was responsible. In one tragic case, an Israeli hostage recorded on video said Hamas fighters moved him ten times in an effort to shield him from Israeli attacks. Nevertheless, he was ultimately killed—by an Israeli strike.

Contrary to popular belief, Hamas has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders—an implicit acknowledgment of Israel’s existence alongside it. The group has also explicitly distinguished between Zionism and Judaism, stating that it could coexist peacefully with Jewish communities. Yet calls for Palestinian liberation are all too often—and deliberately—misrepresented as genocidal antisemitism.

Meanwhile, genuine acts of genocidal, antisemitic violence against Palestinians continue unchecked and without accountability. As of June 2025:

• Over 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza.

• More than 131,000 injured.

• Over 12,000 detained.

• Nearly 1,000 killed in the West Bank.

Germany’s Complicity: A Historical Pattern

Friedrich Merz, Germany’s current chancellor, has taken an aggressively pro-Israel and anti-Russia stance. His statements whitewashing Israeli war crimes and Ukraine's attacks on Russian civilians—while preparing Germany for war against Russia—have drawn chilling historical parallels.

Most disturbing of all is Merz’s unapologetic defense of Israel’s June 2025 strikes on Iran—an unprovoked onslaught that, aside from a handful of senior military officers, brazenly targeted civilians and peaceful nuclear facilities. To frame such brutality as necessary or righteous is nothing short of obscene. His characterization of Israel’s illegal war of aggression as a “dirty war on behalf of the world” chillingly echoes the dangerous militarism that marked Germany’s darkest era.

Merz also has referred to Iran’s government (often called the “mullah regime”) as brutal and oppressive toward its own people, emphasizing alleged human rights abuses, suppression of dissent, and authoritarian control.

Tired of the relentless horror stories about the so-called "mullah regime" and its supposed cruelty toward the Iranian people? Watch the videos on the YouTube channel Travel Buddies Iran.

But hey, don’t be shocked if everything you’ve heard about Iran is totally different from how things actually are.

What the German chancellor conveniently omits is that Iran—home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East—grants its Jewish community constitutional protections. Iranian Jews not only worship freely and maintain synagogues but also prosper and hold a reserved seat in parliament. Prominent Jewish-American journalists like Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil have documented vibrant Jewish life in cities such as Isfahan.

Furthermore, contrary to Merz’s claims, Iran has a more inclusive form of democracy than Israel, which systematically denies equal rights and representation to millions of people under its control, as Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has noted.

Germany’s First Dirty War: Chemical Weapons against Iran

During the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988), Iraq deployed chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and soldiers—using components and technology supplied by German firms. Nerve agents such as sarin and mustard gas killed at least 20,000 Iranians. More than 80 German companies have been implicated in facilitating these atrocities. Once again, Germany found itself at the forefront of industrialized mass killing.

The silence and complicity of the West—including Germany—reveal a disturbing pattern of double standards in which, despite all claims to the contrary, geopolitical interests regularly take precedence over justice and human rights.

Instead of holding Germany accountable for its role in these crimes, Berlin and other Western powers now lend support to what may become the next great crime against the Iranian people.

Renowned Jewish-American scholar Professor Jeffrey Sachs offers a sobering perspective on this broader Western posture. He argues that U.S. foreign policy has long been dominated by neoconservative and pro-Israel agendas that favor regime change and military intervention over diplomacy and international law. Citing former General Wesley Clark, Sachs recalls a post-2001 Pentagon plan to topple seven governments in five years—Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran—targeting countries that resist Israeli and Western hegemony or support the oppressed Palestinian people. Six of those wars have already unfolded, leaving a trail of chaos and bloodshed. Sachs describes this approach as reckless, morally bankrupt, and devoid of strategic coherence.

Germany’s enthusiastic alignment with this agenda makes it complicit—then and now.

Nuclear Hypocrisy and Racism in Plain Sight

Germany and other Western nations continue to demonize Iran’s peaceful nuclear program—used for energy and medical applications—while ignoring Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. Iran has complied with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and hosted IAEA inspections. In contrast, Israel has refused all inspections and holds a sizable nuclear arsenal with zero transparency.

Even after assassinating Iran’s top nuclear negotiator—just days after he agreed to limit uranium enrichment to below 5% ahead of a pivotal diplomatic meeting with the United States—Israel faced no international condemnation. Instead, distorted narratives continue to portray Iran as an existential threat, despite the fact that Iran has not initiated a war in centuries. In stark contrast, Israel routinely launches strikes against countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, and has issued threats against Tehran for over three decades.

Conclusion: Toward a More Honest Definition of Antisemitism

Antisemitism is real, dangerous, and must be confronted unequivocally. But doing so with integrity requires acknowledging its full scope. The growing chorus of Jews in America, Britain and elsewhere declaring “Not in my name” reflects a sobering awareness: that uncritically linking Jewish identity with the actions of a violent Zionist state risks fueling widespread antisemitic backlash against Jews themselves.

Today, the most sustained and brutal violence against a Semitic people is being waged not against Jews, but against Palestinians—through displacement, mass killing, and enforced starvation—by the state of Israel, with the full support of powerful Western governments. And once again, Germany is at the forefront of a new holocaust.

This relentless assault constitutes not only a humanitarian catastrophe but a profound act of mass dehumanization—one made worse by the weaponization of the term “antisemitism” to shield Israeli state violence from scrutiny and to smear Arabs, Muslims, and Iranians.

Germany’s historical guilt has become disturbingly selective: it extends solidarity to Jewish Semites, even when they perpetrate massive atrocities, while displaying open disdain toward Palestinian Semites.

In short, the most overlooked and concealed form of anti-Semitism today is the systematic eradication and disenfranchisement of Semitic Palestinians—whether Muslim or Christian—by a state based on ethno-nationalist ideology and supported by Western powers that portray themselves as opponents of all forms of fanaticism. Anyone who wants to credibly combat anti-Semitism needs moral clarity and political courage – including the courage to call this reality by its name. This is hardly to be expected from Germany, which has once again become ugly.