Genocide, Blood libel, and the Misuse of Antisemitism

'Blood libel' depicted in this scene was based on a fabricated lie that Jewish people used the blood of Christians in religious rituals, especially in the preparation of Passover bread which served as a pretext for pogroms and persecutions.

The terror attack in New York targeting two Israeli diplomats must be condemned as an act of political violence that has no place in democratic societies. What follows should not be misconstrued as an apology or justification. But such acts occur within a context that needs to be understood.

It is not antisemitism that fuels these heinous acts of terror, but the genocide itself—which has also endangered the lives of Jewish people. The scenes from Gaza are stomach-churning. The impact on the mental health of people—not necessarily Arabs or Muslims—who feel helpless in the face of this horror cannot be underestimated.

Yes, the Holocaust and the fight against antisemitism should define our political struggles. That is precisely why Israel must be stopped. Using this case to criminalise opposition to genocide only rubs salt into a festering wound. What is antisemitic is to conflate Jewish identity with support for genocidal and apartheid policies—a conflation particularly common among elements of the right who support Israel. As a historian am also appalled by Netanyahu attribution of the terror attack to “blood libels against Israel”. Am offended because a heinous anti semitic crime whose victims deserve respect is being invoked to justify a clampdown on critics who are denouncing a real crime.

My fear is that the genocide is triggering both antisemitism (which remains alive and well, even among those who claim to hate Jews but support settlers and colonists) and other, harder-to-define forms of political violence. Genocide without a response can also distort our moral compass, creating a misguided imperative that, while not necessarily antisemitic, can still be deadly. Of course, latent and subtle antisemitism can also be at play, which is why the pro-Palestinian movement should confront this issue head-on, showing zero tolerance towards any sign of anti-Jewish hatred.

I say this because the term antisemitism is being misused—exploiting a heinous act committed by an individual with tenuous links to left-wing organisations—to criminalise an entire movement. Genocide is not a word to be taken lightly. Accepting that it is happening without responding to it creates a profound crisis, including serious mental health struggles for those watching these events unfold on their screens.

That is why, in the initial stages of this war, I was reluctant to use the term—fully aware of its gravity. Yet with 54,000 people massacred, clear signs that mass starvation is being used as a weapon, and an evident intent to displace an entire population, one cannot escape the conclusion that the State of Israel is committing a crime against humanity.

Over the past decades, wars and bombardments have been justified under the pretext of humanitarian intervention—not only in the face of genocide (as in Kosovo), but also to prevent it (as was the case in Libya). The contrast with the Western response to what is unfolding in Gaza is so stark, it is mentally disturbing.

---

Voting for genocide?

Irrespective of the Israeli singer—who witnessed and lived through a horrific war crime—and the song itself (unremarkable, but not bad), it was disturbing that a significant number of Europeans voted for a song representing a state currently committing extensive crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war and the killing of 54,000 people.

Just imagine if Russia had been allowed to participate while bombing Ukraine and was close to winning the contest. Thankfully, we were spared that embarrassment because Russia was excluded. Had that happened, some might have questioned the algorithms that made such a result possible.  

But perhaps this also shows that support for Israel goes deeper and extends beyond  European Union officials and national governments.  Still one also has to account for the nature of the vote which is  more indicative of a solid cohort of support in a context of 'diffuse alternatives'.  Furthermore people who wanted to make a political statement by supporting the Israeli entry were more likely to vote 20 times than others who were simply enjoying the night.  Moreover opinion polls in the United Kingdom which gave Israel 12- full points show that only 17% say that their sympathies lie with Israel in the current war in Gaza while 26% sympathise with the Palestinians.  

Still, the fact that a solid cohort continues to support Israel despite the genocide unfolding on our screens—in a context where one would have to be blind not to see it—is disturbing in itself. It partly reflects the rightward drift across Europe. Maybe Malta’s entry—which embodied the kitschy, queer, Euro-pop aesthetic—would have fared better a decade ago, when that vibe held more political currency.

So, should one read too much into a song contest? Maybe not. But it is the closest thing to a European fun night—a moment of collective attention. And for that reason alone, it matters.

The Aesthetics of Power: Lessons from Mujica and Francis for the Trumps of This World

"As soon as politicians start climbing up the ladder, they suddenly become kings. I don't know how it works, but what I do know is that republics came into being to ensure that no one is above anyone else... The pomp of office is like something left over from a feudal past: you need a palace, a red carpet, a lot of people behind you saying, 'Yes, sir.' I think all of that is awful."

José "Pepe" Mujica practised what he preached. He did not advocate self-mortification, nor did he glorify poverty—which he wanted to see abolished. But he understood the link between capitalism and consumerism, which ultimately impoverishes humanity and destroys nature.

He eschewed the presidential palace in favour of the farmhouse where he grew flowers. In 2022, he told Al Jazeera that opulence can “divorce” presidents from their people:

“I believe that politicians should live like the majority of their people, not like the privileged minority.”

In this regard, Mujica shared the same approach as Pope Francis, who, unlike his predecessors (and successor), eschewed living in the papal residence and opted to stay in a suite at the Vatican guesthouse.

Some would argue that as long as politicians bring about positive change, they are entitled to material wealth that reflects their status. There's a case to be made when one considers how public service wages compare to those offered by corporations. One can even argue that an underpaid public service becomes a breeding ground for corruption. For example, in Malta we have a situation where ministers are paid less than their underlings who run public authorities. Moreover, the defence of the common good also requires recruiting the best minds—often in a context where those minds can earn far more serving the same corporations that undermine the public good.

Still, there is a strong argument that political leaders are moral leaders who should lead by example—and that opulence itself is the perfect breeding ground for corruption and incestuous ties between politicians and the super-rich. No wonder some  politicians (including our own Joseph Muscat) are so attracted to the Gulf states. No wonder Trump feels so much at home being feted in the palaces of emirs and sheikhs.

When accepting public office, politicians have a civic and republican duty towards those who elected them—to serve, not to rule. In this sense, their lifestyle and wealth are matters of public interest. So yes, let's ensure they are paid enough to fulfil their duties—and I wouldn't expect them to live like Francis or Mujica (even if it’s a big plus when they choose to do so voluntarily). But any manifestation of opulence, and any business dealings while in office, should be scorned and rebuked. This has nothing to do with appearing smart, looking good, or enjoying life. What is disturbing are politicians who project power by flaunting a lifestyle that affirms their success to ordinary people—who are then expected to admire and adore them.

Why Trump loves the gulf states...and wants a peace without irritants

It seems Donald Trump enjoys visiting the Gulf states.

He probably feels at home accepting gifts and praise from ultra reactionary Arab monarchies—long hailed by the West as bastions of moderation, despite it being common knowledge that they sponsor all kinds of nefarious activities from corrupting FIFA to host the world cup to bribing MEPs.  Trump will take this to another level, simply because he has no qualms about human rights or corrupt lobbying.

He is even considering accepting a multimillion-dollar personal gift (a palatial jet) from Qatar, an opaque kingdom that embodies contradiction: pro-American, pro-Iranian, pro-Hamas, a promoter of free speech and yet deeply dictatorial.

But where does this leave US support for Bibi’s genocide?

Sure, Trump may simply sideline Bibi (at least for a short while), as he is doing by skipping the obligatory visit to Israel during his Arab tour.

Netanyahu may be perceived as an irritating nuisance to Trump’s transactional deals and appetite for corrupt gifts.  

What’s remarkable is that Trump can now attribute "good faith" to Hamas and the Houthis while harassing and criminalising pro-Gaza protesters in the US. Unlike Biden, he is less ideologically committed to Israel in the 'never again' tradition. Sure, that policy was misguided and contributed to a genocide, but it was also open to challenge on the grounds that “never again” should apply to all of humanity. Yet we mustn’t forget that part of Trump’s base takes that commitment to another level—a biblical one. Some even dream of the restoration of David’s kingdom, with one caveat: the conversion of the Jews at the end of days. The Republican right wing has an uncomfortable relationship with Jewish identity, often targeting liberal Jews as ungrateful.

Will anything good for the Palestinians come of this? At most, they may get an uneasy ceasefire. Bibi has already won his war and is now playing in extra time, working to finish the job through mass expulsions—a prospect legitimised by Trump’s dystopian idea of a real estate resort in Gaza.  It was this dark fantasy which gave Bibi the pretext to return to war after a brief lull which coincided with Trump's swearing in.

But Trump knows that such a horror spectacle would be intolerable for the Saudis and other Gulf states—not because they care about the Palestinians, but because it makes normalising ties with Israel and striking (corrupt) deals with the US far more difficult. This kind of approach to 'peace' makes another October 7 even more likely—a direct consequence of the Abraham Accords, which aimed to sideline Palestinians in the name of regional stability.

And where does this leave Israel?

Possibly, Bibi will have to dump his far-right allies—a move that could end his political career. But don’t count on that. Trump may be irritated by him but could ultimately prefer the autocrat he knows to the messiness of what remains of Israel’s partial parliamentary democracy.

Still, Israel will remain vulnerable as long as it continues to define itself as a settler, white, apartheid state. Unfortunately it is this aspect of Israeli identity which makes Israel attractive for the US and European far right while they still tap in to anti semitism when denouncing global liberal conspiracies. 

Let’s not forget that Trump never forgave Bibi for recognising Biden’s victory in 2020. What’s at stake for Trump is asserting who’s in charge—with the ultimate aim being a normalisation (which ignores the occupation), without too many irritants (for businesses and tech billionaires).

---

Rethinking Work: A Workers’ Day Reflection on Time, Dignity, and Freedom

Imagine how the world would be transformed if most boring work were automated, and everyone were entitled to a decent basic income—one that guarantees a good life within a context of robust and accessible public services. People would regain control over their time and be free to cultivate their interests. They would no longer have to accept the first job offer that comes their way, and setting up a cooperative or a small business would become a real possibility for many. Lifelong education would become a reality—not one driven solely by the needs of capitalism.

Of course, this would not immediately lead to the democratisation of the means of production, but it would help pave the way. It would also blur the lines between worker, consumer, citizen, and owner. More people would be able to adopt and navigate these multiple identities at different phases of their lives.

Such a transformation would also help defuse anger and resentment, thereby consolidating liberal democratic institutions. Agonism would replace antagonism simply because people who enjoy life are less likely to hate and blame their unhappiness on others.  

Naturally, this raises the crucial question of how such a system could be financed. The state would still need to play a redistributive role, which means that wealth would still have to be created. However, this kind of revolution could itself unleash productive forces, knowledge, and creativity—ultimately increasing prosperity. Moreover, elements of socialism would coexist with consumer choice and the market economy—albeit one in which the state plays a central role in providing essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, public transport, and energy. This, in turn, would free people from the daily anxieties that dominate so many lives today.  That is one reason why I am averse to the emphasis on self-reliance advocated by some well meaning environmentalists. 

Of course, in the present context where many still struggle to make ends meet trade unions remain essential. In Malta’s current context—marked by high worker turnover and reliance on disposable migrant labour—making union membership mandatory makes sense. It would remove the risk of retribution for joining a union.  

But while trade unions are vital but can’t replace political action to reclaim time from work.  Yet political activism also competes with consumerism  for people’s limited free time.  Moreover capitalism creates beautiful distractions which keeps us glued to our screens.