Are the actions of NZ super fund antisemitic?
Antisemitism has been dubbed The Longest Hatred and is as old as the Jewish people. It has shown itself remarkably adaptable, able to morph and repeatedly reinvent itself across time and culture.
Perry Trotter
One of the most recent and effective iterations of antisemitism in the West has been anti-Zionism. The BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanction) movement is, in turn, one of the most visible expressions of anti-Zionism, attracting the support of antisemites while luring well-meaning but sorely ill-informed social justice warriors.
Despite Israel’s human rights record being vastly superior to that of her neighbours, she is routinely condemned while the conduct of those neighbours is largely ignored.
“Double standards” is one of the now-famous “three D’s” named by refusenik Natan Sharansky in his definition of antisemitism (the others being demonisation and delegitimisation.)
NZ Super Fund recently divested from several Israeli banks. If NZSF decision-makers are motivated by human rights concerns and “responsible investing” surely their attention should first be drawn to the detainment and alleged genocide of Uyghur in China? Rather, it is Jewish homes built on Jewish ancestral homelands (an action consistent with the Oslo Accords), funded by Israeli banks, that has captured NZSF attention and become the target of divestment.
While Sharansky, to our knowledge, has not commented, we suspect that NZSF’s action would be a candidate for antisemitism according to his definition.
Of course, if NZSF were to divest what appears to be more than $500 million held in Chinese companies, there might be a glimpse of hope for revision of NZSF’s sub-zero credibility rating. Those who prefer better odds may choose instead to wait for hell to freeze over.
Until then, it remains appropriate to ask: are the actions of NZ Super Fund antisemitic?
