From an article on whether the results of the referendum were ‘good for the Jews’ of Venezuela (more free advice for the Jewish community: casting every possible issue in the world as being either ‘good for the Jews’ or not is not ‘good for the Jews’):
“Last year, Chavez himself indirectly accused the Jews of killing Jesus Christ. Although he didn’t explicitly mention the word ‘Jew,’ his remarks left little doubt among Venezuela’s Jews that their president is an unabashed anti-Semite.”
This example of the slur is an easily provable lie (a lie from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles no less, famous for the Iranian sumptuary law lie), and a slur which the Venezuelan Jewish community itself rejected.
I’ve been complaining about the absurd over-use of the slur, but I’m beginning to see the bright side. Were it not for the slur, the tendency would be to pull punches and mislead. For example, when you really meant ‘Jewish’, you might write ‘Zionist’, as that sounds a little less harsh. Since you will be slurred anyway whenever you come close to the truth, you might as well state the truth unabashedly. The slurrers are in fact encouraging truthfulness.