>There are many stereo-types that are really not harmful at all. By and large it does no harm to say that left-handed people are untrustworthy, or that Scotsmen are mean, or that estate agents are vulgar, or that girls from Essex are loose. It isn't true, but it does no harm.
Except to left-handed people, the Scotch, estate agents, or women and girls from Essex.
No the harm is not comparable to the people of various colors facing white supremacy, or women facing male supremacy and so on... A march to protest prejudice against left-handers or red-heads or whatever would br
absurd. But that does not mean it they should not be pointed out , and the absurdity point out when they occur. And, when a well meaing person accidentlly perpetuates such a stereotype, I hope they would correct it when pointed out.
Anti-semitism is a special case here; in the U.S. and most of the rich nations it is neither an official ideology nor promoted by the powerful. But , in the U.S., at least the prejudice is still strong enough for people to occasionally be murdered for being Jewish. Apparently this is true in France as well.
In some of the poorer countries (including a number of Arab countries) Anti-Semitism is strongly tolerated and encouraged. Part of this is because Isreal has succeeded in blurring the distinction between being Israel and Jews; apparently a lot of Paelstinians and Arabs have bought the Israeli line that to oppose the occupation is to hate Jews. Arab leaders who circulate the "Protocols of the elders of Zion" also bear a lot of responsibility.
So I think special care can be asked in avoiding the perpetuation of anti-semitic stereotypes. Anti-semitism does still rise to level of murder on occasion; and a major goal of pro-occupation propaganists is to label all opponents as anti-semitic. Portraying Israeli oppressors, who are Jewish, as crucifying Jesus, has a different implication than making the same comparison for Americans, or in fact any other group of oppressors on earth. In my opinion it is a moral mistake; even more strongly it is a political mistake, a propaganda mistake - it offers an opening for pro-occupation forces to set the agenda.