David at “The Debate Link” asks:
If saying that Jews who support Zionism are exhibiting “collective insanity” is not anti-Semitic, what qualifies?
I’d say this comment (which I didn’t let through) submitted to “Alas” by John Samhain may fit the bill:
White people are simpletons and saps who live in a constant B’nai B’rith endorced guilt trip. They are an extremely polite people (also known as saps to all other peoples of the world).
Look at what Amp the jew says (as the accuser): “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t; evil white non-jewish racist if you’re an active white non-jewish anti-racist, evil white non-jewish racist, if you stand for your own.
Amp is a disgusting zionist jew. He seeks to undermine non-jewish white people on all levels of our lives and make our lives more miserable in all of his actions; it’s in his religion; it’s in his blood; he will never have any Guilt for the hate he holds towards his host goyim.
Fro another example, consider this post by an anti-feminist who calls himself “Birdseye”:
If you study history, you will see Jews repeating this same formula over and over and over…likely because it works like a charm with each new, unsuspecting host! They have destroyed one country after another…leaving nothing but dry husks saddled with ironic guilt trips. Guess the formerly-great USofA is next! :D
(Disclaimer: This is just a general observation and I do judge each person by their own individual merits, Jewish or not.)
Despite Birdseye’s last-sentence disclaimer, one thing both these writers have in common is not only a disdain for Jews and Judaism, but a belief that there is something inherently evil about the Jews; what’s wrong with “Amp the jew” is “in his blood,” which is why “you will see Jews repeating this same formula over and over and over.”
My point is, contrary to what David’s question suggests, it remains possible to recognize antsemitism without resorting to David’s formula, which can be in effect summed up as “any very harsh criticism of Israel is antisemitism.” One could instead believe that antisemitism requires a bias against Jews and Judaism, and often believing that there is something inherently evil about being Jewish. Believing that particular Jews are being oppressive in the context of a specific political situation is simply not the same thing.1
Matthew Yglesias, responding to Alvin Rosenfeld’s much-discussed essay “Progressive” Jewish Thought And The New Anti-Semitism (pdf file), accurately describes the “New Anti-Semitism”:
To be flip about it, the defining characteristic of the “new” anti-semitism seems to be that it isn’t anti-semitism. Certainly, to qualify as a “new anti-semite” it doesn’t seem to be necessary to have a bigoted view of the Jewish religion or of Jewish people as an ethnic or cultural group. The author pretends to argue that hostility to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is the defining characteristic of the “new” anti-semitism, which is fairly ridiculous on its own terms, but as you read through the examples that’s clearly not what he’s saying. Rather, his view is that some people make what he regards as extreme or over-the-top criticisms of Israel, and that anti-semites would also make such criticisms, so therefore anyone who criticizes Israel too stridently is either practicing anti-semitism or else creating it.
In another “Debate Link” post, David approvingly quotes Rosenfeld’s response to critics:
Among others on the left, though, an often strident anti-Zionism is part of the ideological package that gives them their political identity. Their inclination to liken Israel to Nazi Germany and white-ruled South Africa–and their frequent excoriations of the Jewish state as guilty of “racism,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “war crimes,” and “genocide” draw from a common lexicon of hyperbolically corrosive speech and have helped to fashion an intellectual and political climate that encourages the demonization of Israel and its supporters.
What’s striking is that Rosenfeld doesn’t seem to consider that Israel’s policy choices have been instrumental to fashioning “an intellectual and political climate that encourages the demonization of Israel and its supporters.” No, no; it has nothing to do with the settlements, with the beatings, with the double-standard of law based on race in the occupied territories. What’s much more important for creating the negative view of Israel, apparently, is a small group of British and American leftist Jews, many of them completely obscure before Rosenfeld’s essay made them notable.
More importantly, note how broad a swath of language Rosenfeld suggests should be out of bounds to credible critics of Israel. I can see putting “genocide” out of bounds, but “war crimes?” The concept that Israel may have committed war crimes is now to be considered so out of bounds that the very phrase “war crimes” should never be used by credible critics, according to Rosenfeld? Similarly, are we to conclude that the word “racism” is “hyperbolically corrosive speech” and should thus be considered out of bounds for credible critics of Israel? How very convenient for defenders of Israel, if that’s the case.2
Do I think that demonization of Israel is a good thing? No, I do not. But I think it’s something the Israeli government has brought on itself with its policy choices. (Similarly, demonization of Palestinians is wrong, but it’s been brought on the Palestinians by the acts of Palestinian extremists and terrorists.) And both sides in this conflict have given critics plenty of reason for the use of hysterical, furious and extreme language, without having to believe that those employing such language are motivated by antisemitism or by racism.
You don’t have to have a bias against Jews to think that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is disgusting and racist, or to think that Israeli conduct should be investigated for possible war crimes. Nor should concern for “fashioning” a negative political environment for Israel be permitted to put questions of Israeli racism, war crimes, and apartheid-like policies outside the boundaries of credible discourse.
- To be sure, Jacqueline Rose, the author of The Question of Zion, from which the “collective insanity” quote is taken, is an idiot. And it may be that she’s an anti-Semite, despite being Jewish herself. But the mere fact that she’s an idiot who uses over-the-top language to criticize Israel does not, in an of itself, prove antisemitism. [↩]
- I also think the word “apartheid” is one that can be used by reasonable critics, although I choose not to use it myself. I discuss the Israel/Apartheid comparison in this post. [↩]
I guess it’s hard. I observe that it’s hard. But it seems that the middle way is the correct way.
Neither assuming right off the bat before you examine the evidence that “the Jews” (“the Russians” “the whites” “the Martians”) are wrong…or, that they are right.
Jews are human beings like the rest of us. Sometimes they behave well, sometimes they don’t. Israel as a country sometimes behaves well and sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t see why it should be condemned out of hand for everything; nor do I see why it alone among countries ought to be given a free pass regardless of its behavior.
Bizarre. Apparently every time Europeans or their descendants go off the rails they become anti-Semites. It doesn’t seem to matter what rails they went off or why.
For example, there exist off-the-rails schismatic former Catholics who do not accept the validity of any papal elections since Pius XII. Called “sede vacantes” (“empty seat”), these folks are literally more Catholic than the Pope, or that’s what they say. (Mel Brooks’ father is one, and Mel is probably one himself.) Do I need to tell you that they’re violently anti-Semitic? What does that have to do with papal elections? Ya got me on that one, probably nothing, but being off the rails…..
Mel Brooks’ father is one, and Mel is probably one himself.
Mel Gibson?
Susan – I think you mean Mel Gibson. Mel Brooks was jewish the last time I looked.
Sedevacantists and conclavists are weird people, and anti-semitism does seem to run rampant in their ranks for whatever reason.
Mel Gibson. [embarrassed grin]
I think it would be wrong to let this discussion pass without mentioning that the ‘other blog’ is the recognised world authority on Mel Gibson’s suckiness. Here’s the proof.
Back on the original subject…I would suggest that criticism of Israel, up to and including comparing it with Nazi Germany*, is not inherently anti-semitic, but is only anti-semitic if the reason for the criticism is that it is a predominantly Jewish country with Judaism as the official religion. If the criticism is based on actual behavior, ie criticizing Israel for committing war crimes when they commit war crimes, then it is not anti-semitic. On the other hand, one should be careful of the context because even legitimate criticism of a country can be used by people who hate that country for whatever reason as “proof” that said country is evil. And Israel comes in for more irrational hatred than average.
*Just to clarify: I have never heard anything suggesting that Israel has done anything remotely similar to what the Nazis did. But if the Israeli government were to go totally insane and start talking about the “final solution to the Arabic problem” and setting up death camps then the comparison would be completely justified and it would not be in the least anti-semitic to point it out.
Here’s some more anti-Semitic crap fished out of the Alas comments section that I have been saving:
Or this one:
Or this one:
I’ve been saving these for a while. I wondered why Amp was leaving that one above in the queue so long. Most of it is from the same idiot, and most of it seems to be directed at me. I let another through a while ago just to point out how many virulent Anti-Semites are out there.
It’s not anti-semitic to criticize Israel. But I’ve noticed that a lot of anti-Semites start there.
It’s like the (perfectly logical) legal argument that the civil rights act exceeded congress’s power and that freedom of association means you don’t have to serve anyone you don’t want to. It’s not (necessarily) racist, but if I meet someone deeply invested in it I get suspicious.
I agree with Joe, especially when I see countries with a strong anti-Semitic tradition.
I personally think many of Israel’s policies racist, and they deserve sanctions/war crimes investigations.
Perhaps it is useful to distinguish criticism of Zionism vs. specific policies of Israel. I think many criticisms of Zionism have anti-Semitic motivations, but I think that tends to be less the case when people make specific claims about Israel’s policies.
The new anti-semitism, as Yglesias describes it, sounds uncannily similar to the new racism I frequently see discussed here. What’s the difference?
OK, right off the bat, Byrdeye is insane. Completely batshit. Just thought I’d point that out to those unfamiliar with him.
There is a problem with discussions of the policies of the Israeli government being shot down as anti-semitism. In the case of some of those criticisms that really is what’s going on (see-byrdeye), but in other cases people really are talking about THE POLICIES and not about the Jewish people as a whole, and it’s very easy for real discussions to be shut down. I’m not at all sure how to handle that – I distinctly remember being told that I was being anti-semitic when I said something along the lines of “the Palestinian people do have some legitimate grievances”. How does one respond to that?
Rachel S. : Good god. I keep thinking people like that have been bred out, their potential parents being stupid enough to piss on the third rail or something, but the world keeps disproving my optimism. Sigh.
It does always give me a secret pleasure to watch bigots talking in the ‘stupid’ dialect of the English language, in which nothing is even vaguely coherent.
(Conversely, it upsets me when they’re well-spoken. But the ones who have enough brains to write a solid sentence are rarely as egregiously, block-headedly bigoted as the ones who can’t. The transphobic thread a couple months ago in I Blame The Patriarchy had some notable counterexamples, and I wonder if that’s why it got to people more strongly than similar nonsense that floats around from time to time, without any kind of writing ability behind it.)
I really think the racism charge, especially, is unwarranted, given that there is no proof that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict breaks down along racial lines (whatever else there is). The confusion stems from the view that Israel is a “White state” (that also feeds into the colonialist, imperialist, and crusader narratives), but that’s just false–Israel is majority “of color” (both total and Jewish populations). Hence, when I see “racist” thrown in to the mix, it strikes me as trumped up charges, and prima facia evidence that the critic is abandoning a nuanced perspective in favor of Israel-bashing (at which point I return to the old CRT standard: “unexplainable but by [anti-Semitism].”). This is a major part of Rosenberg’s complaint–it’s not that there is some religious shield that prevents the Jewish state from committing war crimes–it’s that this rhetoric is part of cocktail that uses legitimate (to semi-legitimate) terminology to completely poison the discourse. It’s code–like a right-wing pol talking about “crime.” Crime is a real issue. And Black people have committed crimes before. Nonetheless, we know what’s going on here. Knowing the context behind it, we don’t accept running to the literal as an innocence claim.
Similarly, the “they brought it on themselves” argument strikes me as rather frightening and one you wouldn’t make in any other context, Amp. Would you ever make that argument re: Black people for racism? Or women for rape? Actually, we know how that argument comes out for women: it’s “she had it coming”, and we reject it most harshly (for good reason, and even when it is phrased in a non-absolute fashion).
I truly don’t think my standard prevents legitimate criticism of Israel, but to be frank, with the UNHRC spending more time condemning Israel than on Sudan and the Congo combined, making the world safer for anti-Israel criticism really is not my top concern (see here)–anymore than I get too wound up over finding avenues for the GOP to demonize Black people. Despite all the cries of the race card, they seem to find a way (fancy that!). When one looks at the geopolitical lineup today, to argue that the main problem on I/P is that it is too difficult to criticize Israel strikes me as willful obstruction. The problem, I maintain, is trying to rein in an ever-more prominent streak of that discourse that has spun wildly out of control. Get that problem under control, and you’ll find me alot more aminable to discussing how to leverage Israeli policy to yield a better future for both Palestinians and Jews.
We all know this is crap. Amp’s not zionist.
And, ever since he took the nice lady’s advice about daily ablutions and wearing clean clothes, he isn’t even all that disgusting.
… he will never have any Guilt for the hate he holds towards his host goyim.
This is my favorite sentence fragment. Who knew that Amp was literally a parasite. And either a species of parasite or able to be in multiple places at once. Does he hang out in the liver? Or, perhaps, the colon? Besides, which parasites hold hatred towards (but not “for”) their hosts? My impression was that parasites, in fact, harbor no more hatred for their hosts than you or I hold for the Earth. Of course, who am I to say that you don’t despise Earth with all your being?
The thing that makes me curious riffs a bit off of Brandon’s statement:
In feminism, for example, a person who opposes some ACTIONS is often thought to oppose IDEALS. There are a lot of litmus tests out there that I’ve come across (everyone seems to have their own…) but nobody seems to be having a lot of luck carving out a niche as a prolife anti-pay-equality feminist.
I feel like I experience similar things in the world of racism–for example, many people might view a stance against AA as racist, or might even view a dislike of hiphop music or of certain types of dress to be racist.
I am not trying to derail here by going into the above examples.
My point is more one of similarities: *IF* folks agree that those above examples (or similar ones) are correct, then this makes me wonder whether the stuff Amp talks about is, indeed, antisemitism.
Why? Well, it’s back to the consistency thing again: There seem to be a lot of people willing to make an “exception” for what is allowable to speak about in terms of Judaism, Israel, etc. So: Why would we grant special consideration to women and certain POC and not to Jews? Occam’s razor and the comments of many here w/r/t feminism and racism would suggest that our motivation for lack of such consideration is not objective. Ergo, possibly antisemitism.
Sailorman, you are going to have to be much more specific: which actions would a person have to oppose in order to be interpreted as opposing which feminist ideals?
Crys,
I was deliberately fairly non-specific because I don’t want to derail into a discussion of what is or is not feminist/racist.
I’m not sure how to be more specific without that derail becoming a near-certainty. i think my point can still be made in general terms.
If you disagree with some of my propositions, let’s start a new thread, because I’m trying to stay on topic.
I tend to link this to feminism and racism because those are topics which are frequently discussed here. I’m sure there are other parallels as well.
W/r/t feminism and racism, two similar aspects come to mind:
1) the ability/right of the oppressed to define what is oppressive. (e.g. the claim that women/POC should be the primary arbiters of what is sexist/racist)
2) the tendency to frame attacks on some of the oppressed group’s actions (theoretically OK) as attacks on the group (not OK, usually has an “___-ist” connotation.) E.g. prolife position is framed as a sexist attack on women and not a ‘real’ issue of caring about the fetus; anti-illegal-immigration position is framed as racist and not a ‘real’ issue of law/economy.
I see similar examples come up a lot, in a general sense.
For both of those issues, IF one would grant they apply to women/POC/some other group(s), but not to Jews or Israel, I think it’s important to understand why not.
Alternatively, one can come at this from the other side: Would one like the standard being suggested here for jews to apply to one’s “pet” or “personal” issue? If not, why not? If not, why make an exception? Is it antisemitism or something else?
there are more similarities as well but i’m having a bit of trouble framing this. Can you understand what i’m getting at irrespective of my confused phrasing?
I’m having difficulty, Sailerman, accepting that “Israel” and “women” are really parallel (ditto for Israel and race). Israel is a country, with a government; neither women nor blacks nor Jews are a country. Because a government is a discreet decision-making entity, it is reasonable to criticize governments in ways that it is not reasonable to criticize genders or races. By criticizing my post, which talked about criticism of Israel, with a discussion of criticism of “Jews or Israel,” I think you’ve set up a strawman.
In fact, I can think of many statements about Israel which I think are perfectly acceptable, which would be offensive if they were statements about Jews.
See the difference?
You’re pretending that “Israel” and “Jews” are identical categories, and can be used interchangeably to make your point. But that’s not true. And if you try to make your same argument, this time using “Israel” rather than “Jews or Israel,” I think you’ll find it much more difficult.
[Edited to add in a couple more examples, and to clarify unclear wording.]
Hmm.
First of all, I’m not pretending that “Israel” and “jews” are the same. But 1) don’t you agree that “Israel” is often used as a stand-in for “Jews”? And 2) Don’t you agree taht there are similar categories which come up a lot on this blog, and which many here support? Illegal immigrants is an easy one; I don’t think you’d have trouble finding folks to claim that “illegal immigrant” opposition is code for racism, anti-mexican sentiment, etc.
In fact, i think Israel is often used as such a stand-in (wink wink, nod nod) precisely because it’s more socially acceptable to criticize “Israel” than to criticize Jews. Just like it’s socially more acceptable to criticize illegal immigration as bad, but it’s not as acceptable to be called a racist. So the question isn’t “how to protect Israel?” it’s “is this a necessary protection for Jews?”
I realize that creates a quandary: how to separate the (valid) criticism of a country with the (problematic) criticism of a race/religion? But of course that quandary is nothing new. We have similar quandaries in other areas, as I noted in my examples.
And my point about antisemitism is that we seem fairly easily to have said “well, no problem, just say you’re not criticizing Jews and it’s OK.” I don’t see such an easy conclusion (or a similar one) happening in other areas here.
In fact, i think Israel is often used as such a stand-in (wink wink, nod nod) precisely because it’s more socially acceptable to criticize “Israel” than to criticize Jews.
I agree. This creates a dilemma because Israel, like every other country that now exists or has ever existed, sometimes does things that deserve criticism. So how can one criticize Israel’s behavior in a particular instance without coming across as making a wink, wink criticism of Jews or even Israel the state and concept?
David S. said, “I really think the racism charge, especially, is unwarranted, given that there is no proof that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict breaks down along racial lines (whatever else there is). The confusion stems from the view that Israel is a “White state” (that also feeds into the colonialist, imperialist, and crusader narratives), but that’s just false–Israel is majority “of color” (both total and Jewish populations)”
Dave what about the treatment od Ethopian Jews? We don’t even have to get into the Palestian issue. Israel is not immune from racism; there is almost no country in the world immune to racism.
If you think the term ethnic bigotry applies better to the Palestinians, then I’m game for that, but I aso think that a case can be made that the Palestinains have been racialized.
Sailorman,
See comments 6 and 8 on this thread. Criticism of Israel where Israel seems to be a stand in for Jews is anti-semitic. Not all criticism of Israel treats Israel as a stand-in for Jews, so not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. None-the-less, all criticism of Israel is legitimately suspect (more specifically, all criticizers of Israel are legitimately suspect, a legitimate criticism can be put to illegitimate uses).
Frequent use of junk arguments against a group, frequent taking of the least charitable explanation of some characteristic of a group are extremely suspect.
Israel is somewhat more acceptable to criticize than more nebulous entities (women, black people, illegal immigrants) because it is a state, with a government, which is capable of collective intentional actions, something not true of categories of people.
Also, it probably matters that Amp is Jewish, so
is not relevant.
Robert wrote:
What, no “YMMV”? Awfully dogmatic of you.
Sailorman, I think I get your point. You can honestly and benignly argue that the civil rights act was legally wrong without any ill will towards POC. Same for abortion; you can argue that the rights of the fetus are more important than the rights of the mother and still want to fix sexism in our society.
But when I see people make those arguments I become suspicious. Is the person making an argument for free association a strident libertarian? If so than I’m likely to assume that they aren’t biased against POC, they’ve just decided that personal choice is paramount and that it trumps other values. Does the person arguing for the rights of the fetus also think women should be denied admission to medical school because they might someday want to take time off to have a child? If they do than I’m going to assume they just don’t like women very much. (I’m also going to assume they’re not libertarians but that’s another point)
This runs up against a wall with the idea of colorblind racism. The best I can summarize my understanding of color blind racism is; “Any policy that has a negative and disparate impact on people of color is racist.” (I’m not sure that I agree with that. I think that ill will towards POC is a necessary part of racism. but that’s another digression and my buy-in isn’t required.)
Under a color blind concept of racism free association is racist because it would have had a negative and disparate impact on POC. But, that same formulation says that a political argument that has a negative and disparate impact on Jews would be anti-Semitic. This would hold true even if the argument was provably valid. For example;
A personal credit score is a good predictor of how risky a person is for auto insurance. You can show this mathematically with a known confidence. You can do this study completely blind to race. But since minorities tend to have lower credit this will cause them to have higher insurance rates than whites. So the argument can be completely separated from race and it’s still color-blind racist.
So wouldn’t a valid criticism of Israel that has a disparate and negative impact on Jews by colorblind (religion blind?) anti-Semitism?
Is that what you were getting at?
I will say that one HUGE difference is that the state of Israel can decide to do things. So criticizing it could actually accomplish something. ‘women’ or ‘minorities’ are terms that describe individuals. As such criticizing women won’t accomplish anything since women don’t act in unity, they act as individuals. But I don’t see how this changes the color-blind argument.
Re: Racism versus anti-semitism. People worry about criticizing Israel because they worry that they will come off sounding anti-semitic. Alternately, people sometimes criticize Israel because that is an “acceptable” way to express anti-semitism. On the other hand, does anyone consider criticism of the Rwandan government or the (current) South African government or the Zimbawean government to be racist because those countries are headed by blacks? Is it considered unacceptable to criticize Merkel because she is female? I’m pretty sure that if you made the statement “the South African government has its head up its butt when it comes to HIV” or “Merkel is Bush’s poodle” you wouldn’t get instantly told “that’s racist” or “that’s sexist”. I’m not sure why that difference is there–perhaps because you aren’t criticizing the only black country or only woman head of state with these criticisms. Alternately, perhaps because (except maybe Zimbawe), the countries in question are not specifically “black” or “female” countries the way Israel is a “Jewish” country. But then, if that’s the difference shouldn’t all criticism of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc be considered innately anti-Islamic? Perhaps it is considered so in some circles. Sorry, I don’t seem to have a clear point or position in all this.
joe,
It is not at all clear (to me anyway) that criticizing the policies of the government of Israel is detrimental to Jews (either to all Jews or to Jews in Israel), so it is not at all clear that criticism of the policies of the government of Israel are equivalent to color-blind racism. If criticizing the policies of the Israeli government were shown to be actively harmful to Jews, I would certainly be much more hesitant to criticize the government of Israel (actually, I find that I currently spend more time defending the right of Israel to exist than I spend criticizing its policies).
Indeed, one can argue that the policies of the government of the state of Israel are harmful to the welfare of Jews either in Israel or elsewhere, so I suppose that would make the policies of the government of Israel the anti-semitic equivalent of color-blind racism. However, as I am extremely confident that the government of Israel is engaging in its policies with the intent of being favorable to Jews, such a criticism would seem somewhat unfair (equivalent to claiming that AA policies are actually harmful to black people, and therefore racist – actually more extreme, since AA is not primarily instituted by black people, while the government of Israel is overwhelmingly Jewish).
I agree, It would depend on the policy in question. But I can’t remember the list time I read an external criticism of Israel about anything other than their national defense, right to exist, or the situation with the Palestinians.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
My general assumption is that criticism of Israel that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist is based in antisemitism or tied to antisemitism.
Questioning the right of all colonial states to exist is perfectly valid, but singling out Israel is extremely suspect. Israel is the last colonial state to come into existence (that I know of), but it is very far from being the last colonial state in existence.
Sailorman: I think Amp already illustrated my unease with the ideas you appeared to be espousing. You can’t say groups such as “women” or “illegal immigrants” are analogous to “the State of Israel.”
Rachel S.: I don’t think that David S. was somehow making the claim that Israel is racism-free, merely that in his opinion the Israeli-Palestinian troubles don’t break down along “racial lines” in any way as neatly as many of Israel’s critics claim.
And I have to agree. Both criticism of Israel in the media and from the people I’ve heard in real life has many times implied that some of the issues that Israelis have with Palestinians is that while the Palestinians are brown, Israelis–or at least all Jewish Israelis–are white. Which is not true, no matter what your opinion of Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians is.
However, unlike David, I don’t think that the “racial divide” charge is “trumped up”: I think that the people who use it honestly believe that all Jewish people are white European Ashkenazi stereotypes and would be shocked to learn that there are Jews of colour. Which is, of course, a whole other can of worms.
Sorry for double-posting, but I missed Charle’s last comment somehow.
That is actually something that I’ve thought for some time now. And I’d extend it even beyond colonial states. States such as Britain, Spain and France, just for starters, also depended on subjugating and marginalising indigenous populations, at least in some parts of their present-day territories. I’m sure the list could go on and on.
If we’re going to argue that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist, I don’t see how we can logically defend the existence of pretty much every other nation-state. Because some of them have been around for a few years longer? Of course, if we’re going to argue that nation-states are inherently bad and shouldn’t exist, that’s a defensible position, but then why focus so much on Israel?
Sorry, just one more thing, in response to Dianne (#27): Actually, I think a lot of people DO consider criticism of Zimbabwe to be based on racism. Just not usually North Americans or Europeans.
And to tell the truth, a lot of the criticisms that are made do actually smack of racism–which I find incomprehensible because you’d think that with regimes like Mugabe’s it’d be easy to find enough to legitimately criticise without descending into bigotry.
Likewise, I’d bet that many of Merkel’s critics have been accused of sexism. I’m also pretty sure that a fair number of them have couched their criticism of her in sexist terms, that being the way these things tend to work. (That’s all speculation, btw, I’ve never heard any criticism of her–I’m just basing my ideas on how I’ve seen other female politicians treated.)
These kinds of conflations and distinctions are why I gave up on being actively political, some years ago, and while I’ve kind of un-given-up since then for various reasons, I’m still not sure what to do about them.
I was talking with a friend recently, and he mentioned he’d chewed out someone in an online discussion recently because they moved the target. By which is meant, a maneuver in which someone posits an idea in theoretical language (usually using the versions of words that refer to all people of a type, or similar) and then, when called on a flaw in their idea, defends it in personal language.
This goes like:
(Zionist debater:) Israel can do no ill.
(Anti-Zionist debater:) Actually, they’ve done this, this and that ill just in the last few months…
(Zionist debater:) Look, there’s all this antisemitism, and every time I post I get people posting something like the antisemite crank spam on Amp’s blog, and if you don’t believe me about this, You Do Not Know My Pain!
(Anti-Zionist debater:)…
I’m using those as examples because of the discussion context. But, I’ve been thinking about it, and this kind of distinction (and the way the level of discourse drops when the distinction is removed) is all of why I really like bell hooks, and can’t manage to read Andrea Dworkin.
Mind you, the problem is not using personal data in a political context, which I think is essential: political contexts are meaningless without the associated personal context. The difficulty is when a debater jumps tracks from talking about a problem that occupies some part of their life to talking about a problem that must be dealt with on a society-wide scale. The movements of all people are simply not discernable from the movements of one person, and projections that work this way simply don’t seem to work so well.
Amp and Rachel,
Scary ass comments and definitely no problem with misunderstanding the anti-semitism in them.
I think the fine line for me is trying to understand where the criticism is coming from? And as you said, Amp, there’s a big difference with criticizing the government of Israel and Jews even though there some blurry examples…
Cryst said,
I would say this is one of those cases were such criticism is suspect. My understanding of the criticism of racializing Palestinians (Rachel, please feel free to let me know if I’m mistaken here) comes from the identities that are constructed around what constitutes an Israeli… Lumping Arab Israelis as Israeli Arab and Jewish Israelis as simply Israeli not Israeli Jewish… is a form of racializing groups. The point here is that not only does it de-legitimize the core identity of the largest non-Jewish group in Israel by (unofficially?) making it incongruent to be BOTH Palestinian and Israeli, it further creates a schism in Palestinian identity and to some extent solidarity.
The other part of this issue of identity is the fact that a Jewish State seems somewhat incongruent with the identity of its non-Jewish nationals. This is the other valid concern that (although honest and vigorous debates are happening in and outside of Israel) is often conflated with and co-opted by anti-semitic reasoning that questions Israel’s right to exist. It is also important to note that there are non-Jewish supporters of Israel (certain fundamentalist Christians and Nativists her in the U.S. for example) who are of the opinion that (American) jews have no legitimate claim on any national identity outside of Israel, and thus couching their anti-semitism in solidarity.
First of all, woman and illegal immigrants are quite different, yes? one describes a natural trait of sex. one is a legal status resulting from a conscious choice. Yes few seem to protest equivalent language being applied to both groups.
I am not saying that Israel is entitled to the exact same protections or status as is every other group. I am noting that as a general rule there seem to be certain general protections–the two I described being the most obvious to me–that are assigned to protected groups, and which in theory could be applied to isreal.
So what happens when folks want to lose those protections? usually there’s a big to do. Not so much here, which is my point.
Your response is actually an example of my point. not atht you personally have said anything wrong IMO (sorry to use it in this way): For Israel, it seems people are extremely willing to discount the potential effect of their actions; it seems folks are willing to easily ‘explain them away.’
So you get
“Israel is a state, not a religion”
and
“Israel is not like women’s rights” or “…not like illegal immigration”
and so on–and that seems to be it.
Let’s use illegal immigration as a continued good example. Say someone is protesting against illegal immigrants using language from the civil rights movement. they note that POC status is what you’re born with, while illegal immigrant status is what you choose to acquire.
Would that easily be the end of the conversation? I don’t think so. but for Israel, it seems folks are all too willing to fold.
Do you see the difference? The potential anti-semitism I’m talking about isn’t necessarily reflected in the end result. It’s in the path we use to get to the result.
(damn. As i reread this I realize I used a lot of “you” when I meant “one.” I am not intending to call you, crys, an anti semite. At all. i’m trying to have a more theoretical discussion, and I just happen to be responding to you.)
Sailorman: Yes, “women” and “illegal immigrants” are by no means analogous–either with each other or with “the State of Israel.” And I don’t see many people, at least not people here, who would try to claim that you can use the same language in dealing with women’s issues as you can illegal immigrants’ issues (and let’s not even get into the implications there that category “illegal immigrants” doesn’t have a lot of overlap with category “women”).
I also take enormous exception to your use of the term “protected groups” to describe those two categories. Protected exactly by whom? Certainly not society at large. If anything, women and illegal immigrants are groups that are regularly attacked by most levels of society on a daily basis.
And no, I have to say I don’t see how your example of illegal immigrant status vs. POC status would apply to the way we talk about Israel/Jews. After all, by no means all Israelis are in agreement with their government’s and armed forces’ treatment of Palestinians, while 100% of illegal immigrants are, by definition, illegal. Also, though you are born a POC, and you might possibly be born both Jewish & Israeli, the latter two are identities you can always choose to acquire later in life (though of course your access to them may be restricted by others), for example by religious conversion or being a foreign national who applies for Israeli citizenship. I think I’m completely missing your point.
I really really hate it when certain pro-Israel people try to deliberatly confound the diffferences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It’s s easy to dismiss your opponents when you can just ignore them for being bigots, so it shuts down debate, which is why they’ve been doing it.
But there are some rather negative consequences. It drowns out ciritcism of real anti-Semites. Part of this is the boy-who-cried-wolf problem, but a much larger part is that those denouncing fake anti-Semitism are using up all the bandwidth.
Secondly, I think it actually encourages real anti-Semitism, in two ways. One is that people get confused by the assertion that condemning Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is equivalent to condemning Jews. I once did a peace protest in a small town and the other protestors were grumbling that the local Rabbi had complained about their signs pertaining to Palestine. “The trouble with Jews . . .” one of them started kvetching. These pacifists were extremely cluless, but I doubt their calls for peace in Palestine were anti-semetic. But having being told that criticising Isreal was the same as criticising Jews, they started doing just that. This is hugely problematic.
The second encouragement is that this confusion pretty much gives a free pass to some deeply anti-semetic evangelical christians. They support Israel because of something about Jesus coming back, but they are really very bigotted towards Jews. This communicates to these folks that hating Jews is fine, as long as you still work for the return of your savior by supporting Israel.
Finally, it drives me crazy because it’s just another version of “why do you hate America?” “why do you hate men?” “why do you hate Jews?” Augh! Shut up! Shut up! shut up! I don’t hate anybody I just have some political criticisms. augh!
This is always a complicated conversation but it seems to me that Amp comes as close as we’re likely to get to a clarifying the issues
Pingback: A reminder of how the Blahgs take orders... « Marisacat
Les writes:
I’d have a much easier time condemning Israel if the rest of the planet took time out of the busy lives condemning Israel to condemn the surrounding countries.