The U.K.’s All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism just released a report on anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom. (Via Haaretz.) A few highlights:
– Anti-Semitic incidents (violence, vandalism, etc.) increased roughly five-fold between 1984 and 2004 (7).
– According to the report, “…criticism of Zionism is not in itself antisemitic. However, in some quarters an antisemitic discourse has developed that is in effect antisemitic because it views Zionism itself as a global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history. This definition of Zionism bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept; that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation, born in the late nineteenth century, with a geographical focus limited to Israel…. The EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism, quoted in full on page 6, identifies some of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour… Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation… Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (for example claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis… Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis… Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. The EUMC Definition goes on to state that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” (17-18).
– Extremist groups commonly use “Zionist” as a codeword for “Jew,” and many others repeat this rhetoric, often unaware of what they’re actually saying (18). (Note that when the discussion doesn’t center on Israel, other common code words include “New York liberal,” “Hollywood liberal,” and “New Yorker.”)
– Comparisons of Israel to the Nazis are used to suggest that “the world and the Jews are now ‘even'” and “cancel out the world’s empathy for Jewish suffering” (19). In other words, the comparisons attempt to paint Jews as villains who deserve what we got. (I still maintain that many Nazi comparisons are just lazy – after all, people get called Nazis all the time – but there’s a steady stream of Israeli=Nazi propaganda coming from extremist groups.)
– The idea that Jews are secretly controlling the world still has numerous incarnations, from theories that AIPAC caused the Iraq war to the idea that Jews planned 9/11 (20) to the rumors that Tony Blair has been influenced by a “Jewish cabal” (see the Haaretz article).
– Jews are frequently suspected of dual loyalty, and are tolerated only as long as we conform completely to the culture around us (whether that culture is white, progressive, conservative, middle-class, etc.) (20). Jews are often told (usually implicitly, I’ve found) that we can’t have any positive or complicated feelings toward Israel if we want to be allies (35); if we don’t hate Israel 100%, then we’re obviously racist right-wingers parading as progressives.
– Although far-right extremist groups still engage in anti-Semitic behavior and rhetoric, there’s evidence that anti-Semitism is now more common in the left wing. Legitimate criticism of Israel often crosses the line into anti-Semitism (32); however, because Leftists see themselves as immune from prejudice, it’s hard to convince people that they’ve said or done something anti-Semitic (33). (I myself hear nonstop complaints about the vast armies of Jews who use frivolous charges of anti-Semitism to shut down discussion. But, seeing as they never seem to make an appearance, I suspect that they’re a much tinier minority than people think. Yes, there are often arguments and even fights over whether something is anti-Semitic or not. But the same is true of any forum for discussing racism and discrimination.)
– Anti-Semitic incidents have been increasing on college campuses: “…a brick was thrown through the window of a Jewish student residence and a poster bearing the words “Slaughter the Jews” was pasted on its front door. A knife was stuck in the door of another Jewish student’s residence. A series of similar motions were proposed across the country, six of which were passed, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and calling for a boycott of Israeli goods” (40). (Note: I don’t consider comparisons to apartheid inherently anti-Semitic. But a boycott of Israeli goods and professors, along with a severing of ties with Israeli institutions, is a prime example of the double standard described above, and holds everyone with ties to Israel collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.)
There’s a lot more information in the report, along with a ton of examples of various anti-Semitic incidents and rhetoric. It’s long, but worth the read.
(Cross-posted at Modern Mitzvot)
Pingback: New Report on Anti-Semitism « Modern Mitzvot
I don’t think that there are literal “vast armies.” But there certainly are a good number of Jews, some of them prominent, who make unfair accusations of anti-Semitism in response to criticism of Israel. There’s no way to prove if something has a “chilling effect” on speech or not, but I’d be surprised if unfair accusations of anti-Semitism hasn’t had a chilling effect on criticism of Israel.
Jimmy Carter was called an anti-Semite after his book criticizing Israel came out. Desmond Tutu was accused of anti-Semitism after he criticized Israel. Noam Chomsky is infamous for being an anti-Semite because he defended the free speech rights of a holocaust revisionist. Essays by influential academics, such as this one and this one, define anti-Semitism so broadly that it’s impossible to imagine what harsh criticism or political action against Israel wouldn’t be considered anti-Semite.
Those are high-profile cases, but it happens in less-known incidents, too. On my college alumni list, I’ve been called a “Nazi” because I’ve drawn cartoons critical of Israel. In San Francisco last year, a gallery owner was accused of wishing “murderous extinction upon every Jewish man, woman and child in the world today” because he didn’t want to publish an exhibition catalog filled with extremist Zionist [*] essays.
[*] The word Zionist has more than one meaning. One such meaning refers to the position that says that Israel is not at fault at all in the ongoing conflict, the settlements should remain in place, etc.. That’s how I’m using the word. When I say I’m anti-Zionist, I am definitely not saying that Israel should be wiped off the map, or anything of that nature.
I don’t consider comparisons to apartheid inherently anti-Semitic. But a boycott of Israeli goods and professors, along with a severing of ties with Israeli institutions, is a prime example of the double standard described above, and holds everyone with ties to Israel collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
Probably stupid question, but during the Apartheid era, weren’t people calling for complete divestment from South Africa including severing all ties with South African institutions? Or did I simply misunderstand what was being called for?
Right, but I think a lot of people work off the assumption that most Jews make spurious accusations of anti-Semitism.
I don’t think that there are literal “vast armies.” But there certainly are a good number of Jews, some of them prominent, who make unfair accusations of anti-Semitism in response to criticism of Israel. There’s no way to prove if something has a “chilling effect” on speech or not, but I’d be surprised if unfair accusations of anti-Semitism hasn’t had a chilling effect on criticism of Israel.
Jimmy Carter was called an anti-Semite after his book criticizing Israel came out. Desmond Tutu was accused of anti-Semitism after he criticized Israel. Noam Chomsky is infamous for being an anti-Semite because he defended the free speech rights of a holocaust revisionist. Essays by influential academics, such as this one and this one, define anti-Semitism so broadly that it’s impossible to imagine what harsh criticism or political action against Israel wouldn’t be considered anti-Semite.
Those are high-profile cases, but it happens in less-known incidents, too. On my college alumni list, I’ve been called a “Nazi” because I’ve drawn cartoons critical of Israel. In San Francisco last year, a gallery owner was accused of wishing “murderous extinction upon every Jewish man, woman and child in the world today” because he didn’t want to publish an exhibition catalog filled with extremist Zionist [*] essays.
Mmm…. I’m going with GD’s original thought on this. Cast aside the particulars of the cases we’re talking about (Chomsky, for example, didn’t just “defend the free speech rights” of a Holocaust denier — he said that Holocaust denial was not anti-Semitic at all. Carter, among other things in his book, said that Palestinian suicide bombing should only stop once Israel accepts all international agreements and a peace roadmap — a statement he has since apologized for). I think the bigger problem is that you have a very conventional view of what anti-Semitism is: incidental rather than structural, aberrant rather than fundamental.
What has been going on as of late is a growing emphasis by Jewish speakers on the structural and institutional dimensions of anti-Semitism, rather than agreeing to rely on an outdated and sorely limited definition that restricts itself to rabid hate and/or violence. I remarked in the Zionist Five thread that the traditional intentionalist model of anti-Semitism works about as well for its subject as it does for racism or sexism — which is to say, not at all.
We need to look more critically and radically than that, focusing on the underlying assumptions which drive who deserves what, who is doing what, and why they’re doing it. It doesn’t matter whether Jimmy Carter in his heart of hearts wants Jews to die. It matters what the practical upshot will be for the Jewish community if his vision of reality comes to life. Same with the gallery owners: what does it mean for the Jewish people if you oppose religion in all forms? I’d say it means something very bad, and that’s problematic from a Jewish perspective regardless of whether the gallery owners say or believe that they’re stone-cold haters. My experience with the folks saying “anti-Semitism is alleged at the drop of a hat” is that they usually consider themselves innocent so long as they aren’t actively demanding the death of Jews. To people serious about the liberation of all people, that is not the bar one has to leap in order to say “I’m a progressive.”
As I’ve said here and elsewhere, this is anti-subordination 101 (well, maybe 201). The primary chill in the discourse, to my mind, has been from leftists who are waging a furious rear-guard action against any expansion of anti-Semitism to meet the developments we made in anti-subordination theory. And that ain’t right.
[*] The word Zionist has more than one meaning. One such meaning refers to the position that says that Israel is not at fault at all in the ongoing conflict, the settlements should remain in place, etc.. That’s how I’m using the word. When I say I’m anti-Zionist, I am definitely not saying that Israel should be wiped off the map, or anything of that nature.
Ummm…no. That is not “a meaning” of Zionist. At best, that’s a co-optation of Zionist (and one which, in literal form, is adhered to by virtually nobody — in the sense that few people would say the sin qua non of Zionism is (a) support for settlements and (b) refusal to admit that Israel ever does anything wrong). In any event, nobody on the planet hears the descriptor “anti-Zionist” and thinks “someone who opposes settlements” — and, to the extent that that is the message some people might hear, it is not what the predominantly left readership of this blog would take to mean when it hears “anti-Zionist”, which connotes shall we say, more radical, perspectives on what to do with the state of Israel.
Actually, I looked at the first two links in your comment, and I have a couple of thoughts –
I haven’t read Rosenfield’s essay yet, but this line from Yglesias’ post struck me:
While criticism of Israel as a Jewish state isn’t anti-Semitic – there are compelling arguments for a one-state solution, just as there are compelling arguments against it – I think it’s reasonable to investigate whether such critics are advocating in favor of Palestinian self-determination or against Jewish self-determination. (When I see signs saying “Smash the Jewish State,” I can’t help but conclude that it’s the latter.) Also, if critics are making the same arguments as anti-Semitic extremists, I would agree that that’s cause for further examination.
As for the second article, while I’m loathe to agree with Larry Summers, a focus on Israel and not other US-funded criminal states is worth questioning. It’s certainly not offensive to consider withdrawing federal funds – in fact, I think that’d be the fastest and most effective way to halt settlement expansion and the Gaza blockade – but despite legitimate specialization, many arguments against Israel do closely resemble extremist arguments that “Israel is the worst nation on Earth” or that “Zionism is the biggest threat to mankind.” That doesn’t automatically make such specialization anti-Semitic, but those who engage in it should be willing to discuss it with Jews who are concerned.
My point is this: claiming that a position or statement is anti-Semitic isn’t the same as deliberately trying to quell all criticism. It’s worth it to start the discussion. Obviously calling someone a Nazi or claiming they want all Jews to die is ridiculous, but I see much more eye-rolling at legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism than I do spurious charges.
David writes:
David, to quote myself regarding Chomsky:
So what did Chomsky actually say about the Holocaust? “The Holocaust was the most extreme atrocity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we are even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes.”
Carter never said that. Carter did say that it’s essential for the Palestinian leadership to commit to making terrorism end if Israel agreed to a substantial peace process.
(Carter’s exact words: “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.”)
If I say “Batgirl, you have to swear to Supergirl that if she agrees to negotiate, you’ll definitely return Krypto the superdog to her,” it’s not logical or honest for you to claim I’ve said that it’s right for Batgirl to kidnap Supergirl’s dog, or that Batgirl should not consider returning Supergirl’s dog under any circumstance but the one I mentioned.
Carter did apologize for the wording, because so many people interpreted it the way you did. However, the wording of Carter’s apology also made it clear that he didn’t intend the passage the way some people have interpreted it.
As both the above examples show, rather than giving critics of Israel a reasonable benefit of the doubt, you find the least charitable and fair interpretation of what they say. It’s a good example of exactly the sort of behavior I’m criticizing.
I simply don’t believe that anyone can spend a long career, or even a book-length criticism of Israel, without ever saying a single sentence that can, removed from context and interpreted without charity, support the conclusion that they are anti-Semitic. Your standards are unreasonable.
There’s a lot more I want to respond to, but I have to go do something else for a while — more later.
GD, I agree with you that these things are worth examination and discussion; and I’m quite willing to have that discussion. But the discussion can’t end at “anyone who criticizes Israel without equally criticizing every other bad state in the world has acted in an anti-Semitic fashion.”
I think that, depending on the speaker and the context, it’s possible for a claim of anti-Semitism to be either an attempt to close discussion, or an attempt to open discussion. It would be inaccurate to say that it is always the former or always the latter.
David, I certainly agree that anti-Semitism is not limited to only acts of rabid hate or violence. However, I can agree to that without agreeing to standards that have the same outcome as simply saying “harsh criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.”
His vision is for a stable, peaceful two-state solution, along the lines of Camp David.
But the particular case of Carter aside, I’d question your standards, because it doesn’t make room for any considerations other than the upshot for the Jewish community. What about the upshot for the Palestinians? If Bob advocates a policy that would slightly harm the interest of the Israeli portion of the Jewish community (for instance, by giving Palestinians more water rights than they currently have), but greatly improve the human rights situation for the Palestinians, that would presumably be anti-Semitic by the standard you describe, since your standards don’t allow us to ask “what is the most just outcome overall?” — it only allows us to ask “what is good for the Jews?”
This is a particularly thorny problem with Israel/Palestine negotiations, because — assuming that a one-state solution is not plausible — in many cases advocating a two-state solution will bring us to zero-sum situations.
Furthermore, what if we reach a situation — as, arguably, we already have — in which the status quo is, overall,
very healthyacceptable for Israel, but a state of permanent injustice for Palestinians? If any advocacy of justice for Palestine means that Israel has to give something up; and if what “the practical upshot will be for the Jewish community” is at the heart of our understanding of anti-Semitism; then it would follow that any advocacy of justice for Palestinians is structurally anti-Semitic.An anti-subordination view of anti-Semitism quickly becomes problematic in any discussion of Israel, because Israeli Jews are simply not the subordinated party in the Israel/Palestine hierarchy.
I do think the anti-subordination view of anti-Semitism makes a lot more sense if we’re limiting our discussion to Jews in the US, or in some other non-Israel context. I thought you made some really excellent points along these lines regarding the double-standard in how the Supreme Court has treated religious accommodation for Christians as opposed to Jews, for instance.
However, your use of anti-subordination politics has the effect of making it anti-Semitic to object to the subordination of Palestinians by Israel, in any terms other than the mildest. In effect, you’re using anti-subordination to support subordination. (I keep on saying “in effect” because I don’t believe this is your intent.)
Finally, I’m backing off my definition of Zionist. I think it’s a pointless semantic argument, and anyway I’m probably in the wrong.
This is bogus, for the very reasons you objected to in your Batgirl analogy. That our anti-Semitism inquiry ought, rightly, focus on the needs, rights, and interests of the Jewish community does not preclude other avenues of analysis (such as the needs, rights, and interests of the Palestinians). It just notes that, obviously, these are separate inquiries. You aren’t going to get at what Palestinians deserve only through looking at Jews, nor vice versa.
Nor does my standard sanction infinite attainment for Jews, up to marginal gains for them exchanged for huge losses for others. I’m drawing my analysis here from Carmichael’s Black Power treatise. We’re talking about interests up to what it takes for Jews to live safely, with equal dignity and representation in local and global communities. Saying we need to look at and defend Black interests does not mean I’m anti-anti-racist if I oppose a worldvision of absolute Black control and White slavery. Likewise for Jews — superordination is not what qualifies as an “interest” under anti-subordination analysis. An “upshot” for Jews which solidifies our equal standing and protects our rights is facially just.
This is, at best, a Croson problem. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson, Co. saw the Supreme Court strike down a minority set-aside program in the city of Richmond, which was majority-Black. The Court reasoned that since Blacks couldn’t be subordinated in a polity which they controlled, the program was unconstitutional — indeed, a simple act of racial spoils.
But of course, Richmond does not exist in a void — it exists as part of a broader polity and community in which Blacks most certainly are subordinated and do face (among other barriers) discrimination in contracting businesses. When you’re talking about systematic type of oppression like racism, it doesn’t simply disappear once you hit a border. Why should we have a Af-Am studies department at Howard? Because the mere fact of a majority Black environment somewhere isn’t sufficient to off-set the broader current of White supremacy.
And so it is with Israel. Even granting that Israel represents a localized case of Jewish privilege (which I will concede, though I think it’s more problematic than you make it out to be — most privileged situations don’t come with falling rockets), it is not isolated from the broader currents of anti-Semitic subordination. It lives in the global community, which remains fundamentally anti-Semitic (as expressed through, among others, the UN). And even the actions of seemingly unrelated polities matter, because part of Israel’s raison d’etre is serving as a haven for Jews oppressed anywhere. If, for example, Russia starts up again on the pogroms, Israel is expected to serve as a safe harbor for fleeing Jews. It is thus wrong to use localized power as a ward to neutralize anti-subordination analysis when the broader situation remains unchanged. Ideology, power, oppression — these are fungible concepts. Their pertinence does not end at jurisdictional borders.
Lovely. And the Republicans’ vision on race issues is for a harmonious, fair, integrated society with equality of opportunity.
I’m not casting doubt on Carter’s belief by saying that. I think that most Republicans do believe in that as the end goal. However, that’s not a defense when the framing, policies, and rhetoric forwarded actually perpetuate an unjust social arrangement. The question isn’t what Carter wants, it’s what Carter’s statements do. When Republicans say that they want racial equality, but lay the blame for its non-realization at the hands of “Ghetto culture” and affirmative action, we nail them on the specifics, not the ideal. It’s not enough to mean well, you have to do well. Again, the intentionalist framework you’re forwarding here is insufficient.
I wish I had more time. This comment by Amp caught my eye:
And I am not disagreeing with anyone here, I simply want to point out that, while this is statement is certainly true as a matter of principle, when the pattern, over decades, has been that Israel has been criticized while other states have not–and I am talking here about states that receive US aid and who use that aid in ways that are clearly oppressive–it is difficult not to feel like Israel is being unfairly singled out, even when the criticism of Israel is unambiguously a valid one. More to the point, the pattern I am talking about is part of the structural antisemitism that David is talking about, and so while Amp is correct that it is impossible and an unreasonable demand for every conversation in which Israel is criticized to also include critiques of other bad states, and while it may be incorrect to label any given critique of Israel that does not also critique other bad states antisemitic, at least acknowledging the pattern, should it become an issue–the way we expect people to acknowledge white or male or heterosexual or abled (is that the right term?) privilege in analogous contexts–is a way of clearly distinguishing the non-antisemitic from the antisemitic species of this discussion.
And, similarly, and of course, labeling a conversation antisemitic simply because this acknowledgment is not made up front, as a way of dismissing a critique of Israel, is also wrong.
[Note from Amp: I’ve changed the text color on Petar’s comments on this thread to white, making them more-or-less impossible to read, unless you choose to read them by using your mouse to select the text.]
David, I find the views expressed above disgusting. Anyone who can justify unfairness inside a set of borders because the roles are reversed outside is supporting a cycle of injustice. The same, and worse, goes for people who explain their oppression of innocents because of a shared trait with the perpetrators/victims of earlier crimes.As far as I am concerned, the Holocaust can explain some of the less savory actions of Israel’s politicians and military, but cannot justify any of them. Note that most, but not all of these can be easily justified with the need for security and the right of self-defense.
But the second one claims the right to starve Palestinian non-combatants because one’s grandparents starved worse in a concentration camp… one has lost all and any moral ground.
Oh, and to let you help you tar me with the anti-Semite brush:
My great-grandfather died leading a doomed-before-it-started riot against a government that ordered the killing of the village’s horses because they were going to be replaced with the cooperative’s tractors. As a result, my family lost its name, and I did not get to meet my grandfather until I had been deemed politically VERY sound. All this over a trivial matter like a bunch of dumb animals and the Tatar lifestyle.
So forgive me for having having less sympathy for people who orderly walked into trains, camps and gas chambers than for those who died with a rifle in the their hands. But no matter how much respect I have for my great-grandfather, his death does not give me the right to, lets say, beat up people who express Communist or Collectivist values . The desire? Sometimes. The right? Never. The same goes for Jews, Native Americans, and anyone else.
Petar writes: “So forgive me for having having less sympathy for people who orderly walked into trains, camps and gas chambers than for those who died with a rifle in the their hands.”
Er no, you’re not forgiven, first for regurgitating the ‘lambs to the slaughter’ lie, and second for dismissing genocide as somehow less important than dying in combat. What the fuck?
Peter, I find the views expressed above incoherent. To the extent I grasped it, the argument was that (a) injustice against group A in place X doesn’t justify A oppressing group B in place Y (thanks for knocking down that strawman — I never disagreed), and (b) Jews aren’t worthy of our sympathy in the Holocaust because they didn’t revolt (except when they did, such as in Warsaw — but frankly I don’t care either way). Oh and (c) because your relatives did react violently in response to injustice, you’re immune to charges of anti-Semitism. No, wait, that fits in the incoherent category.
“So forgive me for having having less sympathy for people who orderly walked into trains, camps and gas chambers than for those who died with a rifle in the their hands.”
Fuck you, Petar. That’s disgusting.
[Note from Amp: I’ve changed the text color on Petar’s comments on this thread to white, making them more-or-less impossible to read, unless you choose to read them by using your mouse to select the text.]
> Peter, I find the views expressed above incoherent.I am sure you do, but after rereading my post and yours, I think the problem is with either with your emotional involvement, your mastery of English, or your capacity for logical thought.
> a) injustice against group A in place X doesn’t justify A oppressing group B
> in place Y
Please explain to me how the above is a strawman?!
> Even granting that Israel represents a localized case of Jewish
> privilege (which I will concede, though I think it’s more problematic
> than you make it out to be — most privileged situations don’t come
> with falling rockets), it is not isolated from the broader currents of
> anti-Semitic subordination. It lives in the global community, which
> remains fundamentally anti-Semitic (as expressed through, among
> others, the UN).
Jewish priviledge -> group A oppressing any group but A
Israel -> Y
global community -> X
Unless ‘is not isolated’ is not an attempt for you to justify Jewish privilege. It sure read like this to me.
> (b) Jews aren’t worthy of our sympathy in the Holocaust because
> they didn’t revolt (except when they did, such as in Warsaw — but
> frankly I don’t care either way
First, the ones that revolted in Warsaw, Jidovski Organizatzia Boiova, have all my respect, but they were the exception, not the rule. You do realize that those who rebelled made up less than a thousandth of the people originally concentrated in that ghetto, and they rebelled only when the Germans had gone through 90% of it? When I was speaking of the people less deserving of sympathy, I did not mean JOB, nor the Jews who grabbed a pistol or an axe to try to protect their families… I mean the others, and I think it was damn clear. “Jewish Organization – Fighting” vs “people who orderly walked into trains, camps and gas chambers”. See a bit of a difference?
Second, since when is ‘less sympathy’ the same as ‘no sympathy’? Yes, my sympathy would be stronger if they had fought. As most humans, I sympathize more easily when I can identify with someone. I know there are people who respect pacifistic martyrdoom more than they respect violent opposition to oppression. You can guess how much I respect those.
Third, you picked some words out of an argument that went: in my eyes, A is more sympathetic than B. Still, the fate of A does not justify future oppression, thus neither does the fate of B. Where you got ‘I do not care’ about the fate of B, I do not know.
> (c) because your relatives did react violently in response to
> injustice, you’re immune to charges of anti-Semitism.
Where the fucking Hell did you get that? I explicitly said that I am opening myself to charges of anti-Semitism, by admitting that I have more sympathy for those that died with a weapon in their hands than for the millions of concentration camp victims, especially when the former are relatives of mine. I do not think that makes me anti-Semite, but I would understand people who would think so.
And:
Petar, thanks for your interest in “Alas” over the years. With all due respect, however, I don’t like what you’re adding to the conversation. Please do not post comments on “Alas” any more. Best wishes to you.
I assumed you were being sarcastic, but if you want the anti-Semitism brush thrown at you, I’m very happy to oblige. It’s rare that folks are so gleefully excited about it, which threw me. That being said, I agree with Mandolin that this is more generic than specified twistedness — I have no idea what instinct drives you to cast judgment on how victims of horrifying mass atrocity responded to their genocide, but it is not one I recognize as being possessed by human beings.
Beyond that, the lack of understanding about what including an analytical framework of Jewish subordination in a discussion about Israel might mean (hint: it’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card) renders the rest of this discussion quite useless. The pertinence of globalized anti-Semitism not ending at the borders of a localized case of relative Jewish privilege means we still have to discuss anti-Semitism even when we’re talking about Israel. But, as I wrote above:
Huh, I was just writing an email to you guys asking whether or not he ought to be banned.
—Myca
My apologies, all – I saw Petar’s first comment while I was at work, but the firewall prevented me from logging in to moderate. Thanks, Amp, for taking care of it.
Pingback: MuzzleWatch » A Few Summer Highlights
This does not appear to be working, FYI. Though I am glad, in an odd way, that i could more easily make myself read them. Yuck.
It works in Google Chrome, but turns out not to work in Firefox, and also not in whatever browser you’re using. Oh, well, I changed it to strike-out, which does work in FF.
Keep in mind that I entered this thread to disagree with GD’s implication that unfairly accusing good-faith critics of Israel hardly ever happens (“seeing as they never seem to make an appearance”).
It doesn’t seem that anyone is actually disagreeing with me on that point. GD did say that we have to be open to critical examination of statements criticizing Israel, and whether or not they’re anti-Semitic, and I agree with that.
I’m mentioning that because I don’t want my main point to be lost in this discussion. That said, I do want to comment on some of the related (and more interesting) issues David brought up. David writes:
I don’t think they can be separate inquiries.
I take it as given that an anti-Semitic statement or policy is one that is unreasonable. Anti-Semitism, by definition, is wrong. So we shouldn’t be able to conclude that such-and-such a policy is anti-Semitic but nonetheless right.
However, if we don’t allow the anti-Semitism inquiry to consider anything but “the practical upshot for the Jewish community,” we will inevitably run into cases in which policies which are, on balance, the right thing for the world as a whole nonetheless contain some sort of negative “practical upshot for the Jewish community.”
Maybe that’s not what you mean when you say “separate.” If you’re saying that any inquiry into anti-Semitism needs to “focus on the needs, rights, and interests of the Jewish community,” while simultaneously keeping in mind other contexts if they’re relevant, then I agree.
“Equal standing” compared to whom, though? In a situation in which Israel is “equally standing” on Palestinian necks, a view that Israelis should be viewed primarily as victims of worldwide subordination is not “facially just.”
Your comparison is dead wrong, David, because Palestinians in Israel and Palestine are not analogous to White people anywhere in the US.
In Palestine and Israel, there is a system of Israeli dominance. So it would be ignorant (for instance) if someone argued that Palestinians cannot suffer from Israeli subjugation in Gaza. That would be analogous to Croson, because — to rephrase you — Gaza does not exist in a void — it exists as part of a broader polity in which Palestinians most certainly are subordinated.
The Court was wrong in Croson, because they ignored the broader polity in which Whites subordinate Blacks. And you are wrong to analogize Blacks to Israelis and Whites to Palestinians, because
you’re ignoringthe comparison inherently ignores the broader polity in which Israel subordinates Palestinians.Actually, it’s common for the subordinating class to fear violent attack from the subordinated class: think of Nat Turner, or of the African National Congress during Apartheid. Or of the constant (and mostly unjustified) fear of black rioting during the civil rights era. For that matter, there was a good reason Pharoah wanted to keep the Jews in Egypt weak, in the Bible story.
(I’m not saying that Israel/Palestine is analogous to Nat Turner, etc, in the particulars; I’m only pointing out that it is, in fact, not at all unknown for privileged situations to come with fear of violence.)
It is, of course, true that Israel is not in a world apart from worldwide anti-Semitism — but neither, I’m sure you’ll agree, is it in a world apart from the world in which Israel subjugates Palestinians.
It’s equally wrong to use the broader situation as an excuse for attacking critics of how “localized power” consists of Israel oppressing Palestine, by accusing them unfairly of anti-Semitism. (There are also cases in which the concerns about anti-Semitism are completely justified, of course.)
I’m not asking that you, and other defenders of Israel, stop defending Israel, or stop protesting against anti-Semitism. I’m just saying that unfair accusations of anti-Semitism do happen, and they happen particularly often to liberals and leftists protesting mistreatment of Palestinians by Israel.
Well here’s the rub, now ain’t it. Obviously, I concede that does happen, and surely you concede that sometimes these liberal/leftists protesting Palestinian mistreatment in an anti-Semitic fashion do play the “anti-Semitism card card” to block off legitimate inquiry as to whether anti-Semitism is happening. The race card versus the race card card and all that. The question, of course and as as always, is which happens more often, and that’s where I take it we disagree.
Incidentally, I think the relevant point of comparison on a global scale isn’t Palestinians and Israelis, but Jews and Arabs. That is, Israel/Palestine is a localized case scenario of the globalized relationship between Jews and Arabs, or perhaps Jews and gentiles. The “broader polity” I refer to is one in which the gentile community — including the Arab world — exists in a privileged relationship vis-a-vis Jews. And that’s why I think my Croson comparison holds — in the global environ (the UN, anybody?), Jews are in a subordinated position vis-a-vis Arabs; although in some local contexts (such as Israel and the United States writ large — though in some still localer contexts in the US the dynamic switches again) they are in a superordinated position.
To be clear, I was pointing out that many legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism are dismissed. Actually, that brings me back to something I wanted to ask before Petar derailed things:
Is that really what Summers and Harris were arguing? Because I absolutely agree with that, but what I often see is Israel being held up as the worst country, not one of an incomplete sample of bad ones. For example, despite ICE raids and the prison industrial complex, I rarely see the US compared to Nazi Germany, whereas I see Israel compared to the Nazis pretty frequently. (Rather than argue over the particulars of Nazism and how it compares to immigration or expansionism, I hope we can agree that “Nazi” is usually shorthand for “evil.”) Criticizing only one country isn’t the same as not criticizing every country.
Helloooo kyriarchy!
GD, I agree that spurious comparisons to Nazis are anti-Semitic, both because they trivialize the holocaust, and because the Nazi comparison is likely to be especially hurtful to Jews. (Indeed, I suspect some people are attracted to using the Nazi comparison especially because of the perception that it’s especially hurtful to Jews.)
But I don’t think that serious critics like Chomsky, Carter, etc.., actually do claim that Israel is the worse country in the word, or invoke Nazi comparisons.
There are some folks who specialize in criticizing Israel — just as there are people who concentrate on global warming, or China, or other issue areas — but I think that’s defensible, in and of itself. (What’s not defensible is anti-Semitism in critiques of Israel, regardless of if the person also criticizes other countries.)
hello, I have to put in my two cents – I look at Israel the way I look at the abortion issue. Right now in the US too many people want to eliminate abortion entirely,therefore ANY legitimate moral critique of abortion is viewed as a “foot in the door” tactic (because it usually is). While there are legitimate critiques of abortion -these critiques function to ignore the woman and render her invisible . Such critiques keep the focus on the unborn BABY BABY BABY. Who cares about women’s oppression look at the unborn BABY BABY BABY.
Likewise too many people want to eliminate the Jewish homeland entirely therefore ANY moral critique is likely to be seen as a “foot in the door” tactic (whetherit’s intended as such or not). Too many powerful oil billionaires want Israel off the map for there to be a balanced moral critique of Israel . Legitimate critiques exist but they invisablize the Jewish people-our history, our oppression, our spirituality, our religion-everything. Who cares about that? Look at the Palestinians the Palestinians the Palestinians. Keep the focus on the Palestinians.
Just as a pro-choice woman is reduced to a “baby killing slut, a pro-Israel Jew is reduced to an aparthid racist colonizer etc.
pro choice women are called feminazi’s pro choice JEws are called zionazis
these viewpoints lead to 1) dead women 2) dead JEws
Tee point being that Jews and women should either know their place or be dead.
incidently -in the US-right wing people blamed the Twin Towers on abortion and homosexuality and left wing people blamed it on “zionists” . That’s why I’m “no party affiliation”.
iamefromiame, I caution you not to be too flip when you’re talking about Palestinians, since in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, they’re the oppressed group (and actual people, unlike theoretical babies). Other than that, though, you make a really salient point. How can we honestly talk about Israel when so many Jews who want a more nuanced discussion are greeted with suspicion? The “foot-in-the-door” analogy is spot on; I think it speaks to how polarized all our politics have become.
re: girl detective-I get your point except that I am not really being flip about Palestinians or zygotes. I don’t like to step on ants, so I really wouldn’t take any killing lightly.
Peace Oet
arrg! I mean “out” -I’m not Canadian!!!