Allen Hertz, writing in the Jerusalem Post, says no. He’s not arguing that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. He’s arguing against the idea that the two activities (“anti-Semitism” and “anti-Israel”) can be hermatically sealed off from each other. The big focus of his argument is disproportionality and bias — even criticisms which may individually fair and valid can still, taken together, be demonstrative of anti-Semitism when they are disproportionate to the alleged offense, or when they articulate a standard that other countries are not held up to.
For example, imagine 20 people arrested for robbery, 10 White and 10 Black, and we charge all 10 of the Black persons but only one White. It might be true that all of the Black defendants are fairly and objectively worthy of prosecution. But that wouldn’t make the prosecutions just, even if taken individually and isolation from the other prosecutorial decisions they are, because the distribution is all askew. Since 2003, the UN directed more of its human rights actions towards Israel than any other country, and more than Sudan and the D.R. Congo (ranked #2 and #3, respectively) combined. The former was busy carrying out a genocide which has a six-figure death toll, whereas the latter was embroiled in a civil war whose casualty rate has easily crossed into the millions. Even if every one of its criticisms were meticulously fair, the distribution is still worthy of concern — why Israel gets taken in for so much more criticism against countries whose behavior seems objectively worse, or whose situation seems objectively more dire.
Similarly, one can articulate a defensible moral principle that, applied fairly, would represent a valid critique of Israel. But if the principle is only applied against one party, but not others similarly sitauted, that’s problematic as well too. For example, it is a defensible moral principle to say: countries engaged in counter-insurgency operations are morally responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the civilian population in these territories. And this would be a moral principle that Israel is not fulfilling. But neither is Sri Lanka in its operations against the Tamils. Neither is Sudan in Darfur. Neither is either Rwanda or the Congolese government in D.R. Congo. If Israel seems to be the only country asked to meet this obligation, or comes in for far heavier criticism when it fails to do so, it’s fair to wonder why that is.
What makes this difficult is that it has to do with net effects and the broader distribution of our arguments. A UNHRC report heavily critical of Israel might not be identifiably anti-Semitic taken in isolation, but it’s not in isolation — it’s part of a pattern wherein the UNHRC criticizes Israel far more frequently than any other country or in accordance with any reasonable standard of priorities. The problem is that it is impossible for any one person to change the pattern, and this raises the question of what happens when we concede that system-wide Israel is being unfairly and disproportionately “targeted”, but we also believe that our individual crticism is fair, valid and important (the criminal justice system prejudicially targets Black men, but what do we do when we have a Black man, arrested due to the functioning of that system, whom we never the less have good evidence showing that he is a murderer? Individual justice here clashes with systematic justice).
It’s a difficult question. I’m not sure how to answer it. But it does indicate that at some level it is inadequate, in my view, to simply frame the question “is this individual criticism anti-Semitic, is that specific report anti-Semitic”, when often the issue is not individual acts, but how when combined together and viewed as a whole they comport with our general articulations of moral principles and ethical priorties.
I agree with what you’re saying here, but I’d also caution against veering toward the rightwing argument popular in 2002 and early 2003, when Americans were protesting against the coming war in Iraq and folks like Glenn Reynolds would sneer, “All these protests against Bush, and none against Saddam Hussein for all his evil actions?”
Obviously, some powerful people are more subject to having their behavior changed by criticism than others are. Bush theoretically is obliged to give a damn about what Americans think; Saddam Hussein wasn’t and if anything probably held up criticism by Westerners as a reason for Iraqis to support him against the enemy. Similarly, Israel is assumed to be more amenable to influence than the Sudan et al. are.
If someone actually believes that Israel’s behavior in the Palestinian Territories is *worse* than Khartoum’s in Darfur, then that person is probably a twit (just as the few people who thought Bush morally worse than Saddam Hussein were twits). However, if someone devotes more time to criticizing Israel than to criticizing the Sudan, you shouldn’t assume that the disproportion is a reflection of how relatively bad the person judges them to be; it very likely is a reflection of how relatively persuadable the person believes them to be.
…this raises the question of what happens when we concede that system-wide Israel is being unfairly and disproportionately “targeted”, but we also believe that our individual crticism [sic] is fair, valid and important. It’s a difficult question. I’m not sure how to answer it.
It’s actually not a difficult question to answer. There is no “viewed as a whole” when responding to specific critiques of the actions or policies of Israel’s government by individuals rather than organizations such as the UNHRC. I can agree that criticism of Israel is unfairly and disproportionately “targeted” in specific contexts (even fairly broad ones) without concluding that a given individual has an obligation to demonstrate that they apply a particular standard across all situations internationally in any one conversation. Further, even if I were to conclude that a given individual fails to apply the same standard to Israel as ze does to Sri Lanka, that fact in no way dilutes said criticism of Israel or renders the individual in question an anti-Semite.
I don’t think that the UNHRC levels its critiques with the goal of persuasion. More generally, if the standard is what is likely to persuade, I think it’s pretty clear that this mode of criticism has not proven itself effective — it instead is causing Israel to go into a shell and close itself off from criticism in general no matter how valid. Pile-ons are rarely effective at achieving productive things, as we’ve seen :-).
There is a growing fatalism amongst Israelis that they will be criticized no matter what they do, and they are beginning to wonder what benefits there are to even attempting to forestall the criticism. This is a dangerous and scary development.
Also, this argument works for devoting more time to Israel, but it doesn’t work for criticizing it more harshly (i.e., I could spent 70% of my time leveling fault on Israel for Gazan civilian casualties, and 30% doing the same towards Sri Lanka, but I couldn’t say “Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute deliberate massacres” but say that Tamil casualties are the regrettable function of war).
You’re putting these up faster than I can read ’em :)
I’m really hesitant to say there aren’t valid reasons for criticizing Israel more often and with greater rancor. I would, for instance, expect it of a Palestinian. But I do think it may be important to make clear a (qaulity) justifying context for such imbalanced criticism. The UN has none. Some people who argue that they’ll criticize their own community first clearly don’t stand by that principle in general.
I don’t think that’s true. Individual criticisms still operate within broader cultural currents and meanings which modify their content. They still can be part of a “whole” climate which is unfairly hostile or disproportionate, and that’s harmful. I’m not sure how you resolve that harm (e.g., always having to preface by noting one’s dedication to opposing similar actions in China, Sri Lanka, America…. would clearly be unreasonable), but it doesn’t go away just because the speaker is an individual.
Individual criticisms still operate within broader cultural currents and meanings which modify their content.
I agree. That being said, I don’t think your comment is at all responsive to my concern:
No individual is required to demonstrate that they are free of the taint of anti-Semitism just because they advance one of the many perfectly valid critiques of the Israeli government and its policies that also happen to be advanced by anti-Semites (note: I’m not talking about blood libel here). As an academic exercise, it’s fascinating to unpack the genesis and track the development of common arguments on topics of broad interest. In discussions, however, pointing out that anti-Semites have also, for example, argued that Israel has no right to continue seizing land for the purpose of building settlements 1) does nothing to advance the conversation and 2) fails to dilute the specific criticism of an Israeli government policy or action.
Shalasaran,
What does whether a particular criticism of Israel also is advanced by anti-Semites have to do with this discussion? The question here is whether Israel is disproportionately criticized; i.e. whether it receives more criticism (in either harshness or sheer quantity) than other countries that also might be considered insufficiently concerned about the lives of civilians in territory they formally control. If the UNHCR is charged with concern for the human rights of all, or if a person claims to be a general human rights activist (rather than specifically a Palestinian rights activist), then there’s potentially an obligation to express concern about ALL human rights violations that come into one’s ambit, or at least express concern in order of the violations that are gravest. Whether the concern also is expressed by bigots is irrelevant.
Schraub offers a fair critique. Individual assertions, even when accurate, can display bias. The analysis warrants a meta-analysis.
And now for a meta-meta-analysis….
I fail to see how the dynamic being discussed here pertains to anti-Semitism more than any to other kind of bias. Of all the forms of bias in the world, what are the reasons for privileging concerns about anti-Semitism in particular?
And where bias is concerned, why focus just on the anti-? Yes, the UN focuses a disproportionate share of its human rights criticism on Israel. That suggests bias. And the US focuses a disproportionate share of his foreign aid on Israel. That also suggests bias. When I read a post that mentions one form of bias but not the other, what conclusions should I draw about the author?
When I ask people to name the worst movie in the world, I get many suggestions, but almost no one ever mentions the movie I put together during my senior year of high school. Why not? After all, it’s available on the internet! And I assure you, it’s worse than Ishtar.
Or ask Keith Obermann who the Worst Person in the World is. When was the last time a mass murderer made the list? (No, members of the Bush administration don’t count.)
Or ask people about their opinions regarding Phelps’ or A-Rod’s drug use. Are these guys really the pinnacle of drug abusers?
When people offer negative criticism, they often reveal their biases. That is, they often reveal a bias IN FAVOR OF the thing they’re criticizing. People criticize Ishtar not because they really think it’s worse than my movie, but because they started out with a bias – that is, an unwarranted expectation – IN FAVOR OF that movie, and that expectation was frustrated. No one has any expectation about my film, and so no one is surprised to learn it sucks.
Keith Obermann has an obviously unjustified expectation about the rectitude of public figures, and that expectation is constantly being frustrated. People have an obviously unjustified expectation about the rectitude of sports figures, and that expectation is constantly being frustrated. In contrast, Obermann has no apparent expectation of rectitude on behalf of the junta in Myanmar and therefore doesn’t comment on their constant human rights abuses. Similarly people don’t have any particularly high expectations about that guy sleeping in the alley doorway, so they’re not all that surprised when they learn that he has chemical dependency issues.
So yeah, I expect more from Israel than I expect from Sri Lanka. Does that reflect bias on my part? Absolutely – but not bias AGAINST Israel. If you’re really worried about anti-Semitism, which person worries you more: The one who says, “Israel did WHAT? Honestly, it’s getting so that they’re no better than the Sri Lankans!” Or the guy who says, “Yeah, Israel’s abusing civilians. Again. I mean, that’s pretty much what we expect from those people, right?”
And of course the government of Sudan makes almost the same argument. They point out that the Congo is far worse and ask why their policies in Darfur get disproportionately criticized.
Accepting your and Hertz’s premise for the moment that criticism as criticism is disproportionate, let me a ask related question: are the consequences Israel suffers for its actions disproportionate? The U.N. has imposed zero sanctions on Israel, and actually hepls Israel govern Gaza and to some extent the West Bank. So if you look at it, effective action on the part of the U.N. in any of the cases has been zero. They have devoted more words to Israel, but not more effective action.
But there are good reasons why the U.N. might want to aim more criticism at Israel than at other worse violators
1) Israel is protected by the most powerful nation in the world, the U.S. I don’t think any independent nation in the world gets a higher percentage of its military budget from foreign aid than Israel gets from the U.S. So the analogy is not police prosecuting African-Americans more than whites. It is the police spending more time and money building a case against someone defended by Alan Dershowitz than against someone defended by a public defender fresh out of law school who also has 800 other clients. This does not apply only to the U.N.. Israel is better at public relations then most human rights violaters and has more powerful allies who are also better at public relations. It is a lot harder to turn public opinion against an Israeli action than against a Congolese action, so it may take more critiques and more of other types of political activity.
2) If you focus on the U.N., Israel has invaded Lebanon recently, a number of other member nations of the U.N. in the past and continues to threaten bomb Iran, and perhaps Syria as well. So Israel directly threatens more member nations of the U.N. than Sudan and the Congo, even though more people are being harmed in those countries. The U.N. is one nation one vote: so threatening regional peace tends to be taken more seriously in practice than genocide. Also threatening those with power elicits more response than threatening those without. I’m not saying this is right, but Isreal is sure as hell not the main target of U.N. double standards.
3) Another related point: rightly or wrongly Israel is seen by a lot people, including that well known antisemite Jimmy Carter, as being a destabilizing force in the Middle East. If true that threatens a lot if rich and powerful people. Commit crimes that threaten the rich and powerful and you draw more attention than crimes that hurt only the poor Given that Israel has an alliance with the richest of the rich and most powerful of the powerful to counteract anything more than criticism, I don’t see that it has much legitimate grounds for complaint on this.
4) Though your example was the U.N., but you are enunciating a general principle which I bet you want to apply more widely than just to the U.N. So let me point out the U.S. in particular gives Israel many times as much foreign aid as it provides to all ohter nations in the world combined, in spite of the fact that Israel needs U.S. foreign much less than almost any likely recipient. I would say that is a far worse double standard than disproportionate criticism, and also a good reason why Americans should pay disproportionate attention to Israeli crimes. We have a lot responsibility for them.
The question here is whether Israel is disproportionately criticized; i.e. whether it receives more criticism (in either harshness or sheer quantity) than other countries that also might be considered insufficiently concerned about the lives of civilians in territory they formally control.
I think you’re misreading Mr. Schraub; it seems to me that the question under discussion is what happens “when we concede that system-wide Israel is being unfairly and disproportionately ‘targeted'” (emphasis added). While I certainly agree that Israel is unfairly and disproportionately “targeted” in specific contexts, my interest in this topic is drawing out the implications of his comments beyond the observation that there is a broad context of anti-Semitism that causes harm to Jews. I read Mr. Schraub as implying that the global context of criticisms of the Israeli government, its actions and its policies, is a valid response to interlocutors in virtually any discussion where Israel is being criticized; at a minimum, he has stated that, in situations where an uneven standard is being applied to Israel, “it’s fair to wonder why that is.” If he didn’t mean to imply anything of the sort, a response to that effect would be appreciated. As it is, however, I don’t feel my reading of him is unfair or particularly controversial.
Except that the “we expect more of Israel” explanation only seems to work for the kind of people who basically agree that Israel has a right to exist at all. If you’re merely piling up the indictment as part of your argument that Israel has no right to exist and its current state of existence is a crime, I find it implausible that you’re saying all this because you really think so very highly of Israel.
Your argument has some similarities to mine about targeting criticism toward the persuadable, but I think it also misreads some of the bias: people don’t think Ishtar is the worst because they didn’t expect much of your HS movie; they think it’s the worst because they’ve never SEEN your HS movie. Similarly, many people probably aren’t even aware of the Tamil Tigers’ existence, but I find it implausible that if they were, they’d think that Israel is the worst human rights offender.
I think the global context of criticisms of the Israeli government is something to keep in mind in virtually any discussion where Israel is being criticized. As I said, I’m not sure where that observation “goes” (since we do need space for criticism to be leveled, and that need doesn’t go away just because the airspace is really cluttered — so if by “valid response” you mean “way of defeating”, then I don’t hold that view), but it should be part of our awareness — people should know the lay of the land when they enter this conversation, part of the knowledge includes the fact of disproportionate attention.
I don’t think the UNHRC envisions itself as counteracting American support for Israel (and I think if that’s the role each side is moving towards — the US supporting Israel to check against unrelenting UN hostility, the UN attacking Israel to check against unrelenting American support, we’re in serious trouble, because I don’t think either party should view itself as in an advocacy role for or against Israel as opposed to for human rights, global security, and justice), nor does it take any serious steps to present itself in conversation with the “American” narrative about Israel. It’s a clever argument, but it doesn’t cohere at all to how the UN presents itself when talking about Israel, or how it frames its argument. The UN doesn’t frame its extra focus on Israel as a counterweight to American defenses, it frames it as justified because Israel is the worst human rights violator out there. At best, it’s devoting thousands of hours and resources to trying to get the death penalty for a Dershowitz-defended robbery defendant, while refusing to prosecute multiple cases of quintuple homicide — at worst, it doesn’t actually care that the robbery defendant is defended by Dershowitz, it just doesn’t like the guy (Dershowitz would argue the only reason he’s on the case is because the prosecutor has taken such a disproportionate fury towards this case as to raise serious due process questions).
I also have to laugh when you say that Israel’s PR is particularly effective. Israel is reviled worldwide — it’s approval numbers are in the tank pretty much everywhere but the United States, and there are nations where it is a criminal offense to express support for Israel. I think the mainstream American political climate needs more balanced portrayals, but France? Germany? Libya? Saudi Arabia? Indonesia? Bangladesh? India? These places don’t have a consciousness of bad Israeli acts? You’ve got to be kidding me. The UN is preaching to the choir. To say what the global community needs is more attention and anger towards Israel defies belief (although the Sudanese government thanks you for running interference). The global community could use a tamping down on emotions; the UN is fanning the flames of extremism and hate.
Cast aside the fact that Israel’s Lebanon campaign satisfied any remotely conceivable formulation of jus ad bellum, I’m not sure what this is meant to prove. Yes, Israel is in a hostile relationship with more of its neighbors than most other countries, and they tend to threaten each other a lot (Iran and Israel being obvious examples). I’m skeptical that the prospect that these conflicts will cause major regional destablization is good grounds for disproportionate coverage vis-a-vis Congo, which is causing major destabliziation with several multi-party wars that have been characterized as “World War III”, but I’m pleased to see the admission that Israel is being targeted because its antagonists are allies of powerful players in global politics (the CIS). I also think that it takes two to tango here, and the UN often flatly forbids inquiry into alleged provocation or human rights violations by the partner (including its investigations of the 2006 Lebanon War).
Finally, the “punishments” Israel faces for its crimes (real, alleged, exaggerated, and imagined) include boycotts, divestments, travel bans to certain countries, ICJ court rulings, incitement to genocide, bans on public advocacy for Israel, second-class treatment in international bodies such as the UN (e.g., being barred from run-up meetings to UN Conferences), lack of diplomatic recognition, and, oh yeah, sanctioned terrorist violence. It’s not like nothing is happening here.
I don’t think “sanctioned terrorist violence” is part of the U.N. policy. And I don’t see Israel suffering any penalty in practice.
And that is a really nasty crack about Sudan. I specifically gave Sudan as an example of a misuse of the same logic you are using. Sudan thinks criticism of Darfur should be tamped down until something is done about the Congo. That kind of reasoning is something I oppose, but you support.
And as to Israel not having a powerful PR force: the difference between them and the Sudan is that Sudan has PR firms that it pays. Almost nobody not on Sudan’s payroll will defend its atrociites. But Israel has defenders of every atrocity, not just on its payroll, but basically the entire conservative momement. I can’t speak for
France or Germany because I don’t speak the language but there is a huge group of British indivuals devoted to opposing what they call “anti-Americanism” which included defending the Iraq war and includes defending Israel.
In terms of hate, Israel commits atrocities. Our press manages to downplay that. In most nations you don’t have self-censorhsip on that issue so people see actual results of Israeli policy. That leads to Israel being disliked.
The whole double standard argument disgusts me because everyone who commits atrocities uses it. I’ve been the the Darfur support movement, and Sudan uses the exact argument I cited – your argument not mine, just applied to a different conflict. I was in the anti-apartheid movement, and I remember South African complaining about all the support for the Black majority when there were so many worse atrociites going on in AFrica. I remember in the run-up to the Iraq war complaints of the a double standard. There are a lot of reason people focus on one atrocity rather than another. I don’t think criticizing Israeli atrocities is “stirring up hate”. That also is a common complain of those who commit massacres when those massacres are described. You are going to get your wish. I’m going to go away. Because I proceded on the assumption that while we had a lot of common ground since we both supported a two-state solution, and Israel’s right to exist. But it seems to me that you are like AIPAC in wanting to use charges of anti-semitism to police the terms of the debate, to define what is and is not legitimate criticism of Israel. You draw the line in a different place, but you still wnat to police the debate, and what is more define as antisemitic critiques that are true and accurate if they are made more often than you think they should be. That is nothing new. It is the standard defense states use to defend their atrocities – including the U.S.
Also one last thought. Israel is going down a path that is not only bad for the Palestinians. It is going down a path that is bad for its long term survival. Do you really want to damp down criticism that might put some small pressure to change its way at this moment? Because I think your attempt to police the debate is not only wrong on a number of levels, but not really in Israel’s long term interest. I probably will go reading out of a kind of car wreck fascination. And I suppose if you make another nasty accusation like saying I’m shilling for Sudan, I will feel compelled to answer it, but as long as you avoid personal attacks I won’t waste your time or mine by replying further to what you say on Israel or antisemitism.
I don’t think criticism of Israel should tamped down until we do something about Darfur (and I resent the implication that I’m making that sort of diversionary argument just as much as you resent the charge that you’re playing into Sudan’s hands). I think criticism of Israel (quantity and quality) should bear some rational relationship to the gravity of the harms it has been alleged to commit (a standard which only makes sense with reference to the amount of attention we devote to other violations). I think right now the way much criticism is leveled at Israel isn’t designed to “put some small pressure to change its way”. I think it’s designed to exhibit self-indulgent moral superiority at the expense of leveling political pressure that might actually accomplish something (which would, of course, mean that there would be nothing to struggle over — how horrible!). I think it is fostering an arms race of self-righteousness with the result (if not the aim) of ejecting the alleged offenders (namely, Jews who don’t actively disavow Zionism) from the boundaries of society and rendering them liable to be crushed under a tide of moral thunder. At some point, it becomes dehumanizing. And violence is the known and expected result. We’re already seeing it.
I want to tamp down “criticism” of Israel that has caused anti-Semitic violence to spike seven-fold in Britain last month (and double the previous worst month on record). You can look me in the eye and say that the hyperbolic anti-Israel sentiment there wasn’t a causal link? That it didn’t “stir up hate”? “That leads to Israel being disliked”? That leads to Jews getting beaten in the streets. That leads to their synagogues sacked by thugs.
I want to tamp down on a poisonous social environment wherein the folks I count on to lead the charge against racism sanction boycotting Holocaust memorials, refuses to condemn a Kramer-esque anti-Semitic tirade about the “fucking Jews”, remains silent about the rising tide of anti-Semitic violence flowing around it, and gives platforms to those who wish to inflict a “divine punishment” upon Jews with Hitler as its model, because they don’t think they can do it and keep their pro-Palestine bona fides intact. I want to shatter, once and for all, the idea that it’s okay to watch Jewish lives be physically and psychologically broken because intervening might signal that even Zionist Jews are human beings too, and that isn’t sufficiently “progressive”.
I want to tamp down on “criticism” of Israel that is so (proudly!) far removed from any remotely good-faith engagement with an Israeli perspective — that refuses to even countenance any possible defense, alternative angles, or competing interpretation — that it gives credence to hard-right elements who are arguing that Israel will be loathed and hated no matter what it is does or how it behaves. If you can point to me any indication that Israel thinks that these sorts of criticisms are compelling and causes it to re-evaluate its policies, let me know. My observation is all that’s happened is Israel simply ignores bodies like the UNHRC as entities whose credibility has been utterly wrecked. I don’t blame them. Frankly, I agree with them. How on earth does this help the Israeli left?
I think the path Israel is going down on is dangerous to Israel as well. But I don’t see the “criticism” of folks like the UNHRC — or the general pile-on mentality you justify and defend — as doing anything to derail it. Indeed, I think it is accelerating it, dramatically. I think it is pushing Israel off a cliff, something they need no incentive to do, and I think many are reveling at the chance to watch the ensuing explosion. I oppose the trend towards hyperbolic criticism precisely for that reason. It’s polarizing and radicalizing, which is the last thing that region of the world needs right now. It creates violence against Jews while doing nothing for Israel or Palestine aside from causing them to dig themselves in deeper. It’s a massive net loss for justice.
But it sure makes the critics feel good about themselves.
“Since 2003, the UN directed more of its human rights actions towards Israel than any other country, and more than Sudan and the D.R. Congo (ranked #2 and #3, respectively) combined.”
so, i have a question. it’s likely to insipre debate, but maybe that’s why i’m asking: is israel being held to a higher standard than the sudan and the d. r. congo because it’s more “white”? are there different expectations because of skin colour? (i.e. are the israelis more “white” than the people of the sudan or the d. r. of congo, and if so, are they held to a different standard? and if so what ought to be done?)
p.s. i know i’m inspiring debate, but doesn’t that help?
I think that might be a part of it — some “soft bigotry of low expectations” that says only a “Western” country like Israel will actually listen to moral critique, some of it taking the brunt for generic anti-Western outrage (which gets focused on Israel because it is seen as the most vulnerable part of the pantheon).
The idea that Israel is “White” is one of those claims that has just enough claim on truth to let it squeak by, even though I think it’s really deployed misleadingly. Israel’s population is majority non-European. Israel’s Jewish population is majority non-Ashkenazi (most European Jews are Ashkenazi. Mizrachi Jews are from North Africa and the Arab World. Sephardic Jews complicate things — they trace their roots to Spain but were expelled in 1492 and took root elsewhere, often Africa or Turkey). But the Ashkenazi segment of Israel’s population does have a disproportionate hold (not a lock) on the upper echelons of Israeli society.
I think Israel’s “Whiteness” needs to problematized insofar as it erases the existence of non-European Jews, who already labor under a lot of marginalization. In discussions about Israel I often get the feeling that the idea of a non-White, non-converted Jew is something utterly foreign to my interlocutor. I presume this is because most American Jews (and obviously, most European Jews) are White, and most of the Jews which are seen on TV or media are White as well (and the non-White Jewish population residing outside Israel has crashed — for example, dropping from over 800,000 in the Arab World at the time of Israel’s formation to approximately 8,000 today). But it’s still a misperception and I think aids in the “misplacing” of Israel as a European outpost in the middle east.
I think this is the first thing I ever read discussing what it’s like to be an Arab Jew, and it still holds up pretty well.
Not so long I came across this.
It’s measured and sensitive. It acknowledges the concerns of others.
Obviously, there are many differences, but still I think it can serve as a model. This isn’t necessarily quite how Israel should be treated, but surely something of the same principles hold. Yet nobody seriously worries about valid critiques of Israel feeding into other patterns of prejudice. When Israel is the topic, concern for antisemitism is entirely absent (or worse, appropriated as a tool for bashing Jews). I think it’s pretty clear there’s a problem with that and that David is right to draw attention to it. If others were to argue about how such principles should play out, I’d probably be sympathetic, but it seems to me people are arguing that concern for antisemitism ought to be separate.
The model seems to be -I hope I’m not misreading anyone- that individuals are or aren’t antisemitic, and therefore their criticism is or isn’t antisemitic. Not to pick on anyone, but, and example: “No individual is required to demonstrate that they are free of the taint of anti-Semitism…” Again, though, this is very different from how we treat oppressed groups in general.
“Commit crimes that threaten the rich and powerful and you draw more attention than crimes that hurt only the poor… I don’t see that it has much legitimate grounds for complaint on this.” Again, this really isn’t how we’d treat an oppressed group.
In other words, it doesn’t seem to me that people really believe Jews are oppressed.
The model seems to be…that individuals are or aren’t antisemitic, and therefore their criticism is or isn’t antisemitic.
No, my stance is that individuals can be anti-Semitic. Separately, specific criticisms can be anti-Semitic. However, it’s my opinion that the fact that anti-Semites have advanced a specific criticism of the Israeli government or its policies in no way dilutes or represents a valid response to said criticism in the context of a specific discussion.
Again, though, this is very different from how we treat oppressed groups in general.
It would be great if you would quote the entire sentence rather than grabbing a clause out of context.
Mr. Schraub asked whether there is a “firewall” between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. My response is that there obviously is not; criticism of Israel can most certainly be anti-Semitic, just as specific critics can be. However, the fact that anti-Semites have advanced a particular criticism of Israel’s government or its policies (or, alternatively, that a particular criticism has been advanced in an anti-Semitic context) completely fails to dilute said criticism. I take exactly the same approach in the context of the Arab world: the fact a given criticism feeds into Islamophobia completely fails to dilute said criticism. I fully acknowledge that Israel is unfairly and disproportionately “targeted” in specific contexts, and that there exists a broad context of anti-Semitism that causes harm to Jews. The question I have is “So what?” As I already wrote:
My point in the selection of the quote was to emphasize the point that it deals with individuals. To that end, I think I was justified in taking the section I did, but I apologize if I also distorted the meaning in a different way.
Anyway, if that’s your position with respect also to criticism of the Arab world, I think that’s problematic as well. But, at least, I think we’ve managed to sharpen the point of difference.
Since 2003, the UN directed more of its human rights actions towards Israel than any other country, and more than Sudan and the D.R. Congo (ranked #2 and #3, respectively) combined.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your larger point, I’m not entirely sure of your data. The Hudson Institute and Touro College may not be the most unbiased sources around and a web site called “Eye on the UN” almost certainly has an interest in making the UN sound unfair, biased, corrupt, or just plain wrong. So I’d like to see their primary source and evaluate them for bias before taking the statement that the UN criticizes Israel more than any other country as a given. (Do they include criticism of acts by the Palastinian government(s) as part of “criticism of Israel, for example?)
For whatever it’s worth, I’ve received more emails from NGOs (Amnesty International, PHR, MSF, etc) asking me to protest things occuring in Sudan and the Congo than Israel. I’ll start keeping a formal count if you’d like. (Unfortuanately I tend to delete as soon as I’ve written the letter, sent the email, made the donation, etc so can’t do a formal retrospective count.)
None of which is to say that you’re wrong. Just that I’d like to see the primary data before making a judgement on the issue.
Anyway, if that’s your position with respect also to criticism of the Arab world, I think that’s problematic as well.
The fact that, for example, a given criticism of the Taliban (e.g. an assertion that the Taliban’s threat to kill girls who go to school is indefensible) potentially feeds into Islamophobia in no way changes the validity of the complaint (i.e. it fails to dilute said criticism). Do you disagree? Would you characterize as responsive a hypothetical interlocutor who, in response to such a complaint, asserted that Islamophobes have pointed to the Taliban’s threat as further evidence of the “dangers of the spread of Islam?” If not, then we hold the same position.
Please note, I’m not drawing any sort of moral equivalency between the Taliban and Israel. I’m responding to your specific question WRT the Arab world.
I don’t think that’s a question at issue, though. In just his third sentence, David wrote, “even criticisms which may individually fair and valid can still, taken together, be demonstrative of anti-Semitism.” No one here is denying that an individual criticism of Israel might be valid – but we’re trying to talk about how there are still implications with regard to antisemitism.
Seems to me that Shalsaran is right. Assume that everyone generally agrees that Israel should stop establishing settlements–I don’t know if we here all do, but let’s assume that is the case. A petition to be sent to the Israeli government which reads, simply–and I am going to ask that we not get into all the antisemitic ways in which this could be articulated, since I assume we all know them–that Israel ought to stop establishing settlements is not, then, in and of itself antisemitic, regardless of who is circulating the petition. Now, if the petition were being circulated by certain of my wife’s relatives who are antisemitic, there is no way that I would sign that petition, but not because of the content of that particular critique. It would be because I do not trust their or their organization’s larger agenda and would not want my name associated with it.
You’ve put a lot of limits on that, Richard. One, it’s a specific policy. Two, a statement made by way of petition (as opposed to, for example, occupying a building at NYU). Three, articulated in a way that avoids antisemitism. Now imagine it’s put out by an organization that also credits China with bringing modernity to Tibet and refers to the Dalai Lama as a theocratic dictator?
No one here is denying that an individual criticism of Israel might be valid…
That’s one of the things I was trying to get Mr. Schraub to clarify. Again, my initial comment focused on the question he stated he was trying to address:
For many, the answer is to label most or all criticism of Israel, its government and its policies anti-Semitic; I have observed far too many discussions that went off the rails when, for example, a defender of Israel chose to ask after an interlocutor’s position on Darfur, a practice which I (in my view, uncontroversially) read Mr. Schraub as supporting. His clarification (i.e. the broad context is something that we need to “keep in mind in virtually any discussion where Israel is being criticized”) was sufficient if a bit unsatisfying.
I kind of like Richard’s scenario. I think it’s rather elegant. However, I was reading Shalsaran in the opposite way he was.
Matt,
I think you need to read my comment again. I made quite clear that who issued the petition would matter quite a lot in terms of whether I would sign it and, by extension, though I did not think I needed to say this, of what I would have to say about the organization that put the petition out. Who issued the petition, however, would not alter the validity of the individual criticism, once you remove it from the context of the petition and who issued it. Nor does acknowledging this fact alter the importance of considering David’s point of how such criticisms can ultimately be used in antisemitic ways–though I have a little bit of a problem with worrying about how they might have unintentional antisemitic effects (if I am reading what you, or someone else wrote, I don’t remember; I am typing quickly as I have to leave).
With apologies, Richard, you did make clear that you wouldn’t sign a petition organized by obvious antisemites – but you also said that such a petition wouldn’t be “in and of itself antisemitic, regardless of who is circulating the petition.”
The thing is, I’m not particularly interested in whether the petition is “in and of itself antisemitic.” And I don’t think that’s really what David is interested in either. If I read him right, when he writes, “even criticisms which may individually fair and valid can still, taken together, be demonstrative of anti-Semitism” (emphasis mine) he’s not referring to a characterization of the petition “in and of itself.”
My concern is with how this does or doesn’t feed into a broader pattern of prejudice and how people ought to respond. Whether you would sign the petition or not matters a lot more to me than how you would characterize the petition. And whether you would criticize me (or how strongly) for characterizing it however I would.
The analogue I presented above, in comment 18, isn’t a criticism of the Taliban that is unfair or invalid. But it is written in a particular way, with particular care and sensitivity for reasons that are beyond the mere validity of the criticism.
Matt,
I wrote a little bit carelessly in my example about the petition: I should not have said that the petition would not in and of itself be antisemitic, because you cannot separate the petition from the motivation of the senders; I should have written, as I did in the second comment, that the criticism would not in and of itself be antisemitic. Whether the petition could be characterized that way is a more complex question.
The criticism separated from its instantiation is a rather awkward concept, not one I think we can really speak to. However, regarding: “you cannot separate the petition from the motivation of the senders”
I’m not really familiar with a great deal of literary theory, but there have been a lot of people who have written lengthy works on such questions. Though I think it’s a slightly different matter than when you’re dealing with an artistic endeaver rather than a petition (though sometimes we are dealing with artistic endeavers ), few authors I’m aware of consider their motivation to be the last word on what they’ve written. Many consider audience interpretations to be a vital part of their work. (Recently, Mark Doty wrote, “No writer, of course, has control over what readers do with the work, and that’s as it should be,” in a rather awkward context.) Even outside literary works, aren’t there still reasons for looking at criticism from a reader response or other alternative perspective?
Further, it seems to me (and again, my familiarity here is better but still lacking) that few anti-racists are primarily concerned with motivation. Most of what I’ve seen is far more concerned with impact. I think it can be one thing to accord people respect and the benefit of the doubt, but I really don’t want to be put in a position where I’ve got to make judgments about others’ motivations or characters in order to talk about antisemitism.
I think, Matt, that we are writing at cross purposes and that either you are misreading me/applying to what I am saying a critical framework that does not really apply, or I am misreading you, and since I don’t really have the time to work this through, and since I doubt that, fundamentally, we disagree on central questions about antisemitism, I’m not sure there’s much use in continuing this dialogue. I am not trying to brush you off; these questions are interesting to me, and important, but I need to put my energies elsewhere.