Understanding Gaza through cartoons

8 Comments

1. 

   idredit on March 15, 2008 at 6:35 pm

   it had to go there

   State Dept: Criticism of Israel = Anti-Semitism?

   The report also suggests that comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to South African apartheid — as former President Jimmy Carter did in his 2006 book `Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’ — also amounts to anti-Semitism. And it focuses on the United Nations as a breeding ground for anti-Semitism as expressed through criticism of Israel, another major neo-conservative theme that has intensified sharply over the past five years, notably through the efforts of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the National Review Online and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.
   Here’s the argument as laid out in the introductory section of the report entitled “Contemporary Forms of Anti-Semitism”:

   read on

   • 

     RustyPipes on March 15, 2008 at 7:09 pm

     I don’t know whether this report reflects official State Department policy in adopting “The New anti-Semitism” meme as enshrined in the (AJC drafted) EUMC Working Definition of anti-Semitism:

     The report purports to apply a definition of anti-Semitism established by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to its own analysis. But it actually goes beyond that by suggesting at various points, particularly in relation to UN conferences, resolutions, and the reports by UN Special Rapporteurs, that any comparison of the treatment by Israel of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories with apartheid amounts to anti-Semitism.

     If so, it represents a shift from prior State Department policy:

     The recitation of the EUMC “working definition” of anti-Semitism should not be construed as an acceptance of that definition, or the statements and examples thereunder, as United States policy.

     • 

       idredit on March 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

       read the USDS doc in .PDF (observe the cover page)

       Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism:
       A Report Provided to the United States Congress

       United States Department of State

       It seems kinda strange for the USDS to prepare this report for the Congress. Unless I missed it, the USDS has adapted whole cloth the EUMC definition of Anti-Semitism?

       A read of the Overview confirms my view of the double standard that persists – it’s a hindrance to peace with Palestinians and the larger Middle East –  a mindset that some are more chosen:

       Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

         -Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.

         -Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other  democratic nation.

         -Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize 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 makes clear, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded in itself as anti-Semitic.4

       When will the state of Israel abandon collective punishment of Palestinians?

       When will the state of Israel stop denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination?

   • 

     shergald on March 15, 2008 at 8:06 pm

     State Dep’t: Criticism of Israel = Anti-Semitism?

     In the most recent edition of its annual “Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism” released Thursday, the State Department — and hence the U.S. government — moves ever more closely to a long-standing neo-conservative tenet: that criticism of Israel or Israeli policies often, if not always, equals anti-Semitism. The report also suggests that comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to South African apartheid — as former President Jimmy Carter did in his 2006 book `Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’ — also amounts to anti-Semitism.

     The State Department has long incorporated Israeli propaganda into its policies, beginning with the characterization of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations after 9/11, both of which arose to fight Israeli occupations in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. By extension, it presumably condones the continuing military occupation of the West Bank and (siege of) Gaza and the colonialism whose purpose it continues to support, defying international law in the process.

     This is America, but you wouldn’t believe it by the views and actions of our State Department.

     • 

       RustyPipes on March 15, 2008 at 9:36 pm

       It’s language about apartheid comparisons, the “Holocaust Industry” and “The Pro-Israel Lobby” insinuate as much about several Americans, including Jimmy Carter, Norman Finkelstein, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

       As far as the State Department goes, some political appointees may favor the neo-con aproach, but many of its career professionals don’t.  According to Mearsheimer and Walt, State Department officials have frequently objected to neo-con plans, preferring engagement with Syria and Iran, distrusting Chalabi, objecting to the IDF reoccupying areas under Sharon and pushing for Israel/Palestine peace negotiations.  Of course, political appointees like Elliott Abrams can inflict a lot of damage.

   • 

     RustyPipes on March 15, 2008 at 9:03 pm

     because it is out of step with other State Department policies.  In fact, I first wondered if Bolton managed to slip back into the State Department to churn this thing out while Condi was out of town.

     This Report on “Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress” is more about Congress than the State Department.  First off it is dedicated to Tom Lantos, “a leader of moral force and a champion of human rights … he attested … promoting tolerance is essential to building a world of freedom and peace.”  The report is written by Gregg Rickman, the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, an office that Congress mandated to be created in the State Department through its Global Anti-Semitism Act of 2004.

     The report claims that anti-Semitism is on the rise globally.  About the first third of the report documents incidents of classically anti-Semitic hate crimes from around the world.  Then it starts to mix in incidents reflecting The New Anti-Semitism.  So, in addition to Holocaust Denial, we get incidents of “trivialization”, including the terms “Holocaust Industry” and “Shoah Business” (both of which were coined by Norman Finkelstein, although I don’t see him mentioned).  Beyond citing legitimate sources, the report starts citing groups like MEMRI.  Of course, many UN groups come in for criticism, including its special rapporteur.

     Some of these quotes are especially ironic, considering it is written for members of congress who are well aware of the pressure they receive from AIPAC:

     While the distinguishing features of new anti-Semitism are anti-Zionist rhetoric and opposition to Israel, it often incorporates some classic elements of traditional anti-Semitism, such as drawing on the age-old anti-Jewish theory of blood libel (see Chapter 2) by depicting Israelis as bloodthirsty, or perpetuating the traditional conspiracy theory of undue and unseen Jewish influence (see Chapter 2), for example, by attributing U.S. policy to the influence of the “Zionist Lobby,” “Jewish-Lobby,” or “Pro-Israel Lobby” — terms that tend to be used interchangeably and to imply a Jewish conspiracy or disloyalty to their country.

     [note for shergald: this report’s new twist on “blood libel” reminds me of the LGF troll from last year who was accusing people of perpetuating blood libel just for comparing the numbers of Palestinians and Israelis killed.]

     Only toward the end of the report does it mention as an aside that the EUMC claims that the rise in anti-Semitic incidents are due to an increase in the New Anti-Semitism:

     The EUMC concludes that in Europe: “Anti-Semitic activity after 2000 is increasingly attributed to a ‘new anti-Semitism,’ characterized primarily by the vilification of Israel as the ‘Jewish collective’ and perpetrated primarily by members of Europe’s Muslim population.”

     That’s right, in Europe, the activity that the EUMC attributes as anti-Semitic is increasingly characterized primarily by the vilification of Israel.

     So, basically, if the State Department won’t tell Congress what some of its leaders, like the Foreign Affairs Committee’s chair the late Tom Lantos, want to hear they mandate that the State Department create a special office to feed them crap from MEMRI with the State Department’s stamp on it.  

     As of this date, the State Department has not removed the disclaimer about the EUMC’s “working definition” of Anti-Semitism from its website.

     • 

       shergald on March 16, 2008 at 8:17 am

       Everytime I hear John Burns, Assistant Secretary of State, on the news talkshows, he is repeating Israeli propaganda about Hamas and Hezbollah and takes a proIsrael/antiPalestinian stance on progress toward peace and its impediments. So it is perhaps that I am talking about the face of the State Department rather than its core diplomatic staff.

       A study of antiSemitism in EU countries a few years ago showed some rise of incidents in four of over 20 countries, but it appeared to have nothing to do with Israel, as opposed to the same, old antiSemitism perpetuated by skinheads and like disaffected individuals, who engage in desecrations of synagoges and Jewish cemetaries, for example. Michael Lerner wrote on the “New AntiSemitism” and concluded that there is no such thing. It is rather the case that right wing proZionist organizations like the AJC are just pushing to stem criticism of Israel as it continues with its colonization/annexation plan, and now the EU has bought in.

       I recall many on Daily Kos who pushed the meme: criticism-of-Israel is antiSemtic, but not specifically the perpetrator of the blood libel nonsense. It is noticable that many of the old proIsrael gang have gone into semi-retirement after the purge. Still, other advocates for Palestinian rights have come forth, and while they rarely post on the reality behind the scenes in the West Bank and Gaza, they have kept the issue alive politically.

       • 

         RustyPipes on March 17, 2008 at 12:23 pm

         The LGF troll, Red Tulips, was so right-wing even aA wouldn’t defend her from getting autobanned (right-winger, dvo, on the other hand, TRed me for identifying her as a troll; then he managed to hand out donuts for months without posting any more comments).  One of her gems was accusing people of promoting blood libel by criticizing Israel.