As anyone who has ever perused the diaries about the Israel/Palestinian conflict at the Great Orange Satan is all too sadly aware, criticism of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians in the Occupied territories often leads to claims by some posters in the comments section that one is expressing antisemitic sentiments and attitudes. In short, in the minds of many, if you express any opinion stating opposition to the state of Israel, its policies or its political leaders, that mere statement is considered de facto evidence that you are an antisemite. I’ve see further proof of this in the reaction to Bibi Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress. I find such attitudes and behavior by the individuals throwing these slurs around highly toxic and counter-productive.
Here’s two definitions of antisemitism from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, which is brief and too the point:
[H]atred of Jewish people
and one from the Free Dictionary:
[D]iscrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.
Please note that neither definition defines opposition to policies of the Israeli Government or its leaders as antisemitism.
The problem with personal attacks on those who express grievances, condemnation or disagreement with the actions of the government of Israel and its current political leaders is that it conflates legitimate anger and frustration with the actions of Israel’s government into hatred for all Jews. And being a Jew is no protection from accusations that one is a “self-hating Jew”, as David Harris Gershon is all too aware. Pointing out that many Israelis and Jews in America have real issues with the policies of Israel’s government also does not ensure that one will be not labeled a bigot.
This is what is known in logic as a generalization fallacy. That is, if one disagrees with, or opposes, the actions of Israel one must also hate Jews, and thus must be an antisemite. Even a prominent former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician, Natan Sharansky, recognized that not all criticism of Israel equates with an antisemitic attitude on the part of the critic. He developed his own “3D test” (which I neither endorse or refute) for identifying when criticism of Israel crosses the line into prejudice against all Jews everywhere:
The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti-Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.
The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.
Even under Sharanky’s test, it is difficult to see how opposition to Bibi Netanyahu’s efforts to interfere with the diplomatic efforts by the United States President to negotiate a treaty with Iran to prevent the development of nuclear weapons qualifies as per se antisemitism by those outraged by Mr. Netanyahu. Regardless of how one views the threat of Iran, it’s pretty obvious that any foreign leader, especially the Prime Minister of a putative ally and the beneficiary of massive amounts of US government aid over the last several decades, would be criticized by many people if that leader acted as Mr. Netanyahu did when he addressed the US Congress and advocated that the current negotiations by the Obama administration with Iran over its nuclear program should end and more sanctions against Iran should be added. Even the New York Times considers this an unprecedented action by a foreign leader inserting himself into an American foreign policy debate in such a public manner:
Mr. Netanyahu’s hotly disputed address constituted a remarkable moment in Washington: a foreign leader taking the podium before members of the House and Senate to argue strenuously against the policies of the sitting American president. In doing so, the Israeli leader was essentially urging lawmakers to trust him — not Mr. Obama — when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
However, opposition to Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress to bolster Republican opposition to any deal reached by the Obama administration with Iran is not the only area of concern. Any number of people are accused of antisemitism for objecting to the Israeli government’s settlement policy in the occupied territories, even though many Israelis themselves either object to further settlements or have doubts about the benefit of the continued development of such settlements. People who object to the Israeli government’s harsh treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, including the allegations by a UN task force of excessive fatalities of civilians in Gaza caused by Israel’s Defense forces during its last armed conflict with HAMAS, have also seen the slur of antisemitism all too quickly thrown their way.
We criticize those who blame all Muslims for the actions of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terrorist organizations. The charge of antisemitism against anyone, Jew, Christian, atheist, etc. for objecting to the actions of Israel’s government and its leaders is in much the same vein. The use of this charge to intimidate and silence those who speak up against such actions is reprehensible.
I have no problem condemning those who openly express hatred and bigotry directed toward any group, whether based on race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion or the absence of religious faith. I do have an issue with those that use the highly charged terms “antisemite” and “antisemitism” as ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with them on the politics, policies and actions of the State of Israel, its government and/or its leaders.
I hope you agree.
Objecting to, or criticizing, the nation of Israel’s politicians, policies and actions, is not anti-Semitic!
Criticism of the religion, or groups or individuals who are Jewish, for their (perceived) “Jewishness,” is anti-Semitic.
What that guy did with his “whisper-campaign” about possibly being Jewish that led to a GOP gubernatorial candidate’s suicide, is without a shadow of a doubt, anti-Semitic!!!
Why can’t we all just get along?
Oh yeah, stupidity, ignorance, hatred, and fear, which lead to bigotry – THAT’S WHY!!!
OY!!!
(I write “Oy!”, and yet, I’m not Jewish. It’s just a perfect phrase for when you bump into something/someone really idiotically mind-blowing!).
You do know that Arabs are a Semitic people. So any Israeli who hates Arabs is an antisemite.
True but no more constructive than pointing out to Bible thumpers that Catholics and Episcopalians are also Christians.
Yes, but that’s an etymological quibble. The term has come to mean prejudice against Jews.
That said, two substantive points:
While not 100%, most of those who comment here understand the difference and ad hominem attacks on this issue, and in general, are rare.
Could indicate a higher collective IQ and lower collective religiosity than that at dKos. Also could mean that we’re in a bubble not representative of the larger population, but some bubbles are better and more easy to live in than others. Particularly considering that hanging with racists won’t change them (might increase the stridency of their racism and cause them to dig in further) and is harmful to the health of those that reject a racist world.
Shill bloggers @dKos paid for by PMO – Prime Ministers’ Office of Israel. See also article @Tikun Olam – Gerald Steinberg’s Hasbara War. [Photo sitting next to Sharansky]
This article “Arab writers strike at Daily Kos” still up @dKos but apparently got tossed @ FDL [cached version].
One thing we can do is to remember that there’s a profound sense in which Israel doesn’t represent Jews: Just as we take care to acknowledge that most Muslims are not terrorists and the religion calls everywhere for peace, and that most Christians are not bigots and that the Testament says that the greatest of “faith, hope, and charity” is charity, so we should note that Judaism is deeply committed to values Israel seems to reject:
I agree with what you are saying here, but the distinction you are pointing to is more difficult to maintain than you are making it out to be. Jewish religious identity is very much tied to the notion of spiritual community, and this identification is, in turn, deeply grounded in Zionism. This is not just about the Shoah, although that is obviously a part of it. It is about the fact that Israel in a spiritual sense is a core component of the religious side of Jewishness. “Israel” the spiritual community and “Israel” as a political/geographical entity have been linked together for a very long time, and the equation of the two runs very deep in the identity and religious practice of being Jewish. (At least for most Jews – there are some anti-Zionist religious Jews, but they are pretty far and few between) You are obviously correct that the charge of anti-Semitism is used as a cudgel to stifle criticism of Israeli policy. But criticism of Israeli policies also frequently blend into general denunciations of the nation as a whole, and for many Jews the distinction between denouncing Israel in general terms and anti-Zionism is not really clear. As a result, given the centrality of Zionism to much of Jewish religious identity, it can be difficult to distinguish generalized critiques of Isreal from attacks on the Jewish people as a whole. It may not be intended that way, but for many Jews it really does sound antiemetic. I do think a realignment among American Jews on this issue happening, but it is going to be very slow and difficult going. Separating “Israel” the spiritual community and “Israel” the political entity is not at all an easy task. So don’t be surprised when denunciations of the latter sound like denunciations of the former to those who hear them.
This was meant as a reply to the main post, but I guess works well here as well.
“Jewish religious identity is very much tied to the notion of spiritual community, and this identification is, in turn, deeply grounded in Zionism.”
The notion of spiritual community is deeply grounded in Zionism?
There is “a” notion spiritual community grounded in Zionism, yes, as in any organization or political movement, but the doctrines of Zionism were developed by secular Jews in the 19th century. Zionism resembles Judaism about as much as “The Heavenly City of the 18th Century Philosophers” resembles Christianity. A certain component, originally small, now large, of Jewish religious thought adopted it. You talk about religious Jews who oppose Zionism as “few and far between”, but at one time it was the other way around.
It’s a political nationalistic movement bearing close resemblance to a whole lot of other European nationalist movements, and like them, has developed a religious participation. It has a lot of folk-myth content which made it emotionally attractive to hoi polloi as well as assimilated Jews seeking an “identity”.
The concept of Zionism has replaced the concept of Judaism in many people’s minds. It was well adapted to the mentality of th 20th century. If it is so hard for Jews to make the distinction, how can we expect non-Jews to do it? And Zionists themselves will not make that distinction. Yet it is fundamental.
The connection of community and solidarity is unquestionable. For me, Zionism per se has nothing to do with it. I am concerned for Israel because it’s part of my family. Neither I, nor my father before me, could discuss Israel with most of them without getting our heads bitten off — but they are still my family, and we still have everything in common that nobody else has. It’s tragic.
If you would like to read the thoughts of a religious Jew who is a spiritual zionist, check out
http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/
He has a mind of steel and a backbone of steel.He disagrees profoundly with the direction the state of Israel has taken.
Yes. This.
I also see “Haber” has endorsed the Joint List, which is who I would vote for if I were Israeli.
I understand about the historical origins of Zionism. I should have made the historicity of the connection I am talking about here clear, but I don’t think that changes my point. At least in my experience, there is now, as you say, a nationalistic strand running through Jewish religiosity. The fact that it wasn’t this way in the past suggests that there is a possibility that things may be different in the future; it even points to a possible pathway to this future that we might pursue. But it doesn’t mean that Judaism as people practice it now is not “really” Judaism, as you seem to be implying. All it means is that culture changes over time. We are all historical creatures, after all.
Still, I take your point about the connection between spiritual community and Zionism being only one among many possibilities in the practice of Judaism. It is an important one. It seems to me that the connection is so deeply embedded that for most religious Jews it goes unquestioned, but this is by no means set in stone; as I said, I do think a realignment on this issue is taking place, largely along generational lines. But, again, I am not expert on any of this so that is just based on my observations.
Thanks for the link. I really appreciate it. I’m in the process of trying to figure out where I stand on the Zionism / spiritual community issue, as part of my process of thinking about whether or not I want to convert. The Synagogue my wife and I attend is, generally speaking, liberal in orientation and our rabbi is a strong critic of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. But he is definitely a Zionist and I’m really not sure how easy it would be to be an anti-Zionist here; I’ve already had some issues with people on the topic. More to the point, even though I find myself recoiling at the signs of nationalism I sometimes encounter here, and I assume that I share your position on the necessity of the distinction between Zionism and spiritual community, if I am honest with myself I must say that I don’t really know. My relationship to the faith is not yet mature enough to be sure about that, and the possibility that I might actually embrace a Zionist perspective at some point in the future is disconcerting to say the least.
Thanks again for the link. I will definitely check it out.
Yes indeed.
Just ask GOP funder billionair Sheldon Adelson, Rabbi Boteach. Elie Wiesel and Michael Steinhardt.
○ Susan Rice has a blind spot: Genocide
Wasn’t Adelson’s favorite poster boy Elie Wiesel guest of honor to U.S. GOP Congress coming together for Bibi’s election speech a few days ago?
○ Shmuley Boteach’s Multi-Million-Dollar Hasbara Ad Campaign in U.S. National Media
○ Jewish Neocons Adopt Rwandan Dictator, Paul Kagame
I don’t know what’s going on in dKos diaries criticizing the policies of Israel, but I haven’t seen the “antisemitism” charge thrown out here too often, if at all. Maybe I missed it, but I’m pretty frequently denouncing Israel’s 47 year old occupation.
I can see what Sharansky is trying to get across here, but his three tests seem kind of convenient to me. And if one fails any one of them is one an anti-Semite, or must all three be failed?
“Demonization” is largely in the eye of the beholder, and while I don’t see analogies to “genocide” being very persuasive, Israeli policies in the occupied territory are objectively cruel, harsh, brutal and life destroying for many individual Palestinians and families. We have had UN commissions declare certain IDF operations/actions to constitute “war crimes” (with Hamas also being so charged). Surely it is not “demonization” to speak of such facts as this—or is it on dKos?
As an ordinary schmoe on the internet, I do not feel an obligation to cite the acts of other cruel governments whenever I address some brutal action by Israel’s soldiers or government. It is interesting that Sharansky’s list of abusive nations includes only one whose government is engaging in an extended colonial occupation ala Israel—China’s annexation and occupation of Tibet. I’d happily advocate that we have no economic relations with China at all until they free Tibet, so maybe I pass the double standards test, but probably not according to Sharansky’s terms. But America’s plutocrats and CEOs certainly don’t agree with me on China, haha.
As for Israel’s right to exist, is that really figuring too much in the American left’s (and world’s) calls to end the occupation, stop the illegal settlements, cease the Gaza blockade and allow the creation of a viable neighbor state? Not that I can see, thus in this instance it seems a sort of red herring “test”. And declaring that one may not even notice the somewhat unusual steps toward the creation of the State of Israel, or that it involved rather serious manifest injustice, without opening oneself to charges of antisemitism in Sharansky’s formulation is also rather chilling and a convenient way to conclude a discussion of a (relatively recent) historical matter….
I agree with you about Sharansky’s three “tests” especially because he leaves out the two that I, and I think most of us, recognize:
(1) That somehow their complaints about Israel are NOT really complaints about Israel, but old-fashioned antisemitic stereotypes about “the Jews”. You can spot the difference a mile away. Any unmonitored blog critical of Israel attracts antisemites like flies.
(2) That quite legitimate criticism being expressed publicly towards Israeli policies and attitudes functions for them as a kind of carte-blanche for outrifght antisemitism.
These two are nearly the same, just seen from two different angles.
Yes, I agree.
I do find it funny that the people who argue that opposing some action/statement/speech by the leader of Israel equates to hating Israel are the same people who oppose every word that preceded from the mouth of the President of the United States of America.
Though it does not define anti-Semitism, that three D test certainly does define a strain of anti-Zionism.
Also, judging by that same test, an awful lot of the left qualifies as anti-American in an equally profound sense.
Demonization? Check.
Double standards? Check.
Delegitimization? Check.
I gather Sharansky is not familiar with the work and influence of Howard Zinn and his epigones.
Yes, it’s sort of like he’s saying it’s OK to criticize Israel as long as you don’t actually criticize Israel.
Which, you know, fuck that shit. I don’t care if some dipshit Zionist calls me an antisemite, I know damn well that I would despise Netanyahu whatever his race or religion might be.