“But surely you believe,” they always ask you, “that you can criticize Israel without being antisemitic?” It is an obnoxious and patronizing question in and of itself, of course, in that it is obviously an admonition that all civilized, thinking people must answer “yes” or “of course” or “naturally.” It is important, however, because of its true answer, which is unequivocally, unquestionably, and objectively “no.”
Before the remonstrations on the “silencing of dissenting voices” and “attack on free speech” begin, it seems necessary to point out the reason for this: All criticism of Israel is antisemitic because of the specific historical moment in which we live. The circumstances in regard to Israel and the Jews in the world today render any non-antisemitic criticism of Israel impossible. And most ironically of all, it is entirely the fault of the antisemites.
Whether one wants to admit it or not, we are living in an age in which a global campaign exists for the sole and specific reason of legitimizing the destruction of Israel and the expulsion or annihilation of its Jewish population. Iran’s own president is straightforward about wiping Israel off the map. Islamists call for it every five minutes somewhere in the world. Western academics and activists regularly hint at it with such euphemisms as the “one-state solution” (an Arab state, in case you were wondering), and their constant apologetics on behalf of anti-Jewish terrorism. And as the recent atrocities in Toulouse have shown us, the Jews of the Diaspora are not and will not be spared the bloody consequences.
As a result of this campaign – which is antisemitic by any definition – any and all criticism of Israel not only can be but must be antisemitic. It is either subjectively antisemitic, in that it consciously and intentionally furthers the goals of the campaign; or it is objectively antisemitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing. The distinction, if there ever was one, between the two, is now meaningless. Either way, the result is the same: Those who seek to slaughter the Jews en masse are brought a step closer to their goal.
It may be, of course, that some criticism of Israel will be deemed necessary in spite of the consequences, and the need for a public hearing will overwhelm the need to prevent a victory of sorts for antisemitism. If so, however, those doing the criticism ought to be honest enough to acknowledge the objective consequences of doing so.
The Middle East conflict, David Ben-Gurion said a long time ago, and he was right, is not about the Jews and the Arabs, it is about the Jews and the world, a world that is overwhelmingly not Jewish, and thus bears certain responsibilities toward its Jewish minority. If and when the world finally accepts these responsibilities, criticism of Israel will be possible “without being antisemitic.” Until then, the moral imperative incumbent upon us all should be “work toward less antisemitism,” whatever is left said or unsaid along the way.
Oh, come on. Get serious.
I don’t have any beef with Israel, but that’s about the silliest statement you could possibly have made. When you say “Israel,” you’re speaking principally of a government. You’re not talking about the Jewish people, or the necessity and appropriateness of a Jewish homeland. I seriously doubt that the government of Israel has absolutely no crimes on its conscience. Certainly the government of the United States has some!
Take issue with persons who challenge Israel’s right to exist; that’s a logical, defensible position. But “all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic” — ? that just doesn’t fly.
Go ahead: call me an anti-Semite. I’ll discuss it this evening with my Jewish wife. I’m sure she’ll be amused.
we must never again let aipac and the 89% ethnic owned american media push us into another war for israel, our sons and daughters now 30000 walk our streets with prosthetic limbs and burnt bodies ,along with the ones ( 4000) who never came come) NEVER AGAIN.
How about using your real name, your full name? You should be willing to be known by your opinions and the quality of your intellect. A USA war fought for the sake of Israel? When was such a war ever fought? There has never been such a war! The USA decision to go to war in Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to to with the Israel government and does not benefit Israel any more than it might benefit France, Canada or the UK all of which countries are actually involved in the fighting, which Israel is not. The 1991 Gulf War was the USA response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. It was fought largely to benefit the Gulf Arab States, but also to serve USA oil interests. The 2003 reprise in Iraq was fought against the specific advice of the Israel government which even then wisely cautioned Washington with regard to the dangers of strengthening Iran by weakening Iraq. Israel is notoriously able to defend itself and has never needed USA servicemen to fight on its behalf. And today the USA appears to be running interference to prevent Israel from dealing with an imminent threat posed by the nuclear weapons of Iran which has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. True, foreign relations can be seen from many perspectives, but there is little or no evidence to support the argument that the USA’s Middle Eastern wars were fought for Israel’s sake nor to please USA Jews who are shown by public opinion polls to be generally anti-war and historically against USA involvement in Iraq. But, of course, I do understand that anti-Semites regularly make up history. They are totally without decency and will fabricate any argument to hurt Jews, Judaism, the Jewish People and Israel.
Your intentions are good but your way ends up in the inferno of the marxist pseudo-conceptual frame : “subjectively”/”objectively” antisemitic is a way of thinking the reality that is consistent only with a nihilist view of the world.
God is the center of reality, not any “objective” reality (much less “subjective”.)
What the humans can do is apply strict moral principles to their lives and their judgments.
Therefore, Israel can always be criticized if it does something wrong.
I propose to your attention a criticism of Israel that you can’t find antisemitic:
“Israel should have already attacked the iranian nuclear facilities, because every day that goes by the People of Israel are more and more in danger.”
Of course the author of this article would say, “Your criticism is antisemitic because it accuses the jewish leaders of Israel of being too stupid to know when they’ve waited too long.”
So objecting to the actions of Jonathan Jay Pollard and his Israeli handlers is anti-semetic.
I guess calling Obama a failure is then also racist.
In reality they are both statements that involve the application of the law of excluded middle.
That was the most absurd thing I’ve ever read at the Tatler.
Is it anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for listening to and/or trusting the Obambi regime?
You have to come from the seventh hell of idiocy to believe any disagreement with Israel constitutes anti-semitism.
Get real.
All this does is make the pro-Israel side look idiotic.
What defines “Israel” for you? National policies?
Israel is a free, democratic state. To be free and democratic, it’s government must be open to internal criticism.
Are you suggesting Israeli citizens are being antisemitic when they criticize the policies of their political opponents?
Are you suggesting that every national policy in Israel, from budget allocations to taxation to bus schedules, is to be considered the best possible policy, and be immune to criticism?
And if the locals can be free to criticize, why can’t we?
How about the physical nature of Israel? How about the weather in Israel? It’s too hot and dry for my taste. Antisemitic? Should Israelis never complain about traffic?
We give them a lot of money and support. We have the right to criticize anyone whose getting our aid. And anyone else.
Ya know, the one surefire way to piss off Americans is to tell them what they must not say. And the one group of people that Israel really, really should not piss off is Americans. That could be VERY bad for Israel. You may not have noticed, but other than Americans, there aren’t a lot of people with the courage to stand up for Israel these days.
So, when you think about it…. your absurd “all criticism is antisemitic” idea? It makes the pro-Israel lobby look stupid, and risks offending supporters, so it is VERY objectively antisemitic.
What about criticizing successive Israeli governments for being too soft? (as I am inclined to do.) Surely that is not antisemitic?
See also perry1949, #5 above.
What about criticism of diaspora Jews who criticize Israel? Is that antisemitic, or anti-antisemitic?
“The Middle East conflict [...] is not about the Jews and the Arabs, it is about the Jews and the world”
That is a polarizing statement, which seems designed to get the entire world against you. As much as you might dislike them for historical reasons, try to learn from the Romans: divide et impera.
As a strong supporter of Israel who has lived and worked in the country, I just want to tell you that you are full of it. Israel has handled many things very badly since its founding, and the vast majority of Israelis I knew in the country know this very well. The incredibly poorly handled invasion of Lebanon, the Sabra and Shatila massacres, the coddling of extremist settlers, the repeated capitulation to ultra-orthodox demands are just a few examples of very poor Israeli judgment.
If we cannot face up to these failures, Israel will never find a way to live in peace. That may mean nothing to warmongers like you who can shout out their abuse from ten thousand miles away, without any real concern for the welfare of Israeli citizens, but believe me, your attitude is repulsive to most real Israelis.
Green Eagle – Sabra and Shatila massacre was perpetrated by Christians.
Any time someone starts out a post “As a strong supporter of Israel…” you know it is going to be somebody doing their best to put over some element of the leftwing anti-Israel line. It’s almost as much of a giveaway as a first-time poster using a flamingly Jewish-sounding name.
“Green Eagle” here made a mistake by throwing in Sabra and Shatila, but the “repeated capitulation to ultra-orthodox demands” is a risible giveaway too.
>>>>>>>>>Excuses are made for Arabs behaving like murderous savages…
Indeed so. I sometimes think the one-sided criticism of Israel isn’t actually antisemitic but actually anti-Arab (or anti-Muslim): Arabs and Muslim behavior isn’t criticized and ignored, because, hey, what can you expect from such inferior, savage people?
It is true, Jack, that the Sabra and Shtilla massacres were perpetrated by Christians. But you leave out a very important fact: That it was accomplished with the assistance, and logistical support, of the Israeli Defense Force.
I’m sorry if this FACT upsets you; but as Jews, we are commanded to love the truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Plesae try your best to be a good Jew.
>>>>>>>If we cannot face up to these failures, Israel will never find a way to live in peace.
And if the wife doesn’t face up to her failures in cooking, her husband will never stop beating her.
Simply put: Israel might “never find a way to live in peace”, indeed, but that has something to do with the Muslim world’s unending, genocidal desire for a second holocaust, not with Israel’s faults.
I’m with Fran P.: Get serious. What a load of BS.
I equate anti-semitism with anti-Zionism but that’s another kettle of fish.
I agree with “Wow’s” comment; this is, without any doubt, the most absurd thing that I’ve ever read on the Tatler. There is a signifigant difference between criticizing a gov’t and racism against an entire people. By using your formula, I’d be anti-American, and a racist, for opposing what Obama has done to my country. You do know, don’t you, that Arabs are a Semitic people, too, does this make the Israelis anti-Semitic? Is Israel’s problems with Iran because of a sincerely held belief that the Iranian gouernment is a threat to Israel, or does criticizing Iran make Israelis racist anti-Aryans? The way that I see it, crying racisim is a typical leftist strategy to shut down discenting voices and constructive dialog.
I have to agree with the sentiment of this article, but the argument was poorly made.
Israel exists as a haven for persecuted Jews. There is no denying the harrying they have received throughout history. Israel is about keeping the Jews from being exterminated. That is the issue. Until that is recognized, nothing else is a valid discussion.
Criticism of Israel is fussing about the mote in a Jew’s eye while ignoring the beam in Arab eyes. It is just promoting the Arab/Muslim narrative of how Israel does not have a right to exist. When the world ceases trying to extirpate Israel, then I will hear criticism of Israel.
I just cannot find it possible to criticize the conduct of a man who is fighting for his very life. It is wrong to judge such a man based on normal conditions, when he is facing extraordinary circumstances. If the circumstances change to a more normal condition, then I will hold him to a higher standard.
The only discussion to have is how heinous it is that the Arabs/Muslims wish to murder all the Jews to the last man, woman, and child. Nothing else is a valid discussion until that is resolved.
Remember, the Jews have the power to kill every last one of the Arab/Muslims in the area, but they don’t do it. The Arabs/Muslims would do it to the Jews in a heartbeat. Criticizing Israel weakens/attacks the defenses of the Jews against their would-be butchers, and is thus, anti-semitic.
That’s the over-riding principle to bear in mind, anyway. Yes, Israel could do things better, but negative criticism, versus positive suggestions, attacks the main bulwark of Israel’s, and thus the Jews’, defense, Israel’s right to exist. Israel, in its behavior, should also keep that in mind. It is all about Israel’s right to exist where it does.
I will not offer negative criticize of Israel, until the modern Nazis (Arabs/Muslims) cease being Nazis.
“As a strong supporter of Israel”, I think you got it exactly right, Ben. You aren’t talking about typical criticism of typical government policies everyone everywhere complains about, like taxes, bureaucratic bumbling, or unemployment. You are talking about a kind of criticism that no other country in the world endures, such as: “shouldn’t Israel give up land it won in the 1967 war?” Does anyone anywhere claim that Poland should give up all German territory given to it after WWII? Or that the US should give up the territory it won from Mexico in 1848? Or that Turkey should get back regions once controlled by the Ottoman Empire? That Constantinapole (Istanbul by conquest) should be given back to Greece? That Muslim countries should give back lands conquered by their aggressive wars in the 7th and 8th centuries? War settles borders for all countries except Israel. Why is the rule different for Israel, unless the goal is to dismantle the country?
Even worse is the claim that Israelis should be dispossessed because the Palestinians are the “true” owners of Israel. No one is seriously asking Americans to go back to Europe. Or Argentinians to go back to Spain. Or French to leave Tahiti. Or black Americans to go back to Africa. So why are Jews the only people who are attacked for living in their historical birthplace? The reason is anti-semitism, crude and blunt, but dressed up in pseudo- science and false history. Ben, you are right. Keep it up.
“You aren’t talking about typical criticism of typical government policies everyone everywhere complains about … You are talking about a kind of criticism that no other country in the world endures”.
That’s very logical but not what he wrote. I expect Mr. Kerstein and most PJM readers agree with you. Mr. Kerstein probably thought that an article based on your para would have been seen as “same old, same old”.
Well, with all honesty, the Greeks have a far better claim to Constantinople, which they held for a thousand years or so, than the Turks, who have only been in posession since 1492. The Native Americans have the best claim to territory won in the Mexican-American war; they’ve lived there for thousands of years. Where do we draw the line? Do we, as the human race, undo the results of thousands of years of war and human migration, worldwide, or are some people more worthy than others?
Thanks, good article.
I’ve never understood why Israel, a country which provides more rights for its Arab population than almost any Arab country, is continually singled out for human rights abuses and labeled an “apartheid” state, with almost no mention of the dictatorships and police states that surround it and want it destroyed. And the UN is leading this hate-parade, with a constant stream of resolutions aimed at delegitimizing Israel.
yes, there are some Leftists who hate Israel because it’s like America — open, democratic, capitalist, and willing to defend itself — but most of the Israel haters are just anti-Semites, pure and simple.
And while we need to continue to push back against these people and present the facts, we also need to acknowledge what’s driving their movement: hatred of Jews.
I would not say all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, just most of it.
“I’ve never understood why Israel, a country which provides more rights for its Arab population than almost any Arab country, is continually singled out for human rights abuses and labeled an “apartheid” state…”
The nutrition and education of Africans in 1800′s America was better than almost anywhere in the world.
I don’t know why those anti-Americans keep saying that slavery was bad.
*rolls eyes*
I wasn’t expecting examples to illustrate my point, but thanks for providing.
Like I said, it’s anti-Semitism, pure and simple.
I follow things on the internet a bit, but I’ll admit I don’t spend an incredible amount of time here. I come to Pajamas, I read the headlines on my browser (which are provided by HuffPo, so I keep a salt shaker handy) and occasionally I visit other sites (StrategyPage for military stuff, MLB.com for the Dodgers). I have to say that this isn’t the stupidest thing I’ve seen on the Tatler, and it’s not even the stupidest thing I’ve seen on Pajamas…it’s one of the stupidest things I’ve seen on the web.
I’m not going to establish credentials here, and tell you I’m Jewish (I’m not; every time I’m mistaken for a Jew I take it as a compliment though) or that I have lots of Jewish friends. Instead, I’m going to use logic (daring me!) to simply prove your statement false, and silly.
First, did you ever consider that no one’s infallible? This is obvious, except if you’re a Catholic and regarding the Pope; even there, the infallibility has narrowed to matters of religion, so that if the Pope thinks a particular player is going to win the Marathon at the next Olympics and it turns out he’s wrong, that’s not proof he’s fallible. People are human, and they make mistakes. They can also be nefarious, and skilled at concealing it from everyone else: presidents, prime ministers, and the like occasionally do things that are criminal, and often do things that are stupid. It’s part of being human, and why we have a system set up here in our country that allows us to replace the guy running the White House with someone else.
So consider Israel. By your rule, if I get it correct, no one should ever criticise the government, which would mean (I guess) that the citizenry shouldn’t be allowed to vote against them, either. Or am I getting it wrong? Is the leadership of the government separate from the country of Israel? Because if they aren’t, they’ll be in power indefinitely, if everyone follows your rule.
Further, what happens if someone becomes leader of the place, and is corrupt? Admittedly absolute corruption (as opposed to the cronyism so endemic to Western politics) isn’t as common as is generally thought, but what happens if the Prime Minister is caught taking bribes? Is criticism of him, his party, the government, anti-Semitic? Let’s say (hypothetically) he gets caught, and for whatever reason the government essentially lets it slide. He’s the Charlie Rangel of Israel (I just read today that he got a paltry fine for that rent-control scam he had going, and a slap on the wrist from the House for not paying his taxes) and he’s gotten away with being hilariously corrupt, and winking at the voters and the reporters while acting this way–is criticism of him anti-Semitic? Is criticism of the country for allowing him to operate this way anti-Semitic? I won’t give you the answer, I’ll only note that if it is, it’d encourage corruption on a scale never seen in politics at least recently.
This leaves aside the issue of what to do when a country like Israel participates in something like Sabra and Shatila–yes, I know the actual shooters were Christians; the Israelis held the door open for them, watched them do it, and didn’t stop them. Not the perpetrators, but the facilitators without whom the crimes couldn’t have occurred, regardless of whether they did the actual shooting or not.
The part of the argument that annoys me the most is the idea that the persecution of the Jews is somehow unique, and gives the Jewish people a special status as victims that no one else on the planet deserves. Ethnic groups constantly argue with one another about which victimisation was worst, which crime the most horrific, which perpetrator the most execrable. It’s a sort of political-historical one-up-manship that’s essentially meaningless and silly: you can’t equate the several centuries of slavery that Blacks have endured with the millenia of anti-Semitism and decide which was *worse* any more than you can decide objectively which tastes better, lobster or creme brulee.
My point is this: a lot of ethnic groups (Blacks, American Indians, Armenians) think they’ve been victims in the past, still are today, and believe themselves due special treatment for their victimisation. They typically will tell you that any arguments against this special status for themselves is racist, or whatever -ist or -phobia applies. So anyone who criticizes the movement to lynch George Zimmerman is a racist, because black people were enslaved for so long, and are still being murdered in the streets every day. To one of these black activists propounding this argument, the threat is still real, and they could wind up in chains, working in Cotton fields, unless everyone votes for President Obama.
Yes, I know Ahmed-nutjob’s threat is more serious, in actuality, and yes, I seriously believe that he needs to be stopped. I’m not sure how to do this, because in reality the only way to be certain that Iran isn’t developing a bomb would be to invade the place, and we all saw how well that worked out in Iraq. The United States doesn’t have the stomach for a war against a country that’s larger and has more than twice the population, at least until *after* they use a bomb. Even then, I think the enthusiasm for the war wouldn’t last much more than 10 years, and in that period of time you’re not going to erase millenia of hatred of Jews. But I’m all in favor of trying something, anything that looks like it might work…
But even if Israel’s situation is “special”, and I don’t concede that it is, still…all criticism is anti-Semitic? What’re you, the Thought Police?
Actually, the hatred of Jews in the Muslim world is not that old. Up to the end of the 19th century Jews were treated better in the Muslim world than in the Christian one; the real, broad anti – semitism in Islam doesn’t start until the founding of Israel (though it was on the rise prior to that – the colonization effects on the muslim world led to radicalization, and rejection of the foreign – including Jews).
This article is the weak argument. The strong argument is that: criticism is already intense in Israel among people who know the issues and the facts, no additional voice is relevant to a democracy. Outsiders are inherently brutalizing
Of course criticism of Israel is Antisemetic, because it’s one sided. Not only that, it’s also racist; because it demands a standard of behavior on the part of Israel, that it never demands – or even expects – of the countries surrounding Israel. Excuses are made for Arabs behaving like murderous savages, while at the same time no heed is paid to the strategic situation Israel exists in.
Incorrect. I can be critical of Israelis and Israel while simultaneously being critical of Arabs and their associated states. I can certainly do that without thinking there is something wrong with Jews or Arabs as a race (and “race” here would have to be defined pretty broadly as to fit a number of distinct races into those umbrella’s as you have defined them).
Is it too much to expect both sides to act like adults?
>>>>.Incorrect. I can be critical of Israelis and Israel while simultaneously being critical of Arabs and their associated states.
Yes, but somehow, experience shows Israel gets 90% of the criticism, the rest of hte Arab world, 10%, if that.
>>>>Is it too much to ask both sides to act like adults?
Does “acting like adults” means the PLO and Hamas and the Palestinians in general abandon their “staged plan” for Israel’s destruction — getting a Palestinian state first, then using it as a military base to get the rest of Israel through terror, international pressure, etc., etc.?
Or does the “acting like adults” means what it usually means — namely, the “adult acting” Israel is supposed to give the Palestinians a state for a worthless “peace” agreement which will be violated the minute it is signed, just like the Oslo accords were?
>>>>>>This leaves aside the issue of what to do when a country like Israel participates in something like Sabra and Shatila–yes, I know the actual shooters were Christians; the Israelis held the door open for them, watched them do it, and didn’t stop them.
Not exactly. And with a big moral difference.
A very critical committee that investigated the massacre in Israel, and caused the resignation of the minister of defense and (indirectly) the prime minister, decided quite reasonably that nobody in Israel anticipated such a massacre — although they SHOULD have — and it was not at all clear how it could be stopped at the time, once it started.
But here we go again with the incredible double standard.
1). First of all, it is always always ALWAYS Israel that is blamed for Sabra and Shatila — either by people who think Israeli soldiers committed the massacre, or by people who know they didn’t but criticize Israel standing by. NOBODY EVER BLAMES THE FALANGAS WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE MASSACRES. They are always let off scot-free, as the real purpose of the criticism about Sabra and Shatila is to find something to blame Israel for, not to seek justice.
2). Israel indeed did nothing to stop a massacre it did not (though it should have) forseen at the very time it was happening. Now, what did the US — or Europe — or the UN — do to stop, say, the massacres in Darfur or Rwanda or the Congo — murders that have been going on for YEARS, and EXPECTED, not like, Sabra and Shatila, took a couple of days and were not forseen?
Nada? Zilch? Big fat zero? Excatly. Now, where is the moral condemnation of the UN, of the USA, of Europe, and of the rest of those who did nothing and didn’t care, as morally evil and corrupt and deserving to be shunned? Nowhere?
Ah…
Er, please enlighten me. Had the US, or Europe, or the UN had invaded any of the states you mentioned, when the massacres took place? Israel, OTOH, had invaded Lebanon during material time. It is one of those unintended consequences of war. It’s like planning for a cakewalk and getting bogged down in mire. Fog. Happens. Only the politically motivated who deny even of its possibility, repeatedly, loudly.
Sure Israel invaded Lebanon. It might have had *something* to do with Northern Israel being bombed daily for years with kanyusha rockets by the “moderate” PLO. Now, anybody here going to condemn the PLO for that?
No?
…didn’t think so.
Skeptic, hold on, the irony here is unbelievable.
The details here don’t matter, Israel made the decision it made, and that decision could only be correct, otherwise, you’re an anti-Semite.
And clearly, this “highly critical committee” was full of anti-Semites, by definition.
nothing to see here folks.
You’ve got to be kidding……If you cant criticize a government, then you are doing yourself and your fellow citizens a great disservice. Get yer head out your behind and get on w/out the paranoia and BS. In fact, ENOUGH of the paranoia, and victimization BS!!
You live, you die. Enjoy it for a change!
Shalom.
My country, right or wrong! Definitely Brown Neck League material.
Are you kidding me? What you’re saying, in effect, is that nothing that the Israeli government does is wrong, that it never makes mistakes. Do you seriously believe that? Are they superhuman and infallible? Has anyone ever been infallible? Oh, man . . . I am WORRIED about the state of our world when this kind of plain claptrap is given air.
The point is, every government makes lots of mistakes, but for some reasons the folks who are obsessed with pointing out Israel’s are blissfully ignorant of the most obvious facts about Israel.
For instance, the “moderate” PLO leadership had repeatedly declared that they will never accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state and that a Palestinian state is only part of the “staged plan” for Israel’s total destruction (the only difference between the PLO and Hamas is the *way* to best destroy Israel, not that this is the goal). Yet you will NEVER hear this obvious fact from any of the “critics of Israel”.
You have here two sides. One wants to live. One wants genocide. Openly. Yet criticism is somehow “fairly” distributed equally. If that is not antisemitism, what is?
Dear Mr. Kerstein,
Please convert to something other than Judaism so you can stop making our people sound like ignorant morons.
Oy Vey what a load of זבל!
זבל אורגני
So, if someone honestly believes that something Israel is (or isn’t) doing is self-destructive; that if they continue in a current policy it will result in a worse situation for Israel, and an increased likelihood of Israelis dying en masse; that another policy would result in a lessened likelihood of the same; and they publicly air that sentiment in a sincere effort to help… that person is an anti-Semite? The person might be wrong, but not maliciously so. Calling them an anti-Semite over it is accusing them of bad faith, the only evidence of which is that they disagree with what you already think. Furthermore, it’s alienating someone who’s doing their best to help Israel.
That’s what constructive criticism is about – presenting contrary views in order to get a better outcome. It’s not a good thing when a person (or a country) is no longer willing to listen to it. If that person’s course ends up being the correct one, it’s despite the lack of criticism, not because of it.
>>>>>>>So, if someone honestly believes that something Israel is (or isn’t) doing is self-destructive; that if they continue in a current policy it will result in a worse situation for Israel, and an increased likelihood of Israelis dying en masse; that another policy would result in a lessened likelihood of the same; and they publicly air that sentiment in a sincere effort to help… that person is an anti-Semite?
In theory, no.
In practice, yes.
Because behind all of your nice words is one, and only one, real meaning: a demand Israel agree to the creation of a Palestinian state — which the “moderate peace partner”, the PLO, repeatedly and consistently says (with, I must admit, rather admirable honesty) would only be a stage in the “staged plan” for Israel’s utter destruction, and that would merely be a base for “continued resistance” (killing Jews) and the “right of return” (flooding Israel with millions of hostile Arab refugees).
I’d say the demand Israel enthusiatically participate in its own destruction is a bit antisemitic. Just a wild guess.
So if Israel has a Kadima/Shalom Achsaiv government you won’t criticize it?
How about Ariel Sharon’s retreat from Gaza?
>>>>>>>So if Israel has a Kadima/Shalom Achsaiv government you won’t criticize it?
Of course I would.
Words cannot describe just how much Kadima and Shalom Achsav are despised in Israel as, respetively, corrupt scum (70% or so of Kadima’s top brass are currently in jail, on trial or under investigation for corruption) and naive, auto-antisemitic Quislings.
Shalom Achshav has the support of — roughly — 3% of the population (if that), and Kadima, in this week’s political survey by a major Israeli newspaper, got less mandates in the polls (10) than the meaningless fly-by-night psuedo-”party” of Yair Lapid, whose one claim for running the country is that he’s a celebrity (12).
The reason, of course, is that their “enlightened peace camp” policies of submitting without a fight to Arab demands had proven an utterly disasterous, causing the death of thousands of Israelies, which is precisely what the “low-brow idiots of the right” had predicted all along (then again, any ten-year-old could have predicted it).
So they try to garner spport among the diaspora to “save Israel from itself” — or, more precisely, to try and force Israel to follow their utterly failed, naive policies, regardless of what Israeli voters want.
That is antisemitism, wouldn’t you say — to try and force Israel to make suicidal concessions that utterly failed in the past just so you could feel good about yourself for being in the “peace” (heh heh) camp?
That is antisemitism, would’t you say — to try and force Israel to make suicidal concessions that utterly failed in the past just so you could feel good about yourself for being in the “peace” (heh heh) camp?
Nope.
I would say this is anti-Zionism, however.
So, sorry to disappoint but one can criticize members of the government without being wide-brush painted as an “anti-semite”. Was Katsav rape-charge anti-semitic? Of course not-just justice following its course (compare with other ROP countries: is this what Israel is aiming for? I hope not.)
True enough. But if this is the standard for “anti-Semitism,” then reflexive support for Israel is also anti-Semitic. Supporting the Israeli right no matter what it does encourages Israel to act against its own true interests. By refusing to come to an accommodation with its neighbors (forget about whether such an accommodation would be “just” — that’s a side issue that ignores objective reality on the ground) it guarantees long-term hatred and violence directed against it. And no state can withstand violence directed against it forever.
Mr Kerstein, did any of your family ever write propaganda for the communists? I have to ask that question because you tell us that we can not critize Israel without being anti-semetic. Funny, didn’t the Reds in the USSR prohibt criticism of the Party too?
I must concur with the sentiments in the posts regarding how idiotic this article makes the pro-Israel side look. Those of us who *actually* support Israel don’t ask that people be blind to disagreements they might have with the Israeli government. It is no more anti-Semitic to disagree with the Israeli government’s actions than it is anti-American to disagree with the American government’s actions.
Put it another way: if you ever even mouth criticism of President Obama, that, according to your logic, makes you anti-American. To me, that’s an obtuse and absurd stance to take. Only a fool would dare make such an argument. And yet…
The charge of anti-Semitism, as you define it, is so broad a brush as to be completely useless to tar and feather any one individual ever again. Everyone, and most especially most every Israeli, is now officially an anti-Semite. Good luck ever trying to use that term as a cudgel every again.
Blanket charges of anti-semitism are the last refuge of a scoundrel. — pace Samuel Johnson
By the same logic, all criticism of Louis Farrakhan is racist? Criticizing the Catholic Church for covering up child abuse is religious bigotry?
why wait for our enemies to hurt us when we can do more damage to ourselves with articles like this
I’m a Jew. I love my Jewish family and friends. I celebrate the Yiddishkeit. I think that Israel has set itself on a course of slow self-destruction. I fear this bodes ill for all Jews in Israel and the diaspora. Am I an anti-Semite?
This is possibley the DUMBEST thing I’ve ever read. And completely UNJEWISH!!!
Since when to Jews try to stiffle honest debate by throwing out invective and playing the victim card? Only since the truth-challenged rightie ignoramuses took over the Land of my ancestors! REAL JEWS appreciate good debate and argumentation. REAL JEWS value differences of opinion and logical argumentation. No genuince Jewish person would suggest that any disagreement constitutes anti-Semitism.
In other words, Mr. Kerstein, you are one hell of a lousy Jew. In fact, you make me embarassed to be of the same ethnicity as you!
For the record: One CAN in fact, disagree with the decisions of the current Government of Israel without hating Jews. Or are you suggesting that everybody that voted against Likud in the last election is anti-Semitic?
With friends like you, we REAL jews don’t need any enemies! Please slink back into the hole from whence you emerged, and leave the rest of us thinking people alone!
Drive the hairy back hook nosed greedy terrorist jews to the sea. Their god killed most in ww2. Please continue.
I guess that makes every Israeli citizen who disagrees with his government an anti-semite?
I think people here are missing the point. The point isn’t that all crticism of Israel under any circumstances is racist. The point is that in the current situation, with Israel under threat of destruction and deligitimization (to make destruction easier), then a specific kind of criticism of Israel, which is the kind 90% of the “not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic” folks engage in 90% of the time, IS antisemitism.
We are in a situation where the Islamists of the world declare they want to wipe Israel off the map, while the useful idiots of the left support them, by demanding Israel commit suicide through the so-called “peace” process, which had already killed thousands of Israelies, and which the “moderate” PLO repeatedly declared is just part of the “stage plan” for Israel’s utter destruction. And what do the “concerned” folks wishing to “save Israel from itself” ALWAYS go on and on about? Well, precisely THIS — Israel currently failing to “advnace the peace process” (that is, the staged plan for its own destruction). And then they claim it’s not antisemitic.
Well, it IS antisemitic. It’s either knowingly or unknowingly working towards the goal of Israel’s destruction, by deligitimizing Israel’s concerns and risks and lionising those who wish it destroyed as “moderate peace partners”. They NEVER criticize Israel for anything really non-antisemitic — say, for having a bad fiscal policy in its agricultural ministry (or whatever). They don’t know, or care, enough about Israel to intelligently make actual criticisms of this sort; for that matter, most of them don’t know enough about Israel to order a cup of coffee in a cafe in Tel Aviv.
The ONLY thing they “know” in their “superior” concern to “correct Israel’s mistakes” out of their “deep worry” — and similar empty phrases designed to make themselves feel superior to the simple, stupid Israelies who just don’t know what’s good for them — is that the staged plan for Israel’s destruc… er, oops, I mean “the peace process” — isn’t advancing fast enough lately, so it’s ALL ISRAEL’S FAULT.
Want proof?
OK, everybody: there are seven or eight or ten folks replying on this forum who are telling us how, in their infinite wisdom, they must criticize Israel for choosing the wrong geo-political policy — which means, “not wanting to give the Arabs yet another terror-supporting state”.
Of all these would-be “experts” about what Israel is doing wrong, how many of you can ask for a cup of coffe in and Israeli cafe in Hebrew? How many of you can ask for a plate of Hummus in an Arab restaurant in Arabic? How many of you can tell me, without looking at the map, if Be’er Sheva is north or south of Haifa?
…none? Perhaps one or two?
…thought so.
SKeptic,
I disagree with you but you’re an articulate and thoughtful writer. Yet, effective argument must be based on fact.
Granted, it’s so often repeated that many people assume that it’s true, but Ahmadinejad did not say, “Wipe Israel off the map” or “Push Israel into the sea”. Those are mistranslations of what he said.
What he actually said was that, specifically, that the regime (Israeli government) occupying al-Quds should vanish from the page of history.
Vanishing from the page of history is close, but not close enough, as he said nothing about the country of Israel or the Jewish people.
Don’t take my word for it. Do a thorough, open-minded google search and decide for yourself.
I have a rule of thumb for determining whether a criticism is antisemitic or not. If it involves singling out of Israel, slander, stalking.
Antisemitism is a type of stalking. According to wiki, stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person (or group). Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them.
Antisemitism is a kind of singling out. Behaviours that are allowed, ignored, or dismissed in all groups get a special scrutiny when they are carried by Jews/Israel.
Antisemitism is a kind of slander. It relies on either a manufactured fact, an exaggeration or manipulation of facts to demonize the Jew or the Jewish country with the explicit or implicit intention of delegitimizing its existence.
Let’s take this comment, for example:
“evilpiratemunkey
“I’ve never understood why Israel, a country which provides more rights for its Arab population than almost any Arab country, is continually singled out for human rights abuses and labeled an “apartheid” state…”
The nutrition and education of Africans in 1800′s America was better than almost anywhere in the world.
I don’t know why those anti-Americans keep saying that slavery was bad.
*rolls eyes* ”
It makes an analogy between the situation of the Arab minority in Israel and slavery in the USA.
As Oliver Kamm once said, “Historical analogies are never exact but sometimes useful. If they are to be useful, then the precedent needs at a minimum to be stated accurately”.
Now, is the precedent of slavery in the USA stated accurately when Israel’s Arab minority is compared to it? Were the Arabs forcibly kidnapped and brought to Israel? Are they traded by Israeli Jews and used for slave work in Israel’s fields and industry? Are the Arabs in Israel deprived of their right for education?
If the answer is No, then we can safely assume this analogy is simply a slander. It is also a stalking since it comes from the need to pay special attention to Israel. It is also a singling out. I doubt evilpiratemunkey
pays any sort of attention to the very real slavery that takes place in Arab countries, or to very real discrimination institutionalized in law and practice, in the same Arab countries, or the very real racism and discrimination that takes place in Europe vis a vis the Roma, or the Kurds in Turkey, etc etc.. All these evils, much much much worse than anything one is ever likely to be seen as committed by Israel , are simply ignored or dismissed or whatever.
Hence the conclusion is also simple: evilmunkey is an antisemite. He actually thinks that his antisemitic analogies can pass for “legitimate” criticism of Israel. They cannot.
I find myself agreeing with the thesis Benjamin Kerstein has laid out for our consideration. And that its not really free speech that is stake but whether criticism of Israel by outsiders can still be justified in the face of the attendant facts of our time.
We are not talking about Israeli Jewish dissent from government policies. We’re talking a well-organized global assault on the existence of the Jewish State. This takes many forms but its mostly of an ideological character and is intended to delegitimize and discredit the Jewish State and the exact source or nature of the criticism in question is not really relevant for Jews anymore. Here is why.
Its not Israel’s responsibility to prove its a decent country. Kerstein is talking about shifting the burden of proof to Israel’s critics. They have to show they don’t hate the Jews and Israel. Until they do – Jews should presume all criticism of Israel to be part and parcel of an intensive anti-Semitic global campaign to make possible the expulsion or annihilation of the Jewish people a reality in the future.
And that is a very high bar to surmount. In short, the circumstances of our historical age requires us to have zero tolerance for anti-Semitic incitement. This may depress well-meaning friends of Israel. But anti-Semites and Israel haters have rendered ALL non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel from outsiders impossible.
Whether or not we want to acknowledge it, it is the unvarnished truth.
This is an excellent article.
I think the author and prominent Zionists who believe in the author’s thesis should vocally promote this bullshit so normal, sane people who aren’t:
Evangelical Christian fundies
Anti-Arab racists and Islamophobes
Weathervane/spineless politicians
…will realize how absurd Zionism is.
Anti-Zionism is based on the opposition to a Jewish State in Palestine where there was no Jewish majority. The only way to make a Jewish majority was through war and ethnic cleansing.
The Zionist colonial project continues up into the present-day.
Let the author’s thesis be yet another idiotic chapter in Zionist myth-making – just like the Big Lie that 5 Arab armies attacked the nascent Jewish State out of nowhere and for no apparent reason except to annihilate it. (The ethnic cleansing of Palestine had began months before. The Deir Yassin massacre had occurred before the declaration. Etc etc.)
What we really need is more publicized debates between Zionists and anti-Zionists. Let people see Zionist arguments for the sophist bullshit that they are. (39834874 Muslim States and 1 Jewish State, so let us ethnically cleanse these people, mmkay?/We made the desert bloom, Arabs messed up greenhouses!/We left Gaza and got rockets in return!/We want security which is why the apartheid wall annexes half the West Bank oh and we’re continuing to expand jewish only colonies/etc. etc.)
Oh, please go on mainstream American TV networks (not the 700 Club/etc.) and spout your blatant anti-Arab/Islamophobic rhetoric in it’s pure form as you do here. See how quickly you lose support.
Americans like Israel but just so long as the news from the conflict is defined as ‘Jew’s fingernail broken by Arab terrorist’.
There has never been a thoughtful and truly conflicting debate on the subject. It’s usually Jewish voices (for both sides) speaking on the issue. The best you crazies can get in the mainstream these days are LIBERAL Zionists.
Even though you can get away with breaking IHL/expanding settlements/shooting Palestinians in the face at point-blank w/ a tear-gas canister/etc., you’re only able to do so, so long as this facade of democratic values/liberalism/etc. is maintained as your image.
“‘Jew’s fingernail broken by Arab terrorist’. ”
“1,218 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000.”
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/28/world/west-bank-massacre-israel-orders-tough-measures-against-militant-settlers.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail,” Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in a eulogy. At the service in Jerusalem, attended by 300 people, one man shouted, “We are all Goldstein,” an opinion echoed across Qiryat Arba by neighbors who said variously that they approved of his attack on the Arabs or at the least could not judge him.
—-
1,471 Palestinian children have been murdered by the Israeli army between 2000 and 2011. That’s 200 more than the total number of Israelis in general, killed by Palestinian terrorists + isolated attacks by Palestinians belonging to no factions.
http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/
There is no comparison between the atrocities committed by the racist apartheid State of Israel and the Palestinians and their various factions (who fight among themselves as well).
Israel kills 10 times the number of children. 5 times the number of civilians.
And it is Israel occupying and colonizing Palestine for 45 years. Not the other way around.
Only people who hate Arabs/Muslims and/or are Zionist Jews justify Israel’s existence as a Jewish majority (in spite of it’s destabilizing effect on the indigenous population, both in the past and in the present).
Cliff: Are you now claiming that what one (extremist) rabbi said in a sermon to a few similar-minded extremists exonerates YOU from making a slanderous and easily rebuttable statement that “Americans like Israel but just so long as the news from the conflict is defined as ‘Jew’s fingernail broken by Arab terrorist’. “. What you clearly implied was that the worst harm that happens to Israeli Jews from Palestinian-Arab terrorists is that they break a fingernail. That is a lie of the first order and easily provable to be so. The fact that your tender sentiments were hurt by the rabbi’s words does not give you any right whatsoever to manufacture truth and deny easily verifiable records or whitewash the history and on-going record of Palestinian terrorism.
I’m sure even you can understand this simple rational rule.
Cliff: Do you mean that Jews were not indigenous to the region known as “Palestine”, or other regions in the Middle East, within the borders of Ottoman empire?
“The first arab sponsored terrorist attack upon Jews occurred in 1920, long before the establishment of Israel and long before there were any so-called palestinians. In 1929 arab mobs massacred over 100 Jews, 67 of them in 1929 Hebron massacre alone, an ancient community where Jews lived among arabs peacefully for centuries. Many of the corpses were mutilated by arabs.
Eighty years later, the death toll from arab terrorism in Israel continues to grow. ”
http://lindasog.com/public/terrorvictims.htm
__________
Cliff’s comment is the finest illustration of Kerstein’s thesis in this article how criticism of Israel automatically becomes antisemitism. Consider what Cliff is proposing here (based on total historical revisionism, a complete and cynical denial of Jewish suffering, slander, and the need to market the idea of a Israel as a criminal project) and then try to make any rational, moderately critical comment about Israel. See how whatever you say is immediately subsumed, and practically disappears, into Cliff’s grand antisemitic narrative.
And what is Cliff’s ultimate objective? The destruction of Jewish presence in Palestine. He doesn’t say so forthrightly, but he means it when he talks about “how absurd Zionism is” and then tries to maintain it by turning it into a crime. His is actually not just simple antisemitism; his is an eliminationist type of antisemitism.
Cliff’s comment wasn’t anti-semitic–he presented a number of historical facts in an in-your-face way that undermine the usual Zionist storyline. That storyline is one where all the fault in the early days is on the side of vicious, violent Arabs who are motivated by anti-semitism and nothing else. The reality is one where Arabs see their homeland being taken over with foreign assistance as part of a long-term project to create a Jewish state, something that could only happen if the majority of the Arab population were either bought out or driven out. Most weren’t bought out–they were driven out or they fled during the war and then weren’t allowed to come home. Both sides committed atrocities, as always happens in conflicts when one group of people decide to take land already inhabited by another group. See the history of America for numerous examples.
I don’t have to see the early Zionists as demon figures to understand that this is what happened. The Zionists wanted the land and they wanted to believe that they could acquire the land justly and when that wasn’t possible they argued themselves into believing that if they drove out the Arabs it was entirely the fault of the Arabs. In short, they rationalized their behavior the same way my own white American ancestors did.
It is definitely antisemitic, by the parameters I detailed above (stalking, singling out, slander). It is also antisemitic by its denial to Jews what is freely allowed to Palestinians: Self determination in their historical homeland. Your review of history is highly flawed, if not downright revisionist.
Noga, nothing I said was antisemitic.
I was not downplaying Israeli deaths in the conflict. I was using tongue-in-cheek language.
My comment alluded to something a racist/bigoted Kahana-worshiping Rabbi said in the aftermath of Baruch Goldstein’s Cave of the Patriarch’s massacre.
And you have said nothing to undermine the historical facts Donald and myself have stated. You can call them revisionist until you’re blue in the face but that doesn’t make the allegation true.
And anyway, what specifically was it that I said, that was untrue?
The ethnic cleansing DID begin before the declaration of Israeli statehood. The Deir Yassin massacre DID happen before the declaration of Israeli statehood.
Furthermore, the 5 Arab armies were ill-equipped and undermanned. There was all kinds of imperial shenanigans going on behind the curtain (especially w/ Jordan). The war was fought mostly inside the Palestinian side of the partition.
And last but not least, Zionist leaders were always saying that partition was simply the ‘first step’ towards more land. It was a strategy. They knew the Arabs would reject any division of land – because what did they care for Zionism? They viewed the Zionists as invaders.
And Israel is not the ‘historic land’ of the Jewish people. For thousands of years there was a very small amount of Jews who lived in that area. The people there were mostly ARABS. And Zionism had no right to kick them out of their homes and off their lands simply because once upon a time, 3000 years ago, there was a Jewish kingdom that no Jew today descends from.
As if you (if you’re Jewish) or any other Jewish person today is a descendent from the ancient whatevers.
Self-determination does not belong to religions or ethnic groups scattered around the world united by some ‘deep’ religious connection to a piece of land they haven’t been to. It belongs to the people of a land, and in that sense the Palestinian Arabs were always just in their rejection of dividing the land.
No European would accept the division of their land today just because Muslims feel a deep religious and/or cultural connection to their apartment.
Your ‘antisemitism’ litmus test is pure sophistry.
“I was not downplaying Israeli deaths in the conflict. I was using tongue-in-cheek language.”
this is what you wrote:
“Americans like Israel but just so long as the news from the conflict is defined as ‘Jew’s fingernail broken by Arab terrorist’. ”
You are right. Comparing the murder of 1,400 Israelis to a broken fingernail is not “downplaying”. It is an obscene disregard to records and their meaning.
To be using “tongue in cheek” language(oh, the hilarity! the wit! the sparkle!) when talking about the murder of over 1,400 Israeli Jews is exactly what makes your comment antisemitic (well, one of the indicators; there are others).
“Therefore, you must hoist the banner of Jihad, the banner of “there is no god but Allah.” [...]
Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aqsa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad. [...]
Allah be praised, we all have Arab roots, and every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots – whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. So where is your affection and mercy? [...]
Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri ["Egyptian"]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.
Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are a part of you.”
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3389.htm
Granted, it’s so often repeated that many people assume that it’s true, but Ahmadinejad did not say, “Wipe Israel off the map” or “Push Israel into the sea”. Those are mistranslations of what he said.
What he actually said was that, specifically, that the regime (Israeli government) occupying al-Quds should vanish from the page of history.
Vanishing from the page of history is close, but not close enough, as he said nothing about the country of Israel or the Jewish people.
Don’t take my word for it. Do a thorough, open-minded google search and decide for yourself.
I prefer to put it this way — the modern meaning of anti-Semitism certainly includes persistently targeting Israel and persistently applying to Israel a more exigent standard than regularly applied to other countries in the same or similar circumstances, see “When Does Criticizing Israel Become Ant-Semitic” at http://www.allenzhertz.com The fundamental truth is that Jews, Judaism, the Jewish People and Israel are “owed” both fairness and sound social science. Of course, it is possible to craft a fair critique of Israel, but it does require something like natural justice. And, because Christians and Muslims have discriminated against the Jewish People for close to 2,000 years, there is a rebuttable presumption that persistent anti-Israel talk is motivated by anti-Semitism. And, the same rules apply with respect to other populations that have been historically victimized. And, that is why we are careful when we speak and act with regard to, for example, Black Americans. Fairness and sound social science certainly enable non-discriminatory criticism of Israel. By contrast, run-of-the-mill persistent ventilating against Israel is on balance anti-Semitic. You sons and daughters of the people who persecuted Jews for close to 2,000 years! You are not entitled to excuse yourself from historical responsibility. You literally “owe” Jews, Judaism, the Jewish People and Israel fairness and sound social science. Or do you prefer the ways of your ancestors who were persistent human rights abusers? Nor are soi-disant Jews any more entitled to trash Jews, Judaism, the Jewish People and Israel. Of course, one is free to say what one will, but logically must live with the consequences of our speech. Whether Jew or gentile, persistent “discriminatory” language with respect to Israel is one of the sure fire indicia of anti-Semitism. And, why? Simple answer — because it is likely to harm Jews who make up 75% of the population of that country.
Sure, we who are descendants of anti-semites need to be careful about anti-semitism, but as with all such principles it cuts both ways. So yes, some critics of Israel are motivated by anti-semitism, but it’s the easiest thing in the world to use that as an excuse to downplay Israeli wrongdoing. Very few people think that the horrors of European colonialism justify the current practices of African dictators, but I say “very few” because in fact I have heard people defend Robert Mugabe on the grounds that British colonialism was bad, so his critics must all be sympathizers with British colonialism.
To make the “rebuttable presumption” (how generous of you to include the rebuttable) that critics of Israel are guilty of anti-semitism until proven innocent is absurd. One might just as well make the assumption that any criticism of an African dictator is motivated by racism unless one knows otherwise. Also, the role of victim and victimizer can change very very quickly.
You’re flat out wrong. I’m Israeli an I can criticize my government when I think it’s wrong.. That doesn’t make me anti-Semitic. I disagree with the government on economic policy, health care, and in many other areas. I did my time in the army. I earned the right to criticize my government when I think the are wrong.
Indeed. And so you should. But I assume you address your complaints to the Israeli government in the hope of IMPROVING the living conditions, security and future of Israeli society. The author of this article is positing the kind of “criticism” that occurs outside of Israel:
“Whether one wants to admit it or not, we are living in an age in which a global campaign exists for the sole and specific reason of legitimizing the destruction of Israel and the expulsion or annihilation of its Jewish population. Iran’s own president is straightforward about wiping Israel off the map. Islamists call for it every five minutes somewhere in the world. Western academics and activists regularly hint at it with such euphemisms as the “one-state solution” (an Arab state, in case you were wondering), and their constant apologetics on behalf of anti-Jewish terrorism.”
If your criticism of Israel’s economic policies were meant to undermine the integrity of Jewish life in Israel, or Israel’s legitimate status within the international community, then it would be effectively antisemitic. Do you know of any other global campaign to delegitimize and criminalize THE VERY EXISTENCE of any nation-state in the world, except for Israel? Think about it before you throw your kind of criticism with the kinds of “criticisms” voiced in this thread by the likes of Cliff and Donald.
First of all, read the headline: “Is All Criticism Of Israel Anti-Semitic? Put simply: Yes.” You’re making a distinction that the author does not. In fact, the word “All” means… “All”.
But let’s give the author the benefit of the doubt here and say he was willing to forgo any intellectual, nuanced discussion of criticism in favor of writing an attention-grabbing headline that brought more traffic to the page. Totally sleazy, but whatever. Let’s say he did that. Your argument to the Israeli citizen above is that, hey, obviously your criticism is acceptable because it is “in the hope of IMPROVING the living conditions, security and future of Israeli society.” Well, guess what? That’s why a lot of people, including myself, criticize Israel. I may not live there, but I have quite a lot of family there whom I care for very deeply, and my criticism is carried out in the same vein. Just because a person outside of Israel vocalizes their belief that the government’s actions in the Occupied Territories is abysmal, that doesn’t have to mean they believe Israel should be wiped off the map. It may mean quite the opposite, that they are frightened to the core that Israel will not be able to sustain its security as a democratic outpost in the Middle East if it continues down this path of occupation and human rights violations.
That being said, is there criticism of Israel that is rooted in anti-semitism? Of course! It’s repulsive when you encounter it, and I find it to be just as ignorant as the perspective that whatever Israel does to Palestinians in the name of security is 100% acceptable. They are equally reprehensible positions. However, the important thing is to not reduce “All Criticism Of Israel” to one unanimous fantasy of conspiratorial genocide against the Jews. Seriously. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs regarding this conflict, which is why it’s such a complicated one to tackle. People who refuse to acknowledge that are simply dragging the wheels of progress to a grinding halt. Stop doing that.
“Just because a person outside of Israel vocalizes their belief that the government’s actions in the Occupied Territories is abysmal, that doesn’t have to mean they believe Israel should be wiped off the map.”
A person should be aware, as I said in one of my earlier comments, that in the present mood and inclination in Western media and campuses, any criticism of Israel is subsumed into the service of those who promote Israel’s cancellation. The good of Israeli society is not something that really plays a factor in all the criticism that takes place and that the author posits as “antisemitic”. It is all about what is good for the Palestinians, full stop. Anything that can be used to show Israel and Israel’s societal problems as an exceptionally evil entities in this world is being mobilized. If you don’t see it then you must be deliberately averting your gaze from this reality. Even Israel’s recent problems with Haredi excesses has been roped in to “prove” that Israeli society is going undemocratic and anti-women. And this in magazines of some liberal respectability such as The New Republic. An impression has been created of Israel as a real evil place and you must be aware that while those who created this image seek its destruction, those who ignore them and believe they can criticize Israel without helping consolidate that image are their de-facto accomplices.
Question for the author: If my relatives who have served in the Israeli military openly criticize the actions of their own country, is that anti-semitism? Just curious if you were willing to go ahead and call soldiers who have put their lives on the line for Israel… anti-semitic. Would appreciate an answer! Thanks!
Certainly wrong to say that “all” criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. That is why I personally argue that the modern meaning of anti-Semitism “includes” persistently targeting Israel and persistently applying to Israel a more exigent standard than regularly applied to other countries in the same or similar circumstances. And, therein, perhaps lies the specific answer you seek — it may in practice be totally normal for citizens of Canada to be tougher with regard to what is going on in Canada, where they are actively engaged in political and social debate. So, from this perspective, it might be entirely normal for Israelis to be quite critical of the Israel government and of various aspects of Israel society. However, it is obvious that it would objectively be really peculiar for an Israeli or for many Israelis to persistently target Sri Lanka and to persistently apply to Sri Lanka a more exigent standard than Israelis regularly apply to other countries in like circumstances. But, this having been said, it is probable that there would still be instances when the anti-Israel criticism offered by some Israelis might be so bitter, so persistent and so discriminatory that it might well exceed the norm of what we might regularly expect by way of domestic political and social debate in a free and democratic society. The issue of where we draw the line is not the essential point, because that difficult judgment must be very carefully made in the circumstances of each case. However, the really valuable point here is to acknowledge that some criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic. Namely, there is no logical rule that prevents discriminatory criticism of Israel from being anti-Semitic. Maybe there are individuals who like violating human rights and basic decency? Maybe there are those who do not give a damn whether or not they are anti-Semites? However, those of us concerned about human rights and basic decency ought to be very interested in understanding that some criticism of Israel does indeed amount to anti-Semitism.
“However, the really valuable point here is to acknowledge that some criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic.”
I have no problem acknowledging that. Yes, I do believe there are a number of people who disguise anti-semitism as criticism of Israel. However, there is so much legitimate criticism of Israel that to dismiss it all, as the author does, is an act of cowardice and denial. What is strikingly amazing about this article is the absolutism involved in the opening argument. When he asks the frequently posed question of whether or not it is possible to point out Israel’s shortcomings without being anti-semitic, he writes that the answer is “unequivocally, unquestionably, and objectively ‘no.’” Once you’ve said this, you’ve pretty much given up every single ounce of integrity you have in regards to your position on the conflict. It’s such and utterly ridiculous stance that I had to read it over three times to make sure I was processing it correctly.
“However, there is so much legitimate criticism of Israel that to dismiss it all, as the author does, is an act of cowardice and denial.”
He is not dismissing it. You are not even trying to understand his point, which is; in today’s global “aleihum” on the legitimacy of Israel’s very existence, any criticism is used to augment the capital of this movement. So critics of Israel, should be aware that when they indulge in their criticism, they are helping this campaign, de-facto, if not by intention.
I don’t know about you, but if I knew that a certain supermarket I shop at donates money to Hizzbala, I will immediately desist from spending my money there. Likewise, if I know that my criticism of Israel’s social ills (of which I have a lot) will be used by Israel’s ill-wishers to further their case against Israel as a candidate for dismantlement and dispersion, I will be extremely cautious about making it in places that I suspect may be read and harvested by these people.
Let me get this straight. You’re saying that even if my intentions are good, I should keep my criticism of Israel insulated to a private circle of like-minded people so that nobody ends up using my words to bolster their anti-semitic stance. That is… wow. That’s like a Palestinian extremist saying, “Hey, don’t you dare publicly condemn suicide bombings or else you are directly condoning Israel’s occupation of our land.” No, that’s the point. It is my right to call it how I see it, to point out indefensible actions when they take place on either side.
By the way, the irony of this article is that it’s viewpoints like the one above which bolster anti-semitism more than anything else. They represent Israel “supporters” (I put that in quotes b/c I think they are doing more damage than good) as a group of people who believe their country has the right to act recklessly without any consequences, and that the world should just sit back and shut up about it.
And if you think I’m not making an effort to understand the article, please read that first paragraph again. It’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read about the conflict, and that’s saying a whole lot.
“That’s like a Palestinian extremist saying, “Hey, don’t you dare publicly condemn suicide bombings or else you are directly condoning Israel’s occupation of our land.””
Talk about “wow”!
“No, that’s the point. It is my right to call it how I see it, to point out indefensible actions when they take place on either side.”
No one is assailing your right to say anything. If you can’t make the difference between having a civil argument and attempt at persuasion and a denial of one’s right to speak freely then of course it makes perfect sense to conclude that you totally miss the point of the article.
I would put it to you that even if you knew a certain supermarket you shop at donates money to Hizzballa, you will continue to spend your money there because you really really like their hummus. That’s apart from your insistence that you have a right to shop there.
My bad. I should have been more clear. I didn’t mean to imply that you or anyone was trying to deprive me of my right to free speech. I meant that I have the right to “call it how I see it” without being called anti-semitic. But you know what? That’s actually not even true. I don’t have that right! I can criticize Israel (as a half-Israeli by the way) and you and whoever else have every right in the world to call me anti-semitic for it.
That being said, I absolutely did not miss the point of the article. The point of the article, as made in the opening paragraph is that “All” criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, whether by intention or by unintentionally supporting those critics who actually are anti-semitic. Once again, this absolute statement that is emphatically made with zero exceptions (seriously, READ the last sentence of the first paragraph) is just idiotic.
As far as your supermarket analogy, I really don’t know where you’re going with that. Would I support Hezbollah knowingly? No. They’re a terrorist organization. Why would I do that? But the truth is we do pick our battles. My tax dollars in the U.S. have been going for years towards wars that I think were huge mistakes. That doesn’t make me want to leave America and it for damn sure doesn’t mean I am not allowed to criticize my own government for it.
Again, you are making the wrong analogy. You have no choice in the matter of paying taxes. Either you do or you don’t and then you get punished for it, by law. You do have a choice as to where you shop. You do have choice to conduct your criticism of Israel in such a manner as wouldn’t give comfort and support to Israel’s ill-wishers.
Once again, you’re wrong. I have no choice as to whether I pay U.S. taxes? That’s ridiculous. Of course I have a choice. I could leave this country any time I please and go to another country that isn’t involved in wars I don’t support. That is absolutely not illegal for me to do. But I choose to stay here. My choice.
And if you’re saying that my criticism of Israel is analogous to contributing money to Hezbollah, you are so far off the rails that I can’t even continue to have a rational exchange here. According to your reasoning, J.D. Salinger should have been held partially accountable for John Lennon’s death because his murderer was dementedly inspired by Catcher In The Rye. Video game creators were responsible for the Columbine massacre, right? Or better yet, when I wrote an open letter last year to my coop criticizing the BDS movement to boycott Israeli products, I was directly supporting the occupation of the West Bank. Come on.
Daniel: Your analogies seem to miss the point all the time. Clearly you and I are not using the same language and terms of references even though we both write in English. Read Orwell’s essay on politics and the English language to fully understand how I view your outlandish examples.
It happens a lot on the Infantile Left with the result that every conversation ends up being very uninteresting to say nothing of enlightening.
You didn’t say anything here to clarify or justify your position except ventilate with the usual cliches.
The replies in this post by Israel’s critics keep proving the author’s point.
First, we have Cliff. His bogus “history” of zionism leads him to the conclusion that the very existence of the Jewish state is evil. Naturally, too, the Jewish state is the ONLY state on the planet which should be destroyed — North Korea, say, or Zimbabwe, or Saudi Arabia are let off scot-free. This is classical eliminationist antisemitism: use some bogus history (“zionisms’ crimes”; “Christ killers”; “the protocols of the learned elders of zion”; etc.) to justify the massacre the Jews, which one considers uniquely evil and alone of all people deserving death.
Second, we have “Clicker”. He “explain” that Ahmadejinad didn’t call for the destruction of Israel, “only” the “regime controlling Al Quds”. He’s blissfully unaware “the regime controlling Al Quds”, like “the zionist entity” or “the zionist regime”, simply means “Israel”, and is used by those who hate Israel so much they won’t even verbally recognize it exists. The use of such terms is proof enough that he wants to destroy Israel, even without the demand to “remove it from the pages of history”. Besides, it’s not at all hard to find this was only one of his many statements calling for genocide: just click on my name above, or use google.
Even in the very replies to the author’s original essay, then, the critics of Israel are mostly divided into the eliminationist antisemites, and to sueful idiots who make excuses for eliminationist antisemites. The author couldn’t have asked for a better proof of his thesis.
>>>>>>>> That is… wow. That’s like a Palestinian extremist saying, “Hey, don’t you dare publicly condemn suicide bombings or else you are directly condoning Israel’s occupation of our land.”
The difference is those who smear Israel publicly are making the job of those who send suicide bombers easier — after all, if Israel is such an evil racist occupational apartheid state (or whatever), suicide bombing is understandable; while those who criticize the suicide bombers, Jews or Arabs, are fighting to stop those who send suicide bombers, whatever else they believe.
It seems from your tweeter page you hardly are fanatical in your criticism of Israel. In fact you seem to not deal with Israel, or hardly at all, and are just annoyed that people seem to think criticism should be muted “on principle”. But, still, every little bit matter. Ask yourself, when you criticize Israel: “will I be making the job of Hamas and the PLO and Iran to wipe out Israel easier or harder this way”?
I say that in most cases, you’ll find out that when people show “concern and deep worry of the wrong way Israel is heading”, it amounts to, in practice, “Israel should not defend itself against rockets fired at it from Gaza”, or “Israel should give the Arabs yet another terror state so as to advance the ‘staged plan’ for its elimination”, or “Israel must continue the same disasterous course of willing concessions that were met with nothing except more terror, demands, and threats from the Arab side”.
I say such criticism is, knowingly or unknowingly, antisemitic. It helps those who want to destroy Israel, as opposed to critics of suicide bombers.
While there’s so much I disagree with in your post here, probably the most valuable thing you wrote was this:
“Ask yourself, when you criticize Israel: ‘will I be making the job of Hamas and the PLO and Iran to wipe out Israel easier or harder this way’?”
Great question. No, I’m not making it easier to bring about the destruction of Israel by criticizing the government. In fact, I’d like to think that if my voice were able to reach more people, I’d be making it harder. When I speak to rabidly anti-Israel folks who think the nation is made up of a monolithic movement bent on wiping out all Arabs in the Middle East, they are forced to acknowledge that many of us are actually practical-minded people who find the murder of innocents on both sides equally repugnant and unacceptable. Now, can everyone be convinced? Of course not. Some people cling to ignorance no matter what, but there are plenty of uninformed people making presumptions about Israel based on convenient generalizations who actually can be swayed by seeing we are actually sane. I know first-hand.
Now ask yourself the same question you asked me. Because so long as you choose to tacitly endorse Israel’s occupation and human rights violations simply because that’s your team, I’d argue that IF a Hamas recruiter is going to choose between either one of us as an inspirational example for his students, it ain’t gonna be me.
“When I speak to rabidly anti-Israel folks who think the nation is made up of a monolithic movement bent on wiping out all Arabs in the Middle East, they are forced to acknowledge that many of us are actually practical-minded people who find the murder of innocents on both sides equally repugnant and unacceptable.”
Here is a good example how criticism of Israel, of the kind practiced by Daniel, de-facto serves the antisemites. It comes down to a basic forensic question: Cui bono? Who benfits from the moral equivalence between Israel’s self-defense measures and the Palestinian suicide bombings?
Martin Amis calls it “The fetishization of balance”:
“We are drowsily accustomed, by now, to the fetishization of ‘balance’ … the 100 percent and 360 degree inability to pass judgment on any ethnicity other than our own (except in the case of Israel.)”
And I consider it one of the rhetorical fallacies, to be treated with the same severity we treat the red herring and the ad hom.
What you refer to as the “fetishization of balance”, I like to refer to as simply “balance”. The difference between us is that I despise the killing of innocents no matter what. You have more in common with Palestinian extremists than you will ever know. You both explain away dead children by deeming it collateral damage and self-defense that is vital to the survival of your people.
By the way, I’ve had a relative killed because he jumped on a suicide bomber at a checkpoint. I suppose when his mother spoke out against the occupation and claimed it was doing more harm than good for Israel’s security, she was serving the anti-semites too?
>>>>>>What you refer to as the “fetishization of balance”, I like to refer to as simply “balance”. The difference between us is that I despise the killing of innocents no matter what. You have more in common with Palestinian extremists than you will ever know. You both explain away dead children by deeming it collateral damage and self-defense that is vital to the survival of your people.
What you refer to as the “fetishization of balance”, I like to refer to as simply “balance”. For example, I consider the US Air Force pilots, which bombed Berlin, to be equally morally evil as the Nazis. They both killed innocents, and I’m against that no matter what.
See the problem?
Your pseudo-”balance” is, objectively, support of genocide terrorism. The bottom line is that Israel MUST NOT FIGHT BACK AGAINST HAMAS, since civilians are sometimes hurt. But to see no difference between civilians which might be hurt when a country defends itself against murderous terrorists, and the civilians who victims of the murderous terroirsts, is moral imbecility. It’s like saying that Himmler and Jimmy Stewart (a bomber pilot in WWII) are morally equivalent.
This is why your “balance” makes you a useful idiot for Hamas: the bottom line is, “Israel, do not fight back — or you’re just as bad as the terrorists”. Or, in other words, “lie back and try to enjoy it, or else you’re just as bad as the rapist.”
It didn’t take long for Daniel to drag out a dead Jew in the service of his own self-indulgent agenda.
One of the dead giveaways of antisemites when they try to exonerate themselves of the taint of antisemitism is to claim that some of their best friends are Jews. Here is Daniel claiming that some of his relatives are Israelis!
Here is the thing Daniel doesn’t get: his relative can criticize the Israeli government because she actually lives in Israel and knows the difference between legitimate criticism of government policies and demonization of an entire country or people. Her criticism is made to the government of Israel with the intention of preserving Israel’s Jewishness and is concerned over the security of Israeli citizens. However, if she were to go on a tour of public denunciation of Israel outside Israel, then she would be serving the antisemites.
Daniel is an emotional poster. He thinks he can create a sentimentally-moral equivalence between Israeli kids being targeted for extermination by Palestinian terrorists and Palestinian kids who get killed as a result of war, and we won’t notice. This is exactly the kind of slander that marks the antisemite. Daniel thinks that only he and his ilk can understand the preciousness of a child’s life. He doesn’t get it that while Israelis make every effort to protect their kids, Palestinian terrorists use children as a weapon of their war upon Israelis. He doesn’t get it that there is no moral equivalence between a society that protects its children and a society that teaches its children that killing Jewish children is a supreme value. In this he does exactly what Kerstein is alerting us about: He serves the antisemites who claim that Israeli Jews are genocidal murderers.
First of all, you’re a vile human being for using language like “drag out a dead Jew”. That used to be a living person, not an animal. I referred to him in order to put forward the one element you are hoping everyone else will turn a blind eye to: Humanity. I hope anyone else reading this thread takes note that this poster used the phrase “dead Jew” to objectify the very real damage of this conflict, rather than deal with the reality of it.
And while I may not live in Israel, I am an Israeli citizen (I’m sure that makes your skin crawl, which is why I’m letting you know). Hebrew will always be my first language and nothing would pain me more than to see my country go down the toilet. We’re not going to come to an agreement and you are free to make your false analogies and radical accusations. The sad truth is, and it’s the last thing I’ll say here because nothing from this point on will be productive, you are serving anti-semites better than I ever could.
“you’re a vile human being” said the very person whose early comment had this to say:
“The difference between us is that I despise the killing of innocents no matter what. You have more in common with Palestinian extremists than you will ever know. You both explain away dead children by deeming it collateral damage and self-defense that is vital to the survival of your people.”
Please note the direct and unabashed moral equivalence he makes between a Palestinian terrorist who kills Israeli kids on buses and Pizzerias and schools, and a pro-Israel advocate who writes comments on a blog and who has not uttered one word in favour of killing any child or human being.
Another example that illustrates how Daniel’s kind of criticism serves antisemites: Here is this woman, a wannabe genocidal murderer of Palestinians and what do you know, it is a Jew who says so. Do antisemites need to work hard when Jews do the heavy lifting for them?
Good example of how Kerstein’s thesis is proven correct.
Check out Mondoweiss (one of those “Righteous Jews” according to the Walt&Mearsheimer’s order of what makes a Jew decent or not): You couldn’t get a more resounding corroboration of Kerstein’s thesis here than the comments that are posted there. Cliff also left his footprint there, complaining that his comments were censured here.
Let me just point out that Cliff no only re-wrote Jewish history in the Middle East, but also made a slanderous analogy in which he compared 1400 Israelis killed in terror attacks with a “broken fingernail”. This analogy was made here and still he complains to the whiners at MW that he was censured! And no one even takes him to task about it. It is, I assume, taken for granted that his slanders are standard, unfiltered truth for those people.
Any criticism that is based on lies should be deemed antisemitic.
Antisemitism can be discerned when the criticism of Israelis based on slander, and/or stalking and/or singling out.
Anyone who still persists in thinking that Kerstein’s thesis is wrong should pay attention to the scandal of Gutnter Grass’s latest “poem” about Israel as a genocidal threat. This is the kind of position that mindless posters like Daniel above contribute to and help consolidate.
“In the late 1960s, Austrian Jewish writer and Auschwitz survivor Jean Amery neatly captured the post-Holocaust definition of anti-Zionism, when he wrote that “Anti-Zionism contains anti-Semitism like a cloud contains a storm.””
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/29/is-all-criticism-of-israel-antisemitic-put-simply-yes/