An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Enablers
Jews should, absolutely, feel free to criticize Israel and Israeli policies when they think they’ve gone wrong. But I have a serious problem with Jews who excuse anti-Israel anti-Semitism, which gives cover to bigotry and is a setback to everyone who wants to have a serious discussion on the way in which anti-Semitic and anti-Israel politics intersect (and, on the flipside, can be disconnected).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
38 Responses to “Enablers”
David – I too am Jewish but I feel strongly that the current definition of anti-semitism is far too encompassing and vague. Is advocating Israel’s retreat from the West Bank, anti-semitism? Many at my Temple certainly feel so and I have been called more scurilous names, like Jew hating liberal etc. The definition of anti-semitism has become so loose and distorted as to lose all meaning. Advocating withdrawal from the West Bank has been equated with advocating Israel’s destruction so it is anti-semetic. I have dozens of relatives who are settlers and they called me anti-semetic for saying I thought the Labor party deserved to be elected.
So David, you should come up with VERY SPECIFIC guidelines for what is anti-semitism or the term will be meaningless in the face of genuine anti-semitism.
I’m entirely in agreement, these guidelines have to be explicit. Across all my writing in this field, I’ve identified three standards that can be used to start the conversation.
1) “Explicit” anti-Semitism, either through direct slurs or calls to violence, or indirectly through stereotyping (“mark of Cain”, Jews-control-the-media, Protocols, etc..)
2) Lack of proportionality: Criticizing Israel out of proportion to its actual harm, both quantitatively (e.g., the UN criticizing Israel more than any other country, including 2.5x as often as Sudan in the midst of its genocide), and qualitatively (e.g., arguing that Israel’s policies constitute “genocide”).
3) Lack of reciprocity: Criticizing Israel for conduct excused, ignored, or lauded by other nations (e.g., condemning Israel strikes against civilians but not Hezbollah’s, condemning Israeli nationalism but not nationalism by any other group).
The first is the most clearly anti-Semitic, the second and third are anti-Semitic on a “unexplainable but by anti-Semitism” standard (e.g., it’s nearly impossible to fathom how Hugo Chavez could so wildly exaggerate the harms of the Israeli/Lebanon campaign [which is said was worse than the Nazis] without resorting to anti-Semitism in the answer).
David I am not a jew.
The problem in the middle east is very difficult and very hard to understand. However the reasons that JEWS get 2.5x times the bashing that muslims/palestinians get is very, very simple.
1.) Jews have a state. They care. They listen. They react. They try to do whats right. They are a caring people who would trully like to live in peace if the opponents would just make a few concessions.
2.) Because I firmly believe 1 is correct then its very easy to bash them disporportionately as opposed to trying to bash someone like the Palestinians who are a non country, a non entity, who live in squalor because their lose knit collection of imbecille leaders force the masses to do what they want. Their leaders force upon them huge egregious misdeeds which forces them to further be deprived of a home and security and then the world jumps up and screams at Israel.
The exact same thing can be said for global warming. China and India and the former USSR are way more serious offenders of the biosphere then is the USA but these countries could give a flying flip what bored American Liberals think. So those bored Liberals/Environmentalists scream obscenties at the USA because (See 1 above.) This is the exact same reason Israel receives this disproportionate criticism. We/They listen and really do care.
David, sry, but searching for rules to properly distinguish Anti-Semitism from Anti-Israeli opinions sounds like a huge waste of time to me. In the end, the decision will always be in the eye of the beholder. Why is it that Jews, and mostly Israelis, make a science out of the characteristics of Anti-Semitism? Why don’t African-Americans, Roma, French Arabs etc. study their discrimination with a similar scientific approach? Is this a result of the Holocaust, or did it start before, with the Progroms maybe? I don’t think the fanatism apparent in aggresively seeking for any sign of prejudice and wrongful treatment is a healthy trait…
“China and India and the former USSR are way more serious offenders of the biosphere then is the USA”
Upinsmoke, you want to say that those three countries combined are worse offenders than the US? That may be true (but not necessarily, I would have to check statistics).
But even then, they represent more than two billion people…
Gray UIS is blowing smoke. On a overall percentage and per capita the US is CO2 pigs. The following link debunk the Smoker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_emissions
The US 25% 300 million people
China 15% 1,300 million people
Thx for the link, Rudi!
So, China and India and Russia combined, representing more than 2.5 billion people, produce only slightly more CO² than the US (population ~300 millions).
Without Russia, China and India combined (still 2.4 billions) ar responsible for even less of carbon doxide output than the US.
Really, this was about the most stupid arguement I ever heard about the US impact on global warming…
|-(
Gray, you have got to be kidding me if you think that it is Jews who have taken an overly academic, “scientific” approach to prejudice compared to other groups. Academic study of anti-Semitism (as a structural force, at least) is still in its embryonic stages. At the moment, its drawing a substantial part of its insight from the exceedingly well developed work by African-Americans on racism, and women on misogyny, and I would say its still at a far early stage of development compared to anti-Arab studies (think Edward Said and his “Orientalism” disciples), Queer Studies, and other identity group anti-prejudice studies.
If anything, Jews are behind the ball on this, which is why we need to catch up.
Man, what a loaded discussion. I guess I have been called all those things, but I know myself well enough to know I am not any of them. But the line between ‘love it or leave it’ and ‘Israel can do no wrong’ are striking. It is hard to critique Israel these days without being piled on by people claiming you are an anti-Semite.
The issue I get in trouble with is, I have to admit, I think the formation of the modern state should have been done vastly differently, and should have respected land and water rights to a greater degree. The harm done in the formation events have had far reaching and I am often afraid, irreversible effect on the region. The violence that continues today can only be alleviated when the formation events are looked at with a willingness to admit some fault, and try and find solutions. I am not a big fan of a ‘land’ belonging to ‘a people’ for many reasons. And no country, I think, has a ‘right’ to be. They tend to create their being and in time many go away are changed, appropriated and reformed. So to think you will create a border that will last forever, that is ‘sanctioned’ from above is scary stuff. Change will take place, must take place and everyone involved must accept their part in the bloody history that didn’t have to be. It is too bad the early Israelis didn’t have a Gandhi to lead their movement.
“I would say its still at a far early stage of development compared to anti-Arab studies (think Edward Said and his “Orientalismâ€? disciples)”
Orientalism? Sry, never heard of it. It simply isn’t a topic in the MSM. And Anti-Arabism neither. Consequently, a google search on “anti semitism” shows more than 1.4 million hits, the same search on “anti-arabism” 14300. That’s telling. It would be interesting if someone would do a Lexis/Nexis search on the terms, too. I guess it would show the same, huge disparity in the public discussion of these issues.
So, no, sry, David, but your comparison doesn’t hold water. I think it’s a valid question to ask why there’s a much higher focus on anti semitism than on other kinds of prejudices and discrimination. The Holocaust and the urgent desire to prevent another genocide on Jews sure is an issue. However, Jews today enjoy much more safety than in the past. Today Israel is the most heavily armed nation in the Middle East. Isn’t it a bit outdated for its people to still paint themselves regularly as victims?
“14300″ Oops, correction: 13500
David,
I’m just curious how you would differentiate this phenomena from the criticism of US policies (the belief among many conservatives that some liberals tend to apply much more criticism to the US, disproportional to its human rights violations as compared to the violators that you mentioned.) I’m not one to use the “hate America first” retort but I do see this attitude as being a form of anti-Americanism just as you see the criticism of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism. Would you agree at all with that, or if not, then could you explain why you see a difference in the way America is singled out compared to the way that Israel is treated?
And interestingly, Upinsmoke’s reasoning for the disproportionate criticism strikes me as similar to a line of reasoning that you used in a past posting: you described criticism of American policy as an attempt to make America all that you know that she can and should be (sorry for my lame paraphrasing, you said it much more eloquently.) The way I understand that, the rationale is that America has high ideals and thus we should hold her to them. Couldn’t you apply the same reasoning: that the disproportionately critical view of Israeli policy could be seen as an attempt to refine her into the ideals that she wishes to uphold? To hold her to a higher standard?
CS What is the difference between critism and “hate America firstâ€?? From the old 60′s “America, love it or LEAVE it” the Moonbats say “America, love it or CHANGE it”.
Rudi,
But what I’m asking is why David doesn’t see these Jewis critics of Israel as saying, “Israel, love it or change it.”
For me being an American means expecting it to live up to its reputation as a great superpower that functions as a force for good in the world. IMO, that is where true power comes from- from the admiration of others that we will not deviate from certain standards, not from shoving other countries around because we can. It is expecting it to live up to an ideal whenever possible. I think conservatives and liberals love their country equally, but liberals expect more out of it.
Disproportionate critisism is everywhere, Israel is only one more example of it. But I don’t think anti-semitism is the only possible explanation for such a thing, just as I don’t think disproportionate critisism of the US is always anti-Americanism.
We expect different things from different people/organizations/countries. This is normal. If say Rwanda managed to cut it’s new AIDS infections considerably and feed a decent proportion of it’s populace at any given point it would be lauded and congratulated. Spain for instance doesn’t expect to be congratulated for not allowing people to die of hunger. Does that make the world anti-Spain?
A more provocative example. African American men who marry a woman, stay with her, supports his kids and generally does well as a husband and father is often held up as great person for doing so. A white man who does the same thing would be surprised to have the same treatment.
It’s a form of condescension. Some countries/people/groups are considered disabled for one reason or another, and we don’t react as much when they misbehave because sadly we don’t have high expectations. Israel is a western nation, so it’s not odd that other western nations hold it to the standards of every other western nation. The catch is that Israel is held to that standard while in a situation no other western nation has to confront. People expecting more of Israel CAN be anti-semitism, but it could also be the contrary: “You should KNOW better, you can be better than this!�
Well said, Lynx, and I agree totally.
“Israel is a western nation, so it’s not odd that other western nations hold it to the standards of every other western nation.”
Exactly! That’s the point. Good argument, Lynx.
And this doesn’t say that other western nations don’t have mayor screwups, to. But then they do, they face criticism from all around the globe, without lmost noone giving a second thought if this treatment is anti-american, anti-spain, anti-german, anti-whatever.
Imho the fact that Israel is held to a high standard should be reason for pride for Israelis. How would they feel if they would be treated like some obscure third world country, with the world simply shrugging its virtual shoulders?
I pretty much agree with you, Lynx, but I still think that the criticism of Israel and the US without concomitant criticism of the more serious violators of human rights is wrong. It’s one thing to say that we should uphold high ideals and set an example, but it’s another to behave as though WE are the problem. It’s a matter of degree of the criticism and that it’s often given repeatedly and without any reference to the times when we DO live up to our ideals.
It’s one thing to say that we could (and should) do better, but some people seem to feel that we’ve already completely failed and that the US is the biggest threat to human rights around the world (and likewise, the criticisms of Israel as the main aggressor.)
And then too, what I’m still trying to determine is whether David sees the parallel in the criticisms of Israel and the criticisms of America, which he’s said in the past are NOT anti-American. So, I’m trying to get to his reasoning for feeling differently about criticism of Israel, or if I’m misunderstanding his position on this, then a clarification to point out where I’m misreading him.
“It’s one thing to say that we should uphold high ideals and set an example, but it’s another to behave as though WE are the problem.”
No. That’s simply the other side of the medal. If you don’t uphold high ideals, like a ban on torture, a regard for international treaties, or the laws of other countries regarding highjacking, you’re setting an example for rogue nations that it’s totally ok to behave in this way. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And the world is totally right in condemning this erosion of standards in the sharpest way possible.
Right…it’s ONE side. That’s the point: many people point out the fault on the side of the more powerful (which I have no problem with) but fail to point it out on the other side. Do both and I’m not complaining (oh, along with giving the powerful nations credit for the good that they do and the degree to which they do uphold individual liberties and human rights).
C Stanley, I agree with you that we can’t just ocupy ourselves with the behaviour of the “good” countries and forgive all from the “bad” ones. I think the nuance is that you should be able to say “Israel/the US/X nation is doing something horrible! It should be ashamed!” but not “Israel/the US/X nation does the worst things in the world!” That would be a loss of perspective, which I agree happens all too often.
CS, again, the powerful set the standards. Not some rogue nations. And I don’t recall that for instance the Iranian hijacking of US embassy personel was exactly ignored by the world. Where are your examples where criminal acts by rogue nations were simply ignored?
Gray,
What I’m talking about is when the criminal acts of rogue states are excused: those who view Hezbollah’s acts as strictly defensive against Israel, or statements like Noam Chomsky’s about the US being the greatest terrorist state (this made in the context of aftermath of 9/11, so that the terrorist acts of al Qaeda were put in the context of a response to US terrorism.)
And don’t misunderstand…I’m very critical of many US foreign policy interventions. But these criticisms shouldn’t be intertwined in with the terrorist acts against the US in order to soften the criticism of the perpetrators. Likewise, I am critical of some Israeli policies but it should never be said that Hamas or Hezbollah is justified in retaliating with deliberate attacks on civilians, calls for the destruction of Israel, or other acts of terrorism.
Gray almost anything that happens in Africa falls under this category. Oh yes, some people always try to bring attention to it, and after the fact everyone is horrified by it, but usually it is a forgotten continent. 2 deaths in Israel get way more attention than say 1.000 deaths in any given African nation.
Lynx,
In addition to that though, there’s also context. Some people only choose to speak out against the US or Israel, and even if their statements were justified its the repetition of only the wrongdoing of those countries (no recognition of the good, and no recognition of the wrong acts by other, less powerful nations) that makes the situation anti-American or anti-Israel in some cases. It’s like a newspaper editorial staff that focuses exclusively on scandals of one party and ignores those of the other party: they are clearly showing a bias, even if each editorial on its own was a legitimate criticism. Sometimes its what you don’t say that matters, too.
“those who view Hezbollah’s acts as strictly defensive against Israel”
“Strictly defensive”? Who said that?
However, “the US being the greatest terrorist state”, this is a serious statement that can be discussed. Because of US backing of fashist dictators in Latim America, hundreds of thousands people died there. I wouldn’t go as far as Chomsky, but it is debatable.
“Likewise, I am critical of some Israeli policies but it should never be said that Hamas or Hezbollah is justified in retaliating with deliberate attacks on civilians, calls for the destruction of Israel, or other acts of terrorism.”
The logical problem is, do you think Israel is justified in retaliating and calling for the destruction of Hezbollah? Where is the difference? That Israel is a nation and Hezbollah a regional movement? Well, I seem to remember Israel has what some would call a terrorist past, too…
Rudi and Gray. First of all the statistics you bring to the table are 5 years old. Secondly when you combine the USSR, China and INDIA together they are dwarfing the USA in emmissions.
Yet the Kyoto treaty would let them continue to fry the atmosphere while blind folk like you stand around bashing the USA for its role and say……OH its okay if they destroy the planet but Death to the USA after all its per captia you know.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm
Do some real research instead of pointing to an outdated Wikipedia article as the basis of your Masterful, mindnumbingly Scholarly analysis of Global warming and greenhouse gas emmission.
Im sure that if you took a tour of the facts with an open mind you would be horrified and like me would be trying to bring pressure on other countries besides the USA to end co2 emmissions.
Uh, yeah, that little detail. If a ‘regional movement’ is allowed to create and use an armed militia, hiding it within the civilia population, then there is no accountability. The actual govt of Lebanon can deny responsibility for anything Hezbollah does, yet take advantage of it’s military protection. You don’t see an problem there?
“Uh, yeah, that little detail.”
Check the history of Israel. It all started with some illegal militia grougs, too, some of them outright terorists. Later, Israelis even elected a terrorist leader for prime minister. I smell a double standard here.
“If a ‘regional movement’ is allowed to create and use an armed militia, hiding it within the civilia population, then there is no accountability.”
Yeah, just like the resistance in Nazi France, or the Mujahideen in soviet Afghanistan, or the Contras in socialist Nicaragua, or the Kurds in Saddam’s Iraq, or Irgun and Hagannah during the British mandate of Palestine, as already mentioned. Sorry, CS, but your general statement doesn’t hold water.
“You don’t see an problem there?”
I do. And it’s one diificult to solve. When are armed underground groups legitimate, when, not? It can only be decided on a case by case base, and every choice will be somewhat arbitrarily. Taking the history of the first Lebanon war into account, and acknoledging that the weak governement of Lebanon has proven to be utterly incapable of protecting his citizen in the south, I’m not inclined to see Hezbollah simply as a terrorist organisation.
My beautiful long post, swallowed by wordpress
. Now I don’t want to rewrite it.
Highlights:
1) “Love it so change it” point is a valid one, I’ll try to incorporate it. Two qualifiers:
a) Internal criticism distinct from external (America is my country, so disproportionality towards it is more justified than towards another country–Israel can, should, and does have the internal debate as well)
b) Grossly disproportionate criticisms don’t work under “love it so change it,” because they don’t think that Israel is anything special (in fact, they think its qualitatively worse than other countries), so they can hardly justify holding it to a higher standard than its neighbors on the grounds of its relative enlightenment.
2) Popular discussion of anti-Semitism may be more vigorous than anti-Arabism, but Google doesn’t reflect the academy, and I was talking about academic inquiry on the subject. 80% of the country hasn’t heard of Orientalism, but if you’re doing any academic work in an even remotely linked field, you can’t escape it.
“My beautiful long post, swallowed by wordpress”
Maybe it’s only in the spam thread and Michael can manually approve it, David.
“Popular discussion of anti-Semitism may be more vigorous than anti-Arabism, but Google doesn’t reflect the academy, and I was talking about academic inquiry on the subject.”
Well, offer another method of proving your point. This is interesting.
“Israel can, should, and does have the internal debate as well”
Not even in Haaretz is much of a debate nowadays, David. And forget about the other publications. When was it when a demo by the peace movement resulted in 30 participants? It’s pathetic.
It’s tough to prove what is more prominent in any meaningful sense–I’m just talking as someone who has done research into all these fields–but perhaps this is indicative:
Google Scholar search…
“Anti-semitism”: 24,600 hits
“Orientalism” (which is just one book): 32,500 hits
“Racism”: 278,000
“Imperialism”: 162,000
“Feminism”: 229,000
“Queer Theory”: 22,900
“Zionism”: 16,500
Well, you forgot to add the about 9500 hits for “antisemitism” (yes, this is another commonly used spelling), but I’m still surprised about the widespread use of “Orientalism”. However, why didn’t you mention the meager 1510 hits for “anti arab” and the ridiculous 52 hits for “anti-arabism”???
villasimius case vacanza
Enablers | The Moderate Voice