Criticism of Israel:  where free speech ends

by Sheila Musaji

This week, Benjamin Kerstein posted an article in the Jerusalem Post titled Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic!.  He says:

‘But surely you don’t believe,” they always ask you, “that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?” It is a noticeably patronizing question, of course, in that it is obviously an admonition that all civilized, thinking people must answer “no” or “of course not.” It is an important question, however, because of its real answer, which is unequivocally and unquestionably “yes.”

The idea that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic horrifies some, offends and mortifies others, and terrifies still more. The usual reaction to it is something along the lines of “how can you say that?!” Nonetheless, it is exactly what I am saying in regard to Israel and its critics.

...  All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible. And, ironically, these are circumstances that Israel’s opponents have themselves created.

This is not exactly a new argument, but it states the argument in much stronger terms than has previously been the case.  Back in 2005, FAIR reported on the trend towards this position in an article Confusing Israel Criticism and Anti-Semitism:

While some examples of increasing anti-Semitism go little noted, considerable attention has been paid to dubious accusations that seem to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Before Harvard President Laurence Summers drew fire for suggesting that women were inherently inferior at math and science (see Extra!,5-6/2005), he stirred things up by proclaiming that a new form of anti-Semitism was menacing academia (New York Times, 9/21/02). “Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent,” said Summers, referring to a campaign to have Harvard disinvest in Israel to protest the occupation of Palestinian lands.

Publisher Mortimer Zuckerman (U.S. News & World Report, 11/3/03), author Phyllis Chesler (The New Anti-Semitism) and law professor Alan Dershowitz (The Case for Israel) have also argued for this expanded definition of anti-Semitism. “The harsh but undeniable truth is this: What some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism—always, everywhere, and for all time,” wrote ADL director Abe Foxman in his 2002 book Never Again?. “Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred.”

The idea that being opposed to Zionism—the movement for a Jewish state—is inherently anti-Jewish is a dubious one. From its inception in the 1890s, many leading Jewish thinkers have opposed Zionism on the modernist grounds that secular states are preferable to religious ones, integration is preferable to separatism, and displacing one people to create a homeland for another is unjust (The Nation, 2/2/04). Many if not most critics of Israel, however, are not opposed to Zionism as such, but have specific criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government.

Veteran Mideast correspondent Robert Fisk (Independent, 10/21/02) sees the delegitimization of such critics as a form of censorship: “The all-purpose slander of ‘anti-Semitism’ is now used with ever-increasing promiscuity against anyone—people who condemn the wickedness of Palestinian suicide bombings every bit as much as they do the cruelty of Israel’s repeated killing of children—in an attempt to shut them up.”

It is certainly true that some critics of Israel seem to be motivated by anti-Semitism; Pat Buchanan, for example, shows a concern for Palestinians that he rarely if ever displays for other oppressed Third World peoples. But other Jew-bashers are given a free pass because of the false equation of anti-Semitism with opposition to Israel.

For example, when then—Rep. Bob Dornan (R-Calif.), a strong supporter of Israel, called Soviet journalist Vladimir Posner a “disloyal, betraying little Jew” in 1986, pro-Israel congressmember Steven Solarz (D.-N.Y.) rushed to his defense, saying that the ethnic slur “should not be allowed to overshadow Bob’s long history of support and involvement with Israel.”

The Anti-Defamation League also backed Dornan, with spokesperson David Brodie saying that his attack on Posner was merely “unartful, unfortunate [and] inelegant” (AP, 2/28/86). Brodie added that the group he represented was regarded as “the last word on anti-Semitism. As far as ADL is concerned, this case is closed.”

Noam Sheizaf writes in No, criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism that

... The author captures – unintentionally – the zeitgeist in Israeli politics, and also in large parts of the Jewish world. Both have ceased to differentiate between diplomacy, politics, and anti-Semitism as a special form of racism. In this exercise, evidence is meaningless. 

The author, Benjamin Kerstein, writes:  “All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible. And, ironically, these are circumstances that Israel’s opponents have themselves created.”

This perfect circle melts collective and personal identity, political institutions and individuals, into one being, in the tradition of – oh well – some of history’s worst anti-Semites.

The first – but not only – sign of racism (including anti-Semitism) is that it doesn’t allow its victim a space to change: Jews/blacks/Muslims are inherently A, and therefore they deserve B, goes the racist argument (it could even be a positive one – Jews are “good with money” is a racist declaration, because it presumes something that is inherent to all Jews). A critical argument, on the other hand, targets behavior and choices: An institution/group/person/state does A, and therefore deserves B. Criticism of political choices is not racism. It is simply politics. Recognizing the state that a certain group of Jews has formed – not even a majority – as representing every Jew on earth (and perhaps every Jew in history) is actually closer to old anti-Semite thinking.

It gets worse. The author of the JPost piece, and many like him, doesn’t bother to explain – and it’s no accident – what is exactly “criticism of Israel.” Is it criticism of the government? Of the government’s political behavior? Of the army? Of the state as a structure? Is arguing for an ethnicity-blind state (“a state for all its citizens”) anti-Semitism, as it seeks to change Israel, and in the process, criticize it? Is arguing for the one-state solution a form of anti-Semitism? Is arguing against the occupation anti-Semitism, as it is an Israeli project, carried out by almost all Israelis?

Dwelling on these questions would necessarily label many Israelis, including Members of Knesset and prominent institutions, along with half the world, inherently anti-Semitic.

Naturally, some readers would accept this, and answer that yes! Those groups and people, even if they are Jewish or Israeli, are in fact anti-Semitic. I urge them to reconsider. The effect of such a claim would not be the delegitimization of anti-Semitism, but quite the opposite: Many real anti-Semites would be seen as partners in a large and rational community that deserves to be heard. If everyone is equal to the Nazis, then maybe Nazism wasn’t that bad after all.

Moreover: The terms Zionism, Israeli and Judaism were never meant to overlap. A person can identify with two out of three of those descriptions, or even just one out of three. The current ideological shift in Israel has a lot to do with the integration of different aspects of identity into one. The state (Israel) equals the Jewish people equals the ideology (Zionism), and everyone not abiding with this model is necessarily a traitor – or an anti-Semite. ...

Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress (CAP) was accused of anti-Semitism because its’ “Fear, Inc.” report on the Islamophobia industry included a number of individuals who happened to be Jewish. (The report itself never mentions the religion of any of these individuals.)  Zaid Jilani, formerly of the Center for American Progress was called an anti-Semite for using the term “Israel-firster” in a comment on his personal twitter feed.  I wrote an article Zaid Jilani, a Victim of False Anti-Semitism Charges discussing these charges and counter-charges in depth. 

Jimmy Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” to describe Israeli government policies resulted in his being called an anti-Semite, and in attempts to totally marginalize him.  M.J. Rosenberg, Thomas Friedman, and other journalists have faced anti-Semitism charges on ridiculous grounds.  Helen Thomas ended over 50 years as a White House Correspondent in disgrace after being accused of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism, like Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, or any other form of bigotry and hatred, is a serious issue, and all decent people must fight against manifestations of these tendencies wherever they are found.  For example, American Muslim leaders have spoken strongly against anti-Semitism, and Jewish leaders have spoken strongly against Islamophobia.  However, we must all be very careful not to cheapen these terms by claiming any disagreement to be equivalent to such real bigotry.