Comments about Antisemitism? You must be joking! - David Hirsh :
Linda Grant posted on October 19, 2005 at 12:53:59 PM
I saw the play 'I am Rachel Corrie' at the Royal Court earlier this year. I remember where I was when I first heard about her horrible death. I remember conversations I had with Israelis the the days that followed.
To remember her life and death is a separate matter from commenting on those who use traditional anti-semitic rhetoric (however unconsciously and foolishly) to commend the forthcoming event.
The onus is on the organizers to ensure that they exclude such language from their publicity, even if it does come from a former member of the British Cabinet.
To remember her life and death is a separate matter from commenting on those who use traditional anti-semitic rhetoric (however unconsciously and foolishly) to commend the forthcoming event.
The onus is on the organizers to ensure that they exclude such language from their publicity, even if it does come from a former member of the British Cabinet.
Jonty Goodson posted on October 20, 2005 at 09:07:55 AM
Good posting, and I follow the argument up to the end of the penultimate paragraph.
The minority on the Israeli/Jewish extreme right who misuse antisemitism in their vain efforts to achieve a Greater Israel - in a kind of mirror image of the rather larger proportion of extremist Palestinians and their anti-Zionist supporters on the European left who ignore real antisemitism to try to get a Greater Palestine - are indeed difficult to stomach.
But it is precisely those two opposite positions that are the real extremes - whereas people on the moderate democratic left/centre/right, notwithstanding all their sharp disagreements with each other, are in between such extremes.
So I don’t get the jump in the final paragraph of this posting to Sharon and Netanyahu. However much one might disagree with these politicians on the democratic right, neither is in the extremist rightwing camp these days - any more than Engage is in the opposite extremist leftwing camp!
(Also, it’s a little odd to lump them together as though they hadn’t recently fallen out over the disengagement plan).
Moreover, what evidence is there that Sharon in particular views the very notion of criticising Israeli policies as inherently illegitimate (i.e. antisemitic and so disallowed)? In fact, can anyone give examples of mainstream Israeli or Jewish commentators or politicians who have said this?
What you do get, of course, is plenty of disagreement between democrats on the centre-left and centre-right about whether particular criticisms of particular policies are legitimate (i.e. accurate and fair) or not. But that’s a different matter altogether.
Dov posted on October 20, 2005 at 10:23:24 AM
It is a pity that Deborah has chosen to respond in this way. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, a grave error of Jewish political activity has been not knowing whose one’s friends are.
At the core of Deborah’s arguments is a contradiction. On the hand, she speaks about the “false claims of anti-semitism”, but then, on the other hand, continues by stating that “the main cause of its increase” is “Israel’s politics”.
The first point to note is that her argument that there is no antisemitism within the campaign of those seeking justice for Palestine, is of the same cut as those who argue that nothing Israel has ever does, is doing and will do is antisemitic. Not only are both positions counter-factual but each play directly into the hands of their opponents.
The second idea, that Israel is the cause of an increase in antisemitism is also problematic. A classic aspect of all forms of antisemitism and racism has been passing the responsibility for it onto others. It is what I call the “wife beating syndrome” – “I would not have hit her, had the dinner not been cold”. In many instances the dinner is cold, but that offers no justification whatsoever for the manner of the response.
Similarly, none of us on the left believe (I hope) that voting for the BNP is a legitimate response to the reality of social deprivation. On the contrary, we believe such a response to be completely illegitimate and, ultimately damaging. We would argue and fight against it unconditionally, whilst at the same time struggling against the very conditions through which such possibilities arise. It is, and never has been a question of either/or. I cannot see why the situation in the Middle East is, or should be any different.
Antisemitism and racism, by their very nature, lie; they are based on an erroneous, malicious and distorted analysis of social and political reality. No one in their right mind believes that poverty is caused by cultural diversity and immigration or that “whites” are suffering at the expense of “non-whites”; likewise, no one of their right mind should believe that the politics of Israel and Palestine are governed by some sort of Jewish or “Zionist” conspiracy (cf Article 22 Hamas Covenant; see also the idea that US policy of the middle east is determined by a few “neocons” acting in the interests of Israel). Not only does antisemitism and racism harm the objects of its hatred, it never, and cannot, provide the liberation and freedom that it pretends to promise.
It is, I believe, that it is because too many involved in the campaign for Palestinian justice refuse, willfully or otherwise, to recognise the presence of antisemitism within it (which is a million miles away from saying that such a campaign is antisemitic of and in itself) that “Engage” was set up. Antisemitism and racism cannot but sully everything it touches – including the cause of Palestinian justice. And, it is in this sense that “Engage” is “doing something positive”.
At the core of Deborah’s arguments is a contradiction. On the hand, she speaks about the “false claims of anti-semitism”, but then, on the other hand, continues by stating that “the main cause of its increase” is “Israel’s politics”.
The first point to note is that her argument that there is no antisemitism within the campaign of those seeking justice for Palestine, is of the same cut as those who argue that nothing Israel has ever does, is doing and will do is antisemitic. Not only are both positions counter-factual but each play directly into the hands of their opponents.
The second idea, that Israel is the cause of an increase in antisemitism is also problematic. A classic aspect of all forms of antisemitism and racism has been passing the responsibility for it onto others. It is what I call the “wife beating syndrome” – “I would not have hit her, had the dinner not been cold”. In many instances the dinner is cold, but that offers no justification whatsoever for the manner of the response.
Similarly, none of us on the left believe (I hope) that voting for the BNP is a legitimate response to the reality of social deprivation. On the contrary, we believe such a response to be completely illegitimate and, ultimately damaging. We would argue and fight against it unconditionally, whilst at the same time struggling against the very conditions through which such possibilities arise. It is, and never has been a question of either/or. I cannot see why the situation in the Middle East is, or should be any different.
Antisemitism and racism, by their very nature, lie; they are based on an erroneous, malicious and distorted analysis of social and political reality. No one in their right mind believes that poverty is caused by cultural diversity and immigration or that “whites” are suffering at the expense of “non-whites”; likewise, no one of their right mind should believe that the politics of Israel and Palestine are governed by some sort of Jewish or “Zionist” conspiracy (cf Article 22 Hamas Covenant; see also the idea that US policy of the middle east is determined by a few “neocons” acting in the interests of Israel). Not only does antisemitism and racism harm the objects of its hatred, it never, and cannot, provide the liberation and freedom that it pretends to promise.
It is, I believe, that it is because too many involved in the campaign for Palestinian justice refuse, willfully or otherwise, to recognise the presence of antisemitism within it (which is a million miles away from saying that such a campaign is antisemitic of and in itself) that “Engage” was set up. Antisemitism and racism cannot but sully everything it touches – including the cause of Palestinian justice. And, it is in this sense that “Engage” is “doing something positive”.
David Adler posted on October 20, 2005 at 08:05:09 PM
There is another very important point to make here.
Deborah Fink writes: "Furthermore, one will not achive[sic] justice and peace in the world if all one can think about is one's own pain and insecurity."
Engage's fight against antisemitism has little or nothing to do with the personal "pain and insecurity" of its contributors. It has to do with standing up for democratic principles.
In this week's New Yorker magazine, Tom Reiss has an interesting profile of the all-but-forgotten conservative thinker Peter Viereck, who in 1940 wrote: "Political anti-Semitism is no isolated program... It is the thin opening wedge for the subversion of democracy...."
We may disagree with Viereck on much, but about antisemitism he was dead-on. This is why we react to Claire Short and Deborah Fink the way we do -- not to pick fights with them but to make them aware of a slippery slope, one they are apparently unable to detect.
Deborah Fink writes: "Furthermore, one will not achive[sic] justice and peace in the world if all one can think about is one's own pain and insecurity."
Engage's fight against antisemitism has little or nothing to do with the personal "pain and insecurity" of its contributors. It has to do with standing up for democratic principles.
In this week's New Yorker magazine, Tom Reiss has an interesting profile of the all-but-forgotten conservative thinker Peter Viereck, who in 1940 wrote: "Political anti-Semitism is no isolated program... It is the thin opening wedge for the subversion of democracy...."
We may disagree with Viereck on much, but about antisemitism he was dead-on. This is why we react to Claire Short and Deborah Fink the way we do -- not to pick fights with them but to make them aware of a slippery slope, one they are apparently unable to detect.
Deborah Maccoby posted on October 20, 2005 at 08:20:03 PM
Since Sharon seems to be preparing for unilateral withdrawal on the West Bank as well, leaving the Palestinians in Bantustans behind the Wall and creating an official Apartheid Greater Israel, there is a case for saying that US backing for this apartheid situation is the major cause at present of the division and violence in the world. After all, Israel is now, as Apartheid South Africa once was, THE symbol of Western domination of "native" peoples, thus being the focus of Muslim and Arab grievance - a focal grievance which is being exploited by al-Qaeda. Like Debbie,I don't myself agree with Clare Short, but Clare Short has a case and it is wrong to call her anti-Semitic.
Deborah
Deborah
Dov posted on October 20, 2005 at 08:51:33 PM
Would not a "cultural" boycott mean that the Israeli involved in the production would be prohibited from appearing in it(whether an Jewish Israeli or a non-Jewish Israeli) unless, of course he or she passed some sort of MacArthurist test? Let the witchunt begin!
David Adler posted on October 20, 2005 at 08:58:47 PM
Let me get this straight: Sharon *withdraws* from the West Bank and this creates "Greater Israel"? Find me a hardline settler and "Greater Israel" advocate who sees it that way.
posted on October 20, 2005 at 08:59:33 PM
N.B
CORRECTION
The first point to note is that her argument that there is no antisemitism within the campaign of those seeking justice for Palestine, is of the same cut as those who argue that nothing Israel has ever does, is doing and will do is ANTISEMITIC. Not only are both positions counter-factual but each play directly into the hands of their opponents.
Should read,
The first point to note is that her argument that there is no antisemitism within the campaign of those seeking justice for Palestine, is of the same cut as those who argue that nothing Israel has ever does, is doing and will do is WRONG. Not only are both positions counter-factual but each play directly into the hands of their opponents.
Thanks
CORRECTION
The first point to note is that her argument that there is no antisemitism within the campaign of those seeking justice for Palestine, is of the same cut as those who argue that nothing Israel has ever does, is doing and will do is ANTISEMITIC. Not only are both positions counter-factual but each play directly into the hands of their opponents.
Should read,
The first point to note is that her argument that there is no antisemitism within the campaign of those seeking justice for Palestine, is of the same cut as those who argue that nothing Israel has ever does, is doing and will do is WRONG. Not only are both positions counter-factual but each play directly into the hands of their opponents.
Thanks
Linda Grant posted on October 20, 2005 at 09:09:36 PM
How is the India-Pakistan potential nuclear face-off over Kashmir affected by America's backing of the land grab in the West Bank?
Eve Garrard posted on October 22, 2005 at 12:01:31 AM
And further to Linda's excellent point, how is the Chinese occupation of Tibet affected by America's backing of Israel? And how is the killing of Moslems by other Moslems in Sudan affected by America's backing of Israel? And the oppression in Myanmar/Burma? And the brutalities in Zimbabwe? And the horrors going on in North Korea? And if these things, which involve really quite a lot of people, can't readily be traced back to Israel, then just how does Clare Short have a case? And if she doesn't have a case, then just why is she so ready to blame the world's violence on American support for Israel?
Eve Garrard posted on October 22, 2005 at 12:53:57 AM
And further to Linda's excellent point, how is the Chinese occupation of Tibet affected by America's backing of Israel? And how is the killing of Moslems by other Moslems in Sudan affected by America's backing of Israel? And the oppression in Myanmar/Burma? And the brutalities in Zimbabwe? And the horrors going on in North Korea? And if these things, which involve really quite a lot of people, can't readily be traced back to Israel, then just how does Clare Short have a case? And if she doesn't have a case, then just why is she so ready to blame the world's violence on American support for Israel?
posted on October 22, 2005 at 07:33:20 PM
I presume that by "the bitter division and violence in the world" Clare Short meant not all the conflicts in the world but the central division at present between Islam and the West - and she is arguing that US support for Israeli apartheid against Palestinians is the major cause of the inflammation of the Muslim sense of injustice which al-Qaeda is so skilfully exploiting - because, as I said before, it is THE current symbol of Western imperialism and colonialism. So though I think it would have been a lot better to have had the indefinite rather than definite article, there is a case for the definite article. And she isn't saying that Israel is controlling the US - on the contrary US support means that Israel is seen as a tool of US imperialism. Most of Arab apparent anti-semitism is really hatred for Western imperialism.
I also wanted to say that no one is denying that there is real anti-semitism in the Palestine Solidarity movement - there is indeed a small but dangerous movement spearheaded by Israel Shamir, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon. And who are the only people attacking these anti-Semites? The anti-Zionists of Jews Against Zionism. Engage is too busy looking for non-existent anti-semitism. It is also not true to say the picket against Gilad Atzmon waas unsuccessful - on the contrary it was a big success and has alerted the movement to the problem.
Deborah
I also wanted to say that no one is denying that there is real anti-semitism in the Palestine Solidarity movement - there is indeed a small but dangerous movement spearheaded by Israel Shamir, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon. And who are the only people attacking these anti-Semites? The anti-Zionists of Jews Against Zionism. Engage is too busy looking for non-existent anti-semitism. It is also not true to say the picket against Gilad Atzmon waas unsuccessful - on the contrary it was a big success and has alerted the movement to the problem.
Deborah
posted on October 23, 2005 at 02:16:53 AM
'Engage is too busy looking for non-existent anti-semitism.'
Honestly, Deborah, I wish this was true.
Here's the story. Initially, I objected to the boycott of Israeli universities on a basic liberal academic freedom basis. Also that there had been no debate in my union. I was really pissed off about this, and so were pretty much all of my colleagues. Our union was taken for a ride.
I'm sure you can understand that argument, even if you think it is uninformed, insular, insufficently supportive of the Palestians and so on.
But then a funny thing happened. I disagreed with the policy of my union, and organised, with David H, to turn over the boycott decision.
Somehow, the two of us became a well-funded Zionist conspiracy. There was a weird posting on a PSC website about my name, and how the Isreli press kept putting an H in it to suggest I wasn't Jewish.
I'm not Jewish, I don't have an H. I'm not rich or particularly well organised either. So what the hell is going on?
Lots of people in the AUT, pretty well informed people, not stupid people, vote against the boycott. Whatever anyone says, and even though I might want it to be different, and more sophisticated, the boycott was defeated partly on a straightforward, liberal academic freedom basis.
But it gets explained in terms of a well funded Zionist campaign, led by people who conceal their Jewish Identity, even people, like me, who don't have one in the first place.
Listen, Deborah,
There's a bunch of people, many of whom are not Jews, on the left, who are worried about the way things are going. we're not paranoid (obviously), we don't seek to silence criticism of Israel. For myself, I want consistency. I'm shocked when the rhetoric of the anti-Zionists conflicts so strongly with what I know to be the case.
It's weird that people wanted to picture me as a Jew in order to explain my opposition to the boycott. But that's what happened.
JAZ isn't good enough. You have to engage in a serious discussion about how to create a movement for peace and mutual recognition. It has to be more than rhetoric, than engaging in 'morally corect' postures. Frankly, I think the defeat of the boycott movement in the AUT opens up the space for that discussion, and I hope and expect that you will join it. But let's drop the nonsense that there's not a problem of anti-semitism.
Honestly, Deborah, I wish this was true.
Here's the story. Initially, I objected to the boycott of Israeli universities on a basic liberal academic freedom basis. Also that there had been no debate in my union. I was really pissed off about this, and so were pretty much all of my colleagues. Our union was taken for a ride.
I'm sure you can understand that argument, even if you think it is uninformed, insular, insufficently supportive of the Palestians and so on.
But then a funny thing happened. I disagreed with the policy of my union, and organised, with David H, to turn over the boycott decision.
Somehow, the two of us became a well-funded Zionist conspiracy. There was a weird posting on a PSC website about my name, and how the Isreli press kept putting an H in it to suggest I wasn't Jewish.
I'm not Jewish, I don't have an H. I'm not rich or particularly well organised either. So what the hell is going on?
Lots of people in the AUT, pretty well informed people, not stupid people, vote against the boycott. Whatever anyone says, and even though I might want it to be different, and more sophisticated, the boycott was defeated partly on a straightforward, liberal academic freedom basis.
But it gets explained in terms of a well funded Zionist campaign, led by people who conceal their Jewish Identity, even people, like me, who don't have one in the first place.
Listen, Deborah,
There's a bunch of people, many of whom are not Jews, on the left, who are worried about the way things are going. we're not paranoid (obviously), we don't seek to silence criticism of Israel. For myself, I want consistency. I'm shocked when the rhetoric of the anti-Zionists conflicts so strongly with what I know to be the case.
It's weird that people wanted to picture me as a Jew in order to explain my opposition to the boycott. But that's what happened.
JAZ isn't good enough. You have to engage in a serious discussion about how to create a movement for peace and mutual recognition. It has to be more than rhetoric, than engaging in 'morally corect' postures. Frankly, I think the defeat of the boycott movement in the AUT opens up the space for that discussion, and I hope and expect that you will join it. But let's drop the nonsense that there's not a problem of anti-semitism.
Dov posted on October 25, 2005 at 11:10:33 AM
Let me get this straight, Deborah. There are only three "real" antisemites in the PSC and the "only" ones fighting this cabal is "The anti-Zionists of Jews Against Zionism". Meanwhile, the antisemitism Engage unearths is deemed by you to be "non-existent"?
This is an interesting point and should not be dismissed solely because it is entirely wrong.
Its importance lies in the fact it feeds into the older antisemitic discourse that whenever and wherever Jews shout "antisemitism" they are being paranoid (see Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America" for a case-study of the way in which antisemitism makes you doubt your own reality). It also feeds into a newer stream; that claims of legitimate antisemitism are "in fact" a "Jewish" device of silencing debate, about things "they" don't want discussed, thereby increasing their (alleged) power of control and constraint even more. The consequence of this way of thinking is a rather nasty and dangerous paradox; that a struggle against racism becomes nothing other than a weapon in the antisemitic armory.
This is an interesting point and should not be dismissed solely because it is entirely wrong.
Its importance lies in the fact it feeds into the older antisemitic discourse that whenever and wherever Jews shout "antisemitism" they are being paranoid (see Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America" for a case-study of the way in which antisemitism makes you doubt your own reality). It also feeds into a newer stream; that claims of legitimate antisemitism are "in fact" a "Jewish" device of silencing debate, about things "they" don't want discussed, thereby increasing their (alleged) power of control and constraint even more. The consequence of this way of thinking is a rather nasty and dangerous paradox; that a struggle against racism becomes nothing other than a weapon in the antisemitic armory.
Avigail posted on October 25, 2005 at 05:32:30 PM
Back to Jonty's very valid comment above:
>Moreover, what evidence is there that Sharon in particular views the very >notion of criticising Israeli policies as inherently illegitimate (i.e. antisemitic >and so disallowed)? In fact, can anyone give examples of mainstream Israeli >or Jewish commentators or politicians who have said this?
I live in Israel, and a few weeks ago was at a large Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) rally outside Sharon's residence in Jerusalem. As with all rallies (left, right, Gay Pride...) it received ample policing, and was permitted to close off a road for the evening. Later that week (I couldn't make it), a Palestinian protest was slated to take place at the City Hall. Again with permission.
Wake up, David - Israel is a democracy, and there's every opportunity for the expression of opinions. (Something of a national pastime here... just look at any car sticker, noticeboard...) If there's anything you can allow Sharon credit for, it's allowing opinions to be expressed - he's been lambasted from both left and right all summer.
On a second note, let me raise an issue of semantics. You describe Engage as a forum for 'legitimate criticism of Israel'. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you're criticising some of current Israeli policy? You're not criticising the entire state as an entity (we know that THAT is anti-Semitic), nor are you criticising all of Israel's policies (hard to believe it, but yes, issues in contemporary Israel extend beyond 'the situation'. I mean, you're welcome to delve into subjects like Jerusalem parking tickets but I think they're beyond your remit).
Sorry to lay into you, but if there's one thing I find annoying about Engage, it's that the Israel you (that's you collectively, not you personally) discuss sometimes bears not all that much relation to the one I live in.
>Moreover, what evidence is there that Sharon in particular views the very >notion of criticising Israeli policies as inherently illegitimate (i.e. antisemitic >and so disallowed)? In fact, can anyone give examples of mainstream Israeli >or Jewish commentators or politicians who have said this?
I live in Israel, and a few weeks ago was at a large Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) rally outside Sharon's residence in Jerusalem. As with all rallies (left, right, Gay Pride...) it received ample policing, and was permitted to close off a road for the evening. Later that week (I couldn't make it), a Palestinian protest was slated to take place at the City Hall. Again with permission.
Wake up, David - Israel is a democracy, and there's every opportunity for the expression of opinions. (Something of a national pastime here... just look at any car sticker, noticeboard...) If there's anything you can allow Sharon credit for, it's allowing opinions to be expressed - he's been lambasted from both left and right all summer.
On a second note, let me raise an issue of semantics. You describe Engage as a forum for 'legitimate criticism of Israel'. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you're criticising some of current Israeli policy? You're not criticising the entire state as an entity (we know that THAT is anti-Semitic), nor are you criticising all of Israel's policies (hard to believe it, but yes, issues in contemporary Israel extend beyond 'the situation'. I mean, you're welcome to delve into subjects like Jerusalem parking tickets but I think they're beyond your remit).
Sorry to lay into you, but if there's one thing I find annoying about Engage, it's that the Israel you (that's you collectively, not you personally) discuss sometimes bears not all that much relation to the one I live in.
David Hirsh posted on October 25, 2005 at 08:49:38 PM
Avigail says: "what evidence is there that Sharon in particular views the very notion of criticising Israeli policies as inherently illegitimate (i.e. antisemitic and so disallowed)? In fact, can anyone give examples of mainstream Israeli or Jewish commentators or politicians who have said this?"
This is an interesting point and I have just spent two hours reading Prime Minister Sharon's speeches from his website. I have not come up with much yet. I am working on it.
The best (or worst) that I can come up with so far is this:
"This phenomenon – of Jews defending themselves and fighting back – is an anathema in the side of the new anti-Semites. Legitimate steps of self-defense which Israel takes in its war against Palestinian terror – actions which any sovereign state is obligated to undertake to ensure the security of its citizens – are presented by those who hate Israel as aggressive, Nazi-like steps."
PM Sharon’s Speech at the Knesset Special Session Marking the Struggle Against Anti-Semitism
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speech260105.htm
Here Sharon uses the term "legitimate steps of self-defense". We can assume that he includes within this such things as 'targetted assassination', shooting at stone-throwing crowds, building the 'barrier'on Palestinian land, erecting 300 checkpoints in the West Bank, crushing Rachel Corrie (accidentially? deliberately?) under an armoured bulldozer, razing a large area in the centre of Jenin to the gound (http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html). Building settlements for 200,000 settlers in the Occupied Territories?
And then he says that these "legitimate steps of self-defense" are "presented by those who hate Israel as aggressive, Nazi-like steps".
It is true that these (legitimate, in fact illegitimate) steps are presented by those who hate Israel as aggressive (true perhaps?) and nazi-like (false, demonizing, antisemitic).
I would be interested if anyone can come up with better answers to Avigail's challenge:
"what evidence is there that Sharon in particular views the very notion of criticising Israeli policies as inherently illegitimate (i.e. antisemitic and so disallowed)? In fact, can anyone give examples of mainstream Israeli or Jewish commentators or politicians who have said this?"
I am still working on it.
This is an interesting point and I have just spent two hours reading Prime Minister Sharon's speeches from his website. I have not come up with much yet. I am working on it.
The best (or worst) that I can come up with so far is this:
"This phenomenon – of Jews defending themselves and fighting back – is an anathema in the side of the new anti-Semites. Legitimate steps of self-defense which Israel takes in its war against Palestinian terror – actions which any sovereign state is obligated to undertake to ensure the security of its citizens – are presented by those who hate Israel as aggressive, Nazi-like steps."
PM Sharon’s Speech at the Knesset Special Session Marking the Struggle Against Anti-Semitism
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speech260105.htm
Here Sharon uses the term "legitimate steps of self-defense". We can assume that he includes within this such things as 'targetted assassination', shooting at stone-throwing crowds, building the 'barrier'on Palestinian land, erecting 300 checkpoints in the West Bank, crushing Rachel Corrie (accidentially? deliberately?) under an armoured bulldozer, razing a large area in the centre of Jenin to the gound (http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html). Building settlements for 200,000 settlers in the Occupied Territories?
And then he says that these "legitimate steps of self-defense" are "presented by those who hate Israel as aggressive, Nazi-like steps".
It is true that these (legitimate, in fact illegitimate) steps are presented by those who hate Israel as aggressive (true perhaps?) and nazi-like (false, demonizing, antisemitic).
I would be interested if anyone can come up with better answers to Avigail's challenge:
"what evidence is there that Sharon in particular views the very notion of criticising Israeli policies as inherently illegitimate (i.e. antisemitic and so disallowed)? In fact, can anyone give examples of mainstream Israeli or Jewish commentators or politicians who have said this?"
I am still working on it.
Tigger posted on October 25, 2005 at 09:06:34 PM
What? You make a bold statement that Sharon views the very notion of criticising Israeli policies as inherently illegitimate but when a reader asks what evidence there is for this you openly admit that you don't have any but will work on it? If you don't know why you said it, why did you say it?
David Hirsh posted on October 25, 2005 at 09:14:28 PM
Tigger. Calm down. What do you think of the example I gave? Lets see what examples people come up with. Maybe I was wrong. Lets do some research. Lets discuss.
Dov posted on October 25, 2005 at 10:37:11 PM
For what it's worth, I've trawled through the Guardian's archive (to about 2000). I have found a few articles where Sharon or others have argued that x or y's comment or an institutional action (i.e. by the EU/UN) was driven by antismitism. But I have found no overt comment by Sharon or anyone else that anti-Zionism is synonmous with antisemitism.
Interestingly, I have found artcles stating that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism and that it is wrong to argue the contrary. As I say, I have yet to find an argument for 'the contrary".
Hope this helps.
Interestingly, I have found artcles stating that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism and that it is wrong to argue the contrary. As I say, I have yet to find an argument for 'the contrary".
Hope this helps.
David Hirsh posted on October 26, 2005 at 07:33:21 PM
How about this? http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/Interviews/200311/bea8806e-a61e-484b-8dd3-a79374e710a0.htm
Question: Mr prime minister, in Europe there is an attempt to distinguish between an anti-Semitism that should be condemned and a legitimate criticism toward Israel's policies. Furthermore there are those who think that Israel utilises anti-Semitism as a shield from criticism directed at her.
Ariel Sharon: Today there is no separation. We are talking about collective anti-Semitism. The state of Israel is the Jewish state and the attitude towards Israel runs accordingly. This anti-Semitism is fundamental, and today, in order to incite it and to undermine the Jews' rights for self-defence, it is re-aroused. These days to conduct an anti-Semite policy is not a popular thing, so the anti-Semites bundle their policies in with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anti-Semitism needs to be fought against. This is a very dangerous thing. However, certainly the right answers could be found in order to fight it. Our demand from the European countries is to fight anti-Semitism in every possible way and vigorously. Of course the sheer fact that there are a huge amount of Muslims, approximately 17 million in the EU, this issue has also turned into a political matter. I would say, in my opinion, EU governments are not doing enough to tackle anti-Semitism. However, there are some countries that incorporate this subject in their educational curriculum, and that is exactly what needs to be done. There is a need to teach, there is a need to explain, there is a need to remind what anti-Semitism caused in the past, and one must know that the damage caused by anti-Semitism ultimately does not affect only the Jews, but also affects those countries where anti-Semitism is rife. They must fight this anti-Semitism. You cannot separate here; Israel is treated as a Jewish state.
Close this windowQuestion: Mr prime minister, in Europe there is an attempt to distinguish between an anti-Semitism that should be condemned and a legitimate criticism toward Israel's policies. Furthermore there are those who think that Israel utilises anti-Semitism as a shield from criticism directed at her.
Ariel Sharon: Today there is no separation. We are talking about collective anti-Semitism. The state of Israel is the Jewish state and the attitude towards Israel runs accordingly. This anti-Semitism is fundamental, and today, in order to incite it and to undermine the Jews' rights for self-defence, it is re-aroused. These days to conduct an anti-Semite policy is not a popular thing, so the anti-Semites bundle their policies in with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anti-Semitism needs to be fought against. This is a very dangerous thing. However, certainly the right answers could be found in order to fight it. Our demand from the European countries is to fight anti-Semitism in every possible way and vigorously. Of course the sheer fact that there are a huge amount of Muslims, approximately 17 million in the EU, this issue has also turned into a political matter. I would say, in my opinion, EU governments are not doing enough to tackle anti-Semitism. However, there are some countries that incorporate this subject in their educational curriculum, and that is exactly what needs to be done. There is a need to teach, there is a need to explain, there is a need to remind what anti-Semitism caused in the past, and one must know that the damage caused by anti-Semitism ultimately does not affect only the Jews, but also affects those countries where anti-Semitism is rife. They must fight this anti-Semitism. You cannot separate here; Israel is treated as a Jewish state.