Talk:Criticism of Israel/Material on Criticism-AS relationship

Anti-Zionism regarded as anti-Semitism
Some commentators, such as Robert S. Wistrich, Joschka Fischer, and Abba Eban focus on anti-Zionism (rather than general criticisms of Israel or Israeli policies),  and assert that much of anti-Zionism is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. Abba Eban, former Interior Minister of Israel, said, “There is no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel's statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal right of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination."

The United States' State Department published a report on anti-Semitism in 2008, and they concluded that the term anti-Zionism is "often is used as a synonym for anti-Semitism", and that anti-Zionists frequently make no distinction between Zionists and Jews. Professor Robert S. Wistrich (head of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem believes that Anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic and that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since 1948) have tended to converge, generally without undergoing a full merger. He also argues that much contemporary anti-Zionism, particularly forms that compare Zionism and Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich, has become a form of antisemitism: "Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti-Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel. Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative 'Jewish lobby', the Jewish/Zionist 'world conspiracy', and Jewish/Israeli 'warmongers'." Alvin Rosenfeld wrote a report for the American Jewish Committee that documented a large number of critics of Zionism or Israel that are purported to be anti-Semitic, including several Jewish critics such as Adrienne Rich, Jacqueline Rose, Joel Kovel, Douglas Rushkoff, Tony Judt, Sara Roy, and Irena Klepfisz.
 * Alvin H. Rosenfeld. 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism. American Jewish Committee.  2006:
 * "… some of the most impassioned charges leveled against the Jews today involve vicious accusations against the Jewish state. Anti-Zionism, in fact, is the form that much of today’s anti-Semitism takes, so much so that some now see earlier attempts to rid the world of Jews finding a parallel in present- day desires to get rid of the Jewish state… Israel’s policy of encouraging Jewish settlement in Gaza (which it abandoned in 2005) and the West Bank has long been a flash point of dispute, and its sometimes harsh treatment of Palestinian Arabs living in those areas has also drawn a great deal of negative attention. Criticizing such policies and actions is, in itself, not anti-Semitic. To call Israel a Nazi state, however, as is commonly done today, or to accuse it of fostering South African-style apartheid rule or engaging in ethnic cleansing or wholesale genocide goes well beyond legitimate criticism. Apart from the United States, to which it is almost always linked by its enemies, no country on earth is as vilified as the Jewish state. Moreover, those who denounce it as an outlaw or pariah nation are found on both the left and the right, among the educated elites as well as the uneducated classes, and among Christians as well as Muslims. In some quarters, the challenge is not to Israel’s policies, but to its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future. Thus, the argument leveled by Israel’s fiercest critics is often no longer about 1967 and the country’s territorial expansion following its military victory dur- ing the Six-Day War, but about 1948 and the alleged “crime,” or “original sin,” of its very establishment. The debate, in other words, is less about the country’s borders and more about its origins and essence. One of the things that is new and deeply disturbing about the new anti-Semitism, therefore, is precisely this: the singling out of the Jewish state, and the Jewish state alone, as a political entity unworthy of a secure and sovereign existence."


 * Rosenfeld cites, as a source of examples of anti-Israel sentiments by Jews: Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel, edited by Seth Farber (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2005).

Objections to characterizing criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism
Several commentators have objected to the characterization of criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, including Michael P. Prior, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Lerner, Antony Lerman, Ralph Nader, Jenny Tonge, Ken Livingstone, and Desmond Tutu. They provide a variety of reasons for objecting to the equation, including stifling free expression, promoting anti-Semitism, diluting genuine anti-Semitism, and alienating Jews from Judaism or Israel.

Vague and indiscriminate
Michael Lerner claims that the American Jewish community regularly tries to blur the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, and says it is a "slippery slope" to expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel.

Philosophy professor Irfan Khawaja asserts that it is a "false equation" to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, writing "The point is not that the charge of 'anti-Semitism' should never be made: some people deserve it…. But the equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is a farce that has gone on long enough, and it’s time that those who saw through the farce said so…" Khawaja, Irfan, "Poisoning the Well: The False Equation of Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism", History News Network, online, 28 March 2005:
 * "… Schoenfeld takes umbrage at questions about the power of “the Jewish lobby,” and construes the asking of such questions as evidence of anti-Semitism. In some cases, he thinks that a particular criticism of Israel is overwrought, and takes its being overwrought as evidence of anti-Semitism. In some cases the claim is that a Jewish author is self-hating, which becomes evidence of anti-Semitism. In some cases we are told that a person draws attention to his Jewish friends while criticizing Israel, which only proves that the person wishes to be insulated from charges of anti-Semitism—which proves, in advance of any actual accusation, that he must be an anti-Semite.... The point is not that the charge of “anti-Semitism” should never be made: some people deserve it. Nor must it always be made with trepidation: some people obviously deserve it. Nor must anti-Zionists be thought immune to the charge: too many of them are guilty.... But the equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is a farce that has gone on long enough, and it’s time that those who saw through the farce said so—at length, if necessary....I’ve mentioned just a few examples here, but whatever its virtues (and there are some, as I’ve been at pains to suggest), the deficiencies I’ve described characterize the “new anti-Semitism” literature as a whole. For examples, consult Phyllis Chesler’s The New Anti-Semitism (pp. 4, 171-179, 182-185), Abraham Foxman’s Never Again: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (pp. 17-21), Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel (p. 210), the writings of Bat Ye’or, as well as scattered essays in Rosenbaum’s anthology, Commentary, at WorldNet.Daily, or in your local Jewish paper. The modus operandi is more or less the same: First we are informed, accurately enough, of the existence of the new anti-Semitism. Then we are told that anti-Zionism is now ubiquitously used as a cover for that anti-Semitism. From there we skate imperceptibly to the equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. And from there we are blackmailed into accepting the equation on pain of being accused of anti-Semitism."

Palestine Monitor, a Palestinian advocacy group, is critical of what it characterizes as a modern trend to expand the definition of the term "antisemitic", and states that the new definitions are overly vague and allow for "indiscriminate accusations".

Brian Klug argues that anti-Zionism sometimes is a manifestation antisemitism, but that "[t]hey are separate" and that to equate them is to incorrectly "conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people."

Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University writes that "[t]here is a new surge of antisemitism in the world, and much prejudice against Israel is driven by such antisemitism," but argues that charges of antisemitism based on anti-Israel opinions generally lack credibility. He writes that "a grave educational misdirection is imbedded in formulations suggesting that if we somehow get rid of antisemitism, we will get rid of anti-Israelism. This reduces the problems of prejudice against Israel to cartoon proportions." Raab describes prejudice against Israel as a "serious breach of morality and good sense," and argues that it is often a bridge to antisemitism, but distinguishes it from antisemitism as such. Irfan Khawaja suggests that some legitimate criticisms of Israel are improperly attacked by deliberately conflating them with criticisms that are anti-Semitic in nature.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, in the book The Politics of Anti-Semitism, write "Apologists for Israel's repression of Palestinians toss the word 'anti-Semite' at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end. So some of the essays in this book address the issue of what constitutes genuine anti-Semitism - Jew-hatred - as opposed to disingenuous, specious charges of 'anti-Semitism' hurled at rational appraisals of the state of Israel's political, military, and social conduct."

Represents Jews as victims
Norman Finkelstein and Steven Zipperstein (professor of Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University) suggest that criticism of Israel is sometimes inappropriately considered to be anti-Semitism due to an inclination to perceive Jews as victims. Zipperstein suggests that the common attitude of seeing Jews as victims is sometimes implicitly transferred to the perception of Israel as a victim; while Finkelstein suggests that the depiction of Israel as a victim (as a "Jew among nations") is a deliberate ploy to stifle criticism of Israel.
 * Zipperstein, p 61:
 * Steven Zipperstein, argues that a belief in the State of Israel's responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict is considered "part of what a reasonably informed, progressive, decent person thinks." He argues that Jews have a tendency to see the State of Israel as a victim because they were very recently themselves "the quintessential victims."


 * Finkelstein p 16:
 * "To evade the obvious, another stratagem of the Israel's lobby is playing The Holocaust and 'new anti-Semitism' cards.  In a previous study, I examined how the Nazi holocaust had been fashioned into an ideological weapon to immunize Israel from legitimate criticism.  In this book I look at a variant of this Holocaust card, namely, the 'new anti-Semitism'.  In fact, the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism.  Whenever Israel comes under renewed international pressure to withdraw from occupied territories, its apologists mount yet another meticulously orchestrated media extravaganza alleging that the world is awash in anti-Semitism.  This shameless exploitation of anti-Semitism delegitimizes criticism of Israel, makes Jews rather than Palestinians the victims, and puts the onus on the Arab world to rid itself  of anti-Semitism rather than on Israel to rid itself of the Occupied Territories.   A close examination of what the Israel lobby tallies as anti-Semitism reveals three components:  exaggeration and fabrication;  mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy; and the unjustified yet predictable 'spillover' from criticism of Israel to Jews generally."


 * Finkelstein p 33:
 * "The dominant trope of the new 'new anti-Semitism' is that Israel has become the 'Jew among nations'…. In their 1982 study the Perlmuters pointed out the 'transformation … from anti-Semitism against Jews to anti-Semitism the object of which is the Jews' surrogate: Israel'… The transparent motive behind these assertions is to taint any criticism of Israel as motivated by anti-Semitism and - inverting reality - to turn Israel (and Jews), not Palestinians, in the victim of the 'current siege' (Chesler)."


 * Finkelstein quotes four authors (who support the notion of New Antisemitism) who he claims rely on the victim perception:  Chesler, Zuckerman, Cotler, and Schoenfeld

Self-hating Jews
Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, asserts that the equation of Criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism has resulted in conflict within the Jewish community, in particular, proponents of the equation sometimes attack Jewish critics of Israeli policies as "self-hating Jews". Lerner also claims that the equation of Criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and the resulting charges of "self hating Jew" has resulted in the alienation of young Jews from their faith.

Antony Lerman believes that many attacks on Jewish critics of Israel are "vitriolic, ad hominem and indiscriminate" and claims that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have been defined too broadly and without reason. Lerman also states that the "redefinition" of anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionism has caused Jews to attack other Jews, because many Jews are leaders in several anti-Zionist organizations.

An executive director of the New Israel Fund published an open letter defending non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate within Israel to promote civil rights of Arabs, and she claims that supporters of Israel "associate moral and ethical criticism of any activity by Israel or the policies of its Government as being anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and when conducted by Jews, as evidence of self-hatred."

Scare tactics
The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network is also opposed to the use of the antisemitic label to suppress criticism, and objected to the "fear tactics" employed when the anti-Semitic label was applied to supporters of Israel Apartheid Week, claiming that it was reminiscent of the anti-Communist scare tactics of the 1950s.

Michael Lerner suggests that some United States politicians are reluctant to criticise Israel because they are afraid of being labelled  anti-Semitic. Lerner also states that groups that promote peace in the mid-East are afraid to form coalitions, lest they be discredited by what Lerner terms the "Jewish Establishment".

Draws attention away from genuine anti-Semitism
Brian Klug asserts that proponents of New Antisemitism's define antisemitism so broadly, that they deprive the term "antisemitism" of all meaning. Klug writes: " when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance."

In the book The Politics of Anti-Semitism Scott Handleman writes: "Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israeli's critics. The 'antisemite'  libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel's racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.î

Excessive accusations of anti-Semitism may result in backlash
Brian Klug argues that excessive claims of anti-Semitism (leveled at critics of Israel) may backfire and contribute to anti-Semitism, and he writes "a McCarthyite tendency to see anti-Semites under every bed, arguably contributes to the climate of hostility toward Jews"

Tony Judt also suggests that Israel's "insistent identification" of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is now the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in the world.

Michael Lerner echos those thoughts and suggests that the continued "repression" of criticism of Israel may eventually "explode" in an outburst of genuine anti-Semitism.

Deliberate ploy to stifle criticism of Israel
Several commentators have asserted that some accusations of anti-Semitism are actually deliberate ploys to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. One of the major themes of Norman Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History is that some supporters of Israel employ accusations of anti-Semitism to attack critics of Israel, with the goal of discrediting the critics and silencing the criticism.

Professors Judy Rebick and Alan Sears, in response to Israel Apartheid Week activities at Carleton University, wrote a open letter to the University president which stated that accusations of anti-Semitism are sometimes made with the goal of "silencing" criticism of Israel. Journalist Peter Beaumont also claims that some proponents of the concept of New Antisemitism conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Tariq Ali, a British-Pakistani historian and political activist, argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians.... Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism." He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the Six-Day War were careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

Jewish Voice for Peace has spoken against the abuse of the antisemitic label, for example  in an opinion piece, they wrote "For decades, some leaders of the Jewish community have made the preposterous claim that there is complete unity of belief and interest between all Jews and the Israeli government, no matter what its policies. They must believe their own propaganda, because they see no difference between criticism of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism, and they do everything they can to silence critical voices. If the brand of anti-Semitism is not sufficiently intimidating, the silencing has been enforced by organized phone and letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, threats of, and actual withdrawal of funding support from 'offending' institutions and individuals."

Accusations are public relations efforts
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt suggest that the accusations of anti-Semitism leveled at critics of Israel are deliberately timed to defuse the impact of the criticisms. They describe a pattern where accusations of anti-Semitism rise immediately following aggressive actions by Israel: following the Six-Day War, following the 1982 Lebanon War, and following exposure of "brutal behavior in the Occupied Territories" in 2002. Mearsheimer and Walt, p 190:
 * "Supporters of Israel have a history of using fears of a "new antiSemitism" to shield Israel from criticism. In 1974, when Israel was under increasing pressure to withdraw from the lands it had conquered in 1967, Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein of the ADL published The New Anti-Semitism, which argued that anti-Semitism was on the rise and exemplified by the growing unwillingness of other societies to support Israel's actions. In the early 1980s, when the invasion of Lebanon and Israel's expanding settlements triggered additional criticisms, and when U.S. arms sales to its Arab allies were hotly contested, then ADL head Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released The Real Anti-Semitism in America, which argued that anti-Semitism was on its way back, as shown by the pressure on Israel to make peace with the Arabs and by events like the sale of AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The Perlmutters also suggested that many "anti-Semitic" actions, which they define as acts not motivated by hostility to Jews, may nonetheless harm Jewish interests (and especially Israel's well-being), and could easily bring back genuine anti-Semitism.  The troubling logic of this argument is revealed by the fact that there was little mention of anti-Semitism during the 1990s, when Israel was involved in the Oslo peace process. Indeed, one Israeli scholar wrote in 1995 that 'never before, at least since the time Christianity seized power over the Roman Empire, has anti-Semitism been less significant than at present'.  Charges of anti-Semitism became widespread only in the spring of 2002, when Israel came under severe criticism around the world for its brutal behavior in the Occupied Territories. … Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who is now a prominent Israeli author and politician, declares, 'The new anti-Semitism appears in the guise of 'political criticism of Israel', consisting of a discriminating approach and double standard towards the state of the Jews, while questioning its right to exist.'  The implication is that any one who criticizes Israel's actions … is opposed to its existence and is therefore hostile to Jews.  But this is a bogus charge, because it conflates criticism of Israel's actions with the rejection of Israel's legitimacy."

Norman Finkelstein claims that proponents of New Antisemitism employ accusations of antisemitism (addressing criticism of Israel) as part of public relations campaign to bolster Israel's image, and undermine criticism of Israel. Finkelstein:
 * page xxxiii:
 * "The 'new anti-Semitism' is a spin-off of the Holocaust industry. Whenever Israel comes under international pressure to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians diplomatically or faces a public relations debacle, its apologists mount a campaign alleging that the world is awash in a new anti-Semitism.  … the purpose of these periodic extravaganzas is not hard to find:  on the one hand, the perpetrators are turned into the victims, putting the spotlight on the alleged suffering of Jews today and diverting it from the real suffering of Palestinians; on the other hand, they  discredit all criticism of Israeli policy as motived by an irrational loathing of Jews."


 * page 16:
 * "To evade the obvious, another stratagem of the Israel's lobby is playing The Holocaust and 'new anti-Semitism' cards.  In a previous study, I examined how the Nazi holocaust had been fashioned into an ideological weapon to immunize Israel from legitimate criticism.  In this book I look at a variant of this Holocaust card, namely, the 'new anti-Semitism'.  In fact, the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism.  Whenever Israel comes under renewed international pressure to withdraw from occupied territories, its apologists mount yet another meticulously orchestrated media extravaganza alleging that the world is awash in anti-Semitism.  This shameless exploitation of anti-Semitism delegitimizes criticism of Israel, makes Jews rather than Palestinians the victims, and puts the onus on the Arab world to rid itself  of anti-Semitism rather than on Israel to rid itself of the Occupied Territories.   A close examination of what the Israel lobby tallies as anti-Semitism reveals three components:  exaggeration and fabrication;  mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy; and the unjustified yet predictable 'spillover' from criticism of Israel to Jews generally."

Finkelstein also asserts that "American Jewish organizations" purposefully increase vocal accusations of anti-Semitism during episodes when Israel is coming under increased criticism (such as the during the Intifada), with the goal of discrediting critics of Israel.

Attacking the messenger rather than the message
Michael Lerner claims that some supporters of Israel refuse to discuss legitimate criticisms of Israel (such as comparisons with apartheid) and instead attack the people who raise such criticisms, thus deliberately "shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms".

Exaggerating the equation in order to draw sympathy
Alan Dershowitz distinguishes between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, but he claims that some "enemies of Israel" encourage the equation of the two, because it makes the enemies appear to be victims of false accusations of anti-Semitism, which the enemies use an attempt to gain sympathy for their cause.