One doesn't spend a quarter-century working in the American academy without coming across all manner of opinionated, irrational and overheated types. None more so, in my own experience, than those whose out-of-class (and sometimes, regrettably, in-class) activism consists of lambasting the State of Israel.
A few years back, I gave a lecture at Exquisite Prestigious University. My remarks on the subject of faith-based politicking in the United States were well-received. The group, consisting of about two dozen EPU professors, then repaired to a restaurant for a collegial repast.
But the commendations and exchanges of business cards abruptly came to an end as one faculty member who somehow knew about my (out-of-class) opinions, suddenly asked me, "How can a guy as smart as you support that tyrannical Zionist entity?"
Guys like me, it turns out, don't accept the premises of that question. And for the next half hour, our conversation resembled one of those brutal London high-society dinner scrums, the sort of thing described by Philip Roth depicted in "The Counterlife" and Howard Jacobson in "The Finkler Question." This type-scene features the liberal Jew versus a bevy of articulate liberal despisers of the Jewish State (a few of whom may be Jewish themselves).
Outnumbered by roughly 15 to one, I tried to explain that we were speaking about a liberal democracy -- a flawed one, like all such democracies -- but not a tyranny. As coffee was served, one scholar who had remained stonily impassive during the entire ordeal picked up his jacket, walked over to me and whispered in my ear, "Just go home. There's no dealing with these people. I've watched this for 25 years. And, no, this isn't just about the State of Israel." With that, he walked out the door, saying good-bye to no one.
His comment led me to wonder: If this isn't just about Israel, then what's it about?
On today's episode of Faith Complex, Hannah Rosenthal, the State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, offers a highly informative explanation of how to distinguish anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism. She begins by noting that critique of a policy of Israel is an entirely acceptable activity. She then points to types of criticisms which are, to quote the faculty member above, "not just about the State of Israel."
Ms. Rosenthal advances three criteria for differentiating hatred of Jews from legitimate disagreement with Israeli policies. My experience at EPU makes me think of the acuity of one of her observations: When critics singularly, obsessively, relentlessly and exclusively direct their anger to this one country, and this one country alone, perhaps we've left the domain of reasonable political engagement and veered into something much more sinister.
Irrational thinking is common enough in each of us; when anti-Semitism is added in, irrational thinking becomes not only instinctual but systemic. An experienced anti-Semite constantly looks for “evidence” to confirm his idée fixe, and invariably finds it.
Anti-Semitism is self-inflicted, which means that, by an act of will and reason, the infection can be repelled. But this is not easy to do, especially in societies where anti-Semitism has become common or the norm. What is in any case clear is that anti-Semitism, besides being self-inflicted, is also self-destructive.
I support the idea of one state in Palestine that is a democracy with full inclusion and protections for everyone living there, both Jews and Gentiles.
I vehemently disagree with the author that holding this position makes me anti-semitic. I do not oppose Israel because the one religion/ethnicity that has special rights in it is Jewish. I oppose it because one religion/ethnicity has special rights and it is a state intended to be for that religion/ethnicity.
It was a bad idea when Europe tried it for Christian faiths in the 16th and 17th Centuries and it's a bad idea for Palestine in the 20th and 21st Century. Why Europeans thought they could impose a solution on the Middle East for Jewish emigrants from Europe when it didn't work in Europe 400 hundred years earlier doesn't make sense.
I support full inclusion of Jews in our society and full equality and despise any attacks of people based on their religion/ethnicity. Supporting the same thing for Palestine does not make me anti-Semitic.
Less flippantly Jews were repeatedly targeted (as were Roma incidentally) because they were visible "Outsiders". They were no worse treated than the Cathars, another such group, or other religious non-conformists it's just that unlike these groups, they weren't completely wiped out so the attacks could repeat.
The reality that the Holocaust was one of the extremist examples, if not the most extreme, of a group be persecuted still does not justify jettisoning the rights of others.
The West failed the European Jews last century. The United States should have opened our doors to any European Jew who wanted to immigrate when it first became clear the Nazis were targeting Jews. But we did nothing and only after the camps were liberated did we seem to care, and then we thought the fix was to transport them to Palestine instead of welcome them here. That way rich WASPs could salve their conscience and yet still not have "them" in their country clubs or stay at their hotels. That's anti-semitism.
As the author admits, Israel's democracy is imperfect; this will lead some to rhetorically brandish the "tyranny" accusation in the same fashion it's leveled against the President. While it might be overblown, that doesn't the concerns of occupied Palestinians or Arab Israeli citizens can be swept under the rug.
Anti Zionism is modern day anti Semitism. These entities can not openly express themselves as they wish, as a result they claim anti Zionism. In my time here, I've encountered VERY few who are actually criticizing the policies of the government of Israel.
F&F
Ironic from somebody who complains of the demonisation of one country to try and demonise a whole lot of them. But not a pattern we haven't seen before.
As to whether anti-semitism does exist, it absolutely does (I've seen the vandalised headstones and of course there's the recent heinous infanticides) but the repeated accusations for the most spurious reasons have had the same effect as the "boy who cried wolf" - they've made people sceptical in all but the most blatant and extreme cases.
As for the debate as a whole I do acknowledge that for some anti-semitism is what generates their anti-Israel/anti-Zionism. But another matter, and one I think Israel's Jewish supporters should wonder about is how much the behaviour of Israel and the defence of even its most violent acts and the attacks upon any and all critics do themselves generate anti-semitism.
Although, all things aside, Israel still has some pretty terrible qualities as a nation.
That does not mean I agree with the policies of the current Israeli government toward the Palestinians or their middle eastern neigbors in general. However, I have seen, time and again, this overwhelming negativism toward Israel on the part of liberal academics who believe that their opinions should always persuade and modify the actions of Israel as they direct. Some of this is caused by the virulent attacks made on anyone who dares to question Israeli government policies as anti-semitic. Some of this is just pure academic jealousy, and some of this is simply the unnecessary political polarization of our time. Whichever applies, these are not battles that can be won, because communication was ended at the first question.
I was disappointed to find that your second paragraph didn't follow up your statement of position with the reasoning you used to get there. I'm curious, what is it that drives you to strongly support the state of Israel and what is it about this state that obliges us to support it's continued existence?
And/or subconscious antisemitism.