But is it Anti-Semitic?

Give Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad credit. He makes no bones about his hatred of Israel. In his latest attack, reported in YNET, he warned: "Just as (Israel) was created, it can be dismantled."

Denying Israel's legitimacy, he charged that "for 60 years, they have told lies and tried to defraud nations in order to create the germ called the Zionist regime" and added, "Zionism contributes nothing other than aggression, mass murder, terror and threats."

At the Durban 2009 anti-racism UN Conference in Geneva, Ahmadinejad's threats and denigration of the Holocaust led to a walkout and/or boycott of most European nations, the US and Canada. But that did not top some of his 180-strong entourage from also publicly castigating Israel as a Nazi, apartheid regime, with even Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Lauraete Elie Wiesel verbally attacked as a "Zionazi."

Never mind the mental gymnastics needed for Iranian Holocaust deniers to accuse Israel of being Nazis -- casting victims as victimizers is a powerful, emotive and effective propaganda tool.

The "Israel as Nazi" canard was first introduced by the Soviet Union's propaganda machine four decades ago to curry favor with Arab states who were trying to do away with Israel long before the question of a Palestinian state was ever raised. In 2009, it has gained new traction and believers far beyond the Mullah-controlled Iran. It was the mantra of pro-Hamas demonstrators from London to Los Angeles, and was delivered to thousands of emails near you ever since the Israeli incursion into Gaza last winter.

Now, two students at UC Santa Barbara have raised their voices in protest after their Sociology Professor sent them an unsolicited digital visual hate spam comparing Israelis to Nazis.

Many critics, myself among them, have labeled that email anti-Semitic.

But when exactly does critique morph into hate?

Human rights icon Natan Sharansky points to 3 "D"s to help identify when legitimate criticism crosses over to anti-Semitism: Double Standard, Deligitimization and Demonization. The cut and paste visual hit job characterizing Israel and Israelis as Nazi-like not only denigrates the 6 million Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide, but also clearly meets the standards of each of the 3 "D"s.

All this has led Sol Lieber, an 85 year old survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the Majdanek and Auschwitz Death Camps to offer to pay for this professor to travel with him to Auschwitz to (re)learn the differences between the Holocaust Kingdom and the Palestinian/Israel conflict.

For the rest us, this much should be clear: There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israeli policies; quite the contrary, as the Middle East's only democracy, Israel's actions generate healthy debate and even denunciation every day from within and without its borders.

But those who knowingly choose to mis-characterize Israel's self-defense as "Nazi" are factually and historically wrong and morally repugnant.

Comments

[Fireslayer]

Let us not forget that even now dozens of anti-war Israelis are being arrested, brutalized and imprisoned for speaking out against the Israeli war machine. Perhaps crude comparisons with the Nazis are a bit off-base, But so is the candy-coated image that most Zionist foist of their cute little "democracy­."

Real democracies don't dehumanize, deny basic human rights and brutally repress millions of people within the lands they occupy.

The knee-jerk that to criticize Israel (what is the new Zionist buzz word, "de-legitimize"?) is anti-semitic is the most intellectually dishonest canard on the scene today. Those who deny that Israel has engaged in sometimes fast (1948) sometimes slow, methodical (now) ethnic cleansing are the Holocaust deniers of the 21st century.

Most Jews do not behave like rabid-Zionist and it is past time the took the lead and ending the shameful practices of the IDF and their settler allies.

Real

[shotei]

Th Holocaust deniers of the 21st century are the ones that have not spoken a word against the genocide in Rwanda, when nearly a million people died in less than 4 months, or the ones who are silent towards the hundreds of thousands of Sudanese that have died in the past few years.
Or the ones who failed to acknowledge the Cambodian genocide, when about a third of the country's population was exterminated. Or even the Bosnians who still live in miserable conditions ever since Yugoslavia was dismantled and they were persecuted.
Before looking at the few thousand Palestinians who have died in the past decades (many armed terrorists among them), as a result of the Arab refusal to accept Israel's existence, look at these much more urgent issues. Then someone might believe your true goal is human sympathy rather than the utmost double standard.

[truenortherner]

I think the difference between what happened in Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia and Sudan and what is happening in Israel is that the other horrific events are unarguably genocide.
To say that critics of Israel's policy in Palestine are irrelevant because they didn't raise their voices for the aforementioned is wrong for two reasons: You are looking at this from a sequestered point of view. People HAVE spoken out on these other issues, just not in the same breath as criticizing Israel. And there is a concerted and overwhelming whitewashing campaign for Israel's policy in Palestine, therefore requiring that voices be raised in protest.
You are trying to create an argument for a double standard where none exists.

[Fireslayer]

But those who knowingly choose to mis-characterize the IDF's occupation barbarities, land and water theft and slow, methodical ethnic cleansing as "self-defense" are factually and historically wrong and morally repugnant.

[shotei]

Israel only occupied Palestine in 1967. Why didn't Palestinians declare a state from 48 to 67?
Also, in 67, two weeks after the war, Israel offered all occupied lands in return for peace with its neighbors. All Arab countries refused. That's when the occupation began. In order to secure deep borders with reluctant and aggressive neighbors, Israel started its occupation, which unfortunately got out of hand and is now led by Jewish extremists.
However, we must always look at the history to understand the present.

[Fireslayer]

I enjoyed shotei and truenorthers posts. We have a lot more in common than many might suspect by appearing to take sides. As a matter of fact I have worked for years with Amnesty Internation to raise funds and awareness for Darfur and the numerous ethnic wars and genocides on that continent. I opposed the Nixon Cambodian campaign and predicted it would lead to destabilizing Prince Sihinouk as an eventual bloodbath.

And I believe that someday Jews, Muslims, Christians and non-believers can all find a way to live together in Israel and the entire region.

I am on the side of all humanity. Sometimes I might be perceived as leaning to one side just as I perceive things out of balance in the Palestine/Israel conflict.
I am against anyone killing or hurting anyone. And tired of even my own recriminations.

If the extremists (who unfortunately seem to be in power) would leave off the vision of an ethnically pure Biblical fairy tail Kingdom of Israel then we would not have to listen to all of these offensive comparisons with the Nazis who had their vision of teutonic purity and a Mein Kamf fairy tail Thousand (sic) Year Reich.

Jews who don't like this comparison will behave differently and show the world the many good things about Judaism.

[shotei]

This is a fantastic article. Being critical of Israel is very legitimate and positive as it generates debate and hopefully improvements. However, to my disappointment, Israeli critics have personally attacked Natan Sharansky for his poltiical views while completely ignoring the completely correct principle of the "3 Ds". When a double standard is used, i.e., calling Israelis Nazis while refraining from calling anyone else in the world that way, is pure anti-semitism.
By simply arguing that Israel is not legitimate, this is anti-semitic, since no other country in the world has its existence so frequently questioned.
Finally, demonizing Israel as a blood-thirsty State that enjoys killing innocent children is remniscent of the medieval anti-semitism that has constantly updated itself.

[Macready]

some democracy . . . apartheid state more like . . . and many of us are anti-Zionist which we equate to anti-israel . . . the only thing israel has done is to create havoc in the Middle East . . . and what about UN human rights violations . . your so-called democracy has committed more than any other country . . not bad for only 60 years . . . and your wonderful democracy . .. won't even sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty . . yet you have an illegal nuclear arsenal and won't even sign the Geneva Convention .. why won't your so-called democracy even sign that .. . no israel is above the law . . all laws .. or phrased another way . . there is one law for israel and another of everyone else .. . israel is responsible for breeding a new wave of anti-zionism which unfortunately many people will not be able to distinguish from anti-Semitism . . wake up israel's bad karma will destroy it . . .

[LincolnParkChicago]

"Human rights icon Natan Sharansky "
I was not sure of who this was and what his story was, so i looked him up. He does not sound like a human rights icon.
Sharansky takes what many of his critics call a hardline position towards the Palestinians, arguing that there can never be peace between Israel and the Palestinians until the latter rid their society of terrorist groups like Hamas and of anti-Semitism. His critics see an incompatibility between his ardent Zionism and his commitment to the struggle for universal human rights and democracy.
In a recent Ha’aretz interview, he maintained the “Jews came here 3,000 years ago and this is the cradle of Jewish civilization. Jews are the only people in history who kept their loyalty to their identity and their land throughout the 2,000 years of exile, and no doubt that they have the right to have their place among nations—not only historically but also geographically. As to the Palestinians, who are the descendants of those Arabs who migrated in the last 200 years, they have the right, if they want, to have their own state... but not at the expense of the state of Israel.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Sharansky

[almazza98]

He doesn't get to make up what the Palestinians are. They aren't the descendants of people who came to the land 200 years ago. That is a crock of Crap. I think the Palestinians are true to their history if not more than, as much as the Jews are. He is just another one of those people who doesn't recognize Palestinians as a people, and it isn't up to him to define who the Palestinians are to fit his agenda.

[shotei]

Regardless of what you think, Natan Sharansky is considered a symbol of the fight for human rights in the world. Countless NGOs have awarded him because of his struggle against Soviet totalitarianism. He is an honorary member of the Peace Watch, was awarded several Congressional medals and much more.
He never said Palestinians should not have a State of their own. He only expressed, and rightly so, that a Palestinian and an Israeli state cannot be mutually exclusive, they have to exist side by side.
When you attack Sharansky personally (without valid arguments, I must say), it seems to me you cannot come up with any argument against his ideas, so you try to invalidate his points by attacking him.

[WrongwayFeldman]

"Human rights icon Natan Sharansky points to 3 "D"s to help identify when legitimate criticism crosses over to anti-Semitism: Double Standard, Deligitimization and Demonization"


Shimon Peres on Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University (2007): "I think that Columbia University made a mistake ... With Hitler there was a dialogue. [British Prime Minister Neville] Chamberlain went to talk to him. What did it help? It helped cover the fact that Hitler prepared concentration camps and death camps," Peres told Reuters

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907285.html

Geez....Na­tan, how big is that double standard?

[pynecastle]

Sharansky'spoints are especially legitimate when one considers that the palestinians are just as much Semites as the Israelis. Think about it.

[shotei]

Anti-semitism, from its inception by a German thinker always referred to Jews and no one else. Unfortunately, it is not precise, but the word was never meant to refer to any other religious or ethnic group.

[FalconerHK]

Comparing the neocon Israelis to nazis is sensational yet to be expected, given today's debased and reality-adverse political climate. Yes, let's equate the jews with the very group that tried to erase them from the planet as if they were a plague or infection. Silly, yet an easy, effective way for the willingly ignorant to derail debate over the actual issue, which is Israel's overall policy approach to the Palestinian situation.

The history of Native Americans from the beginning of European colonialism to present is a more apt and less hysterical analogy. Israel doesn't want to wipe the Palestinians off the map, it simply wants to engulf and control more and more of the Palestinian territories until the Palestinian people become politically and culturally marginalized, either living in controlled ghettos or assimilated into the general population, never to return as a political movement of consequence.

Think of the Palestinian territories as the equivalent of American indian reservations. Also consider the historical characterization of Native American attacks on colonial settlers as unprovoked, underhanded acts of outright war by a group of savages trespassing on land rightfully bestowed upon the colonists by god.

[almazza98]

I understand your point and agree with you with the exception of defining what it means to erase Palestinians off the map. It doesn't necessarily mean KILL them all, it means to erase their identity. When you say let them assimilate throughout the population, what do you mean by that? Let them lose who they are and become Lebanese or Saudi, well then you don't understand Arab culture. Your identity is never lost there. It doesn't matter if you were never born there and laid a foot there. You can be a US citizen, but you will always be from there. That is interchangeable with all Arab countries. Moreover, its not even the country, its the town or village you are from, If you are (grandparents) from a pre-1948 village in Palestine that has actually been erased off the map. You are still from that village, even if you were born in 2009. And it isn't political, its cultural. That is how you are identified. And I am not just talking about refugees. Many Palestinians from the pre-1948 villages who moved to other West Bank villages and not refugee camps. And live in their own homes and are assimilated with the local village are still considered not from that village and from their pre-1948 village, even if they were there for 61 years. They marry from each other, but as long as your paternal grandfather is from a pre-1948 village, you are as well.

[FalconerHK]

I appreciate your question; perhaps my point wasn't as concise as I'd intended.

I drew the comparison between the Palestinians and Native Americans to illustrate precisely your point. I don't believe the Israeli mission is the actual extinction of the Palestinian people; the political costs are too high. Rather, the better solution (relatively speaking, of course) would be for Israel to absorb as much contiguous territory as possible and in the process scatter the Palestinian diaspora across the Middle East.

Regardless of continued cultural identity, it's very difficult if not impossible for small, geographically scattered groups to have the same impact as a centralized national group in their own territorial area. For example, I would contrast the political influence wielded by Italian-Americans over the Italian government vs. the political influence of actual Italians residing in Italy. The cultural identity may be similar but there is virtually no Italian-American influence over policy decisions of Italy as a country. A more apt example might be that of Transylvanians and Armenians: unique cultural identities no longer geographically anchored and therefore disempowered.

[Prattvictory2]

Is Ben Hecht's "Perfidy" anti-Semitic?

He laid some serious charges against the founders of Israel and yet he considered himself an ardent Zionist.

[SCLAW]

Cher Rabbi:

Do you think that Israel's bombing of the
Danish Center for Torture Rehabilitation
shows a brutal restraint by the IDF?

[blueskybigstar]

As a teacher I think it is important to understand that those who have been abused often become desensitized to suffering in general and can birth the habit of abuse toward others with the excuse that it was not so nearly as bad as "we" have had it, so why should "they" complain? A history of abuse can make an abused person or people look with blinded eyes towards the possibility of culpability or corruption within themselves or within the country that represents them. I say if someone really loves their country, he or she should hold his or her country to a higher standard and should be ever vigilant to prevent corruption and culpability in crimes of their country, to follow laws and agreements, to try to be fair. That is not happening.

[Prattvictory2]

The Holocaust was over 60 years ago. Few alive have direct memories of the tragedy.

What exists today is a culture of learned victimhood that has bred a moral hazard of entitlement.

"Never again" has morphed into "After what they've done to us."

It is as though bigotry is a virus that mutates and passes in different forms throughout generations.

[mommadona]

Nazi? no.

Zionists? yes.

Same ideology based on US versus THEM and a superiority complex that enables the fanatics to ruin a great 60+ year old social experiment? BINGO.

Prove me wrong.

[Prattvictory2]

Describe this "great social experiment?"

[EspressoAtNoon]

Anti-Semitism is the equivalent of racism. It's taking a characteristic, a trait, and unfairly attributing it across an entire people of a race, religion, or ethnicity. To say all THIS GROUP is this way, or that way, is racist, antisemitic, etc. People are individuals - every one of us - and should be judged only on our own individual attributes.

Zionism is a political ideology. It is not a religion, race, nor ethnicity. It is a political ideology built on an idea of exclusivity in a way that vaguely resembles Naziism, and that's why it's sometimes compared. It is based on the canard that all non-Jews are anti-semites, and therefore Jews must divest from non-Jews and create an exclusive country free from non-Jews where they can live in peace. Unfortunately, the native inhabitants were non-Jews. They were ethnically cleansed out of their homes and villages, and those village names were changed from Arabic names to Hebrew names. The new flag (Star of David) was raised, and that symbol, in itself, excluded non-Jews.

Equating Zionism to Naziism is NOT anti-semitic. You may not appreciate the comparison. You may find it distasteful, appalling, and even provocative, but it is NOT anti-semitic.

[arvay]

Very clear and succinct.

Zionists want people to think that anti-Zionists are attacking Jews, so they can be dismissed as bigots, and to distract from Israel's outrageous actions. Zionists are usually the ones trying to paint others with the Nazi paintbrush, so they're naturally upset when people start to see them wearing the jackboots.

[Macready]

good one arvay

[Sentientbeing09]

Excellent post!

[joeinvt]

Technically you are correct. Opposing Zionism is not necessarily anti-semitic. But when the Hamas charter is unself-consciously rooted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the President Of Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map (I know he was misunderstood or mistranslated), and a million or so indigenous Jews of the Mideast have been displaced (or ethnically cleansed using your terminology) from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc., what should Israelis or any other fair-minded person think? Sounds at least a tad anti-semitic to me. That doesn't excuse any wrong-doing on the part of Israelis, but it puts the matter into a somewhat broader context at least than your "Zionists are Nazis."

[arvay]

"Sounds like" is in the ear of those who want to portray anti-Zionism as such. It's just the old attempt to try to shut people up. That might have worked in my father's generation, but not mine.

There are plenty of Jews who don't support Israel's actions and some who are anti-Zionist.

Zionism started before WWII and there were plenty of European Jews who wanted nothing to do with it, they wanted to be Europeans. And absent the events of that time, by now they'd be well-integrated into European society -- the dreaded "assimilation" that the Zionist fanatics fear.

The hostility that Mid-eastern Jews suffered was the result of Israel's imposition in the area on a powerless population and subsequent dislocatio­ns.. Plus, Israel lured many of them to Israel. Blaming them (except for those actually engaged in espionage) was wrong, of course, but it's important to understand how this happened -- these people had lived undisturbed for centuries prior to Israel.

It would be interesting to see how many of these people or their children might want to leave and return if these countries would welcome them .

[almazza98]

Perfect. You got a new fan.

[Samlas]

Whatever!!!

[Donatella]

"Human rights icon Natan Sharansky"

Icon indeed, you should add "for the Israelis". His only concern is for Israeli human rights and has turned a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinians.

"But those who knowingly choose to mis-characterize Israel's self-defense"

Does "self-defense" include the theft of Palestinian land and the illegal building of settlements? All with the approval of every Israeli government for the last 20 years. Doesn't sound like self-defense more like self aggrandizement.

[Wozzeck]

Nothing wrong with running another article about antisemitism. The problem is that you never have ANY articles denouncing Islamophobia. Instead, along with your many articles defending Israel, you run a continuous series of tabloid articles which depict Muslims as barbarous. Never any positive articles about Muslims to be seen here.

It's time for some balance.

BTW, the claim of Israel as the only Middle East democracy conveniently overlooks democratic­ally-elect­ed Hamas.

[lightningbolt]

Perhaps there aren't many positive articles about Muslims, why don't you suggest one?
Hamas may have been elected, but after they got elected, they overthrew their own elected government (the PA) in Gaza and set up a brutal dictatorship, which completely took away the legitimacy it won by winning elections. Also, the way they govern Gaza is totally brutal and dictatorial, there is no democracy there anymore.

[Wozzeck]

Here are a couple found in a minute's search:

Tehran hosts 'world's biggest bookshop'
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=93597&sectionid=351020105
(Note that Hebrew books are on sale)

Chicago Uni. digitalizing Persepolis tablets
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=93597&sectionid=351020105