No subject

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada:

I want to start by telling you what I mean when I use
the word "anti-Semitism." What I mean is anti-Jewish
racism, hatred of Jews because of their ethnic
background, their religion, their culture, their
perceived shared characteristics, whatever it is. An
equivalent to hatred of people of African descent or
any other kind of racism. All these forms of hatred
have their consequences, and Professor Novick has just
talked about anti-Semitism and its consequences, or
not, in different situations. Certainly hatred of
people of African descent has led to disasters --
colonialism in Africa, slavery and continued
discrimination in our society. And of course
anti-Jewish hatred -- anti-Semitism -- has had its own
path resulting in very disastrous and serious
consequences in Europe, and some discrimination and
negative consequences for Jews here in the United
States. That's what I mean.

Now the charge that criticism of Israel, which is what
we're here to discuss tonight, is anti-Semitism per se
has a long history. It has always been used against
Palestinians and other supporters of Palestinian
rights, particularly Palestinians, for a specific
purpose. And the purpose is to provide an alternative
explanation for the conflict we see between Israelis
and Palestinians. The self-evident explanation for the
conflict is the radical inequality in power between
Israelis on the one hand, and Palestinians on the
other, which is a direct consequence of the
dispossession of the Palestinians by the Zionist
movement and the decades since of continuing,
unrelenting and worsening military occupation,
brutality and human rights abuses. This cannot but
produce conflict. It cannot but produce antipathy
among Palestinians for their oppressors. 

But you need an alternative explanation, so you say
Palestinian mothers feed their children anti-Semitism
and hatred with their milk, Palestinian textbooks feed
children hatred and then they go out and throw
themselves in front of tanks. This is the best
alternative that a lot of supporters of Israel have
come up with. Not a particularly compelling
explanation.

Now, the role in recent months -- we have seen the
charge of anti-Semitism being used, I think, in the
United States and particularly on campuses to try to
silence all discussion of Israel, precisely for some
of the reasons that Peter Novick pointed out, which is
that Israel has been losing in the public debate .
Palestinians haven't been gaining, but relatively its
a gain, and so if you can't win the debate, the best
thing to do is to try to stop it. And the best way to
try to stop it is to try to make people too scared to
indulge in it. And the way to do that is to tar any
discussion of the topic with the specter of
anti-Semitism, which of course, since Jewish history
has become in a way sacrosanct in the United States,
particularly with the focus on the Nazi holocaust,
which is now taught in most public schools by law in
many states in the United States. It has reached a
level of sacredness which American history -- the
genocide of Native Americans, and slavery has not. I
mean there is not equivalent, as far as I know,
widespread laws mandating teaching the true history of
slavery and the genocide of Native Americans as there
is with Holocaust Studies. Now you can debate whether
we think that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's
another topic. But I think this is the purpose of the
charge. 

Now of course, I think we as moral beings, as people
in an intellectual community that espouses universal
values have not just a right, but a duty to make
far-reaching critiques of Israel. Israel is a country
which receives billions of dollars from our taxes, and
which is committing unspeakable crimes in the name of
democracy, and freedom and being part of the "West,"
so-called. We have a right and a duty to speak out
about that, and that is not anti-Semitism. Criticizing
Israel, criticizing its policies, talking about what
sort of future Palestinians and Israelis can have
together, whether its one state or two states or three
states or ten states is not anti-Semitism, its a right
and a duty. 

Now I want to just read you a quote from a piece that
was published in the Chicago Tribune on December 2 by
Richard S. Hirschhaut, the regional director of the
ADL, that's the Anti-Defamation League. And what he
writes is:

"Israel, as a state in the community of nations, can
be the object of legitimate criticism because of its
policies, as can any other state."

So far so good. We agree. He goes on:

"Yet the ugly specter of anti-Semitism is raised when
Israel is singled out for unrelenting criticism
because of claims of human-rights abuses or
non-compliance with United Nations resolutions."

So, now, any criticism of Israel or its UN record is
anti-Semitism. Hirschhaut continues:

"At the same times, nations with far worse human
rights records, led by iron-fisted dictators who
repress their own citizens, are never mentioned.
Anti-Semitism becomes part of the equation when
Israel's role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
described and criticized in a vacuum, with no mention
given to the history of Palestinian violence, the
numerous threats to its very existence that Israel has
faced or the peace talks in which Israel has
participated."

So, for a Palestinian to sit and tell their history,
to tell their personal life story without also giving
Israel's side of the story, is an act of anti-Semitism
according to the ADL. That's exactly what it says. Not
to give -- in a vacuum -- in other words, not to
always provide an Israeli-sponsored version of the
truth is anti-Semitism. Now this is interesting, this
thing. It's interesting for three reasons.

First of all, what the ADL seems to be saying is if
you don't share our agenda, and our political goals
and you don't campaign against the same dictators we
don't like, then you're by definition anti-Semitic.
You're anti-Semitic because you have your views and
you don't have ours. So for anyone to be concerned
about Palestinian rights, and not as equally concerned
about the rights of the Ogoni people in Nigeria, that
person is an anti-Semite, according to the ADL. 

Secondly, the excuse that Israel is being singled out
for unfair criticism is one that we have seen often
throughout history, particularly in the anti-Apartheid
struggle in South Africa. It's exactly the same
argument which was always used by supporters of
Apartheid, to silence criticism of Apartheid. Why pick
on South Africa? Look at blacks in the rest of Africa,
aren't they worse off than in South Africa? Why pick
on South Africa? Just one example: our good friend the
reverend Jerry Falwell, back in the news recently. I
would summarize his CV as this: Muslim-hater,
Jew-hater, Friend of Israel.

In 1985, Jerry Falwell went to Apartheid South Africa
for five and a half days, met with President Botha,
came back to the United States, went on national
television, called Bishop Desmond Tutu a "phony," and
said that South Africa was just great and everyone
should stand by the Apartheid government. And
according to the Washington Post of August 31, 1985:

"He blasted "the terrible double standard of
international leaders" who criticize South Africa
while allegedly ignoring the plight of
Marxist-controlled African nations, and he said
because of South Africa's rich mineral resources it is
essential that the country be kept out of the Soviet
sphere of influence."

Again, the same argument: you hypocrites, you're not
criticizing Idi Amin the same way you're criticizing
South Africa, and South Africa is our strategic friend
and we should look after it. Countless examples of
that throughout the 1980s.

I want to end with a comment about some of these
attacks which we've seen in Europe, which are
reported. And again its hard to tell how much there
has really been an increase and how much this is the
phenomenon of shark attacks. A couple of years ago,
you remember in the summer there were a few reports of
sharks attacking swimmers off Florida, and everyone
believed that there was a rash of shark attacks. In
fact, the number of shark attacks was about the same
as it's always been. What happened though is that the
media just started reporting every shark attack as
breaking news. So we don't know how much of it is
because people are paying more attention to this, and
how much there has been some increase, but let's
suppose that there has indeed been some increase. 

I think we have to understand that this is in part
because of the success of Israel in convincing the
world that Zionism and Israel and Judaism are equal.
And Israel has adopted, and Zionism has co-opted the
symbols of Judaism. Now remember that political
Zionism is a modern, and originally completely secular
and areligious philosophy which adopted the ancient
symbols of Judaism, the Star of David and the Menorah.
The Star of David, which is a traditional symbol which
appears on almost every synagogue around the world,
and the Menorah, which is the official seal of the
State of Israel, and which appears behind Ariel Sharon
every time he makes an official address -- so that I
think it is a result of Israel's policy that some
people have been confused and they do believe Israel's
rhetoric that it is acting in the name of all Jews and
they take out their understandable rage at Israel's
horrible crimes, at Jews, which of course is wrong.
But I think it is in part a direct result of their
policy and we have to understand that if you cloak
your warplanes, your F-16's and tanks in the symbols
of Judaism, and if your generals wear the Star of
David on their shoulders when they justify war crimes,
don't be surprised if some people react against that.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com