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." One major driving force of this anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism is the transformation of the Palestinian cause into a "holy war"; another source is anti-Americanism linked with fundamentalist Islamism. In the current context, classic conspiracy theories, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are enjoying a spectacular revival. The common denominator of the new anti-Zionism has been the systematic effort to criminalize Israeli and Jewish behavior, so as to place it beyond the pale of civilized and acceptable conduct.

more...
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-wistrich-f04.htm

--from a very good blog written by an Israel-supporting Jewish political scientist. pragmaticliberalism.com

"Why would I support such a deal? Don’t I know that Iran is not to be trusted? Am I not aware of the terrorism throughout the Middle East that Iran supports, if not funds? Actually, it is precisely for those reasons that I support the negotiations. With a deal in place, we are much better situated to identify any breaches in the agreement than without it. Under the deal, as it has been noted, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) must certify that Iran has complied with the requirement that they have reduced the number of centrifuges by two-thirds before any sanctions will be lifted. The same thing goes for reducing their uranium stockpile. The inspections requirement gives the IAEA more access to centrifuges than intelligence has ever yielded. Would you rather have inspectors on the ground looking for violations than not? That question is the very essence of the argument that the deal favors us much more than Iran..."

...that under the terms of your argument it is impossible to criticise Israeli policy in the West Bank without being 'racist'? I understand both sides' perspectives, but this kind of catch-all argument is probably why a lot of people get so wound up with Israel. Just saying.

If indeed "this is not a statement of opinion, but of undeniable fact", I'd kind of expect more, you know...facts. All your blog provides is opinion. Empirical evidence and solid theoretical work equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism would be useful in attempting to establish a fact. As far as I can tell, the former deals with opposing an ideology of return and/or territorial expansion, while the latter is concerned with an opposition to all things Semitic (which is an ethnic grouping that includes non-Jews, by the way).

All in all, a good piece of ranting, but poorly argued and generally a bit disjointed.

Criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank is not racist and not impossible. In fact, it is extremely common in Israeli media and newspapers. It's a pretty standard part of the political discourse there. Similarly, newspapers around the world present criticism of many of those policies.

Also, the term anti-semitism means prejudice against Jewish people. It has nothing to do with any ethnic grouping called "Semites" that include non-Jews. It was a made up term specifically to apply to Jews.

but having read this chap's blog, you can only draw the conclusion that, since Israeli expansionism is frequently justified by either security demands or Zionist ideology, and since anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, one is automatically racist.

I'm no expert on this, but I'm pretty sure there were Jewish leaders in the late 19th/early 20th century who advocated a Jewish homeland in all kinds of places, such as Latin America...so presumably under the blogger's logic they had some kind of "self-hating" false consciousness as well. The argument is so demonstrably stupid it doesn't really warrant further discussion.

On a side note, I have checked this and you are correct on the definition of anti-Semitism. Etymologically, however, it doesn't make much sense.

Many Zionists are fierce critics of Israeli policies. That doesn't mean they're automatically anti-semitic.

Some are old-time bigotry and need to be fought...others are grounded in a notion that nationalism is the problem.

A lot of anti-zionists are people who used to BE pro-Israel but then became convinced that that state wasn't going to even try to be a "light unto the nations" and would just be another right-wing nationalist ethnic-supremacist state. The people in that group could be engaged by making a real effort to change the things the Israeli government does that they happen to find unacceptable. It's wrong to treat people in that group as if they are anti-semites, because they aren't-they're just progressive anti-nationalists.

Also...I'd say points #3 through #5 in that list are bullshit. Most of the anti-zionists I've met like Jewish people as much as they like anyone else. They aren't filled with "pure,unadulterated hate". While I disagree with them on the one-state approach, I knew them to be passionate opponents of all forms of bigotry, and passionate opponents of anyone being oppressed.

If you want to argue against anti-zionists, fine...but you don't have to demonize them to do so. They aren't evil...they just happen to have different views on the matter than you do.

...anti-Jewish bigots among their ranks.

Just one.

The PSC, ISM, FGM, BDS movements can't even agree to throw all the Gilad Atzmons and his supporters out of the movement. Google the fight within the movement and you'll see his supporters think Zionists (Jews) influenced his ouster and now Zionist influenced hacks are running the show. Look it up. His supporters won't be thrown out of the movement, ever. The movement would implode (they'd lose all their rightwing support, the majority of their movement). The movement cannot rid itself of bigots and their stereotypes of Jews. You'd think such anti-racists would be hypersensitive about using old anti-semitic tropes. They're not and we all know it.

And of course anti-zionists know the end game of their 1-state movement. Anthony Loewenstein answered that 6 million had to die in order for there to be one state. Spin that all you wish, but his partner at that event (Frank Barat) estimated 200,000 would die.

You must not realize it, but the Jewish anti-zionists within the movement are extremely rare within the Jewish population worldwide. It's been often said, they could hardly fill a room in Israel. They represent less than 1% of all Jews worldwide, meaning they and their bigoted supporters oppose more than 99% of the Jewish population. I really doubt you'd agree with <1% of women, gays, hispanics, blacks, muslims, or any other ethnic group in order to oppose >99% of the people in those groups. Face it, they're bigots.

======

Your comment here is a real doozy:

are staunch opponents of antisemitism and, to my knowledge, always denounce antisemites and drive them away when they can. Yes, some crazies might show up at a rally(that's what happens at rallies for ANY cause, unfortunately), but that doesn't equate to an official policy among such groups of tolerating antisemitism. There are plenty of anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bigots that show up at "Stand With Israel" rallies, as far as that goes, and as far as I know speakers at those rallies never make a distinction between Palestinian extremists and rank-and-file ordinary Palestinian civilians...they blame ALL of them for what the worst of the worst do. Would you agree that such a distinction SHOULD be made when speaking of extremists and civilians on both sides of that issue?

...then why don't they routinely go on record against Israel's neighboring regimes who are state sponsors of the most vile antisemitism imaginable? Why don't they recoil in horror from that and make it well known that's not what they stand for at all? That is, if they're so hypersensitive about all forms of bigotry including anti-semitism.

As for loonies in a crowd, that's quite a bit different than being supporters of extreme rightwing bigotry, isn't it? And yes, refusing to condemn it is support.

I suppose you agree with my last post, right? You couldn't argue against any of the points.

I'm out in my van pulling my drift boat around to the finest fly-fishing rivers in the Western US which is what I do every year at this time for a few weeks. It's a real treat to check at a hot spot every few days where I get to read your well-stated comments that do such a great job keeping a sense of reality going in this forum. Thanks for the re-charge.

if you don't loudly announce every other time (at least) your against it, then obviously you must be for it, right?

...in fighting antisemitic bigotry, regardless whether it's coming from the mideast or within their own ranks.

...Islamist terror. Here's some WRT recent Libyan events:

http://www.kulfoto.com/interesting-things/29696/benghazi-people-against-terrorism

Not so much WRT Anti-Zios who say they're anti-racist but aren't when it comes to Jews.

...because Jews aren't a race?

Does the same apply to gays, women, muslims......since they're not races either?

=======

Drop the wordplay.

Anti-zios claim to be - at the very least - anti bigotry and hate.

They're demonstrably not.

Considering they've been in a state of war for all their existence against neighbors who want Jews dead, Israel deserves to be graded on a curve.

Israel's more progressive than the USA, and by a wide margin.

...no death penalty, more self critical media, more liberal court system, pioneers in stem cell research, state-subsidized college tuition. Female Prime Minister back in the 70's. The Israeli Knesset has Arab factions in it that want Israel destroyed, as well as a communist party. Better civilian to combatant kill ratio in times of war. And Israel isn't fighting wars overseas and killing millions like the USA.

Appreciate your taking the time to fill in some of the blanks, shira.

Pretty easy to view fewer unilateral invasions and more analytical media as progressive, but impressive by any standard that Israeli government protects trade unions; by itself that raises my opinion of Israel. "Self-critical" media seems a little vague or postmodern (belly-button contemplation is as likely to be a waste of time as progressive).

If educational subsidies are need-based they would qualify as progressive; if they are blind to need and instead function as middle class welfare, that is not particularly progressive (see, delusional US wannabe-progressive movement).

"More liberal court system" means what in terms of quantitative results?

UK, India and Pakistan had female prime ministers too. Admittedly they were smarter than Reagan and higher integrity than Clinton, but one doubts les Anglais or Indians or Pakistanis feel all warm and progressive remembering them; my point being having a woman Grand Poobah is meaningless in the absence of progressive results.

To your claim about collateral damage, while one accepts the accuracy of your numeric claims, six-thousand years of results indicate that killing civilians giving aid and comfort to one's enemies isn't the worst thing in the world. Be clear I would have Bush and Obama on trial for their crimes against world peace; I completely agree war mongering is an international crime. A death sentence international crime.

A group aiding needy Holocaust survivors in Israel has cut the elderly recipients' stipends by 20% this month, Ynet has learned.

Some 10,000 destitute survivors have discovered recently that the NIS 1,500 ($400) stipend they receive from the Company for Location and Restitution of Holocaust Victims' Assets each quarter has been cut by NIS 300 ($80). The recipients were never informed of the move, but had to learn about it from their bank account statements.

Over the past four years, the organization has been doling out a total annual allowance of NIS 6,000 ($1,600) to each impoverished survivor. The new cuts have reduced that sum to NIS 4,800 ($1,275).

Sarah, 82, who survived a stay at the Mogilev-Podolski Ghetto in Ukraine, is one of the many survivors who heavily depend on the organization's aid. Her meager stipend from the State amounts to NIS 2,600 ($690) each month.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4217386,00.html

http://www.meirpanim.net/campaign/2011/RH2011/clean.htm

what was that again?

and who is thinking of moving there. She told a very different story. Who knows which is true?

"Hmmmm, documented evidence provided by the agency itself, or anecdotal evidence from 'someone who went there'... too close to call!"

it would all depend on ones own financial status and age along with other factors education, children, married or partnered , something that is true just about anywhere

typical self-selecting crap from you. First of all, it's fucking stupid to compare the U.S. to Israel which has all of 7 million people and yeah, I say the same thing to the morons who try to compare Denmark or Sweden to the U.S.


In any case, if you insist on the comparison, Israel is not more liberal then the U.S. on a whole host of issues.

Last edited Tue May 28, 2013, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Get a load out of this new OP, wrt what Israeli Arabs really think...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113442244

Also, check out the links starting here:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/113411071#post7

Educate yourself rather than spew the bigoted, rightwing talking points of Hamas, the PLO, BDS. Demonizing and slandering the Jewish state doesn't promote peace. It does the exact opposite.

Shameful.

This is something that Jews have believed for a few thousand years. Israel is the ancient name of the region where modern Israel is located. It is also the name of the ancient country of the Jews. Finally, Israel is the nation that follows the Torah which they believe was given to the world by God. The point is that the Jewish people can not be separated into a religion, which people can claim to not hate, and a nation, which they do hate. If you hate and want to destroy the Jewish state, then you hate Jews.

First of all, we are talking about Israel, the modern Nation/State that currently exists in the Middle East, not any sort of metaphorical religion-based national concept. Those two things are (and must be kept), distinct from one another. Anyone seeking to blur the line separating those two very different things is deliberately seeking to confuse the issue (for either positive or negative reasons), to meet some sort of political end.

The reason some say that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic is that as the sole Jewish state (which necessarily treats "Jewish" as a national term in this respect), it has no shortage of enemies. When distinguishing between those who criticize Israel, the question becomes whether the critique is based on legitimate issues of policy, or if it is just based on the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Arguing for the destruction of Israel is totally fine, and is not even necessarily anti-Semitic, assuming that the critic's arguments somehow do not single Israel out or hold it to a totally different standard than any other states. In that case, perhaps the critic opposes nationalism in all forms and seeks the dismantlement of all nation-states altogether.

However, the vast majority of anti-Zionists adhere to an ideology that singles Israel out from hundreds of other nations (many of which are FAR worse in every category than Israel will ever be), not just for criticism, but for attacks that far outstrips any of Israel's perceived crimes. When the anti-Zionist denies Israel the right to exist on its face, when he denies the right of the Jewish people alone to express national self-determination, while remaining indifferent to every other states' right to do so, this can only be described as anti-Jewish.

What you advocate here seems to be a perversion of anti-Semitism that makes it just about impossible to criticize Israel without being labelled a bigot. This is not merely unfair, it is dangerous. People need to have a way of expressing disapproval of Israeli policies without facing unfounded accusations of bigotry. In fact, one of the most common criticisms of Israel right now is that they respond to any critical comment with false accusations of anti-semitism, seeking to blunt even legitimate discourse through fear of slander. Though non-violent, this kind of tactic is very similar to terrorism that Israel so frequently faces. Worse, it doesn't even work. People can't be muscled into treating Israel with kid gloves. There will always be criticism, and this tactic will eventually invite MORE of it, not less. Worse still, if every critique of Israel is met with such vile slander regardless of its accuracy, eventually people will stop respecting the charge. If everything becomes anti-semitic then nothing is anti-semitic. The term becomes robbed of its power and eventually, its very meaning. On the vile site MondoWeiss I recently saw this Gilab Atzmon quote. (As disgusting as all of his quotes are, this one was distinguished by the amount of people there who believed in it wholeheartedly.)

“An antisemite used to be someone who hates Jews;
nowadays an antisemite is someone Jews hate.”

While I disagree with this quote, to say the least, this post of yours seemingly advocates a policy that will all but ensure its widespread acceptance. Hating Israel does not DEFINITIVELY mean that you hate Jews, (although it often does.) The key is determining WHY this hatred exists before we allow such a hideous term as "anti-semitic" to be used against them. For to use such a powerful label capriciously or, FAR worse, against a totally innocent person, we blunt one of our most damaging weapons and end up hurting ourselves more than anyone else.

I'd say you both have good points but there is a problem with seeing such fine distinctions - no matter how much they might make it seem that there are rational ways to deal with Israel's enemies. Strong emotion is not of the rational mind. As emotional intensity increases, reasoning capacity is gradually diminished and evolutionary instincts gain more control over behavior. The stronger the emotion, whether hate, love, fear, whatever, the less the reasoning brain has the ability to affect behavior.

Another effect of strong emotion is that the brain becomes less aware of boundaries of kind. Such boundaries as between species of spiders are the domain of an intellect that evolved to make very fine distinctions in nature. When strong emotions are present the ability to see those distinctions is reduced. Someone instinctively fearful of spiders will not be able to make the distinction between harmful or beneficial spiders. They will fear almost any small insect, spider webs will make their heart race, etc. Similarly, someone who strongly enough hates the idea of the state of Israel will hate the Torah, people wearing skull caps of any kind, people with large noses, people with names that end in stein, etc. They may deny this but emotions are manifested in physical changes in the body such as heart rate, perspiration, eye motion, etc. Lab emotion sensors would pick it up.

For those who extremely hate the very idea of the Jewish state the hater can not avoid hating anything associated with Israel - primarily the Jewish people who live and take refuge there - no matter what methods they have learned to avoid being labelled an anti-Semite in social situations. Consistently judging the morality of Israel's existence by standards they only apply - and obsessively apply - to this one place in the world is a good indicator that their hatred for Israel is so strong that it must necessarily include the nation of people who take refuge there (and maintain and defend that state) and everything that supports and protects that state and its people from danger.

I'd say that this emotional background is the subtext for the majority of threads in forums like this. Many of the arguments can be seen as a sometimes interesting game of attempts by Israel-haters to justify their consuming emotions, evident in their desire to see the end of the state of Israel, while maintaining plausible deniability to charges of anti-Semitism.

Side note: The difference between Western leftist and ME Arab haters of Israel is that in the West hatred for the idea of a Jewish state and the Zionists who created it who supposedly stole the land of the natives, can be so strong it necessarily includes some hatred of all Jews as an unavoidable emotional spill-over. This, even though the Western left have developed many ways to avoid the charge (and even convince themselves in many cases) they are not anti-Semitic. For most Arabs in the ME, their cultural hatred of Jews is so strong it necessarily must spill over to include hatred for the state where they live and find protection. Also hatred of their sponsors such as the US. Being a conservative fundamentalist culture they have little need to hide it - except by leaders at times for diplomatic reasons. Usually ME Arab hatred of Jews and everything about them is a badge of honor. (Neo-Nazi or Western rightist Jew hate is another category but follows the same principles spelled out above.)

I'd also add that I am attempting a rational analysis of a complex topic that requires some objective generalization. I do not believe that any individual Arab or Western leftist (or member of this forum for that matter) necessarily falls into these descriptive categories. In fact I am certain that many do not.

You state: "Arguing for the destruction of Israel is totally fine, and is not even necessarily anti-Semitic, assuming that the critic's arguments somehow do not single Israel out or hold it to a totally different standard than any other states."

I disagree with this statement for several reasons. First, in theory, although it may not be specially antisemitic, anti-nationalism is in general anti-human. It is a denial of humans' basic right of association. For most people, their people hood is their primary ideological identification. And usually where it isn't (extremists excluded), it's because the national identify is sham in the first place and their natioal identity actually lies elsewhere. The argument is like saying someone isn't a bigot because he hates everyone. Not exactly a positive statement.

Second, Jewishness consists of a triarchy (a hierarchical trinity) of ideas, as I originally posted. God. Torah, Israel (nation or people, called in modern terms the Jews). Religious Jews believe that there is a priority to these ideas, and even non-religious Jews recognize their importance. I'm not talking about the modern state of Israel, although I am making reference to the ancient existence of the Jewish people by using the ancient name Israel for the Jews. Denying Israel's existence is based in part on denying that the Jews are a nation, and that is per se antisemitism. And it works both ways. Suppose someone said that they hated Judaism because they hated all religions, but that they didn't hate Jews as a people (or as a "race&quot ? Is that still not antisemitic? Jewish religious minorities such as Neturei Karta are a different matter. They don't deny Jewish national identity. They believe that the State of Israel contravenes the Torah and the will of God, which take precedence over the national existence of the Jews. Their position is that Israel should not exist, yet. Most anti-Zionists deny Jewish national existence for all time.

Third, at the receiving end, I don't really care whether someone hates my existence because they don't like nationality in general or whether they specifically hate only Jewish nationality. It feels like being hated either way. Same for being hated either because I'm a member of the Jewish religion or the Jewish people. Hate is hate.

Fourth, many, if not most antisemites use the terms Zionists, Israel, and/or Jews interchangeably. In fact, the term anti-Zionist came into favor as a way to hide their antisemitism.

Fifth, as you point out, most anti-Zionists single out Israel. In fact, how many anti-nationalists have you ever heard of who give aid and comfort to the enemies of any state except Israel? I know of none. And that suggests to me that in practice that the idea is just another smokescreen to hide antisemitism.

Sixth, I am more concerned with attacking ideas than I am specific people. Someone can be a very nice person, treat me very well as a Jew, and still have noxious beliefs. In most cases, it's the ideas I hate, not the person harboring them.

The concept of a unified Jewish people in no way allows one to claim that mere criticism of Israel's government (or even of the Israeli people and their desires) is antisemitic, since by "Israel" in this instance is meant the nation of Israel (the idea that the Jews are a nation), not the State of Israel. It does mean that almost any denial of the Jewish people's right to a national existence is antisemitic.

And their Jewish identity is just as strong as yours is. Many of the early Zionists were, in fact, athiests or agnostics.
Judaism can be just as much a personal, cultural, or moral identity as it is religious or nationalist.

They may not believe in the Biblical Narrative, Ken, but they certainly know that there is one. Where do you think that cultural and moral identity comes from? Even the non-religious have to recognize the importance of the religous part of Judaism to the existence of Jews.

that God and a country can be inseperable.

My sense of it is that Judaism is a real identity and that the definition of that identity is unique to each Jewish person. Why can't we leave it at that? Why is there this obsession with stating that there's only ONE way to be Jewish-OR that being Jewish has to mean being an Zionist?

Is it really necessary to impose "the line" on this?

However you want to slice it, it's possible to be against the policies of a country without hating its inhabitants. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.

...Israel's non-arab inhabitants - as we're all seeing WRT Greta Berlin and the silence of everyone affiliated with Free Gaza.

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Mere criticism of Israeli government policies isn't anti-zionism. So either you don't know what anti-zionism is or you were merely creating a straw man. Which is it? Anti-zionism means being against the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. With the exception of religious anti-zionists, it means denying the national identity and/or rights of the Jewish people. That is antisemitism.

for various reasons, including the fact that Zionism was a secular ideology, or that the annexation of Palestine or a part thereof for a Jewish state would cause resentment in the Arab world, or because the creation of Israel was best left to the messiah if and when he arrived. Most ultra-orthodox Jews still have an ambivalent relationship with the Israeli state - while they are not anti-Zionist, they are certainly not pro-Zionist.

Zionism is simply Jewish irredentism, it is no different from the Greeks wanting to take back Constantinople, or the Chaldean Christians wanting to establish a state around Mosul, or the Kurds wanting to establish an independent Kurdistan.

Can one oppose the creation of an independent Kurdistan without being accused of hating Kurds? You would think so. Of course, the fact is that Israel came into being, and as a matter of practical necessity it must continue to remain so. Israel has as much right to exist in that regard as all the other post-colonial countries (Canada, the US, Australia) which were likewise established on the theft of land from previous inhabitants.

But the most ridiculous part of this argument is that it essentially requires Palestinians to be glad that they were dispossessed of their land in order to not be regarded as an anti-Semite. It is absurd to expect that Palestinians should regard Zionism with joy in their hearts, given its implications for them. It is like expecting a Native American to support the concept of manifest destiny. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism means that Palestinians must remain anti-semites forever, unless they are prepared to become Uncle Toms.

...nor did they demonize/dehumanize every chance they could get (like extreme rightwing anti-Muslim bashers today who, as complete losers, have little besides their hate to keep them going). They didn't have one standard for Israel and another for every other nation. They didn't contend that Jews were not a people or nation. Their advocacy didn't threaten the actual lives of millions of people. They certainly wouldn't consider Israel's leaders as evil, depraved, or more dangerous than the leadership running Iran, Egypt, and Syria.

When certain Palestinian "anti-zios" conjure up the Protocols for the Elder of Ziyon, claim Jews control the banks, media, etc. or when they call for or celebrate the murder of Jews, that makes them as antisemitic as anyone else.

And here's the real clincher: When certain antizios, bds advocates, and ism lovers don't bat an eyelash at filth like this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11343829#post90

...what other explanation can there possibly be other than they're antisemitic? I can't imagine any "anti-racists" who would be just as indifferent to kkk or neo-nazi calls for the lynching or killing of Blacks, Muslims and Hispanics.

are Genocidal, because we all know that any civilized people do not say a bad word about their foreign military rulers

and let's not forget that Palestinian UN bid is 11 days away so we'll be looking forward to more posts like this one

And it seems you're making excuses for antisemitism. Anything goes due to perceived Israeli wrongs...

I wonder if you believe Jews are entitled to hate Arabs due to being victims of terror attacks. As long as there's a reason for it, it's okay - right?

apparently, you are now amending that claim to say that anti-Zionism is sometimes anti-Semitism, but sometimes not. Rather like your insinuation that anyone who supports the one state solution is a Nazi, unless they happen to be a Jewish settler, in which case they are not.