Last month the California State Assembly passed a resolution equating campus criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and The Forward has a fine piece of reporting on a little-noticed sleight-of-hand used in California and elsewhere: the invocation of an anti-Semitism definition originated in the EU in 2005 but since discarded, that includes statements that Israel is racist. After all, who could be against the EU? Aren’t the Europeans the ones who are most critical of Israel? Seth Berkman in the Forward:
Like many others addressing the issue, the state assembly referenced a definition of anti-Semitism first put out by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, known under the acronym EUMC, in 2005 [an obscure agency of the European Union]. Yet oddly, it is a definition the center’s successor agency does not use in its own publications today. One of the center’s top officials for monitoring anti-Semitism refers to the definition as “an historical document” that was meant only as a “guide for data collection” for its affiliates.
“There is no issue of the FRA, as an EU agency, endorsing any definition,” the official, Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos told the Forward, referring to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the EUMC’s successor agency, by its acronym.
Nevertheless, what the EUMC referred to originally as a “working definition” has become a standard for important institutions on both sides of the Atlantic. Besides the California State Assembly, it is cited by the U.S. State Department, the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and a recent report by a University of California commission on campus prejudice. The definition, which was composed with input from B’nai Brith International and the American Jewish Committee, is also endorsed by American Jewish groups and used in reports by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs….
[Portions of that definition]
• “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination — e.g., by claiming the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”;
• “Applying double standards” to Israel by demanding it follow behavior not demanded “of any other democratic nation”;
• Comparing Israeli policies to Nazi policies;
• Using “symbols and images associated with classical anti-Semitism” to characterize Israel or Israelis.
“Besides the California State Assembly, it is cited by the U.S. State Department, the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and a recent report by a University of California commission on campus prejudice. The definition, which was composed with input from B’nai Brith International and the American Jewish Committee, is also endorsed by American Jewish groups and used in reports by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs….”
And the flying finger to all of them. Jews are no longer victims. Move on.
The ADL’s original raison d’etre was to fight the injustice of antisemitism in the US.
Look how far it has fallen in the meantime regarding gross violations of human dignity .
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-s-cartoon-bomb-at-un-sparks-media-frenzy.premium-1.467159#
While the Anti-Defamation League slammed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for delivering “a harsh and divisive speech, which once again included false charges against Israel of racism, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution and war crimes and alleged Israeli government collusion with anti-Palestinian violence carried out by extremist Israelis,” it praised Netanyahu who “laid out in detail and even used a very simple but quite effective graphic to demonstrate to the international community the basic reasons why it is crucial to intensify international action to stop Iran’s accelerating nuclear weapons program.”
“Discarded EU definition of anti-Semitism is important tool in silencing criticism of Israel”
If you allow it to be. Someone should take this to court – how about you, Phil? Head to Cali and get picked up on anti-semitism charges and fight it – we’ll get a kickstarter going for ya… You could take it all the way to the Supreme Court
Good article Mr. Weiss, this “definition” is clearly absurd and used to silence criticism of Israeli actions and associated Zionist ideology itself.
My personal analysis:
1) Jewish people live in various nations around the world, and the Zionist movement’s attempts to claim that they allegedly “speak for Jews” is both unjust and simply incorrect (as anyone who has researched the Zionist movement and its’ history in-depth realizes). Also the fundamental question that is too be asked in this case (and is never provided with a proper answer by the Zionists or their hasbara propaganda agents) is HOW exactly is Israel a “Jewish state”??!
Israel is not ruled by any form of Rabbinic Halakha which would be the only logical definition to define something as a “Jewish state” (i.e. like having an Islamic state would be based on Islamic religious law aka Shari’ah, or a state defining itself as a Christian state would be based on some form of Christian canon law, etc). But the only aspect of Jewish “religious law” the current Israeli system uses is very small token gestures (other than just trying to occasionally use the Bible as a propaganda document for their “case” with some of the nutty right wing Evangelical “Christian Zionist” groups today) such as shutting down some public transit on the Sabbath, etc. The main “religious” element of the Israeli legal system is not allowing civil marriages; and that is simply for RACIST reasons of not wanting Jews to marry non-Jews (I recommend looking back at say Joachim Prinz’s work “Wir Juden” in 1934 to see a dangerous trend in that arena). Also Israel having an apartheid “legal system” makes it a racist state whatever these Zionists wanting to try to shutdown debate try to claim.
2) This seems to be simply a slightly different phrasing of/twist on the old “what about (insert blank country, group, etc here)” hasbara tactic https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2012/07/the-what-about-china-syndrome.html
And that little claim of the Zionist hasbarists that Israel is allegedly being “abused” or something and being demanded to “follow behavior not demanded ‘of any other democratic nation'” is especially “interesting” shall we say. First one can simply see the occupied Palestinian territories, where Palestinians are neither allowed self-determination to form their own state or any voting rights in Israel or Israeli citizenship itself even though the Israeli government now even tries to claim that the occupied Palestinian territories supposedly aren’t occupied (and likely soon that the earth is flat as well as Adam Horowitz quipped) https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2012/07/levy-report-fallout-felt-in-dc-and-online.html
Even going outside the occupied territories, serious investigators and researchers have long spoken about the institutionalized and systematic discrimination at every level against non-Jews within the state of Israel itself. All one needs to do on this is consult various Israeli human rights groups. And historian Ilan Pappe makes a concise response to the claims that Israel is supposedly a democracy in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMcWLyUGZHU (see starting at 13:00 specifically) making an observation of Israel’s similarities to old herrenvolk “democracy” and how while even “allowing” Arab Israelis to vote (even this is often curtailed and only whimsically “allowed”) is still meaningless when Arab Israelis are discriminated against and disenfranchised at every single level of Israeli society (i.e. like their schools receiving only a fraction of the funding that schools serving Israeli Jews receive, etc) http://adalah.org/eng/?mod=articles&ID=1771
And to quote Noel Ignatiev’s work: http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/zionism-anti-semitism-and-the-people-of-palestine/
“Unlike many countries, including the United States, the Israeli state does not belong, even in principle, to those who reside within its borders, but is defined as the state of the Jewish people, wherever they may be. That peculiar definition is one reason why the state has to this day failed to produce a written constitution, define its borders, or even declare the existence of an Israeli nationality. Moreover, in this ‘outpost of democracy,’ no party that opposes the existence of the Jewish state is permitted to take part in elections. It is as if the United States were to declare itself a Christian state, define ‘Christian’ not by religious belief but by descent, and then pass a ‘gag law’ prohibiting public discussion of the issue.”
3) “Comparing Israeli policies to Nazi policies”, as they say “if the shoe fits”. One can also note the striking similarity between the Nazis’ own racial law and how the Nazis determined who was “Jewish” in their racial law; and modern Israeli law (i.e. the “right of return” in particular). And if one does analyze them they will see they are almost, if not, identical. Showing that the Zionist movement and the Nazis share a common idea on what makes someone “Jewish” (again I’d recommend seeing Joachim Prinz’s 1934 book “Wir Juden” to get an idea of where Zionist “discourse” has often gone, along with its early open racist eugenicist members like Max Nordau, etc etc)
4) What are these supposed “symbols”??
The German “study” on anti-Semitism from last year also mentioned this particular definition of anti-Semitism, but stated that it is only of limited use. However, the “study” equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, too. A “blanket defamation of the Jewish state” and an “aversion to the existence of a Jewish state” are anti-Semitic. Comparing Zionism to Nazism is anti-Semitic. Saying that solely Israel is responsible for the Middle East conflict and regarding the Palestinians as innocent victims is anti-Semitic.
“Der antizionistische Antisemitismus tritt unter dem Deckmantel einer Ablehnung der Innen- und Außenpolitik des Staates Israel auf, der im Kern aus einer besonderen ideologischen Verzerrung und pauschalen Diffamierung des jüdischen Staates besteht, die sich zugleich traditioneller antisemitischer Stereotype bedient. Dabei lässt sich das eigentliche Motiv für die Aversion gegen Israel einzig in der Tatsache der Existenz eines jüdischen Staates ausmachen. Nicht jede einseitige oder undifferenzierte Kritik an Israel ist jedoch antisemitisch. […]
Zu den politischen Themenfeldern, die für den Zusammenhang von Antisemitismus und Linksextremismus von herausragender Bedeutung sind, gehört die Israelkritik. Deren Einseitigkeit und Intensität, Schärfe und Unangemessenheit ist evident: Im angeblich aggressiven Vorgehen Israels wird die alleinige Ursache für den Nahostkonflikt gesehen, die arabische beziehungsweise palästinensische Seite wird hingegen nur als unschuldiges Opfer wahrgenommen, die legitimen Sicherheitsinteressen Israels werden nicht beachtet; auch finden die bedenklichen Ansichten und Handlungen der islamistischen und nichtislamistischen Gegner des Staates kaum kritische Aufmerksamkeit. Die besondere Empörung über angebliche
oder tatsächliche Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch Israel steht für Doppel-Standards bei der Einschätzung, direkte und indirekte Anspielungen deuten auf eine Gleichsetzung mit dem Apartheidstaat oder dem Nationalsozialismus hin.
Derartige Auffassungen finden sich etwa in der Tageszeitung ‘Junge Welt’ bei deren Leitkolumnisten Werner Pirker: Da ist die Rede von einem ‘Apartheid-Staat’ und einem ‘Staat aus der Retorte’, der ‘im Ergebnis eines ethnischen Säuberungsprozesses, der seinesgleichen sucht’, entstanden sei. Solche Positionen zeigen klare Berührungspunkte zu antisemitischen Diskursen: Hier gilt Israel als künstlicher Staat ohne Existenzberechtigung, der mit Genozid und Rassismus in Verbindung gebracht wird. Gerade bei Letztgenanntem erfolgt eine indirekte Gleichsetzung mit dem Nationalsozialismus. Dabei muss die historische Unangemessenheit solcher Haltungen nicht näher begründet werden, steht doch das Vorgehen Israels in keinem Verhältnis zur Praxis des NS-Regimes. Derartige Aussagen laufen auf eine Dämonisierung Israels als Verbrecherstaat hinaus. Gleichzeitig gehen mit solchen Diskursinhalten eine Relativierung der NS-Untaten und eine Täter-Opfer-Umkehr einher.
Allerdings müssen derartige Auffassungen nicht vordergründig antisemitisch motiviert sein. Betrachtet man die linksextremistische Ideologie bezüglich ihrer Einschätzung des Nahostkonflikts, so lassen sich für die genannten Positionen auch
andere politische Begründungen ausmachen: Israel gilt demnach nicht primär als jüdischer, sondern als imperialistischer und kapitalistischer Staat. Araber beziehungsweise Palästinenser werden als Opfer eines westlichen Dominanzstrebens
gesehen, das insbesondere Israel zur Durchsetzung seiner Interessen im Nahen Osten nutzt. Hier besteht auch ein Unterschied zu einer antisemitischen Position, sieht diese doch nicht in Israel ein Instrument der USA, sondern umgekehrt in den USA ein Instrument Israels beziehungsweise der Juden. Die indirekten Gleichsetzungen mit dem Nationalsozialismus ergeben sich aus dem ‘Antifaschismus’ des Linksextremismus, der mit einem inflationären Faschismusverständnis gern alle nur möglichen Gegner mit einschlägigen Etiketten als Inkarnation des ‘Bösen’ an sich belegt. […]
Dies gilt vor allem für die Israelkritik im öffentlichen Diskurs von Linksextremisten, die meist von einem einseitigen Feindbild bezüglich der Verantwortung für den Nahostkonflikt geprägt ist: Man sieht die Hauptschuld im angeblich aggressiven
und unangemessenen Vorgehen der israelischen Regierung, bringt dieses mit historisch-politisch besetzten Begrifflichkeiten wie ‘Vernichtungskrieg’ mit dem Nationalsozialismus in Verbindung und ignoriert Menschenrechtsverletzungen und
Schuldanteile der arabischen beziehungsweise palästinensischen Seite. Mitunter führen dabei Linksextremisten die Unterstützung Israels durch die Bundesregierung auf eine diesbezüglich bedenkliche Haltung zur Vergangenheitsbewältigung zurück. Derartige Diskursinhalte leiten sich aus einem linksextremistischen ‘Antiimperialismus’ ab. Bei solchen Auffassungen ergeben sich aber auch inhaltliche Anknüpfungspunkte für den Antisemitismus, was in diesem politischen Lager immer noch nicht selbstkritisch genug problematisiert wird.”