Activism

Saying Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is not anti-Semitic

As you surely know, the British Labour Party is today embroiled in a controversy over whether certain criticisms of the state of Israel can be considered anti-Semitic. The controversy is sure to come to the United States, even during this political cycle; and without wading into the statements and personalities involved, we need to point out that one aspect of the dispute is the claim that it is anti-Semitic to say– as many advocates for Palestinians do–  that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state.

The “Jewish state” language is a key element of the English debate, and of the Israel conversation globally. As Robert Mackey has written at the Intercept:

When the debate is unpacked, however, it becomes clear that what’s at stake is something much broader: whether critics of Israel, who question its government’s policies or its right to exist as a Jewish state, are engaged in a form of coded anti-Semitism.

And this is not just in the UK. The U.S.  State Department maintains just such a view as well. It has endorsed a definition of anti-Semitism that includes efforts to:

DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL [by] Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist

The State Department language has helped to shift the discourse in the U.S. For example, the California Board of Regents has also recently accepted a definition of anti-Semitism that includes anti-Zionism:

Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.

This same trend can be seen in the presidential race. Hillary Clinton has said that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement meets this definition of anti-Semitism. She links anti-Semitism with:

all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.

This is obviously a battle ground; and we have a clear position: We think it is legitimate and not anti-Semitic for critics to make such an argument. Given the principle of separation of church and state, such an argument has a long pedigree in modern political philosophy. Moreover, Israel’s history shows that creating and maintaining a “Jewish state” has entailed ethnic cleansing of Palestinians on a regular basis, including in East Jerusalem and broad portions of the West Bank to this day, in order to maintain a Jewish majority in certain areas. In practice, the Jewish State in Israel/Palestine has meant an ethnocracy where Jews are given special and exclusive rights over other citizens and non-citizens under the sovereignty of the Israeli government. This is a system that we (Horowitz and Weiss) reject for political, personal and moral reasons that are in no way connected to vilifying or discriminating against Jews, the traditional definition of anti-Semitism.

Of course, many other people oppose these definitions of anti-Semitism as well.

Palestine Legal has an excellent FAQ on the State Department definition that notes that it blurs criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. The FAQ addresses the “right to exist” idea:

Likewise, any criticism of Zionism—which questions Israel’s definition as a state that premises citizenship on race, ethnicity, and religion — is considered anti-Semitic under this redefinition, because such speech can be seen as “denying Israel the right to exist” as a “Jewish state” that privileges its Jewish citizens over others

Palestine Legal points out that blurring Jewishness and Zionism are essential tactics of Israel supporters:

[C]criticism of the Israeli state is not based on the Jewish identity of most Israeli citizens or leaders; it is based on the nation state’s historical and present day actions. Despite these important distinctions, some go to great lengths to lump Jewish people and the Israeli state together, arguing that Jews and Israel are inherently connected, and that any attack on one is an attack on the other.

In response to the possible UC policy the Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine chapter directly addressed the danger of the “right to exist” qualification and said that such a definition of anti-Semitism has chilled speakers who might stand up for Palestine:

To provide some context: recently, a bill to condemn anti-Semitism has been introduced to the Stanford Undergraduate Senate. We fully support the passing of a bill to condemn anti-Semitism; however, the proposed bill contains the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism which states that “demonization, delegitimization, and double standards” against Israel are anti-Semitism. This includes saying that Israel has no “right to exist”. (see http://palestinelegalsupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FAQ-onDefinition-of-Anti-Semitism-3-9-15.pdf) We have been concerned about this section of the bill as well as some other portions of the bill that also conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the bill has made some members of Stanford SJP feel intimidated about speaking out against Zionism and the existence of an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine.

And there has been some official pushback as well. Three years ago the EU’s organization for combating racism dropped a definition of anti-Semitism that included a provision aimed at the existence of Israel:

it lists the vilification of Israel or Israelis, which some scholars call “new anti-Semitism.” The definition lists “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazis as examples of anti-Semitism.

But those very terms are the battleground in the English case. The Labour Party is in an uproar over anti-Zionism on the eve of elections in Britain. Lest the left fall into the “gutter” of antisemitism, political writer Gaby Hinsliff in the Guardian offers what she believes is a good definition of anti-Semitism as it touches on Israel. But notice her own confusion:

Here’s a clue, for those confused about how to champion Palestinian rights or condemn an oppressive regime without overstepping the line: just treat Israel as you would any other country guilty of human rights abuses.

There’s nothing inherently antisemitic about seeking economic sanctions against Israel, supporting an oppressed minority’s right to self determination, condemning a government, or anything else you’d do if this was Burma.

But calling for its people to be swept into the sea, or forcibly transplanted somewhere else, or in any other way denying Israel’s right to exist, is crossing a line because that simply doesn’t happen to other countries no matter how oppressive their regime. No other nation state on the planet is constantly asked to prove itself morally worthy merely of being allowed to exist.

Notice the bait and switch (writes Donald Johnson, who shared the Hinsliff). “Israel’s right to exist” in this context is always understood to mean Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, which could only happen if Palestinians were forcibly expelled somewhere else.  This writer doesn’t even seem to realize the contradiction.

There is no way Palestinians should allow people like this writer to set the framework in which the issue should be discussed.

141 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s really quite simple. Someone who thinks that Jews should be equal citizens in any country they inhabit, but should not deprive any other people of that same equality, is an anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of anti-Zionists base their position on that fundamental principle of equality.

Some people like to talk about Israel’s great accomplishments in building a state and a powerful military, having an outsize influence on the most powerful nation on Earth, restoring the ancient Hebrew language to modern use, inventing the cherry tomato, etc. In my view, there is no more impressive accomplishment than the PR coup of concealing the irreconcilable conflict between a Jewish State and equality, and portraying those who oppose the existence of the Jewish State as the actual enemies of equality. Brilliantly done – diabolical, morally reprehensible, but brilliant.

Always interesting that the world can have dozens of islamic states and no one bats an eyelash but the thought of one jewish state in the world makes some cringe and scream racism and intolerance. Gaza is 99% muslim, sigh. West Bank is 98% muslim, boring. Israel is 75% jewish..OH NO! Funny.

It’s not about the Jews. It’s about what the State of Israel is doing to the Palestinian people. One can and should oppose racist, Apartheid-like oppression, wherever it occurs, without having to be endlessly distracted by how many definitions of Zionism and Anti-Semitism can dance on the head of a pin.

“It’s not about the Jews. It’s about what the State of Israel is doing to the Palestinian people.”

And what does the State of Israel call those people who are “doing to” the Palestinian people? “Jews”, isn’t it? It is what they call themselves, is it not? The world-wide network of support for Zionism?
Whether we like it or not (and I sure as hell don’t) it is about the Jews.
(And I just got told, in no uncertain terms, that “the Torah is a land-deed” to Palestine. The Torah is not about us?)

It is possible, as the BDS program shows, to define what needs to happen in Israel/Palestine without mentioning Zionism or Jews.

Let me demonstrate.

In every country, I demand democracy of its citizens and conformity with international law. Having boundaries would not be a bad idea, generally.

My first concern is a matter of international law: people who have not become citizens elsewhere must be allowed to return to their own country, irrespective of its government. Israel may not exclude itself from the reach of this rule. The exiles of 1948 and 1967 must be allowed to return to territory controlled nowadays by Israel and there to be full citizens.

My second concern is with democracy. Israel (and every country) must allow all citizens to run for office under all platforms, to be elected, and to legislate as they choose. Any (constitutional) restrictions on all this must be fully non-discriminatory. No discrimination, no censorship, no impediments must exist which would make it impossible, for instance, for the legislature of Israel to pass a law which ends discrimination in favor of Jews and replaces it with discrimination in favor of Muslims or Arabs or Martians.

Now if lots of Palestinian exiles from 1948 return to Israel and become full citizens, they might become a majority of voters. Under current law, Jews may continue to immigrate into Israel, keeping up Jewish numbers. In 5 or 10 or 15 years, Jews may still be the majority. Or not. If Palestinians become a majority, various laws privileging Jews may be reversed. Or not. Of course. That is democratic.

So you see that this demand is not antisemitic or even anti-Zionist. It is pro-democracy and pro-international law. Even if it went into effect, it would not necessarily make it impossible for there to be a Jewish state, and I do not oppose that. Perhaps that state would be where Israel is today. Or, of course, elsewhere: in America or in Saudi Arabia — close allies, both, of Israel’s. But ideally it should be located in a place where a lot of people will not have to be displaced to create the state. That’s been tried. Bad idea.