The epithet of anti-Semitism is being hurled fairly loosely these days whether it be Trump’s characterization of Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib’s policies or the State Department’s expansive definition of anti-Semitism as criticism of Israel or comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany (a comparison that has been made by a number of Israeli thinkers), or the local and national efforts to label the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement of Israel inherently anti-Semitic.
So how can we calmly and thoughtfully think about this swirling controversy? Most people recognize classic anti-Semitism, the Christianity’s Jews-killed-Christ, Shakespeare’s Shylock, Nazi-graffiti-scrawled-on-a- synagogue types. Most people, (except those in the growing white supremacist, neo-Nazi movements), agree that these acts and beliefs are horrific and dangerous to a democratic society that aspires to tolerance and respect for minorities, whether it be the 7 million Jews, 3 ½ million Muslims, or 11 million Mexican immigrants among us, for starters.
I would like to explore the recent phenomenon, which is fracturing the American Jewish community, of equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and the easily recognized and intrinsically linked relationship between a growing hatred of Jews and the public explosion of white supremacy in our country.
In the first half of the 20th century, the work of the Zionist movement to establish an exclusive Jewish state (in Uganda? Australia? Palestine?) was highly controversial, and only became a reality through a confluence of factors including the Christian Zionism of colonial British leaders, the appalling consequences of the Nazi Holocaust, and the UN’s attempts to address the desperate needs of postwar European Jewish refugees who were not welcomed in other countries. The underlying racism that allowed European Jewish trauma, aspirations, and history to be privileged at the expense of the indigenous population in Palestine was rarely acknowledged, or else justified in the name of Jewish survival. At the same time, the understanding that people who had lived in Historic Palestine for centuries, and their neighboring Arab brothers and sisters, would not peacefully relinquish land they felt was theirs, was defined as Jew-hatred rather than opposition to what is now understood to be settler colonialism. Zionism was sold as a redemptive Jewish liberation movement building a new and just society for a battered people in their ancestral lands. Palestinians were rendered invisible.
In 1974 the Anti-Defamation League (once a progressive group focused on exposing bigotry and intolerance towards Jews) defined the “new anti-Semitism” as criticism of Israel. Eight years later, after Israel’s disastrous invasion of Lebanon and the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, the Israeli government and a variety of think tanks and PR groups turned their attention to improving Israel’s image in the world (but not, I might add, its conduct on the ground). In 1984 the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) issued a college guide exposing what they saw as a dangerous anti-Israel campaign on campuses which was grounded in the idea that Israel was always the victim and criticism of Israeli policies, inherently anti-Semitic.
This McCarthyism crept into Jewish institutions and the epithet of anti-Semite was used freely to silence and demonize critical voices. Israel created Ministries of Public Diplomacy, Diaspora Affairs, and Strategic Affairs that work with “front groups” in the US, and a host of generously funded Jewish Federations and groups like the Israel Action network, Hillel, StandWithUs, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in American (CAMERA), Canary Mission, AMCHA Initiative, Israel Project, Israel on Campus, Israellycool, ACT.IL-Online community for Israel, etc., sprang into action. Today they provide “alternative” and cherrypicked “historical facts,” slick propaganda YouTube’s, websites, and apps, compile dossiers to blacklist and smear activists as anti-Semites and terrorists, threaten universities and public events, and work hard to keep Congress in line.
I review this history to show that attitudes do not happen by accident, and today they are magnified by the explosive power of social media which promotes a host of misinformation and conspiracy theories and encourages people to live in their own private echo chambers. Viewpoints are shaped by propaganda and belief systems- religious Jews yearn for the Messiah and some 60 million Christian Zionists await the Rapture. Both require that Jews “return” to Zion, albeit for very opposite reasons. Fears are easily framed and manipulated. There is rising anti-Semitism fueled by a deranged president and the growth of a bigoted white nationalist alt-right that hates Jews, women, black and brown people, Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQI; anyone not part of their vision of an Aryan nation of armed, white, heterosexual men. Thus we see the bizarre phenomenon of neo-Nazis disparaging Jews while expressing admiration for the State of Israel, a good place to sequester these undesirables and at the same time, an admirable example of a powerful, well-armed state, grounded in ethnic purity, eager to do battle with Muslims in general and Iranians in particular.
Obviously, Jews are a diverse group of people; undivided support for the policies of Israel are seen largely in older generations and mainstream institutions. Jewish youth are much less attached to the country and its mythology, hence the frantic public relations activities on US colleges and Birthright Programs. Jews from Eastern Europe have a very different experience than Jews of color who often experience double discrimination. Israel is a contradictory place. It claims to be a democracy while passing a Nation State Law that officially legalizes Jewish privilege. It receives $3.8 billion in military aid per year from the the US and extensive political cover, exports massive amounts of military surveillance and technology to repressive regimes, while having magnificent orchestras, brilliant writers, scientific institutions, world class medical facilities, and historic religious centers. At the same time, the country is guilty of major violations of human rights and international law, the ruthless incarceration of Palestinian children, and a brutal 50+ year occupation. I fully support the right of oppressed people to resist their oppression and I am appalled by sporadic Palestinian violent resistance and its consequences for Israelis. I am even more appalled, however, by the indiscriminate and disproportionate violence of Israeli forces and settlers that have made life unlivable every day for almost five million people under their control. Not only do we taxpayers make this all possible, but it is our democratic right to call out injustice when and where we see it.
Denunciations of anti-Semitism must be credibly nested within opposition to white nationalism and the racism and Islamophobia that are its lifeblood. If we do not distinguish between valid critiques of the policies of the Israeli state and anti-Semitism, we are allowing rightwing forces to weaponize anti-Semitism, suppressing freedom of speech and open debate, and making the term, anti-Semitism, ultimately meaningless at a time when it is critical to identify and oppose it.
My mother used to walk by a sign at a park in Brooklyn, NY, that read: NO JEWS OR DOGS ALLOWED. That was anti-Semitism. My call for an end to the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the siege of Gaza, and the racist policies of the Israeli government towards its Palestinian citizens, is not. The hysteria this discussion provokes is a mark of Jewish fragility not strength.
I’m not so troubled by White-identism. I think it’s ok if some Jews do Jew-identism, some Blacks do Black-identism, some Southerners do South-identism, etc. The American Idea contains this freedom, to do your own tribal thing. Let’s just stay out of each others’ way. If some monuments offend me, that’s the price of my own tribal monuments’ allowance of offence to others. Let’s all try not to focus on what we find annoying. After all, isn’t this what we want to see, in Canaan? Different identity-groups, sharing the same Land which they all love; staying out of each others’ ways; overlooking the annoyances? And, of course, the same set of rules applying to everyone; with each tribe pulling its own weight. It’s not clear to me that White-identists don’t feel conspired against, and aren’t simply seeking a fair shake, to be who they see they’ve been. Whites have the same right to be annoying, as do the rest of us. If some enjoy torch-hiking ’round General Lee; it may not be my personal cup of tea; but, that’s my problem. We’re all bozos on this America-bound bus.
After massive bombing sorties over airports in Aleppo last night (claiming the *potential* of drones over israel), tonight israel is bombing the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon – after Nasrallah made a threatening speech. Undoubtedly, Gaza will be bombed very shortly as 3 rockets were fired from the strip (the info on the Gaza rockets popped up on an alt-right fb profile – they salivate over israel’s bombings of Palestinians).
“My mother used to walk by a sign at a park in Brooklyn, NY, that read: NO JEWS OR DOGS ALLOWED.”
From what I have read, there were, in fact, no such signs. But perhaps the evidence remains to be found.
The idea seems to have been based on the story of the “No dogs or Chinese allowed” sign in Huangpu Park in Shanghai. The actual sign outside the park did not say that in so many words., and it seems that Amahs, at least,were permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangpu_Park
I was looking in this article for the author’s definition of anti-Semitism, but the best I could find was this:
Does Jew-hatred exist in the Arab world? Yes, but it doesn’t take these “classic” forms. Here is an excerpt of an article from the same author on Mondoweiss last year ( https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/shunned/ ) about Mufti Amin al-Husseini:
Unforgivable if the Mufti had some views about Jews as Christ-killers, as Shakespeare’s Shylock, as Nazi graffiti scrawled on a synagogue? I really don’t think those were part of his cultural baggage.
The present article refers to “the growing white supremacist, neo-Nazi movements” and “a growing hatred of Jews”. How do you know these are growing? Or more to the point, why don’t you tell us what evidence you have that they are growing?
You rightfully point out how AIPAC and other Jewish institutions started disinformation campaigns in which “the epithet of anti-Semite was used freely to silence and demonize critical voices.” The average American looks at them and thinks “Well, they’re Jews, so I expect them to defend Israel.” You might object to that attitude and may even consider it anti-Semitic in a way, but it is what it is. It is much more concerning that the Speaker of the House, a representative of the famously “liberal” city of San Francisco, went to AIPAC this year and said:
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/32619/
What does Nancy Pelosi mean when she calls BDS “bigoted”? By her logic, clearly, it is bigoted because it is anti-Semitic. This is exactly the misuse of the anti-Semitism label that your article is about, but it’s not coming from a Jewish person or organization.
You write:
The irony is that denunciations of anti-Semitism are often coupled with appeals to racism and Islamophobia. Just look at what Pam Geller does.
But I would also argue that a lot of denunciations of anti-Semitism have actually assumed white superiority: since anti-Semitism from its original coinage is the view that Jews are a race that is not indigenous to Europe and therefore don’t deserve the same rights as white people, those who have denounced anti-Semitism have been insisting that Jews do deserve the same rights as white people.
Regarding Jewish refugees:
“In 1938, a thirty-one nation conference was held in Evian, France, on resettlement of the victims of Nazism. The World Zionist Organization refused to participate, fearing that resettlement of Jews in other states would reduce the number available for Palestine.” (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, as quoted in “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict,” second edition, published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, Berkeley, California, p. 21.)
On 7 December 1938, during a meeting of the Mapai Central Committee (precursor of the Labour Party), David Ben-Gurion revealed his true feelings regarding the plight of German Jews: “If I knew it was possible to save all the [Jewish] children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second…” He attempted to explain his twisted reasoning by adding that he would make such a choice “…because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.” Ben-Gurion also expressed his fear that “‘the human conscience’ might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: ‘Zionism is in danger!'” (Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, Hill and Wang, New York, 1994, p. 28.)
On 27 November 1942, the Yishuv newspaper Davar published an article that referred to the extermination of European Jews as “‘punishment from heaven’ for not having come to Palestine.” (Tom Segev, p. 98). As Ben-Gurion so callously put it on 8 December 1942, during a Mapai meeting: “‘They did not want to listen to us’ ….in their deaths they had sabotaged the Zionist dream.’” (David Ben-Gurion at a gathering of Mapai workers, 8 Dec. 1942; quoted by Tom Segev)
That saving Jews from the Nazis was not the priority of American Zionists was clearly shown during the war. When President Roosevelt became aware of the dire circumstances of European Jews (who were thought at the time to be about 80% of the total number of refugees), he sent his close friend Morris Ernst (a key member of the Democratic party and leader of the New York Jewish community) to London during the middle of the war to see if England and the Commonwealth would join the United States and other countries in taking in a half million Jewish refugees through a generous worldwide policy of political asylum once Hitler was defeated. Roosevelt felt he could sell the plan to the American Congress if Britain agreed.
Ernst returned home jubilant and advised the President that Britain agreed to “match the United States up to 150,000.” Roosevelt replied:”150,000 to England – 150,000 to match that in the United States – pick up 200,000 or 300,000 elsewhere, and we can start with half a million of these oppressed people.” One week later, however, the President informed Ernst that the program had to be abandoned because “…the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it…the Zionist movement knows [that it] can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, `There is no other place this poor Jew can go.'”
Ernst refused to believe Roosevelt and went about seeking the support of American Jews for the plan. Their response shocked him: “I was thrown out of parlours of friends of mine who very frankly said, `Morris, this is treason. You are undermining the Zionist movement’. [I found] a deep genuine, often fanatically emotional vested interest in putting over the [movement in men] who are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.” (Morris Ernst, So Far So Good, Harper & Brothers: New York, 1948, pp. 172-177)
In 1947, Representative William G. Stratton introduced a bill to the Congress aimed primarily at Jewish refugees which would have admitted up to 400,000 displaced persons of all faiths into the United States. Shamefully, however, the Stratton Bill never got past hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee because it was ignored by the Zionist lobby which wanted nothing to interfere with the flow of Jews into Palestine.
The Yiddish Bulletin wrote: “…by insisting that Jewish D.P.’s do not wish to go to any country outside of Israel; by not participating in the negotiations on behalf of the D.P.’s; and by refraining from a campaign of their own – by all this they [the Zionists] certainly did not help to open the gates of America for Jews. In fact, they sacrificed the interests of living people – their brothers and sisters who went through a world of pain – to the politics of their own movement.” (Yiddish Bulletin, Free Jewish Club, May 19, 1950)
The Zionists made it very clear to Truman that their backing would only be forthcoming if he did not impede their efforts to take possession of Palestine by allowing European Jewish refugees to immigrate to the United States. “…an aide sympathetic to Zionism [advised Truman] not to offer haven to Jewish displaced persons in the United States as this would dilute the argument that an independent Jewish state was required to absorb them.” (Prof. Charles Smith, Palestine And The Arab Israel Conflict, p. 128)
Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency were preventing European Jews who had sought temporary sanctuary in Palestine during the war from returning to their homes. Britain was well aware of this and Lord Halifax, British Ambassador to the United States made a point of informing Secretary of State Byrnes “that the Zionists were using every possible form of intimidation to stop Jews from leaving Palestine to go back to Europe and play their part in its reconstruction.” (FR: 1945, Vol. Vlll p. 775; cited by Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection, p. 52)
Some American Jews publicly criticized the Zionists for using their influence to prevent the admission of Jewish refugees into the United States. Among them was Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times who called for a reversal of Zionist policy that put statehood first, refugees last: “Admitting that the Jews of Europe have suffered beyond expression, why in God’s name should the fate of all these unhappy people be subordinated to the single cry of Statehood? I cannot rid myself of the feeling that the unfortunate Jews of Europe’s D.P. [Displaced Persons] camps are helpless hostages for whom statehood has been made the only ransom.” (New York Times, October 27, 1946; quoted by Lilienthal, What Price Israel?, p. 37)
On 2 May 1948, in a report delivered to the pro-Zionist American Jewish Conference regarding “Jewish Displaced Persons in the American Occupied Zone of Germany,” Jewish Chaplain Klausner, a dedicated Zionist, stated that “The Jews as a group are not overwhelmingly desirous of going to Palestine…we may predict that perhaps 30% of the people will go to Palestine.” (Lilienthal, WPI? p. 260)
Klausner concluded that the displaced Jews “… must be forced to go to Palestine…. By ‘force’ I suggest a program. It is not a new program. It was used before, and most recently. It was used in the evacuation of the Jews from Poland and in the story of [the refugee ship] the `Exodus’.” Klausner went on to explain what his “program” would involve: “The first step…is the adoption of the principle that it is the conviction of the world Jewish community that these people must go to Palestine. The second step is the transmittal of that policy to the Displaced Persons. The third step is for the world Jewish community to offer the people the opportunity to go to Palestine….”
The strategy suggested by Klausner to persuade Jews in the Displaced Persons camps to immigrate to Israel was implemented. Its tactics included: “confiscation of food rations, dismissal from work, smashing of machines sent by Americans to train D.P.’s in useful skills, taking away legal protection and visa rights from dissenters, expulsion from the camps of political opponents and, in one instance, even the public flogging of a recalcitrant recruit for the Israel Army. Trucks of the Jewish Agency were known to drive through the Jewish camps in Germany, ‘picking up’ boys and young men. Strange transports left Germany every week for France where, as a first step en route to Israel, the herded people were kept in camps established at Marseilles. In Germany’s D.P. camps, stories were spread that pogroms were taking place in parts of the United States.” (Lilienthal, WPI?, pp. 196-197)
As they were reluctant to heed the “call of Zion,” Israeli immigration agents had to “encourage” and in some cases, force Eastern European Jews to immigrate to Israel. “The government [of Israel] made great efforts to encourage Jews in Eastern Europe to migrate to Israel. Its immigration agent in Romania reported in 1950: ‘Working through the local leadership and every reliable Jew we have met, we are urging Jews to make application for emigration and for passports.’ Agents tried to get emigrating Jews to Israel. In Poland Israeli officials would ‘send the people directly to the port, so they would not be able to stop en route,’ reported Samuel Eliashiv, Israel’s ambassador to Czechoslovakia. Israel’s consul in Warsaw, Israel Carmel, found that persuasion was difficult. ‘The awakening of the Jews in Poland will not happen by itself,’ he reported in 1949. ‘They must be motivated and organized.'” (Quigley, p. 99)