President Biden nominated the historian Deborah Lipstadt as the special envoy to combat and monitor antisemitism last July. This week she finally got a hearing before the Senate committee. Republicans had managed to hold up her nomination for months after she tweeted a commonsense observation about Senator Ron Johnson saying something racist.
At the hearing Johnson threw an embarrassing fit. He accused Lipstadt of engaging in “malicious poison” and said he had a close friendship with a black pastor. He then declared he wouldn’t vote to confirm, encouraged others to reject Lipstadt, and walked out of the hearing. These comical theatrics will seemingly end up falling flat. Even Sen. Marco Rubio, who Lipstadt also dissed on Twitter, said that he supported the nomination. “Despite my concerns about what she has said, I think she’ll be a very forceful advocate at a time when we need someone who’s very forceful and credible,” Rubio told Jewish Insider. “My guess is most people will arrive at the place that… she has a long and distinguished commitment to battling antisemitism. It certainly makes her very credible and strong in that way.”
Who is Deborah Lipstadt? She’s probably best known for her 1993 book Denying the Holocaust. It gained international attention after Holocaust denier David Irving unsuccessfully sued Lipstadt for libel and was turned into a movie in which she was played by Rachel Weisz.
In 2019 Lipstadt wrote a book called Antisemitism: Here and Now, where she refers to Zionism as a “national liberation movement” and claims that “negation of Jewish nationhood is a form of antisemitism.” The work also contains some thoughts about Jewish people who support the BDS movement.
“Anti-Zionist Jews who are opposed to Israel’s existence believe that they are expressing universalistic Jewish ‘values’ such as support for the downtrodden and for victims of injustice,” writes Lipstadt. “It’s unfortunate that they have bought in to the anti-Israel narrative and are proud of the fact that they have the “courage” to counter what they feel is a deluded, omnipotent, organized Jewry. I feel sad and frustrated that these people have internalized these antisemitic motifs. They may not be personally antisemites, but they facilitate it.”
Back in 2007 Lipstadt was a harsh critic of Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. She even accused the former president of “soft-core” Holocaust denial for omitting the years 1939–1947 from the book’s chronology. Lipstadt expanded on these thoughts in a Washington Post op-ed, where she claimed Carter had repeatedly “fallen back — possibly unconsciously — on traditional anti-Semitic canards.”
Lipstadt provides some examples to back up her incredible charge. Her first piece of evidence: in an op-ed Carter said it could be “politically suicide” for a lawmaker to advocate a “balanced position” on Israel. It’s unclear why this would be a controversial statement, as Palestinian self-determination has long been a third rail topic within Washington. There are now a handful of House members with the courage to criticize Israel, but they’re all regularly attacked by Republicans and/or members of their own party. They also generally represent districts that lack viable primary challengers. However, it’s worth remembering that Carter wrote his book 16 years ago, before congress had such politicians.
Howard Dean was chairman of the DNC at the time and felt compelled to put out a statement distancing the Democrats from Carter’s book. “While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,” said Dean. “On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”
Lipstadt also takes Carter to task for saying that many of Jewish-American organizations criticized his book and that there had been “tremendous intimidation” to silence pro-Palestine sentiment within the media. On what planet are these things not true? The AJC’s David Harris wrote that the book was “a crude polemic that compromises any pretense to objectivity and fairness.” The Central Conference of American Rabbis canceled a visit to Carter’s human rights center after it was published.
As for the media, anyone old enough to remember the era can presumably recall the firestorm that the text generated. The op-ed I am currently writing about wasn’t the Washington Post’s only example of backlash, Michael Kinsey bashed the book in a piece titled “It’s Not Apartheid.” Carter was also attacked in the New York Times, The Economist, and denounced by Dennis Ross on CNN.
Has the media gotten better on this issue over the last 16 years? It’s impossible to imagine the New York Times running photos of dead Palestinian children on their front page back then, but massive problems obviously remain. At the time I’m typing this, the NYT still hasn’t covered Amnesty International’s historic report on Israeli apartheid despite the fact it was published over a week ago.
“How long can the Times news blackout continue?,” wondered James North at the site this week. “Is it possible that the paper’s higher ups recognize that they will have to eventually publish something, but by the time they get around to it the news will have simmered down enough to pass with less notice? And will Times opinion writers like Thomas Friedman and Bret Stephens ever say anything? If they do, how can the paper in good conscience run editorial pieces about events that never appeared in its news pages?”
Rubio asked Lipstadt about the report during her hearing. Here’s what she said:
I don’t want to talk about the details of the report, but that kind of language, I found it more than ahistorical — I found it unhistorical.
Branding Israel as an apartheid state is more than historically inaccurate. I believe it’s part of a larger effort to delegitimize the Jewish state. Such language, I see it spilling over onto campuses where it poisons the atmosphere, particularly for Jewish students. You have to ask why people are using that kind of language, what are they trying to accomplish?
I know that the Biden-Harris Administration has taken a very strong position on this. In fact, last month, the State Department spokesman cited the department’s vehement disagreement with that language. And probably our ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, said it best, albeit in a tweet. He said, “Come on, this is absurd.” And I second that.
No wonder Rubio, who has been trying to push a federal anti-BDS law for years, is going to vote for her.
Lipstadt was also asked whether criticizing Israel is antisemitic. “Criticism of Israeli policy is not antisemitism,” she responded. “If you want to hear criticism of Israeli policies, I suggest you sit yourself down in a cafe in Tel Aviv or in Jerusalem, whatever part of the country, depending who is in the government. It’s the national sport in Israel, second only maybe to soccer or maybe more than that.”
“So I don’t think any rational-minded person would think that criticism of Israeli policies is antisemitism,” Lipstadt continued. “I do think there’s certain things that cross the line into antisemitism, and criticism can often cross the line. The IHRA definition gives examples.”
The IHRA working definition is controversial because it strays far away from historical understandings of antisemitism. “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is one of its examples. Another is, “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
So you might be dubbed antisemitic if you say Israel is a settler colony that annexes native land, even though that’s obviously true. You might be antisemitic if you demand that the United States government stop giving Israel billions in military aid because that’s a double standard and you should be criticizing hundreds of other countries if you’re going to do that. It’s no surprise that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism is already being used as a weapon to stifle pro-Palestine sentiment around the globe.
Despite the GOP grumbling, Lipstadt is expected to clear committee and get confirmed. There’s nothing on her résumé that would potentially upset the apple cart, regardless of what Ron Johnson thinks.
” “Anti-Zionist Jews who are opposed to Israel’s existence believe that they are expressing universalistic Jewish ‘values’ such as support for the downtrodden and for victims of injustice,” writes Lipstadt.”
I wish the MSM would do more coverage of Jews who tell it like it is – it would be a good antidote to Lipstadt’s over the top charges of antisemitism. Meet Amos Elon (1926-2009) – in his time he was a well known Israeli journalist and the author of a number of books on Jewish themes (check Amazon). Here’s an interview with him, emphasis mine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070310223426/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=518402
From this perspective, the Israeli occupation is perhaps the least successful attempt at colonialism that I can think of. This is the crappiest colonial regime that I can think of in the modern age….I think that Zionism has exhausted itself.
“Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorists.”
______________________________________________
Organized and successful influence on the media has led many Americans to believe that Palestinians harbor terrorists, making them terrorists and intent on the destruction of Israel. This in spite of the large percentage of Palestinians who believe one bi-national secular state is the best solution.
When the 48 and/or the 67 Palestinians organize politically for equality, that will neutralize the terrorist and destruction narratives along with many charges of anti-semitism, the foundations of the security defense. While at the same time give understanding for and infuse power into the BDS campaign.
2 of 2
“And why does no one stop to ask themselves why Israelis insist on comparing themselves & their country to authoritarian states? How do chills not go down our collective spines every time we demand to be grouped alongside Iran, China, & Syria?
“Perhaps most upsetting is that no one working for the Israeli propaganda machine stops to think for a moment that, perhaps, the members of Amnesty not only do not hate us, but are releasing this report also for our sake — for the sake of Jewish Israelis — so that neither we nor our children continue to live as the masters of a contemptible apartheid regime. That perhaps they want a better, more egalitarian future for both Palestinians & Israeli Jews.
“Over the past week, I have seen up close just how rattled Amnesty’s leaders have been by baseless accusations of antisemitism. These are people who are deeply committed to human rights — people who despise antisemitism & fight it on a daily basis. They are certainly more committed to this fight than Israeli governments that have hosted & whitewashed some of the world’s most blatantly antisemitic leaders.
“During my opening remarks on Tuesday, I said that the release of the report was a sad day for me as a Jewish Israeli. This report reflects an incredibly grim picture. Instead of punching at the mirror, I hope that we finally work up the courage to stare reality in the face — & try to change it. For the sake of all our children.”
1 of 2
RGB Media – Responsive Email Template (972mag.com)
Israelis mustn’t fear Amnesty’s apartheid report by Orly Noy,
972 Magazine, Feb. 5, 2022
“On Tuesday, I had the privilege of hosting Amnesty International’s press conference, during which they launched & presented their new report, which labels Israel’s regime between the river & the sea ‘apartheid.’ I’m not being just courteous here: it truly was a privilege to have a very small part in the efforts of a camp that refuses to fold in the face of Israel’s propaganda efforts, & insists on calling the reality in Israel-Palestine by its name.
“Two things stood out to me in particular about my interactions with members of Amnesty International in recent days: the seriousness of their work, & their astonishment at the Israeli response, which accused them of antisemitism.
“Amnesty, the largest human rights organization in the world, worked for four years on its 280-page report. The executive summary alone is dozens of authoritative, reasoned, consistent, & harrowing pages long. And yet, so-called experts — who I have no doubt have read not a single word of the report — have been busy slandering its findings & the organization itself. And that’s just the pundits. Official Israel seems to have gone completely off the rails, disparaging & defiling Jewish historical memory by hysterically waving the antisemitism card at every opportunity.
“There is something incredible about the fact that Israel still manages to simultaneously insist that any demand to abolish its regime of supremacy is both a real threat to its existence & a slanderous act of Jew hatred. The state’s admission that it needs to maintain this regime should be enough to shock any decent Israeli to their core.
“And where would we be without classic Israeli whataboutisms? What about Iran? What about Syria? What about China? The very same people who constantly demand special treatment for Israel are up in arms when Israel is allegedly ‘singled out’ for special treatment by the global human rights community.
“Here, too, the sheer volume of ignorance is appalling. I regularly follow the reports released by human rights organizations on Iran, including those by Amnesty, & I know firsthand how thoroughly & conscientiously they work on the countries Israel would have us believe Amnesty overlooks. (cont’d)
Just in case this hasn’t been noted elsewhere:
“Israel’s former attorney general says his country is an ‘apartheid regime’Michael Ben-Yair agrees with the Amnesty report and urges the international community to recognise apartheid”
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-apartheid-amnesty-report-attorney-general