|
View the h-antisemitism Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-antisemitism's August 2005 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-antisemitism's August 2005 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-antisemitism home page.
Forwarded From: "ambisonx@pacbell.net" <ambisonx@pacbell.net> Original Message: ----------------- Subject: H-Antisemitsm: B Henry replies to B Weintraub, antisemitism vs anti-Zionism Brian Henry <b.henry@3web.net> writes: "Moreover in my personal experience of the wider world, people are not accused of antisemitism for criticizing a party or its policies. Rather, the charge of antisemitism is levelled when they demonize Israel, when they make Israel out to be uniquely evil, figure Israelis as Nazis and Sharon as Hitler, and say that Israel should be removed from the map." My reply: Making a moral equivalence between Sharon and Hitler-- as morally reprehensible as that may be-- does not constitute anti-semitism, despite the irony. ___________ "However, when Israel-haters claim that demonizing Israel is anti-Zionism not antisemitism, their defence amounts to just this: Yes, they are bigots, but they're bigoted against Israel, not against Jews. I don't think the distinction much improves their moral standing. Also, I think the distinction is usually counterfeit." My reply: Demonizing Israel is different, of course, than vociferous criticism of its policies. Does it makes sense to say that a person can be bigotted against a country? I had thought that one can be bigotted about kinds of people. If a person singles out Israel unfairly, then that person is a hypocrite or applying a double standard. Both faults, but it does not amount to anti-semitism. It seems to me that we should be loathe to accuse someone of being anti-semitic unless the evidence unmistakable, for fear that such an accusation is used as a pretext to shut up legitimate criticism. Is it not the best policy to give the Israel-bashers the benefit of the doubt? A genuine anti-semite will not hesitate to admit his hatred of Jews. _________________ "First, even if Israel-haters weren't otherwise guilty of antisemitism, they'd be guilty of aiding and abetting antisemites. Most of the Israel-hating Left may genuinely oppose old-style antisemitism in the West, but it fully endorses Palestinian nationalism, while ignoring its thoroughgoing antisemitism. Moreover while the Leftist intelligentsia may believe they can hold the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, their continual attacks on Israel must certainly increase the antisemitism of others." My reply: In America, critics of the Bush policy in Iraq are accused of aiding and abetting the Iraqi insurgency or otherwise demoralizing the American troops. If this is a legitimate argument, then how can anyone EVER criticize a government in a time of war? How does one qualify one's criticism in order to be free from such ulterior motives? And how does one account for the equally plausible human tendency to level unfair accusations in order to quash dissent? Debate cannot be engendered within a "You are either with us or against us" mindset. Moreover, one cannot be held accountable for what others may make of one's legitimate criticism. One may rightly be accused of poor timing in making one's criticism (on account of the forseeable deleterious consequences), but such a mistake is a far cry from intending to aid and abet the enemy. ________________________ "Second, when Israel-haters employ classic antisemitic themes, accusing Israel or Sharon or Jewish neo-Cons of pulling the strings in Washington, then this is not "just" anti-Zionism; it's antisemitism." My reply: I would agree. The fact that so-called "neo-cons" are disproportionately Jewish does not mean that the Jewish neocons are to blame particularly where the majority of the neocons are not Jewish. Singling out Jewish neocons is certainly anti-semitic while blaming "neoconservatism" would not be. ____________________ "Third, when Israel-haters describe Israel as a Nazi state, Sharon as Hitler, Gaza as a concentration camp, Jenin as Warsaw and so forth, this is naked antisemitism. Even if the attack is ostensibly against Israel, it has resonance only because it actually targets Jews. The essential formulation is this: As the Nazis were to the Jews, the Jews are to the Palestinians. Or more briefly: Jews are Nazis. Could any slander be more obviously antisemitic?" My reply: No doubt, morally equating certain Jews as Nazis is disgusting unless it is true. I would assume that there is nothing about being Jewish that would preclude one from comitting genocide. Such moral equivalences are pernicious because they are not true, not because they are levelled at Jews per se. Calling a non-Jew a Nazi is no less reprehensible. _____________________ "Fourth, when Israel-haters declare that Zionism is racism or otherwise declare it's criminal for Jews to be a nation, this is antisemitism." My Reply: As long as the criticism is directed at CONDUCT and not IDENTITY, accusations of anti-semitism are misplaced. Some of the most pious Jews are rabidly anit-Zionist. Of course, criticism of conduct can be a pretext for criticism of identity, but there is no more reason to believe that the Israel-bashers are being duplicitous then it is to believe that the Israel defenders are not being duplicitous in trying to quash legimate dissent by demonizing the critics. Both sides are human and thus subject to the same human failings. ____________________ Jeff Silberman Timisoara, Romania -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . -- Yocheved Menashe List Editor, H-Antisemitism
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|