Summary
Pages 1-13: Introduction
and literature review- discusses the theory of New Anti-Semitism which claims
that any criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic.
Pages 13-23:
A discussion of the lobby’s attack on academic freedom on college campuses by
targeting professors as well as students- includes organizations such as Campus
Watch, the California State Legislature’s attempt to stop anti-Israel
discussion on university campuses, the Anti-Defamation League’s and AIPAC’s
tracking of supposedly anti-Israel professors, clubs and students.
23-31: The pro-Israel lobby’s attack on freedom of the press targeting the
BBC, The Guardian, political cartoonists, and individual reporters (including
one woman who had been an early supporter of Zionism and a fierce opponent of
Hitler). The lobby often succeeds by diverting Americans’ attention away from
the urgent humanitarian and political issues and refocusing media attention on petty arguments about whether or not a person
or institution qualifies as anti-Semitic.
31-34: Assessment
of bias on reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict in newspapers. The study reveals over reporting on Israeli casualties and gross under reporting of Palestinian
casualties. Usually a lot of emotion and detail is put into describing Israeli casualties in the first paragraphs of the article and the number of Palestinian casualties (almost always much higher than the Israeli casualties) is mentioned in the final paragraph if they are mentioned at all.
34-42: The
pro-Israel lobby’s attack on politicians who question Israeli and US government
policies. Jimmy Carter, who drastically improved Israel’s security by
orchestrating the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979, was smeared as
anti-Semitic after publishing his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Chuck
Hagel was criticized of being anti-Semitic and of receiving campaign
contributions from two organizations, Friends of Hamas and Junior League of Hezbollah.
Neither organization exists, and the rumor started because of a reporter’s joke.
42-44:
Conclusion
Avoiding the Search for Motive: How the pro-Israel lobby uses the charge of anti-Semitism to stifle political discussion of Israel
The
effectiveness of AIPAC’s and other pro-Israel group’s campaigning is known
worldwide. While groups who push for more even-handed policies in the Middle
East do exist, these groups lack one powerful tool that the Israel lobby has.
The most powerful weapon of the Israel lobby is exploitation of the memory of
the Holocaust and the charge of anti-Semitism.
“A suggestion that Israel has committed war
crimes is particularly offensive, given that the Jewish people suffered under
the most horrific war crimes in the Holocaust,” said Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
This statement means that either Israel has not committed any war crimes and to
suggest the possibility is offensive, or that because collectively Jews
suffered worse than Palestinians Israel should not be condemned for committing a
few relatively small war crimes because that would offend Jews. It is both
racist and naive to suggest that because an ethnic group endured some of the
most horrific suffering in the history of the world, a country whose population
comprises 80% of that same ethnicity cannot possibly commit a war crime. Does
suffering an injustice make committing injustice impossible? If a parent abuses
a child, is the parent excused in court because he or she was more harshly
abused in his or her childhood? Are people who were abused not liable to be
prosecuted for abuse because suggesting that they could possibly abuse their
child is offensive? No reasonable person would argue that this is or should be
the case.
The same logic applies to countries
as well. The Republic of Liberia was founded by freed African-American slaves
who had obviously experienced unimaginable atrocities. Does the fact that the
Liberian people have a collective memory of horrors inflicted on them because
of their ethnicity mean that it would be offensive to accuse the country of
carrying out war crimes or allowing slavery, or that it would be impossible for
Liberia to commit such acts? No. The Republic of Liberia is a country and
Israel is a country, and both governments and individuals in each are capable
of committing atrocities of the same type that their populations have
experienced. To ignore war crimes or human rights violations committed by
Israel or Liberia and let those acts go unrecognized and unpunished because the
very accusation of such crimes is offensive would be morally
reprehensible. Yet that is what people
do when they justify Israel’s crimes because of the evil that millions of Jews
experienced. The pro-Israel lobby levies the charge of anti-Semitism against
academia, news media, and politicians in order to discount their arguments,
distract observers from the real issues, and deter critics thereby crippling
the most effective means of policy change.
Racism is hating or discriminating
against a person because of their ethnicity. Racism has never been dislike of a
country’s policy or government. Yet when it comes to Israel somewhere the
distinction between Judaism and government is lost. Defending the synonymy of
being anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, the theory of “new anti-Semitism” was born.
According to the founders of this ideology as well as the authors of the book The
New Anti-Semitism, the essence of new anti-Semitism is “a large measure of
indifference to the most profound apprehensions of the Jewish people, a
blandness and apathy in dealing with anti-Jewish behavior, a widespread
incapacity or unwillingness to comprehend the necessity of the existence of
Israel to Jewish safety and survival throughout the world.” New anti-Semitism assumes that without the
state of Israel Jews would once again face mass extermination. It goes a step
further to say that by criticizing Israel one is advocating for its destruction
and therefore the destruction of the Jewish people who, with the Jewish state
gone, would no longer have any protection. Used for political purposes, this
theory exploits the deeply ingrained loathing people have toward anti-Semitism
as well as the suffering Jews have endured under real anti-Semitism. The theory
also assumes that politically, militarily, socially, etc. Israel is incapable
of error or that even if the government or military does make a mistake it
should not be held accountable. If the current Israeli government advocates a
certain policy, it is America’s job to fully support it as if the survival of
the Jewish people depended on it. Not often does it enter the mind of the
average American citizen that Israel may be engaging in practices that are
harmful to Jewish Israelis (not to mention Palestinians and Arabs). This new
anti-Semitism is another tool used to dissuade active engagement in the debate
surrounding Israel. The Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein puts in best when he
succinctly states that, “the allegation of a new anti-Semitism is neither new
nor about anti-Semitism.” He
continues, “the main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated
media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the
historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism.
Each campaign to combat the “new anti-Semitism” has coincided with renewed
international pressures on Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories in
exchange for recognition from neighboring Arab states.”
Published in 1974, just after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the book The New
Anti-Semitism is a good example of this abuse and pressure.
Arnold Forster and
Benjamin R. Epstein argue in their book The New
Anti-Semitism, that criticism of
Israel is simply the age old hatred of Jews disguised as politics. The authors
explain that the purpose of their work is to
Properly identify the current sources, modes and extent of anti-Jewish
behavior. The task will involve, necessarily, some redefining of
traditional notions of anti-Semitism…We propose to
examine as well behavior that can only be properly defined as an insensitivity
to these problems rather than anti-Semitic either by the definitions that have
existed or by new and more inclusive descriptions. It includes,
often, a callous indifference to Jewish concerns expressed by respectable
institutions and persons here and abroad- people who would be shocked to think
themselves, or have others think them, anti-Semites.
(emphasis added)
By their own
admission, Forster and Epstein redefine what it means to be anti-Semitic.
People who hate a certain group are often aware of this prejudice. By saying
that people would be shocked to realize that they are anti-Semites removes the
notion that they hate Jews. This “new and more inclusive” definition is a
disservice to those who are trying to fight real anti-Semitism, i.e. the hatred
of Jews. If these so-called anti-Semites are respectable persons and they do
not hate Jews or discriminate against them because they are Jews, then what
does it mean to be anti-Semitic? The authors believe that such an individual or
organization can be anti-Semitic because “many of the anti-Israel statements
from non-Jewish sources, often the most respectable, carry an undeniable
anti-Jewish message. Some of the public
utterances that pass for legitimate discussion mask a real hostility to Jews as
Jews; they are often couched in language or contain innuendo that is plainly
anti-Semitic.”
Included amongst the
supposed causes of anti-Semitism is the religion of Islam. While the authors
acknowledge the fact that Jews often fared much better under Muslim rulers than
they did under Christian leaders, they use proof texting and political speeches
that contain religious rhetoric to assert that Islam causes anti-Semitism.
While it is true that there is anti-Semitism in the Arab world Forster and Epstein
are incorrect in their assertion that it is caused by Islam. They do not give
enough credit to the likelihood that anti-Semitism in the Arab world, while
still inexcusable, is political and a product of the Arab-Israeli conflict and
the traumatizing experiences that many Arabs have experienced because of
Israel’s actions. This is comparable to the way that exposure to terrorism in
the United States has unfortunately driven many Americans to Islamophobia and
acts of violence including murder and attempts to limit freedom of religion for
Muslims (examples are the ‘Mosque at Ground Zero’ and the current debate over
Sharia law and the passing of legislation that bans the use of Sharia in court
but makes no mention of banning Christian or Jewish Talmudic law which are also
used in US courts). Christians are often times included in this group of people
who are prejudiced against Muslims for no other reason than that they are
Muslims. However, to take scriptural passages and statements from leaders of
the Christian faith and assert that Christianity is a source of Islamophobia
creates a link where none exists. People who believe they have a justification
to hate will often try to validate this belief with their faith, as seen in the
antebellum south and the biblical justifications of slavery. This does not mean
that Christianity was a cause of slavery. By ignoring political and economic
factors and focusing on the ways that an anti-Semitic Arab may attempt to use
religion to excuse his hatred ignores the true source of that anti-Semitism.
Considering that the authors are trying to identify the sources of
anti-Semitism, they do themselves a disservice by including Islam as a cause of
anti-Semitism.
Norman Finkelstein, renowned Jewish
scholar and son of two holocaust survivors, also addresses the issue of new
anti-Semitism in his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the
exploitation of Jewish suffering. He argues that prior to the 1967 war,
support for Israel among American Jews was low because Israel was not
considered an important ally and such support could have led to the charge of
dual loyalties. After the 1967 War, Israel was seen as a strong and important
ally in the Middle East against the Soviet Union. At this point, American
Jewish groups and leaders asserted their support for Israel because doing so
now strengthened their American identity. It was at this point that American
Jews and Gentiles began to “remember” the holocaust. “It was not Israel’s
alleged weakness and isolation, nor the fear of a “second Holocaust,” but
rather its proven strength and strategic alliance with the United States that
led Jewish elites to gear up the Holocaust industry after 1967.”
Finkelstein quotes Israeli journalist Danny Rubinstein writing, “According to
most of the people in the Jewish establishment the important thing is to stress
again and again the external dangers that face Israel…. The Jewish
establishment in America needs Israel only as a victim of cruel Arab attack.
For such an Israel one can get support, donors, money.”
The ideology of “new anti-Semitism,” the idea that criticism of Israel is an
attack on Jews, emerged in the 1970’s to counter political opposition to
organized Jewish interests. Finkelstein argues, controversially, that Jewish
success caused them to adhere to right-wing politics, while professing that
their opposition to affirmative action was based on the historic injustices
Jews experienced under a quota system. Finkelstein writes, “Jewish elites
branded all opposition to their new conservative policies anti-Semitic….In this
ideological offensive, The Holocaust came to play a critical role. Most
obviously, evoking historic persecution deflected present day criticism….Just
as Israelis, armed to the teeth by the United States, courageously put unruly
Palestinians in their place, so American Jews courageously put unruly Blacks in
their place. Lording it over those least able to defend themselves: that is the
real content of organized American Jewry’s reclaimed courage.”
With statements like this, itt is not difficult to understand why Finkelstein
has been so heavily criticized. Much, though not all, of this criticism is not
so much against his argument but against the intensely polemic way in which he
expresses his ideas.
New anti-Semitism is
“Old Poison in a New Bottle,” according to a chapter title in Abraham Foxman’s book
The Deadliest Lies: The Israel lobby and the
myth of Jewish control, a critique of
Walt and Mearsheimer’s article The Israel
Lobby. Foxman, who escaped the holocaust as a child and is currently the
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, criticizes Walt and
Mearsheimer for “using half-truths, distortions, and falsehoods to prop up a
general analysis that is dishonest and wrong.”
Foxman begins by attacking the accusation that, “Jewish forces drove up to
700,000 Palestinians into exile.” He rebuffs, writing, “Were some Palestinians
forced from the land by Jewish soldiers? Yes. Did other leave voluntarily, at
the urging of Arab leaders? Did still others flee simply to escape the random
violence that, tragically, always accompanies war? Yes…[Mearsheimer and Walt]
cherry-pick facts that serve their purpose while disregarding or distorting the
rest.”
Foxman does not define what he means by leaving “voluntarily.” Palestinians
were terrorized by Jewish militias for the purpose of expanding the borders of
the Jewish state. For those Palestinians fleeing for their lives as reports
came in of Jewish forces massacring neighboring villages, leaving was not much
of a choice.
Foxman refers to the
use of a quote by David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, that
Mearsheimer and Walt claim references the fact that “Israel did not actually
accept the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.”
Foxman’s claim is contrary to fact. Ben-Gurion said, “After the formation of a
large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish
partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
Foxman continues, “But when asked, in a follow-up question, whether he meant to
achieve this by force, he replied, ‘Through mutual understanding and
Jewish-Arab agreement.’ You won’t find this clarification cited by Mearsheimer
and Walt.”
This is indeed the case, not because Walt and Mearsheimer are cherry-picking
facts, but because the follow-up answer is irrelevant. A look into the history
of the creation of Israel and past and current borders reveals that Israel did
not want to partition Palestine, but accepted it as an interim measure.
Furthermore, the use of Ben-Gurion’s statement clarifying that the means by
which Israel would “abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine,”
would be “through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement,” means
nothing for two reasons.
First, it does not,
contrary to Foxman’s claim, refute the statement that Israel rejected the
partition and aimed to annex all of Palestine at some later date. The statement
simply clarifies that Ben Gurion intends to “abolish partition” through
politics. Second, through a series of wars, occupation of the West Bank,
martial law, discriminatory policies and violent attacks, Israel has
established dominion over all of Palestine as well as parts of Lebanon, Syria
and Egypt at various points in time. Ben Gurion may have said at one point that
Israeli expansion would be achieved through mutual agreement, and he may have
meant that Israel would not use violence, but violence is how it happened
nonetheless. In peace settlements today, Netanyahu is adamant that Israel
cannot accept a state based on the 1967 borders for security reasons. The 1967
borders are significantly larger than Israel’s original borders in 1948 (not to
mention the original partition plan of 1947), and now even those borders are
unacceptable to Ben Gurion’s successors. Foxman attempts, albeit
unconvincingly, to use obscure quotes to battle both historical and
contemporary fact. The quotes he tries to apply fail to make his point. Walt
and Mearsheimer’s statement clearly withstands Foxman’s poor logic. This same
pattern dominates the majority of Foxman’s arguments, which weakens his
credibility. Foxman is guilty of using obscure quotes and ignoring facts, which
is ironic since that accusation forms the basis of his argument against Walt
and Mearsheimer.
The controversy
against Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel
Lobby and US Foreign Policy is endless. Most
of the criticism stems from a misunderstanding of the authors’ argument. They
have been labeled anti-Semitic and their careers as scholars have suffered
because of this. Many critics say that they employ the age old anti-Semitic
conspiracy theory that ‘Jews control the media.’ They do no such thing. In
fact, they go to great lengths to explain that this is not their purpose. Walt
and Mearsheimer, as well as the author of this paper, define the lobby as
a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works
to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. As we will describe in
detail, it is not a single, unified movement with a central leadership, and it
is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that ‘controls’ U.S. foreign policy. It
is simply a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles, whose
acknowledged purpose is to press Israel’s case within the United States and
influence American foreign policy in ways that its members believe will benefit
the Jewish state. The various groups that make up the lobby do not agree on
every issue, although they share the desire to promote a special relationship
between the United States and Israel. Like the efforts of other ethnic lobbies
and interest groups, the activities of the Israel lobby’s various elements are
legitimate forms of democratic political participation…consistent with
America’s long tradition of interest group activity.
Throughout the book Mearsheimer and
Waltz denounce the claim that Jews control the media, and acknowledge that the
lobby doesn’t always win. “The reason that the lobby works so hard to monitor
and influence what the mainstream media says about Israel is precisely that the
lobby does not control them. If the media were left to their own devices, they
would not serve up as consistent a diet of pro-Israel coverage and commentary.
Instead, there would be a more open and lively discussion about the Jewish
state and U.S. policy toward it, as there is in virtually every other democracy
in the world. Indeed, that debate is especially lively in Israel itself, the
one state where Jews clearly do ‘control the media.’” The
argument that Mearsheimer and Walt make is that because unconditional support
for Israel is not based on any sound moral or strategic reasons, the Israel
lobby uses its power and influence to discourage debate about Israel which
could lead to American foreign policy change that would not be supported by the
Israeli government. “Key elements in the lobby strive to influence discourse
about Israel in the media, think tanks, and academia, because these
institutions are critical to shaping popular opinion.” The argument claims that the relationship
between the media, academia and politics is “mutually reinforcing. If
politicians know that it is risky to question Israeli policy or the United
States’ unyielding support for Israel, then it will be harder for the
mainstream media to locate authoritative voices that are willing to disagree
with the lobby’s views…. Playing the anti-Semitism card stifles discussion even
more and allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged.” The
book then analyzes the role that the Israel lobby has in influencing foreign
policy detrimental to U.S. interests.
The authors start with the stated
assumption that the U.S. “has three main interests in the Middle East today:
keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing to world markets, discouraging the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, and reducing anti-American terrorism originating
in the region.”
U.S. foreign policy often undermines these long-term goals. Though U.S.
security should always come first, many of these policies have also had
negative and dangerous ramifications for Israel as well. In the situations regarding
the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Iraq, Syria, Iran and the 2006 Lebanon
war, “U.S. policy would have been different if the lobby were not as powerful,
or if the main groups within it had favored a different approach. America’s
actions would have also have been more in line with its national interest, and
better for Israel as well.” To
counter the threat of a nuclear Iraq, Israel and the lobby teamed up with
neoconservatives, who had long been pushing for another war against Saddam
Hussein. Countless knowledgeable and powerful figures acknowledged that Iraq
was not a threat to the US but that if it had WMD’s it would be a threat to
Israel. Israel
spearheaded a campaign, quickly taken up by neoconservative advocates of the
war, comparing Saddam to Hitler, and Netanyahu called for a pre-emptive strike
on Saddam in light of the belief that Iraq would soon have nuclear weapons. Walt
and Mearsheimer cite the warnings against the Iraq invasion voiced by the
government of Saudi Arabia, all of which are true today.
However, the US relied on largely false information which was gained and
exaggerated in cooperation with Israel. Those
who spoke out against the pretense that the debate about going to war with Iraq
was centered on American security concerns, and acknowledged that the true
purpose was to protect Israel were labeled anti-Semitic. Former Senator Ernest
Hollings is one example of this slander. The Anti-Defamation League said that
his views were “reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish
conspiracy to control and manipulate government.” In
order to sell the war to the American public, the part Israel played in its
purpose was hidden by the war’s proponents, and any mention of this factor was
denounced as anti-Semitism.
First of all, to stop the spread of
new ideas, the pro-Israel lobby targets academic institutions and individuals
in order to prevent students from thinking critically about Israeli policies.
Take for example the case of Norman Finkelstein. Previously mentioned renowned
scholar and political scientist in the field of the Holocaust and
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Finkelstein is the son of two Holocaust survivors
whose entire families were killed in Nazi concentration camps. Actively
critical of Israeli policy and human rights violations, Finkelstein was denied
tenure at DePaul University in 2007 despite overwhelming departmental and
college support as well as the positive recognition of academics such as the
renowned Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg. While
criticizing the polemical style of Finkelstein, Hilberg argues that his
scholarship and methodology is of the highest quality. After
being fired from DePaul University, Finkelstein had trouble obtaining
employment. California State University Northridge (CSUN) was interested in
hiring him, and the faculty of CSUN voiced their support for the appointment.
The university invited Finkelstein to deliver a series of lectures one week,
hoping that the support from the faculty would gain him the remaining faculty
support requisite to be employed as a faculty member. Leading up to the lecture
series, CSUN received numerous and misleading complaints about Finkelstein,
including that he is an irresponsible scholar who lets his personal opinions
influence his work, a holocaust denier, and self-hating Jew. The provost, Harry
Hellenbrand, received about 200 complaints, including a few death threats. Most
of the backlash came from various Jewish groups and leaders including the
Jewish Defense League (JDL), rabbis and individuals, the pro-Israeli group
Stand With Us, Jewish CSUN group Hillel and professors in the CSUN Jewish
Studies program.
David Klein summarizes the opposition to Finkelstein’s first lecture.
Members of
the JDL attended this talk, contributing much counterpoint to both the speaker
and the title of his talk. Three of them sat together in the front row, just a
few feet from the speaker. They interrupted the provost's introduction, one of
them shouting, "Good one, Harry. The Nazi loves you." They hissed and
jeered throughout. They aimed cameras at the audience, panning from left to
right focusing their camera lenses on individuals throughout the meeting, so as
to document those in attendance as a form of intimidation. They issued a steady
stream of vitriol at Finkelstein, including: "You're a sick puppy,"
"Don't call yourself a Jew," and "Holocaust denier!"
Finkelstein responded only to the last of these. During the question and answer
period, he shot back, "You have to understand, it's a deeply offensive
statement to say that I deny the suffering that my parents endured." The
JDL did not spare audience members either. One young woman in attendance, a
CSUN student wearing a Palestinian scarf, was ordered, "Go hang yourself
with your scarf!"The provost adeptly diffused the situation by speaking to
JDL members individually in the hallway outside the presentation room. In one
exchange, a JDL member repeatedly accused Finkelstein of being a
"Holocaust denier," and Hellenbrand calmly responded each time,
"No, he isn't" until the detractor finally asked, "He's
not?"
This
interaction shows the effectiveness of the anti-Semite label. Once someone is
branded an anti-Semite it does not matter how high their quality of scholarship
is, they will be attacked, often denied employment and their reputations are
forever tarnished.
Campus Watch was founded in 2002 by
Daniel Pipes, an anti-Islam scholar who has accused Obama of being a
former/apostate Muslim, and tied him to Rashid Khalidi and the PLO. Speaking to
the American Jewish Congress in October 2001, Pipes said, “I worry very much, from the Jewish
point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and
enfranchisement of American Muslims, because they are so much led by an
Islamist leadership, that this will present true dangers to American Jews.” Campus Watch is a bigoted organization that
claims to investigate Middle East Studies programs in America with the intent
of improving them. While this official goal is quite vague, the objective of
the organization is to stop criticism of Israel by monitoring perceived
anti-Semitic activity on university campuses. The organization encourages
students and faculty to contact Campus Watch, “with reports on Middle East-related scholarship,
lectures, classes, demonstrations, and other activities relevant to Campus
Watch.” The
website’s section “Keep Us Informed” is headed by a quote from a college
student meant to reveal an experience that he or she and Campus watch view as
trying to dictate students’ beliefs. The student writes, "[One professor] suggested that
I take classes in the political science department to 'open my mind'--in other
words, to CHANGE my views No thanks."
Typically students attend college to learn new skills and ideas. A
professor advising a student to take classes that will introduce him or her to
new ideas is admiral; that is what good professors do. The fact that Campus
Watch views this as a negative thing is yet another example of its fight
against open-minded
discussion of ideas.
To make sense of the following example, a
basic knowledge of the BDS movement is necessary. The Boycott Divestments and
Sanctions (BDS) movement was started in 2005 in Palestine and grew into an
international movement in 2007. It is essentially a boycott of all Israeli and international
products and companies “that profit from the violation of Palestinian rights,
as well as Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions.” It
calls for sanctions on Israel until it recognizes international law. The
movement also encourages companies, universities and other institutions to
divest from “corporations complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights and
ensuring that the likes of university investment portfolios and pension funds
are not used to finance such companies.”
One example of this divestment is
the US Mennonite Church whose committee recently voted unanimously not to
invest in any company that contributed to violence in the Israel/Palestine
conflict.
A similar movement was discussed by the Church of England in 2006. Three years
later the church divested from Caterpillar Inc, the company that provides the
bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes and erase entire villages,
killing civilians in the process. However, this defense of human life by a
church was denounced as anti-Semitic. Rabbi Tony Bayfield stated that “there is
a clear problem of anti-Zionism- verging on anti-Semitic- attitudes emerging in
the grass roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.”
The reason the BDS movement is so heavily attacked is because peaceful civilian
movements have huge potential to effect policy change. Therefore the Israel
lobby devotes a lot of its time and resources into defaming those who support
or even discuss the movement. This is especially true in regards to academic
institutions, because universities and college students have historically been
receptive to new ideas which have had significant consequences for US policy.
Campus Watch promotes articles that condemn
support for the BDS movement as anti-Semitic, denounce the legitimacy of
“Islamophobia” as both a word (part of the claim being that it was invented by
a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore illegitimate) and a problem in
America (asserting that anti-Semitism is a much bigger problem in America and
therefore anti-Muslim hate crimes should not be a concern).They also promote articles that claim that
it was wrong to appoint Professor Manzar Foroohar to “to chair a committee aimed at combating anti-Semitism,” because
she spoke out against Israeli policy and supported the BDS movement.
The conflation of anti-Semitism and
criticism of Israeli policy is absurd. Professor Manzar Foroohar is well within
her rights to support the BDS movement. Supporting the BDS movement does not
make a person anti-Semitic. Few people would object if an Israel studies
professor who supported sanctions on Iran or Syria was appointed to chair a
committee combating Islamophobia. The distinction between religious bigotry and
criticism of a nation’s policy is not lost when it comes to Islam and Middle
Eastern countries. The difference is that the pro-Israel lobby has equated
criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism so effectively that it has created a
culture wherein many people assume that if someone criticizes Israel they must
be anti-Semitic. Try selling this equation to the members of Rabbis for Human
Rights, or, for
that matter, about half of the population of Israel (although the charge of
Nazism and self-hating Jew are thrown around in Israeli politics as well).
Campus Watch is not the only
pro-Israel group to attack academics and students critical of Israel by
labeling them anti-Semitic. AIPAC published The Campaign to Discredit Israel
in 1983, which featured a blacklist profiling “21 organizations and 38 individuals to be monitored and discredited
whenever possible.” AIPAC
ran a similar campaign in 1983 when it conducted extensive surveys on US
college campuses with questions that included,
“Please name any individual faculty who assist anti-Israel groups. How is this
assistance offered? What are the propaganda themes?”
The results of the survey were published in 1984 in the AIPAC College Guide:
Exposing the Anti-Israel Campaign on Campus.
This intimidation was not ignored or accepted, and the following year
the Middle East Studies Association, “(MESA), the largest organization of
Middle East educators in the United States, unanimously condemned AIPAC and ADL
blacklisting,” calling on the organizations to "disavow and refrain from
such activities" such as publishing "unbalanced information on students,
faculty and other parties at American university campuses” and "listing
factually inaccurate and unsubstantiated assertions that defame specific
students, teachers and researchers as 'pro-Arab propagandists,' who 'use their
anti-Zionism as merely a guise for their deeply felt anti-Semitism.'"
Eqbal Ahmad became a
professor at Cornell University in 1965, however in 1967 he spoke out against
Israel’s occupation of Palestinian and Arab land. He says that no more than
four staff members would speak with him after this, and three of them were
Jewish. Ahmad claims that “there is a silent covenant within the academic community concerning
Israel. The interesting thing is that the number of prominent Jews who have broken
the covenant is much larger than the number of gentiles.”
In 1983 B’nai B’rith (which is affiliated with the ADL) published Ahmad’s name
as an enemy of Israel in Pro-Arab Propaganda in America: Vehicles and Voices.
Since 1969 Ahmad has not been able to find a permanent job teaching. He was
considered for employment in 1893, however Rutgers University withdrew the
offer. Ahmad claims that, “the dean was
told that I would not get the vote of the faculty because accusations had been
made that I was anti-Semitic and had created an anti-Semitic
atmosphere on the campus while I was teaching there.” For
professors accused of anti-Semitism, it is hard to ever remove that label from
the eyes of potential employers. This is because the charge of anti-Semitism is
contagious. If a university hires, or even invites to give a guest lecture,
someone who has been contaminated then the entire university is susceptible to
defamation.
This phenomenon is not specific to
the United States. Ronnie Fraser, founder of Academic Friends of Israel, tried
to indict the University and College Union of the UK for harassing Jews because
universities allow discussion of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)
movement. Fraser claimed that part of the Jewish identity was an affinity for
Israel and that criticism of Israel should therefore be banned in accordance
with the 2010 Equities act, and listed “attachment to Israel” as a “protected
characteristic” under the law. Fraser did not win the case and “the tribunal
received a letter signed by 58 Jewish members of UCU who said that they held
differing views about academic boycott, but all agreed that their union was not
antisemitic.”
Tom Hickey of the UCU’s National Executive Committee stated, “This is a
landmark judgment. The accusation of antisemitism against UCU because it
supports a boycott of Israel is absurd. Its record in fighting racism,
including antisemitism, is second to none in the trade union movement. Had this
vacuous charge been upheld, unions and universities would have been silenced on
the key moral issue of the century.” This is
just one example of trying to legislate against criticism of Israel.
Fortunately those responsible for ruling on the case saw through the baseless
talk of anti-Semitism to Fraser’s true political purposes. Unfortunately, the
same cannot be said for the members of the California State Legislature.
The California State Legislature passed a resolution calling on California educational institutions to “increase their efforts to swiftly and unequivocally condemn acts of anti-Semitism on their campuses and to utilize existing resources, such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights' working definition of anti-Semitism, to help guide campus discussion about, and promote, as appropriate, educational programs for combating anti-Semitism on their campuses.” The working definition cited states, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The same document states that “such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” The document lists examples of how criticism of Israel would be equated with anti-Semitism, including “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…applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation… drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” The document does admit, however, that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” This part of the definition seems to be often forgotten. The anti-Semitism bill passed by the California State Legislature complains that Jewish students have experienced
speakers, films, and exhibits sponsored by student, faculty, and community groups that engage in anti-Semitic discourse or use anti-Semitic imagery and language to falsely describe Israel, Zionists, and Jews, including that Israel is a racist, apartheid, or Nazi state, that Israel is guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Jewish students should never have to experience anti-Semitism, and combating that and all other forms of racism and discrimination should be a high priority for all universities. However, universities are places where people should also feel free to discuss their ideas, and they should not allow the lobby to intimidate them into restricting the right of free speech. Whether or not one agrees that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, genocide and war crimes, it is difficult to deny that some of its policies are at least worthy of critical analysis and questioning. If Israel is to be treated just as any other democratic nation, then it is in no way immune from these criticisms. The bill goes on to praise the University of California for
refusal by the UC Board of Regents and the President of UC to consider divesture from companies doing business with Israel; (2) strengthening UC's systemwide policies prohibiting student conduct motivated by bias, including religious bias; (3) implementation of a campus climate reporting system allowing any member of a UC campus community to report incidents of intolerance or bias and development of a comprehensive UC systemwide campus climate assessment; (4) the formation of an Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion whose members have conducted in-depth visits with Jewish students and groups on UC campuses to better understand their concerns and challenges and report back to the President of the UC.
Recognizing the bill as an attack on
free speech, the student association at the University of California (ASUC)
voted against its implementation on their campus and increased support for the
BDS movement and divestments from all countries guilty of human rights
violations.
The association’s resolution states that, “much of HR 35 is written to unfairly
and falsely smear as ‘anti-Semites’ those who do human rights advocacy focusing
on Israel’s illegal occupation, alleging that the UC faculty and staff involved
in such work are motivated by anti-Semitism rather than by the political ideals
of equality and respect for universal human rights they affirm, ideals UCSA and
most California students share.” Two
years previously the student association had voted overwhelmingly in favor of
university divestment from companies that aided human rights violations by
supplying Israel with items such as the bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian
homes and surveillance and security equipment used at illegal checkpoints. Even
though the vote passed 16-4, it was vetoed by the ASUC President Will Smelko
and the student senate was not able to obtain enough votes to overturn the
veto.
The students at the University of
California have long been aware of the lobby’s most powerful tool and their
refusal to be intimidated is both refreshing and encouraging. Unfortunately the
lobby is still succeeding in using this tool to distract people from learning
about and discussing the issues of the Occupation because most people are not
as aware of the exploitation of the term anti-Semitism as the students of ASUC
are. In this regard, while still choosing to discuss Israeli policies at UC,
many people only hear about the controversy created by the lobby and have
little interest in associating themselves with what they perceive is
anti-Semitism.
The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has an entire section of its website dedicated to
U.S. anti-Israel Activity.
This section of the website tracks and condemns anti-Israel speakers, groups
and educators, and posts articles about what ADL does to counter anti-Israel
sentiment on college campuses. It also has a subsection titled “Resources for
Israel Advocates, Students and Administrators.” The Israel lobby has been
remarkably successful in the past and continues to stifle debate and smear its
opposition. However, it does appear that Americans are gradually starting to
realize that they are being deceived and manipulated. Perhaps if those who are
aware of this exploitative strategy continue to speak out against the false
application of the term anti-Semitism, the effectiveness of the accusation will
eventually disintegrate.
Because
it is not enough to only prevent students from thinking critically but also the
general public, the lobby’s second target is news media and journalists. Two
political cartoonists were recently charged with anti-Semitism. The first was
run in the UK newspaper The Guardian and portrayed Tony Blair and William Hague
as puppets of Netanyahu who stood behind a podium with a background of Israeli
flags in the shape of rockets as well as a few launched rockets. The
Community Security Trust (CST), an organization whose purpose is to train and
protect Jews against anti-Semitism and violence, said of the cartoon, “too many
Guardian contributors continue to get away with using antisemitic imagery and
tropes, the latest example being Steve Bell's cartoon…showing Tony Blair and
William Hague as puppets of Bibi Netanyahu. This is an unoriginal way of
visualizing the old antisemitic charge that Jews are all-powerful."
The second cartoon appeared in the
Sunday Times and showed Netanyahu building a wall on top of Palestinians. Dying
Palestinians appear trapped under and inside the wall as Netanyahu uses their
blood for mortar. Critics say that the blood dripping off Netanyahu’s trowel
presumably coming from innocent people is reminiscent of classic anti-Semitic
blood libels. What these critics do
not acknowledge is that the artist, Gerald Scarfe frequently uses blood in
graphic political cartoons, recently portraying Bashar al-Assad as a disfigured
monster drinking children’s blood. Blood
even features artistically on Scarfe’s official website. No one
accused Scarfe of hating Arabs or Muslims because of his portrayal of Assad,
yet an even milder cartoon of Netanyahu somehow merits being labeled an
anti-Semite. Thankfully people and organizations can distinguish between
attacks on a political leader and an ethnicity or religion when it comes to
Islam. The pro-Israel lobby has made this more difficult when it comes to
Judaism. Instead of defending Scarfe and freedom of speech, the Sunday Times
surrendered under the accusation. The official apology published by the Sunday
Times reads in part
It is one thing for a newspaper to attack and
caricature a leader…But it is another thing to reflect in a caricature, even
unintentionally, historical iconography that is persecutory or anti-semitic. The image we published of Binyamin Netanyahu…which appeared to show him
revelling [sic] in the blood of Palestinians, crossed a line. The image would
have been a mistake on any day but the fact that last Sunday was Holocaust
Memorial Day compounded the error. We realize that we caused grave offence,
however unintended, which detracted from a day that marks one of the greatest
evils in human history. The Sunday Times abhors anti-semitism and racism of any
type and we would never set out to offend the Jewish people — or indeed any
other ethnic or religious group. The publication of last week’s cartoon was a
very serious mistake.
Not
only is this incident an example of the equation of criticism of Israeli policy
and anti-Semitism, but it is also an example of the way the lobby uses the cry
of anti-Semitism to distract the public from the issues the cartoonists were
attempting to communicate. What attention the cartoons received led to a
discussion of the definition of anti-Semitism and whether or not criticism of
Israel should be allowed. What is not mentioned, however, is the criminality of
the separation barrier and all its disastrous consequences for the Palestinian
people. The extent that the US and UK governments bend to the wishes of Israel
is also not discussed, though that irony is in itself evidence of the cartoonist’s
message. As long as the public and the media keep believing and falling into
the hysteria that surrounds these accusations, the real issues at hand will not
be discussed.
These
attacks on British newspapers are nothing new. In 2006 the Guardian was
attacked by a group of lobbyists including the Israeli ambassador because the
agency had published an article comparing Israeli policy toward Palestinians
with apartheid in South Africa. President of the Board of Deputies of British
Jews, Henry Grunwald along with Community Security Trust chairman Gerald Ronson
confronted Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian. Ronson told Rusbridger, “I’m in favour of
free speech but there is a line which can’t be crossed and, as far as I’m
concerned, you’ve crossed it, and you must stop this.” Ronson
accused The Guardian of being responsible for antisemitic attacks. Rusbridger
commented on the accusation, “I’d be interested in the evidence, I’m not sure
how you make that causal connection between someone reading an article that is
critical of the foreign policy of Israel and then thinking why don’t I go out
and mug Jews on the streets of London. I just can’t believe that happens.”
The Guardian is not the only agency
to fall victim. The BBC is one of the most reputable sources in the world,
however even it and its reporters have suffered from the accusation of
anti-Semitism. Orla Guerin reported on Israel’s exploitation of a story
concerning a young boy who had almost become a suicide bomber. A cabinet
minister complained to the BBC that the piece was anti-Semitic. When
reporter Jeremy Bowen wrote an article commemorating the 1967 Arab-Israeli war,
several pro-Israel (including the American organization CAMERA) sources
attacked him for bias and inaccuracy. BBC journalists were denied entrance to
Israel after the BBC published a documentary on Israel’s nuclear weapons
program. Ben Bradshaw, a former BBC reporter said, “I’m afraid the BBC has to
stand up to the Israeli authorities occasionally. Israel has a long reputation
of bullying the BBC….I’m afraid the BBC has been cowed by this relentless and
persistent pressure from the Israeli government and they should stand up
against it.”
The Bowen article and the nuclear weapons documentary resulted in many more
accusations of anti-Zionism than anti-Semitism, although both occurred. The
charge of bias and anti-Zionism is often enough to intimidate the BBC from
reporting negatively on Israel. However, it does appear that the charge of
anti-Semitism has been more effective in the US than it has been in
Britain.
Criticism of Israel in general is
very low in American news media. This is because from the very beginning of the
movement, criticism of Zionism and Israeli policy was discredited as
anti-Semitism. This fear of appearing anti-Semitic has contributed to the
biased view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that pervades American culture.
Unfortunately, and yet for obvious reasons, anti-Arab and Islamophobic bigotry
do not have the same stigma as anti-Semitism. One example to put this attitude
in perspective is the current debate about Islamic/Sharia law in America. The
ADL denounces the fear of a Sharia takeover in America as “one of the more
pernicious conspiracy theories…with even some presidential candidates voicing
fears about the supposed threat of Sharia to our way of life and as many as 13
states considering or having already passed bills that would prohibit the
application of Sharia law.” Jews
have used Talmudic law in America in much the same way that Muslims have used
Sharia, if not more so. Yet, America is not losing its head over a conspiracy
that Jewish law is going to take over the American legal system. That truly
would be an outrageous anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Yet somehow this theory
is acceptable when the word Talmudic/Jewish is exchanged for Sharia/Islamic.
This shows how skewed American perceptions of bigotry are.
When it comes to Israeli policy people would
rather err on the side of caution. Many would rather be seen as favoring Israel
and Jews than Arabs, Palestinian, Iranians and Muslims. In 1986 postmodern
author and playwright Gore Vidal wrote an article in The Nation attacking
Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter for an unwillingness to recognize
the atrocities, including slaughter and imposition of government and religion,
that America committed against Mexico (including California), Hawaii, Puerto
Rico and the Philippines. Vidal also claims, as became the subject of controversy
that Podhoretz and Decter were not truly
assimilated Americans, that their loyalty would always lie with Israel first,
and that raising money for Israel was the reason they remained in America and
supported Zionism. Vidal
was accused of spouting anti-Semitic notions of dual-loyalty, for hating Jews,
and for saying that the majority of American Jews are simply tools for Israel.
Podhoretz claimed that not only did Vidal hate Jews, but that his article was
an example of resurgence in anti-Semitic thought. Vidal
also accuses far-right Americans of supporting radical Israeli leaders and
hating more reasonable Israelis, such as those of the Peace Now movement.
America should, in Vidal’s opinion, cease foreign aid to Israel and the rest of
the Arab world, suggesting that America detangle itself from the politics of
the Middle East. He also accuses the Podhoretz and his wife of trying to “outdo those moral majoritarians,”
in their hatred of African Americans, homosexuals and liberals, “who will, as
Armageddon draws near, either convert all the Jews, just as the Good Book says,
or kill them.”
While extremely offensive to the Podhoretz and his wife, and in great need of
added tact and understanding of Christianity, the article is in no way anti-Semitic.
It is a juvenile personal attack on one couple, but a legitimate appeal for isolationist
foreign policy. Taking the absurd and childish accusations one step further,
Podhoretz implied that those who did not see anti-Semitism in Vidal’s article would
also not see it in the famous anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion.
The hyperbole with which Podhoretz and other Zionists react to criticism of
Israel damages their credibility. It does not, however, stop the charge of
anti-Semitism from sticking and damaging people’s reputations and discrediting
their arguments in the sight of much of the American public.
Commenting on the Podhoretz-Vidal
controversy, Edwin M. Yoder of the Washington Post claims that the same
terrible logic that led to Vidal being labeled anti-Semitic also earned him the
label of anti-Israel. Yoder writes, “Podhoretz graciously concedes that, ‘It is
possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic.’ Thanks, we needed
that. But has Podhoretz noticed that if one is critical of an Israeli policy
that one may be accused of attacking Israel’s legitimacy? And of being a crypto
anti-Semite?”
The ease with which reporters receive the anti-Semite label should raise
suspicion amongst Americans.
Dorothy Thompson was a popular
American columnist and feminist in the 1930’s. Banned by Hitler from reporting
in Germany, Thompson was a harsh and outspoken critic of Nazism and Communism,
for which she was also banned from Russia. An early supporter of Zionism, Thompson
changed her views in light of the suffering of Palestinians. For her criticism
of Israel she was branded an anti-Semite. Even a
journalist who led the fight against Hitler since before he came to power in
Germany is not immune from the anti-Semite label should she not look favorably
upon Zionist massacres.
In 1975 Carl Rowan wrote, “When I
wrote my recent column about what I perceive to be a subtle erosion of support
for Israel in this town, I was under no illusion as to what the reaction would
be. I was prepared for a barrage of letters to me and newspapers carrying my
column accusing me of being "anti-Semitic" ... The mail rolling in
has met my worst expectations ... This whining baseless name-calling is a
certain way to turn friends into enemies.” Those
journalists who insinuate that Israel may have made a poor policy decision
often do so knowing that they will receive backlash and accusations of
anti-Semitism.
The attack on Joseph Sobran was
appalling. Sobran wrote articles criticizing Israel as well as both supporting
and criticizing aspects of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. This was enough for
Midge Decter to proclaim in a letter to Sobran that “I wish to spell out my
shock and disgust- and contempt- at the discovery that you are little more than
a crude and naked anti-Semite.” Joseph
Sobran said of the incident, “The word ‘anti-Semitism’ is more potent than most
of the charges of bigotry that are flung around these days. It carries the
whiff of Nazism and mass murder. ‘It means,’ as a friend of mine puts it, ‘that
you ultimately approve of the gas chambers.’”
Sobran’s critics attempted to have him blacklisted, and prevent his column from
being published in newspapers. Sobran
is in no way anti-Semitic. If he had attacked an Arab government’s policy no
reasonable person would have tried to have him blacklisted for anti-Muslim
bigotry. People argue that Israel is important to Jews and Judaism and so to
attack it is to attack Jews and therefore to be anti-Semitic. Although it does
not have the same perceived security importance that Israel does for many Jews,
Saudi Arabia is of great religious importance to Muslims world-wide. This
religious importance often transfers into the political sphere as well. Yet
people frequently criticize archaic and sexist Saudi Arabian policy, and
rightly so, without being accused of hating Muslims. In the case of every other
country in the world reasonable people are able to distinguish between
criticism of a government and hatred of an ethnicity. Yet the pro-Israel lobby
has exploited historical and contemporary Jewish suffering to intimidate
critics of Zionism and to create a culture where criticism of Israel is largely
unacceptable.
The results of this decades-long
strategy can be seen today in the biased reporting of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict in US news agencies. The pro-Palestinian advocacy group If Americans
Knew has conducted numerous studies of US media coverage of the conflict. The
results of these studies are disturbing to say the least. The website contains
a vast database of articles analyzing bias in media coverage including false
allegations that Israel does not engage in torture, exposing the family ties
that high ranking news editors have to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF),
mistranslation of Arabic sources, underreporting of non-violent Palestinian
resistance, as well as misleading and incomplete historical background.Another
series of articles documents censorship by various news organizations.
More
disturbing than these reports, however, is a statistical analysis of inaccurate
reporting of Palestinian and Israeli deaths in American media. Recognizing that
claims of biased reporting are more powerful when qualitative investigations
are paired with quantitative studies, If Americans Knew examined the headlines
and first paragraphs of newspaper articles to determine the accuracy with which
deaths in the conflict were reported in 2001 and 2004. This is a way to
quantify the fairness of the reporting and detect any bias. The organization
also conducted a one month study of reporting that examined full articles.
These deaths are Israelis killed by Palestinians and Palestinians killed by
Israelis; they do not include incidents of friendly fire or murder by the same
nationality. Researchers determined that in 2001 the New York Times reported
197 Israeli deaths in the headline and/or first paragraphs; the death toll that
year for Israelis had been 165 (some deaths were reported more than once). In
the same year the New York Times headlines and/or first paragraphs reported 233
Palestinian deaths; the death toll that year for Palestinians was 549. “In
other words, 119% of Israeli deaths and only 42% of Palestinian deaths were
reported in New York Times headlines or first paragraphs. That is, The
Times reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.8 times greater
than Palestinian deaths.”
In 2004 149% of Israeli deaths and 49% of Palestinian deaths were reported in
headlines and/or first paragraphs. This means that Israeli deaths were reported
3.6 times greater than were Palestinian deaths.
The
bias in reporting children’s deaths was even greater. In 2001 New York Times
headlines or first paragraphs reported on Israeli children’s deaths (28) 6.8
times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths (131). “In other words, 125%
of Israeli children’s deaths and only 18% of Palestinian children’s deaths were
reported by The New York Times in headlines or first paragraphs.”
In 2004 the discrepancy grew even larger.
In
the study of deaths reported in full articles the discrepancy between Israeli
and Palestinian deaths was slightly higher than in the studies of headlines and
first paragraphs. The report also shows
that Palestinian deaths were mentioned towards the end of the articles while
Israeli deaths were reported at the beginning of the articles. “Every death
mentioned solely in the last two paragraphs of an article was Palestinian.”
This tendency to add the Palestinian deaths in at the end of an article makes
it less likely that readers will actually see the Palestinian deaths reported.
The context in which the deaths were reported also contained bias. “While
Israeli deaths were often depicted as innocent victims of Palestinian
aggression, Palestinian deaths were generally portrayed as a necessary result
of conflict, the victims frequently identified as combatants.”
The pro-Israel bias at the New York Times is difficult to deny. Reports
revealed that in 2001, “ABC, CBS, and NBC reported Israeli deaths at rates 3.1,
3.8, and 4.0 times higher than Palestinian deaths, respectively. In 2004 these
rates increased or stayed constant, to 4.0, 3.8, and 4.4.”
Biased reporting in favor of Israel is not an anomaly.
These
reports are not isolated incidents. Somehow America has developed a culture of
caring more about Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths. Fear of being labeled
anti-Semitic has led reporters and news agencies to be cautious about the
manner in which they report on the conflict. There is a mutually reinforcing
relationship between American support for Israel at the expense of Palestine
and the way the conflict is reported in the media. (Various polls taken
throughout the past decade show that about 49-64% of Americans sympathize more with
Israel and about 13-20% sympathize more with Palestinians).
The more the public sees skewed coverage of the conflict the more they side
with Israel, and the more people side with Israel the less likely reporters and
news agencies are report more accurately. This is partially due to the fact
that all news agencies cater, at least in part, to what their audiences want to
hear. Another factor in this undeniable bias is the fear of being charged with
anti-Semitism. The pro-Israel lobby appears to be winning the battle to subdue
debate about Israeli policy and withhold information that portrays Israel in a
negative light.
Finally, those few politicians who have
managed to look past the ploys of equating anti-Semitism with anti-Israeli
beliefs and educate themselves on the negative outcomes of unconditional support
for Israel usually support foreign policies contrary to the desires of the
lobby. Those politicians are instantly and viciously attacked and labeled
anti-Semitic. This charge often ruins politicians’ careers and motivates many
others to blindly follow the lobby’s lead. The previously mentioned example
given by Mearsheimer and Waltz of the lobby’s influence in the decision to
invade Iraq is only one example.
Mohamed Seif El-Dawla is a writer, Arab nationalist, Islamist and
adviser to Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. He wrote in his blog in January
2011, “After the Zionists and their allies were terrorized all people of the
world were without criticism for (Israel), afraid of the charge of
anti-Semitism… In the past decades tyranny succeeded in spreading a culture of
anti-Palestinianism, meaning the criminalization… of everything that is
Palestinian.”* Mohamed explains that fear of the charge of anti-Semitism and
its consequences has caused even the Arab governments to abandon the
Palestinians.
While the sympathy of the Arab people generally lies with Palestinians, their
leaders often feel that they cannot afford to alienate the US by advocating for
the rights of Palestinians. Politicians and rulers must maintain a delicate
balance between the desires of the US and those of their constituents. This
situation shows just how effective the charge of anti-Semitism is against
politicians.
Paul Findley had served in the US
House of Representatives for 22 years when he re-ran for Representative of
Illinois in 1981. Pro-Israel political action committees spent $104,236 to
defeat him in that campaign because he did not toe the line with the Israel
lobby, supporting policy change in the Middle East. Findley claims that this is
the reason he lost a close race for congress. He believes that he was targeting
as an example to other politicians who might be tempted to take a more
even-handed approach to Middle East policy. He
wrote of the incident
In the last
years of my long service in Congress, I spoke out…. In 1980, my opponent
charged me with anti-Semitism, and money poured into his campaign fund from
every state in the Union. I prevailed that year but two years later lost by a
narrow margin. In 1984, Sen. Charles Percy, then chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee and an occasional critic of Israel, was defeated. Leaders
of the Israel lobby claimed credit for defeating both Percy and me, claims that
strengthened lobby influence in the years that followed.”
He wrote his book, They Dare to
Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israel Lobby published in
1985, shortly after this experience.
The attack on former president Jimmy
Carter because of his book, Palestine Peace not Apartheid, published in
2006 has brutally followed the pattern of using the charge of anti-Semitism to
smear qualified and knowledgeable objectors to Israeli policy. Recently, the
student-run Journal of Conflict Resolution at Yeshiva University’s
Cardozo Law School granted Jimmy Carter the International Advocate for Peace
award. One of
the reasons the journal decided to grant the award was because of Carter’s
negotiation of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. The
Coalition of Concerned Cardozo Alumni compare Jimmy Carter to David Duke,
former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and claims that “he is
responsible for helping to mainstream the antisemitic notion that Israel is an
apartheid state with his provocatively titled book “Palestine: Peace Not
Apartheid,” the publication of which prompted mass resignations from the Carter
Center.”
Harvard Law professor and radical Israel advocate Alan Dershowitz, who has a
tendency to exaggerate and invent facts, said of Carter, “He's never met a
terrorist he didn't love, and never met an Israeli whom he did.” Dershowitz also challenged Carter to a debate
concerning his human rights record. The National Council of Young Israel
stated, “Mr. Carter’s well-known animus and bias towards the State of Israel
has earned him widespread condemnation from Jews and non-Jews alike, and he
certainly does not deserve to have any honor bestowed upon by him by an entity
that has ties to the Jewish community and the Jewish State.” The
definition of bias towards Israel is likely very inclusive in NCYI’s
vocabulary. The Zionist Organization of America said that Carter had a
“repellant, decades-long record as an Israel-basher and promoter of Israel’s
most vicious enemies, including Hamas.” The
instant vilification of Carter that occurred as soon as he challenged Israel
and was declared an anti-Semite has made it easy for these offensive
accusations to go largely unchallenged. Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2002 for brokering the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979.
Though that may have been detrimental to a peaceful solution for the
Palestinians because it destroyed the balance of power in the region, there is
no denying that the peace treaty did a lot more to secure Israel’s safety than
the actions of many other presidents. Yet the use of the word “apartheid” and giving
an account of the Palestinian side of the issue was enough for the lobby to
white-out his record and achievements and label him an anti-Semite. If this can
happen to Carter after all he accomplished for Israel’s security, then
absolutely no one is immune from the highly effective weapon of the anti-Semite
label.
Besides smearing and discrediting a
pro-peace advocate, another effect of the misapplied label is that it has
shifted the focus of Carter’s book away from discussing the Israeli policies
that many believe resemble apartheid. Not only is the charge of anti-Semitism a
powerful tool of the lobby, but the debate it creates is also a tool of
distraction. The former president wrote the book to educate the American public
on the Palestinian side of the conflict, which largely due to the lobby is
rarely discussed. Now because the lobby has created such uproar over whether or
not Carter is an anti-Semite, the public as well as the media is preoccupied
with the accusations as well as afraid to discuss Carters ideas out of fear
that they too will be labeled anti-Semitic and have their reputations tarnished
and careers destroyed. While people are busy debating whether or not Carter is
allowed to criticize the separation barrier/apartheid wall, the wall continues
to expand and steal more Palestinian land, impoverish the people and costing
America millions of dollars as part of an annual aid package of three billion
dollars.
Chuck Hagel’s appointment to
Secretary of Defense created nationwide controversy. While other pro-Israel
advocate groups took up the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel charge, AIPAC was
completely silent on the nomination. AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittman stated,
“Our position remains the same as it always has been...AIPAC does not take positions
on presidential nominations.” Dan Senor argued to Senator McCaskill that,
“The American Jewish committee have come out with deep concerns, the
Anti-Defamation League, Simon Wiesenthal Center, even the National Jewish
Democratic Council [all have concerns on Hagel’s nomination].” She
replied, “You and I both know that if Chuck Hagel presented a threat to Israel,
AIPAC would be swarming over the Hill.” The
Emergency Committee for Israel created a website
dedicated to the misinterpretation of pro-Israel statements and the
condemnation of statements not in line with the group’s extreme views. One
example of such a statement came in 2002, “We understand Israel’s right to defend itself. We are committed to that
right. We have helped Israel defend that right. We will continue to do so. But
it should not be at the expense of the Palestinian people–innocent Palestinian
people and innocent Israelis who are paying a high price. Both Israelis and
Palestinians are trapped in a war not of their making.”
It should not be difficult to understand that there are innocent people on both
sides who are suffering because the extreme factions in their nations have
perpetuated this conflict.
However, the committee
claimed that this statement was proof that, “Hagel largely absolved
Palestinians of responsibility for their campaign of terrorism against Israel.” Hagel
clearly did nothing of the sort. He acknowledged that Palestinians as well as
Israelis are often victims in this conflict, and that American policy should
keep the innocent people of both groups in mind. The committee does not allow
for any spectrum of Palestinian ideology; either they are all innocent (as they
falsely seem to think Hagel is suggesting) or they are all responsible for the
actions of terrorists. Simplification of complicated problems does not
identify, much less address, the problems, and therefore the problems cannot be
solved. Instead of dogmatically absolving Israel of any responsibility for the
conflict, the committee should support policies that recognize the facts and
nuances of the conflict.
The Emergency Committee for Israel’s
website cites another quote by Hagel and says that it was given at a conference
for “Palestinian advocacy group J Street.” While definitely leftist in its
views, J Street is part of the American pro-Israel lobby. It just
so happens that J Street is much more in line with the positions of average
Israelis. J Street condemns the settlements (especially the announcement of new
settlements in the integral E-1 area), believing that settlements will be the
death of the two-state solution (and therefore also the death of the Jewish
state). However, it also condemns the BDS movement that seems to be the focus
of so much controversy. J Street takes a practical approach to supporting and
protecting Israel. J Street “makes clear to politicians and policymakers alike
that no one group can claim a monopoly on what it means to be pro-Israel in
America. J Street aims to redefine and expand the very concept of what it means
to be pro-Israel. No longer should this “pro-” require an “anti-.’” J
street recognizes that blind support for extremist elements in the Israeli
government is an existential threat to Israel and fights to implement policies
that will protect Israel. That The Emergency Committee for Israel would deem a
potential ally for peace in Israel as a pro-Palestinian enemy is not only a
window to the extremist policies of many self-proclaimed pro-Israel groups, but
it also illuminates a lack of fundamental understanding of Palestinian-Israeli
conflict on the part of the committee.
The
same lack of basic understanding can be seen in many groups, such as Christians
United for Israel (CUFI) who trains students on how to combat campus
discussions about the Occupation and settlements.
CUFI also stated their opposition to the appointment of Chuck Hagel, supposedly
based on his voting record concerning Hizbollah. The fact remains that though
Hagel occasionally criticizes Israeli policy, he still favors Israel over all
other countries in the Middle East, and will likely not attempt to implement
policy that strays from the current US position.
Even political satire is not immune
from the lobby if it is favorable of an “enemy” of the lobby. Saturday Night
Live ran a parody on Hulu (although the skit did not make it into the televised
cut) that satirized Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing. “The skit focuses on
the controversy over Sen. Hagel’s remarks about Israel and takes them to a
ridiculous extreme by showing several prominent senators on the Armed Services
Committee engaged in a game of one-upmanship in expressing support for Israel.” While
outlandish and amusing throughout, the skit does degenerate into raunchy satire
as is the template for a well-received SNL sketch and indeed many successful
evening television programs. The Anti-Defamation
League wrote a letter to Saturday Night Live, expressing its concern over the
supposed anti-Semitic themes contained in the skit. While acknowledging that
for most audiences it would simply be entertainment, the group warns that
“elements of the skit could play into the worst kind of ideas, even reinforcing
pernicious notions of Jewish control of government in the vein of those
routinely espoused by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites...”
Framing Hagel as an
anti-Semite and an Israel hater hyped up suspicion of him to the point that
people easily accepted the accusation that he received campaign contributions
from groups such as “Friends of Hamas” and the “Junior League of Hezbollah,” as
well as spoke at their conferences. Chuck Hagel was hounded with questions
regarding his campaign funding in light of these allegations. While this may
appear to be a ridiculous situation, it does actually get worse. Friends of
Hamas and Junior League of Hezbollah do not even exist. The entire scandal was
the result of journalist Dan Friedman’s joking question. Friedman explains,
On Feb. 6, I called a Republican aide on Capitol Hill with a question:
Did Hagel’s Senate critics know of controversial groups that he had addressed?
Hagel was in hot water for alleged hostility to Israel. So, I asked my source,
had Hagel given a speech to, say, the “Junior League of Hezbollah, in France”?
And: What about “Friends of Hamas”? The names were so over-the-top, so linked
to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically
and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations
with those names existed — let alone that a former senator would speak to them.
Yet the rumor spread
and numerous agencies picked up the story without checking the facts, although
Breitbart.com still claims the information is true and was obtained through
three sources that do not include Friedman- which still ignores the fact that
Friends of Hamas and Junior League of Hezbollah simply do not exist.
The charge of anti-Semitism is clearly effective in smearing reputations and
distracting people from learning about and discussing the ideas of talented
politicians whose views of Israel do not conform to the lobby’s demands.
By attacking educational
institutions, news agencies and politicians with more moderate views toward
Israel, the pro-Israel lobby is able to portray competing approaches to foreign
policy as bigotry. This discourages voters and public officials from
investigating more even-handed policy ideas that would likely be more
beneficial to the United States and Israel as well. If criticism of Israel is not seen as a
legitimate political view, but instead as anti-Semitism, people are less likely
to give policy change any consideration. People do not generally like to
associate themselves with racism. Likewise, they do not want to waste their
time with a useless conspiracy theory. Anti-Semitism is not only racism, but is
often linked with conspiracy theories. Nowadays, when people want to discredit
an argument against Israel, they link it to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories
from the past such as blood libels, the false assertion that Jews control the
media and government and others. That is not to say that these anti-Semitic
conspiracy theories are not still propagated by some. The author has both seen
the portrayal of blood libels as well as heard conspiracy theories of Jewish
control from the mouths of otherwise highly educated and cultured individuals.
However, to equate anti-Israeli political views with anti-Semitism is to abuse
the power gained by invoking the Holocaust and exploiting human fear and
sympathy to the detriment of both academic freedom and proper safeguarding
against anti-Semitism. Raul Hilberg, known as the founder of Holocaust Studies,
describes this process as “moral blackmail.”
Not
only is it wrong to equate anti-Semitism with being anti-Israeli, but it is
infantile to think that criticism of Israeli policy is the same as being
anti-Israel. Criticism of a government policy does not equal opposition to the
country in general. If this were the case then most Americans would be
anti-American, and most Israelis would be anti-Israel. Many critics of Israel
have been accused of anti-Semitism, but the truth is that they cannot even be
considered anti-Israel let alone anti-Semitic. Some academics who criticize
Israeli policy surely qualify as anti-Israel. However, many of the most
prominent critics do so in the hopes that policy change will benefit the US and
ensure the security of Israelis and the Jewish state as well as Palestinians
and Arabs.
One
reason the charge of anti-Semitism is so effective is because foreign policy,
especially concerning Israel and the Middle East, is extremely complicated and
takes a lot of background knowledge to understand. Even supposed experts on the
subject do not agree. When presented with various perspectives on American
policy toward Israel it is much easier to choose one that is simplified and
framed in terms of protecting Jews from a second Holocaust than one that
requires research of complicated issues, nuanced historical and political
understanding and has been accused of being anti-Semitic. In short, it is
easier to side with whatever the pro-Israel lobby wants. It is this tragic
situation that led Leonard Fein, founder of the National Jewish Coalition for
Literacy, to remark, “Ah, anti-Semitism. How convenient a method for those who
would avoid the search for motive.”
Finkelstein, Norman. 2005Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and
the Abuse of History. Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press ( 21).
Finkelstein, Norman. 2005. Beyond Chutzpah : On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and
the Abuse of History.Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press. (22).
Forster, Arnold and Benjamin R. Epstein. 1974. The New Anti-Semitism.
Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company: New York (5).
Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M.
Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux (232).
Goodman, Amy. "'It Takes an
Enormous Amount of Courage to Speak the Truth When No One Else is Out
There'—World-Renowned Holocaust, Israel Scholars Defend DePaul Professor Norman
Finkelstein as He Fights for Tenure."DemocracyNow.org. 9 May 2007 http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2007/5/9 (Accessed March 24, 2013).
The pro-Israel lobby in Britain: full
text Peter Oborne and James Jones. 13 November 2009. Middle East Monitor. (17) http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/documents/The-pro-Israel-lobby-in-Britain-full-text.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2013).
Award for Jimmy Carter Fuels Outcry
at Jewish University. USA Today. Martha T. Moore. April 10 2013.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/10/jimmy-carter-cardozo-law-award/2070963/
(Accessed April 10, 2013).
