Avoiding the Search for Motive: How the pro-Israel lobby uses the charge of anti-Semitism to stifle political discussion of Israel

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.”[1]  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.”[2] 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.”[3] 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.[4] (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.”[5]

            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.”[6] 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.”[7] 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.”[8] 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.”[9] 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.”[10] 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.”[11] 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.”[12] 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.”[13] 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.[14]

            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.’”[15] 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.”[16]  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.”[17] 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.”[18] 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.”[19] 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.[20] 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.[21] Walt and Mearsheimer cite the warnings against the Iraq invasion voiced by the government of Saudi Arabia, all of which are true today.[22] However, the US relied on largely false information which was gained and exaggerated in cooperation with Israel.[23] 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.”[24] 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.[25] While criticizing the polemical style of Finkelstein, Hilberg argues that his scholarship and methodology is of the highest quality.[26] 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.[27] 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?"[28]

            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.”[29]  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.”[30] 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."[31] 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.”[32] 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.”[33]

            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.[34] 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.[35]  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.”[36] 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,”[37]  because she spoke out against Israeli policy and supported the BDS movement. [38]

            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,[39] 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.”[40] 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?”[41] 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.'"[42]

            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.”[43] 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.”[44] 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.”[45] 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.”[46] 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.” [47] 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.”[48] 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.[49]       

               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.[50]

           

            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.[51] 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.”[52] 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.[53]

            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.[54] 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.[55] 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."[56]

            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. [57] Blood even features artistically on Scarfe’s official website.[58] 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.[59]

            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.”[60] 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.”[61]          

            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.[62] 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.” [63] 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.”[64] 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.[65] 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.[66] 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.”[67] 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.[68] 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?”[69] 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.[70] 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.”[71] 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.”[72] 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.’”[73] Sobran’s critics attempted to have him blacklisted, and prevent his column from being published in newspapers.[74] 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.[75]Another series of articles documents censorship by various news organizations.[76]

            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.”[77] 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. [78]

            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.” [79] 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.”[80] 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.”[81] 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).[82] 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.[83] 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.[84] 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.”[85]

            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.[86] 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.[87] 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.”[88] 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.” [89]  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.”[90] 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.”[91] 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.[92]

            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.”[93]  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].”[94] She replied, “You and I both know that if Chuck Hagel presented a threat to Israel, AIPAC would be swarming over the Hill.”[95] The Emergency Committee for Israel created a website[96] 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.”[97] 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.”[98] 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.[99] 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-.’”[100] 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.[101] 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.”[102] 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...”[103]

            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.[104]

            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.[105] 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.”[106]

            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.” [107]

---

[1] Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, 1974. The New Anti-Semitism. New York: McGraw-Hill. ( 324).

[2] Finkelstein, Norman. 2005Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press ( 21).

[3] Finkelstein, Norman. 2005. Beyond Chutzpah : On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press. (22).

[4] Forster, Arnold and Benjamin R. Epstein. 1974. The New Anti-Semitism. Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company: New York (5).

[5] Forster, Arnold and Benjamin R. Epstein. The New Anti-Semitism. 1974. Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company: New York (17).

[6] Finkelstein, Norman G. 2003. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering. New York: Verso (31).

[7] Finkelstein, Norman G. 2003. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering. New York: Verso (34-35).

[8]Finkelstein, Norman G. 2003. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering. New York: Verso (37-38).

[9] Foxman, Abraham H. 2007. The Deadliest Lies: The Israel lobby and the myth of Jewish control. New York: Palgrave MacMillan (55).

[10] Foxman, Abraham H. 2007. The Deadliest Lies: The Israel lobby and the myth of Jewish control. New York: Palgrave MacMillan (56).

[11] Foxman, Abraham H. 2007. The Deadliest Lies: The Israel lobby and the myth of Jewish control. New York: Palgrave MacMillan (56).

[12] Foxman, Abraham H. 2007. The Deadliest Lies: The Israel lobby and the myth of Jewish control. New York: Palgrave MacMillan (56).

[13] Foxman, Abraham H. 2007. The Deadliest Lies: The Israel lobby and the myth of Jewish control. New York: Palgrave MacMillan (56-57).

[14] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (5).

[15] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (169).

[16] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (168).

[17] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (196).

[18] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (199).

[19] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (203).

[20] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (231-232, 235).

[21] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (236-237).

[22] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (254).

[23] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (236).

[24]  Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (232).

[25] Klein, David. Why is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach? http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/finkelstein.html (accessed March 23, 2013).

[26] 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).

[27] Klein, David. Why is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach? http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/finkelstein.html (Accessed March 23, 2013).

[28] Klein, David. Why is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach? http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/finkelstein.html (Accessed March 24, 2013).

[29] A French Lesson For Tom Harkin. Daniel Pipes. January 5 2004. http://www.danielpipes.org/1414/a-french-lesson-for-tom-harkin (Accessed April 15 2013).

[30]Campus Watch. Keep Us Informed. http://www.campus-watch.org/incident.php (Accessed April 15 2003).

[31]Campus Watch. Keep Us Informed. http://www.campus-watch.org/incident.php (Accessed April 15 2003).

[32] Introducing the BDS Movement. BDS Movement: Freedom Justice Equality. http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro (Accessed April 17 2013).

[33] Introducing the BDS Movement. BDS Movement: Freedom Justice Equality. http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro (Accessed April 17 2013).

[34] US Mennonite Church divests from Israeli human rights abuses. March 26, 2013. http://www.bdsmovement.net/2013/us-mennonite-church-divests-from-israeli-human-rights-abuses-10851 (Accessed April 17 2013)

[35]Church of England divests from US bulldozer biz. February 9. 2009.  http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/09/66055.html (Accessed April 17 2013).

[36] Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (189).

[37] Israel-Bashing CSU Prof to Fight Anti-Semitism? Lee Kaplan. Frontpage Magazine. December 11 2012. Campus Watch Research. http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/12747 (Accessed April 15 2013).

[38] Campus Watch Research. http://www.campus-watch.org/docs/type/research (Accessed April 15 2013).

[39] Rabbis For Human Rights. http://rhr.org.il/eng/ (Accessed April 15 2013).

[40] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. July 1992. The AIPAC Politics of Smear.  (7-8, 89-91) http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/10030-the-secret-section-in-israels-us-lobby-that-stifles-american-debate.html (Accessed April 16 2013).

[41] Findley, Paul. Pressure on Campus, excerpted from They Dare to Speak Out. If Americans Knew. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/us_ints/pg-campus.html (Accessed April 16 2013).

[42] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. July 1992. The AIPAC Politics of Smear.  (7-8, 89-91) http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/10030-the-secret-section-in-israels-us-lobby-that-stifles-american-debate.html (Accessed April 16 2013).

[43] Findley, Paul. Pressure on Campus, excerpted from They Dare to Speak Out. If Americans Knew. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/us_ints/pg-campus.html (Accessed April 16 2013).

[44] Findley, Paul. Pressure on Campus, excerpted from They Dare to Speak Out. If Americans Knew. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/us_ints/pg-campus.html (Accessed April 16 2013).

[45] UK academic union’s right to boycott Israel upheld by employment tribunal. March 26 2013. BDS Movement: Freedom Justice Equality. http://www.bdsmovement.net/2013/uk-academic-unions-right-to-boycott-israel-upheld-by-employment-tribunal-10835 (Accessed April 4, 2013).

[46] UK academic union’s right to boycott Israel upheld by employment tribunal. March 26 2013. BDS Movement: Freedom Justice Equality. http://www.bdsmovement.net/2013/uk-academic-unions-right-to-boycott-israel-upheld-by-employment-tribunal-10835 (Accessed April 4, 2013).

[47] California HR-35 Relative to Anti-Semitism. August 6, 2012. California Legislative Information. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml (accessed April 4, 2013).

[48]Working Definition of Anti-Semitism. http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/as-workingdefinition-draft.pdf (Accessed April 5, 2013).

[49] California HR-35 Relative to Anti-Semitism. August 6, 2012. California Legislative Information. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml (Accessed April 4, 2013).

[50] California HR-35 Relative to Anti-Semitism. August 6, 2012. California Legislative Information. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml (Accessed April 4, 2013).

[51] Jacob Brown. September 17 2012. UCSA calls contentious anti-Semitism resolution a limit to free speech http://www.dailycal.org/2012/09/17/ucsa-calls-contentious-anti-semitism-resolution-a-limit-to-free-speech/ (Accessed April 5, 2013).

[52] Jacob Brown. September 17 2012. UCSA calls contentious anti-Semitism resolution a limit to free speech http://www.dailycal.org/2012/09/17/ucsa-calls-contentious-anti-semitism-resolution-a-limit-to-free-speech/  (Accessed April 5, 2013).

[53] Jacob Brown. September 17 2012. UCSA calls contentious anti-Semitism resolution a limit to free speech http://www.dailycal.org/2012/09/17/ucsa-calls-contentious-anti-semitism-resolution-a-limit-to-free-speech/  (Accessed April 5, 2013).

[54]The Anti-Defamation League. Israel and International. U.S. Anti-Israel Activity. http://www.adl.org/israel-international/anti-israel-activity/ (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[55] Steve Bell on Tony Blair and William Hague's role in Israel-Gaza clash – cartoon. November 15 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza (Accessed April 5 2013).

[56] Christ Elliott. The readers' editor on… accusations of antisemitism against a political cartoon. The Guardian. November 25, 2012.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/25/accusations-of-antisemitism-political-cartoon (Accessed April 5, 2013).

[57] Associated Press. Ynetnews. January 28 2013. Murdoch Apologizes for Sunday Times’ Netanyahu Cartoon. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4338264,00.html (Accessed April 5, 2013).

[58] Gerald Scarfe: The official website. http://www.geraldscarfe.com/ (Accessed April 13, 2013).

[59] Israel National News. Sunday Times: ‘Unreserved Apology’ for Cartoon. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164866  (Accessed April 13, 2013).

[60] The pro-Israel lobby in Britain: full text Peter Oborne and James Jones. 13 November 2009. Middle East Monitor. (14) http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/documents/The-pro-Israel-lobby-in-Britain-full-text.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2013).

[61] The pro-Israel lobby in Britain: full text Peter Oborne and James Jones. 13 November 2009. Middle East Monitor. (15) http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/documents/The-pro-Israel-lobby-in-Britain-full-text.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2013).

[62] The pro-Israel lobby in Britain: full text Peter Oborne and James Jones. 13 November 2009. Middle East Monitor. (6) http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/documents/The-pro-Israel-lobby-in-Britain-full-text.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2013).

[63] 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).

[64] Foxman, Abraham H. Shout Down the Sharia Myth Makers. The Anti-Defamation League. http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/shout-down-the-sharia-myth-makers.html (Accessed April 15, 2013).

[65]The Empire Lovers Strike Back. 1986. People’s Geography- Reclaiming Space. http://peoplesgeography.com/2009/10/21/the-empire-lovers-strike-back/ (Accessed April 14, 2013).

[66] Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (57).

[67] The Empire Lovers Strike Back. 1986. People’s Geography- Reclaiming Space. http://peoplesgeography.com/2009/10/21/the-empire-lovers-strike-back/ (Accessed April 14, 2013).

[68] Project Education. Reading Vidal’s Outburst: An Ominous New Stage in Anti-Semtism. Podhoretz. May 6, 1986. http://www.projectedu.com/vidals-outburst-an-ominous-new-stage-in-anti-semitism/reading-vidals-outburst-an-ominous-new-stage-in-anti-semitism/ (Accessed April 14, 2013).

[69] Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (58).

[70] Dorothy Thompson Vermont Journal: Thompson Legacy. July 13, 2007.  http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/77040/dorothy-thompson-vermont-journal-legacy/ (Accessed April 14, 2013).

[71] Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (64).

[72] Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (58).

[73] Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (58).

[74] Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (58).

[75] Bias and Distorted Media Coverage of Israel/Palestine. If Americans Knew.  http://ifamericansknew.org/media/bias.html (Accessed April 14, 2013).

[76]Pressure Groups and Censorship. If Americans Knew.  http://ifamericansknew.org/media/pressure.html (Accessed April 14, 2013).

[77] Off the Charts: Accuracy in reporting of Israel/Palestine, The New York Times. If Americans Knew. http://ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html (Accessed April 15, 2013).

[78] Off the Charts: Accuracy in reporting of Israel/Palestine, The New York Times. If Americans Knew. http://ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html (Accessed April 15, 2013).

[79] Off the Charts: Accuracy in reporting of Israel/Palestine, The New York Times. If Americans Knew. http://ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html (Accessed April 15, 2013).

[80] Off the Charts: Accuracy in reporting of Israel/Palestine, The New York Times. If Americans Knew. http://ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html (Accessed April 15, 2013).

[81] Off the Charts: Accuracy in reporting of Israel/Palestine, ABC World News Tonight,CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News. If Americans Knew. http://ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html (Accessed April 15, 2013).

[82] PollingReport.com. Israel/the Palestinians. http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm (Accessed April 15, 2013).

* Author’s translation. Parenthesis in original.

[83] Muham Seif El-Dawla. معاداة السامية ومعاداة فلسطين  (Anti-Semitism and Anti-Palestinianism). http://zakerataloma.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post_23.html (Accessed April 17 2013).

[84] Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (62).

[85] Findley, Paul U.S. too often follows Israel's lead
in diplomatic situations. October 15 2007. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/us_ints/pg-findley.html (Accessed April 14, 2013).

[86]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).

[87] 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).

[88] 4 Major American Jewish Orgs Rebuke Cardozo Over Carter Award. Lori Lowenthal Marcus. Jewish Press.com. April 10 2013. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/4-major-american-jewish-orgs-rebuke-cardozo-over-carter-award/2013/04/10/?src=ataglance (Accessed April 10, 2013).

[89] 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).

[90] 4 Major American Jewish Orgs Rebuke Cardozo Over Carter Award. Lori Lowenthal Marcus. Jewish Press.com. April 10 2013. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/4-major-american-jewish-orgs-rebuke-cardozo-over-carter-award/2013/04/10/?src=ataglance (Accessed April 10, 2013).

[91] 4 Major American Jewish Orgs Rebuke Cardozo Over Carter Award. Lori Lowenthal Marcus. Jewish Press.com. April 10 2013. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/4-major-american-jewish-orgs-rebuke-cardozo-over-carter-award/2013/04/10/?src=ataglance (Accessed April 10, 2013).

[92] US Aid to Israel and the Israel/Palestine Conflict. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html (Accessed April 17, 2013).

[93]Eli Lake. January 7 2013. Pro-Israel Lobby AIPAC Sitting Out Hagel Fight The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/pro-israel-lobby-aipac-sitting-out-hagel-fight.html (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[94]Jane C. Timm. McCaskill: If Hagel was a threat to Israel, AIPAC would be swarming. They’re not. January 31, 2013. MSNBC. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/31/mccaskill-if-hagel-was-a-threat-to-israel-aipac-would-be-swarming-theyre-not/  (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[95] Jane C. Timm. McCaskill: If Hagel was a threat to Israel, AIPAC would be swarming. They’re not. January 31, 2013. MSNBC. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/31/mccaskill-if-hagel-was-a-threat-to-israel-aipac-would-be-swarming-theyre-not/  (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[96] Chuck Hagel- Is Not a Responsible Option. http://www.chuckhagel.com/ (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[97] Hagel on Israel. Chuck Hagel- Is Not a Responsible Option. http://www.chuckhagel.com/israel/ (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[98] Hagel on Israel. Chuck Hagel- Is Not a Responsible Option. http://www.chuckhagel.com/israel/ (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[99] J Street: The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-peace Americans. http://jstreet.org/ (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[100] J Street: The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-peace Americans. Pro-Israel Pro-Peace. http://jstreet.org/blog/post/proisrael-propeace_2 (Accessed April 12, 2013).

[101] Christians United for Israel. CUFI in Action. January 2012. http://www.cufi.org/newletter/CUFIinActionJan12.pdf (Accessed April 12, 2013).

[102] The Anti-Defamation League. Letter to Saturday Night Live. February 11 2013. http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/snl-letter-lorne-michaels.html (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[103] The Anti-Defamation League. Letter to Saturday Night Live. February 11 2013. http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/snl-letter-lorne-michaels.html (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[104] Chuck Hagel and Hamas’s Fake Friends. Christ Good. ABC News. February 21, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/chuck-hagel-and-hamas-fake-friends/  (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[105] Chuck Hagel and Hamas’s Fake Friends. Christ Good. ABC News. February 21, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/chuck-hagel-and-hamas-fake-friends/  (Accessed April 6, 2013).

[106] 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).

[107]Brownfeld, Allan. Anti-Semitism: Its changing Meaning. Journal of Palestine Studies. Volume 16: 3. Spring 1987. (58).