Calling Criticism of Israel “Anti-Semitic” Trivializes the Fight against Real Bigotry

Anti-Semitism, the hatred of Judaism and Jews, has a long and sordid history in many parts of the world. There were pogroms and inquisitions and in the 20th century we witnessed the Holocaust. We have seen the evil which anti- Semitism has inflicted upon the world.

It is, therefore, troubling to see many people now in the process of redefining anti-Semitism to mean criticism of Israel. In a letter published in The Washington Post (June 16, 2015), American Council for Judaism publications editor Allan C. Brownfeld makes this point:

“In the June 13 news article, ‘In Israel concerns rising over boycott movement,’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to the movement to boycott Israel or disinvest from those doing business in the occupied territories as ‘anti-Semitic.’ Similarly, Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who recently presided over a meeting that raised more than $20 million to fight this movement, referred to it as ‘anti-Semitic.’ Whether one agrees with this movement or not, and many Jews are leading participants, the fact is that it is in no way ‘anti-Semitic.’”

The letter continues: ‘Judaism is a religion of universal values. Israel is a sovereign state. It has violated international law by occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The boycott movement is a nonviolent effort to show opposition to this occupation, similar, its advocates argue, to the sanctions movement against South Africa to show opposition to apartheid. Hatred of Judaism and Jews, which is what constitutes anti-Semitism, appears to be absent from these boycott efforts.

“Only by redefining ‘anti-Semitism’ to mean criticism of Israel can such a charge be sustained. Israel’s policies in the occupied territories should be debated on their merits, and defenders of the occupation should not hide behind false charges of ‘anti-Semitism.’”

Rabbi Alissa Wise of the Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, states: “There’s nothing anti- Semitic about criticizing Israel and there is nothing anti-Semitic in the BDS call by Palestinian Civil Society. It is a conditional call that will end when conditions of oppression end; that targets state policies, not the Jewish people. It is based on standards of universal human rights and international law that are specifically not reliant upon ethnicity or religion. … For those of us who are Jewish in the movement, we strongly feel the obligation to speak out when false charges of anti-Semitism are used to tar the movement … As a rabbi, I take my role seriously as a moral leader … We will be held accountable if we stay silent about the land theft, home demolitions, restrictions on movement, economic strangling and other human rights abuses that are daily realities of life under occupation for Palestinians.”

Many in Israel share the concern about calling critics of Israeli policies anti-Semitic rather than responding to their concerns about particular policies. Writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (June 6, 2015), Gideon Levy notes, “It’s only to be expected when facing a worldwide campaign aimed at implementing justice and international law: the stage of denial, of repression and clinging to the false, nearly magical belief that if Israel will just explain its position better and invest the appropriate resources, everything will be fine.”

Levy argues that, “In other words, Israel continues to think that the world is dumb and Israel is smart. You can blame the Palestinians for everything and obscure the simple fact that this brutal occupation is Israeli. You can tell the world that it all belongs to us because the Bible says so and believe that anyone will take you seriously. You can be sure that the memory of the Holocaust will serve us forever, and justify any injustice. Of course, it won’t work indefinitely … Justice triumphs in the end, even if belatedly. And justice says that Israel cannot continue to tyrannize another people forever …”

Prof. Judith Butler of the University of California, an outspoken Jewish critic of Israeli policy, states: “If one can’t voice an objection to violence done by Israel without attracting a charge of anti-Semitism, then that charge works to circumscribe the publicly acceptable domain of speech, and immunizes Israeli violence against criticism. One is threatened with the label ‘anti-Semite’ in the same way one is threatened with being called a ‘traitor’ if one opposes the most recent U.S. war (on Iraq). Such threats aim to define the limits of the public sphere by setting limits on the speakable. The world of public discourse would then be one from which critical perspectives would be excluded and the public would come to understand itself as one that does not speak out in the face of obvious and legitimate violence.”

Like the boy who cried wolf, in the event that real bigotry were to appear, the trivialization of the term “anti-Semitism” would make such bigotry much more difficult to combat. •