Israel apparently is the only country in the world that can torture prisoners, murder innocent civilians, kill children with impunity, assassinate political opponents, ethnically cleanse Palestinians, demolish thousands of Palestinians homes, steal land that individuals have legal title to without compensation, and have policies that are routinely condemned as racist
That’s from Canadian Dimensions magazine responding to this quote from the Prime Minister:
I guess my fear is what I see happening in some circles is (an) anti-Israeli sentiment, really just as a thinly disguised veil for good old-fashioned anti-Semitism, which I think is completely unacceptable
Canadian Dimensions is saying that the Prime Minister is calling ALL criticism of Israel anti-semitic – which is clearly preposterous. His government in fact has made pointed criticisms of Israel at several points, most recently over its actions in Gaza.
But to misrepresent the PM’s statements is one thing, to chase it with these claims is another:
- Israel willingly “murders” civilians
- Israel willingly kills children
- Israel – or in this case ‘the Jews’ – are ethnically cleansing their country
- Israel is stealing land without compensation
Does anyone want to agree with Canadian Dimensions? Do any of you want to repeat the blood libel that Israel murders children? Do you hypocrites want to say that the loss of Palestinian land is a tragedy, while remaining silent on the losses endured by the 850,000 Jewish refugees from places like Egypt, and Iraq? How about some proof of the ethnic cleansing – and what do you have to say on the 1.5 million Arab Israelis, or on the Sudanese refugees crossing desserts to come to Israel? You on the Left always talk about shades of grey when it comes to our enemies – but when it comes to Israel – it’s black and white.
It’s bollocks. But what’s more, it is anti-semitic. The ‘murdering civillians’ thing is likely just lefty boiler-plate, I’m sure he says the same about the USA (though of course not about France which has a far worse record). But the children thing? The ethnic cleansing thing? That crosses a line.
That line straddles the boundary between criticism and demonization, between standing up for human rights, and being an anti-semite. From Irwin Cotler:
There is yet another, and third, variant of political anti-Semitism. I am referring here to the “demonizing” of Israel… This is the contemporary analogue to the medieval indictment of the Jew as the “poisoner of the wells.” In other words, in a world in which human rights has emerged as the new secular religion of our time, the portrayal of Israel as the metaphor for a human rights violator is an indictment of Israel as the “new anti-Christ”-as the “poisoner of the international wells”…
Ideological anti-Semitism finds expression not only in the “Zionism is Racism” indictment…but the further criminal indictment of Israel as “an apartheid state,” and the calling for the dismantling of this “apartheid state”-a euphemism for Israel’s destruction. If the proclamation of “Zionism as Racism” gave anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction, the calling for the dismantling of the apartheid state of Israel is even more toxic and virulent, once again giving anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction. Indeed, the increased characterization or libelling of Israel as a “Nazi state” is tantamount to transforming ideological anti-Semitism into a duty-the obligation to remove this Nazi state, Israel.
Go back and look at these quotes from Canadian opposition politicians, look at how the demonize and delegitimize Israel and Jews. Do they cross this line? And if they do, is it wrong for the Prime Minister to call them out? More importantly – what does it say about you, if you’re defending them or making excuses for them?
Filed under: Uncategorized , Anti-semitic, Anti-semitism, israel, Palestine, Politics
I don’t know if you’re as ignorant as you really sound or if you’re kissing some ass! Study history first – as told and admitted to by the Israelis themselves.. they are the terrorists! They are the 21st Century’s Nazis!
ATW
And the above comment is an example of a statement that goes way too far. But it is not representative of the critics as a whole. I mean, let’s consider the thorny question of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which has certainly complicated matters. These settlements were brought in outside of international law. They’re occupied by individuals, many of whom believe that the land is theirs by Biblical fiat. Some of the most extreme elements within the area are not adverse to terrorism of their own. Just ask Yitzhak Rabin.
And let’s consider Israel’s attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon in August 2006. Israel’s disproportionate response was responsible for killing at least 400 Lebanese civilians, and while Israel never deliberately targetted them, government policy is still responsible. Not only was it a deplorable loss of life, it failed to meet Israel’s own goals. It made Hezbollah more popular in Lebanon, even among Christian groups, and as we see today with Hezbollah attacking the legitimate government of Lebanon, it certainly didn’t end Hezbollah’s ability to make war. So, 400 Lebanese civilians died in an Israeli government decision that must be considered a failure.
Is Hezbollah a terrorist group? Yes. Are the various dictatorships in the area guilty of worse human rights abuses? Absolutely. But critics can’t be everywhere, railing against every wrong that the world throws at us. You should not claim that all the critics of Israel are ignoring worse abuses elsewhere. For one thing, many of them aren’t (Darfur is known, Burma is known, Zimbabwe is known, and plenty of people want to see change). For another thing, saying “but other guys are worse” doesn’t adequately respond to the original point, that certain Israeli government policies are wrong-headed, hurt a lot of people, and are ultimately counterproductive in assuring Israel’s long term security.
And when some of us criticize Israeli government policy, it’s because Israel, being a democratic nation, should know better. As a critic of Israeli government policy, I’m criticizing what I see are the mistakes made on the part of the Israeli government because I _want_ them to do better, both to act as a beacon of democracy in the region and also in terms of its ability to ensure its long term survival. And I think most critics think like me. Certainly plenty of Israelis make the same criticisms. If people want to call my stance anti-semetic, they’re calling Israeli Labour Party voters, among others, anti-semetic.
You agree that there isn’t a black and white situation here. That’s absolutely true. However, when you say “You on the Left…” you’re quite happy to apply just that type of black and white viewpoint in terms of Israel’s treatment by its critic. The Left isn’t a monolithic block (for one thing, I’m a centrist, not a leftist), and Israel’s critics aren’t either. You can’t apply a single motivation to all of us. That crosses a line of its own, and shuts down legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy without a real and productive debate.
Let me quote you:
“Being critical of Israel is certainly not anti-semitic. That’s a given.”
Correct.
Cranking up you volume doesn’t strengthen your argument, I’m afraid.
And if you don’t mind an honest suggestion – trying to incite debate by attributing views to some amorphous, undefined group called “lefties” doesn’t contribute to the intelligence of the discussion, although it may provoke more responses. You’ve got an interesting issue going here, and some thoughtful comments – don’t cheapen it.
[...] south of the border have redefined anti-Semitism, the usual suspects agree with this of course, but some (who are not alone btw), apparently not happy with leaving it there have redefined blood libel as [...]
So having pontificated thus (that’s ME I’m talking about), let’s look at the statements from Canadian Dimensions that have you riled, one at a time.
a) Israel has, in fact, tortured prisoners. The ethics of it are hotly debated among Israeli citizens. But it’s a true statement.
b) Murder innocent civilians? No, I doubt it – or at least, not as matter of policy. Warfare and occupation anywhere in the world create environments and situations in which innocent civilians die, including blockades of goods and services. Could more be done to prevent that? Probably. But this is not a policy.
c) Kill children with impunity? See (b)
d) Assassinate political opponents. Yes, Israel is one of the only (if not the only) democracy I know of that practices assassination as a matter of state policy.
e) Ethnically cleanse Palestinians? See (b) and (c).
f) Demolish thousands of Palestinians homes? Yup.
g) Steal land that individuals have legal title to without compensation? Well, if I’m not mistaken, a number of Jewish
“settlers” have made precisely the same charge against their government, especially Sharon.
h)Have policies that are routinely condemned as racist? A meaningless statement. Every country in the world has policies that can and have been “condemned as racist”, including Canada, the US, Britain, Ireland, Switzerland, Australia…
So having said all that, Robert, once again I see criticism of Israeli policy (much of which many Jewish Israelis would agree with), and not criticism of Jews.
Israel regularly passes laws that affect only the religious and ethnic minorities. Those types of laws were labeled Jim Crow laws in the United States. The first such law passed by the ISraeli government was the Absentee’s Property Laws. Look it up
As is always the case when Canadian Dimension is critical of Israel, pro-Israeli readers emerge to denounce the magazine’s coverage with complete obfuscation of fact in favour of blunt ideology, the most recent example being Prime Minister Steven Harper’s claims of “anti-Semitism” amongst the opposition.
[Read the rest here]
[Mr. Brett, the custom is to post a link to your article, not just paste the whole bloody thing in the comments section of my blog. - Robert ]
I’m starting with balbulican. I would very much like to address what James Bow says, and explain how, for instance, it can be argued that disproportionate criticism of Isreal is undertandable in holding a democracy to higher account – but is dangerous if it is to the extent of deligitimizing and endangering Isreal by cutting at her morale and encouraging her genocidal enemies. For now:
… my two objections of balbulacan’s accuracy are first that I think its wrong to accept the terms of d) of what Canadian Dimension says:
“Assassinate political opponents.”
Have any of the terrorists Isreal has assasinated been more accurately describable as political opponents? The blind sheik comes to mind – a man who’s life was dedicated to promoting the genocidal destruction of Isreal. “Political” in the context of even the wheelchair bound sheik is an invidious shift of meaning.
Secondly, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to use the example of the settlers to prove that Isreal takes legally owned land without compensation.
I simply don’t understand how you can list off a majority of what CD says as in fact not fairly representable as Isreali policy and then twist at the end saying it is all a fair critisism of policy.
Robert has done much more than turning up the volume. I cannot see Harper’s comments as anything but carefully measured if he was referring to Canadian Dimension’s extreme and disturbing statement. And while I have great sympathy as a conservative – and therefore well known to seemingly 90% of people left of center in shades of evil – to your criticism of Robert’s “amorphous” addressing of “lefties” it is almost abnegated by yours and Matthew’s apparently blithe defense of the quote Robert begins this post with. Blogging lends itself to a clipped and bold way of speaking that sacrifices nuance for energy. And a writer must often overstate his case to make his point heard. I do not like the blanket use of terms like leftie, but what is the alternative? It is clearly a phenomenon almost exclusive to the left in Canada and the US and given the defense of CD’s statement I find it impossible to criticise Robert for it in this context.
Perhaps we can, as per James, make a distinction between moderates and the left here – what more?
I’m sorry – I realize that I badly misread Robert’s post and that in fact Canadian Dimension was responding to Harper and not Harper to them. (also that I spelt balbulican wrong) I don’t think this changes what I said about Matthew and balbulican’s comments and I still consider Harper’s statements to be well justified and important in response to some of the words of our MPs Robert quoted in the previous post.
In response to James Bow then:
“Israel’s disproportionate response was responsible for killing at least 400 Lebanese civilians, and while Israel never deliberately targetted them, government policy is still responsible. Not only was it a deplorable loss of life, it failed to meet Israel’s own goals. It made Hezbollah more popular in Lebanon, even among Christian groups, and as we see today with Hezbollah attacking the legitimate government of Lebanon, it certainly didn’t end Hezbollah’s ability to make war. So, 400 Lebanese civilians died in an Israeli government decision that must be considered a failure.”
I would start with saying that you can argue that Isreal’s reponse was ineffective or counterproductive, but I do not think disproportionate can be used here. We must remember that it was not only the captured soldiers but also the rocket attacks on the Isreali population that provoked Isreal’s response. Is there any other country in the world who’s similar response to a deliberate attack on its citizens with the intention of incremental genocide would be called disproportionate? Surely the definition of a proportionate response is simply: to make the attacks stop. How can the deaths of these Lebanese citizens be seen as the fault of anyone but Hezbollah if the sides are being judged fairly? It would not be fair to share the blame between Isreal’s government and Hezbollah – so what is it to lay the blame on Isreal?
Certainly, the opinion in Isreal was that their governemnt’s actions were a failure – what was his approval rating afterwards, 3 percent? I wonder what the split was between those who thought it was too much and those who thought too little. As you say, Hezbollah has shown that the improved opinion of it in Lebanon was mistaken – and their takeover of part of Beriut says to me that it would have been better if Isreal had really gone further in attempting to destroy Hezbollah. It isn’t an argument for a more subdued treatment. The legitimate caveat question you ask is whether that would be counterproductive in the long view of attitudes towards Isreal which could be exploited by future terrorist organizations.
And this is what people who would call disproportionate criticism of Isreal anti-semetic wish to change. Hamas and Hezbollah cannot destroy Isreal. So what are they doing? Their intent in performing what Irwin Cotler calls genocide bombing
in a peice at FrontPage Magazine
must be to make Isreal into a pariah state by manipulating world opinion. It is hard to imagine how that would work in destroying Isreal, unless you realize that Isreal might not be able to survive without allies and trading partners. If Isreal loses nearly all help and mutual economic trade with the rest of the world perhaps Arab nations could begin to push it back toward the sea. It is a measure of the success of this tactic that universities and some Christian organizations and churches are beginning to organize divestment programs. Cotler’s article gives examples as well of conditions on companies to not promote Jews or trade with Isreal. How is this possible except through the prevalence of the double anti-semitism of treating Hezbollah and Hamas as though they are not moral actors and of putting Isreal’s actions to impossible standards?
The argument then is that one-sided criticism of Isreal is exactly what is motivating Hezbollah and Hamas to kill Isrealis and to put Lebanese and Palestinian citizens in harms way. It is entirely their fault – Isreal is not bulldozing homes or assassinating militant leaders ex nihilo. So crossing the line between critic and anti-semetic must be to primarily put the moral responsibility on Isreal for the consequences of their existential defence. Consideration as to how much the manifest destiny settlers are angering Palestinians would be different. Still, ask the question of whether Isreal would have caused the death of any Lebanese person if Hezbollah did not wish to destroy Isreal and you must see that placing the moral responsibility for these deaths on Isreal is at least indistinguishable from anti-semitism.
I say “at least indistinguishable”. I absolutely believe you that you are not anti-semetic. And, as Cotler’s article written as a Liberal MP demonstrates, it is certainly not essentially characteristic of the left to be anti-semetic. The proportionality of criticism is perhaps primarily affected by the tendency to hold those with power to higher account. This is right and natural. We should hold democracies to higher standards, it is why they are legitimate and better – and we should be more personally concerned about the actions “we” as western countries take. It is a muddy issue because it is impossible to determine how much this is about favouring the underdog and how much it is anti-semetism.
The thing is to simply take the example of Jimmy Carter’s treatment of the Shah in Iran. I think that because, not for anti-semetic reasons obviously, Carter saw the Shah as a guilt-banner of westernism in the middle east he refused to support him unless he was held to a much higher standard of western virtues like freedom to associate and freedom of speech than he was observing in the face of an Islamist movement in Iran. Forcing the Shah to be perfect enough that Carter could support him destroyed him. I can only see this impulse as suicidal. If we have to be perfect to be good enough to be legitimate then we are suicidal. So its about more than anti-semetism and favoring the underdog. Its also about a western attitude so leaden with guilt that we feel that unless a nation or government we consider to be on our side is perfect it is a failure and illegitimate. Isreal cannot avoid mistakes that lead to civilian deaths when it is defending itself against an existential threat. Except in cases where individuals take wrong actions and are not held to account for it we cannot blame them for these deaths without encouraging her enemies and making our position indistingushable from anti-semetism and anti-westernism.
The line then, as I said before, is between blame and pragmatic criticism. James, I don’t think your pragmatic criticism crosses the line at all although I think you should be careful with it because it can have unpragmatic consequences – I think we must preface criticism of Isreali policy by placing the blame where it belongs or we play into Hezbollah’s evil hands. And then the blame will ultimately lie with us.
Wolfe, I’m afraid you’re distorting my position.
Israel DOES practice assassination as a matter of state policy. I did not argue the merits of that position – I stated it as a fact.
Israel has, in fact, seized land without compensation. I did not argue the merits of that position – I stated it as a fact.
And you missed the real point. These are observations about, and policies of, the state of Israel. When I criticize some aspects of Israeli policy, I am not criticizing Jews or Judaism.
All I said about Isreali assassination policy is that Canadian Dimension’s term “political” should not be accepted – to call assassinations of leaders of Hamas who are acting to destroy Isreal political is a disturbing shift of meaning.
Seizing the land of settlers who are, as James says, operating outside of international law and who’s aggressive expansionism is judged by their government to harm Isreal’s interests is a different thing from what the Canadian Dimension article suggests is it not? I don’t know if Isreal does seize the land of other people that would be more questionable, but to hold efforts by Isreal to slow or reverse settler expansionism against them as an uncontextualized “seizing land without compensation”… well let me put it this way – this is an action that Isreal would be criticised by left-leaning observers for not taking. So to use it to support a… slur on Isreal – well?
And my point was that you said that half of what CD attributed to Isreal was not a reasonable criticism of policy. And then you said all you saw was reasonable criticism of policy.
Kill children with impunity. Murder innocent civilians. Lets not be blithe about this.
[...] CROSSING THE LINE from critic to anti-semite …. [...]
I’ll try one more time.
These are observations about, and policies of, the state of Israel. Not Jews or Judaism. Many Jews, including Israeli Jews, would agree.
It’s not THAT complicated, is it?
balbulican – so you have observed that Israel deliberately kills children? That’s an observation?
Robert: please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I say before responding to it. See my third May 11th response, bullets (b) and (c). Thank you.
Ah – well, my bad then.
[...] Politics Israel apparently is the only country in the world that can torture prisoners, murder ihttp://rjjago.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/crossing-the-line-from-critic-to-anti-semite/Artist’s passion shines through National Cathedral’s windows Knoxville News SentinelWASHINGTON – A [...]