The New York Times published a long article today on the growth of anti-Semitism on both the right and left in Europe and the US, though the evidence presented clearly showed that the preponderance of anti-Semitic acts were perpetrated by those on the right and clearly anti-Semitic parties only exist on that side of the political spectrum, e.g., Hungary; Poland. But in the spirit of equivalence, or perhaps false equivalence depending on what evidence one uses, the controversy regarding anti-Semitism in the British Labor Party and the US Democratic Party was thrown into the mix. www.nytimes.com/...
I’ve been following the debate in the UK regarding whether Jeremy Corbyn and/or the British Labor Party is anti-Semitic, and/or the latter contains a sizeable amount of anti-Semitism. I have read arguments on both sides of the matter and, recently, a detailed analysis of the UK media coverage of the controversy which argues that it has been biased against Corbyn and the Labor Party regardless of the underlying truth or falsehood of the claims. I have also briefly communicated with a British sociologist, David Hirsh, who the Times quoted. He has written a book on left-wing anti-Semitism and used the British Labor Party as an illustration of his thesis.
We live in an interconnected world and I think the recent uproar over Rep. Illan Omar’s comments and the early signs of change in the Democratic Party on the Israel-Palestine question is bringing some of the anti-Corbyn/Labor Party talking points in the UK debate to its former colony. The situation in the UK is different than in the US in several respects, but not the emerging rhetoric.
One disclaimer: I am going to use the term anti-Zionism in this discussion, but by that I mean to include groups ranging from those who accept the legitimacy of israel as a Jewish state, but believe it illegally oppresses Palestinians in the Occupied territories and endorse a viable two-state solution as well as those who would like to have a bi-national secular state. These groups differ in goals, strategies and tactics. The former might be rabidly anti-Likud and Netanyahu, but might have a more favorable attitude towards Rabin and Barak. The latter do not think any Israeli government seriously favored a viable Palestinian state or ever will without enormous pressure being put on it by the US, as opposed to “thoughts and prayers.” (I should say that my own view is with the latter camp, based on reading Nathan Thrall’s The Only Language They Understand: Forcing Compromise in Israel and Palestine (2017). Thrall’s book has the endorsement and/or respect of some unlikely companions: Elliott Abrams, Mark Danner, Lawrence Wright, and Leon Wieseltier. He lives in Jerusalem and is a senior analyst with George Soros’ International Crisis Group).
I also recognize that there are extreme anti-Zionists who wish to remove all Jews from what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories , just as there are Israelis who are extreme Zionists who wish to do the same to the Palestinians.
One of the claims in the UK is based upon what’s called the Livingstone Formulation, which revolves on the question of whether anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism can be separated in practice and the charge that anti-Semites are making a false claim that they are distinct views and merely anti-Zionist and without any animus toward Jews per se.
Those attacking Corbyn and elements within Labor, in their attempt to counter the Formula, claim that anti-Semitism does not necessarily rely on subjective animosity towards Jews. It can also involve what sociologists call “institutional” forms, though what they mean by this is not the same as what sociologists normally do when employing that term, at least as it applies to anti-Semitism.
When the concept was developed by sociologists it referred to the existence of laws, rules and practices which were neutral in conception, but had a differential impact on certain groups. An example would be a height and weight requirement for firefighters that would make women less likely to be eligible. The requirements were initially conceived as unbiased, but had that unintended impact. Of course, subjective sexism could lead to a resistance to stop hiding behind those requirements. Overcoming institutional discrimination would require eliminating or modifying the relevant traditional requirement for whatever goal is sought.
In regard to anti-Semitism, it would be difficult to apply the “institutional” approach based on the standard definition, i.e., criteria that are neutrally conceived that might unintentionally discriminate against Jews, unless you could imagine some exclusion on the basis of people who have a particular genetic marker and that happens primarily to be Jews.
In the UK controversy, “institutional” forms of anti-Semitism has been redefined, or extended, to include anti-Zionists repeating, even if they have a lack of historical awareness, long-standing anti-Semitic tropes about Jews (e.g., they have magical powers; use money to control politics). This is what Rep Omar has been accused of when she used terms like “benjamins” to explain the out-sized influence of AIPAC on US foreign policy towards Israel because of its ability to encourage and facilitate donations to contribute to political campaigns.
Another argument used in the UK, but also here, to accuse anti-Zionism as being connected to anti-Semitism is that anti-Zionists, although purporting to be concerned about human rights in general, seem to focus only on Israel. Why don’t they mobilize against the Indian caste system which still oppresses hundreds of millions of Dalits (untouchables) or the Chinese and Myanmar governments’ treatment of Muslims?
These arguments have some power behind them, but less than their advocates imagine. Regarding, “institutional” forms of anti-Semitism, there is no doubt that some critics of Israel have used, wittingly or not, anti-Semitic tropes. But, what would the reaction be if they apologized and never did again? Would their political views be then considered free of anti-Semitism, even if it was clear that they were not aware of the history of anti-Semites using certain language? I tend to doubt it. More likely, their apologies would be considered insincere unless they completely altered their views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, like former Communists becoming rabid anti-Communists. Yet, people are capable of making distinctions and learning, are they not?
The second talking point, the alleged selectivity of those opposing Israel, can also be challenged. Many anti-Zionists are involved in human rights activities defending victims in other parts of the world. But, even if they weren’t, they should be asked why they chose that particualr situation. Their critics assume there is only one reason: anti-Semitism.
For Americans, a reasonable answer to any selective outrage is that their tax dollars go towards massive military aid to israel and that they don’t support the Indian caste system, Myanmar, or China. Brits might feel a greater responsibility because the Balfour Declaration and British colonialism played a key role in the creation of Israel.
Jews, living anywhere, who oppose Zionism might say that they resent the claim by the Israeli government that it or israel represents all jews and that such a claim actually increases anti-Semitism and endangers all Jews.
On the other hand, a Costa Rican Buddhist might be a more legitimate person to pose a question regarding which countries’ policies to fight against. But, their answer and real motives should not be assumed. They should be asked to explain why they are involved in one cause or another. But that question could, of course, be posed to anyone involved in any political protest movement—but rarely is. Supporters of Israel take it for granted that motivation only matters when it comes to their opponents. They certainly are incurious when it comes to what makes the Christian Zionists tick. Or Orban. Or any anti-Semites who support Israel.
It’s also worth noting that the claim that anti-Semitism of one kind or another (subjective or institutional) is at the root of choosing Israel to target among all the bad actors in the world is the kind of argument that could easily have been used by any target of international campaigns. Couldn’t the Afrikaners who defended apartheid in South Africa have questioned the motives of those in the campaign to boycott it by questioning why activists singled out apartheid and not the numerous other brutal forms of discrimination in the world? Might they have not said there were certain historical tropes used against Afrikaners by the British during the Boer war which boycotters were using—being cruel and uncivilzed. The Afrikaners even coined a term, Boerhaat, to describe the prejudicial attitudes the British had towards them. Might a variant of the Livingstone Formulation have been employed to defend the apartheid regime and discredit its enemies?
Finally, if some people, e.g., Jews and non-Jews who are anti-Zionist, might legitimately be free of anti-Semitism, what actions can those people take against Israeli policies which would be legitimate? Are there any?