Jump to content

New antisemitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Christiaan (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 5 April 2005 (changed to jpgordon's suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Main article: Anti-Semitism

The New anti-Semitism is a controversial neologism which has emerged in the last decade to describe a perceived increase in prejudicial behavior, verbal invective, and threats and attacks directed at Jewish targets around the globe. Although the term is intended to describe acts of bigotry closely related to historical anti-Semitism, it asserts that contemporary anti-Semitism often takes a different form and is based on different pretexts.

A core premise of accusations of new forms of anti-Semitism is that the controversy related to various aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict serve both as a pretext and reinforcement of incitement against Jews. This is to say that some people who harbor anti-Semitic sentiments express their prejudice against Israel as a surrogate for the Jewish people as a whole; and/or that they unfairly criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.

The charge of new anti-Semitism is meant to apply to all groups that express unreasonable hostility toward Israel. The left-wing in particular is accused of promoting new anti-Semitism in the form of unfair criticism and condemnation of Israel.

These charges are rejected by those who are targeted by them: They assert that their views on Israel are unrelated to their attitudes toward Jews, and that such charges are attempts at stifling debate.

Forms and degrees of anti-Semitism

In his article Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness, Irwin Cotler, the Minister of Justice for Canada, writes:

In a word, classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism—incompletely, or incorrectly, [referred to] as "anti-Zionism"... —involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism—and common to both—is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals—a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment)—to discrimination against Jews as people—a new anti-Semitism—for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement.
File:FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg
Neo-Nazi defacement of a Jewish cemetery in France

Cotler deliniates six categories and thirteen indices of the New anti-Semitism:

  1. Genocidal anti-Semitism
    1. the public call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people
  2. Political anti-Semitism
    1. the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the Jewish people's right to self-determination
    2. discrimination against the Jews as a people
    3. the "demonizing" of Israel
  3. Theological anti-Semitism
    1. the convergence of state-sanctioned Islamic anti-Semitism, which characterizes Jews, Judaism, let alone Israel, as the perfidious enemy of Islam
    2. cultural anti-Semitism
    3. European "hierarchical" anti-Semitism
  4. Denying Israel equality before the law
    1. the singling out of Israel for differential, if not discriminatory, treatment amongst the family of nations
    2. the disenfranchisement of Israel in the international arena
  5. Economic anti-Semitism
    1. the extra-territorial application by Arab countries of an international restrictive covenant against corporations conditioning their trade with Arab countries on their agreement not to do business with Israel (secondary boycott)
    2. not doing business with another corporation which may be doing business with Israel (tertiary boycott)
    3. conditioning the trade with such corporations on neither hiring nor promoting Jews within the corporation
  6. State-sanctioned anti-Semitism
    1. the state-sanctioned "culture of hate"

State of the controversy

For detailed contentions, see section Criticism.

Opponents

Opponents of the claim of a "New anti-Semitism" assert that:

  • Antipathy toward Israel's existence or policies does not amount to anti-Semitism
    • Criticizing or even condeming a state's actions is simply a matter of conscience, and no state is exempt from accountability for its action
    • There are both Jewish groups and Jewish individuals that share strongly critical views of Israel
      • Several Jewish groups oppose the continued definition of Israel as a "Jewish state". Some Haredi groups regard both the State of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few such organizations (most notably Neturei Karta) have called for the creation of a unitary state of Palestine in the region.
      • A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the State of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset member Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.
  • A frequent target for accusations of new anti-Semitism - the socialist left - maintain a principled stand against any form of bigotry;
  • Accusations of anti-Semitism can and are used in an attempt to discredit and demonise those who criticise Israeli actions
  • While comparing Israel with regimes that were infamous for repressive policies may seem harsh, such comparisons are warranted, and the rhetoric is in fact commonplace within Israeli politics as well, with right-wing Zionists comparing Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and, most recently, Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.
  • Palestinians have reasons to hate Israel that have nothing to do with its connection to the Jewish people.

Proponents

Proponents of the argument respond to these objections by asserting that:

  • It can be no coincidence that criticism against Israel is:
    • Out of any proportion to the size of the conflict, whether measured in number of individuals affected, the size of the territory in dispute, or by the magnitude of alleged transgressions
    • Characterized by a double standard, in which Israel is held to a higher standard than any other state in comparable situation
    • Replete with persistent exaggerations, distortions and outright falsehoods
  • While it is certainly possible to criticize Israel without harboring anti-Semitic motivations, it is certainly reasonable to assume that those who hate Jews also hate Israel. It is reasonable and morally right that the issue be raised.
  • The fact that some Jews are anti-Zionists does not provide immunity against anti-Semitism
  • It is apparent that vocal elements both within the secular and religious Arab world employ anti-Semitic images, canards, and stereotypes for political purposes
  • The left wing is no more immune against bigotry than any other group
  • There is ample evidence that the hostile popular opinion against Israel is correlated with blatant anti-Semitic acts

Examples cited

The following have been identified as specific examples that reflect "new anti-Semitism":

  • Attacking Jews as a reaction to events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or as a means to terrorize Israel.
  • Misrepresenting Zionism or singling it out for obloquy.
  • Denying the State of Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community.
  • Equating Jews with Nazis
  • Straw-man attacks, wherein Jews are alleged to claim that any and all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. This allegation is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable. According to Thomas Friedman, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." (The New York Times: "Campus Hypocrisy", October 16, 2002).

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

Main articles: anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view (both historically and in current debates), all expressing some form of opposition to Zionism. A large variety of commentators believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to anti-Semitism. In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. They point out that, during debate over the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably, many Hassidic Jews considered this manifestation of Zionism heretical. Today, the number of anti-Zionist Jewish groups worldwide is small.

Those who claim there is a "new" anti-Semitism claim that "new anti-Semites" argue that Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and that his allegation is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism.

They claim that no Jewish groups officially hold such a position, and that on numerous occasions many Jewish groups have publicly criticised the policies of different Israeli governments.

In his speech given at Berkeley University on April 29, 2004, Law Professor at Harvard University Law School Alan Dershowitz said, in particular: "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies."

There are examples of leading Zionists, while stating that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is on the record saying "The harsh but un-deniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism — always, everywhere, and for all time... Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred." [1] The World Union of Jewish Students looks at the dictionary definitions of "anti-Semitism" and "Zionism" and concludes that "According to these definitions it seems that anti-Zionism is Antisemitism" [2]. Nevertheless, it distinguishes between opposition to Israel and anti-Zionism: "Can a person oppose the actions of the State of Israel, without denying its right to exist? The answer appears to be clearly yes."

Manifestations of the new anti-Semitism

False allegations

Supporters of the idea of a "New anti-Semitism" say that one of its manifestations involves false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them. This section lists examples they commonly use to support that claim.

Perhaps the most notable case was the so called "Jenin massacre" allegation, in which it was claimed that in Jenin, Israeli Defense Forces committed atrocities "horrific beyond belief," according to United Nations special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen [3], and "massacred" 500–3000 innocent Palestinians during Operation Defensive Shield. Two weeks after the press promoted the Jenin massacre allegation, international reporters uncovered that no massacre had taken place in Jenin. Fatah lowered its estimate of the death toll to 56 people, the majority of whom were combatants, as were the 23 IDF soldiers killed during the battle. The "Jenin massacre" story sparked waves of anti-Israeli protests and violent attacks against Jews in Europe, and was regarded by many Jews as a modern blood libel.

Many western media reports of a "massacre" in Jenin were presented as eyewitness accounts, and not as undisputed facts. Some reporters noted that it was difficult to ascertain what had actually happened in Jenin in the days after the end of Israeli military operations there. Shimon Peres claimed that the government of Israel was inviting potentially false speculation through its restrictions on the media during this period.

In the Arab media, conspiracy theories involving Jews abound: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a text debunked many years ago as a fraud perpetrated by Czarist intelligence agents, continued to appear in the Middle East media, not as a hoax, but as established fact. Government-sponsored television in Syria ran lengthy serials based on the Protocols. The presentations emphasized blood libel and the alleged control by the Jewish community of international finance. The clear purpose of the programs was to incite hatred of Jews and of Israel. Copies of the Protocols and other similar anti-Semitic forgeries were readily available in Middle Eastern countries, former Soviet republics and elsewhere. Similarly, allegations that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks were widely disseminated."1 (See also 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel)

Such media channels often broadcast globally and incite attacks against Jews. On December 2004, the French court banned Hizbullah's TV channel Al-Manar after repeated anti-Semitic attacks and allegations such as "Zionist attempts to transmit AIDS to Arab countries." [4]

Straw-man anti-Semitism

One claim made by opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a "New anti-Semitism" is that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism. This claim is then used to criticise defenders of Israel as unreasonable, or attempting to stifle legitimate debate.

However, no groups supportive of Israel officially hold, or have ever held, such a position. One popular understanding of this issue can be found in a statement by the Anti-Defamation League:

"Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism." (Anti-Defamation League website.)

In his speech given at Berkeley University on April 29, 2004, Law Professor at Harvard University Law School Alan Dershowitz said, in particular: "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies."

Antisemitic cartoons

The U.S. State Department report on Global Anti-Semitism1 describes the rise of anti-Semitic cartoons in Western media as a symptom of growing antisemitism:

Critics of Israel frequently use anti-Semitic cartoons depicting anti-Jewish images and caricatures to attack the State of Israel and its policies, as well as Jewish communities and others who support Israel. These media attacks can lack any pretext of balance or even factual basis and focus on the demonization of Israel. The United States is frequently included as a target of such attacks, which often assert that U.S. foreign policy is made in Israel or that Jews control the media and financial markets in the United States and the rest of the world. During the 2004 United States presidential campaign, the Arab press ran numerous cartoons closely identifying both of the major American political parties with Israel and with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon.

In one case, British daily, The Independent, depicted the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby. The cartoon, drawn by Dave Brown and based on the painting Saturn Devouring one of his children by Goya, appeared whilst Sharon was seeking re-election in Israel and sparked a wave of protests from the Israeli embassy and Jewish human rights group. Critics accused the cartoonist of incitement and anti-Semitism. "This cartoon conjures up the horrific medieval antisemitic 'Blood Libel' and is more in keeping with the tradition of the Nazi paper 'Der Stürmer'," lamented Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center ([5]). Despite the protests, the cartoon was selected as "Cartoon of the year of 2003" [6]. The Independent's editor and the cartoonist denied that the cartoon was anti-Semitic and claimed it was just "anti-Sharon", and the British Press Complaints Commission ruled against the complaints, pointing to the fact that the same Goya painting had also been adapted to attack non-Jewish politicians [7].

Anti-Semitic incidents in the United Kingdom

During 2003 and 2004 there was a sharp increase (of about 40%) in antisemitic incidents in Britain (UK). [8] The incidents include anti-Semitic slogans, vandalism, incitement, calls for killing Jews and even death-threats and violent attacks on Jews and Israeli students. Most of the attacks came from extremist Islamist groups. Many of the attacks are taking place in universities and academic campuses, when militant Muslim students attacked Israeli students and arranged conferences and protests calling for the killing of all Jews. Jewish groups also protested against London's controversial mayor Ken Livingstone, for endorsing Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who supports and advocates suicide bombings against Jews. The violent incitement in Britain against Jews even resulted in murder: Asif Hania and Omar Sharif, two British Muslim citizens, exploded themselves in Mike's Place Pub in Tel Aviv, killing three people. [9]

Antisemitic incidents in France

A dramatic increase in attacks was listed in France. According to the National Consultative Commission of Human Rights, there were 970 antisemitic incidents in 2004 compared to 601 incidents in 2003. [10]

Reactions and responses

Position of the United States

On December 30, 2004, the US Department of State published its annual Report on Global Anti-Semitism1, in accordance with Section 4 of PL 108-332. The report's summary says: "The increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe, has compelled the international community to focus on anti-Semitism with renewed vigor." "Four main sources" of the phenomenon were identified:

  • "Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."
  • "Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."
  • "Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."
  • "Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."

The report contains major incidents, trends and actions taken around the world in the period between July 1, 2003 and December 15, 2004.

On April 28, 2004, at the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin, then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell explained, "It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel, but the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures." [11]

Position of the European Union

Groups monitoring hate speech and violence in the European Union have noted an upswing in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish institutions in many European countries. The Interior Minister of France has announced that the number of anti-Semitic attacks in France in 2004 is more than double that of the same period in 2003 ([12]).

In September 2004, The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to "ensure that criminal law in the field of combating racism covers anti-Semitism" and to penalize intentional acts of public incitement to violence, hatred or discrimination, public insults and defamation, threats against a person or group, and the expression of anti-Semitic ideologies. It urged member nations to "prosecute people who deny, trivialize or justify the Holocaust". The report said it was Europe's "duty to remember the past by remaining vigilant and actively opposing any manifestations of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance... Anti-Semitism is not a phenomenon of the past and... the slogan 'never again' is as relevant today as it was 60 years ago." ([13])

According to a study by Pew Research Center, in some European countries there has been a recent decrease in some forms of anti-Semitism.

Position of the United Nations

Many Jewish groups have been disappointed with the role of the United Nations in regards to the treatment of Jews; many Jewish groups and writers have stated that the actions of the United Nations have often implicitly condoned, or encouraged, anti-Semitism.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated on June 21, 2004: "It is hard to believe that 60 years after the tragedy of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is once again rearing its head. But it is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of these phenomena in new forms and manifestations. This time the world must not, cannot, be silent." Annan then asked UN member states to adopt a resolution to fight anti-Semitism, and stated that the UN's Commission on Human Rights must study and expose anti-Semitism in the same way that it fights bias against Muslims. Annan stated "Are not Jews entitled to the same degree of concern and protection?" [14], [15]

Anne Bayefsky, a preeminent Canadian human rights activist, has addressed the UN specifically on this matter on the same day:

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.... [16]

According to Lawrence H. Summers, the current president of Harvard University, "The United Nations-sponsored World Conference on Racism - while failing to mention human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anyplace in the Arab world - spoke of Israel’s policies prior to recent struggles under the Barak government as constituting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The NGO declaration at the same conference was even more virulent." [17]

Jewish reactions

The Anti-Defamation League stated that: "The events of September 11, the American campaign against terrorism and the Palestinian intifada against Israel have created a dangerous atmosphere in the Middle East and Europe, one that 'gives anti-Semitism and hate and incitement a strength and power of seduction that it has never before had in history.'"

Views of Natan Sharansky

Natan Sharansky has suggested that anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism can be distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel if it fails the "3D" test, as follows:

  • The first D is the test of demonization... Jews were demonized for centuries as the embodiment of evil. Therefore, today we must be wary of whether the Jewish state is being demonized by having its actions blown out of all sensible proportion. For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz... can only be considered anti-Semitic.
  • The second D is the test of double standards. For thousands of years a clear sign of anti-Semitism was treating Jews differently than other peoples, from the discriminatory laws many nations enacted against them to the tendency to judge their behavior by a different yardstick. Similarly, today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively... It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored. Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross.
  • The third D is the test of delegitimation. In the past, anti-Semites tried to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish religion, the Jewish people, or both. Today, they are trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state, presenting it, among other things, as the last vestige of colonialism. While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic. If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people have a right to live securely in their homeland.[18]

Criticism

Voices from the Left argue that the concept of "new anti-Semitism" is a device for stifling dissent by equating anti-Semitism with criticism of Zionism, Israeli government policy or the behaviour of certain Jews.

Noam Chomsky

The Jewish anarchist Noam Chomsky has criticised the Anti-Defamation League and Zionist groups for focusing on this "New anti-Semitism" rather than the old, which he considers the real thing:

[E]ven the ravings of virulent Nazis and anti-Semites are dismissed as a minor matter when the political agenda of "support for Israel" (which means, in these circles, "support for Israeli expansionism and denial of Palestinian rights") is served. Thus for The New Republic, the discovery of unreconstructed Nazis in high places in a Republican Party that was then considered to "support Israel" was a minor matter; Nazism, Holocaust denial, hatred of Jews are only "antique and anemic forms of anti-Semitism," The New Republic explained, in contrast to the serious stuff: the "Jew-hatred" in the Democratic Party, which debated a two-state resolution at its convention. Similarly, scarcely an eyebrow was raised when the Education Department of the Reagan Administration went out of its way to reject funding for a highly-regarded school program on the Holocaust because it was unfair to the Nazis and the Klan and might lead to a "guilt trip." The Anti-Defamation League has even sunk to the level of redefining "the REAL anti-Semitism" to include people who give war "a bad name and peace too favorable a press," "sniping at American defense budgets," criticizing US policy in Vietnam and Central America, etc.; their reasons are that US military power benefits what they regard as Israeli interests, hence the interests of Jews. For details, see my "Necessary Illusions" (316f.), and sources cited. Such disgraceful antics, and the lack of concern over them, once again reveal the very thinly-disguised reality. [19]

Brian Klug

Brian Klug, in an article written for The Nation in 2004 [20], argues that while we should be concerned with the recent rise in anti-Semitic events including violence against Jews, anti-Jewish graffiti, and talk of Jewish led conspiracy plots, these do not as a whole represent some new or more virulent form of anti-Semitism but simply a revival of the old anti-Semitism. He believes that in reality, the claim of there being a new anti-Semitism is really a code-word for including anti-Zionism in anti-Semitism; he argues that anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic. He notes that Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has stated "The harsh but undeniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism—always, everywhere, and for all time....Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred", and argues that supporters of this comparison, such as Foxman and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, are making a false claim that all Jews are Zionists and thus unfairly linking all forms of anti-Zionism as automatically anti-Semitic. He goes on to suggests that the concept of "new anti-Semitism" is being used by some to unfairly silence many legitimate critics of Israel. He suggest that line between legitimate and anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is being drawn by many supporters of Israel in such a way as to rule out any criticism beyond a rap across the Israeli government's knuckles or a finger wagging at the laws of its land. Thus, in his view, criticisms of Israel are too often labeled anti-Semitic without regard to the true motivations of the critic or whether the facts support the critics claims. He says that to argue that hostility towards Israel and hostility towards Jews as being one and the same is equating Israel with Jewry, an equation he rejects. He does not claim there is never a connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism but that it is usually only one potential ingredient in a complex situation and not the engine that drives most anti-Zionism. He takes issue with the claim by some supporters of Israel that criticism of Israel that is unbalanced and intemperate is automatically anti-Semitic. He argues that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter struggle with complex issues, inflamed passions, and suffering on both sides. Thus, partisans on both sides are liable to cross the line at times. He says that one cannot assume that when either side crosses the line that it is necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism, racism, or Islamophobia, though for some that may indeed be the case.

Michael Neumann

Michael Neumann, a Jewish professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, shared similar views in his Counterpunch article "Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism." [21]. He is critical of how the term anti-Semitism is being applied these days. He says that too often criticism of Israel is being wrongly labeled anti-Semitic. He believes anti-Semitism should be defined as hatred of Jews for what they are and not what they do. Thus criticizing Jews for simply being a Jew or applying anti-Semitic stereotypes to them would be anti-Semitic but not, say, criticizing the Jewish community for failing to hold Israel accountable for its actions. He believes it is important to separate the Israeli government from the Israeli people and the Jewish Israelis from Jews as a whole, since Israel does not represent all Jews and the Israeli government does not represent the views of all Israelis. Thus criticism of the Israeli government and its actions is never the same as criticizing all Jews or even simply all Israelis.

Jewish Voice for Peace

Another area of activity condemned as anti-Semitic is the boycotting of Israeli companies or companies that profit from dealing with Israel. Pro-Palestinian Jews such as Jewish Voice for Peace say that they:

...absolutely reject the accusation that general divestment or boycott campaigns are inherently anti-Semitic. The Israeli government is a government like any other, and condemning its abuse of state power, as many of its own citizens do quite vigorously, is in no way the same as attacking the Jewish people. http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/press/releases/release120804.html]

See also

References

  • The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Phyllis Chessler, Jossey-Bass, 2003
  • Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism by Abraham Foxman, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003
  • A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain, Ed. Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin. Profile Books, 2003
  • Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory Deborah Lipstadt, 1994, Penguin
  • The Return of Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld, Encounter Books, 2003
  • Why the Jews? The Reasons for Antisemitism Revised Edition.Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, Simon & Schuster, 2003
  • Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, Robert S. Wistrich. Pantheon Books, 1992.

Reports

Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism

Articles about the new anti-Semitism

Miscellaneous

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_antisemitism&oldid=11934786"