Anti-Zionism
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, the movement for a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Anti-Zionism takes many forms, from the refusal to recognize Israel's existence to challenging the idea that Israel has a right to exist to religious opposition to the idea of a Jewish state.
Because of the diversity of opinion, and the argument that anti-Zionism is either inherently antisemitic or may act as a proxy for antisemitism, the phrase is controversial and sometimes disputed by those to whom it is applied. Some who embrace the term allege that Zionism is a form of racism.[1][2][3] The UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 that "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" was revoked by the Resolution 46/86. The result is a persistent ambiguity in the use, criticism and defense of the phrase. For the purposes of this article, anti-Zionism is surveyed broadly, to discuss all notable opposition to Zionism, while noting where the anti-Zionist label tends to be a matter of dispute.
History of Anti-Zionism
Political Zionism has encountered opposition ever since it was first articulated in the 19th century. It is therefore possible to speak of a history of anti-Zionism reaching back for more than a century and in many forms.
Anti-Zionist publications date back to at least the turn of the last century,[4] appearing increasingly through at least the mid-1940s in relation to events in the British Mandate of Palestine, when several Arab and Jewish organizations opposed the creation of a Jewish State in the area.[5]
The term has regained wider currency in political debate since the 1970s, as part of the controversy over the Arab-Israeli conflict. Before the Six-Day War of 1967, opposition to the existence of Israel was largely confined to the Arab world, with notable exceptions including the Soviet Union and its allies. Since the 1970s, however, opposition to Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has led to mounting criticism of Israel, which in turn has fueled the growth of anti-Zionism.[6]
Types of anti-Zionism
The majority of Palestinian and Arab peoples view Israel as unrightfully occupying the Arab land of Palestine.[citation needed][7][8] These critics opposed Israel's creation in 1948, and continue to criticize the Zionist movement which underlies it. They view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees,[9] and the accompanying violence, as negative but inevitable consequences of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State.[10]
Aside from those voices generally considered "anti-Zionist," there are those who advocate a binational state comprising the current State of Israel and the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in which both Jews and Palestinians would be citizens with equal rights. Advocates of this may not necessarily consider themselves "anti-Zionist." They note that the bi-national concept was advanced by a vocal minority within the Zionist movement at the time of the founding of the state of Israel, notably by the writer Martin Buber, and by Judah Magnes, the first president of Hebrew University. Some Palestinian academics such as Edward Said and Asad Ghanem considered that binationalism should replace the Oslo Accords.[11] Bi-national state proponents maintain that such a settlement ought to be arrived at voluntarily and by peaceful means, and argue that it would be in the best interests of the Jews and Palestinians alike. Opponents of this option argue that, under those conditions, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state or a haven for potential Jewish refugees. They also point out the security risks in such a multi-ethnic state. See Binational solution.
World anti-Zionism
While it is possible to divide opposition to Zionism into the many different positions it takes, it can also be generally divided culturally and geographically. In the following sections, opposition to Zionism is discussed as it is commonly found in various populations and parts of the world.
Jewish anti-Zionism
Political opposition
The Zionist movement before the 1930s met with some ambivalence among the world's Jewish communities. While the religious connections with the Land of Israel were indisputable, many disassociated themselves with the socialist ideology that dominated early political Zionism. While the revisionist Zionist movement emerged as an alternative over time, the Holocaust solidified Zionism as a mainstream movement in world Jewry.
Many Jews, mainly in Europe, who supported socialist or communist political ideas, took the view that the defeat of anti-Semitism and the winning of civic equality for Jews required participation in the common struggle against capitalism and oppressive regimes. Yet, many in this group also felt that for Zionists to advocate emigration to Palestine would perpetuate the segregation of the "ghetto" that they were fighting to overcome. Some Jewish socialists rejected this latter view and became Socialist Zionists. The largest Jewish socialist organisation in Europe, the General Jewish Labor Union, also known as the Bund, opposed Zionism right up until the German invasion of Poland in 1939.[12] Other Jewish political movements which rejected Zionism in this period were the Folkists, led by Simon Dubnow, a liberal movement which advocated cultural autonomy for Jews in the diaspora rather than territorial sovereignty, and the Territorialists, a Jewish nationalist movement who broke with Zionism because they were willing to pursue Jewish nationhood anywhere, not just in Palestine.
Religious opposition
 | This article possibly contains original research. |
 |
Many 19th century and early 20th century Orthodox Jews objected to Zionism because they opposed attempts to build a secular and socialist Jewish state in what was then known as Palestine.
Most in this group did not reject the right of Jews to move to Palestine, or even to reconstitute a Jewish nation. Rather, they maintained that such a state should follow Jewish law and tradition, with religious leadership. However, other Orthodox Jews of that time objected to any creation of a Jewish state in Palestine before the arrival of the Jewish Messiah. Among these Orthodox anti-Zionists, the many groups of "ultra-Orthodox" or Haredim have played a significant role.
In 1897 the first major Hasidic anti-Zionist initiative was launched by the Rebbes of Ger, Kotsk, and Radzin. Zionists were excommunicated. Zionist leaders accused the Hasidim of using violence against Zionists. The Rebbe of Siedlce called destroying Zionism a religious obligation and accused the Zionists of violence against anti-Zionist Hasidim.
In the early twenteith century, a group of Hasidim and Misnagdim formed Agudath Israel, initially a strongly anti-Zionist party. It was a major movement in Eastern Europe between the wars, standing candidates in Jewish communities against Zionist and socialist candidates, and getting deputies elected to the Polish and Latvian parliaments. After the Shoah and the creation of the state of Israel, it slowly moved to non-Zionism and passive support of the state.
However, many Hasidim remained opposed to the state and to Zionism. Especially the Edah HaChareidis, led by Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, remained and still remains virulently opposed to all forms of Zionism, as do the Skver and Tosh.[13] The Satmar Hasidim have around 100,000 followers globally. In Israel, they refuse to accept money from the state and avoid interaction with the state as much as possible. The same is true of the smaller group Sighet, which is allied and practically merged with Satmar.[14]
Extreme hostility to Zionism is also a characteristic of the Munkatsher Hasidim. The founding Rebbe of Munkacz, Grand Rabbi Chaim Elazar Shapira, was known for cursing secular Zionists, religious Zionists, and those who joined Agudath Israel. His anti-Zionist tirades were especially virulent, more so than those of any other Hasidic leader. He called Zionism a "demonic force". He accused the Gerrer Rebbe, Rabbi Avrohom Mordechai Alter, and all of Agudath Israel of being "crypto-Zionist heretics".[15] Both Rabbi Teitelbaum of Satmar and Rabbi Shapira of Munkacz opposed religious Zionism even more strongly than secular Zionism. Rabbi Shapira called it a violation of one of the thirteen principles of the Jewish faith listed by the Rambam.
Yakov M. Rabin, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, argues in his book A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, that Haredi Jews who publicly criticize Zionism do so for two religiously-based reasons:
- “The first of these is to prevent desecration of the name of God. And since the State of Israel often claims to be acting on behalf of all the world's Jews, and even in the name of Judaism, these Jews feel they must explain to the public, and primarily to non-Jews, the falsehood of this pretension. The second commandment is to preserve human life. By exposing the Judaic rejection of Zionism, they hope to protect Jews from the outrage they believe the State of Israel has generated among the nations of the world.”[16]
For a longer and more in-depth discussion of Jewish opposition to Zionism refer to "Jewish Criticism of Zionism" by Edward C. Corrigan[17]
Rooted in the Satmar Hasidism, is the small Neturei Karta group, probably the most radical and vocal of Haredi anti-Zionists.
The group's late leader, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum's book, VaYoel Moshe, published in 1958, expounds one Orthodox position on Zionism, based on a literal form of midrash (biblical interpretation). Citing to Tractate Kesubos 111a of the Talmud Teitelbaum states that God and the Jewish people exchanged three oaths at the time of the Jews' exile from ancient Israel:
- That the Jewish people would not ascend to the Holy Land as a group using force;
- That the Jewish people would not rebel against the governments of countries in which they lived;
- That the Jewish people would not, by their sins, prolong the coming of the Jewish Messiah.
Many other Orthodox Jews, including the Agudat Israel party, which has participated in most of Israel's coalition governments, accept the validity of these oaths, but have found ways of accomodating the Israeli state.[citation needed] They argue either that the Holocaust represented excessive persecution, thereby releasing the Jews from these oaths, or, more commonly, based in pragmatism, that it is better to cooperate with Israel than to actively oppose it. Thus the Belzer, and Gerer Hasidim, among others, claim that involvement in Israeli politics is necessary in order to offer a religious viewpoint in the Israeli Knesset. Some Haredi figures have even lent support to Israeli military operations. The Lubavitcher Rebbe in particular voiced his vehement opposition to land concessions, based on the Code of Jewish Law.[18] All Hasidic Jewish opponents to Zionism, including Rabbi Teitelbaum and Rabbi Shapira, do approve of Jews living in the Land of Israel. Their opposition is not to Jews living in the Land of Israel, but to the ideology of Zionism. Indeed, there are many Hasidim and yeshivos of both Munkacz, Satmar and many other strongly anti-Zionist groups in Israel, particularly in Jerusalem.
Nonetheless, most Haredim consider themselves bound in principle to "historical anti-Zionist conceptions, including isolation".[19] Occasionally, even followers of Haredi groups which are not generally known for strongly opposing Zionism, such as Belz, participate in demonstrations against the state, alongside the Satmar.[20]
Arab anti-Zionism
 |
At the time when the Zionist settlement of Palestine began, most of the Arab world was under the control either of the Ottoman Empire or of one or other of the European colonial powers.
Towards the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, some Arabs were willing to consider alliance with the Zionist movement. For instance, Emir Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who helped lead the Arab nationalist revolt against the Ottomans, signed the following agreement with Chaim Weizmann at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference:
- Mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine.
This agreement also called for the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and supported all necessary measures:
- to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.
For a number of reasons, the agreement was never realized. For one, Faisal had conditioned his acceptance of the Balfour Declaration on the fulfillment of British promises of independence to the Arab nations, which were not kept. Moreover, he had little local support for his position. Arab Palestinian leaders, among them the mayor of Jerusalem, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, rejected this agreement made in their name. The Arab inhabitants of Palestine also rejected any suggestion of Palestine being severed from the Arab-Islamic world. While a Jewish minority had lived in Palestine for centuries, the Arab Palestinians were strongly opposed to the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish immigrant state, and hence to any immigration that would threaten to change the majority status of the Arab population. Thus, while small-scale Jewish immigration (such as the First Aliyah of the 1880s) was accepted and often welcomed for economic reasons, larger influxes of Jews were resisted strenuously.
Once the Balfour Declaration made it clear that the British intended to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine, Arab opposition grew much firmer, and has grown steadily more so. The hostilities punctuated the 1920s (Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, 1929 Palestine riots) and 1930s (activities of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam and the Black Hand group, 1936-1939 Great Uprising).
Anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist narratives—particularly popular in Arab countries with violent experiences of colonial rule—focus especially on parallels with cases such as Algeria or Rhodesia, seeing it in terms of a foreign power encouraging immigration into the country of a group which then sought to dominate the country. According to this view, the natural means of combating Zionism is considered to be Palestinian revolution, and the expulsion or weakening of the Zionist "occupiers". Among Palestinians, examples of notable individuals or political parties that emphasize anti-imperial and anti-colonial narratives in their opposition to Zionism include: Ghassan Kanafani, Edward Said, Leila Khaled, George Habash, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and The Palestinian Revolutionary Communist Party. Examples of Palestinian solidarity groups that root their activism against Zionism in anti-imperial and anti-colonial terms include: Students for Justice in Palestine, Al-Awda [2], and Sumoud [3]. Critics of these movements argue that it is a red herring to compare Zionism to imperialism or colonialism, as the Zionist ideology is focused on return to an ancestral homeland, rather than an attempt to exploit Arab Palestinians.
Pan-Arabist narratives—which enjoyed their heyday in the 1960s in the Nasser era, but have declined since—emphasize the idea of Palestine as a part of the Arab world taken by others (partly overlapping with the previous.) As such, Israel is seen as both a symbol of Arab weakness and—insofar as it geographically cuts the Arab world into two noncontiguous halves—an obstacle to any union of the Arab world. In this narrative, the natural means of combating Zionism is Arab nations uniting and attacking Israel militarily. Pan-Syrian narratives, promoted mainly by Syria, are essentially parallel.
In response to the Pan-Arabist narrative, Israeli historian Benny Morris commented:
Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them.[21]
Local nationalist narratives of non-Palestinian Arabs emphasize the idea of Israel as a threat to the nation (commonly citing extremist Israeli individuals' dreams of a nation stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates"). Among Palestinians, these emphasize other issues, such as the Palestinian refugee problem, and that in their view, over 90% of the pre-1948 British Mandate of Palestine is controlled by Israel.
Israel on the other hand claims that it controls only 23% of the original mandate, with the rest under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which already has a majority Palestinian Arab population.
A poll of Arab-Israelis conducted by the Israeli Democracy Institute in 2007 found that 75% of Arab-Israelis support the existence of a Jewish state:
A vast majority of Israeli Arabs would support a constitution that maintained Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state while guaranteeing equal rights for minorities. Among the 507 people who participated in the poll, some 75 percent said they would agree with such a definition while 23 percent said they would oppose it.[22]
Muslim anti-Zionism
|
Muslim anti-Zionism generally opposes the state of Israel as an intrusion into what many Muslims consider to be Dar al-Islam, a domain rightfully, and permanently, ruled only by Muslims. Once Dar al-Islam is established in a country, non-Muslims are permitted only dhimmi status as protected from violence, but inferior and subject to Islamic law. Thus any sovereign, non-Muslim government in what is now Israel would be anathema.
Palestinian and other Arab groups, as well as the government of Iran (since 1979 Islamic Revolution), insist that the State of Israel is illegitimate and refuse to refer to it as "Israel", instead using the locution "the Zionist entity" (see Iran-Israel relations). In an interview with Time Magazine in December 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "Everyone knows that the Zionist regime is a tool in the hands of the United States and British governments" [4].
This view means of combating Zionism is considered to be jihad or Holy War, whether by Palestinians or others.
An example of this view is the work of Ismail al-Faruqi (1926-1986). In Islam and the Problem of Israel (1980), he argued that Zionism was a "disease" largely influenced by European romanticism far removed from Judaism. He opposed the "Zionist occupation" of Palestine and called for the dismantling of Israel and the launch of a jihad. He said that the injustice caused by Zionism is such as to necessitate war. From the standpoint of Islam, Faruqi wrote, Zionism represents apostasy against Judaism.
Western anti-Zionism
|
Before the 1970s, serious criticism of Israel was relatively unheard in the western countries, except to some extent in the Communist parties. At that time there was a largely uncritical acceptance of Israel's projected image of itself as a nation of pioneers making the desert bloom. This was partly motivated by genuine admiration for the efforts of the Israelis, partly by a sense of guilt over the Holocaust, and partly by relief that the "Jewish question" had now finally been solved by the creation of a Jewish state. Pro-Zionist sentiment in the west peaked in the 1960s, epitomised by the Hollywood epic Exodus (1960) and by support for "plucky little Israel" in the Six-Day War.
The tide of opinion turned after 1970, however, as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), formed in 1964, began to conduct its campaign of "armed struggle" against Israel. These acts included the hijacking and destruction of passenger airliners and the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and coincided with a wave of radicalism which swept through the western intellectual world in the wake of the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s (see The Sixties). Many Westerners and Third World activists came to see the Palestinians as an oppressed people like the South Vietnamese or the black South Africans, and the PLO as a national liberation movement of the type they supported in other places.
This wave of radicalism soon passed, but it left an intellectual climate much less sympathetic to Israel than had existed before 1967. This anti-Israeli sentiment might have faded had there been an Arab-Israeli settlement, as seemed possible, for example, after President Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel and the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. But the repeated disappointments of Middle East diplomacy, and the spread of the opinion that the Palestinians were the victims of western neo-colonialism in the form of a Jewish settler state planted in the Arab world, created a permanent reservoir of anti-Zionist sentiment among western intellectuals, including some Jews. Maxime Rodinson's 1973 book Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? was influential in promoting this view.
The active expression of western anti-Zionism has tended to ebb and flow in relation to events in the Middle East. When developments seem positive, such as during the period of the Oslo Accords and the prime ministership of Yitzhak Rabin, and again during the Barak-Arafat negotiations, western opinion, even on the anti-Zionist left, welcomes the reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. When events turn out badly, as they did after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin or with the launching of the Second Intifada or the election of Sharon; during these times western anti-Zionism tends to increase.
Most Western anti-Zionism continues to advocate coexistence rather than expulsion: very few western intellectuals actively desire the physical destruction of Israel, and most would welcome any settlement if it was acceptable to the Palestinians.
Soviet anti-Zionism
From 1919 onwards, Zionism was viewed in the Soviet Union as a form of bourgeois nationalism, and its active promotion among Jews was banned. The official position of the Soviet Union and of its satellite states and agencies was that Zionism was a tool used by the Jews and Americans for "racist imperialism." The meaning of the term Zionism was misrepresented to conform to a policy of the ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union: "the main posits of modern Zionism are militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism,... overt and covert fight against freedom movements and the USSR."[24]
During the years of Joseph Stalin's rule Soviet Jews were frequently attacked as "Zionists," although the majority of Soviet Jews at that time did not hold strong Zionist convictions. After the creation of Israel, however, many Soviet Jews began to sympathise with the Jewish state, thus arousing further antagonism from the Soviet government, which saw Zionism as a potential source of disloyalty.
The Soviet Union's stance towards Zionism was strongly influenced by geopolitical concerns. Due to his anti-British realpolitik, Stalin played a key role in the foundation of the state of Israel. From the 1950s, Israel began to emerge as a close Western ally.
During the last years of Stalin's rule, roughly 1948-1953, official Soviet anti-Zionism was intensified. While Stalin's campaigns were officially carried out under the banner of anti-Zionism, critics argue that they had a strong antisemitic content, often borrowed directly from traditional Russian antisemitism. This included a campaign against so-called "rootless cosmopolitans" and the fabrication of the Doctors' plot. After Stalin's death, anti-Zionism continued through the rise of "Zionology" in the 1960s and subsequent activities of official organizations such as the Anti-Zionist committee of the Soviet public.
During the Cold War, the spectre of Zionism raised fears of internal dissent and opposition. The Soviet government liquidated almost all remaining Jewish organizations, and placed synagogues under police surveillance, both openly and through the use of informers. At the same time, the persecution of Soviet Jews emerged as a major human rights issue in the West. See Jackson-Vanik amendment.
In 1975, the Soviet Union sponsored the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, discussed below.
International anti-Zionism
Many of the most important authorities on ethics in the 20th century have contributed to the debate on Zionism, with some, such as Mahatma Gandhi in the 1930s and '40s,[25] expressing opposition to the Zionist movement.
Paralleling the rise of anti-Zionist sentiment in the west was increased hostility towards Israel at the international level. During the 1950s and 1960s Israel made great efforts to cultivate good relations with the newly independent states of Africa and Asia, and hostility to Israel was confined to the states of the Arab-Muslim world and the Communist bloc. A combination of inter-related circumstances in the 1970s radically changed this situation.
The first was the increased hostility to Israel following the onset of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the late 1960s. The second was the decline in the prestige of the United States following the end of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. The third was increased economic power of the Arab oil-producing states in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the resulting energy crisis. The fourth was the rise of radical anti-western regimes in a series of African countries. The fifth was the increased diplomatic and economic presence of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba in Africa.
This anti-Zionist trend was manifested in organisations such as the Organization for African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement, which passed resolutions condemning Zionism and equating it with racism and apartheid during the early 1970s. It culminated in the passing by the United Nations General Assembly of Resolution 3379 in November 1975, declaring that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was passed by 72 votes to 35, with 32 abstentions. The 72 votes in favour consisted of all 20 Arab states, another 12 Muslim-majority states (including Turkey), 12 Communist countries, 14 non-Muslim African states, and 14 other states (including Brazil, India, Mexico and Portugal).
By 1991 this international situation had been reversed following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the American-led victory over Iraq in the Gulf War and the return of the United States to global political and economic dominance. On December 16, 1991, under pressure from the United States and Israel, the General Assembly passed Resolution 4686, repealing resolution 3379, by a vote of 111 to 25, with 13 abstentions and 17 delegations absent. Thirteen out of the 19 Arab countries, including those engaged in negotiations with Israel, voted against the repeal, another six were absent. No Arab country voted for repeal. The PLO denounced the vote. All the ex-Communist countries and most of the African countries who had supported Resolution 3379 voted to repeal it. Only three non-Muslim countries voted against the resolution: Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. The rest abstained (including Turkey) or absented themselves.
International anti-Zionism, like domestic anti-Zionism in many countries, rises and falls in parallel with events in the Middle East, and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw some revival of anti-Zionism in some countries; however, it is also possible that it was not until this time that media attention focused on the phenomenon.
Anti-Zionism and antisemitism
| Part of a series on |
| Antisemitism |
|---|
 |
 Category |
Some commentators believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to antisemitism.[26][27] Critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies.[28]
Since the support and defense of Israel has become a central focus of Jewish life for many since 1948,[29] many Jews see attacks on the existence of Israel as inherently antisemitic. For example, Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has argued: "If you advocate the abolition of Israel ... that means in fact that you're against the people who live there. If you are, for example, against the existence of Malaysia, you are anti-Malay. If you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish."[30]
The historian Walter Laqueur, writes at length about anti-Zionism being used as a “cover” for anti-Semitism.[31]
On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism may often serve as camouflage for anti-Semitic bigotry on American college campuses.[32]
Some scholars believe that while Anti-Zionism may not be inherently antisemitic, it very often either becomes antisemitism or is used to hide antisemitism.
Thomas Friedman writes that “[c]riticizing 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.”[33]
Robert S. Wistrich argues that although several types of anti-Zionism are not intrinsically antisemitic,[34] much of contemporary radical anti-Zionism has become a form of antisemitism.[35]
Other scholars posit that anti-Zionism should remain distinct from antisemitism. Brian Klug, for example, writes that even when anti-Zionism is expressed in unfair and foul terms, it is not necessarily antisemitism.[36]
In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in its working definition of antisemitism, identified several ways in which antisemitism can manifest itself, such as using double standards against Israel or drawing analogies between its behavior and that of the Nazis, while also stating that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”[37]
In a criticism of this working definition, European Jews for a Just Peace, an organization of 18 European Jewish pro-Palestinian peace groups,[38] contested several of its findings, and specifically targeted any inherent assumptions that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism.[39]
In 2006, Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small, both of Yale University, conducted a survey on the connection between radical anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism in Europe. The study was published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in August of the same year. The authors’ overall conclusion is that evidence of anti-Israeli sentiment can consistently predict the probability that an individual is antisemitic with a direct correlation between the extent of the anti-Israeli sentiment with the probable measure of antisemitism.[40] They conclude that severe criticism of Israel does make it reasonable for the question to be raised of said criticism is actually masking an underlying anti-Semitism.[41] However, Kaplan and Small are careful to avoid concluding that the correlation they find (i.e., that extreme anti-Zionists are also likely to be antisemites) is proof to the theory that anti-Zionism is itself antisemitic.[42]
Historian Diana Muir reviewed the paper and concluded that the correlation shown between anti-Zionistic attitudes and antisemitism was almost perfect.[43] Muir also supports the study's conclusion that only a small fraction of Europeans believe the anti-Zionistic and antisemitic rhetoric.[43]
Steven Zipperstein, professor of Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University, argues that a belief in the State of Israel's responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict should be considered part of what reasonably informed decent people thinks.[44] Zipperstein claims that disproportionate criticism of Israel is not the result of new anti-Semitism, or even classical anti-Semitism, but, although troubling, is a reflection of the extreme responses that mark a world society that has experienced September 11, and which has focused on the United States, and its ally Israel, as their main targets.[45]
Webster's Third New International Dictionary controversy
In addition to a conventional definition of antisemitism ("hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination"), the unabridged edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary (2002), gives a controversial second and third definition to antisemitism, defining the word as "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy for the opponents of Israel".[46] (The modern college editions based on Webster's Third all omit the second definition of "antisemitism.") The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has mounted a campaign to get this definition removed. In a letter to Merriam-Webster, Hussein Ibish wrote that the second and third definition "smears and impugns the motives of all those who support the human and political rights of Palestinians"[47][48]
A Merriam-Webster company spokesman defended the definition as "a relic" based on a handful of citations from about 1950 in which antisemitism was "linked more or less strongly with opposition to Israel or to Zionism." The spokesman also stated that the sense wasn't supported by current usage, and added that it would probably be dropped when the company publishes a new unabridged version in a decade or so. However, the company said it was beyond its means to send out correction sheets to all libraries.[49]
Ken Jacobson, the associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League, urged Merriam-Webster to retain the definition. "Zionism is the national expression of the Jewish people," he told the New York Times, "and to deny that, it seems to me, most often reflects anti-Semitic views."[50]
See also
- Post-Zionism
- Zionism
- New Antisemitism
- Zionism and racism allegations
- Allegations of Israeli apartheid
References
- ^ Counterpunch: Zionism as a Racist Ideology
- ^ Albalagh: Why Zionism Is Racism
- ^ Media Monitors Network: Reflections on Zionism From a Dissident Jew
- ^ For early examples of anti-Zionist writings see Avraham Baruch Steinberg, Sefer Da'at ha-Rabbanim (Warsaw, 1902) and Shlomo Zalman Landau and Yosef Rabinowitz, Sefer Or LiYesharim (Warsaw, 1900), cited in Gurock, Jeffrey S. (1996). American Jewish Orthodoxy in Historical Perspective. KTAV Publishing House, Inc. ISBN 0-88125-567-X, p. 404.
- ^ Vladimir Jabotinsky, 'Peace In Palestine. Hostility Of Arab Troops', The Times, Saturday, May 14, 1921, p. 6; Issue 42720, col C; 'In Palestine To-Day. IV-Water-Power From Jordan, Employment For All', The Times, Wednesday, May 18, 1921, p. 7, Issue 42723, col A; 'Psychology Of Zionism. Dr. Myers On Religion And Nationality', The Times, Tuesday, April 25, 1922, p. 11, Issue 43014, col D; 'Readjustment In Palestine. A New Outlook., Fruits Of The Arab Agitation', The Times, Monday, December 24, 1923, p. 9; Issue 43532, col A.
- ^ Prior, Michael (1999). Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-20462-3, pp. 225-251.
- ^ El-Nawawy, Mohammed (2002). The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Process in the reporting of western Journalists. Ablex/Greenwood, pg. 19 ISBN 1567505449 "It is a barrier that has been created by years and years of antagonism with Israelis; a barrier that was strengthened by the Egyptian and Arab news media at large which have enforced the Arabs' stereotypes about the Israelis as invaders of Arab land."
- ^ Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press, pg. 19.
- ^ The U.N.'s final estimate of the total number of Palestinian Refugees was 711,000 according to the General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Conciliation Commission, October 23, 1950. (U.N. General Assembly Official Records, 5th Session, Supplement No. 18, Document A/1367/Rev.1)
- ^ IMEU: Israel's right to discriminate
- ^ Bligh, Alexander (2003). The Israeli Palestinians: An Arab Minority in the Jewish State. Routledge. pp. pp.248. ISBN 0-7146-5417-5.
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters:|accessyear=,|origmonth=,|accessmonth=,|month=,|chapterurl=,|origdate=, and|coauthors=(help) - ^ "August Grabski on the Anti-Zionism of the Bund (1947-1972)" Workers Liberty, 2005
- ^ "Chassidim denounce Israel in Montreal protest", Canadian Jewish News
- ^ Australian Jewish News
- ^ The War on Modernity of R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz; Allan L. Nadler; Modern Judaism (Oxford University Press), Vol. 14, No. 3 (Oct., 1994), pp. 233-264
- ^ Rabkin, Yakov (2006). A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism. Fernwood Publishing. ISBN 1-55266-171-7.
- ^ [1]
- ^ An Analysis of the Camp David Peace Process
- ^ THE ULTRA-ORTHODOX IN ISRAELI POLITICS, by Menachem Friedman, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- ^ "Chassidim denounce Israel in Montreal protest", Canadian Jewish News
- ^ Benny Morris Interview in Ha'aretz (Part 2)
- ^ Poll of Arab-Israelis
- ^ Gerstenfeld, Manfred (June 1, 2004). "Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons: An Interview with Joël Kotek". Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism. 21. ISSN 1565-3676. Retrieved 2007-04-01.
Kotek says: "The fourth motif - zoomorphism - is a very common theme throughout the world. To abuse one's adversaries, one dehumanizes them by turning them into animals. In Nazi, Soviet and Romanian caricatures, the Jew is often depicted as a spider, perceived as an evil animal. Stavro in the Daily Star portrays Barak, with a Star of David on his breast, as a spider interrupting the peace process.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Template:Ru icon Сионизм, Большая советская энциклопедия (Zionism. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. 1969-1978)
- ^ Gandhi, The Jews And Palestine Compiled by E. S. Reddy. A Collection of Articles, Speeches, Letters and Interviews explaining Gandhi's opposition to Zionism.
- ^ Taguieff, Pierre-André (2004). Rising from the muck: the new anti-semitism in Europe. translated from the French by Patrick Camiller, forward by Radu Ioanid. Chicago, Illinois: Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 978-1566635714. OCLC 53462223. LCCN 20-3 – 0.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|chapterurl=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Ron Rosenbaum ed., ed. (2004). Those who forget the past: the question of anti-Semitism. afterward by Cynthia Ozick. New York, New York: Random House. ISBN 0812972031. OCLC 53793496. LCCN 20-3 – 0.
{{cite book}}:|editor=has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters:|accessyear=,|accessmonth=,|chapterurl=, and|coauthors=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Said, Edward (2000). "America's Last Taboo". New Left Review. 6: 45–53. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|quotes=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) “For a totalitarian Zionism, any criticism of Israel is proof of the rankest anti-semitism. If you do not refrain, you will be hounded as an anti-semite requiring the severest opprobrium. In the Orwellian logic of American Zionism, it is impermissible to speak of Jewish violence or Jewish terror when it comes to Israel, even though everything done by Israel is done in the name of the Jewish people, by and for a Jewish state.” - ^ "n 1948, following the Holocaust of European Jewry, the modern State of Israel became a central focus of Jewish life and many Jews view Israel as their 'spiritual homeland'." UK government Neighbourhood Renewal Unit; "Most Jews viewed the establishment of modern Israel as a great event in Jewish history, although a small minority opposed its existence. To most it represented a place in which Jews would always be free from persecution. For some it also represented the fulfillment of ancient prophecies that the Jewish people would once again rule themselves in their own land...In time Israel’s security became the central focus of Jewish political activity throughout the diaspora, and it remains so today." "Jews" Encarta; "Even as Medinat Yisrael [the land of Israel] serves uniquely as the spiritual and cultural focal point of world Jewry, Israeli and Diaspora Jewry are interdependent, responsible for one another, and partners in the shaping of Jewish destiny... " Rabbi Davids and Rabbi Levy "Is Israel the center of jewish life?"
- ^ Bauer, Yehuda (January 11, 2005). "Yehuda Bauer: Anti-Semitism" (RealMedia) (Interview). Interviewed by Michael Krasny. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
{{cite interview}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|callsign=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|city=ignored (|location=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|program=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|subjectlink=ignored (|subject-link=suggested) (help) - ^ Laqueur, Walter (2006). "Golda Meir and the Post-Zionists". Dying for Jerusalem: the past, present and future of the holiest city. Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc. pp. pg. 55. ISBN 9781402206320. OCLC 61704687. LCCN 20-5 – 0.
…behind the cover of "anti-Zionism" lurks a variety of motives that ought to be called by their true name. When, in the 1950s under Stalin, the Jews of the Soviet Union came under severe attack and scores were executed, it was under the banner of anti-Zionism rather than anti-Semitism, which had been given a bad name by Adolf Hitler. When in later years the policy of Israeli governments was attacked as racist or colonialist in various parts of the world, the basis of the criticism was quite often the belief that Israel had no right to exist in the first place, not opposition to specific policies of the Israeli government. Traditional anti-Semitism has gone out of fashion in the West except on the extreme right. But something we might call post-anti-Semitism has taken its place. It is less violent in its aims, but still very real. By and large it has not been too difficult to differentiate between genuine and bogus anti-Zionism. The test is twofold. It is almost always clear whether the attacks are directed against a specific policy carried out by an Israeli government (for instance, as an occupying power) or against the existence of Israel. Secondly, there is the test of selectivity. If from all the evils besetting the world, the misdeeds, real or imaginary, of Zionism are singled out and given constant and relentless publicity, it can be taken for granted that the true motive is not anti-Zionism but something different and more sweeping.
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|chapterurl=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ "Findings and Recommendations of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Campus Anti-Semitism" (PDF). U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. April 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
On many campuses, anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated that includes traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation. This has included, for example, anti-Israel literature that perpetuates the medieval anti-Semitic blood libel of Jews slaughtering children for ritual purpose, as well as anti-Zionist propaganda that exploits ancient stereotypes of Jews as greedy, aggressive, overly powerful, or conspiratorial. Such propaganda should be distinguished from legitimate discourse regarding foreign policy. Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Friedman, Thomas L. (October 16, 2002). "Campus Hypocrisy" (Abstract). Op-Ed. The New York Times. p. A23, Column 5. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Wistrich, Robert S. (2004). "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism". Jewish Political Studies Review. 16 (3–4). Retrieved 2007-02-26.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
My answer to such objections is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since 1948) have tended to converge, generally without undergoing a full merger. There have always been Bundists, Jewish communists, Reform Jews, and ultra-Orthodox Jews who strongly opposed Zionism without being Judeophobes. So, too, there are conservatives, liberals, and leftists in the West today who are pro-Palestinian, antagonistic toward Israel, and deeply distrustful of Zionism without crossing the line into anti-Semitism. There are also Israeli "post-Zionists" who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly "Jewish" state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews. - ^ Wistrich, Robert S. (2004). "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism". Jewish Political Studies Review. 16 (3–4). Retrieved 2007-02-26.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
Nevertheless, I believe that the more radical forms of anti-Zionism that have emerged with renewed force in recent years do display unmistakable analogies to European anti-Semitism immediately preceding the Holocaust.…For example, "anti-Zionists" who insist on comparing Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich appear unmistakably to be de facto anti-Semites, even if they vehemently deny the fact! This is largely because they knowingly exploit the reality that Nazism in the postwar world has become the defining metaphor of absolute evil. For if Zionists are "Nazis" and if Sharon really is Hitler, then it becomes a moral obligation to wage war against Israel. That is the bottom line of much contemporary anti-Zionism. In practice, this has become the most potent form of contemporary anti-Semitism.…Anti-Zionism is not only the historic heir of earlier forms of anti-Semitism. Today, it is also the lowest common denominator and the bridge between the Left, the Right, and the militant Muslims; between the elites (including the media) and the masses; between the churches and the mosques; between an increasingly anti-American Europe and an endemically anti-Western Arab-Muslim Middle East; a point of convergence between conservatives and radicals and a connecting link between fathers and sons. - ^ Klug, Brian (December 3, 2003). "No, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
But isn't excessive criticism of Israel or Zionism evidence of an anti-semitic bias? In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz argues that when criticism of Israel "crosses the line from fair to foul" it goes "from acceptable to anti-semitic". People who take this view say the line is crossed when critics single Israel out unfairly; when they apply a double standard and judge Israel by harsher criteria than they use for other states; when they misrepresent the facts so as to put Israel in a bad light; when they vilify the Jewish state; and so on. All of which undoubtedly is foul. But is it necessarily anti-semitic? No, it is not. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter political struggle. The issues are complex, passions are inflamed, and the suffering is great. In such circumstances, people on both sides are liable to be partisan and to "cross the line from fair to foul". When people who side with Israel cross that line, they are not necessarily anti-Muslim. And when others cross the line on behalf of the Palestinian cause, this does not make them anti-Jewish. It cuts both ways.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "Working Definition of Antisemitism" (PDF). EUMC. 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- Denying the Jewish people 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.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
{{cite web}}: line feed character in|quote=at position 151 (help) - ^ "Welcome to the website of European Jews for a Just Peace, EJJP". European Jews for a Just Peace. 2003. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
We, representatives of eighteen Jewish peace organisations from nine European countries, gathered together at the conference "Don't say you didn't know" in Amsterdam on the 19 and 20th of September 2002, call upon: A) the Israeli government to change its current policy and implement the the proposals in the following declaration and B) all other governments, the United Nations and the European Union to put pressure on the Israeli government to implement the proposals in the following declaration: We believe that the only way out of the current impasse is through an agreement based on the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state and the guarantee of a safe and secure Israel and Palestine. We condemn all violence against civilians in the conflict, no matter by whom it is carried out. We call for: 1. an immediate end of the occupation of the occupied territories: West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem with recognition of the 4th June 1967 borders; 2. complete withdrawal of all Jewish settlements in all the occupied territories; 3. the recognition of the right of both states to have Jerusalem as their capital; 4. the recognition by Israel of its part in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Israel should recognise in principle the Palestinian right to return as a human right. The practical solution to the problem will come about by agreement between parties based on a just, fair and practical considerations. It will include compensation, the return to the territory of the State of Palestine or of Israel, without endangering Israel's existence. We call upon the international community, especially Europe, for political and financial support".
{{cite web}}: line feed character in|quote=at position 222 (help) - ^ Feiler, Dror (October 13, 2005). "Letter sent to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia concerning the Working Definition of Antisemitism". European Jews for a Just Peace. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
- "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" assumes that all Jews equate self determination with Zionism. Not only is this not true today, it has never been true. There is a long and respected tradition in Jewish history and culture among all those who have wished or wish today for cultural, religious or other forms of autonomy falling short of a Jewish state; for a binational state in Palestine as did Martin Buber and others; or for a one-state solution today, whatever form it might take – a minority view in Israel today to be sure, but held by numbers of respected Jews. To make the assumption that all Jews hold the same views is in itself a form of antisemitism.
- "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." This is a formulation that allows any criticism of Israel to be dismissed on the grounds that it is not simultaneously applied to every other defaulting state at the same time. As campaigners for a just peace in the Middle East we can affirm that it is thrown willy-nilly to stifle any and all but the narrowest criticism of acts of the Israeli government that are in prima facie breach of clause after clause of the 4th Geneva Convention. Or again, the democratic norm that all citizens in a state should be treated equally sometimes sits uneasily with some notions of Israel as a 'Jewish state' and it is not antisemitic to point this out or to suggest that Israel should, indeed, be a 'state of all its citizens'.
- "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." This is the flipside of a position, frequently expressed by Prime Minister Sharon and many Zionists, that refuses to make any distinction between the interests of Israel and those of Jews worldwide. Why it is permissible for them to make this elision but evidence of antisemitism when others do so is not clear. It might even be taken as evidence of double standards… In reality it is all too often Zionist rhetoric which fuses the notion of Israel's interests with those of Jews worldwide and thus fuels what the EUMC identifies (other things being equal) as a potential indicator of antisemitism.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); line feed character in|quote=at position 7 (help) - ^ Kaplan, Edward H. (2006). "Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe" (PDF). Journal of Conflict Resolution. 50 (4): 548. doi:10.1177/0022002706289184. ISSN 0022-0027. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) “In the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, extreme criticisms of Israel (e.g., Israel is an apartheid state, the Israel DefenseForces deliberately target Palestinian civilians), coupled with extreme policy proposals (e.g., boycott of Israeli academics and institutions, divest from companies doing business with Israel), have sparked counterclaims that such criticisms are anti-Semitic (for only Israel is singled out). The research in this article shines a different, statistical light on this question: based on a survey of 500 citizens in each of 10 European countries, the authors ask whether those individuals with extreme anti-Israel views are more likely to be anti-Semitic. Even after controlling for numerous potentially confounding factors, they find that anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the likelihood of measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment observed.” - ^ Kaplan, Edward H. (2006). "Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe" (PDF). Journal of Conflict Resolution. 50 (4): 560. doi:10.1177/0022002706289184. ISSN 0022-0027. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) “Our research directly addresses this issue. From a large survey of 5,000 citizens of ten European countries, we showed that the prevalence of those harboring (selfreported) anti-Semitic views consistently increases with respondents’ degree of anti-Israel sentiment (see Figures 2 and 3 and Table 3), even after controlling for other factors. It is noteworthy that fewer than one-quarter of those with anti-Israel index scores of only 1 or 2 harbor anti-Semitic views (as defined by anti-Semitic index scores exceeding 5), which supports the contention that one certainly can be critical of Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. However, among those with the most extreme anti-Israel sentiments in our survey (anti-Israel index scores of 4), 56 percent report anti-Semitic leanings. Based on this analysis, when an individual’s criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism.” - ^ Kaplan, Edward H. (2006). "Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe" (PDF). Journal of Conflict Resolution. 50 (4): 549. doi:10.1177/0022002706289184. ISSN 0022-0027. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) “More recently, scholars have addressed the relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism (Frindte, Wettig, and Wammetsberger 2005; Wistrich 1990, 2004), but whether extreme criticism of Israel, as exemplified in the recent AUT boycott debate, is de facto anti-Semitic remains bitterly contested. Although motivated by strong anti-Israel sentiment such as that earlier described, our research question is not whether anti-Israel statements are anti-Semitic in either effect or intent. Rather, we ask whether individuals with strong anti-Israel views are more likely to harbor anti-Semitic attitudes than others.” - ^ a b Muir, Diana (July 21, 2006). "Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism: The Link". History News Network. George Mason University. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
On any given day one can find some eminent European – a university professor, high-ranking churchman, a parliamentarian – gravely explaining to reporters that harsh and disproportionate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. And their protestations sound plausible. After all, this is not your grandfather's anti-Semitism.…At least that is what I assumed until someone did the study. Two Connecticut professors got curious about the constant denials that extremely harsh critics of Israel were anti-Semitic. Edward H. Kaplan, the William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Management Sciences at Yale, and Charles A. Small, Director of Urban Studies, Southern Connecticut State University, decided to examine the issue in formal way.…Kaplan and Small ask whether individuals expressing strong anti-Israel sentiments, such as the statement by Ted Honderich, Emeritus Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University College London, that "those Palestinians who have resorted to necessary killing have been right to try to free their people, and those who have killed themselves in the cause of their people have indeed sanctified themselves," are more likely than the general population to also support in such old-style anti-Semitic slurs as "Jews have too much power in our country today." The correlation was almost perfect. In a survey of 5,000 Europeans in ten countries, people who believed that the Israeli soldiers "intentionally target Palestinian civilians," and that "Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians" are justified, also believed that "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind," "Jews have a lot of irritating faults," and "Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want." The study's other interesting finding was that only a small fraction of Europeans believe any of these things. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism flourish among the few, but those few are over-represented in Europe's newspapers, its universities, and its left-wing political parties.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Zipperstein, Steven J. (2005). "Historical Reflections on Contemporary Antisemitism". In Derek J. Penslar, Michael R. Marrus, and Janice Gross Stein, eds. (ed.). Contemporary antisemitism: Canada and the world. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0802039316. OCLC 56531591. LCCN 20-5.
But, as it is increasingly clear, a belief in the State of Israel's culpability for essentially all that has gone wrong in Israel and Palestine is part and parcel of accepted opinion. Increasingly, it is deemed part of what a reasonably informed, progressive, decent person think.
{{cite book}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help);|editor=has generic name (help);|format=requires|url=(help); External link in|chapterurl=|chapterurl=ignored (|chapter-url=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - ^ Zipperstein, Steven J. (2005). "Historical Reflections on Contemporary Antisemitism". In Derek J. Penslar, Michael R. Marrus, and Janice Gross Stein, eds. (ed.). Contemporary antisemitism: Canada and the world. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN 978-0802039316. OCLC 56531591. LCCN 20-5.
Speaking, however, in terms of the preoccupations of intellectuals in the West, it seems that responses to Jews and the Jewish state are not fundamentally the byproduct of antisemitism. They are, above all, a by-product of the wildly disproportionate responses that mark the post-September 11 world. Disproportionate reaction seems increasingly the norm, especially in regards to antipathy for the United States, antipathy that has meshed, it seems to me, with an outsized antagonism for its smallest but singularly visible Middle East ally, Israel. Distinguishing such reaction from antisemitism without denying that the two coincide is not meant to dismiss the significance of such attitudes, which remain troubling, but in ways different from how they have been widely understood.…What Raab means by anti-Israelism is the increasing role that a concerted, vigorous, prejudice against Israel — and he does see such sentiments as born of prejudice — has played in much of the political left, visibly in the antiglobalist campaign, but where there is no discernible hatred of Jews. Often, in this context, belief in Israel's mendacity is shaped, above all, by simple, crude, linear notions of the causal relationship between politics, oppression, and liberation, by transparent beliefs in a world with clear-cut oppressors and oppressed — in other words, by a much distorted, simplistic, but this-worldly political analysis devoid of anti-Jewish bias. Such prejudice against Israel is not antisemitism, although undoubtedly the two can and at times do coexist.
{{cite book}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help);|editor=has generic name (help);|format=requires|url=(help); External link in|chapterurl=|chapterurl=ignored (|chapter-url=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - ^ Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1961, 2002.
- ^ Media Coverage of ADC's Merriam-Webster's Campaign March 16, 2004
- ^ Arab Group: Change Dictionary Entry on Antisemitism By Ori Nir. The Forward March 4, 2004
- ^ NY Times (by subscription), Apr 11, 2004
- ^ NY Times (by subscription), Apr 11, 2004
Other resources
- For other resources and external links, see Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources)