Criticism of Israel and antisemitism

[psychomath]

This is not a TAAT - it's something I've been thinking about recently anyway with the accusations of antisemitism in the Labour party, and after reading this article in Spiked magazine. The thread about Israel killing a journalist reminded me that I'd been intending to post it, but it's not a response to that thread in particular or any posters in it. Just wanted to get that out of the way before anyone thinks I'm having a passive-aggressive go at them personally.

I do think there's a disproportionate focus among parts of the left on criticising the actions of the Israeli government compared to those of (other) oppressive regimes, both in the Middle East and across the world. I'm sure that the vast majority of individuals involved in this criticism are not remotely antisemitic, and in fact I'm not entirely convinced that antisemitism is the main root of the issue at all. On the other hand, it does seem like there's something strange going on in the wider picture.

It's a tricky issue to discuss because, obviously, criticism of Israeli foreign policy doesn't in itself make you antisemitic, and a lot of it is valid. In addition, everyone has their own particular areas of interest, and it would be ridiculous to require that people know about every single global conflict before being allowed to comment on the Israel-Palestine one specifically. It's also perfectly reasonable for people to want to be able to discuss Israel without others immediately jumping into the conversation to say 'why do you only ever talk about Israel and not Saudi Arabia/ISIS/whoever?' So no individual is doing anything inherently wrong by having these conversations, and in and of themselves they're good and important conversations to have.

However, if it were simply a case of people having different interests, you would expect to see a number of groups devoted to criticism of various regimes - some people would be interested in Israel, but there would be similar numbers whose biggest concern was the Saudi bombing of Yemen, or Turkish attacks on Kurdish regions of Syria. Instead, there's a huge amount of support among the left generally for the Palestinian cause - numerous student unions officially support BDS, for example, and Israeli Apartheid Week is often marked by events on campus - whereas there seems to be (comparatively) far less attention drawn to or even understanding of the other issues. Among the left-wing people I know personally, everyone has an opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but very very few are even aware that there is a civil war in Yemen, never mind angry about the Saudi involvement in it and our own continuing ties with the Saudi government. That's anecdotal of course, but from reading left-wing pages and blogs it seems to be reflected in wider society as well.

So when people complain about 'whataboutery' in conversations about Israel, or how they should be able to discuss the actions of the Israeli government without being accused of antisemitism, I don't think they're entirely wrong to be annoyed by it. But at the same time, I think people need to understand that these conversations don't happen in a vacuum. When you're confronted by what feels like a constant steady drip of anti-Israel sentiment, and simultaneously see very little criticism of other countries' policies even when they're arguably as bad or worse, it's hard not to feel under fire sometimes. And because it's such a widespread and decentralised phenomenon, there's often no place to direct this frustration except (perhaps unfairly) at the individuals participating in these conversations. AIBU to see it this way?

I suppose Israel at least fancies itself as a decent, civilised country. Sure, it's not a bad place at all by the standards of various warlord-run banana republics, but is that really the sort of comparison we should be making?

Similar really to public outcry at the USA's homicide/shooting rate despite it not being nearly as high as Burundi, Rwanda etc,not a case of anti American racism.

There are many many Jewish people around the world that do not support was the Israel government are doing. So when I see a few posters conflating the two, I take no notice as it’s not a true reflection of life.

Israel has a tendency to slap the label of anti-semitism on any criticism of their actions, it doesnt help their case. I'm sure some people are driven by anti-semitism, but not all.

I think that when they instantly jump to anti-semitism accusations, it gets peoples backs up.

They also interfere with other countries too much for my liking - just in my own, they've forged Irish passports and recently been putting pressure on Irish banks to close accounts of those sympathetic to Palestine. Seems to be one rule for them, another rule for the rest of the world.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/29/left-jews-labour-antisemitism-jewish-identity

I agree entirely - this article by Jonathan Freedland I think sums up why the endless criticism of Israel is linked to antisemitism.

"Let’s imagine for just a moment that a small but vocal section of the left was consumed with hatred for one faraway country: barely an hour could pass without them condemning it, not just for this or for that policy, but for its very existence, for the manner of its birth, for what it represented. And now let’s imagine that this country was the only place in the world where the majority of the population, and most of the government, were black.

You’d expect the racist right to hate such a country. But imagine it was that noisy segment of the left that insisted it would be better if this one black country had never been created, that it was the source of most of the conflict in its region, if not the world. That its creation was a great historical crime and the only solution was to dismantle it and the people who lived there should either go back to where they – or rather, their grandparents or great-grandparents – had come from; or stay where they were and, either way, return to living as a minority once more. Sure, living as a minority had over the centuries exposed them to periodic persecution and slaughter. But living as a majority, in charge of their own destiny – well, black people didn’t deserve that right.

And now imagine that the people who said all these things insisted they had nothing against black people. On the contrary, they were passionately against all forms of racism. In fact it was their very anti-racism that made them hate this one black country. Their objection was only to this country, its conduct and its existence, not to black people themselves. You surely were only inventing this horrible accusation of racism to divert attention from the wicked black country and its multiple crimes.

Most on the left would give such a view short shrift. They would be suspicious of this insistence that loathing of the world’s only black country was separate from attitudes to black people in general, especially because most black people had a strong affinity with this country, seeing it as a constitutive part of their own identity. The left would not be swayed by the fact these critics could point to a handful of black activists who shared their loathing of this country and wished it gone. They would want to listen to the mainstream black community and be guided by them."

Ha. I look forward to the day when the tories have a leadership election in which two Jewish candidates between them hoover up three quarters of the votes, as Labour did in 2010.

Sure, the left is somewhat obsessed with Israel but this is barely more linked to racism than was say the 1970s' left's obsession with the Nicaraguan sandinistas.

I suppose Israel at least fancies itself as a decent, civilised country. Sure, it's not a bad place at all by the standards of various warlord-run banana republics, but is that really the sort of comparison we should be making?

I see what you're saying, but doesn't this line of reasoning essentially boil down to the idea that we should hold Israel to a higher standard because countries like Saudi Arabia are just inherently backwards and don't know any better? (I'm sticking with Saudi Arabia as an example because it's in a similar position of being a relatively wealthy country with British support, so I think it's a good comparison.)

I've heard this sort of thinking quite a bit and it makes me uncomfortable, because I feel like there's quite often an undertone - not from you, but in general - of 'well these other countries are just full of poor uneducated goat farmers, we shouldn't criticise them because we can't expect them to understand that violence is wrong. But Israel is made up of civilised people and should know better', which sounds like a deeply patronising and almost colonial attitude. I'm not sure whether that's really what people are saying (certainly I don't think it's consciously meant that way), it's just the inference I take from it.

puffyisgood, I don't actually think antisemitism is the main cause of the focus on Israel. My point was more that I can understand why people see it that way, and that I don't think the 'but what about X country?' comments on threads about Israel are necessarily as unreasonable as some people make out

Bishbashbosh45 that was so interesting. As a Jew I always find if hard to explain why much anti-Israel sentiment feels anti-Semitic. Perhaps there really are “many many Jews” who don’t believe in Israel but that doesn’t reflect the views of my family and friends. I’m not saying I think the government has always acted reasonably, but that’s completely different than denying Israel’s right to exist.

What I do not understand about Corbyn is why he is not more able to explain his position and the nature/reasoning of his criticism of Isreal.

He cruises through crowds of journalists and utter daft greetings as if the argument is beneath him.

I am no Corbyn supporter, but I do wish he would climb off his high ideological horse and start to realise that he and we live in the real world.

doesn't this line of reasoning essentially boil down to the idea that we should hold Israel to a higher standard because countries like Saudi Arabia are just inherently backwards and don't know any better?

In a sense, you're absolutely spot on in that - unless you're a cultural relativist, which I'm not due to this exact reason - there's something inherently racist in the assumption that those places can't do better and therefore shouldn't be expected to. I absolutely believe that places like IS A could and should be expected to do better.

Having said that, it is very much the state of Israel and its government which market the place as 'the only democracy in the Middle East' and seek to project an image of a Western style liberal society. In the light of this, I see absolutely nothing wrong with demanding they put their money where their mouth is.

*KSA

. Perhaps there really are “many many Jews” who don’t believe in Israel but that doesn’t reflect the views of my family and friends. I’m not saying I think the government has always acted reasonably, but that’s completely different than denying Israel’s right to exist

Just wondering if this is in response to my post up thread.

I said many many Jews against what the government are doing.

Maybe some folk are just completly in real denial about the occupation and cannot separate the two

here

another one

another

In fact there are protests all the time - by the Jewish community- fighting against it.

It's because our own government had such a big hand in creating and supporting this situation, along with out biggest alli, the US. And because we continue to sell arms to Israel knowing that they are likely to be used against civilians.

Also as a PP said, we rightly hold western democracies up to high standards, we expect them to abide by UN decisions. Unfortunately we can't reasonably expect that from every county in the world.

I think there has always been an anti-semitic faction on the left and this overflows into their attitude to Israel. As the article points out, this is largely due to polarised thinking: capitalism versus socialism and the USA (or the West) versus the USSR. The USA supports Israel and some successful bankers are Jews so when it comes to picking sides, the far left will choose Palestine.

I've given up trying to have rational conversations about the Middle East with Corbynites. There has been so much rewriting of history. The last time I tried, I was told that the Israelis started the 6 day war and how stupid of me to be taken in by propaganda. Now I was around in 1967 and it was one of the first wars to be televised. It was touch and go. David and Goliath. I know what I saw.

The GLC in the 70s and 80s was certainly one of those 'pockets of anti-semitism'. If Corbyn wants to eradicate it from the LP, he could start there, among his closest cronies. Livingstone, McDonnell, Abbot, even Dawn Butler - and, of course, Corbyn himself, all have GLC connections. A lot of the new LP membership are of the same vintage, returning from exile in the SWP and other fringe groups.

There are also the newbies, fresh out of campus, where lies another anti-semitic 'pocket' in the NUS and activities of radical BAME groups, some of which bar Jewish organisations from membership. They have very little idea of the history of the conflict and have fallen hook, line and sinker for the revisionist version. They weren't alive when Hamas murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics or highjacked planes, culminating in Entebbe. No one who saw film of Hamas training child soldiers and the carnage that resulted from blowing up school buses and pizza parlours would be proud to think of them 'friends'. (Tho' Corbyn and McDonnell don't seem to have a problem with that sort of thing, witness their support for the IRA.) That wall the protestors are trying to breach has drastically reduced the number of suicide bombings, which used to be a weekly event.

In some sense, Israel is the victim of its own success. It is now seen as the oppressor, not the oppressed. No longer the underdog. The Jewish community, too, in the UK, is seen, however inaccurately, as privileged. As Livingstone said, 'Jews don't vote for me anyway. They're rich.'

They weren't alive when Hamas murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics or highjacked planes, culminating in Entebbe.

In all fairness - and I passionately oppose them - that wasn't Hamas, which wasn't founded until over a decade after Munich and the height of the plane abductions. These were all Fatah and a variety of splinter groups of the popular front variety.

If we're going for historical accuracy - and I agree that this can only be a good thing - let's get our facts straight.

Namely the PLO/Fatah the big threat then were the same people who also agreed to Oslo in 92. This matters because it shows how positions, even in this conflict, evolve. Not that Oslo was successful ...

Oops, sorry. Should have said Palestinian terrorists.

Also as a PP said, we rightly hold western democracies up to high standards, we expect them to abide by UN decisions. Unfortunately we can't reasonably expect that from every county in the world.

But see, this is what I don't understand - why can't we reasonably expect that from every country in the world? It may not be realistic to think that everywhere will suddenly become a peace-loving democracy any time soon, but I definitely do think we can expect all regimes to meet a minimum moral standard of not intentionally murdering random civilians in other countries (or indeed their own). I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but we can still say that it should be the case. I don't see why the criticism should be focused on Israel because they've managed to get some things right, while other countries are just allowed to go on being terrible because it's seen as 'well those people will never change anyway'.

This is part of the reason why I don't necessarily think antisemitism is the root cause of this phenomenon. If anything, I suspect it might be almost the opposite - a lot of Westerners see Israelis on some level as more civilised, intelligent etc than their counterparts in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, and therefore more capable of taking the moral high ground. Again, I'm not aiming that at you specifically, I just think it's a widespread attitude.

Having said that, it is very much the state of Israel and its government which market the place as 'the only democracy in the Middle East' and seek to project an image of a Western style liberal society. In the light of this, I see absolutely nothing wrong with demanding they put their money where their mouth is.

That's a fair point, but I also don't think it's a good enough reason to level so much more criticism at Israel than other places. I mean with Israel and KSA we have two countries, one that kills civilians while claiming to be a Western style liberal democracy and one that kills civilians while openly declaring itself a theocracy - I don't think the potential hypocrisy of the former is really the most important moral failing in this scenario.

Thymeout, it's interesting that you mention young people being more pro-Palestine because they don't remember Munich etc. I am just old enough (mid-20s) to remember the time before the wall was built, and suicide bombings were on the news so often that a girl of Palestinian origin in my primary school had to explain to the rest of us that normal Palestinians weren't terrorists and also wanted peace. And this wasn't in a right-wing area - if anything, it was right in the heart of the sort of middle-class liberalism (I don't mean that in a bad way) where pro-Palestinian views would be dominant today. So presumably 20-odd years ago the mainstream narrative must have been very different.

Psychomath, my perception is that public opinion shifted massively away from Israel from about the start of the second intifida in 2000, although admittedly that could be because that's about the time I started to read a lot of news and comment online.

I always think it's interesting that my grandparents were ardent socialists - they spoiled their ballot paper one year and wrote 'Old Labour' on it, and were they still alive today I'm sure they would think that the sun shines out of Jeremy Corbyn's backside. In short, they wouldn't be the sort of people you'd have expected to be Israel's biggest fans, but back in the 1940s they were out fundraising and campaigning for the creation of Israel and were always very interested in it, particularly the socialist principles of the kibbutzim. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Labour was generally pro-Israel before the Six Day War.

To get back to the original point, yes, rightly or wrongly Israel/Palestine gets much more attention than other conflicts. Perhaps because 'Jews are news', western countries were involved in its creation through the UN, it's a western democracy held to higher standards than others, there's no shortage of English-language books, news, websites, blogs, films etc about the conflict, and it's easy to travel to the region to witness the situation first-hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Labour was generally pro-Israel before the Six Day War.

That's not wrong at all, and there are several reasons for this. Two of the most important ones are that ...

A) early Israel was much more kibbutz country than current day Israel is. Early Israeli Labour was a dominant political force. So there was a lot more political affinity to be found. And ...

B) People just weren't so concerned with Colonialism in general back in the days. Even leftists.

Agreed we should be able discuss any countries foreign, domestic or economic policy. Criticism of policy is allowed. However, the elements with the Labour Party appear to be antagonistic towards Israel almost as a matter of principle. I think the current approach has put off many voters, the rally today showed posters saying how the policy had made them vote Tory. I find it bizarre that the Labour Party have move yo this stance so quickly and with such enthusiasm and feel that MPs who do not follow such doctrine should say so and say so loudly.

I posted this on the other thread, so apologies to those who read it there, but am reposting as I do think it's very important and without understanding this, you cannot understand the Israeli/Palestinian situation.

You can see how media obsession and negative spin operates with regard to Israel by a journalist who reported for the Associated Press on the region for many years here: www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide

I strongly recommend it. It was a real eye-opener for me.

Here is a clip:

"How Important Is the Israel Story?

Staffing is the best measure of the importance of a story to a particular news organization. When I was a correspondent at the AP, the agency had more than 40 staffers covering Israel and the Palestinian territories. That was significantly more news staff than the AP had in China, Russia, or India, or in all of the 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. It was higher than the total number of news-gathering employees in all the countries where the uprisings of the “Arab Spring” eventually erupted.

To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The AP’s editors believed, that is, that Syria’s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I don’t mean to pick on the AP—the agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. Staffing levels in Israel have decreased somewhat since the Arab uprisings began, but remain high. And when Israel flares up, as it did this summer, reporters are often moved from deadlier conflicts. Israel still trumps nearly everything else.

The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close."