from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Three years ago I was lucky enough to spend some time in the West Bank. One day our group visited Balata refugee camp just outside Nablus. We wandered around talking to the people there and witnessing the often wretched conditions in which they lived. At the end we gathered at a community centre to hear a few of the refugees speak of their experience of disposession.
There was no overarching emotion that I remember all the refugees sharing. Some were despairing, others defiant, others angry. But it was the last speaker who will always stay in my memory. The emotion he chose to display was hatred. A man in his sixties, he was old enough to remember a time when there was no such country as Israel and when, as a result, he had a status other than that of refugee.
But rather than tell the story of how he lost his home, as many of the others speakers had done, he decided to tell a rambling anecdote about his father, who had been friends with a Jewish man in the 1930s. Eventually the two had fallen out and the refugee's father had been swindled out of some money as a result. His conclusion to this tale was blunt: "don't trust the Jews." I'll never forget the way he summed up his attitude "When you give the Jew the finger, he takes the hand. When you give him your hand, he takes the arm."
This was, of course, textbook anti-semitism. In fact it was typical of the false reasoning which leads many people to prejudice: taking a negative trait from one person and then ascribing that trait to their entire race. As the old man concluded his little parable some of the Palestinians we were with walked out of the room, partly in protest at the old man's prejudice, partly in despair that hours of hard work by them had been undone by him in a few sentences.
I know first-hand that some people who criticise the state of Israel are anti-semites. Anyone who hates the Jews is very unlikely to be supportive of the self-identified Jewsih state. So to argue that anti-semitism does not lie behind some of the criticism of Israel would be to argue, in effect, that anti-semitism does not exist. Clearly such a claim is absurd.
Nevertheless there is a growing tendency among those who are pro-Israeli to label any and all criticism of the Jewish state as anti-semitic. It's as though some people are unwilling or unable to accept that one can be against both Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and against ani-Jewish prejudice.
As the second intifada has worn on, I've noticed that some of Israel's supporters have played the anti-semitism card more frequently. From being the card of last resort, it is now the card of first resort for some. Indeed, a few even seem to lack any other cards at all.
This is a symptom of a wider problem for Israel - it doesn't really have a case any more. It's brutal colonial policies in the West Bank and Gaza are so blatant that it is hard for all but the most skillful debater to defend them. When all else is equal, few people are inclined to root for Goliath against David. With such a poor case to start with, it's hardly surprising that some of Israel's supporters reach for their ace - the accusation that anyone who criticises Sharon is a Jew-hater.
After all very few of us, at least in the nice, tolerant West, would welcome the accusation that we hate the Jews. It is widely and correctly understood that this is a despicable attitude to hold. Even having to deny the charge is not a pleasant experience. Any time that your name and the word "anti-semite" get into the same sentence, it's bad news - even if the word "not" is in there too. Would you like to open your newspaper and see the headline "(Your Name) Denies Hating Jews"? No, me neither. The whole point is that anti-semitism is so patently abhorrent that having to deny you believe in it should be unnecessary.
Of course, those who use this slur promisciously know this only too well. They know that the accusation will hurt, and they hope that it will also silence. But there is a limit to how long this last desperate line of defence can hold.
Recently, Webster's dictionary changed their definition of the word "anti-semitism" to include criticism of the state of Israel. If the Jewish state's defenders think this is a victory for them, they have gravely miscalculated. Once the definition is widened, the word's impact is inevitably diluted. If anti-semitism means hatred of the Jews, then it is always morally wrong. But if it means hatred of the Jews and/or criticism of the state of Israel then, in some cases it is not wrong. In fact there are many humane and tolerant people who are by this definition "anti-semites".
With the expansion of the definition, the true anti-semites become more respectable through their inclusion in a group which is no longer composed solely of bigots.
And whom, may I ask, will suffer most as a result of this?
There was no overarching emotion that I remember all the refugees sharing. Some were despairing, others defiant, others angry. But it was the last speaker who will always stay in my memory. The emotion he chose to display was hatred. A man in his sixties, he was old enough to remember a time when there was no such country as Israel and when, as a result, he had a status other than that of refugee.
But rather than tell the story of how he lost his home, as many of the others speakers had done, he decided to tell a rambling anecdote about his father, who had been friends with a Jewish man in the 1930s. Eventually the two had fallen out and the refugee's father had been swindled out of some money as a result. His conclusion to this tale was blunt: "don't trust the Jews." I'll never forget the way he summed up his attitude "When you give the Jew the finger, he takes the hand. When you give him your hand, he takes the arm."
This was, of course, textbook anti-semitism. In fact it was typical of the false reasoning which leads many people to prejudice: taking a negative trait from one person and then ascribing that trait to their entire race. As the old man concluded his little parable some of the Palestinians we were with walked out of the room, partly in protest at the old man's prejudice, partly in despair that hours of hard work by them had been undone by him in a few sentences.
I know first-hand that some people who criticise the state of Israel are anti-semites. Anyone who hates the Jews is very unlikely to be supportive of the self-identified Jewsih state. So to argue that anti-semitism does not lie behind some of the criticism of Israel would be to argue, in effect, that anti-semitism does not exist. Clearly such a claim is absurd.
Nevertheless there is a growing tendency among those who are pro-Israeli to label any and all criticism of the Jewish state as anti-semitic. It's as though some people are unwilling or unable to accept that one can be against both Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and against ani-Jewish prejudice.
As the second intifada has worn on, I've noticed that some of Israel's supporters have played the anti-semitism card more frequently. From being the card of last resort, it is now the card of first resort for some. Indeed, a few even seem to lack any other cards at all.
This is a symptom of a wider problem for Israel - it doesn't really have a case any more. It's brutal colonial policies in the West Bank and Gaza are so blatant that it is hard for all but the most skillful debater to defend them. When all else is equal, few people are inclined to root for Goliath against David. With such a poor case to start with, it's hardly surprising that some of Israel's supporters reach for their ace - the accusation that anyone who criticises Sharon is a Jew-hater.
After all very few of us, at least in the nice, tolerant West, would welcome the accusation that we hate the Jews. It is widely and correctly understood that this is a despicable attitude to hold. Even having to deny the charge is not a pleasant experience. Any time that your name and the word "anti-semite" get into the same sentence, it's bad news - even if the word "not" is in there too. Would you like to open your newspaper and see the headline "(Your Name) Denies Hating Jews"? No, me neither. The whole point is that anti-semitism is so patently abhorrent that having to deny you believe in it should be unnecessary.
Of course, those who use this slur promisciously know this only too well. They know that the accusation will hurt, and they hope that it will also silence. But there is a limit to how long this last desperate line of defence can hold.
Recently, Webster's dictionary changed their definition of the word "anti-semitism" to include criticism of the state of Israel. If the Jewish state's defenders think this is a victory for them, they have gravely miscalculated. Once the definition is widened, the word's impact is inevitably diluted. If anti-semitism means hatred of the Jews, then it is always morally wrong. But if it means hatred of the Jews and/or criticism of the state of Israel then, in some cases it is not wrong. In fact there are many humane and tolerant people who are by this definition "anti-semites".
With the expansion of the definition, the true anti-semites become more respectable through their inclusion in a group which is no longer composed solely of bigots.
And whom, may I ask, will suffer most as a result of this?
PolMach Forums