What I Meant

I am asked what I meant when I criticized the effort to come up with a standard definition of "antisemitism".  I've seen at least two versions of the effort, I'll concentrate on the one found here.

Most of the eleven points are fairly straight forward and would fit within any definition of any kind of racist bigotry, especially the perennials that Trump engages in with Latinos, Muslims and others.   Group responsibility for the actions of individuals and small groups of individuals is high in those.  But there are some real problems, most of them centered around the obvious use of the word "antisemitism" to shield Israel and, more specifically, the Israeli government and military from legitimate criticism as well, not to mention prohibiting criticism of the actions of agents of the Israeli government.

For example. there is this point:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

If that means a blanket accusation, then, of course, that would be a classic instance of group characterization, stereotyping, bigotry, racism, antisemitism.   It would be as stupid and bigoted as an accusation that all Irish were supporters of the IRA or the accusation against Japanese Americans that led to their internment in concentration camps and the theft of their property and shaming.  It is not only wrong, it is despicable. 

But if it means individuals, that changes everything.  It's quite possible that there are Jewish citizens of other countries, such as the United States who are more loyal to Israel than they are the interests of the United States.  That's no different from people of other ethnicity who are more loyal to another country, such people exist.  There were Communists who were more loyal to the Soviet Union than they were the United States.  I would say that was promoted as the real, right way to be a Communist for most of the existence of organized Communism in the United States.  And there are certainly people who are willing to coerce the United States government into disasters they imagine are in the interests of Israel, or are told is, such things as the campaign to invade Iraq, bomb Lebanon, and the current campaign to foment a war against Iran which the Israeli government is such a big part of. Of course, other governments were part of that, such as the Saudi gangsters.  That is an organized campaign of talking the Trump regime into something which will be a catastrophe for the United States and the entire region if not world.

Not to mention those like the convicted spy Jonathan Pollard who are undoubtedly guilty of that, he admitted his spying.  To that you can add the far less widely known but far more outrageous attempt of the perhaps wanna-be-Jewish David Nozette to sell out to Israel (the boob sold out to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli agent) about which The Forward rather jaw-droppingly said:

Fans of Israeli espionage melodrama are having a hard time digesting the latest episode, the October 19 arrest of scientist Stewart David Nozette on charges of trying to spy for Israel. From what’s known so far, the case seems to defy traditional understandings of Israel as either victim or menace.

For that sub-group of Israel-boosters whose frame of reference is Jonathan Pollard, serving life in prison for giving American secrets to Israel, Nozette makes an awkward martyr. He offers no overt Jewish identity markers to rally around, no visible passion for Israel, indeed no evidence of having actually helped Israel in this affair. As the FBI admits, the whole gambit was the bureau’s idea, not his.

Nor does the case help critics who view Israel as a threat to American security. His arrest, a sting operation with no links to Israel, appears anomalous. Israel is a bystander this time, a plot device in someone else’s play.

In reality, this is a psychodrama about America’s counterintelligence services and their bottomless fear of Israeli spies. The fear dates back to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, the civilian Naval Intelligence analyst caught passing classified information to Israel. Pollard traumatized the intelligence community, insiders say. Ever since, the feds have been haunted by fears that Pollard was only a cog in a larger but impenetrable Israeli spy machine.

I read that and I couldn't believe they'd have such a take on the story or that they'd say those things in print.

First, note that The Forward states that the presumably American supporters of Pollard's espionage are real and implies that they are organized.  "For that sub-group of Israel-boosters whose frame of reference is Jonathan Pollard, serving life in prison for giving American secrets to Israel."  What are we to conclude about the "Israeli-boosters whose frame of reference is . . . "  Does The Forward not imply that they would fit right in with the suspicion that they are "more loyal to Israel" than "to their own country"? 

I would have no problem with that suspicion about that specific "sub-group of Israel-boosters" in the article though I'd be willing to knock to the ground anyone who wanted to extend that position to Jews in general.  If they were Nazis or neo-Nazis, to crush them.  I don't hold the stupid pseudo-liberal superstition that Nazis should be allowed to have another try or even that we should take the chance of letting them organize to do that.  I don't want to be part of any First Amendment that empowers genocidalists.

But I'm struck by the implications of the sentence "He offers no overt Jewish identity markers to rally around, no visible passion for Israel, indeed no evidence of having actually helped Israel in this affair."   I'm kind of shocked that they'd even say say such a thing considering the history of the paranoid antisemitic use of accusations of such disloyalty as a means of discriminating against Jews.  It was one of the most effective tools of early Nazi propaganda right through till the end of the Hitler regime, it is a mainstay of post-war neo-Nazism and antisemitism.  It's like giving them a shot of steroids.

What are we to make of that, especially considering the decades long campaign to spring the admitted, convicted spy Jonathan Pollard by Israel and the wider Israeli lobby?   Would any of those vectors being flipped have led them to try to spring the idiot Nozette as well?   You can't have it both ways, or, at least, I'm going to break the news to you that you're not going to have it both ways.  No matter how many such provisions or codiciles you put in such attempted international definitions.   Israel is a country, all countries spy, all countries try to pressure other countries into doing what they want them to even when it is not in the interest of those other countries.  That part of the definition, UNLESS IT IS SPECIFIED THAT IT MEANS ONLY A BLANKET ASSERTION OF DISLOYALTY,  is dishonest and stupid.  No one who does value another country over their own should be able to hide behind such a provision.  There are certainly people within Israel who may have more loyalty to other countries, should they be able to operate shielded by such a definition?

There are two other parts of that 11-fold definition I have similar problems with.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

The problem with that is the e.g.,  because the existence of the State of Israel is not something which can be shielded from the fact of the expulsion of the Palestinian people from land they occupied, by a combination of planning, of force and terror and military action, etc. nor that the plans for putting Israel on Palestine didn't include plans to do exactly that on the basis of ethnicity and, to some extent, religion.  Zionism was and is a European colonial scheme.  That is the simple fact of it.  It was noted to be such by critics of Zionism from the start, it has turned out to be that in reality, the constant state of war that Israel has existed under is a result of that fact.   Israel is not alone in that, you could certainly say the same thing about the United States, Canada and Australia.  To claim that any of those countries were not racist endeavors when they are based on the displacement of other people is a huge lie.  Hitler was a huge fan of the fact that the United States was a result of the murder and displacement of the native People of North America.  That the same was done to the Palestinian People is a hard fact of history which will not change and will certainly not be found acceptable until there is a secure, viable and acceptable Palestinian state.  But even that won't change the obvious fact that that displacement on the basis of ethnicity was basic to the founding of Israel.  As with the United States, Canada, Australia, that fact is an ongoing issue that can only be addressed justly if it is admitted and faced squarely.  As long as Israel does not do that, it will never know peace, it will become the fascist military state which I think it is almost on the verge of becoming because it has never dealt with that fact.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

That is only a possible act of antisemitism for as long as Israeli policy isn't aptly compared to those of the Nazis.  That's something that only the Israeli government can make a lie and not something that is justifiable.  If they do make Israeli policy comparable to that of the Nazis, no definition should shield them from that comparison being made.   And there are certainly factions in Israel about which that comparison is justly made.

Given the problems with the way that the word "antisemitism" is misused to mean whatever any asshole like those I deal with weekly who wants it to mean at any time, I think coming up with this definition might have been a good idea but the way they're trying to do it is rather stupid because such a definition with such features in it will not be acceptable.  I think the ideological and propaganda motives behind such provisions in it are obvious.

These Israel-specific provisions being considered unreservedly antisemitic, I agree with, entirely.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

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 antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Those certainly belong within the definition of antisemitc acts as do the others which I didn't specifically criticize, though the last one is more a matter of disgusting taste and incredible stupidly, at times.

The effort could be fixed and it might be useful.  Though not as long as any definition includes such provisions or what makes the present use of the word so fraught with problems.  I wouldn't be surprised if other issues come up which could need to fit into it.  As I said the other day, the word was invented for some pretty dodgy reasons, it has continued to be dodgy.