Criticism of the Israeli government

Criticism of the Israeli government, often referred to simply as criticism of Israel is an ongoing subject of journalistic and scholarly commentary and research within the scope of International relations theory, expressed in terms of political science. Within the scope of global aspirations for a community of nations, Israel has faced international criticism since its declaration of independence in 1948 relating to a variety of topics, both historical and contemporary.

International criticism of Israeli government policies is usually expressed within the discipline of international law and various obligations, real or perceived, that Israel is accused of not complying or fulfilling as a member of United Nations and other international organisations. Criticism of contemporary policies usually relates to issues in the Palestinian territories such as Israeli settlements, human rights of Palestinian Arabs, the conduct of Israeli Defense Forces during conflicts and accusations of economic strangulation of Palestinian territories. Criticism of historical Israeli government policies relate to issues with ongoing consequences such as the refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and the invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the construction of settlements therein. Another source of criticism is the friction generated by the conversion issue between Israel's orthodox rabbinate and non-orthodox segments of the Jewish diaspora. At one end of the spectrum, these criticisms support attempts to delegitimize Israel's right to exist. This has led to an ongoing debate regarding at what point criticism of Israel crosses the line in to antisemitism.

One of the effects of international criticism has been the impact on social psychology of Israelis - according to a survey more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel". These decisions are usually passed with the support of the OIC countries.

Criticism of contemporary policies

Peace process

In February 2011, Netanyahu called German Chancellor Angela Merkel to complain about Germany's vote in favor of a resolution at the United Nations Security Council to declare Israeli settlements to be illegal and she responded,"How dare You! You are the one who disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace." A few days later veteran Israeli diplomat Ilan Baruch resigned saying that Netanyahu's policies were leading to Israel's delegitimization.

Israeli Settlements

The participating High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, numerous UN resolutions, the International Court of Justice and other instances have ruled that Israel's policy of establishing civilian settlements in occupied territories, including in East Jerusalem, is illegal.

Israel's settlement policy has drawn harsh criticism from the United States and the European Union.

Human Rights

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said Israel operates a "two-tier" judicial system in the occupied Palestinian territories, to an effect which provides preferential services, development, and benefits for Jewish settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians. In some cases Israel has acknowledged differential treatment of Palestinians, such as barring them from accessing “settler-only” roads and subjecting them to over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints within the West Bank, asserting that the measures are necessary to protect Jewish settlers from attacks by Palestinian armed groups. HRW rejects Israel's rationale, saying that no security rationale can explain many instances of differential treatment of Palestinians, such as permit denials that effectively prohibit Palestinians from building or repairing homes, schools, roads, and water tanks. HRW says that repairing a home "does not under any stretch of the imagination constitute a security threat".

Assassinations

Amnesty International has harshly condemned Israel's policy of assassination operations targeting individuals. Israeli officials have admitted that the policy exists and is being pursued, saying it helps prevent acts of terrorism from being committed against Israel. Criticism against assassinations has been raised also from the Israeli left, who say assassination policy is "gangster behaviour" unbecoming of a government and is against Israeli law. Israel's Supreme Court has ruled that assassinations are illegal, but leaked documents suggest that Israel's army has ignored the ruling.

Imprisonments

Amnesty International reported that in 2009 hundreds of Palestinians were detained and held incommunicado for extended periods of time by Israel. While most were later released without charge, hundreds were tried before military courts whose procedures often failed to meet international standards for fair trial. According to Amnesty, almost all Palestinian prisoners were held in prisons in Israel in violation of international humanitarian law, which prohibits the removal of detainees to the territory of the occupying power. About 300 children and 550 adults were held without charge or trial for more than a year.

Torture

According to Amnesty International, methods of torture used by Israel on Palestinian prisoners include prolonged tying in painful stress positions, sleep deprivation and threats to harm detainees’ families. Beatings and other ill-treatment of detainees are common during and following arrest and during transfer from one location to another. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch assert the Israel Defense Forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields during the 2002 Battle of Jenin. The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said that "for a long period of time following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives". The practice was outlawed by the Supreme Court of Israel in 2005 but human rights groups say the IDF continues to use it, although they say the number of instances has dropped sharply.

Treatment of Ethnic Minorities

Organizations such as Amnesty International, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), the Israeli government-appointed Or Commission, and the United States Department of State have published reports that document racism and discrimination directed towards racial and ethnic groups in Israel.

Criticism at the United Nations

The UN has issued 232 resolutions with respect to Israel since 2003, representing 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period and more than six times that of the second placed country, Sudan.

According to testimony by pro-Israel lobbyist Hillel Neuer of UN Watch to the United States Congress in January 2011 with respect to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Israel has been the focus of 70% of approximately 50 condemnatory resolutions by the council, 60% of the ten Special Sessions of the council and 100% of the council's five fact-finding missions or inquiries.

Weapons of mass destruction

Israel is seen to possess a nuclear arsenal of about 150 weapons, and Israel has been criticised for maintaining nuclear weapons and for not agreeing to a nuclear-free Middle East zone. In September 2009, the IAEA passed a resolution that "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards..."

Israel has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention but not ratified it, citing neighbouring states that have not done so either. Israel is widely believed to have chemical weapons but officials have never directly admitted it, although in 1990 Science Minister Yuval Neeman threatened to retaliate against an Iraqi chemical-weapons strike "with the same merchandise". Israel has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention.

Israel has also been accused of apartheid by Michael Ben-Yair, Israel's attorney-general from 1993 to 1996 and Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin.

Judaization of Jerusalem

The judaization of Jerusalem refers to the view that Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem to correspond with a vision of a united and fundamentally Jewish Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.

The United Nations has criticised Israel's efforts to change the demographic makeup of Jerusalem in several resolutions. All legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, which have altered or aimed to alter the character, legal status and demographic composition of Jerusalem, are described by the UN as "null and void" and having "no validity whatsoever". Richard Falk, an investigator with the U.N. Human Rights Council, said that Israel's expansion of East Jerusalem settlements and evictions of Palestinian residents can "only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing".

In a 2008 report, John Dugard, independent investigator for the United Nations Human Rights Council, cites the judaization of Jerusalem among many examples of Israeli policies "of colonialism, apartheid or occupation", that create a context in which Palestinian terrorism is "an inevitable consequence".

The Law of Return

Israel has enacted a "Law of Return" that allows persons of Jewish ancestry to assume Israeli citizenship and settle in Israel or the occupied Palestinian Territories. Palestinian refugees cannot apply for return or Israeli citizenship under the law since they are not Jewish. The law has drawn criticism, including from the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies which says the law is a "main example of Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian Arabs". The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee says the contrast between the Law of Return and Israeli opposition to the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees exhibits "barefaced racism". More than 1,000 American Jews have backed a campaign entitled “Breaking the Law of Return”, saying the Law of Return creates an ethnically exclusive citizenship, which they see as unjust.

Comparisons with Nazi Germany

A specific form of criticism of Israel is one that compares the state with Nazi Germany. Comparisons have included analogies of Gaza strip with concentration camps, or comparisons of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with Nazi leader Joseph Goebbels. The Anti Defamation League (ADL) has documented a large number of comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany, and the ADL considers them to be anti-Semitic.

United Nations rapporteurs have compared Israel to Nazi Germany. Authors Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have criticized Richard Falk (United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967") for comparisons Falk made between Israel and Nazi Germany Mitchell G. Bard states that Jean Ziegler (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food) stated that Gaza Strip is "an immense concentration camp" and compared Israelis to Nazis.

Israeli professor Gavriel Salomon protested against Israeli loyalty-oath legislation, and compared Israel to Nazi Germany, but qualified the criticism: " I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws." Pascal Bruckner describes comments by Portuguese Nobel prize-winning author Jose Saramago, who compared the Palestinian's conditions in Ramallah to concentration camps; when asked by a journalist "Where are the gas chambers?", Saramago replied "They'll be here before long". Saramago's comments were widely reported and analyzed.

Bruckner also documents a similar comparison made by South American author Luis Sepulveda who wrote: "in Auschwitz and Mauthausen, in Sabra, Chatila, and Gaza, Zionism and Nazism go hand in hand"

Nur Masalha characterizes Israel's occupation of Palestine territories as comparable to the Nazi Lebensraum (living room) policy of gaining land and materials for the benefit of Germans.

Author Israel Stockman-Shomron asserts that many newspaper editorials have used Nazi imagery articles that criticize Israel, such as the use of terms such as lebensraum, "final solution", "Hitler's work", and "blitzkrieg". Newspapers and authors cited by Stockman-Shomron include William Pfaff, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, New York Times, and Edwin Yoder.

Following the 1967 Six Day War, the Soviet Union charged Israel with using Nazi tactics. Daniel Gordis describes similar comparisons which were made by Israeli Arabs.

Some commentators such as Ḥayim Gordon and Josie Sandercock describes Gaza as the "largest concentration camp in the world".

Shlomo Sharan documents a comparison with Nazi Germany made by Arab journalist Jihad al-Khazin, who compared Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Hitler.

Professor William I. Robinson was accused of anti-Semitism because his classroom materials included a visual image comparison of the Israeli attacks on Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. The Anti-Defamation League criticized Robinson, accusing him of academic misconduct, while Scholars for Peace in the Middle East support Robinson, citing academic freedom.

The Jewish British Labour Party politician and Member of Parliament (MP) Gerald Kaufman is an outspoken critic of Israel and likened the Hamas to the Jewish resistance of the Nazis during World War II, saying: "The spokeswoman for the Israeli army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of, at the time, 800 Palestinians. The total is now 1,000. She replied instantly that '500 of them were militants'. That was the reply of a Nazi. I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."

Criticism of historical policies

Criticism of historical Israeli government policies relate to issues with ongoing consequences such as the refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and the invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the construction of settlements therein.

Palestinian Refugees

Palestinian refugees are predominantly the Palestinian people, and their descendants, who fled or were expelled from their homes during and after the 1948 Palestine War.

The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict. Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders or was an unintended consequence of the war.

Significant international pressure was placed on both sides during the 1949 Lausanne Conference to resolve the refugee crisis. The parties signed a joint protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace, which included territories, refugees, and Jerusalem, in which Israel agreed "in principle" to allow the return of all of the Palestinian refugees. According to author Ilan Pappe, this Israeli agreement was made under pressure from the United States, and because the Israelis wanted United Nations membership, which required Israeli agreement to allow the return of all refugees. Once Israel was admitted to the UN, it retreated from the protocol it had signed because it was completely satisfied with the status quo and saw no need to make any concessions with regard to the refugees or on boundary questions. This led to significant and sustained international criticism. The Palestinian Authority, the EU, and the UN Security Council consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank, a position disputed by Israel. International bodies such as the United Nations have condemned the Jerusalem Law as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore hold that the establishment of the city as Israel's capital is against international law. Consequently, countries have established embassies to Israel's government outside of Jerusalem.

Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, and declared itself no longer to be in occupation of the Strip. However, it continues to be designated the occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and various human rights organizations. Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. In March 2008, a coalition of human rights groups charged that the Israeli blockade of the city had caused the humanitarian situation in Gaza to have reached its worst point since Israel occupied the territory in the 1967 Six-Day War, and that Israeli air strikes targeting militants in the densely populated areas have often killed bystanders as well.

Accusations of singling out

Commentators on both sides have suggested that Israel is singled out for disproportionate criticism. Both the assertion of singling out and the potential reasons for any singling out are disputed. The primary dispute centers around whether disproportionate criticism of Israel is warranted or unwarranted.

Notable commentators have suggested singling out Israel for disproportionate criticism is warranted as a result of Israel's actions. Many commentators who believe disproportionate criticism is unwarranted have equated such criticism with antisemitism.

Criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism

Some criticisms of Israel or Israeli policies have been characterized as anti-Semitic. This relation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is often called an "equation" of criticism with anti-Semitism, and the equation is made by some supporters of Israel such as Alvin Rosenfeld and Dina Porat.

One common source of this equation are proponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism, such as Phyllis Chesler, Gabriel Schoenfeld and Mortimer Zuckerman, who argue that, since the 1967 Six day war, many criticisms of Israel are veiled attacks on Jews and hence are essentially antisemitic. Another form of the equation, maintained by Abba Eban, Robert S. Wistrich, and Joschka Fischer, focuses on criticism of Zionism, and contends that some forms of anti-Zionism, particularly attacks on Israel's right to exist, are anti-Semitic in nature.

Some critics of Israel or Israeli policies, including Ralph Nader, Jenny Tonge, Noam Chomsky, and Desmond Tutu suggest that equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism is inappropriate or inaccurate. Other critics, such as John Mearsheimer, Alexander Cockburn, Norman Finkelstein, and William I. Robinson, claim that supporters of Israel sometimes equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism in a deliberate attempt to prevent legitimate criticism of Israel and discredit critics. Alan Dershowitz claims that some enemies of Israel pretend to be victimized by accusations of anti-Semitism, in order to garner support for their position.

One form of criticism of Israel - comparing Israel with Nazi Germany - has received significant attention, and the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism published a report in 2009 suggesting that such comparisons be criminalized as anti-Semitic hate speech. Criminalization of such comparisons is opposed by Paul Craig Roberts and Antony Lerman.

Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) prepared a report in 2003 that distinguished criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism by testing whether "Israel is seen as being a representative of 'the Jew'": if the speaker is considering Israel as a representative of Jews in general, then anti-Semitism is deemed to be underlying the criticism.

Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident and Israeli Minister, suggested a three-part test to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitic attacks. Sharansky's tests that identify a criticism as anti-Semitic are: #Demonization - when Israeli actions are blown so far out of proportion that the account paints Israel as the embodiment of all evil #Double Standards - when Israel is criticized soundly for thing any other government would be viewed as justified in doing, like protecting it citizens from terrorism. #Delegitimization: a denial or Israel's right to exist or the right of the Jewish people to live securely in a homeland.

Demonization and double standards are often used as evidence of anti-Semitism in relation to criticism of Israel. Sharansky believes that some criticisms involve applying an especially high moral standard to Israel, higher than applied to other countries (particularly compared to surrounding countries), yet the only special characteristic of Israel is that it is a Jewish state, hence there is an element of anti-Semitism.

Delegitimization was a factor addressed by Abba Eban, who claimed that efforts to deny "the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations" constituted anti-Semitism. Dina Porat (head of the Institute for Study of Anti-semitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv University) also characterizes some anti-Zionist ideals as anti-Semitic, because they amount to singling-out Jews for special treatment, while all other comparable groups of people are entitled to create and maintain a homeland. She contends that anti-Zionism is anti-semitic because it is discriminatory: "...antisemitism is involved when the belief is articulated that of all the peoples on the globe (including the Palestinians), only the Jews should not have the right to self-determination in a land of their own. Or, to quote noted human rights lawyer David Matas: One form of antisemitism denies access of Jews to goods and services because they are Jewish. Another form of antisemitism denies the right of the Jewish people to exist as a people because they are Jewish. Antizionists distinguish between the two, claiming the first is antisemitism, but the second is not. To the antizionist, the Jew can exist as an individual as long as Jews do not exist as a people."

Objections to characterizing criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism

Several commentators have objected to the characterization of criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, including Michael P. Prior, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Lerner, Antony Lerman, Ralph Nader, Jenny Tonge, Ken Livingstone, and Desmond Tutu. They provide a variety of reasons for objecting to the equation, including stifling free expression, promoting anti-Semitism, diluting genuine anti-Semitism, and alienating Jews from Judaism or Israel.

Vague and indiscriminate

Michael Lerner claims that the American Jewish community regularly tries to blur the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, and says it is a "slippery slope" to expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel.

Philosophy professor Irfan Khawaja asserts that it is a "false equation" to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, writing "The point is not that the charge of 'anti-Semitism' should never be made: some people deserve it…. But the equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is a farce that has gone on long enough, and it’s time that those who saw through the farce said so…"

Palestine Monitor, a Palestinian advocacy group, is critical of what it characterizes as a modern trend to expand the definition of the term "antisemitic", and states that the new definitions are overly vague and allow for "indiscriminate accusations".

Brian Klug argues that anti-Zionism sometimes is a manifestation antisemitism, but that "[t]hey are separate" and that to equate them is to incorrectly "conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people."

Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University writes that "[t]here is a new surge of antisemitism in the world, and much prejudice against Israel is driven by such antisemitism," but argues that charges of antisemitism based on anti-Israel opinions generally lack credibility. He writes that "a grave educational misdirection is imbedded in formulations suggesting that if we somehow get rid of antisemitism, we will get rid of anti-Israelism. This reduces the problems of prejudice against Israel to cartoon proportions." Raab describes prejudice against Israel as a "serious breach of morality and good sense," and argues that it is often a bridge to antisemitism, but distinguishes it from antisemitism as such.

Irfan Khawaja suggests that some legitimate criticisms of Israel are improperly attacked by deliberately conflating them with criticisms that are anti-Semitic in nature.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, in the book The Politics of Anti-Semitism, write "Apologists for Israel's repression of Palestinians toss the word 'anti-Semite' at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end. So some of the essays in this book address the issue of what constitutes genuine anti-Semitism - Jew-hatred - as opposed to disingenuous, specious charges of 'anti-Semitism' hurled at rational appraisals of the state of Israel's political, military, and social conduct."

Represents Jews as victims

Norman Finkelstein and Steven Zipperstein (professor of Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University) suggest that criticism of Israel is sometimes inappropriately considered to be anti-Semitism due to an inclination to perceive Jews as victims. Zipperstein suggests that the common attitude of seeing Jews as victims is sometimes implicitly transferred to the perception of Israel as a victim; while Finkelstein suggests that the depiction of Israel as a victim (as a "Jew among nations") is a deliberate ploy to stifle criticism of Israel.

Self-hating Jews

Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, asserts that the equation of Criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism has resulted in conflict within the Jewish community, in particular, proponents of the equation sometimes attack Jewish critics of Israeli policies as "self-hating Jews". Lerner also claims that the equation of Criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and the resulting charges of "self hating Jew" has resulted in the alienation of young Jews from their faith.

Antony Lerman believes that many attacks on Jewish critics of Israel are "vitriolic, ad hominem and indiscriminate" and claims that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have been defined too broadly and without reason. Lerman also states that the "redefinition" of anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionism has caused Jews to attack other Jews, because many Jews are leaders in several anti-Zionist organizations.

An executive director of the New Israel Fund published an open letter defending non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate within Israel to promote civil rights of Arabs, and she claims that supporters of Israel "associate moral and ethical criticism of any activity by Israel or the policies of its Government as being anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and when conducted by Jews, as evidence of self-hatred."

Scare tactics

The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network is also opposed to the use of the antisemitic label to suppress criticism, and objected to the "fear tactics" employed when the anti-Semitic label was applied to supporters of Israel Apartheid Week, claiming that it was reminiscent of the anti-Communist scare tactics of the 1950s.

Michael Lerner suggests that some United States politicians are reluctant to criticise Israel because they are afraid of being labelled anti-Semitic. Lerner also states that groups that promote peace in the mid-East are afraid to form coalitions, lest they be discredited by what Lerner terms the "Jewish Establishment".

Draws attention away from genuine anti-Semitism

Brian Klug asserts that proponents of New Antisemitism's define antisemitism so broadly, that they deprive the term "antisemitism" of all meaning. Klug writes: " when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance."

In the book The Politics of Anti-Semitism Scott Handleman writes: "Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israeli's critics. The 'antisemite' libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel's racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred."

Excessive accusations of anti-Semitism may result in backlash

Brian Klug argues that excessive claims of anti-Semitism (leveled at critics of Israel) may backfire and contribute to anti-Semitism, and he writes "a McCarthyite tendency to see anti-Semites under every bed, arguably contributes to the climate of hostility toward Jews"

Tony Judt also suggests that Israel's "insistent identification" of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is now the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in the world.

Michael Lerner echos those thoughts and suggests that the continued "repression" of criticism of Israel may eventually "explode" in an outburst of genuine anti-Semitism.

Attacking the messenger rather than the message

Michael Lerner claims that some supporters of Israel refuse to discuss legitimate criticisms of Israel (such as comparisons with apartheid) and instead attack the people who raise such criticisms, thus deliberately "shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms".

Exaggerating the equation in order to draw sympathy

Alan Dershowitz distinguishes between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, but he claims that some "enemies of Israel" encourage the equation of the two, because it makes the enemies appear to be victims of false accusations of anti-Semitism, which the enemies use an attempt to gain sympathy for their cause.

Suppression of criticism

A number of commentators have debated whether public criticism of Israel is suppressed outside of Israel, particularly within the United States.

Stephen Zunes writes that "assaults on critics of Israeli policies have been more successful in limiting open debate, but this gagging censorship effect stems more from ignorance and liberal guilt than from any all-powerful Israel lobby." He goes on to explain that while "some criticism of Israel really is rooted in anti-Semitism," it is his opinion that some members of the Israel lobby cross the line by labeling intellectually honest critics of Israel as anti-Semitic. George Soros pointed out that there are risks associated with what was in his opinion a suppression of debate:

"I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views."

In his book, The Deadliest Lies, Abraham Foxman referred to the notion that the pro-Israel lobby is trying to censor criticism of Israel as a "canard." Foxman writes that the Jewish community is capable of telling the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel "and the demonization, deligitization, and double standards employed against Israel that is either inherently anti-Semitic or generates an environment of anti-Semitism."

Alan Dershowitz wrote that he welcomes "reasoned, contextual and comparative criticism of Israeli policies and actions." If one of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby was to censor criticism of Israel, Dershowitz writes, "it would prove that 'the Lobby' is a lot less powerful than the authors would have us believe."

Professors Judy Rebick and Alan Sears, in response to Israel Apartheid Week activities at Carleton University, wrote a open letter to the University president which stated that accusations of anti-Semitism are sometimes made with the goal of "silencing" criticism of Israel.

Journalist Peter Beaumont also claims that some proponents of the concept of New Antisemitism conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Tariq Ali, a British-Pakistani historian and political activist, argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians.... Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism." He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the Six-Day War were careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

Jewish Voice for Peace has spoken against the abuse of the antisemitic label, for example in an opinion piece, they wrote "For decades, some leaders of the Jewish community have made the preposterous claim that there is complete unity of belief and interest between all Jews and the Israeli government, no matter what its policies. They must believe their own propaganda, because they see no difference between criticism of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism, and they do everything they can to silence critical voices. If the brand of anti-Semitism is not sufficiently intimidating, the silencing has been enforced by organized phone and letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, threats of, and actual withdrawal of funding support from 'offending' institutions and individuals."

Accusations are public relations efforts

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt suggest that the accusations of anti-Semitism leveled at critics of Israel are deliberately timed to defuse the impact of the criticisms. They describe a pattern where accusations of anti-Semitism rise immediately following aggressive actions by Israel: following the Six-Day War, following the 1982 Lebanon War, and following exposure of "brutal behavior in the Occupied Territories" in 2002.

Norman Finkelstein says that to further a public relations campaign, apologists for Israel make accusations of what they call a "new anti-Semitism" against those they oppose, and that they do so deliberately in order to undermine critics and bolster the nation's image. Finkelstein also asserts that "American Jewish organizations" purposefully increase vocal accusations of anti-Semitism during episodes when Israel is coming under increased criticism (such as the during the Intifada), with the goal of discrediting critics of Israel.

Critics of Israel that have been accused of anti-Semitism

Critics of Israel that have been accused of antisemitism and have denied the allegation include Ralph Nader, John Mearsheimer, Cindy Sheehan, Jenny Tonge, Ken Livingstone, and Desmond Tutu.

Professor J. Lorand Matory is a vocal critic of Israel who supports disinvestment from Israel. Larry Summers, president of Harvard, called efforts by Matory and others to divest from Israel "anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent." According to Matory, "the knee jerk accusation that targeted criticism of Israel singles out Israel is as absurd as stating that the anti-apartheid movement was singling out South Africa."

Professor Noam Chomsky argues that Israel's foreign minister Abba Eban equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in an effort to "exploit anti-racist sentiment for political ends", citing statement Eban made in 1973: "One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all." Commenting on Eban's statement, Chomsky replied: "That is a convenient stand. It cuts off a mere 100 percent of critical comment!" In 2002, Chomsky wrote that this equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was being extended to criticism of Israeli policies, not just criticism of Zionism. Chomsky also wrote that, when the critics of Israel are Jewish, the accusations of anti-Semitism involve descriptions of self-hatred. In 2004, Chomsky said "If you identify the country, the people, the culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then yeah, it's anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and anti-American to criticize the American policy, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this." However, Oliver Kamm contends that Chomsky inaccurately interpreted Eban's comments.

Musician Roger Waters is a critic of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and was accused by the ADL of using anti-Semitic imagery in one of his recent musical productions. Waters responded by stating that the ADL regularly portrays critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, and that "it is a screen they [the ADL] hide behind". In 2002 Desmond Tutu is a critic of Israel who has compared Israel's policies to apartheid South Africa. Tutu wrote that criticism of Israel is suppressed in the United States, and that criticisms of Israel are "immediately dubbed anti-Semitic".

Michael Prior was a vocal critic of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, and who was frequently accused of anti-Semitism, yet he was careful to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Ken Livingstone, former mayor of the City of London, was accused of antisemitism for a variety of comments, including remarks criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians. In response, Livingstone wrote "For 20 years Israeli governments have attempted to portray anyone who forcefully criticizes the policies of Israel as anti-semitic. The truth is the opposite: the same universal human values that recognize the Holocaust as the greatest racist crime of the 20th century require condemnation of the policies of successive Israeli governments - not on the absurd grounds that they are Nazi or equivalent to the Holocaust, but because ethnic cleansing, discrimination and terror are immoral."

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan claims she has been improperly accused of being anti-Semitic because of her anti-war position, particularly her criticism of the Israel lobby and Israel's actions towards Palestinians. Sheehan emphasized that her criticism of Israel is "not to be construed as hatred of all Jews".

Critics that suggest censorship or suppression

Political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote an article critical of the Israel lobby in the United States, in which they asserted that the Israel lobby uses accusations of anti-Semitism as a part of a deliberate strategy to suppress criticism of Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt themselves were accused of anti-Semitism as a result of that article and the book they wrote based on the article.

Jenny Tonge, member of the UK House of Lords, has frequently criticized Israel's policies, and has been labelled antisemitic. In response, she said during a speech in Parliament: "I'm beginning to understand ... the vindictive actions the Israel lobby [and] AIPAC ... take against people who oppose and criticize the lobby.... [I understand] ... the constant accusations of antisemitism - when no such sentiment exists - to silence Israel's critics." Ralph Nader, United States politician and consumer advocate, has criticized Israel's policies, expressed support for Palestinian causes, and criticized the excessive influence of the Israel lobby on the U. S. government, and as a result he has been called antisemitic. In response, Nader wrote an letter to the director of the Anti-Defamation League entitled "Criticizing Israel is Not Anti-Semitism" in which he said "Your mode of operation for years has been to make charges of racism or insinuation of racism designed to slander and evade. Because your pattern of making such charges, carefully calibrated for the occasion but of the same stigmatizing intent, has served to deter critical freedom of speech.... The ADL should be working toward this objective [peace] and not trying to suppress realistic discourse on the subject with epithets and innuendos."

William I. Robinson, a professor at UCSB, was accused of being antisemitic due to a class assignment that revolved around Israel's attack on the Gaza strip, and he replied by stating that the Israel lobby labels "any criticism" of Israel as anti-Semitic In response, Robinson said: "The fact that I did include my interpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is totally within what is normal and expected.... One of the most pressing affairs of January was the Israeli assault on Gaza - there was nothing that could be more relevant to this course at that time. When you bring up delicate, sensitive, inflammatory, controversial material in the classroom, we as professors are carrying out our mission to jar students in order to challenge them to think critically about world issues.... The Israel lobby is possibly the most powerful lobby in the United States, and what they do is label any criticism of anti-Israeli conduct and practices as anti-Semitic" Robinson said. "This campaign is not just an attempt to punish me. The Israel lobby is stepping up its vicious attacks on anyone who would speak out against Israeli policies."

Responses to criticism

Israeli public opinion

International criticism is an important focus within Israel. According to an August 2010 survey by Tel Aviv University, more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel". As a result, public diplomacy, known as hasbara, has been an important focus of Israeli governments since Independence. The Israeli Ministry of Public Diplomacy & Diaspora Affairs seeks to explain government policies and promote Israel in the face of what they consider negative press about Israel around the world – the current campaign is called Masbirim.

Claims of Media Bias

In an article for Muslim World Today, the Pakistani-American author, Tashbih Sayyed, said that the "bad press" "chooses to ignore all rules of ethical journalism when it comes to Israel". Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian of Palestinian heritage, writes that the "tendency to blame Israel for everything" has provided Arab leaders an excuse to deliberately ignore the human rights of the Palestinian in their countries. As an example, he said that while the world is furious over the blockade on Gaza, the media choose to deliberately ignore the conditions of the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon and other Arab countries.

George Will claims that the "blame Israel first (and last, and in between) brigade" is "large and growing".

European Governmental reports

European Union 2006 report on antisemitism

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC, recently renamed to Fundamental Rights Agency) published a draft of an operational definition of antisemitism called Working Definition of Antisemitism which accompanied a report by the EUMC on report that summarized anti-Semitism in Europe. The EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism is followed by five 'Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself in regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:' as being :

Paul Igansky points out that one of the EUMC anti-Semitic behaviors, comparisons between Israeli policy and those of the Nazis, is "arguably not intrinsically antisemitic", and that the context in which they are made is critical. Igansky illustrates this with the incident where Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was described by fellow Jewish Israelis as cooperating with the Nazis, and depicted wearing an SS uniform. According to Igansky, the "Nazi" label was merely used as "charged political rhetoric" in this case.

EISCA 2009 report on criticism of Israel

Following the 2006 EUMC report, the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA) published a report in 2009 entitled Understanding and Addressing the ‘Nazi Card' - Intervening Against Antisemitic Discourse which discussed comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany.

The 2009 report incorporated from the 2006 report the five specific kinds of criticism of Israel that should be considered as anti-Semitism (see above for list of the five).

The report does not say all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic: "Abhorrence and protest against the policies, practices, and leaders of the Israeli state can be expressed in numerous forceful and trenchant ways, as they could against any other state - none of which would be antisemitic…", and "Drawing attention to the consequent harms in [playing the Nazi card against Israel] should not be intended, or taken, in any way as an attempt to suppress criticism of Israel and its military practices."

Antony Lerman criticized the report, and suggested that it could be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel, and suggests that the report's authors do not adequately address that possibility.

Criminalization of criticism of Israel

The EISCA Report recommends that the British government criminalize certain kinds of anti-Semitism, particularly use of the Nazi analogy to criticize Israel, as well as other forms of criticism of Israel.

Paul Craig Roberts and Antony Lerman have questioned the recommendations of the EISCA report, expressing concerns that the recommendations of the report may be adopted as a hate-crime law within Europe, which may lead to infringement of free speech, and may criminalize legitimate criticism of Israel.

Author Paul Craig Roberts is opposed to legislation in the United States will make it a crime to criticize Israel, and as examples he cites the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Roberts asserts that lobbyists for Israel are pressing for laws that will make it a crime to discuss the power of the Israel lobby, or to discuss alleged war crimes of Israel.

Antony Lerman criticized the 2009 EISCA report, and claims that criminalizing criticism of Israel (particularly, comparing Israel actions to Nazi actions) would constitute an excessive infringement of freedom of speech in Britain, postulating, for example, that "if you said 'the way the IDF operated in Gaza was like the way the SS acted in Poland', and a Jew found this offensive, hurtful or harmful, you could, in theory, go to jail."

Boycotts and Divestment from Israel

Boycotts of Israel are economic and political cultural campaigns or actions that seek a selective or total cutting of ties with the State of Israel. Such campaigns are employed by those who challenge the legitimacy of Israel, Israel's policies or actions towards the Palestinians over the course of the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, oppose Israeli territorial claims in the West Bank or Jerusalem or even oppose Israel's right to exist. Arab boycotts of Zionist institutions and Jewish businesses began before Israel's founding as a state. An official boycott was adopted by the Arab League almost immediately after the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, but is not fully implemented in practice.

Similar boycotts have been proposed outside the Arab world and the Muslim world. These boycotts comprise economic measures such as divestment; a consumer boycotts of Israeli products or businesses that operate in Israel; a proposed academic boycott of Israeli universities and scholars; and a proposed boycott of Israeli cultural institutions or Israeli sport venues. Many advocates of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu use the 1980s movement against South African apartheid as a model.

Disinvestment from Israel is a campaign conducted by religious and political entities which aims to use disinvestment to pressure the government of Israel to put "an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories captured during the 1967 military campaign." Tutu said that the campaign against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and its continued settlement expansion should be modeled on the successful historical, but controversial, disinvestment campaign against South Africa's apartheid system.

See also

Anti-Zionism

Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict

Disinvestment from Israel

Human rights in Israel

International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Israeli Apartheid Week

Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict

New antisemitism

Racism in Israel

References

Ahlmark, Per, "Human Rights, Anti-Semitism, and The Wallenberg Legacy, in Nuremberg forty years later: the struggle against injustice in our time (International Human Rights Conference, November 1987 papers and proceedings), Irwin Cotler (Editor), McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1995

Bruckner, Pascal, The tyranny of guilt: an essay on Western masochism, Princeton University Press, 2010

Buckley, William, In search of anti-Semitism, Continuum, 1992

Chesler, Phyllis, The new anti-semitism: the current crisis and what we must do about it, Jossey-Bass, 2003

Chomsky, Noam, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, House of Anansi, 2003

Cohen, Patricia, "Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti_Semitism Sparks a Furor", The New York Times, January 31, 2007, online

Cotler, Irwin, "Human Rights and the new anti-jewishness", in ''Jerusalem Post, Feb 5, 2004

Dershowitz, Alan, The Case for Israel, John Wiley and Sons, 2003

Dershowitz, Alan, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, John Wiley and Sons, 2009

Donskis, Leonidas, Troubled identity and the modern world, Macmillan, 2009

EISCA Report - by Igansky, Paul, and Sweiry, Abe, Understanding and Addressing the ‘Nazi Card' - Intervening Against Antisemitic Discourse, published by European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA), 2009, online.

Ellis, Marc, Judaism does not equal Israel, The New Press, 2009

EUMC report - Antisemitism - Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2005 - Working Paper, Beate Winkler, European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), May 2006, online.

Forster, Arnold and Epstein, Benjamin, The New Anti-Semitism, ADL, 1974

Foxman, Abraham, Never Again?, HarperCollins, 2004

Harrison, Bernard, The resurgence of anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and liberal opinion, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006

Igansky, Paul, and Sweiry, Abe, Understanding and Addressing the ‘Nazi Card' - Intervening Against Antisemitic Discourse, published by European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA), 2009, online. Cited as "EISCA Report" (see above).

Igansky, Paul, and Kosmin, Barry (Eds), The New Antisemitism?: Debating Judeophobia in 21st-century Britain, Profile, 2003

Judt, Tony, "The Country That Wouldn't Grow Up", int Haaretz, 2 May 2006, online.

Klug, Brian, "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism", in The Nation, posted January 15, 2004 (February 2, 2004 issue), online, accessed January 9, 2006.

Lerman, Antony, "Jews attacking Jews" in Haaretz, Sept 12, 2008, online

Lerman, Antony "Should we ban 'Nazi analogies'? Using Nazi analogies to criticise Israel or Zionism may be offensive, but should it be against the law?", in Guardian, 24 July 2009, online

Lerner, Michael. There Is No New Anti-Semitism, posted February 5, 2007, accessed February 6, 2007.

Lowenstein, Antony, My Israel question, Melbourne Univ. Publishing, 2007

Perlmutter, Nathan, The Real Anti-Semitism in America, Arbor House, 1982

Picciotto, Henri, On Criticism of Israel and Anti-Semitism, published by Jewish Voice for Peace, date unknown, online

Prior, Michael Speaking the Truth about Zionism and Israel, Melisende, 2004

Rosenbaum, Ron, Those who forget the past: the question of anti-Semitism, Random House, Inc., 2004

Alvin H. Rosenfeld. 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism. American Jewish Committee. 2006.

Schoenfeld, Gabriel, The Return of Anti-Semitism, Encounter Books, 2004

Sharan, Shlomo, and Bukay, David, Crossovers: Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism, Transaction Publishers, 2010

Zipperstein, Steven. "Historical Reflections of Contemporary Antisemitism" in Derek J. Penslar et al., ed., Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005

Zuckerman, Mortimer "The New Anti-Semitism", in US News and World Report, 3 November 2003;

Footnotes

Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict Category:Arab–Israeli conflict Category:Human rights in Israel Category:Comparisons to Nazism and the Holocaust Category:Anti-national sentiment Category:Anti-Zionism Category:Israeli war crimes