We can't ALL be anti-semites, can we?

Since this article was written, the federal government has cancelled $397,500 in support for Pride Toronto.

The hysteria created around the inclusion of a group called Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) in the Toronto Pride Parade this year can be justly attributed to the ongoing Brand Israel campaign backed by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and most recently by Irwin Cotler's Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism.

The CPCCA and the Israel lobby groups that surround it have taken the charge of anti-semitism to new and exaggerated heights, inventing what has been termed: "the new anti-semitism." Aside from the fact that it sounds like a new and better hair product, its roots can be located in the Brand Israel campaign launched by the Israeli government's Hasbara department, that is, the foreign ministry's public diplomacy department.

The modern incarnation of Hasbara, which literally translates as "information," came out of the 1992 Israel government's sweeping changes to the foreign ministry's publicity department, when it was merged with the press department. Hasbara's main focus was now on media communications and on presenting positive images of Israel abroad. This also parlayed its way into the creation of organizations such as "Hasbara Fellowships" which have sent thousands of American university students to Israel to learn how to become effective pro-Israel activists back on their home campuses.

But what is the message of Hasbara, hence that of Israel's foreign ministry, and of all Israel lobby groups, including those here in Canada such as the B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress, Hillel chapters (on college and university campuses), etc.?

At its core, Hasbara functions from an ideology rooted in the right wing of the Israeli government. As Susan Hattis Rolef, editor of the Knesset website, wrote after the 1992 elections: "The Likud regards the world as hostile by definition, and when our few proven friends in the worst of times happened to criticize Israel, the Likud was inclined to react by saying that they too must be ‘closet anti-semites.'" anti-semitism, which is at the centre of the Israeli foreign ministry's ideology, is what forms Jewish identity abroad and has become the raison-d'être of Jewish nationalism. If you aren't for Israel and everything it does, you are clearly against it, so the tautology goes. By circular logic, if the State was formed as a response to Jewish hatred (post WW II), and if you are critical of the State, then you must be for Jewish hatred.

Martin Gladstone, a self-proclaimed gay-rights activist and Jewish lawyer, has been one such advocate of this position in his opposition to the inclusion of QuAIA in Toronto's gay pride parade. First QuAIA were anti-semites for daring to use the word apartheid in relation to Israel, then the Jews amongst them were declared self-hating, the presence of anti-fascist activists was turned into "comparing Israel to Nazis" (I'm still scratching my head on that one), and finally, almost pathetically, Gladstone claimed the there was no place for politics in Pride. Overall he declared that the presence of QuAIA created an atmosphere of hate.

Recently, MPP Peter Shurman of Thornhill spearheaded a motion in the Ontario legislature, that the term "Israel Apartheid Week" incites hatred and likens it to "hate speech." This then provided the basis for the city, at Gladstone's prompting, to question whether Pride had violated their anti-discrimination policy by allowing QuAIA to march. I hesitate to mention the fact that, because there is no basis in law for any of these claims, not one single official complaint has been made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission or the city of Toronto: in the face of charges of anti-semitism, it doesn't seem to matter that it didn't violate anything. QuAIA, like all other critics of Israel has been condemned: death by anti-semitism.

According to Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, QuAIA and groups like it form the "new anti-semitism." Under the FAQ section of the CPCCA, the new anti-semitism is laid out for us: while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-semitism. This problem is especially prevalent on campuses where Jewish students are ridiculed and intimidated for any deemed support for the "Nazi" and "apartheid" State of Israel, which is claimed to have no right to exist.

Are Jewish students really being intimidated, just as Gladstone's acquaintances were "uncomfortable" and even at times "intimidated" at the Pride parade? What is their fear predicated on? Is it the belief that Israel's (and by association all Jews') enemies are lurking behind every corner? That as Hasbara would have us believe, all critics are "closet anti-semites?" Indeed there has been an escalation of criticism of Israel State policy on campuses including a call for the end to occupation. Some even suggest a one-state solution, which according to the above is "calling for the extinction of the State of Israel."

Never does this fall into a debate about democracy, rights, human rights abuses, etc. but rather devolves into: "Why is Israel being singled out as the bad guy, there are so many other countries in the world who do worse" and these days: ‘But Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, AND we have gay rights! With its co-joining statement: "Why defend all those other Middle Eastern countries who kill gays?" And the answer, yep, you guessed it: because you, they, all are anti-semites.

Follow this with the excellent timing of an election campaign for Toronto's next mayor. And what better way to grandstand than to side with a "minority" who feel under attack? Everyone knows anti-semitism is bad, so let's make sure to stand up for those who are being unjustly oppressed. When the cry is anti-semitism, the debate is shut down, the focus successfully shifted from pesky details like occupation, war crimes, settlements, human rights violations. QuAIA is accused of fomenting hate and anti-semitism by its very existence.

So is QuAIA really anti-semitic? What exactly did they do to promote an "unsafe and poisonous environment" by marching in Pride? Is this indeed the "new anti-semitism" in action? In declaring that Israel is an apartheid state do they call for the destruction of Jews worldwide?

The Israeli Foreign Ministry, which hosts the Global Forum on anti-semitism, says the "new anti-semitism:" Seeks to undermine the legitimacy of Israel and disguises hatred of the Jewish people by means of hatred towards the Jewish state. The now standard response to ANY criticism of Israel is considered anti-semitic. It also accounts for the virulent response to Obama and his administration's criticisms of Israel. Countless Jewish and Israeli lobby groups have dismissed them as anti-semites, despite the many Jews working in that same administration (they must be self hating).

When John Mearsheimer, a political science professor from the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean and professor of International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government [1], published their book; The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which discussed the power of the Israel lobby in the shaping of foreign policy, guess what they were branded as? Yep, you guessed it again, anti-semites. When asked by Israeli film director Yoav Shamir, if he is really an anti-semite, Mearshimer smiles wearily and says, "How does one say we're not anti-semitic and convince people who say you are? It's impossible to prove one is not an anti-semite, one reason why this charge is so effective."

And so, too, therefore, QuAIA is anti-semitic -- the word apartheid, the core of the groups' critique, seems to have been singled out as the offending term. Linking Israel to apartheid is akin to hate speech, defiling the one democracy in the Middle East by comparing it to the brutal oppressive regime of South Africa. The simple response is that the use of the word as it relates to current Israeli State policy is merely accurate and has been used by those who lived under South African Apartheid, Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, heads of State Jimmy Carter, Ehud Barak, members of Knesset Yossi Paritzky, Shulamit Aloni, Mayors of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti, Ehud Olmert, and on it goes. Can they ALL be anti-semites too?

While politicians will say almost anything to get elected, a good test would be to check their public track records. While QuAIA's bookshelves have not turned up one "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" pamphlet, candidates Rob Ford and Giorgio Mammoliti have indeed proven their homophobic stripes over the years. Funny bedfellows for Martin Gladstone who's "parts don't fit" with Mammolitti's -- a slur he made against gays many years ago. But then again, Israel too has chosen to slip between the covers with the likes of the Christian Zionist right. Call me an anti-semite but what's that going to look like when the Messiah comes?!

Anti-semitism is a potent and poisonous phenomenon, and it has been around as long as Jews have, but calling every critic of Israel, Jewish or not, not only undermines the real incidences of anti-semitism but further delegitimizes those who claim to ‘stand by Israel.' The list of anti-semites is indeed getting longer and longer.

Elle Flanders is a Canadian filmmaker and a driving force behind Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

Comments

Submitted by LimeJello on May 11, 2010 - 3:30pm.

The charge of blanket anti-Semitism against criticism of Israel is spurious. So is the premise of Elle Flanders' column. She may be overly sensitive as QuAIA has been the subject of the anti-Semitism accusation.

The principle criticism of the "Israeli apartheid" movement has been one of its hypocrisy and stupidity. Israel has universal enfranchisement for its citizens of all races and religions, free elections and an independent judiciary with equal legal rights - not exactly the features of apartheid.

A land/border conflict is not apartheid. Trying to pressure one side in two-sided conflict by applying a false label just discredits those who do it.

The anti-Semitism charge is an outgrowth of the hypocritical singling out of Israel for actions that are less egregious than those taken by its neighbours. What is rather unfortunate is a seemingly wilful obliviousness to actual historical anti-Semitism that makes this disproportionate singling out of Israel suspect, and susceptible to the charge of anti-Semitism. There is also a wilful ignorance among QuAIA of the fact that there are lots of Jew-haters who are jumping on the anti-Israel bandwagon as a means of legitimising their bigotry.

What is uniquely strange about QuAIA is its self-defeating approach of attacking a country with the best human rights record regarding gays in its region in favor of those that are homophobic to the point of being murderous.

But of course, the reason for that is obvious. QuAIA isn't about rights for Palestinian gays. It's about a few people trying to prove their bones as "activists." If they actually cared about Palestinian gays or women's rights, they'd be trying to pressure Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to respect gay rights, to respect women's rights, to respect press freedoms and individual rights. You don't see much of that going on from QuAIA, do you?

That might take some critical thought and not unquestioningly eating up the dictated position of Marxist progressives.

Personally, I say let QuAIA march in Pride. Aside from the right to free expression that everyone should have, these people are a joke. They do more to discredit a cause they are associated with than help it.

Submitted by Pensive on May 11, 2010 - 6:05pm.

Bah. I'm so tired of anyone criticizing Israeli government policy as being labled anti-semitic. For most people concerned with IAW, it has nothing to do with being Jewish, Christians, Muslims and so forth. It has everything to do with HUMAN BEINGS hurting other HUMAN beings. The Israeli lobby has no reply for the accusations of settlements, oppression, human rights abuse and so forth. And therefore they deflect. It's a simple as that. I would be more inclined to see Israel in a favorable light if they OWNED up to any of their actions and made a REAL show of compassion for the Palestinian people and what they're enduring. Because this is not about the Jewish people. This is about the Palestinian people and the Israeli Government and Military Policy.

Submitted by Pericles64 on May 11, 2010 - 6:52pm.

LimeJello:

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is not a land/boarder conflict. It is an illegal, brutal occupation which has been condemned 42 years straight by the general assembly, and declared illegal by U.N resolution 242 as well as by the International Court of Justice, including U.S Justice Berganthal - a holocaust survivor. Describing it as a land/boarder conflict, and arguing that "Trying to pressure one side in two-sided conflict by applying a false label just discredits those who do it", suggests either a hopelessly biased or a hopelessly uninformed view of the situation.

It might be pointed out, further, that while as the term 'apartheid' can be empirically demonstrated to uncontroversially apply to the Israeli occupation, the terming of the occupation as a "land/boarder conflict" is demonstrably nothing more than vulgar apologetics for war crimes. The occupation of Palestine is as much a "boarder conflict" as was the U.S conquest of texas, or florida, or any other annexation by force.

As for your parroting of the standard moral-relativist argument, that:

"The anit-semitism charge is an outgrowth of the hypocritical singling out of Israel for actions that are less egregious than those taken by it's neighbors."

Note the tacit admission that Israel has committed, and continues to commit, "egregious" actions - in fact quite shocking crimes against humanity and violations of international law and norms. The only defense offered is that Israel's crimes are "less egregious than those taken by it's neighbors", not exactly an exoneration of Israel. let's ignore the fact that no evidence is given to support this claim, and suppose that it is true. All it amounts to is a call to condemn the neighbors as well. Would you argue that we should refrain from criticizing Iran's repressions because they are "less egregious" than Israel's occupation? Or that to condemn Iran without condemning Israel is "anti-arabic"? Now, let's pretend further that Canada gives Israel tremendous ideological support and that our closest ally, the United States, crucially funds and supplies Israel's occupation, violations, and atrocities. Now let's pretend that we trade extensively with the United States and are a staple of it's economy. Do we perhaps have some special responsibility for the actions of our close ally Israel, whom we support and fund, beyond the responsibility that we have for the actions of, say, Syria or Egypt?

Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "eating up the dictated position of Marxist progressives". If you're not going to clarify and substantiate that strange statement in some way then it's just nonsensical propaganda.

Submitted by LimeJello on May 11, 2010 - 11:32pm.

The occupation of Palestinian territory is the result of many factors, not the least of which is an ongoing commitment to the destruction of Israel by various Palestinian factions. The Hamas Charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and Hamas has made violence its sole method of dealing with Israel.

Case in point, after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the Israelis attempted a 'wait-and-see' approach to whether the authorities in Gaza would make overtures for peace. What they did was smuggle in as many weapons as they could and use them against Israel. Then have the audacity to blame their violence on an embargo whose purpose was to prevent those very weapons and which was clearly violated.

The land/border dispute is on the West Bank side of the conflict. There is no Border dispute on the Gaza side. That is a question of Hamas refusing to cease violence and Israel refusing to lift the blockade until the Palestinian authority there makes demonstrable and verifiable efforts to cease the violence. Both sides won't budge and are locked in a tragic stalemate.

On the West Bank, the situation is a land/border dispute combined with an ongoing occupation that is easing but not over because of internal political pressures on both sides and weakness on the part of both leaderships.

Pericles, your comments really show a lack of historical knowledge of the region and the conflict if you actually believe this is a one-sided issue. Do you actually know how Israel acquired the occupied territories in1967? From whom? Were they occupied by anyone prior to that?

Israel and the Palestinians are currently involved in an ongoing military conflict. Perhaps you can name a country other than Israel that, under the circumstances, has treated its enemy in such a situation more benevolently? I expect a response with feigned outrage at the term "benevolent" without an actual answer to that question.

Moral relativism is not something I engage in and you apparently don't understand the meaning of that term, as well as a few others you've used. Moral relativism is the belief that morality cannot be universally applied, and that different moral standards should apply to different people based on cultural factors, etc.

I believe in a universal standard of morality. I believe that Israel's actions given the context of being at war have been consistent with any other Western country in the same circumstances. This includes preserving democracy, maintaining a free press, preserving judicial authority. That conflicts with the Palestinian tactics of intentionally targeting civilians, suppressing free speech, murder and repression of those who dissent internally, a lack of recognition of Israel's right to exist. For someone to equate what the Palestinians are doing with what Israel is doing requires moral relativism. If held to the same standards, Israel is acting in a far more moral way.

As to eating up the position of Marxist dictates, you may be unaware, but the current Marxist position is that Israel is a western, colonialist outpost in the Muslim Middle East. A position exacerbated by Israel's close allegiance with the United States. A position shared by Islamic fundamentalists, which is why so many of them have a shared interest in events like Israel Apartheid Week.

As to your assertion that "the term 'apartheid' can be empirically demonstrated to uncontroversially apply to the Israeli occupation", first of all, you probably mean 'incontrovertibly' rather than "uncontroversially", and your assertion is just that; an assertion without basis in fact. Your command of facts regarding the region seem about as proficient as your command of the English language. Apartheid is a racially based segregation where people of a particular race are disenfranchised for racial reasons. Israeli Arabs and Muslims enjoy full enfranchisement in Israel and are not segregated. Palestinians in the occupied territories do not live in Israel and are not Israeli citizens, so they cannot vote in Israeli elections. Iraqis living under American occupation can't vote in American elections, but that doesn't make America an apartheid country either.

There is no faultless side in this conflict. Anyone who thinks so is remarkably uninformed or biased to the point of being without credibility. Israel has done wrong, but so have the Palestinians and working towards building trust and ending violence needs to take place. Simple-minded dogmatic servitude to ideological commitments, such as is exhibited by the people in the Israeli apartheid movement, do nothing to achieve peace and are merely masturbatory exhibitions of self-interested "progressives" trying to establish activist credentials. If you genuinely care about Palestinian rights, what exactly have you done to pressure Hamas, which suppresses free speech and free expression among Palestinians to a far greater extent than Israel?

Submitted by alan smithee on May 12, 2010 - 12:05am.

At this point,I couldn't care less if some mental defective Zionist wants to label be an anti-semite or any other label in an attempt use social humiliation as a tool of intimidation...YAWN.

Israel is an apartheid state and only a shameless deluded disgusting apologist for that rogue country can defend it.

Thankfully,more and more people are acknowledging the pink elephant in the room...Remember,it took the world almost 20 years to recognize Hitler's regime...Sooner rather than later,the world will recognize the repugnant regime ruling Israel.

Submitted by LDW on May 12, 2010 - 2:31pm.

To 'alan smithee' - I've flagged your insulting entry - if you want to resort to a name-calling contest, please find another forum.

You are entitled to assert that Israel is an apartheid country, but you have restated this assertion without any response whatsoever to the arguments against it. Just because you say this doesn't make is so. How is Israel apartheid? How does her treatment of minorities compare with their treatment in other countries in the region, or in Canada or the U.S., for example?

In your third paragraph, you have your history wrong. Hitler was only elected (and some of his rise to power was through appointments and not elections) in 1933, and by 1939 World War II had begun. By April 1945 Hitler was dead. How do you get 20 years out of that?

Submitted by Pensive on May 12, 2010 - 5:12pm.

"On the West Bank, the situation is a land/border dispute combined with an ongoing occupation that is easing but not over because of internal political pressures on both sides and weakness on the part of both leaderships."

Easing you say...

Easing because the wall continues to be built despite an order to stop from the Israeli High Court of Justice? Easing because of the amendment to the infiltrator law which allows Israel to deport(and or jail up to 7 years) Palestinians from their homes if they don't have Israeli issued permits? Easing because of the continual building of settlements on occupied territory?

"That conflicts with the Palestinian tactics of intentionally targeting civilians, suppressing free speech, murder and repression of those who dissent internally, a lack of recognition of Israel's right to exist."

This sentence boggles my mind. Are you sure you're not talking about Israel here? If we're going to talk about targeting civilians, how on earth do you explain Israeli actions during the Gaza invasion? Suppressing free speech? Hello? What do you call suppressing any criticism of Israel? Of those who dissent internally? Umm, what about Mordechai Vanunu?

In regards to Israel's right to exist. At this point, I think we're past disputing it. What people want to see is an end the occupation and suffering.

Oh Lime, you really shock me sometimes.

Submitted by LimeJello on May 12, 2010 - 6:47pm.

Vannunu violated the Israeli equivalent of the Official Secrets Act, which he swore to uphold. Countries like Britain have imprisoned perople for the same offense. It's hardly the same thing as restricting free speech or press freedoms, or as Hamas frequently does, send its agents to put bullets in the kneecaps of Palestinians who dare to criticize them. Israel has a free and open press which is highly critical of the government, in fact, if you look at most Israeli newspapers, you'd see stronger criticism of the Israeli government there than you do in Canada or the US. You don't see that sort of behaviour tolerated by Hamas, do you? They shut down newspapers that criticize them.

And in the context of what this article was about, you can be openly Gay in Isreal and openly serve in the Israeli military as a Gay person. Try that in Gaza or the West Bank and see what happens.

As to easing, Pensive, I'm not disputing those points, I'm saying things are less violent and more conducive to working towards negotiations than they were, say, during the last years of Arafat. There are lots of ups and downs in the process and progress can be undone by acts of sudden, unexpected violence. There are extremists on both sides who have no interest in peace and see the perpetuation of the conflict as a means of strengthening their ideological influence.

Gaza wasn't the widespread, policy-driven targeting of civillians, it was war against a guerilla force that hides among civillians, so civillian casualties were unavoidable. If you want to discuss the Goldstone report, check what Goldstone himself said. He said his report was not conclusions but allegations which would not bear evidentiary rules in court and require individual investigation for veracity. And Goldstone is not a military man. Richard Kemp, who was the British commander in Afghanistan is, and he was an observer to the Gaza conflict for the British military. He said that there has never been a time in the history of warfare when an army has done more to try to reduce civillian casualties than the Israeli Defense Force in Gaza.

I really do wonder if people who are so critical of Israel's conduct in Gaza have any military knowledge whatsoever. By what military standards of war, compared to what other army waging war, has Israel's conduct been so horrific? Are you aware of civillian casualty rates in Afghanistan or Iraq in the last few years? Are they better than those in Gaza? You might want to look at that and complain about Canadian, British, Australian and American brutality when you find out the answer. But the reality is that warfare results in death and sometimes that includes innocents.

That's been the history of the world and Israel is no more guilty of wrongdoing than Britain during World War 2 or any other country fighting a war against an enemy that sought its destruction.

About being past disputing Israel's right to exist, i'm glad you feel that way. Perhaps you know someone who could persuade Hamas to take the same viewpoint. And regrettably, your view is not shared by many writers on this site.

I feel the need to get back to one main point. I am not trying to vindicate Israel of all wrongdoing. But what is pervasive on rabble.ca is the single-minded fanatical effort to attribute all blame in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Isreal. That is not only unfair, it's blatantly false and self-discrediting. The same with calling it an apartheid state when it clearly isn't and is part of an effort to attribute sole blame to Israel. It's unfair, false, and self-discrediting. By engaging in something that is unfair, false and self-discrediting, it calls the motives of those who do so into question. That is why groups like QuAIA get accused of anti-semitism, because their single-minded bias and lack of reasonableness suggests some form of bigotry to those who can find no other explanation for it. I actually don't believe they are anti-Semitic on the whole. I think they're just attention-seeking, self-absorbed hypocrites who like to wear the activist label. I guess if you can't get noticed as a filmmaker, the next-best-thing is to get on TV as a controversial activist. Oh, well, not everybody can be talented.

Sorry if you're shocked.

Submitted by alan smithee on May 12, 2010 - 11:52pm.

Name calling?...Flag away,LDW...In Canada,we don't bomb our minorities,we don't hand them cards identifying them as anything,we don't ghetto-ize our minorities into slums where we limit their water supplies and treat them like dogs..

Not only is this faux country an Apartheid state but Israel is a dispicable little country that has the world headed to a third world war.

You're right about the third paragraph....But check history...Hitler was hard at work since the early 1920's....And yes,what the Isreali government is doing to the Palestinians is not much different from what the Germans did to the Jews,gypsies,communists and homosexuals.

Netanyahu hasn't heated the ovens....YET.

Submitted by BGC on May 13, 2010 - 12:16am.

LimeJello, this is not about supporting any of those Palestinian Policy's that you outline. This is about recognizing that calling someone anti-semetic because they are criticizing Israel is childish. This is more post 911 rhetoric that is designed to shut people up and shut down any meaningful discussion.

Both parties don't have clean hands, but one party does have the upper hand and is thus held more accountable for the situation. And rightly so, as they would have more power to improve the situation than the weaker party.

If Palestine has these policies that you outline then that is something that needs to be addressed, but it does not negate any wrong doing on Israel's part. I have the upmost respect for Judaism, Jewish people and their great breadth of knowledge, but I don't have respect for Israel's actions towards Palestinians. There is a distinction that most educated people recognize, I'm not sure if you do?

Submitted by alan smithee on May 13, 2010 - 12:08pm.

Oh,BTW LDW...Hitler became the leader of the NSDAP in 1921...Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and the war started in 1939.

Granted,you are right...It didn't take the world 20 years to recognize Hitler's regime in Germany...It actually took 18 years..My bad.

Submitted by Karl Marx on May 13, 2010 - 2:08pm.

It goes like this Elle. if I criticize Israel for their policies and practices does it constitute mere criticism or does it constitute demonization and delegitimization i.e. antisemitism. Similarly, if I criticize queers for their policies and practices does it constitute mere criticism or does it constitute demonization and delegitimization i.e. homophobia.

Holding Israel in contempt out of all proportion to any other nations or parties in the Middle East and elsewhere is no different than holding queers in contempt out of all proportion to other sexual orientations and preferences.

And yes, notwithstanding my namesake's great contributions to the world of political economy, his tract "On the Jewish Question" was antisemitic. So trotting out the names of world leaders, even Jewish ones, in reference to the Israeli policy as apartheid does not cut it.

Submitted by Pensive on May 13, 2010 - 6:15pm.

I don't know Karl, to me your comparison just doesn't hold weight. I don't think we can compare sexual orientation to systematic oppression and aggression of a whole group of people.

A man having sex with another man..... vs. human beings abusing/humiliating/agressing against other human beings.

I'm just not seeing it.

@BGC; Well said.

Submitted by Karl Marx on May 14, 2010 - 9:36am.

The systematic oppression and aggression of a whole group i.e. gays, doesn't hold weight in comparison? You had better check your biases at the door Pensive. Gays are systematically harassed and tortured in the Palestinian Territories for simply wanting to coexist peacefully with the rest of society, whereas Palestinians have yet to show an inclination to coexist peacefully with Israelis.

Submitted by LimeJello on May 17, 2010 - 9:28am.

Is it that some people read a little bit and decide to make their criticisms without wading through the whole thing (understandable, there is a lot of text) or do they just not comprehend the meaning of the words in front of them?

The first sentance of the first comment on the page, written by me says " The charge of blanket anti-Semitism against criticism of Israel is spurious." Do I need to explain what that means? (evidently so) Blankets cover lots of territory. "Spurious" means false. the sentance means that to say that "all criticism of Israel is anti-semitism" is false. It would be untrue to say that criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-semitic. Can I make it any plainer? How much of an education do you need to comprehend that, BGC? because apparently the meaning has eluded you.

Howvever, and I'll put this in small, simple words even someone with an undergrad degree in Equity Studies can comprehend; there is something that suggests, without necessarily being so, Jew-hatred in calling Israel an "apartheid state".

Apartheid has very specific conditions contingent on racial segregation and disenfranchisement that Israel doesn't meet. Isreal is also the least of the human rights violators in its region, including the Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank. So by saying Israel is an "apartheid state" and singling it out for transgressions in a region full of them, suggests a bias.

In most cases it may well not be a bias against Jews. Among the QuAIA and rabble crowd, it probably has to do whith a bias against a perceived "capitalist, colonialist, imperialist outpost" But the failure to comprehend how this singling out of the sole Jewish state could be interpreted by some as anti-semitism suggests a significant deficit of comprehension.

"Post 9-11 rhetoric designed to shut people up"? Are you kidding me? Do you pull these phrases out of someone's commentary on a Chomsky text? You may be too young to remember or not well-read enough to know, but the whole issue of equating anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel to anti-semitism goes back a long time before the year 2001. Martin Luther King referred to it when he said "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."

There have been some that have tried to expand Dr. King's condemnation of criticism of Zionists to Israeli policy as a whole. That is obviously a false premise and in that case is an attempt to shut down discussion.

So the issue with QuAIA isn't about criticism of Israeli policy, which can rightfully be criticized in many areas such as its appropriation of land from Palestinians, its dehumanization by subjecting them to humiliations and more. These are wrongful acts that should be criticized. But wrapping them up in the "apartheid" label shows that they aren't so concerned for Palestinians as they are in making a statement, regardless of the falsehood of that statement. It's particularly unpleasant because the "apartheid" red herring is detracting from the real discussion about the violation of Palestinian rights, to say nothing of Israel's legitimate interests in the safety of its citizens caused by Palestinian violence and of trying to build trust and find ways of moving towards peace among both parties. QuAIA and the "Israeli aparthied" movement seem to be made up of masturbatory armchair revolutionaries who cannot command attention with their talent or intellect and use the issue to show what good little activists they are rather than having a genuine interest in peace.

Submitted by Pensive on May 17, 2010 - 2:10pm.

"The systematic oppression and aggression of a whole group i.e. gays, doesn't hold weight in comparison?."

I'm sorry to say I must have misunderstood your sentence.

I interpreted your comment, "if I criticize queers for their policies and practices" as criticism of the actions of people who are gay, lesbian etc, not of those who are homophobic and engage in hateful actions against people who have a diff sexual preference. I wasn't discounting the oppression they face at all, across the world. GLBT people are harassed in Canada, the US, Uganda, South Africa etc etc. and it's not right no matter where it happens.

As the oppression of a group people isn't right no matter where it happens.

But following your logic this is what I see. You state that criticizing a man for having sex could equal being homophobic, and does this logic hold true for Israel? Does criticism of Israel equal being anti-Semitic? My thoughts on why the comparison doesn't work, is because the actions of a GLTB person do not affect anyone but themselves and their partner. The actions of Israel affect millions of people. Now, I can't speak for the world, but I can speak for many when I say that it wouldn't matter if Israel citizens were Jewish, Christian, Mormon, Muslim, or Scientologists. The actions of the government and the Military is what people are criticizing.

Submitted by Karl Marx on May 18, 2010 - 9:25am.

Look, Pensive. My proposition is that some criticism of Israel is mere criticism but some of it is antisemitic when the 'criticism" extends to singling out Israel for condemnation out of all proportion to any other nation or parties in the Middle East and elsewhere, and includes a denial of national self-detemination and affirmative action for Jews i.e. anti-Zionism, both of which are promoted and granted to other groups e.g. Palestinians, women, other national communities, groups which have experienced historical discrimination, etc. Just as some criticism of gays may be mere criticism, some of it is steeped in homophobia.

Your ignorance is showing when you reduce gays and gay life to having sex.

Submitted by alan smithee on May 18, 2010 - 9:34am.

I've been reading the comments (except anything with LimeJello above it) and I'm waving the white flag of surrender.

The discussions go nowhere...It seems the more people want to point out that the sky is blue,you'll always have people arguing that the sky,is in reality,brown.

There it is for the whole world to see but still these people will come up with excuse and arguement that,no....What everyone is seeing is actually an optical illusion which is a symptom of prejudice.

Clearly,there are still people on this planet that believe the Earth is flat,regardless of the obvious facts which contradict that belief.

So I'm done...This is all so futile and pointless.

Ciao.

Submitted by Pensive on May 18, 2010 - 3:39pm.

*sigh*

I'm not reducing anything.

Submitted by Karl Marx on May 18, 2010 - 5:51pm.

Oh, and by the way, the answer to Elle Flanders' simplistic and simple-minded question "We can't all be anti-semites, can we?" is as rhetorical as is her question: it all depends on the nature of the criticism.

Submitted by BGC on May 21, 2010 - 3:08pm.

So here is what I've gathered from some statements, I'm an anit-semite(of which i was completely unaware). Critisizm of Isreal is critisizm of all Jews, their religion and everything that they encompass!

The question I ask is what could possibly cause a population to take up arms and attack Isreal? Last time I checked nobody in their right mind takes up action of that nature unless they feel no other means of empowerment exists. Condtions must have gotten to such a state to cause this situation to occcur, it's called cause and effect. But I don't make this statement without the knowledge of anti-semitism that does exist strongly in that region of the world

And the reason we are focusing on Isreal's actions is because of the close ties they hold to the U.S. and not so inderectly with Canada. As well as they are the ones who hold the most power in this situation. But to say other countries have done worse..., where does that leave us...that is like saying...I did this bad deed, but so and so did worse therefore I should not be held accountable for my actions. And thus nothing changes and the cycle of violence continues!

But we do see that middle eastern nations in the area exhasterbating the situation by not accepting Palestinian immigrants and refuges. Yes their is ant-semitism in that part of the world, but again this is not a valid argument that justifys Isreali actions towards the Palestinians. Ethically speaking there is no argument that can support treating others badly. Everybody has the responsibility to treat others with dignity and respect. Notice what the word everybody encompasses!

Isreal holds the power in this conflict, in the end the actions they take is mostly what will bring an amicable solution, I don't see how this is such a streach of logic. So yes we are focusing mostly on Isreal.