AIPAC's new definition of "anti-Semitism"

[eyelight]

Interesting article by Glenn Greenwald on Salon documenting AIPAC's manipulation of the US media with calls to label anyone they don't like as an "anti-Semite".

There are many points to make about how this campaign has manifested, but I want to focus on one amazing aspect of it. Because these “leading Jewish groups” have whittled away their credibility by continuously exploiting charges of “anti-Semitism” for political gain and debate-suppressing ends, it is no longer sufficient for them simply to spout the accusation and be taken seriously. They are now required to specify what exactly is out of bounds and what makes someone “anti-Semitic” as opposed to a mere critic of Israeli actions. And in their answers here one finds extremely revealing — and damning — facts.

Look at what Josh Block told Politico about what makes someone an anti-Semite:

As a progressive Democrat, I am convinced that on issues as important as the US-Israel alliance and the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, there is no room for uncivil discourse or name calling, like ‘Israel Firster or ‘Likudnik’, and policy or political rhetoric that is hostile to Israel, or suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse. I also believe that when it occurs, progressive institutions, have a responsibility not to tolerate such speech or arguments.

So according to Block, you are not allowed (unless you want to be found guilty of anti-Semitism) to use “policy rhetoric that is hostile to Israel” or — more amazingly — even to “suggest that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.” Those ideas are strictly off limits, declares the former AIPAC spokesman. Apparently, then, America’s National Intelligence Estimates of 2007 and 2010 are both anti-Semitic, since they both concluded that Iran ceased work on developing a nuclear weapon back in 2003 and that there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating it resumed; to cite those reports and to embrace their conclusions makes you an anti-Semite, since you’re not allowed to “suggest that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.” Israel’s government is also evidently suffused with anti-Semites, given that Haaretz reported this week that “the Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon.” Make certain, though, not to mention that because, according to Block, that expression of anti-semitism “has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse.” To avoid being an anti-Semite, you must quietly and gratefully accept the most extreme claims about the state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program: it is not permissible to debate it.

Then there’s Jason Issacson of the American Jewish Congress, who told The Jerusalem Post that “references to Israeli ‘apartheid’ . . . are so false and hateful they reveal an ugly bias no serious policy center can countenance.” Make sure to write that down: unless you want to stand revealed as an anti-Semite, you’re not allowed to point out the stark and tragic similarities between South African bantustans and the way in which residents of the West Bank are walled off into tiny enclaves and Gazans are forcibly confined to ghettos. Those guilty of anti-Semitism on this ground not only include the President of Turkey, the Foreign Minister of Finland, and a former American President – all of whom have made that comparison – but also the publisher of Haaretz, who last year repeatedly compared Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to South African apartheid; the Israeli writer Yitzhak Loar, who has argued that the situation in the occupied territories is actually worse than South African apartheid in material ways; and also, once again, Israel’s own Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister), who last year warned that the only alternative to peace is apartheid: “If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”

But the most revealing decree comes from Abe Foxman’s Anti-Defamation League, which said this when arguing that these anti-Semitism smears against CAP and MM are warranted:

Most of their blogs come from a perspective of blaming Israel for the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian affairs and minimizing or rationalizing the Iranian threat.

So Israel has been brutally occupying Palestinian land for 45 years, and continues to aggressively expand settlements that all but foreclose any possibility of a two-state resolution. But as an American taxpayer — contributing to the billions of dollars of annual aid sent to Israel and affected in all sorts of ways by this conflict — you are not allowed to opine that Israel is primarily at fault for the lack of a peace agreement. If you do so opine, you’re not merely wrong, but you’ve exposed yourself as an anti-Semite. That opinion regarding the assignment of fault in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is strictly off limits.

What we find yet again is this common– and quite dangerous — paradox: the very groups that are charged with fighting anti-Semitism have done more than anyone else to trivialize the accusation and thus render it impotent and meaningless. They have done this by continuously exploiting the term for completely illegitimate aims: to smear those who deviate from their policy preferences regarding Israel. As Sarah Wildman recently wrote in an Op-Ed in the Jewish newspaper, The Forward, entitled “When ‘Anti-Semitism’ is Abused”:

[W]hen anti-Semitism is falsely applied, we must also stand up and decry it as defamation, as character assault, as unjust. That is why when we debase the term by using it as a rhetorical conceit against those with whom we disagree on policy matters, we have sullied our own promises to our grandparents. For if we dilute the term, if we render the label meaningless, defanged, we have failed ourselves, our legacy, our ancestors, our children.

[seanmoylantd]

Sorry,but we know all this .

[meriwether]

There's very much a move in the US for showing up Israeli belligerence for what it is.

Obama is definitely the least Israeli sychophant President in recent history, while Ron Paul is running on a foreign policy agenda that is very unconevntional, in that he favours ending the Israeli aid package, which is unheard of for a mainstream Republican.

In relation to the article, for domestic perspective, we very much also have the non-sequitur that to oppose Israeli policy towards the Gaza strip makes you a Hamas supporter.

[DaveM]

L'Chaim in 5, 4, 3, .......

[eyelight]

Sorry,but we know all this .

We all may know it, but not everyone does.
Anyway, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

There's very much a move in the US for showing up Israeli belligerence for what it is.

Obama is definitely the least Israeli sychophant President in recent history, while Ron Paul is running on a foreign policy agenda that is very unconevntional, in that he favours ending the Israeli aid package, which is unheard of for a mainstream Republican.

In relation to the article, for domestic perspective, we very much also have the non-sequitur that to oppose Israeli policy towards the Gaza strip makes you a Hamas supporter.

Obama may have talked the talk before he was elected, but has shown himself to be just a supine glove puppet for Israeli policy.
He's been surrounded by people like Rahm Emanuel, Denis Ross, Hilary Clinton and the new White House Chief of Staff, Jacob Lew.
All of whom operate to an Israel first agenda.

I agree with the last bit of your post though.

[tinyd]

It's a great example of an association fallacy i.e. some anti-semites oppose Israel's policies, therefore anyone who opposes Israel's policies is an anti-semite. Having said that, a lot of antisemitism is pretty sneaky so it's hard sometimes to figure out if someone's opposition to Israel is really about the country's policies or is driven by antisemitism. I agree with the thrust of Greenwald's piece, though, that using the accusation to stifle legitimate debate is counter-productive and just plain wrong.

[meriwether]

We all may know it, but not everyone does.
Anyway, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.




Obama may have talked the talk before he was elected, but has shown himself to be just a supine glove puppet for Israeli policy.
He's been surrounded by people like Rahm Emanuel, Denis Ross, Hilary Clinton and the new White House Chief of Staff, Jacob Lew.
All of whom operate to an Israel first agenda.

I agree with the last bit of your post though.

Call me naive, but i get the sensation that Obama hasn't been able to do as he wishes in relation to the middle east owing to the straightjacket of an upcoming election. He can't afford to have this as another negative electorally. If he gets back in, I hope he will take the gloves off, knowing that he doesn't have to seek re-election.

[Clanrickard]

AIPAC are a bunch of idiots. There pigheadedness and hysteria are hurting Israel.

[flavirostris]

It's a measure of the success of AIPAC & other groups in shaping the terms of debate in the US and stifling alternate points of view that pointing out basic truths can result in a charge of "anti-semitism".

Jimmy Carter ( a man who had done perhaps more than anyone to help Israeli security during his stewardship of the Camp David talks ) was pilloried as an "anti-semite" for calling his book "Peace not Apartheid".

There is actually much freer discussion of the issues in the Israeli press than in the US press.

[Hewson]

This kind of nonsense reminds me of the McCarthy era in 1940-50s America. Back then they had the House of Un-American Activities Committee to investigate people who allegedly held 'left wing views' (!!). This Committee received a telegram from the Ku Klux Klan shortly after being set up which read: "Every true American, and that includes every Klansman, is behind you and your committee in its effort to turn the country back to the honest, freedom-loving, God-fearing American to whom it belongs."

They started an investigation into the Hollywood Motion Picture industry in 1947 during which a number of well know Hollywood names were dragged before the Committee (think of the Spanish Inquisition gone Stateside and you'll get the idea) to account for themselves. Ten of the interviewees claimed First Amendment rights and refused to answer any questions. All were subsequently sentenced to between six and twelve months in prison for contempt of Congress.

While the McCarthy era may have been an extreme example of paranoia gone berserk in an entire nation, it has shadows of itself in the ongoing 'anti-semitism' argument that rages there and elsewhere. Holding views that do not conform to those held by people in positions of power and privilege can be a dangerous thing in a society which feels threatened by outside forces, in today's scenario Islamic extremism. Because this extremism is the enemy then its enemy must be our friend. It then follows that any criticism of our friend is viewed as support for our enemy. This is too often the case in America where much of the media is controlled by right wing, pro-Israel, anti left-wing people with fixed ideas set in black and white.

Anti-semitism exists, as does anti-Catholicism, anti-Islamism and anti-Socialism. But the first of these has a more powerful resonance since the Holocaust and the subsequent guilt complex built up in the west in its wake. This guilt is easily exploited by people with agendas of their own, and nowhere more so than in the US and Israel.

In reality there is no more shame in condemning acts of terrorism or other human rights violations committed by a state than there is in condemning the same acts committed by individuals or small groups. Condemning or criticising Israel is not anti-semitic. That the subjects of the criticism happen to be of a particular religious persuasion is irrelevant.