David Collier: Antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Performing the duck test
Is it antisemitism or anti-Zionism? Everyday, semantics are used to deflect what is obvious. When people argue over this it protects antisemitism. It does not matter whether in theory anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same thing or not. It is a straw man argument. When you perform the duck test on anti-Zionist activity across the board, it soon becomes clear that antisemitism overflows in every corner of the anti-Israel movement. The duck test highlights just how seamlessly, blatant antisemitism has renamed itself.PreOccupiedTerritory: Near-Total Overlap Of Antisemitism And Anti-Zionism Just A Coincidence (satire)
I am in the middle of writing a large report that will hopefully meet my self-imposed end-of-February deadline. This particular post is not part of that and was never planned. It came about because in preparation for a talk I gave last night to students at KCL I needed to spend some time gathering examples of the similarity between anti-Zionism and classic antisemitism. This is what I found:
The duck test
What are examples of antisemitism? What are the tropes? I needed to work from a check-list, so turned to Wiki to find one. They have a page titled ‘antisemitic canards‘. It provides a list of different types of canards used to foster and legitimise hate against Jewish people throughout the ages. There are 20 classic types listed. They added the 9/11 conspiracy, which I ignored because I believe it captured in the essence of all the others.
Below are the results from the twenty I worked with. In those cases where the accusation predates Zionism (such as the killing of Christ), I have only used posts by people who ‘coincidentally’ are also anti-Israel activists:
Researchers have determined that the uncanny correlation between hatred for Jews and opposition to Israel constitutes a statistical fluke, a recent study reports, cautioning that observers ought not to draw unwarranted conclusions from the close association that means nothing.Jonathan S. Tobin: Who are the real racists in the Middle East?
A comparative study of the rhetoric and behavior of people who claim only to oppose the Jewish State and of the rhetoric and behavior of outspoken antisemites revealed a 98% overlap in the composition and content of the two groups, which study authors warned does not indicate any inherent relationship between them, since, as every student of elementary statistics knows, correlation does not imply causation. Instead, the researchers advise the public to note the overlap as a curiosity and then return to the everyday work of explaining how opposing the existence of the world’s only Jewish country, established as a refuge from thousands of years of persecution, does not qualify as antisemitism.
“We can understand why a facile interpretation of these numbers would lead a person to the conclusion that the two phenomena are in some way related,” the authors wrote. “But that fails to take into account all the protestations by self-proclaimed anti-Zionists that they do not in fact harbor ill will toward Jews; they just want them to remain at the mercy of the world’s often-hostile majority, with a soupçon of human rights verbiage thrown in. We therefore urge people not to misinterpret the near-perfect correlation as anything but an interesting quirk.”
But the difference here is that while genuine racism exists in Israel—as it does in any other society of imperfect human beings—to claim that the government promotes hate is a bold-faced lie. To the contrary, classic anti-Semitic tropes and blood libels are a staple of the Palestinian Authority’s official press, broadcast media and education system. The same is true of the Hamas government of Gaza. Moreover, the P.A. continues, despite threats of aid cutoffs from the United States, to pay salaries and pensions to imprisoned terrorists and their families.American Support for Israel Is Based on Strategic Interests, Not Just Morality
This reflects a consensus within Palestinian society that those who commit acts of violence against Jews and Israelis are role models and heroes to be celebrated, rather than to be shunned.
Will it be any different for the murderer of Ori Ansbacher, a teenager from the settlement of Tekoa who was doing national service for her country? The Israeli media has reported that the murderer is affiliated with Hamas and said he wanted to be a “martyr.” Unfortunately, nothing that has happened up until now gives us much hope that most Palestinians will treat the death of a Jewish teenager as anything other than a victory for their cause, no matter how egregious the crime.
Neither Israel nor its citizens are perfect. But friends of Israel can be proud of the efforts of the Israel Defense Forces to spare innocent lives even when it means that sometimes terrorists might escape. Moreover, its political system, however flawed it might be, rests on democratic principles that ensure that Israeli Arabs are equal before the law and have rights to representation unknown elsewhere in the region.
Those who wish to talk about racism should point their barbs at Palestinian leaders who bear personal responsibility for creating an environment in which “nationalist” murders like that of Ansbacher are made possible, not at Israel.
Unlike other U.S. allies, Israel has never asked for a single American soldier to deploy to Israel and give their life for the Jewish state. Israel has always been committed to defending itself. That is an invaluable strategic asset.
More specifically, the United States benefits from its alliance with Israel in very practical ways. In 2012, Michael Eisenstadt and David Pollock, both fellows at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, produced a great report that details these benefits—from intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation to cyber and water security. Israel's remarkable technological innovation is critical for American businesses, and its expertise in homeland security and military tactics are critical for keeping Americans—both in and out of uniform—safe.
The number of benefits is too long to list here, but it is extensive. Even Richard Nixon, who peddled his share of anti-Semitic canards, recognized Israel's strategic importance and ordered an essential arms airlift during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The former president also recognized the remarkable character of the Israeli people, and became the first commander in chief to visit the Jewish state on the job. Critics may say the alliance is just a relic of the Cold War, but this is a dangerously myopic view. In such an interconnected world, where security is ever more difficult to guarantee and technology is the economy of the future, Israel is a necessary ally.
In sum, Americans support Israel for both moral and strategic reasons. The two cannot be separated. And together, they create a foundation for an alliance that can resist Omar's corrosive, anti-Semitic charges, which are part of an effort to break apart an essential, mutually beneficial relationship. In defending Israel against the likes of Omar, Americans should remember that they not only have the moral high ground, but also the strategic high ground.




















