Sunday, September 08, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
We must be clear and outspoken in exposing the new anti-Semitism. I believe that we can apply a simple test - I call it the "3D" test - to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch tweeted something that proves not only that he is aware of this definition, but that he believes that Human Rights Watch is not guilty of it:
The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.
The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.
Netanyahu's supporters have tried to expand anti-Semitism to include the “demonization” and “delegitimization” of Israel, but the human rights movement routinely demonizes and deligitimizes governments that systematically persecute and discriminate. https://t.co/7JjMsRYEcR pic.twitter.com/1S0xOhjVyA— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) September 8, 2019
Now, I honestly would never have claimed that HRW usually engages in the kind of demonization or delegitimization of Israel that Sharansky refers to. (Sometimes it does, as in a tweet where Ken Roth implies that there is a relationship between Israel and White Supremacism.) It certainly criticizes Israel but it doesn't compare it to Nazi Germany; it doesn't say that the state has no right to exist as BDS leaders, Palestinians and others say. Roth is claiming that HRW does delegitimize and demonize Israel along with other countries. It is an interesting argument, meant to deflect the 3D definition of antisemitism - it is no coincidence that he chose the exact same words used by Sharansky.
Which means that Roth knows the definition, and purposefully omitted the third D - of double standards.
Why? Because he knows that HRW is guilty of double standards on Israel.
What other country does HRW demand that tourist sites like AirBnB and TripAdvisor withdraw all review from disputed (or even occupied) areas? What other country gets the sheer amount of reports that Israel does? What other country does HRW claim that every possible means of defending its citizens from being murdered is illegitimate?
HRW is now very critical towards Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen - ever since the Saudis started unofficial channels of communication with Israel. But before that, HRW was much more reticent to criticize Saudis killing civilians compared to the IDF.
I have dozens of examples of HRW lies and double standards towards Israel, as well as double standards of how they treat Palestinians compared to other groups that support terror and martyrdom. I've shown how HRW's criticism of Israel is way out of proportion to that of every other country. I've even shown how HRW has gone after Jews, by implying that most IDF soldiers are religious enough to listen to a right-wing rabbi on when it is permissible to kill enemies instead of listening to their commanding officers. I've shown how HRW has different interpretations of international law for Israel and for everyone else. The only obituary it has ever written that attacked the dead person is for an Israeli leader.
There is no question that HRW engages in double standards when it comes to Israel. Ken Roth knows this, which is why he tries so hard to misdirect his readers away from the definition of antisemitism that he knows HRW is guilty of in spades.
There is no question that HRW engages in double standards when it comes to Israel. Ken Roth knows this, which is why he tries so hard to misdirect his readers away from the definition of antisemitism that he knows HRW is guilty of in spades.
