Alan Dershowitz: The Harvard Crimson Normalizes Growing Campus Antisemitism
On April 30, I submitted to the Harvard Crimson a detailed op-ed refuting its recently-published blood libel against Israel. Over the next several days, the Crimson first said they were “reviewing” my submission; then that they were “interested in running it;” and, on May 4, that they would run my piece “probably tonight,” promising to “reach out with edits later today if needed.” As a result of these assurances, I withdrew my op-ed from any other publications. Then, on May 4, they “decided not to publish” my piece, using the phony excuse of “very high number of submissions … combined with our currently limited production schedule.”Israel-bashing is this generation's existential threat to Judaism
When I protested their breach of journalistic ethics, they changed their minds again and agreed to run it in the form of a much-shortened letter to the editor. They asked me to eliminate the accusation that their editorial encouraged the current form of antisemitism; I refused. Then they demanded documentary proof of my opinions — something they did not provide for their own egregiously false statements. When I provided the documentation, they finally ran out of excuses, and reluctantly published the shortened letter. This bait and switch compounded their unethical action in knowingly publishing defamatory lies about Israel. Here is the full op-ed they accepted and then rejected:
In one of the most historically ignorant, religiously discriminatory and factually deceptive editorials ever published by the Harvard Crimson, its editorial board engages in and “call[s] on everyone” to promote the current form of antisemitism.
Let’s be clear that criticism of Israel and/or its policies is not antisemitic. I and other supporters of Israel around the world routinely criticize policies of the nation state of the Jewish people, just as we criticize policies of our own nation. This editorial, however, is not merely about Israeli policies: it implicitly supports the end of Israel and its replacement by a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.” That is the goal of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement as described by its founder, Omar Barghouti.
Tom Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize winner and New York Times columnist who is often critical of Israeli policies, put it this way: “singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanctions — out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East — is antisemitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”
That is precisely what the Crimson editorial is guilty of. It “condemn[s] antisemitism in every and all forms,” while practicing its newest form. Are the editors even aware that the founders of the BDS movement apply it only to Israelis who are Jewish? Are the editors aware that Barghouti refused to debate me at the Oxford Union precisely because I am an American Jew who supports Israel’s existence? Are the editors aware that BDS singles out only one nation from among the many with serious human rights issues, namely the nation state of the Jewish people? That is antisemitism pure and simple. Shame on the Crimson editors for calling on everyone to promote it. The Crimson’s megaphone will surely spread and increase the already high rate of antisemitism on campuses throughout the world.
At this point in 2022, the danger of Israel-bashing becoming the ideology for the political destruction of the Jewish state seems as absurd as the threat of antisemitism becoming the ideology for genocide of European Jews was in the 1890s during Herzl’s time. Friendly governments would not fulfill the threat.
But as Herzl argued, governments are subject to the will of the people, and those people today are indoctrinated with occupationalism and Israel-bashing. “Even if we were as near to the hearts of princes… they could not protect us. They would only feel popular hatred by showing us too much favor,” Herzl wrote.
Moreover, political situations can change. One of the lessons of the 1973 Yom Kippur War is to threat-analyze capabilities, not just intentions. Indeed, the capabilities to eradicate Judaism are now in place.
So how to deal with it? Indeed, look to Herzl.
Until now, the primary response to Israel-bashing has been hasbara (public diplomacy). Herzl mocked such efforts.
In his time, hasbara was done through “committees against antisemitism.” Herzl argued that they are futile since one cannot convince people who use dogmatic thinking. Hence, a radical solution was needed – the establishment of a Jewish state.
Today, Israel-bashing is too dogmatic in mainstream Western societies for rational arguments to be effective. Once again, a radical approach is needed to deal with this threat: the change of global consciousness of what is Judaism. As discussed in this column, Zionism is becoming the primary conduit through which both Jews and non-Jews relate to Judaism – through positive and negative connections alike.
Once there is a broad recognition that Judaism has transformed and Zionism is now its organizing principle, then Israel-bashing becomes Jew-bashing, and this in-turn dramatically alters the nature of the existential threat to Judaism of our generation.
London Centre Study of Contemporary Antisemitism: Jeffrey Herf talked about his book "Israel's Moment" at a London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism event.
...2. Russian propaganda says Ukraine is not a real nation, not authentic, a Nazi, racist, pro-imperialist entity that should be dismantled by force.
— David Hirsh (@DavidHirsh) May 6, 2022
3. Remember the antisemitic myth of the 'Khazars'? It says that 'white' Jews from Europe are not authentically Jews at all...