American Academics Take a Page Out of the Soviet Anti-Zionist Playbook
It seems like each day brings a new wrinkle in the oldest hatred. The antisemites are innovating, finding novel ways to fuel enmity against Israel and the Jewish people. The latest is a rehabilitation of the Soviet anti-Zionist playbook in the form of “Critical Zionist Studies.”Guess Human Rights Watch's new director's first target. Yup_ Israel
The newly created Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism “aims to support the delinking of the study of Zionism from Jewish Studies, and to reclaim academia and public discourse for the study of Zionism as a political, ideological, and racial and gendered knowledge project, intersecting with Palestine and decolonial studies, critical terrorism studies, settler colonial studies, and related scholarship and activism.”
The Institute is holding two events this coming October, one at the Resource Center for Nonviolence/UC Santa Cruz Center for Racial Justice and the other at New York University Law School. These events are a brazen effort to create and legitimize a new field called “Critical Zionist Studies” in universities across the country. Left unchecked, Critical Zionist Studies could be coming to a campus near you.
It would be difficult to imagine another area of study dedicated specifically to deconstructing a national liberation movement. Critical Kurdish Nationalism Studies? Critical Palestinian Nationalism Study? You get the point. Only Zionism is on the scholarly chopping block.
At root is an American academy in the throes of an illiberal ideology, with the backing of Middle Eastern money, that treats America, Israel and the West as colonialists and oppressors. And if we can’t stop the problem at its root we can expect more and more of these assaults on the Jewish people in the years ahead.
This is not the first time that Critical Zionist Studies has reared its ugly head. Wilson Center scholar and emigre from the FSU, Izabella Tabarovsky, describes the emergence of a field called “Zionology” in the late 1960s in the USSR. In the wake of the 1967 Six Day war, the Soviets were distressed that Israel handily defeated their Arab allies, and that Soviet Jews, inspired by Israel’s victory, were increasingly identifying with the Jewish state.
One area where Human Rights Watch has been active regarding Israel is its campaign to protect critics of the Jewish state from accusations of anti-Semitism.
Last week, HRW co-signed an open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, calling on him to reject the working definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA), which has won the support of 39 countries including the United States and most of Europe.
In particular, the open letter objected to the IHRA contention that one form of anti-Semitism is “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
One can see why Human Rights Watch perceived this benchmark as one that may put it on the wrong side of the anti-Semitism debate.
The letter suggested to the secretary general that he consider an alternate definition, according to which “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism.”
(Try substituting “Jews” for “Israel” and “people” for “countries” and see how that sounds.)
The tragedy of Human Rights Watch is that there is a desperate need for objective reporting on human rights across the globe. What do you think? Post a comment.
In many of the 90 countries where it operates, the organization lives up to that standard.
Still in her first month on the job, Hassan could steer the organization in a better direction if she is willing to take justified criticism to heart — not that it seems likely. (h/t Max Mendelbaum)
Countries backing IHRA antisemitism definition also fund its opponents, study finds
In the face of rising global antisemitism, many nations have endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Yet, paradoxically, several of these very countries are also financially supporting NGOs that contest this definition.
NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based think tank, conducted a recent study that casts a spotlight on this contradiction.
Since its introduction in May 2016, the IHRA’s definition has gained broad acceptance. By July 2023, it was adopted by 40 governments and numerous intergovernmental organizations, marking it as a foundational policy in the fight against antisemitism. However, these endorsements come with a twist. NGO Monitor’s data reveals that a significant number of these countries are also funding NGOs that resist the IHRA framework.
Countries including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and even the European Union – all known champions of human rights – seem to be playing both sides according to the study’s findings.
These countries have paradoxically been backing organizations that are said to “engage in and promote blatant antisemitism as per the IHRA’s definition,” it reads.
Beyond financial support, these NGOs have been found to propagate antisemitic narratives and often dismiss antisemitism as a non-issue of human rights.
The study emphasizes, for instance, how some of these NGOs endorse views contrary to the IHRA, such as denying “the Jewish people their right to self-determination, suggesting the very existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
For some, self-preservation comes first
Delving into the reasons for such opposition, the study suggests that these NGOs are not merely driven by ideological differences, but have self-preservation in mind. With the IHRA’s definition gaining traction, many of their activities, especially those against Israel, risk being tagged as antisemitic.
NGO Monitor’s new visual exposes the widespread and coordinated NGO campaign against the #IHRA definition of antisemitism.
— NGO Monitor (@NGOmonitor) August 29, 2023
Our analysis of 345 NGOs and 45 campaigns revealed that:
👉52% of campaigns were directed at preventing gov’ts and intergovernmental institutions (like… pic.twitter.com/aOM96I44L6





.jpeg)





















