Is Anti-Semitism the Only Bigotry That’s Subject to Debate?
Earlier this week, Shiri Moshe of the Algemeiner reported that the president of the student group J Street U said that it is “unfair and unhelpful overreach” to describe those advocating for the destruction of Israel as anti-Semites as that would ignore “the nuances and sensitivities of a complicated political debate.” It isn’t clear what nuances there are when discussing the destruction of the world’s only Jewish nation.Richard Millet: Anti-Israel meeting at SOAS stopped by peaceful pro-Israel protest.
Reporting on last month’s Grand Slam Judo Tournament hosted by the United Arab Emirates, The Washington Post reported that the UAE defied the International Judo Federation and refused to allow the Israeli athletes to identify their national team on their uniforms. Though the UAE asserted that it didn’t allow the display of Israeli symbols in order to protect the athletes, the Post noted that UAE maintains “no diplomatic ties with Israel.” Overall though, the Post characterized the banning of Israeli symbols to “international politics.” Really? Is any other nation in the world treated this way?
In August, The New York Times reported that two Iranian soccer players were banned for life from the national team, because the Greek team they played for had competed against an Israeli team. Critics of the move, according to the Times, “say the ban on competing against Israel has hurt the development of Iranian athletes.” And while the report acknowledges that Iran doesn’t recognize Israel, it failed to mention that its leaders regularly call for Israel’s destruction, a sign not of a diplomatic dispute but of deep-seated hatred.
The problem with the New School’s call for debate is that it obfuscates the issue. It allows individuals whose views are abhorrent to obtain a cover of respectability.
What we need is clarity, not debate.
When an individual, entity, or nation singles out Israel for criticism that it applies to no one else, or denies that Israel has a right to exist, they are anti-Semitic and are deserving of censure.
Holding anti-Semites accountable may not be nuanced, but there’s no reason that anti-Semitism should continue to be excused.
Whenever I ask a question at SOAS it’s usually accompanied by abuse coming my way. For example, after asking a perfectly reasonable question in 2012 SOAS lecturer Gilbert Achcar accused me of being a “professional disruptor” and then falsely accused me of leaving insulting messages on his phone.British Activist Shows Ignorance of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
On Tuesday night at SOAS it was completely different and uplifting.
The members of the panel were Tony Lerman and ex-teacher Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Chairing was academic Mike Cushman who has more than a touch of Larry David about him in both look and mannerism. The subject of the evening was a new book they had contributed to called On Antisemitism.
The room of 50 sat relatively quiet listening to Lerman explain how “non-violent activism” like boycott, divestment and sanctions againt Israel (BDS) are under attack in America. And he quoted Judith Butler who claims that accusations of antisemitism, like those against BDS and anti-Zionists, “are meant to cause pain.”
Lerman went on to claim that “supremacist Zionism” attacks Israel’s internal critics like B’tselem and Breaking The Silence and he attacked the “notorious definition of antisemitism” adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance which he felt was “an attack on pro-Palestinian activism”.
Wimborne-Idrissi read out her favourite parts of the book one of which was about how American Jews have now placed themselves within the “tent of whiteness” due to their identifying with a “white supremacist Israel dominated by white Ashkenazi Jews”.
Cushman allowed me to ask a question and so I put it to Lerman how it could be that BDS, which calls for the right of return of some five million so-called Palestinian refugees, can be considered anything other than violently antisemitic when such a return would result in the demographic demise of the only Jewish state.
Top Pro-Palestinian activist explains why he's against Israel
We interview one of the UK's most prolific pro-Palestinian activists... the gaps in his knowledge will shock you. Meet Damian (@cockneyactivist), a left wing Englishman that has organised countless anti-Israel protests. After speaking to Damian at several demonstrations, we genuinely believe he means well and this comes across in the interview. However, we were shocked at the reasons he gave for his opposition to Israel and were alarmed at his lack of knowledge about the conflict. For someone that has spent years and years campaigning against Israel, he comes across as absolutely oblivious to much of the history of the Middle East, the suffering of the Jewish people, the arguments for Jewish statehood and the current reality in Israel. We can't help but think had he been exposed to less biased information, he could have become an ambassador for peace rather than fighting imaginary European colonisers.
To set the record straight:
- Very few Christians in the Middle East were originally Jewish.
- Very few Muslims were originally Jewish.
- Almost all Jews trace their roots back to Israel (according to most DNA studies)
- Jews are not white European colonisers.
- In contrast the Arabs were colonisers, they replaced the indigenous cultures and religions with Islam
- Israel is not a colony of Europe, it is an independent, multi-cultural democracy.
- The Jews that fled Europe were not white colonisers
- they were fleeing persecution.
- The majority (57%) of Jews in Israel are not Ashkenazi.