How general discourse can cloak anti-Semitic sentiments
Anti-Semitism has existed for a long time — long before the establishment of Israel as an independent Jewish nation. The goal of creating a Jewish national state in their biblical homeland can be dated back to as early as the 16th century. Zionism was a term created by Theodor Herzl in 1897 in response to anti-Semitism. Zionism is a political term that can be used to define the support for the modern state of Israel and a belief in an independent Jewish nation. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879, and may be defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA)as:
“…a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Regarding criticisms of Israel, the IHRA adds:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” [Emphasis added].
The other day, there was a town hall hosted by B’nai Brith, a Jewish organization, where students and professors discussed their unique experiences with anti-Semitism at University of Toronto (U of T). As a Jewish person myself, a lot of the stories that were told resonated with me; most Jewish people I know have experienced some form of anti-Semitism in their life. Jews were reported as the most targeted group of religious hate crimes in the United States in 2019, with 60 percent of hate crimes motivated by religious bias targeted towards Jewish people. The second most targeted religious group is at 13 percent.
Recently, an article from the Osgoode Law newspaper, Obiter Dicta (OD), was shared by a student within the U of T Law virtual community. In this article, Osgoode Professor Faisal Bhabha (a non-Jewish individual) attempted to define anti-Semitism and argue that the IHRA’s 2016 working definition was problematic as it “risk[ed] silencing critics of Israel.” The definition was adopted by 31 IHRA member countries. As a Jewish person, it is alarming to me how anti-Semitism is treated on U of T campus. I cannot address every issue I have with the OD article in a short opinion piece. However, I would like to discuss why I believe anti-Zionism is not as distinct from anti-Semitism as critics may think and the hypocrisy in universities surrounding anti-Zionist/Semitic discourse.
Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism: How distinct are they really?
In the OD article, the author portrays all of Zionism as “systemic oppression” and its inconsistency with purposes of anti-colonialism and anti-racism. He separates this critique of Zionism from anti-Semitism by arguing that “To say so has nothing to do with hating Jews. It is to accurately describe a reality.” The idea that all of Zionism is bad and this has nothing to do with any Jews is a fallacy. A statement like this is dangerous because the state of Israel cannot be separated from the Jewish people. Israel is viewed in Judaism as the homeland of the Jewish people. Zionism was founded on the idea that Jews needed a homeland to escape anti-Semitism. To separate Zionism from Jewish people is not only disingenuous to what Israel represents but is ignorant to Jewish history and Judaism as a religion. It also ignores the fact that the majority of people within Israel are Jewish.
You can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic. The critique of Israel’s specific policies while recognizing the broader context of the situation is fair. In practice, however, many critiques of Israel lack any nuances because it portrays all of Zionism to mean one thing. It neglects to recognize that Zionism is a political ideology that has a spectrum. To argue — as the OD article did — that it is impossible to be pro-Zionist and anti-racist is a blanket critique of a term that has different meanings to different people.
An example of this critique is prevalent during the annual Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns that occur on the U of T campus.[1] Most supporters would characterize themselves in a way similar to how I previously described: anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Similarly, those against IAW or BDS would be characterized by Professor Bhabha as oppressors using anti-Semitism as a shield to prevent well-founded critiques against Israel. Ultimately, this lack of nuances in the discussion of Zionism is what portrays the (arguably well-founded) critiques as dissimilar to critiques of other countries. It was usually Trump who was wrong, not Americans. In contrast, it is almost never Netanyahu who is wrong, always Zionists and/or Israel as a whole.
The Hypocrisy in Universities Surrounding Anti-Zionism/Semitism
Imagine if ethnic and religious minorities were unable to define what they view as offensive because it limits the ability to critique institutions related to that definition. This is problematic because it does not allow those who experience hate to define the specific hate targeted towards them. Yet, the OD article exemplifies the idea that Jewish people cannot define what is anti-Semitic to them because it prevents a“fair” critique of Israel. Who is someone that is not a part of the Jewish community to tell Jewish people how they can and cannot define anti-Semitism? Why do I, as a Jewish person, need to conform to definitions made by non-Jewish people? Further, the IHRA definition does not silence critiques of Israel. In reality, it ensures critiques of Israel directly target the issues on specific policies or actions, instead of portraying all of its citizens and supporters as racist colonialists.
If you want to provide a nuanced critique of Israel that recognizes Jewish history and the intertwined nature of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, I embrace that. But blanket critiques encompassing all of Israel or all of Zionism do nothing of the sort. It demonizes Israel and ignores Jewish history. It polices the parameters within which the Jewish people are allowed to define what they view as offensive. Most importantly, it shields itself by creating an unfounded and arbitrary distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I will not stand idly by and silently watch anti-Semitism evolve before my eyes.
Steps for the future
The OD article is just one example of the prevalent issues that currently exist in the discussion of Israel and the Jewish people. Don’t hide your critiques of Israel behind an anti-Zionist guise that you argue has no ties to anti-Semitism. Don’t tell the Jewish people what they can and can’t define as anti-Semitic. What you can do is to be conscious of the history of the conflict and be precise with your wording in your critiques of Israel. For example, if you have an issue with the settlement policies, phrase your critique as something like “Netanyahu’s settlement policies are problematic for x, y, z reason” or “I’m angry with how the political right in Israel treats the Palestinian people.” These statements are incredibly fair critiques of Israeli policies. They diagnose an issue that you have without generalizing the group your critique applies to and acknowledge the complex political landscape that exists within Israel.
[1] For more information on the relationship between IAW and BDS, as well as their events on U of T campus, see: http://www.uoftdivest.com/iaw-2019.html
