2. weaponization of antisemitism charges
Defamation and libel of BDS Supporters
When the charge of antisemitism is used to censor or quell open debate and the public exchange of critical views on the State of Israel, then it is not exactly communicating a truth, but seeking to rule out certain perspectives from being heard. So whether or not the accusation is true becomes less important than whether or not it is effective. It works in part through stigmatizing and discrediting the speaker, but also through a tactical deployment of slander. After all, the charge can be enormously painful. It does not roll easily off the back; it does not get quickly shaken off, even when one knows it is not true.
~Judith Butler, Jewish American Philosopher
Sometimes referred to as the “new” antisemitism, Proponents seek to label any criticism of the policies of the state of Israel as antisemitic. Accusations of antisemitism are directed at supporters of Palestinian human rights by defenders of Israel as a common tactic to shut down debate. They have even been used in legislative bodies in many countries, such as the May 2019 ruling by the German Parliament labeling BDS as antisemitic. The BDS movement responded forcefully, saying the tactic is “not only anti-Palestinian McCarthyism, it is a betrayal of international law, German democracy and the fight against real anti-Jewish racism.”
As with any accusation of racism, if a person or organization is accused of it, the conversation stops because such an attack cannot go unanswered. When it comes to being accused of antisemitism, and rightly so, no one is given the benefit of the doubt. For this reason, even the person or group being wrongly accused of antisemitism must immediately address the accusation and its intent. When intention belies truth, the conversation is derailed; in short, accusations can become diversion tactics by successfully avoiding conversation on the matter at hand: Israel’s ongoing record of human rights abuses against Palestinians.
Palestine solidarity is clear on its stand against any form of racism and bigotry, especially antisemitism. The movement for Palestinian rights is a movement for justice; it does not condone any form of racism. Whenever and wherever possible, this must be reiterated and reinforced. Presenting an official statement against all racism serves as a bulwark against detractors who can use defamation as a way to subvert and obstruct any advances in rights for Palestine.
A good example of such a safeguard is the statement from the Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) of the Presbyterian Church (USA). They begin by condemning all forms of hate and bigotry and in regards specifically to antisemitism, they make a clear distinction between Judaism and Zionism by quoting Jewish Voice for Peace: "Zionism is a political ideology; Judaism and Jewish identity encompass a diversity of religious and secular expressions and a robust, varied set of traditions, cultures, and lived experiences. ... Definitions of antisemitism that treat criticism of Israel or of Zionism as inherently antisemitic are inaccurate and harmful.”
The statement continues:
- IPMN maintains that as a state, Israel must be held to the same standards as other countries. It must be accountable for its actions under international human rights laws. To hold Israel to a different standard because it is a Jewish state, or to give it a free pass on flagrant violations of international law is a form of exceptionalism that is in fact antisemitic because to consider Jews as better than or worse than other people is antisemitic. … We conclude that the best way to stand against antisemitism is to stand in solidarity with all struggles for justice against all racism, bigotry, oppression and injustice. Today’s heightened moment of focus on human rights presents the challenge to overcome privileging white supremacy and settler colonialism, demanding that we organize across issues, boundaries, and movements to create multicultural, democratic societies in which all people have equal value and equal rights.
The BDS Movement rejects antisemitism explicitly. Yet, strident critics of the movement defer to Natan Sharansky’s so-called “3 D Test” to distinguish fair criticism of Israel from unfounded: Does the criticism delegitimize Israel, apply a double standard or demonize it? The New York Times presents both sides:
- B.D.S. does all three, its critics say, by questioning Israel’s right to exist, and by singling out Israel for its treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens when minorities in some countries suffer far more. The columnist Ben-Dror Yemini, a critic of the movement, said B.D.S. supporters also demonize Israel when they portray the country as “the great danger to humanity.”
- Rebutting the double-standard charge, B.D.S. leaders say that Palestinians fighting for their own rights should not be expected to give equivalent attention to abused minorities elsewhere. And Kenneth Stern, director of Bard College’s Center for the Study of Hate, urges a distinction between effect and motivation: Palestinians who feel no ill will toward Jews but yearn for self-determination in the land of their forebears may rightly argue that to disparage that yearning is a form of bigotry.
The “double standard” charge has often been called “What aboutism” by BDS supporters who declare that criticism of Israel cannot be met with questions like “What about Iran?” or “What about China?”, which refer to human rights abuses in other countries. No, human rights abuses in other places are not ok, but Palestinians cannot be put on hold in perpetuity with justice delayed through “what aboutism.” Actually, most of the world neither condones nor stands in silence when it comes to calling out injustice in other countries. With regard to Israel, many governments raise objections to Israeli abuses yet withhold real consequences. Other countries go further; the US for example, actually provides significant financial aid to Israel. This exceptionalizes Israel by putting it in a different class from other human rights abusers, since tax monies are spent to enable that abuse. So one could say there actually is a double-standard, but it’s in Israel’s favor.
As for “delegitimizing” or “demonizing” Israel, supporters of Palestine and BDS argue that Israeli policies do that on their own and don’t need any help. Nathan Thrall, Director of the Arab-Israeli Project at the International Crisis Group, has written about “de-legitimization,” showing how it is a tactic:
- Perhaps Israel’s most powerful tool in the campaign against de-legitimization has been to accuse the country’s critics of antisemitism. Doing so required changing official definitions of the term. ...By the [US] state department’s definition, de-legitimization includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”. Thus anti-Zionism — including the view that Israel should be a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews — is a form of de-legitimization and therefore antisemitic.”
It is important to be clear on this: Palestinians want to stay in and return to their historic homeland. They belong to that land and have a right to stay there. They are not de-legitimizing anything or anyone. Not being a Zionist is not a statement of de-legitimizing Israel. It is a commitment to equality, justice and freedom for all people.
On the accusations of “demonization,” Israel is having to defend itself against calls for boycotts by international artists and sports figures and prove itself worthy against calls for sanctions against Israeli sports teams and universities. Just as with apartheid South Africa, Israel is battling a growing negative image in world opinion, even one that draws comparisons of Israeli right wing policies with fascists in Europe, especially Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Drawing such parallels, even when justified, have been classified as “demonization.” In other words, it is not okay to call out Israeli policies that veer towards far-right fascist laws like those that Europe embraced in the 1930s. To do so is to “demonize” Israel.
In these and numerous other ways, legitimate criticism of Israel as a nation state whose laws blatantly discriminate against Palestinians and create an apartheid state, is shut down. Jewish Voice for Peace puts it clearly and succinctly:
- Criticism of Jews for being Jews is anti-Semitic; criticism of the state of Israel is not. The Israeli government encourages the dangerous conflation of all Jews with Israel. When Prime Minister Netanyahu claims to represent all Jews, he furthers such misperceptions. Israel does not represent all Jews, and nearly 25% of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish.
Defamation of supporters of Palestinian rights is a tactic for changing the subject. In the interest of justice and equal rights for all, it is critical that we recognize the fraudulent accusations of antisemitism as distractions rather than allowing them to become the main narrative. We must bring the focus back to justice.
What are others saying?
Palestinians Respond
Palestinian rights and the IHRA definition of antisemitism:
A group of 122 Palestinian and Arab academics, journalists and intellectuals express their concerns through 7 key points.
from JVP, Jewish Voice for Peace:
Getting it right
- Criticism of Jews for being Jews is antisemitic.
- Criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitic.
- The Israeli government encourages the dangerous conflation of all Jews with Israel.
- Israel claims to represent all Jews but Israel does not represent all Jews
- Nearly 25% of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish.