Search News


Browse Archives

News

On Israel, Shifted Ground

March 6, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The ground seems to have shifted, activists on all sides say. What they make of it varies.

A shift toward more visible pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel sentiment has been profound on some campuses, prompted, in part, by the winter war in Gaza. Where some describe a corresponding disintegration of civil discourse or a scapegoating of Israel for a complex set of problems, others celebrate a newfound space in which to be critical of Israel -- to mount a challenge to what they see as a dominant discourse, so to speak.

The two perspectives don't have to go hand in hand, but at times, they seem to.

Take Emory University, for example, where about a third of undergraduates are Jewish. “The situation’s very interesting because in the past Emory was not a political school at all,” said Jessica Fraidlin, a sophomore involved with several Israel advocacy organizations, including Emory Students for Israel. “We’ve always had a very strong Jewish community, but we’ve never had an opposing side.”

For the first time this year, Emory hosted several events as part of "Israeli Apartheid Week," an annual, international campaign that ends Sunday. The slate of events included a rally, a talk titled “Understanding Apartheid: From South Africa to Israel,” and a lecture Thursday by Norman G. Finkelstein, a political scientist known for his harsh critiques of Israeli policies and "the Holocaust industry" (and, in higher education circles, for being denied tenure at DePaul University).

Saba Khalid, a junior involved with Israeli Apartheid Week and a member of Emory Advocates for Justice in Palestine, said the group has not been well-received since its founding last spring. “We’ve actually had a lot of opposition, which is understandable, but very negative opposition,” Khalid said. Last semester, for instance, the group’s chalkings to promote “Week against the Apartheid Wall” were crossed out and replaced with anti-Arab scrawls like “Arabs Go Home," she said.

“If there’s an open forum and we go it turns into a shouting match,” said Khalid, adding that it's a small handful of students who get the rest going.

“We don’t mind that there’s not discussion. What we really mind is the fact that they target us and they come after us specifically. We don't come after them. We stick to our events," Khalid said.

Fraidlin, while agreeing that the climate is “not so good,” otherwise disputed that characterization of pro-Israel students at Emory. “We don’t put down the other side ever. We’re just pro our side.”

Of the chalking-related incident, she said, “I’m not going to say it’s not true. There are radicals on both sides. But we have condemned the people who did it, and EAJP continues to highlight those people and say they’re representative of the Jewish community, and they’re not representative of the Jewish community.

“It’s become a propaganda war; it’s kind of who can scream the loudest. EAJP wants their voices heard and it doesn’t matter how they get their point across. They’re going to get it across and to me that’s not academic. You need facts, figures, you need intelligent conversations. ... I'll even hand it to them, Norman Finkelstein coming to campus, at least they're bringing a scholar to campus. To me, that's OK,” said Fraidlin, who on Wednesday was wearing a blue shirt with white lettering that read, “Stand for Israel.”

She added that students on all sides are still in an adjustment period. “We haven’t really sorted out our feelings yet. We know that we don’t agree with their side and we don’t know how to handle it, really. Both sides are really at fault.”

Student Activism

“I think it’s safe to say that we’ve seen a more shrill tone to much of the criticism of Israel. Whether it’s in the campus quad, whether it’s rallies with signs, whether it’s blog postings to articles in the campus press, whether it’s question and answer sessions at academic fora about Gaza or about American policy toward Israel, it’s safe to say in all of these things we’ve noticed a trend – a reduction of civility of this dialogue, and that’s deeply troubling,” said David A. Harris, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition (which is affiliated with Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life).

For example, Harris said, “We see dozens and dozens of examples of 'die-ins' and [displays of] tombstones and public displays that are intimidating to some and don’t exactly foster an understanding of what is happening in the Middle East, or any kind of dialogue.”

He continued, however: “There’s plenty of not civil dialogue and dialogue that’s not what you'd want as the hallmark of academic discussion … but the clear majority of those cases are ones in which students on either side, neither of them feel that they are threatened or that they cannot express their views.”

Even relatively innocuous campus displays have caused tensions. At Cornell University last month, students involved with the Islamic Alliance for Justice lined pathways with 1,300 black flags to commemorate the violence in Gaza. The display was later vandalized, and hundreds of flags were rearranged into a Star of David, according to university police.

Cornell announced on Tuesday that two students had been charged with disorderly conduct and criminal mischief in connection with the incident. “There was no indication they were acting under the guise of any group’s motivations,” the deputy police chief, Kathy Zoner, said in a statement. “Groups were blamed for the action. They were the easiest and most convenient target for blame, but apparently that wasn’t the truth of the matter.”

The Palestinian cause has also risen to the top of many student groups' agendas. Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Rochester recently demanded that the institution divest from companies that "profit from war"; provide "necessary academic aid" and organize a day of fund raising for Gaza; and set up scholarships for Palestinian students. (University officials declined on the scholarships and direct aid, but promised to provide the group the same fund raising advice it would any registered student organization and forward the divestment request to the Board of Trustees' investment committee. That's standard protocol for such requests.)

At New York University last month, the "Take Back NYU" protesters presented a litany of 11 demands, including tuition stabilization, collective bargaining for student workers, public release of NYU's budget and endowment -- and scholarships for Palestinians and the donation of excess supplies for the rebuilding of Islamic University of Gaza, which came under attack by Israel during the recent war. The group's building take-over ended with suspensions and without any of the student demands being met.

Take Back NYU's frequently asked questions Web page offers a response to "What does Gaza have to do with NYU and transparency?" A protest organizer wrote: "I demanded that our surpluses be donated to the Islamic University of Gaza (as opposed to any other impoverished school) because our school very likely helped destroy it. Although we obviously can’t say for certain where our money is invested while the endowment holdings remain secret, it’s a fair bet that some of it is invested in companies that support the Israeli military."

This week, NYU has also been a site of Israeli Apartheid Week events. However, Arthur Samuelson, executive director of the Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life at NYU, said that he hasn't seen an erosion of support for Israel on campus. "It is a marginal voice which has gotten some attention and the other is a much bigger and not changing base of support for Israel," he said.

'Forceful Push'

At Columbia University on Thursday, the Columbia Palestine Forum held a rally to present what's by now a familiar set of demands, including that Columbia provide scholarships for Palestinians and academic aid for a partnering Palestinian university. The group called too for an open forum on investments to initiate a "[u]niversity-wide conversation about divestment."

Meanwhile, the University of Massachusetts' Student Government Association took up (but tabled) the divestment question on Wednesday, according to the student newspaper. The movement to divest from Israel has been gaining rhetorical momentum at least among student and faculty activists (although not among administrators -- despite student claims to the contrary, no college has divested).

An organized campaign for an academic boycott of Israel also emerged in the United States in January. Proponents of the boycott argue that it will put non-violent pressure on Israel to respect international humanitarian law. However, the idea of boycotting Israeli academics raises questions of academic freedom and has many opponents, among college presidents but also among some liberal, even (self-identified) "radical" faculty. On the "Tenured Radical" blog, for instance, Claire B. Potter, a professor of history and American Studies at Wesleyan University, wrote she is "profoundly opposed to boycott and divestment" for a number of reasons. Among them: "It does not address the real problem in the region, which is that states -- primarily the United States, Russia, and former Soviet-bloc countries -- continue to cynically pour weapons into the Middle East, as if it is possible to arm resistance fighters and the Israeli government to the teeth and also negotiate for 'peace,' " she wrote.

“Where we’ve really seen some of the more heated kinds of discussion and debate has been around attempts to pressure universities into really examining their own support for the occupation … so the different divestment and boycott campaigns,” said Bruce Braun, an associate professor of geography at the University of Minnesota and a member of an organization that started this semester, Teachers Against Occupation, which now is assembling and developing pedagogical materials for use in high school and college classrooms. (Although individual members are involved with the boycott campaign, Teachers Against Occupation as a group has not taken a stand.)

“One of the things that’s really interesting on campuses right now is students are beginning to ask, ‘How are we connected to what’s happening in the Middle East? How do we transform our institutions?’ ” Braun said. “Having a debate on those kinds of questions is going to be emotional and it’s going to be one that raises uncomfortable questions. Sometimes we can point to civil dialogue as a way of sort of domesticating any kind of protest. And I think people feel very strongly that there’s an ongoing injustice that needs to be addressed and that continuously having a dialogue about this without taking steps to transform the institutional framework that allows what is perceived to be an unjust situation to be continued is something that people simply aren’t willing to abide with any longer.

“To put something on the agenda,” Braun explained, “actually takes sometimes a sort of forceful push. And I think that’s what we’re seeing at different points on campuses right now.

"I think there's a much stronger sense that sort of an unquestioned support of Israeli policy by the American government is something that we can no longer simply follow blindly or support," Braun continued, adding that the shift he sees isn't limited to college campuses. "I'm seeing that expressed at all kinds of different levels, among students, among faculty."

Questions of the faculty role in all of this have been at the forefront. Members of Teachers Against Occupation, for instance, “take quite seriously the fact that we are teachers. …As teachers, how do we respond by thoughtfully bringing these ideas into the classroom in ways that are constructive, or at least putting together materials for that?” Braun asked.

Meanwhile, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, a pro-Israel organization, recently asked professors to report anti-Israel or anti-Semitic events or propaganda on their campuses, for a compendium of sorts. “We’re the people on campus. We’ve got our fingers on the pulse, we’re stakeholders, we’re faculty members. We live on campus longer than students, longer than most administrators and longer than most Hillel directors or Jewish education professionals,” said Edward S. Beck, president emeritus of the organization and professor in Walden University's School of Social and Behavioral Sciences.

“It’s our feeling that nothing is going to happen to reverse this trend of anti-Israelism [on campus] until the faculty absolutely say, ‘Look, some of these behaviors are unacceptable and inconsistent with behavioral codes on campus and some of what’s being taught here is incitement as opposed to free speech,' " Beck said.

Scholarship and Balance

One sub-strand of debate has been the faculty role when it comes to convening scholarly panels on Middle Eastern matters. As one high-profile example, a recent panel on "Human Rights and Gaza" organized by the Center for Near Eastern Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, attracted attention for its perceived one-sidedness. Judea Pearl, a computer science professor at UCLA and father of the killed Wall Street Journal reporter, wrote in the Jewish Journal of the panel of "four long-time demonizers of Israel" who bashed the Jewish state, "portray[ed] Hamas as a guiltless, peace-seeking, unjustly provoked organization," and encouraged the audience in a "Zionism is Nazism" chant.

"Many people have contacted me — and some have even written news articles — to express profound disappointment over what they believe was the panel's unbalanced presentation and a lack of decorum during the question-and-answer period," Chancellor Gene Block said in a statement, which referenced a number of talks at UCLA that involve Israeli representatives and stressed a need for civil discourse. "The UCLA campus, with its diverse population and many points of view, is one of the most invigorating intellectual campuses in the world, and the university strives overall for scholarly balance."

"I guess what I would say is what we try and do is present a varied program on issues related to the central themes of our centers," said Nick Entrikin, acting vice provost of UCLA's International Institute, which is comprised of more than 20 centers, programs and research institutes (including an Israel Studies Program and the Center for Near Eastern Studies). "I think the argument that every program has to represent all sides of an issue, although it's something that we work towards in the aggregate, I just don't think we can really say we can do that for every particular event."

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer in Hebrew at the University of California at Santa Cruz who has written on these topics, said that when it comes to scholarly endeavors, the issue of balance "is a smokescreen."

But that doesn't mean she's not concerned by events like the one at UCLA, which she thinks are "nearing epidemic proportion" on campuses. It's not balance but the possibility of indoctrination -- which she believes represents an abuse of academic freedom -- that concerns her. "Scholarship is not about balance, scholarship is about truth. The antithesis of scholarship is political indoctrination. You don't balance political indoctrination with equal and opposite indoctrination," she said.

"If a course or if a conference has clear political motivations and calls to political action ... the question is, 'Is this scholarship?' Is it scholarship to call on people to divest from Israel? Is that considered a scholarly statement?" Rossman-Benjamin asked.

In the case of the UCLA panel, Sondra Hale, a professor of anthropology and women's studies and one of the organizers of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, wrote a letter to the student newspaper, The Daily Bruin, defending the quality of scholarship presented (Hale did not respond to an e-mail request for an interview).

"Clearly, these are scholars who are very well-informed on the subject of the symposium and whose scholarship is beyond repute," Hale wrote. "They are scholars who bring pride to the University of California. This was a group of highly informed and qualified Jews, Israelis, Arabs and Arab Americans examining and trying to make sense of the human disaster of Gaza and criticizing the state policies that have lead to this calamity.

"Simply because some in the audience (from all perspectives) were out of line in some groups’ sloganeering, the problems should not reflect on the excellent symposium itself. No one on the panel exempted Hamas or suicide bombers from charges of human rights abuses or violations of international law. All clearly condemned the Hamas rocket attacks. ... No one on the panel chanted 'Zionism is Nazism,' " Hale wrote.

Of course it is the validation of fellow scholars that determines what scholarship is in the academy. More broadly, Rossman-Benjamin argued that academic senates need to do a better job of protecting the professoriate from indoctrination masquerading as scholarship.

"Things can deteriorate rapidly and come to a place where there really is a hostile environment for some students and faculty and staff because people aren't doing their jobs, because there are abuses that are not being routed out and taken care of," she said.

When Questions Can't be Asked or Answered

Student-sponsored events run on different rules. But at San Jose State University in early February, one event, open to the public and featuring an Israeli consul general, Akiva Tor, deteriorated rapidly. While it was an atypical incident, the case is described by some as a warning sign of sorts.

“During Mr. Tor’s speech he was, I guess you could say, heckled. People in the audience were not polite. They didn’t sit and politely listen. They catcalled and booed and one woman kept making remarks, but other audience members actually tried to deal with those people. Members of the pro-Palestinian faction got up and talked to these folks. I think that the pro-Palestinian faction, most of the people there had an interest in hearing what he had to say,” recalled Frances Edwards, director of San Jose State’s master's of public administration program and the moderator for the event.

It was during the question and answer session that things disintegrated. A woman read from a statement for several minutes before finally getting to her question: "Why do you lie?"

Tor began to answer but some audience members stood up and cat-called; one woman yelled, “Why did you kill my family?” Edwards related.

“He said, ‘mistakes were made in war,’ and they erupted. They absolutely erupted," Edwards said. Police escorted Tor out of the room, cutting the question and answer session short. (The student newspaper, The Spartan Daily, also published a video account.)

“I’m kind of neither on one side or the other, if you want to look at in terms of sides,” Edwards said. “My concern is for the university and what the university means to a community. We’re not intending to be an advocate for any particular point of view but rather to serve as a speaker’s corner, a common ground, where people of different opinions can get together and at least hear each other.”

Jon Whitmore, San Jose State's president, sent a letter of apology to Akiva Tor on Feb. 23, and another letter expressing regrets to a faculty adviser involved with the event.

A university spokeswoman, Pat Lopes Harris, said that she’s not aware of anyone being disciplined as a result of the event. “The approach that we have taken is that we understand that the event was less than ideal. To go back and to try to pull apart what happened and to start to try to blame one party or another doesn’t seem like it’s going to help us move forward,” she said.

She added, too: “One of the reasons the story has come to light – well there are many reasons, it was a significant event no doubt about that – but it has been utilized by some parties as an example of perhaps an increase in anti-Semitic activity on college campuses nationwide. And that concerns me a little bit because I haven’t seen a really comprehensive set of data that shows that is in fact the case. There are a lot of anecdotes, certainly anecdotes that pertain to our campus.”

Sue Maltiel, executive director of Hillel of Silicon Valley, said that at San Jose at least, the climate has shifted. “There are a lot of Jewish students who are really afraid now, who are afraid to identify as Jewish,” Maltiel said, who recalled hearing a faculty member threatened at the Akiva Tor event, as well as the chant, "Two, four, six, eight, we don't want your racist state."

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen the level of so many students being afraid. I’ve never heard a faculty member threatened before.”

After winter break and the start of war in Gaza, “We went to school, the atmosphere was really tense,” said Diana Nguyen, a San Jose State junior and vice president of Spartans for Israel. “I would be tabling and there would always be someone who had to ask me loaded questions or try to make me answer for what Israel did, which was fine. … Toward the [Akiva Tor] event I started getting anti-Semitic comments. I’m not sure those people knew I was Jewish,” said Nguyen, who heard, for instance, “Jews are murderers."

She added, "Everyone’s reluctant to call out any anti-Semitic comment when it’s anti-Semitic because it’s like the new race card or something. They’re out there.”

Omar Mutwakil, president of the Muslim Students' Association at San Jose State, agreed that the Akiva Tor talk “just went out of control; it wasn’t too civilized at the end.” But he objected to the notion that it heralded a broader break-down in civil dialogue.

Though he has heard people say that “this is why things like this can’t be held on campus," Mutwakil strongly disagreed. "Come on, that’s bogus. There are debates all over the place and there’s nothing wrong with this. This thing [the Akiva Tor event] was opened to people who aren’t on campus and that‘s part of the problem. It was open to everyone," said Mutwakil.

“In general, yeah, I think discussions can be held. I don’t see why not. We’re all humans. We’re not animals.”

San Jose’s Muslim Students' Association sponsored a couple of talks on the Middle East this semester -- a forum on “The U.S.-Backed Israeli War on Gaza” and a talk by Barbara Lubin, director of the Middle East Children’s Alliance, in Berkeley.

As of this week, the group had no more events planned on these issues, said Mutwakil. "Unless something else happens again in the news. Maybe something else would occur due to that."

They’re a religious organization, he explained; all this is not really what they're about.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on On Israel, Shifted Ground

  • Enriching campus life.
  • Posted by Chris L. on March 6, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • Anti-semitism is an established institution on more liberal American campuses. It's wonderful that students at more schools like Emory are now able to enjoy this part of the college experience.

  • Ignorant of History
  • Posted by michael , Business, Accounting, Economics at Otterbein College on March 6, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • To compare South Africa to Israel is a willful and blatant disregard for history and political motive. It absolutely ignores that whites in South Africa refused to integrate blacks into their society.

    Arabs who live in Israel face no such restrictions as blacks faced in South Africa.

    This argument demonstrates the arguer's anti-semitism specifically and ignorance in general.

    The argument also ignores the most obvious question: Why did Jordan not create an Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? The country controlled these territories from 1948 to 1967. Why is Israel held to a standard that Jordan is not?

    As to the larger context of this story, Israel lost the American and British left in 1967. We will never regain them so long as the continue to engage in reasoned debate as well as ignore much of history and political motive. They see what they want to see and know what they want to know. Everything else be damned.

  • Yes to Anti-Zionism, No to Anti-Semitism
  • Posted by Grover Furr on March 6, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • Opposition to Zionism is not in the least anti-semitic. On the contrary! Zionism, like anti-semitism, is itself racist.

    Zionism is racist because it supports the privileging of a single pseudo-"ethnic" group - "Jews", however defined - over others in Israel.

    This is exactly parallel to the privileging of "Aryans" in Nazi Germany; of "whites" in apartheid South Africa and in the Jim Crow South of our own country.

    There should be no "Law of Return" for "Jews" to Israel.

    There is, of course, no such thing as a "Jewish people" or "Jewish nation" any more than there is a "Christian nation." But even if there were, it would not mean bestow any "rights" at all, certainly not the "right" to expropriate, exploit, oppress, and murder the Arab population of what is now Israel-Palestine.

    That any "Jew" -- however "Jew" is defined -- anywhere in the world, has the right to immigrate to Israel and gain citizenship, while Arabs who were born there have no such right and, in fact, are dispossessed, is racist, as were the similar policies of apartheid South Africa or Nazi German.

    The term "Law of Return" is Orwellian doublethink! The vast majority of Jewish immigrants are not "returning" there - neither they nor their ancestor have ever been there!

    Meanwhile those who ARE native to the area - Palestinian Arabs - are expelled, oppressed, killed, dispossessed, in the most horrific, racist manner imaginable!

    Anti-semitism is a vicious, dangerous form of racism which should be condemned.

    So is anti-Islamism, rife on Zionist and right-wing Republican websites like Horowitz's and Daniel Pipes'. Where's the condemnation of THAT?

    There should be no Zionist state, whether called "Israel" or anything else. Just as there should be no white supremacist state.

    A secular state in which all citizens have the same rights - like the USA, for example - could scarcely be called "Israel," a name denoting only one religious heritage.

    As for terrorism: it is always wrong - whether that of oppressed Palestinians, or the much greater terrorism carried out by the Israeli government and racist "settlers."

    We should stop referring to those who object to anti-Zionist activities as "Jews." Many, many Jews, religious and not, ALSO oppose Zionism! Those who support Israel should be called "Zionist", whatever their religious or ethnic commitments.

  • Institutionalized anti-semitism
  • Posted by GFM , Professor of Humanities on March 6, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • It's one thing to disagree with Israel. Events which underscore those civil and  passionate disagreements. Holding events which are anti-semitic is quite another issue. Shame on Emory.

  • Humanism
  • Posted by MDB , Just a citizen on March 6, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • Gandhi often said that there is something in the human spirit that, when it sees someone being abused by another, is deeply moved in sympathy. That human reaction, ultimately, is what is finally giving rise to sentiments that have NOTHING to do with anti-semitism. That knee-jerk reaction has to end. It cannot be the case that no one can criticize Israel without being simply and immediately branded as an anti-semite, and thereby dismissed. What Israel has done in Gaza and elsewhere is wrong. Plain and simple. It doesn't mean that Israel has not had terrible wrong things done to it. It has. But that simply does not justify its reactions, and esp. does not justify an approach of Israel can do whatever it thinks it needs to do, without criticism. The time has come. Israel's pain, in the end, is inflicted by its own claws. It is its own worst enemy. Until it genuinely wants peace and will give up West Bank settlements, its long-term objective of exclusive dominion over Jerusalem, etc., there will be no peace. For any of us. including Israel. And what the Arab world will have to give up is at least this big, or bigger. 2,000-3,000 years of blood hatred, war, killing, its own atrocities. The Palestinians need a Gandhi, not the murderous warriors of Hamas. My fear would be though that such a non-violence advocate would very quickly be killed before s/he could even begin to emerge. But first and foremost, stop the knee-jerk rants of anti-semitism. Israel must be criticized for what it is doing, when those acts are inhumane.

  • Moral Integrity and Criticism of Israel
  • Posted by Avi Winokur on March 6, 2009 at 11:45am EST
  • Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are not identical. However, they often overlap. Opposition to Israel as a Jewish state is often a disguise for anti-Semitism but need not always be. Distinctions actually matter. Here are some relevant factors. For those who oppose a Jewish state in Israel, the real question is do they oppose with equal fervor (not in their heads philosophically but as activists) the idea of an Islamic state anywhere in the middle east and do they say this in groups where Muslims are present. If not, then perhaps we are dealing with anti-Semtism. One whose real focus is purely is Israel is suspect in my mind.

    While the power relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly favors Israel, in the larger pcture of the global society and history, Jews as a group are more vulnerable than Muslims as a group or Arabs as a group (some of whom are Christian, though a small percentage). Even non Islamist (not subject to Sharia, not jihadist) Arab countries have a Muslim character. Likewise, one small country has a Jewish character. Again, if one objects to the Jewish character of Israel, but not to the Muslim character of many Arab countries (where in many instances not just Judaism, but Christianity as well is persecuted), then again, one is suspect. This is particularly true given the historic vulnerablitity of the Jews, which--despite the very real devastating effects of Western economic and cultural imperialism on the Arab countries--remains greater than the Arabs and/or Muslims.

    While one may criticize Israeli-Jewish treatment of Palestinian Arabs, do those same people just as vocally condemn Arab persecution of Blacks in Sudan or of Berbers or Christians in Muslim lands? Do they make these criticisms public? Do they object when Arab countries, ostensibly resentful of the European cultural imperialism, import and customize centuries' old European anti-Semitic canards, like the Blood Libel? Do they object vocally and publicly? Do they object vocally and publically when respected Arab academics claim that the Mossad executed the 9-11 terrorist attacks? Where are they when Holocaust deniers appear?

    There is much to criticize about Israel, and many of her staunchest diaspora Jewish supporters have been highly and vocally critical, risking the marginalization in some quarters of the Jewish community.

    In evaluating the moral standing of Israel's critics and supporters the issue is not who has slickest, most fashionable (i.e, left) and most attractive ideological line or who can quote which "facts" in a debate. Both sides can mask or deny racism and/or anti-Semtism until they are blue in the face. The question is where do they stand on a whole series of issues that bear on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Who are their allies? Whose questionable actions do they constantly rationalize? Whose do they constantly condemn?

    Indeed these questions can be modified to challenge Israel's supporters as well. For instance, do Israel's supporters object when the Israeli government razes Arab homes illegally or, if the law itself is racist, do they object? How do they react to a recent Israeli report that some of the land on which the settlements are built were acquired illegally--illegally not by some anti-Israel groups standards, but illegal by Israeli legal standards (i.e., not so easy to rationalize)? Do they wish that it had never been uncovered, or are they outraged and support justice for those whose land was illegally confiscated? I could go on, but you get my point.

    Two peoples have a claim to a single piece of land. This needs to be worked out. Demonization will not help. Until propenents of both sides are more interested in moral and ethical integrity than in scoring points we are going nowhere.

  • "anti-zionism"
  • Posted by DBL on March 6, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • Here's a clue - if you are applying a different standard to Jews than you apply to anyone else, that's anti-Semitism. If you condemn the Jewish national state, but don't condemn any other people's quest for a national state - Tibetan, Kurdish, Basque - then you are an anti-Semite. If you think it's just fine for the Arabs to have twenty-two (22) Arab national states, but it's a crime for the Jews to have one, then you are an anti-Semite. If you think it's OK for numerous Islamic-majority countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia) to be Islamic countries where the Islamic religion is given first place, and if you think it's OK if Great Britain recognizes the Anglican Church as the official Church of England, but you think it's a crime for Israel to be Jewish state, then you are an anti-Semite. If you think that it's generally fine for countries to defend themselves from attacks launched from foreign nations, but think it's a crime for Israel to respond to thousands of rockets fired over the border from Gaza, then you are an anti-Semite.

    I hope this clarifies things.

  • Posted by fred lapides on March 6, 2009 at 12:30pm EST
  • DBL said it all in the comment above. Clear and all true.

  • Palestinian Apartheid
  • Posted by LGA on March 6, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • Palestine is "Juden-rein." Jews dare not venture into Palestinian towns. The PA has created a corrupt, racist society that discrimiates against non-Moslems, which is why Jews don't exist and Christians are declining in numbers. Of course its treatment of Moslems is nothing to brag about -- no due process, no free press, no dissent. It's outrageous that American universities have embraced and nurtured this thug-ocracy.

    However, Arabs, along with other ethnic minorities, in Israel, work, shop, and live. If you visit parks, museums, and malls in Israel, you see Arabs strolling through them as well Jews and other groups. 

    There is no apartheid in Israel.There is fear created by Palestinian terrorism and aggression.

    LGA

  • Jews, however defined, are not "a people"
  • Posted by Grover Furr on March 6, 2009 at 1:45pm EST
  • DBL is incorrect when s/he writes:

    "...If you condemn the Jewish national state, but don't condemn any other people's quest for a national state - Tibetan, Kurdish, Basque - then you are an anti-Semite. If you think it's just fine for the Arabs to have twenty-two (22) Arab national states, but it's a crime for the Jews to have one, then you are an anti-Semite."

    "Jews" are not "a people." They are not united by religion (many "Jews" do not practice the Jewish religion), language, or ethnic background.

    Even if "Jews" did constitute a "Volk" -- German for "people" in this sense -- it would not give them any "right" to anything, much less to expropriate, exploit, oppress, and murder Arabs.

    The Tibetan, Kurdish, Basque, etc. "people" do not have a "quest for a national state." Only the radical nationalists among these ethnic / linguistic groups pursue such a quest. They do not "represent" their "people", however "people" is defined.

    Zionists do not "represent" Jews any more than the ETA terrorists "represent" Basque-speaking people; Neo-Confederate "whites" "represent" Southerners; Mussolini's fascists "represented" Italians; or Hitler's National Socialists "represented" Germans.

  • Frightening
  • Posted by Dee on March 6, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • It is frightening what passes for higher learning on so many campuses these days. I am not surprised that college campuses and professors therein have become hostile to Jews and Jewish students and have embraced the hard line Islamists and allowed MSA and CAIR to represent them.

    We have truly entered the Orwellian age. Just the term "Israel Apartheid Week" tells it all. Plenty of Israeli Arabs live and thrive in Israel, so clearly there is no apartheid. The "separation" between Palestinians and Israel is directly attributable to the Palestinian leaderships' desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

  • The Abject State of Poverty in the Arabic World
  • Posted by Shawna Williamson on March 6, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • I too endorse the lucid and accurate remarks by "DBL" made above.

    The vitriolic attacks on anything Israeli often serve to effectively distract scrutiny away from the abysmal failures and abject poverty of the Arabic-speaking Muslim world, especially in the area of the objective processing of knowledge via scientific and technological progress.

    From 1980 to 2000, a grand cumulative total of 370 patent applications came from all of the Arab countries combined. During that same period, over 8,000 came from Israel alone.

    In the 1980s, only 4.4 books per million inhabitants of the Arab world were translated into Arabic, whereas in Spain alone that figure was 519 per million inhabitants.

    In 1996, only 1,945 books were published in all the Arab countries combined with a population of over 300 million. In North America, with a comparable population there were 102,000 new publications that same year. 

    The Arab world suffers from chronically stagnant economies, restricted freedoms galore, poor levels of education, pathetic levels of scientific and technological development, and the widespread deplorable and medievalist condition of women.

    Obsessions with Israel are a perfect way to avoid confronting and dealing with these pitiful, shocking and bleak realities. 

  • "Shifting Mission"
  • Posted by DFS on March 6, 2009 at 4:15pm EST
  • I don't care how "academics" try to spin this issue, I can see antisemitism when it's there.

    There is no such "shift."

  • @Grover
  • Posted by Zach on March 6, 2009 at 8:30pm EST
  • Grover, have you ever taken a sociology class? There's this concept called "self-determination" and another one called "asserted identity." The Palestinians consider themselves to be a people (even though there was no such thing as a Palestinian before 1967) and thus they are one. The same thing with the Jews. They consider themselves to be a nation and thus they are one.

    My point? It's not up to YOU to decide who is and who is not a people. You don't get to sit on a throne and say "Well this group is a people worthy of rights but this group isn't. They can live in stateless exile forever." Jews are as much a nation and any other, and your claims that they aren't are quite hollow.

  • The Obama Administration Gets It Too
  • Posted by Chuck on March 6, 2009 at 8:30pm EST
  • Unlike some academics who go to great, tortured lengths trying extra hard to convince themselves that there is still in 2009 some spurious distinction to be made between anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist sentiments and those of anti-Semitism, the Obama Administration was not fooled as it clearly grasped the intertwining of the two and recognized the wisdom of withdrawing U.S. involvement in the upcoming "Durban 2" conference.

    They deserve credit for clearly grasping the close connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in the contemporary world.

  • Response to the ignorant
  • Posted by LongLivePalestine! at University of Michigan on March 6, 2009 at 8:30pm EST
  • this is a response to counterbalance all of the one-sided comments i've seen so far:

    i'm actually not surprised by these comments. Israelis and Jews have been making themselves look like victims to the entire world for decades. your comments make it look like this is a new war, but this has been going on for nearly a century now, with the United States and Great Britain involved all along. it's sad that those of you from these countries, who proudly proclaim your nationalism, don't even know the truthful history of your countries actions.

    DBL says that Israel's actions were justified by the thousands of rocket attacks...while i agree that this act of violence was unnecessary, what i believe to be even more unnecessary was the magnitude of Israel's "defensive forces." [by the way, you may have seen on CNN a report gathering several reports from different news company that stated it was in fact the Israelis who broke the ceasefire, not the Palistenian Arabs as the Israeli and U.S. media portrayed]. if you look at the death toll from both sides, nobody in their right minds would think that the Israelis were in fact on the offensive. in fact, if anyone were to compare the death toll, they would at first think that this was an Israeli massacre on the people in Gaza. 13 Israelis dead, compared to over 1,300 Palestinians dead.

    How can you NOT compare Israel to South Africa?? They are a Jewish minority imposing unlawful and inhumane policies on the Arab majority, the exact definition of apartheid!

    To those of you who believe that Israel is the victim, please please PLEASE look at the facts before you comment on the subject.

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on March 6, 2009 at 8:30pm EST
  • Once again, Grover Furr gets it very wrong.

    Modern Arab anti-semitism has roots that stretch back to Hitler's influence on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Today's anti-Jewish sentiment has intellectual roots in the same hatreds that guided the Nazis, and the propaganda that suffuses the Middle East is no more than Goebbels's cartoons with Arabic script.

    I'm sure that the irony is delicious to those for whom it is obvious.

  • Posted by Catonian on March 7, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • Mr. Winokur's comments reflect a great deal of good thought and nuance, they strike me as the kind of thinking that academe is supposed to produce.

    I will say though that it is odd for people who attack those who criticize Israel to assume that they do not also criticize the policies of Arab and Muslim nations as freely. Most people I know who oppose certain Israeli policies also spend a great deal of time and energy criticizing the policies of, say, Saudia Arabia, Egypt or Iran.

    One can wonder too how much anti-Semitism is generated by Israeli actions and their supporters irresponsible apologies to it. When Israel does something outrageous to most, and Israel's apologists strive to equate Israeli policy with "the Jews" and rush to criticize those who call out Israel as "anti-Semites" it may lead people to make a wrong-headed between Israel's outrageous actions and Jews in general.

    DBL's post represents another mindset altogether, one more like a blog pundit than an academic. In one sentence he equates Zionism with other "nationalist" movements and then in another equates it with having a state denomination. He obvioulsy misses how this kind of thing leads to the deconstruction of his own points (he demonstrates-unwittingly-that its certainly not so clear that Zionism can be equated to either of these, he doesn't seem to know for certain himself).

    To see the difference between an ideologically motivated pundit's mindset and a thoughtful academic mindset take this from DBL:

    "If you think that it's generally fine for countries to defend themselves from attacks launched from foreign nations, but think it's a crime for Israel to respond to thousands of rockets fired over the border from Gaza, then you are an anti-Semite."

    Striving for provocation this kind of thing does not make a pretence of fairly trying to discern the point of view of those it disagrees with, i.e., that it's the KIND and TYPE of response Israel at times engages in that outrages many. With this kind of shouting past each other nothing will indeed ever be resolved.

  • Posted by Zarakas on March 7, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • "Grover Furr"'s comments are pretty typical of the anti-Israel extremists. They invariably have to link Israel with Nazis/fascism. The good thing about this though is that normal people will recognize such comments are anti-Semitic and ignore it.

    Another classic: "The Tibetan, Kurdish, Basque, etc. "people" do not have a "quest for a national state." Quite the contrary, the Kurds really do, and Turkey, a Muslim country and a moderate one at that, has gone to great lengths to oppress their national aspirations. Their language is banned in schools and there has been abundant ethnic cleansing. Iraq, the great savior of the Palestinians under Sadaam Hussein, had no problem whatsoever killing off entire Kurdish villages, using chemical weapons if necessary. Arabs didn't loudly object, because apparently it's only a big deal if their own kind is being killed by Jews. Many, many Kurds wish that their people hadn't been divided across several countries and they had their own country. But the Arabs don't whine about this. And the genocide in Darfur, perpetrated by Arabs, is similarly shrugged off by the leftist and other Palestinian sympathizers, despite the greater casualties than the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    As for the Tibetans, there are millions of people who fled to other countries to practice their religion and culture; rest assured they do want their own country. Not every religion deals with oppression by blowing up children and calling them Nazis, then ignoring the sufferings of people they don't identify with.

  • Hidden agenda
  • Posted by SD on March 7, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • It is amazing how the point of Apartheid Week remains totally obscured for the naive majority. Claiming that Zionism is racist is denying the basic right of every country to determine whose its citizens are. The Arabs in Israel are lawful citizens. Palestinians are offered their own state, but they want all of Israel. Just read Hammas' covenant (article seven) "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them". The Palestininans in Gaza chose this as their goal and government. There is not a single Jew or Israeli in Gaza besides the hostage Sergeant Gilad Shalit.
    Israel does not want to control Arabs, so in unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. All it got in return is missiles and more missiles on its Southern cities.
    What hides behind the Apartheid week is a desire to abolish the Jewish state and establish an overall Arab majority state over all of Israel. So it is the wish for Arab domination that drives this whole turmoil, disguised as "justice for Palestine". Do not be fooled into this. THINK!

  • denials... :)
  • Posted by ar3t on March 7, 2009 at 5:45am EST
  • "Arabs who live in Israel face no such restrictions as blacks faced in South Africa."

    Try telling that to the Palestinian 'citizen' of the state of Israel barred from property ownership by the Israel Lands Administration, who can't become a member of a kibbutz or who can't move into 'certain' neighborhoods, let alone return to one of the 430 destroyed villages and towns on which the Israeli state was established in 1948.

    Try telling that to the Palestinian 'citizen' of the state of Israel that can't live with his / her spouse in the West Bank or Gaza or who can't marry someone from Lebanon or Syria, because Israeli law bars them from this.

    Tell that to the Palestinian grandmother and her grandchild who have no rights to citizenship in Israel, despite still holding the keys to their original house.

    Tell that to the 100,000 Bedouin Palestinians in the Naqab / Negev who live in some 40 'unrecognized' villages.

    Tell that to the 150,000 'residents' of East Jerusalem who live a legal limbo with partial citizenship.

    Tell that to the dozens of Palestinians 'citizens' of Israel gunned down by Israeli police.

    Tell that to the generations of Palestinian 'citizens' of Israel growing up with inadequate housing, educational facilities and health care funding for Palestinian communities (at a ratio that is ten times lower than the national average).

    Tell that to all the Palestinian families that are 'citizens' of Israel facing house demolitions.

    Tell that to the 200,000 "present absentees" and their descendents.

    Tell that to Azmi Bishara.

    Tell that to the victims of the lynch-mob in Akka this summer.

    Tell that to Palestinian 'citizens' who listen every day to Israeli political parties threatening their expulsion, urging further measures of 'hafrada' (separation), threatening a 'shoa' here (Vilnai) or another 'nakba' there (Dichter).

    And I haven't even begun to talk about the West Bank (where apartheid uncontroversially exists) and Gaza (the world's largest open air prison) or how it feels to be one of the 'lucky' 3.5-million Palestinians in these two occupied territories.

    You're right Palestinians don't know how good they have it... I'm sure any one of us would switch places with a Palestinian in a heart-beat to live in such a great 'democracy.' :)

  • Palestinian Question(s)
  • Posted by Shawna Williamson on March 7, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • Can someone answer these three questions for me:

    1) Beside the fact that most Palestinians are Muslims and speak Arabic, what are the three most important and positive things about a specifically Palestinian culture that non-Palestinians should know about?

    2) Where exactly is "Palestine"?

    3) Aside from camel husbandry and falconry, over the past 200 years, what are the three most important contributions that Arabic-speaking Muslims have made to science and general knowledge?

    Many thanks.

  • Academic nuance vs. pundit/blogger rhetoric
  • Posted by Catonian on March 8, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • It's depressing to see so much "blogger/pundit" speak here on this issue rather than something like academic discourse.

    For example, the "three questions" are obvioulsy meant to lay a trap, meant as leading questions...That "works" in the blogger world I guess, but let's hope academe is beyond that in engaging in honest discourse where we hope not to score points but to deepen our understanding of an issue. The latter discourse can point out, for example, that a question which is obviously supposed to invoke racist images and memes ("Aside from camel husbandry and falconry, over the past 200 years, what are the three most important contributions that Arabic-speaking Muslims have made to science and general knowledge?") can be brushed aside for it's obvious ugly racist connotations or by simply asking, what does a people's number of scientific/cultural achievements have to do with their moral and political rights?

    Similarly a claim such as "Israel does not want to control Arabs, so in [sic]unilaterally withdrew from Gaza" fails to attempt to see the obvious response (this withdrawal occurred after decades of "control" and was a very qualified withdrawal indeed) and the claim that "Claiming that Zionism is racist is denying the basic right of every country to determine whose its citizens are" fails to consider that if a nation were to determine its citizenry based on a religion or racial ethnic group that it would smack of troubling precedents. This kind of arguing demonstrates a lack of the kind of nuance and critical thinking that should be the hallmark of academic discourse.

    Lastly, claiming that the suffering in Darfur is "similarly shrugged off by the leftist and other Palestinian sympathizers" is as flatly inconsistent with reality as it is amazingly overbroad ("the leftist" may be something that lurks on blog sites menacing truth and freedom but a careful analysis would be troubled grouping "the left" together as having a monolithic view on Darfur [or Israel/Palestine for that matter]). Addressing the suffering in Darfur is actually a prime focus of many who consider themselves "on the left."

  • Shawna's Three Questions
  • Posted by Rod Bell , Adjunct Professor at College of DuPage on March 8, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Shawna, your naked contempt for "Arabic-speaking Muslims" is a bit creepy, and your suggestion--for the second time in this discussion string--that their impoverished socioeconomic condition warrants indifference to their fate is one I feel a need to reject unequivocally.

    (This is not a comment on the controversy that is engaging the others in this discussion.)

  • Posted by Zarakas on March 8, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Clarification for Catonian... I meant leftist as an adjective for "Palestinian sympathizers". The point being that many people who complain the most about the situation in Gaza, including those on the left, ignore Darfur entirely. I realize that many "leftists" are concerned about Darfur, but often people heavily involved in the Gaza dispute deemphasize Darfur. A lot of this is because the genocide there is being perpetuated by Arabs, and furthermore the Gaza leadership, pathetically enough, has come out in favor of the government of Sudan with whom they are allied. Thus many Arab activists for Gaza, including those on the left, do not make an issue out of this genocide.

  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on March 10, 2009 at 11:30pm EDT
  • Yes, we can accuse Israel of apartheid. It was Jewish members of the African National Congress who first said so. Followed by Jimmy Carter, the greatest ex-president in US history and one of the most respected leaders in the world today. Followed by progressive intellectuals all over the world. Israeli Palestinians have second-class citizenship with some of the most fundamental rights of a free people denied them. The same is true of Israeli agnostics and atheists, living in the equivalent of a theocracy. The same is true for the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, suffering under a brutal Israeli occupation, with Israelis seizing the best land and almost all the water, destroying the local economy with their checkpoints and destroying the entire infrastructure with their periodic military incursions.

    Yes, individual Jews do suffer as a result of Israel. This is tragic and wrong. However, we must not forget that if, during the Nazi years, German-American oragnizations had pledged their unconditional and eternal support of the Third Reich, there would have been repercussions. And if, during the apartheid years, the Dutch Reformed Church in North America had pledged its unconditonal and eternal support of the Afrikaaner regime in South Africa, there would have been reprecussions.

    We have to distinguish, as all good modern historians do, between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. Anti-Semitism is a monstrous racist doctrine from the nineteenth century that condemns all people of Jewish descent for the crime of being born. It is an abomination. On the other hand, one has the right to be anti-Judaic -- to decry practices of Judaism as a religion, to condemn the actions of the state of Israel, to repudiate the political stance of the vast majority of Jewish organizations -- just as one has the right to be, to an equal measure and to the same extent -- anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, and anti-Muslim.

  • charging anti-semitism is bad faith
  • Posted by Jay Rosenfeld on March 11, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • As one of many Jews who is highly critical of the state of Israel, I can state plainly that those who wield the charge of anti-semitism are intellectual thugs and cowards who, by failing to act in good faith, implicitly recognize the criminality of Israel and their own complicity in its crimes. And until and unless Jews cease to identify themselves with Israel and start to treat it like the geopolitical actor it is, it will be impossible for them to be honest or forthright about it or to contribute in good faith to any dialog.

  • @DBL: clarifying things
  • Posted by Jay Rosenfeld on March 11, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • "If you think that it's generally fine for countries to defend themselves from attacks launched from foreign nations, but think it's a crime for Israel to respond to thousands of rockets fired over the border from Gaza, then you are an anti-Semite."

    Even if we did have a double standard, it would at most make us (and us includes many Jews, inside and outside of Israel) anti-Israel, not anti-semitic -- to make the latter claim begs the question (since many people misunderstand that phrase, I'm referring to a circular argument, assuming your conclusion). My opposition to the invasion of Iraq, which
    George Bush and Condileeza Rice and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld claimed was necessary to avoid "mushroom clouds" and attacks by "drone planes", was not anti-Christian or anti-democracy or anti-American; it was at most anti-U.S., but only in the very narrow sense of being opposed to the policies of U.S. government at the time.

    But in fact no sane, honest person thinks it's "generally" fine if "generally" is taken to mean "always", so the charge above is fundamentally dishonest. In the current case, those firing rockets into Israel justify it as a defense against a crippling blockade and a violation of a cease-fire, but I am not "fine" with those rockets. Nor am I "fine" with Israel's massive deadly completely out-of-proportion counterattack that, in the long (and not-so-long) run did nothing to "defend" Israel but in fact put it into greater danger than ever as it resulted in a massive loss of international support and the further uncovering of its most fervent supporters as the most transparently dishonest sort of people.

  • Posted by Zarakas on March 11, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • I love the Jews like "Jay Rosenfeld" who can't accept antisemitism motivates many of these anti-Israel people. Seriously, every single one of these anti-Israel people swears up and down that he/she's not antisemitic and then dredges up some Jewish person who agrees with their statements as if that is conclusive proof. There are plenty of antisemitic people out there in this world, and you can be sure they aren't hiding quietly over the Gaza offensive. And they say over and over they aren't antisemitic. But like "Dr Anonymous" up there they have no problem saying they are against the Jewish religion as they spout their tiresome comparisons with Nazi Germany. So if being against Judaism is OK, because it's a religion, does that make it acceptable for Israel to discriminate against its Muslim citizens?

    By the way, however second-class their Muslim citizens may or may not be, it pales in comparison to how the Palestinians are treated in the other Arab countries. They are forced to live in squalid refugee camps in Lebanon and are fiercely discriminated against in Iraq and Kuwait. Egypt ignored them when they controlled Gaza and now are participating in the Israeli blockade. Other peoples do not normally treat their own kind in this fashion.

  • clarification?
  • Posted by DFS on March 17, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Mr. Rosenfeld, perhaps you had a typo: "...intellectual thugs and cowards who, by failing to act in good faith, implicitly recognize the criminality of Israel and their own complicity...".

    Did you mean that those concerned who defend Israel do indeed recognize such criminality?

    Please clarify -- perhaps I'm just having a bad day.

  • Anti-Zionism vs. Antisemitism IS NOT THE ISSUE
  • Posted by Max Green on May 19, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • If Mother Teresa were to claim that the earth is flat, would we accept the claim only because it is uttered by someone of her moral stature? as opposed to if, say, Stalin were to say the same? What if Stalin were to claim instead that the earth is round? Would we be looking up the moral credentials of Mother Teresa or Stalin in order to determine the veracity of either statement?

    Of course not. But that is exactly what the discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict always degenerates into: a discussion of the moral credentials of participants in the debate, especially those who dare to criticize the state of Israel. The antisemitism charge is nothing but a distraction from the very serious substantive issues at hand. We lose sight of Israeli violations or claims about Israeli violations of international & humanitarian law, human rights, UN resolutions, World Court decisions, etc. And we focus instead on whether those making such claims are antisemitic. We are told we should focus on whether those same people making the claims have or have not measured up on the litmus test of having made similar claims regarding supposedly analogous issues (such as Tibet) and especially those issues involving Muslim states (such as whether they condemn the Darfur situation).

    There are some courageous Jewish critics of the state of Israel (some in this forum) who are well aware of the damage done by this resort to the antisemitism charge as a way of deflecting attention away from Israel's actions. Aside from confirming the troubling identical equation of all Jews with the Zionist state & its actions, the resort to the antisemitism charge also entails the implicit horrific assumption that Palestinian lives are less worthy than Jewish ones. Otherwise what can anyone conclude from the fact that any efforts to draw attention to Palestinian suffering always end up generating a discussion about discrimination against Jews which the very fact that the issue of Palestinian suffering is dared to be raised is presented as evidence?

    I teach my students that ad hominem argumentation is problematic: I will use a number of the responses on this page (such as DBL on anti-Zionism) as illustrations of why an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy.