22 dec 2016
by Dr. Ramzy Baroud
On 12 December, the British government officially adopted a new definition of anti-Semitism that includes legitimate criticism of Israel.
The definition was adopted earlier in the year by pro-Israeli group IHRA, although it was considered but abandoned by the European anti-racism agency in 2005.
It is a rather dangerous move which will most likely lead to an expanding chasm between British civil society and Britain’s political elite.
Israeli and pro-Israeli groups in the West have always been keen on conflating genuine racism and genuine criticism of the State of Israel, which stands accused of violating scores of United Nations resolutions and of war crimes in the occupied territories, especially in the Gaza Strip.
Adopting the new definition comes on the heels of a manufactured crisis in British politics, in which the Labour party, under Jeremy Corbyn, was falsely accused of being “soft” on anti-Semitism among its members. This “crisis” was engineered by pro-Israeli groups to detract from genuine campaigning among Labour supporters, in order to bind Israel to its international obligations, and end the siege and occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Last October, a cross-party group issued a report that contributed to the confusion of ideas, condemning the use of the word “Zionist” as pejorative, and claiming that such a use “has no place in civil society”.
While efforts to protect Israel from freedom of speech in Britain are still gathering steam, the debate in the United States has been stifled long ago. There is little room for any criticism of Israel in mainstream American media or “polite” society. Effectively, this means that US policy in the Middle East remains beholden only to Israeli interests, the diktats of its powerful pressure and lobby groups.
Following suit, the UK is now adopting that same self-defeating position, an issue which is hardly new. In fact, Friday of last week was an anniversary of great relevance to this very issue.
On 16 December 1991, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 46/86, a single, reticent statement: “The General Assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975.”
This was a reversal of an earlier resolution that equated Israel’s political ideology, Zionism and racism.
The longer text of the initial resolution, 3379 of 1975, was based on a clear set of principles, including UN resolution 2106 of 1965 that defined racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin.”
The reversal of that resolution was the outcome of vigorous US lobbying and pressures that lasted for years. In 1991, Israel insisted that it would not join the US-sponsored Madrid peace talks without the disavowal of 3379 first. With the UN being one of the Madrid Talks’ sponsors, the US pressure paid its dividends at last, and UN members were obliged to overturn their early verdicts.
However, equating Zionism with racism is not the only comparison that is often conjured by Israel’s critics.
Recently, Ecuadorian envoy to the United Nations, Horacio Sevilla was adamant in his comments before a UN session, marking 29 November as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
After he repudiated “with all our strength the persecution and genocide” unleashed by “Nazism against the Hebrew people,” he added, “but I cannot remember anything more similar in our contemporary history than the eviction, persecution and genocide that today imperialism and Zionism do against the Palestinian people.”
The tirade of condemnations that followed was expected, as Israeli officials seized yet another opportunity to hurl anti-Semitic accusations against the United Nations for persistently targeting Israel, while, supposedly, excluding others from censure.
As far as Israel is concerned, any criticism of the state and its political ideology is anti-Semitic as are any demands for accountability from Israel regarding its military conducts during war.
But why is Israel so concerned with definitions?
At the heart of Israel’s very existence lurks a sense of vulnerability which all the nuclear warheads and firepower cannot redeem.
Outlawing the use of the term Zionism is ludicrous and impractical, if not altogether impossible.
For Israelis who embrace the term, Zionism is many things, while for Palestinians, who learned to loathe it, it is, ultimately a single ideology.
In an article published in 2012, Israeli author Uri Avnery acknowledged the many shades of Zionism – early socialist Zionism (obsessed with the colour red, and mobilising around Jewish-only unions and Kibbutzim); religious Zionism which sees itself as the “forerunner of the Messiah”; right-wing Zionism which demands a “Jewish state in all of historical Palestine”, and secular, liberal Zionism as envisioned by its founder, Theodor Herzl.
For a Palestinian whose land was illegally confiscated, home demolished and life endangered by these very “Zionist” forces, Avnery’s itemisation is insignificant. For them the term “Zionist” is essentially pejorative, and is anyone who advocates, participates in or justifies Israeli aggressive actions based on his/her support and sympathy for political Zionism.
In his article, “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims”, the late Palestinian Professor Edward Said elaborates: “It is not unreasonable to find that the entire Palestinian-Arab experience seems unanimous about the view that Zionism visited upon the Arabs a singular injustice, and that even before the British handed Palestine over to Zionist settlers upon which to establish a state formally in 1948, Palestinians universally opposed and variously tried to resist Zionist colonialism.”
Many countries share the Palestinian perception of Zionism as a form of colonialism, and that prevailing perception is a historical fact, not a product of collective anti-Semitic illusion.
The reason why the question and debate of Zionism must not waver to any intimidation is that the essence of Zionism never matured, evolved or changed from its early, colonial version.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappe agrees. “The Zionist ideology and strategy has not changed from its very beginning,” he wrote. “The idea was ‘We want to create a Jewish state in Palestine but also a Jewish democracy’. So the Zionists needed to have a Jewish majority all the time … Therefore, ethnic cleansing was the only real solution from the Zionist perspective.”
This remains the main driving force behind Israeli policy towards Palestinians and Israel’s refusal to break away from a 19th century colonial enterprise into a modern, democratic state for all its citizens.
To do so, would be to sacrifice the core of its Zionist ideology, constructed on an amalgam of ethno-religious identities, and to embrace a universal form of democracy in a state where Jews and Arabs are treated as equals.
– Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
On 12 December, the British government officially adopted a new definition of anti-Semitism that includes legitimate criticism of Israel.
The definition was adopted earlier in the year by pro-Israeli group IHRA, although it was considered but abandoned by the European anti-racism agency in 2005.
It is a rather dangerous move which will most likely lead to an expanding chasm between British civil society and Britain’s political elite.
Israeli and pro-Israeli groups in the West have always been keen on conflating genuine racism and genuine criticism of the State of Israel, which stands accused of violating scores of United Nations resolutions and of war crimes in the occupied territories, especially in the Gaza Strip.
Adopting the new definition comes on the heels of a manufactured crisis in British politics, in which the Labour party, under Jeremy Corbyn, was falsely accused of being “soft” on anti-Semitism among its members. This “crisis” was engineered by pro-Israeli groups to detract from genuine campaigning among Labour supporters, in order to bind Israel to its international obligations, and end the siege and occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Last October, a cross-party group issued a report that contributed to the confusion of ideas, condemning the use of the word “Zionist” as pejorative, and claiming that such a use “has no place in civil society”.
While efforts to protect Israel from freedom of speech in Britain are still gathering steam, the debate in the United States has been stifled long ago. There is little room for any criticism of Israel in mainstream American media or “polite” society. Effectively, this means that US policy in the Middle East remains beholden only to Israeli interests, the diktats of its powerful pressure and lobby groups.
Following suit, the UK is now adopting that same self-defeating position, an issue which is hardly new. In fact, Friday of last week was an anniversary of great relevance to this very issue.
On 16 December 1991, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 46/86, a single, reticent statement: “The General Assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975.”
This was a reversal of an earlier resolution that equated Israel’s political ideology, Zionism and racism.
The longer text of the initial resolution, 3379 of 1975, was based on a clear set of principles, including UN resolution 2106 of 1965 that defined racial discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin.”
The reversal of that resolution was the outcome of vigorous US lobbying and pressures that lasted for years. In 1991, Israel insisted that it would not join the US-sponsored Madrid peace talks without the disavowal of 3379 first. With the UN being one of the Madrid Talks’ sponsors, the US pressure paid its dividends at last, and UN members were obliged to overturn their early verdicts.
However, equating Zionism with racism is not the only comparison that is often conjured by Israel’s critics.
Recently, Ecuadorian envoy to the United Nations, Horacio Sevilla was adamant in his comments before a UN session, marking 29 November as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
After he repudiated “with all our strength the persecution and genocide” unleashed by “Nazism against the Hebrew people,” he added, “but I cannot remember anything more similar in our contemporary history than the eviction, persecution and genocide that today imperialism and Zionism do against the Palestinian people.”
The tirade of condemnations that followed was expected, as Israeli officials seized yet another opportunity to hurl anti-Semitic accusations against the United Nations for persistently targeting Israel, while, supposedly, excluding others from censure.
As far as Israel is concerned, any criticism of the state and its political ideology is anti-Semitic as are any demands for accountability from Israel regarding its military conducts during war.
But why is Israel so concerned with definitions?
At the heart of Israel’s very existence lurks a sense of vulnerability which all the nuclear warheads and firepower cannot redeem.
Outlawing the use of the term Zionism is ludicrous and impractical, if not altogether impossible.
For Israelis who embrace the term, Zionism is many things, while for Palestinians, who learned to loathe it, it is, ultimately a single ideology.
In an article published in 2012, Israeli author Uri Avnery acknowledged the many shades of Zionism – early socialist Zionism (obsessed with the colour red, and mobilising around Jewish-only unions and Kibbutzim); religious Zionism which sees itself as the “forerunner of the Messiah”; right-wing Zionism which demands a “Jewish state in all of historical Palestine”, and secular, liberal Zionism as envisioned by its founder, Theodor Herzl.
For a Palestinian whose land was illegally confiscated, home demolished and life endangered by these very “Zionist” forces, Avnery’s itemisation is insignificant. For them the term “Zionist” is essentially pejorative, and is anyone who advocates, participates in or justifies Israeli aggressive actions based on his/her support and sympathy for political Zionism.
In his article, “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims”, the late Palestinian Professor Edward Said elaborates: “It is not unreasonable to find that the entire Palestinian-Arab experience seems unanimous about the view that Zionism visited upon the Arabs a singular injustice, and that even before the British handed Palestine over to Zionist settlers upon which to establish a state formally in 1948, Palestinians universally opposed and variously tried to resist Zionist colonialism.”
Many countries share the Palestinian perception of Zionism as a form of colonialism, and that prevailing perception is a historical fact, not a product of collective anti-Semitic illusion.
The reason why the question and debate of Zionism must not waver to any intimidation is that the essence of Zionism never matured, evolved or changed from its early, colonial version.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappe agrees. “The Zionist ideology and strategy has not changed from its very beginning,” he wrote. “The idea was ‘We want to create a Jewish state in Palestine but also a Jewish democracy’. So the Zionists needed to have a Jewish majority all the time … Therefore, ethnic cleansing was the only real solution from the Zionist perspective.”
This remains the main driving force behind Israeli policy towards Palestinians and Israel’s refusal to break away from a 19th century colonial enterprise into a modern, democratic state for all its citizens.
To do so, would be to sacrifice the core of its Zionist ideology, constructed on an amalgam of ethno-religious identities, and to embrace a universal form of democracy in a state where Jews and Arabs are treated as equals.
– Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
19 dec 2016
Jewish scholars and students have released statements urging the US House of Representatives and President Obama to reject the controversial “Antisemitism Awareness Act”.
In a recent initiative by US based organization Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish scholars and students signed statements urging both the House of Representatives, as well as President Obama, to reject the act.
The scholars’ statement has already been signed by individuals from New York University, Penn State University, Brown University, Standford University, UCLA and more. It reads:
“As scholars of Jewish studies, we strongly object to “the Antisemitism Awareness Act” which is soon to be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would officially categorize as antisemitic “demonization,” “de-legitimation” and “the use of double standard” regarding Israel. This intentionally vague definition is dangerously susceptible to manipulations, and threatens to further diminish freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses.
The overly broad language has the potential to define any criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic. This could include frank discussions of the impact of Zionism, campus disagreements about the future of Israel/Palestine, and in fact, much of what falls under Jewish Studies in all facets, including courses.
This is fundamentally contrary to the educational processes of learning critical thinking and disparate points of view, and hurts our ability to prepare students to take on global challenges ahead of us.
By potentially targeting those offering criticism of the State of Israel, many of whom are Jews themselves, (and not the white supremacists emboldened by President-elect Trump), this bill fails to confront the real threats facing Jews in America. Instead, this bill poses a threat to human rights advocates, scholars, and students. It is no coincidence that many of these students are Muslim and/or people of color, and are facing similar targeting from a resurgent far-right.
American Jews do not need protection from passionate young activists organizing for justice. Rather, we need to join with justice-seeking people everywhere to fight white supremacy, racism and the genuine antisemitism that are reemerging in the very highest levels of government. Therefore, as scholars of Jewish studies, we call upon all those who are committed to fighting racism and safeguarding academic freedom to speak out against this misguided and dangerous bill.”
Following a similar appeal the statement signed by Jewish students explains:
“Dear Members of the House of Representatives and President Obama,
As Jewish students, we urge you to reject the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and to protect free speech on campuses across America. We are Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, and secular Jews; and we are deeply concerned about the rise of real anti-Semitism in white supremacist movements in this country, including the appointment of real anti-Semites like Stephen Bannon to powerful positions in the upcoming Trump administration. But this bill does little to protect us, as Jewish students, from these dangers. Rather, it serves to limit our freedom of expression around the vital issues of our time.
Regardless of our personal political views, we recognize that criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights, including support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, is not inherently anti-Semitic. The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, however, conflates legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism, using a problematic definition of anti-Semitism never intended for use on college campuses. Kenneth Stern, the author of the original EU definition upon which the State Department definition is based, has urged you to reject the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and to not use this definition to restrict speech on college campuses. [http://jkrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Letter-to-members-of…[PDF]
At a time when freedom of expression is under threat across the country, we need to be protecting and expanding speech, not restricting it. We urge you not to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and instead to take meaningful action to combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and other forms of bigotry on the rise across the country.”
via Jewish Voice for Peace and the Palestinian BDS National Committee.
In a recent initiative by US based organization Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish scholars and students signed statements urging both the House of Representatives, as well as President Obama, to reject the act.
The scholars’ statement has already been signed by individuals from New York University, Penn State University, Brown University, Standford University, UCLA and more. It reads:
“As scholars of Jewish studies, we strongly object to “the Antisemitism Awareness Act” which is soon to be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would officially categorize as antisemitic “demonization,” “de-legitimation” and “the use of double standard” regarding Israel. This intentionally vague definition is dangerously susceptible to manipulations, and threatens to further diminish freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses.
The overly broad language has the potential to define any criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic. This could include frank discussions of the impact of Zionism, campus disagreements about the future of Israel/Palestine, and in fact, much of what falls under Jewish Studies in all facets, including courses.
This is fundamentally contrary to the educational processes of learning critical thinking and disparate points of view, and hurts our ability to prepare students to take on global challenges ahead of us.
By potentially targeting those offering criticism of the State of Israel, many of whom are Jews themselves, (and not the white supremacists emboldened by President-elect Trump), this bill fails to confront the real threats facing Jews in America. Instead, this bill poses a threat to human rights advocates, scholars, and students. It is no coincidence that many of these students are Muslim and/or people of color, and are facing similar targeting from a resurgent far-right.
American Jews do not need protection from passionate young activists organizing for justice. Rather, we need to join with justice-seeking people everywhere to fight white supremacy, racism and the genuine antisemitism that are reemerging in the very highest levels of government. Therefore, as scholars of Jewish studies, we call upon all those who are committed to fighting racism and safeguarding academic freedom to speak out against this misguided and dangerous bill.”
Following a similar appeal the statement signed by Jewish students explains:
“Dear Members of the House of Representatives and President Obama,
As Jewish students, we urge you to reject the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and to protect free speech on campuses across America. We are Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, and secular Jews; and we are deeply concerned about the rise of real anti-Semitism in white supremacist movements in this country, including the appointment of real anti-Semites like Stephen Bannon to powerful positions in the upcoming Trump administration. But this bill does little to protect us, as Jewish students, from these dangers. Rather, it serves to limit our freedom of expression around the vital issues of our time.
Regardless of our personal political views, we recognize that criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights, including support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, is not inherently anti-Semitic. The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, however, conflates legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism, using a problematic definition of anti-Semitism never intended for use on college campuses. Kenneth Stern, the author of the original EU definition upon which the State Department definition is based, has urged you to reject the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and to not use this definition to restrict speech on college campuses. [http://jkrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Letter-to-members-of…[PDF]
At a time when freedom of expression is under threat across the country, we need to be protecting and expanding speech, not restricting it. We urge you not to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and instead to take meaningful action to combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and other forms of bigotry on the rise across the country.”
via Jewish Voice for Peace and the Palestinian BDS National Committee.
2 dec 2016
Update, 4:18 PM, December 1, 2016. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Palestine Legal calls on all lawmakers in the House to vigorously oppose this attack on cherished First Amendment freedoms to criticize the government.
December 1, 2016 – The US Senate will consider a bill, today, aiming to impose a broad redefinition of antisemitism on the Department of Education (DOE). While purporting to address rising antisemitism on college campuses, the bill clearly takes aim at student advocacy for Palestinian rights, and criticism of Israel.
The proposed “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” would require the DOE to take into consideration a discredited definition of antisemitism, sometimes called the “State Department definition,” [PDF] in assessing whether alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act are “motivated by anti-Semitic intent.” The definition uses [PDF] broad and vague language that would allow virtually any criticism of Israel to be labeled as antisemitic, including any speech deemed to “demonize,” apply “double standards” to, or “delegitimize” Israel.
“As Trump calls for jailing flag burners, every lawmaker must stand up to protect cherished First Amendment freedoms to criticize the government. That means college students have the right to criticize the U.S. and foreign governments, including Israel,” said Staff Attorney Liz Jackson. “Regardless of one’s views on Palestine-Israel, we should all be alarmed at this attempt to pile on top of Trump’s attacks on free speech rights. It is plainly unconstitutional for Congress, the Department of Education, a state legislature, or any public school to censor or punish campus speech critical of Israel.”
While the U.S. State Department’s Office for the Special Envoy on Antisemitism has maintained the definition on its website for the purposes of documenting incidents of antisemitism abroad, the definition was not written or adopted for application in the U.S.
Moreover, the DOE has repeatedly rejected complaints of discrimination by Israel advocacy organizations targeting campus speech critical of Israel because such criticism is protected by the First Amendment. The DOE dismissed four separate complaints alleging that advocacy for Palestinian rights causes a hostile environment for pro-Israel Jewish students, determining that campus debate about Israel-Palestine is the kind of “robust and discordant expression” to be expected on a college campus, and is protected by the First Amendment.
The University of California (UC) and other universities have also rejected the antisemitism definition endorsed by this Act because of free speech concerns. Israel advocacy organizations had pushed for its adoption in March 2015, causing an outcry from free speech advocates across the political spectrum, media, students, graduate student instructors, and Jewish and other civil rights organizations [PDF]. Jewish commentators, including the definition’s original drafter, Kenneth Stern, repudiated its use on a college campus.
“At a time when forces of racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and antisemitism have been unleashed at levels not seen in decades, this transparent attempt to attack political speech criticizing Israel is only fortifying efforts to undermine civil liberties,“ added Jackson. “Congress should fight antisemitism – together with all forms of racism – by holding accountable those responsible for perpetrating and inciting violence and harassment against vulnerable communities, not by attacking First Amendment protected expression.”
See Palestine Legal’s FAQ on the State Department definition of antisemitism here. [PDF]
See Jewish Voice for Peace press release here.
December 1, 2016 – The US Senate will consider a bill, today, aiming to impose a broad redefinition of antisemitism on the Department of Education (DOE). While purporting to address rising antisemitism on college campuses, the bill clearly takes aim at student advocacy for Palestinian rights, and criticism of Israel.
The proposed “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” would require the DOE to take into consideration a discredited definition of antisemitism, sometimes called the “State Department definition,” [PDF] in assessing whether alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act are “motivated by anti-Semitic intent.” The definition uses [PDF] broad and vague language that would allow virtually any criticism of Israel to be labeled as antisemitic, including any speech deemed to “demonize,” apply “double standards” to, or “delegitimize” Israel.
“As Trump calls for jailing flag burners, every lawmaker must stand up to protect cherished First Amendment freedoms to criticize the government. That means college students have the right to criticize the U.S. and foreign governments, including Israel,” said Staff Attorney Liz Jackson. “Regardless of one’s views on Palestine-Israel, we should all be alarmed at this attempt to pile on top of Trump’s attacks on free speech rights. It is plainly unconstitutional for Congress, the Department of Education, a state legislature, or any public school to censor or punish campus speech critical of Israel.”
While the U.S. State Department’s Office for the Special Envoy on Antisemitism has maintained the definition on its website for the purposes of documenting incidents of antisemitism abroad, the definition was not written or adopted for application in the U.S.
Moreover, the DOE has repeatedly rejected complaints of discrimination by Israel advocacy organizations targeting campus speech critical of Israel because such criticism is protected by the First Amendment. The DOE dismissed four separate complaints alleging that advocacy for Palestinian rights causes a hostile environment for pro-Israel Jewish students, determining that campus debate about Israel-Palestine is the kind of “robust and discordant expression” to be expected on a college campus, and is protected by the First Amendment.
The University of California (UC) and other universities have also rejected the antisemitism definition endorsed by this Act because of free speech concerns. Israel advocacy organizations had pushed for its adoption in March 2015, causing an outcry from free speech advocates across the political spectrum, media, students, graduate student instructors, and Jewish and other civil rights organizations [PDF]. Jewish commentators, including the definition’s original drafter, Kenneth Stern, repudiated its use on a college campus.
“At a time when forces of racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and antisemitism have been unleashed at levels not seen in decades, this transparent attempt to attack political speech criticizing Israel is only fortifying efforts to undermine civil liberties,“ added Jackson. “Congress should fight antisemitism – together with all forms of racism – by holding accountable those responsible for perpetrating and inciting violence and harassment against vulnerable communities, not by attacking First Amendment protected expression.”
See Palestine Legal’s FAQ on the State Department definition of antisemitism here. [PDF]
See Jewish Voice for Peace press release here.
