Antisemitism Smokescreen

I wrote a post some time ago about antisemitism and how it appeared by the definition that I was antisemitic. At the risk of focusing too much on one topic, I want to revisit the question.

Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism

In Australia, there has been some discussion in the last weeks about what the word antisemitism actually means. On 9 July 2024, Jillian Segal was appointed for a three-year term as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The appointment came after campaigning by Jewish communal organisations to create a position to fight the rise in antisemitism post 7 October 2023.

The point is, why? Is antisemitism so prevalent that we have to appoint a Special Envoy? I would have thought there were more pressing issues than Jewish relations. For example, is there a Special Envoy for Aboriginals or Muslims? No. It seems like a case of “make-work”. Give a person a job and a brief, and they will create work. Suppose I were appointed Special Envoy for Mothers with Strollers. In that case, I am confident that I could conduct a few surveys, identify problems with strollers, suggest modifications, and even propose special pedestrian lanes for mothers with strollers. I fear Jillian might be going down the same path.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

She is proposing the use of a definition created by the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance), which was established by the Stockholm International Forum, a series of conferences held between 2000 and 2004, and convened by then-Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. There are now 35 member states of IHRA, including Australia, Israel, the UK and the US, all of which adopted a “non-legally binding working definition” of antisemitism in May 2016. This is the definition.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel, similar to that levelled against any other country, cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

One key part of the definition is in the third paragraph.

However, criticism of Israel, similar to that levelled against any other country, cannot be regarded as antisemitic

In other words, it is fine to criticise the country of Israel. Yet the definition goes on to talk about what antisemitism is.

Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity.

So, on one hand, we can criticise the country, but we cannot say Netanyahu and his underlings are conspiring to harm Gaza,

Another point given as an example of antisemitism is the following.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

So it is antisemitic to blame Jews for the starvation currently happening in Gaza. Is this not a wrongdoing?

Some of the examples are clearly offensive and can fit into what most people would say is antisemitic. Most people would accept reference to Hitler and concentration camps as offensive, but how does the following example fit?

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The last time I checked, Israel was a democracy. The State of Israel is a result of the previous elections. The Jewish people voted in the government, and the people are responsible for the actions of that government. You can’t vote in a government and then wash your hands of anything they do.

Is it important?

All the talk of antisemitism is a smokescreen. It masks the criticism of Israeli actions. Their tactic is not to refute the allegations, but to argue about whether the allegations are antisemitic or not. The argument about antisemitism directs attention away from the substance of the allegation.

Let’s put aside the question of antisemitism for a moment and look at the allegations. The facts are:

• For decades, Israel has allowed settlements on the West Bank and Golan Heights, even though everyone from the UN down has declared the actions illegal.
• Palestinians in the occupied territories have been treated as second-class citizens for half a century. They have had to put up with restrictions on what they could do, what they could own, and how they lived their lives.
• The Israeli surveillance system makes the Chinese look like amateurs. They have developed facial recognition technology that leads the world to keep track of Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, their own people.
• In response to the Hamas attack, which killed 1,139 people, they have killed 60,000 Gazans.
• They are in the process of starving two million people to death.

All the above points point to one thing. The Jewish nation believes that they are a superior species to their Arab neighbours. It is OK to kill indiscriminately if the victims are not Jewish. How is it self-defence to starve people to death? Hamas are ruthless and you would not wish the organisation to exist, but they have been decimated. Does anyone seriously believe they are a threat to Israel?

We talk of American Exceptionalism. Primarily, what we mean is that America has achieved significant technological and trade advancements over the last fifty years. We don’t mean that somehow Americans are superior to other races. Yet when it comes to Israel, they seem to believe they are superior to the Palestinians, who once inhabited their land. Their religion is more important than Islam. Their God is better than any other God. The land has been controlled by many countries over the centuries. The Jews do not have a right to the land because it says so in the Torah.

Israel is acting like a colonial power of the 16^th or 17^th century. We may have thought we had evolved beyond those times, but it seems not. I don’t care about the definition of antisemitism because it is not the key issue in the current environment. The more we argue about what is antisemitic, the more we lose sight of the arrogance and cruelty of the Israeli nation.