Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism

Is there a link between the way Israel's case is presented and anti-semitism? Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism. Critics vehemently disagree. In their view, public attacks on Israel are neither misplaced nor the source of anti-Jewish sentiment: Israel's behaviour is reprehensible and so are those Jews who defend it. Jewish defenders of Israel are then depicted by their critics as seeking an excuse to justify Israel, projecting Jewish paranoia and displaying a "typical" Jewish trait of "sticking together", even in defending the morally indefensible. Israel's advocates deserve the hostility they get, the argument goes; it is they who should engage in soul-searching.

There is no doubt that recent anti-semitism is linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it is equally without doubt that Israeli policies sometimes deserve criticism. There is nothing wrong, or even remotely anti-semitic, in disapproving of Israeli policies. Nevertheless, this debate - with its insistence that there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism - misses the crucial point of contention. Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.

If Israel's critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes - the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?

The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are dismissed as paranoia, even when anti-semitic imagery is at work, is a subterfuge. Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?

Despite piqued disclaimers, some of Israel's critics use anti-semitic stereotypes. In fact, their disclaimers frequently offer a mask of respectability to otherwise socially unacceptable anti-semitism. Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis". This equation between victims and murderers denies the Holocaust. Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got. Others speak of Zionist conspiracies to dominate the media, manipulate American foreign policy, rule the world and oppress the Arabs. By describing Israel as the root of all evil, they provide the linguistic mandate and the moral justification to destroy it. And by using anti-semitic instruments to achieve this goal, they give away their true anti-semitic face.

There is of course the open question of whether this applies to anti-Zionism. It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.

It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which case one should oppose Palestinian nationalism as well. It could even be argued that though both claims are true and noble, it would have been better to pursue Jewish national rights elsewhere. But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes further and denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves - and consequently behave as - a nation. Anti-Zionists deny Jews a right that they all too readily bestow on others, first of all Palestinians.

Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights. Jews condemning Israel and rejecting Zionism earn their praise. Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.

The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.

Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced. By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.

Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.

· Emanuele Ottolenghi is the Leone Ginzburg Fellow in Israel Studies at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford

>>I'm surprised that the Guardian has printed this kind of piece. Could it be that things are actually changing in Europe or am I just being overly optimistic?<<

Why should you be surprised? Just what is "antisemitism"?

Are Zionists semites? Are all Israilies semites? Is modern Israel the same as the ancient Israel of God? The answer to each of these questions is an emphatic NO, as anyone would learn if he would study either the Bible or the history of Jews.

Zionism is a political movement. Modern Judaism includes people of all races, and nationalities. There are black Jews, white Jews, Chinese Jews, Indian Jews, Mexican Jews, et cetera. There is NO race of Jews. It is estimated by Benjamin H. Freedman of the Christian Educational Association that about 90 plus percent of the Jews in some 42 countries originated in eastern Europe. The "Jews" were originally of the kingdom of the Khazars, a nation that once extended over what is now the southern portion of Russia. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, these Khazars (also spelled Chazars) embraced the Jewish religion in the 7th century A.D. They also adopted the Hebrew alphabet and applied it to their own language which came to be known as Yiddish. (Note: Yiddish and Hebrew are unrelated languages. They only use the same alphabet). The religious law of these self-styled Jews wwas the Talmud, not the OT Bible, although the Talmud quotes some of those scriptures. It is the descendants of the Khazars who make up the main body of immigrants to Palestine today. These self-styled Jews also emigrated into Western Europe and finally into the United States. A vast number of these people are seen daily on TV or we do business with them at local stores across the USA. And a large number of government officials are of Khazar extraction and are known as Jews. This explains why many people find it hard to understand why a person may be a Jew but not "look like a Jew". Judaism is not racial. One does not have to be a descendant of Abraham or of Shem to be a Jew.

Neither are all Semites Jews. Many of the Arabs are true Semites, descendants of Shem, the son of Noah, and also descendants of Abraham through Ishmal. Many thoughsands of them have been driven from their homes by the Israelis in their aggression against Jordan. People who sympathize with these Arabs cannot be honestly called anti-Semitic. This term, "anti-Semitic", is a smear-word, used to brand as a bigot and hate-monger anyone who brings criticism against a Jew. Khazars are not Semites - not related to Shem nor of Abraham's seed.

Furthermore, to identify Judaism as an anti-Christian religion is not in the least unfair to Jews. The Jews themselves make it abundantly clear that they do not and will not recognize Jesus as the Christ. Jewish writers continually bring out novels and non-fiction work which accuses Christ of being an imposter, rejects the Bible as a revealed word from their God and negates Christian teachings. An example is the best-seller "The LPassover Plot" by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield. Jews do not hesitate to identify themselves as opposed to the gospel of Christ; therefore, it should not be considered anything but honest and Christian to identify Jews and Judaism as the opposite of Christianity. Judaism is NOT the mother of Christianity as many, even amongst Christianity, imply. There is no such animal as Judeo-Christianity.

Due to the lack of time and space here it is impossible to give more than a brief sketch bearing on the question of "Who is a Jew"? But I would challenge anyone to obtain some books whitten by Jews and search the matter for yourself. For example, there is Howard Morely Sachar's "The Course of Modern Jewish History", in which he boasts of the concept of a Jewish world government through the Rothschilds, the international banking family of Jews, (Page 129) and where he names names and proves that the movie industry and the three major TV networks are controlled by Jews. (Page 345). He also boasts of the major role of prominent Jews in the rise of Communism (Page 300). - Published by Dell Pub. Co., New Yourk, 1958. Other informative books on the subject are: "The other Side of the Coin" by David Lillienthal; "What is a Jew" by Rabbi Kerstner (who insists that Jewism is NOT racial); "Felix Frankfurter Reminisces" by Phillips (in which Franfruter states that he got Jews into government at every opportunity); "Who is a Jew" by the Anti-Defamation League (which holds that the Talmud, not the OT Bible, is the governing rule of Jewish practices, page 10).

There are 100's more books if one would care to search the libraries of the USA and even the Nation of Israel. One could really get an eye-full studying what Israelis put out for publication in their research departments and schools.

Education - what a freedom we have because of that!

>>Anti-Semitism is hating Jews. It's very simple. I'm not sure what denying Christ has to do with anything. Are you saying that Jew-hating doesn't exist?<<

Hmmm...how to respond. Well, first of all, let me be blunt about your first statement: Most "Jews" are not Semites, so to be against "Jews" is not "anti-Semitism". However, hate is hate, and I deplore those who "hate" anyone because of their secular or religious ties. The next thing is the blatant hypocrisy displayed by those cutting down other people's religious views - especially the name calling. And, I would say, this goes both ways - for those calling themselves Christians and those calling themselves Jews, not to let out other religious or ethnic groups.

As far as the religious tone of my post, well, those claiming to be "Jews" never have denied that they are anti-Christian. The hypocrisy is when they find someone who is anti-Judaism - then the label "anti-Semite" is carelessly thrown all over the place, even though they are not "Semites". Imagine, a Khazar Jew calling a Semitic Arab an "anti-Semite" because the Arab denounces Judaism.

Hmmm....what's more to say?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.