Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Temp1

From Anarchopedia
< User:Anarchangel‎ | Sandbox
Revision as of 07:03, 10 January 2011 by Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (.....Pretty crappy as it stands now. Should be split into: Criticism of Israel's foreign policy, & Ramifications of the creation of the state of Israel & Criticism of Israel & Anti-semitism)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Should be split into: Criticism of Israel's foreign policy, Ramifications of the creation of the state of Israel, & Criticism of Israel and Anti-semitism, at the very least. Old versions still need to be looked at for sources, I hope I get to it before it is deleted, but not going to work too hard at it; very behind already

Criticism of the Israeli Government, often referred to simply as Criticism of Israel, is a frequent subject of journalistic and scholarly commentary and research within the scope of International relations theory, expressed in terms of political science. Within the scope of global aspirations for a community of nations Israel has faced ongoing international criticism since its Independence in 1948 relating to a variety of topics,[1][2][3][3][4] both historical and contemporary.

International criticism of Israeli government policies is usually expressed within the discipline of international law and various obligations, real or perceived, that Israel is accused of not complying or fulfilling as a member of United Nations and other international organisations. Criticism of contemporary policies usually relates to issues such as Israeli Settlements, human rights of Palestinian Arabs, the conduct of Israeli Defense Forces during conflicts and accusations of economic strangulation[5][6] of Palestinian territories. Criticism of historical Israeli government policies relate to issues with ongoing consequences such as the refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and the invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the construction of settlements therein. Another source of criticism is the friction generated by the conversion issue between Israel's orthodox rabbinate and non-orthodox segments of the Jewish Diaspora. At one end of the spectrum, these criticisms support attempts to delegitimize[7][8][9] Israel's right to exist. This has led to an ongoing debate regarding at what point criticism of Israel crosses the line in to antisemitism.

Assessment of International criticism of Israel is based on its volume by measuring quantity and quality of output from the various sources, its public opinion impact in the way that the impact of any mass media campaign is measured within the media industry. One of the effects of international criticism has been the impact on social psychology of Israelis - according to a survey more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel".[10]. Another effect has been instances of mental abuse and physical attacks on Israelis and Jews in several countries. Another consequence has been to claim Israel's unfair environmental policy, particularly with regard to water use. Aside from the resultant domestic social conflict between those that approve of the criticism and those that do not, creating a political rift, there have been diplomatic attempts to isolate Israel from the international community, and encouragement in disinvestment from Israel as a form of informal economic boycott.

Sources of Israel's criticism come from several groups: Jewish and Arab activists within Israel and from the Jewish Diaspora, the OIC countries, the organisations within United Nations, other non-governmental organizations, and often mass media as part of a Politico-media complex. As with any social issue, media bias is often claimed by both sides of the Israel criticism debate. Criticism in the United Nations is particularly marked - since 2003, the UN has issued 232 resolutions with respect to Israel – 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period and more than six times that of the second placed country, Sudan.[11]. These decisions are usually passed with the support of the OIC countries.

Responses to international critics of Israel came from both the Israeli Government and various social groups and organisations. The responses are delivered in the forums of international courts and law, within the scope of international conferences held on the subject, and within the public media.

Sources of criticism

Within Israel

International Jewish Community

  • Prophets Outcast: A Century of Dissident Jewish Writing about Zionism and Israel by Adam Shatz, 2004
  • Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel by Seth Farber, 2005
  • With Friends Like These: The Jewish Critics of Israel by Edward Alexander, 1992
  • Jewish Peace Activists: Noam Chomsky, Gerald Kaufman, Norman Finkelstein, Martin Buber, Refusal to Serve in the Israeli Military
  • Is It Good for the Jews?: The Crisis of America's Israel Lobby by Stephen Schwartz, 2006
  • The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand and Yael Lotan

United Nations

See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations
Percentage of country-specific UN General Assembly resolutions concerned with Israel and neighbouring territories

One source of criticism received by the state of Israel is from the United Nations, of which Israel is a member. The UN Charter under Article 4 states that:

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.[12]

The 232 UN resolutions issued since 2003 alone with respect to Israel must be considered as criticism under the UN Charter because they represent 40% of all resolutions issued by the UN over the period and more than six times that of the second placed country, Sudan.[11] In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Program, 6% of Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. These decisions, passed with the support of the OIC countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.[13] For further details, see Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and the List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel.

Reasons for Criticism

Template:multiple image The reasons for the degree to which Israel is criticised are disputed.[14][15][16][17][18][19]

Accusations of Singling Out

The reasons for the degree to which Israel is criticised are disputed.[14][15][16][17][18][19]

Human Rights

See also: Israel and the apartheid analogy, Human rights in Israel, and Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories

International Law

See also: International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict

Effects of international criticism

International criticism is an important focus within Israel. According to an August 2010 survey by Tel Aviv University, more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel".[10] As a result, public diplomacy, known as hasbara, has been an important focus of Israeli governments since Independence. The Israeli Ministry of Public Diplomacy & Diaspora Affairs seeks to explain government policies and promote Israel in the face of what they consider negative press about Israel around the world – the current campaign is called Masbirim.[20]

Boycotts and Disinvestment from Israel

See also: Boycotts of Israel and Disinvestment from Israel

Governmental reports and criminalization

European Union 2006 report on antisemitism

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC, recently renamed to Fundamental Rights Agency) published a draft of an operational definition of antisemitism called Working Definition of Antisemitism[21] which accompanied a report by the EUMC on report that summarized anti-Semitism in Europe.[22] The EUMC definition of anti-Semitism included five kinds of behaviors related to criticism Israel:[23]

  1. 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.
  2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  3. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  4. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  5. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

This part of the definition has proved highly contentious and is seen by many as attempting to proscribe legitimate criticism of the human rights record of the Israeli Government by attempting to bring any criticism of Israel into the category of antisemitism, and as not sufficiently distinguishing between criticism of Israeli actions and criticism of Zionism as a political ideology, on the one hand, and racially based violence towards, discrimination against, or abuse of, Jews.[24]

Paul Igansky points out that one of the EUMC anti-Semitic behaviors, comparisons between Israeli policy and those of the Nazis, is "arguably not intrinsically antisemitic", and that the context in which they are made is critical. Igansky illustrates this with the incident where Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was described by fellow Jewish Israelis as cooperating with the Nazis, and depicted wearing an SS uniform. According to Igansky, the "Nazi" label was merely used as "charged political rhetoric" in this case.[25]

EISCA 2009 report on criticism of Israel

Following the 2006 EUMC report, the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA) published a report in 2009 entitled Understanding and Addressing the ‘Nazi Card' - Intervening Against Antisemitic Discourse which discussed comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany.[26]

The 2009 report incorporated from the 2006 report the five specific kinds of criticism of Israel that should be considered as anti-Semitism (see above for list of the five).[27]

The report does not say all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic: "Abhorrence and protest against the policies, practices, and leaders of the Israeli state can be expressed in numerous forceful and trenchant ways, as they could against any other state - none of which would be antisemitic…",[28] and "Drawing attention to the consequent harms in [playing the Nazi card against Israel] should not be intended, or taken, in any way as an attempt to suppress criticism of Israel and its military practices."[29]

Antony Lerman criticized the report, and suggested that it could be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel, and suggests that the report's authors do not adequately address that possibility.[30]

Criminalization of criticism of Israel

The EISCA Report recommends that the British government criminalize certain kinds of anti-Semitism, particularly use of the Nazi analogy to criticize Israel, as well as other forms of criticism of Israel.[31]

Paul Craig Roberts and Antony Lerman have questioned the recommendations of the EISCA report, expressing concerns that the recommendations of the report may be adopted as a hate-crime law within Europe, which may lead to infringement of free speech, and may criminalize legitimate criticism of Israel.

Author Paul Craig Roberts is opposed to legislation in the United States will make it a crime to criticize Israel, and as examples he cites the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Roberts asserts that lobbyists for Israel are pressing for laws that will make it a crime to discuss the power of the Israel lobby, or to discuss alleged war crimes of Israel.[32]

Antony Lerman criticized the 2009 EISCA report, and claims that criminalizing criticism of Israel (particularly, comparing Israel actions to Nazi actions) would constitute an excessive infringement of freedom of speech in Britain, postulating, for example, that "if you said 'the way the IDF operated in Gaza was like the way the SS acted in Poland', and a Jew found this offensive, hurtful or harmful, you could, in theory, go to jail."[33]

Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) prepared a report in 2003 that distinguished criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism by testing whether "Israel is seen as being a representative of 'the Jew'": if the speaker is considering Israel as a representative of Jews in general, then anti-Semitism is deemed to be underlying the criticism.[34]

Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident and Israeli Minister, suggested a three-part test to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitic attacks. Sharansky's tests that identify a criticism as anti-Semitic are:[35]

  1. Demonization - when Israeli actions are blown so far out of proportion that the account paints Israel as the embodiment of all evil
  2. Double Standards - when Israel is criticized soundly for thing any other government would be viewed as justified in doing, like protecting it citizens from terrorism.
  3. Delegitimization: a denial or Israel's right to exist or the right of the Jewish people to live securely in a homeland.

Double standards are often used as evidence of anti-Semitism in relation to criticism of Israel: some criticisms involve applying an especially high moral standard to Israel, higher than applied to other countries (particularly compared to surrounding countries), yet the only special characteristic of Israel is that it is a Jewish state, hence there is an element of anti-Semitism.[36]

Delegitimization was a factor addressed by Abba Eban, who claimed that efforts to deny "the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations" constituted anti-Semitism.[37]

Dina Porat (head of the Institute for Study of Anti-semitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv University) also characterizes some anti-Zionist ideals as anti-Semitic, because they amount to singling-out Jews for special treatment, while all other comparable groups of people are entitled to create and maintain a homeland. She contends that anti-Zionism is anti-semitic because it is discriminatory: "...antisemitism is involved when the belief is articulated that of all the peoples on the globe (including the Palestinians), only the Jews should not have the right to self-determination in a land of their own. Or, to quote noted human rights lawyer David Matas: One form of antisemitism denies access of Jews to goods and services because they are Jewish. Another form of antisemitism denies the right of the Jewish people to exist as a people because they are Jewish. Antizionists distinguish between the two, claiming the first is antisemitism, but the second is not. To the antizionist, the Jew can exist as an individual as long as Jews do not exist as a people."[38]

Comparisons with Nazi Germany

A specific form of criticism of Israel that is often considered anti-Semitic is comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany. Comparisons have included analogies of Gaza strip with concentration camps, or comparisons of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with Nazi leader Joseph Goebbels.[39] The Anti Defamation League (ADL) has documented a large number of comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany, and the ADL considers them to be anti-Semitic.[40]

United Nations rapporteurs have compared Israel to Nazi Germany. Authors Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have criticized Richard Falk (United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967"[41]) for comparisons Falk made between Israel and Nazi Germany[42] Mitchell G. Bard states that Jean Ziegler (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food) stated that Gaza Strip is "an immense concentration camp" and compared Israelis to Nazis.[43]

Israeli professor Gavriel Salomon protested against Israeli loyalty-oath legislation, and compared Israel to Nazi Germany, but qualified the criticism: " I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws."[44]

Pascal Bruckner describes comments by Portuguese Nobel prize-winning author Jose Saramago, who compared the Palestinian's conditions in Ramallah to concentration camps; when asked by a journalist "Where are the gas chambers?", Saramago replied "They'll be here before long". Saramago's comments were widely reported and analyzed.[45]

Bruckner also documents a similar comparison made by South American author Luis Sepulveda who wrote: "in Auschwitz and Mauthausen, in Sabra, Chatila, and Gaza, Zionism and Nazism go hand in hand"[46]

Nur Masalha characterizes Israel's occupation of Palestine territories as comparable to the Nazi Lebensraum (living room) policy of gaining land and materials for the benefit of Germans.[47]

Author Israel Stockman-Shomron asserts that many newspaper editorials have used Nazi imagery articles that criticize Israel, such as the use of terms such as lebensraum, "final solution", "Hitler's work", and "blitzkrieg". Newspapers and authors cited by Stockman-Shomron include William Pfaff, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, New York Times, and Edwin Yoder.[48]

Following the 1967 Six Day War, the Soviet Union charged Israel with using Nazi tactics.[49] Daniel Gordis describes similar comparisons which were made by Israeli Arabs.[50]

Some commentators such as Ḥayim Gordon and Josie Sandercock describes Gaza as the "largest concentration camp in the world".[51]

Shlomo Sharan documents a comparison with Nazi Germany made by Arab journalist Jihad al-Khazin, who compared Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Hitler.[52]

Professor William I. Robinson was accused of anti-Semitism because his classroom materials included a visual image comparison of the Israeli attacks on Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. The Anti-Defamation League criticized Robinson, accusing him of academic misconduct, while Scholars for Peace in the Middle East support Robinson, citing academic freedom.[53]

Responses to Criticism

Israeli Public Diplomacy

See also: Public diplomacy (Israel)

International criticism is an important focus within Israel. According to an August 2010 survey by Tel Aviv University, more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel".[10] As a result, public diplomacy, known as hasbara, has been an important focus of Israeli governments since Independence. The Israeli Ministry of Public Diplomacy & Diaspora Affairs seeks to explain government policies and promote Israel in the face of what they consider negative press about Israel around the world – the current campaign is called Masbirim.[20]

Accusations of Anti-Semitism

See also: New antisemitism

Suppression of Criticism

See Also

References

  • Bruckner, Pascal, The tyranny of guilt: an essay on Western masochism, Princeton University Press, 2010
  • Dershowitz, Alan, The Case for Israel, John Wiley and Sons, 2003
  • Dershowitz, Alan, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, John Wiley and Sons, 2009
  • Ellis, Marc, Judaism does not equal Israel, The New Press, 2009
  • EUMC report - Antisemitism - Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2005 - Working Paper, Beate Winkler, European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), May 2006, online.
  • Igansky, Paul, and Sweiry, Abe, Understanding and Addressing the ‘Nazi Card' - Intervening Against Antisemitic Discourse, published by European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA), 2009, online. Cited as "EISCA Report" (see above).
  • Judt, Tony, "The Country That Wouldn't Grow Up", int Haaretz, 2 May 2006, online.
  • Brian, ({{{year}}}). "Is Europe a lost cause? The European debate on antisemitism and the Middle East conflict," Patterns of Prejudice, 39, 46–59.
  • Lerman, Antony "Should we ban 'Nazi analogies'? Using Nazi analogies to criticise Israel or Zionism may be offensive, but should it be against the law?", in Guardian, 24 July 2009, online
  • Lowenstein, Antony, My Israel question, Melbourne Univ. Publishing, 2007
  • Prior, Michael Speaking the Truth about Zionism and Israel, Melisende, 2004
  • Sharan, Shlomo, and Bukay, David, Crossovers: Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism, Transaction Publishers, 2010

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Dershowitz, Alan (2004). The Case for Israel, p. 1. "The Jewish nation of Israel stands accused in the dock of international justice. The charges include being a criminal state, the prime violator of human rights, the mirror image of Nazism, and the most intransigent barrier to peace in the Middle East. Throughout the world, from the chambers of the United Nations to the campuses of universities, Israel is singled out for condemnation, divestment, boycott and demonization."
  2. ↑ Dershowitz, Alan (2009). The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, p. 1–2. "For a tiny nation of little more than six and a half million citizens living in an area roughly the size of New Jersey, Israel has proportionally more enemies than any nation on earth. No nation has been threatened more often with divestment, boycotts, and other sanctions. No nation has generated more protests against it on college and university campuses. No nation has been targeted for as much editorial abuse from the worldwide media. No nation has been subjected to more frequent threats of annihilation. No nation has had more genocidal incitements directed against its citizens. It is remarkable indeed that a democratic nation born in response to a decision of the United Nations should still not be accepted by so many countries, groups, and individuals. No other UN member is threated with physical destruction by other member states so openly and with so little rebuke from the General Assembly or the Security Council. Indeed, no nation, regardless of its size or the number of deaths it has caused, has been condemned as often by the UN and its constituent bodies. Simply put, no nation is hated as much as the Jewish nation."
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Hagee, John (2007). In Defense of Israel, p. 1. "You look toward the United Nations, which Ambassador Dore Gold calls 'the Tower of Babble'. You look at Europe, where the ghost of Hitler is again walking across the stage of history. You open your newspapers and read about American universities, where Israel is being vilified by students taught by professors whose Middle Eastern chairs are sponsored by Saudi Arabia. You look to America's mainline churches and see their initiatives to divest from Israel. You go to the bookstore and see slanderous titles by the former president of the United States - and you feel very much alone."
  4. ↑ http://www.globalpolitician.com/25855-israel
  5. ↑ Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Jimmy Carter
  6. ↑ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/27/david-cameron-gaza-prison-camp
  7. ↑ http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/want-to-delegitimize-israel-be-careful-who-you-mess-with-1.284184
  8. ↑ Bard, Mitchell (2008). Will Israel Survive, p. 1. "Israel might be the only country in the world whose right to exist is debated and whose future is questioned. Can you imagine anyone asking whether the United States will survive or whether it should exist? Or anyone saying "no" if asked?"
  9. ↑ Eroding Israel’s Legitimacy in the International Arena http://reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=3766
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Tel Aviv University, Israel Democracy Institute, Peace Index August 2010. URL accessed on 2010-12-07.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 UN Resolutions between 2003 and today by country. URL accessed on 2010-12-11.
  12. ↑ United Nations Charter [1]
  13. ↑ database search from eyeontheun.org
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Neumann, Michael (2006). The Case Against Israel.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Ian Buruma. Is Israel a normal country?. Haaretz. URL accessed on 9 December 2010.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Edward C. Corrigan. Israeli Criticism of Zionism and the Treatment of Palestinians: The Politicians. URL accessed on 9 December 2010.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Stephen Rosskamm Shalom. Singling out Israel – the arguments revisited. URL accessed on 9 December 2010.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Editorial Comment. Who's singling out Israel?. The Guardian. URL accessed on 9 December 2010.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Richard Kuper. Singling out Israel. Red Pepper. URL accessed on 9 December 2010.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Masbirim. URL accessed on 2010-12-07.
  21. ↑ Working Definition of Antisemitism. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Archived from source 5 January 2010. URL accessed on 24 July 2010.
  22. ↑ EUMC report
  23. ↑ Working Definition of Antisemitism. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Archived from source 5 January 2010. URL accessed on 24 July 2010.
  24. ↑
  25. ↑ Igansky, Paul, "Conceptualizing Anti-Jewish Hate Crime", in Hate Crimes, Barbara A. Perry (Ed.), Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009, pp 114-115
  26. ↑ Ignasky, EISCA Report. A brief excerpt from the report's introduction, p. 4:
    "Playing the ‘Nazi card’ is a discursive act involving the use of Nazi or related terms or symbols (Nazism, Hitler, swastikas, etc.) in reference to Jews, Israel, Zionism or aspects of the Jewish experience. It manifests in words uttered in speech or in writing, or in visual representations such as artwork, drawings, caricatures, cartoons, graffiti, daubings and scratchings, or visual expressions such as a Nazi salute or the clicking of heels. In many instances, the playing of the Nazi card is unquestionably antisemitic. However, the inclusion of particular modes of criticism of Israel in definitions of antisemitism has provoked controversy. The result has been a war of words which has stagnated into an intellectual and discursive cul-de-sac of claim and counter-claim about what does and does not qualify as antisemitism…. One of the most challenging components of antisemitic discourse in general, and the discursive theme of the Nazi card in particular, concerns the problem of when the Nazi card is played against Israel and its founding movement, Zionism. In this case playing the Nazi card involves equating the Israeli state collectively, or the state embodied by its leaders or its military practices, with Nazis, Nazi Germany, and the genocidal actions of the Nazi regime…."
  27. ↑ EISCA report, p 34
  28. ↑ EISCA report, p 24
  29. ↑ EISCA report, p 32
  30. ↑ Lerman Should we ban ..":
    "While much of the [report's] definition [of anti-Semitism relating to criticism of Israel] is unexceptionable, it cites five ways in which antisemitism could be seen to "manifest itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context". One of these – "using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism... to characterize Israel or Israelis" – is fully justified. The other four are contentious: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination"; "Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation"; "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"; "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel". None of these four are self-evidently antisemitic. But all could be used to justify labeling legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitic. So the authors' approval of them makes their claim that "Drawing attention to the consequent harms in [playing the Nazi card against Israel] should not be intended, or taken, in any way as an attempt to suppress criticism of Israel and its military practices" both naïve and flimsy."
  31. ↑ Igansky, EISCA Report, pp 28-30
  32. ↑ Roberts, Paul Craig, "The End of Free Speech? Criminalizing Criticism of Israel", Counterpunch 7 May 2009, online:
    "On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide. To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews. Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House. As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands. It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus. It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity. It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust. It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy. In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned…. Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American rather than Israeli interests. It eliminates any prospect of Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda. To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti-semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel. It is permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a universal hate-crime in the Western world. Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered. "
  33. ↑ Lerman, "Should We Ban..":
    "Using Nazi analogies to criticise Israel and Zionism is offensive, but should it be banned, criminalized or branded as antisemitic? … The authors of a new report, Understanding and Addressing the "Nazi Card": Intervening Against Antisemitic Discourse, from the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA), take a different line.... While the principle that freedom of speech is not absolute is accepted in English law, not all offensive speech is criminalized. So, merely showing that comparing Israeli behaviour to the Nazis is offensive is no reason to outlaw such discourse. The authors try to get round this by arguing that such comparisons are especially offensive to Jews, because of their history. They say: "Most people would accept that it's completely unacceptable to call a Jewish person a Nazi." The implication here – that it may, therefore, be acceptable in some circumstances to call a non-Jew a Nazi – is unfortunate to say the least. If one is against the use of Nazi comparisons in public debate, it's unacceptable to call anyone a Nazi. In which case, the argument of exceptional offensiveness for Jews doesn't hold.... The authors write: 'although the playing of the Nazi card is not always antisemitic, it unquestionably always harms'. As a result, where this occurs, it could already be defined as a criminal act, and if not, Iganski and Sweiry say, consideration should be given to changing the law so that it would be. In other words, if you said 'the way the IDF operated in Gaza was like the way the SS acted in Poland', and a Jew found this offensive, hurtful or harmful, you could, in theory, go to jail."
  34. ↑ "Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003", European Montoring Centre on Racisma and Xenophobia (EUMC), 2003, online, pp 13, 240:
    "ARE ANTI-ISRAELI AND ANTI-ZIONIST EXPRESSIONS ANTISEMITIC? If we turn to the crucial question of defining the point where anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist expressions are to be considered as antisemitism, then we could conclude, on the basis of our definition of antisemitism, that anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist attitudes and expression are antisemitic in those cases where Israel is seen as being a representative of “the Jew”, i.e. as a representative of the traits attributed to the antisemitic construction of “the Jew”. But what if the opposite is the case and Jews are perceived as representatives of Israel? What if Jews are criticised or offended for Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians? If we stick to our definition, then, strictly speaking, we would have to qualify hostility towards Jews as “Israelis” only then as antisemitic, if it is based on an underlying perception of Israel as “the Jew”. If this is not the case, then we would have to consider hostility towards Jews as “Israelis” as not antisemitic, because this hostility is not based on the antisemitic stereotyping of Jews... What should not be considered as antisemitic and therefore does not have to be monitored under the heading of “antisemitism”, is hostility towards Israel as “Israel”, i.e. as a country that is criticised for its concrete policies. Hostility towards Israel as “Israel” (as opposed to criticism of Israel as representative of the stereotypical “Jew”) should only then become a matter of general public concern, when there is explicit evidence that criticism of Israel as “Israel” produces attacks on Jews as either “the Jew” or “Israeli”. If there is no such evidence, the case of criticism and hostility towards Israel as “Israel” should not be part of monitoring activities under the heading of “antisemitism”.
  35. ↑
    • Sharansky, Natan, "3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization", in Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 (Fall 2004), online
    • See also: Congressional record of the 108th congress, Second session, volume 150, part 14, Sept 15 2004 to Sept 28 2004, page 18505:
    "[Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota speaking] Natan Sharansky … has talked about three ways to determine whether criticism of Israel rises to the level of anti-Semitism. He talks about the three Ds" Demonization, double standards, and delegitimization. Demonization - when Israeli actions are blown so far out of proportion that the account paints Israel as the embodiment of all evil; Double Standards - when Israel is criticized soundly for thing any other government would be viewed as justified in doing, like protecting it citizens from terrorism. Delegitimization: a denial or Israel's right to exist or the right of the Jewish people to live securely in a homeland."
  36. ↑ Sharansky, Natan, "3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization", in Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 (Fall 2004), online
  37. ↑ Quoted by Oliver Kamm, "Chomsky, antisemitism and intellectual standards", [2]:
    Kamm quotes Eban: "There is no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel's statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal right of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination". (New York Times, November 3, 1975).
  38. ↑ Dina Porat, Defining Anti-Semitism, http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm#_edn23 accessed 15 November 2008 See also Emanuele Ottolenghi http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/29/comment
  39. ↑ For examples, see
    • Dershowitz, The Case for Israel, pp 151, 213
    • Dershowitz, "Dumbing Down The Debate Over The Arab-Israeli Conflict", in The Huffington Post, online
    • EISCA report, pp 21-27
    • Manji, Irshad, The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith, Macmillan, 2005, page 110:
    "The people who need reminding [about freedom in the Arab world] are those who now push the South Africa analogy a step further - by equating Israel with Nazi Germany. To them, Zionists are committing hate crimes under the totalitarian nightmare that they dub "Zio-Nazism" [a play on Neo-Nazism] … [In 2001] the Arab Lawyers Union circulated cartoons depicting vampire-toothed Israeli soldiers with Nazi flags fluttering from their helmets… Another pro-Palestinian leaflet superimposed a swastika on the Star of David.".
    • Freedman, Leonard, The offensive art: political satire and its censorship around the world from Beerbohm to Borat, ABC-CLIO, 2008, page 149:
    "Other Arab cartoonists portray Israel as a Nazi state, waging war on its peace-loving neighbors. A Jordanian newspaper printed a cartoon of the railroad to the death camp at Auschwitz - carrying Israeli flags. From Qatar came a cartoon showing Sharon masterminding the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers…."
    • Foxman, Abraham H. The deadliest lies: the Israel lobby and the myth of Jewish control, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, page 14:
    "We must respect President [Jimmy] Carter's clarification of his book but nonetheless bear in mind that once the false analogies start, it is only a small step to the cartoons in the Arab press and European media which portray Israelis as contemporary versions of Nazi storm troopers. And these false images stir up and lend legitimacy to more widely based movements that take the same dangerous directions …"
    • Musician Frank Zappa said "You could never say anything bad about Israel or people would say you're anti-Semitic. If you happen to say that Israel behaves like Nazi Germany toward the Palestinians, which happens to look like quite a fact when you see a videotape of what's actually going on, people go 'Oh, you're anti-Semitic'. You know, it's not true." - "Interview with Frank Zappa", Spin magazine, July 1991, p 91.
    • Bruckner p 71:
    "A cartoon published in Italy in May 2006 by Liberazione, the organ of … PRC .. shows at the entrance to Gaza barbed wire and a gate over which is the inscription Hunger will make you free, an obvious allusion to Arbeit macht frei over the gate to Auschwitz."
  40. ↑
    • ADL report: "Anti-Semitism and Demonization of Israel in Arab Media", online, January/February 2000
    • ADL report: "Anti-Israel Protests Unleash Global Anti-Semitism", online, January 9, 2009
    • ADL press release: "As Israel Defends Itself, Jews Come Under Attack" online, 12 Jan 2009
  41. ↑ Falk's reports are available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=91. One 2009 report by Falk is [3]
  42. ↑
    "On October 5, 2009 a post went up on Obama's Web site entitled 'Nazi Israel … Indeed'. It quoted Princeton professor, Richard Falk, referring to Israel's 'war crimes', 'genocidal tendencies', 'holocaust implications', and 'holocaust in the making'. It spoke about Israel's 'Nazi-like crimes and human-rights violations'. It claimed 'Comparing the present day Israel with Nazi Germany one discovers that the majority of the Israeli policies are the exact copies of the Nazi policies. Nazi Germany had invaded its European neighbors extending from England to Russia. Israel had also invaded all its neighboring countries: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It is also heavily involved in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Its tentacles had also reached African countries as far as South Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, and Sierra Leone.' Continuing the lies and blood libels, the post also asserted: 'Worse than the Nazis Israeli forces used to invade peaceful Palestinian towns, execute men, women, and children in cold blood everywhere and anywhere they encounter them, dynamite their homes on top of their residents, and finally demolish the whole town making room for new Israeli colonies'. It charged that Israel pursued 'a pre-meditated genocidal plan' against Palestinian Arabs."
  43. ↑ Bard, Mitchell G., Will Israel Survive?, Macmillan, 2008, page 196: "Jean Ziegler, the UN special rapporteur on the Right of Food, for example, called the Gaza Strip 'an immense concentration camp' and compared Israelis to Nazis."
  44. ↑ Shtull-Trauring, Asaf, "Israeli academic: Loyalty oath resembles racist laws of 1935", in Haaretz, 10 October 2010. online
  45. ↑
    • Bruckner p 71;
    "In spring 2002 Jose Saramago, the Portuguese Nobel Prize winner for literature, visiting Ramallah during the siege by Tsahal, wrote 'In Ramallah I saw humanity oppressed and humiliated as in the Nazi concentration camps'. He told a journalist: 'What is happening in Palestine is a crime that we can stop. We can compare it to Auschwitz'. When the journalist objected 'Where are the gas chambers' Saramago replied: 'They'll be here before long' (Le Monde, May 24, 2002). "
    • Soyinka, Wole, Climate of fear: the quest for dignity in a dehumanized world, Random House, Inc., 2005, p 109 [discusses Saramago's Israel-Nazi comparison]
    • Rosenbaum, pp 18-19:
    Quoting José Saramago: "Israel wants all of us to feel guilty, directly or indirectly, for the horrors of the holocaust; Israel wants us to renounce the most elemental critical judgment and for us to transform ourselves into a docile echo of its will. Israel, in short, is a racist state by virtue of Judaism's monstrous doctrines - racist not just against Palestinians, but against the entire world, which it seeks to manipulate and abuse. Israel's struggles with its neighbors, seen in that light, do take on a unique and even metaphysical quality of genuine evil…"
    • Berman, Paul, Terror and liberalism, pp 139-140 [discusses Saramago's Israel-Nazi comparison]
  46. ↑ Bruckner, p 71:
    "The South American writer Luis Sepulveda states that 'Today as before, we hate the Nazis for what they did to the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and opponents. Now, the Jews will be hated tomorrow for what a warlike cast headed by Sharon did to the Palestinians. In Auschwitz and Mauthausen, in Sabra, Chatila, and Gaza, Zionism and Nazism go hand in hand' (Une sale historie [Paris: Anne-Marie Metailie 2005] p 44)".
  47. ↑
    • Masalha, Nur, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: the politics of expansion, page 80:
    "Shmuel Katz … was a proponent of the the ..imperialist ideas of Professor Karl Haushofer whose intellectual influence on ..Hitler and the Nazi Lebensraum doctrine of territorial expansion … Katz preached that history was shaped by space and political geography, not economics. Israel needed the territories occupied in 1967 as 'living space' and should not give up any of the occupied territories, including Sinai."
  48. ↑ Stockman-Shomron, Israel, Israel, the Middle East, and the great powers, Transaction Publishers, 1984, page 79:
    "The Nazi Theme: The Christian Science Monitor (June 11) put the onus on Israel to prove it was not an expansionist state bent on 'eradicating' the Palestinians; The New York Times … used the term blitzkrieg in its lead editorial on June 23, and by choosing to entitle another editorial on July 7 'Even Greater Israel'. The Washington Post too, reinforced the comparison with Nazism. William Raspberry on June 28 wrote of a 'bloodbath' in Lebanon. Fellow columnist Edwin Yoder four days earlier wondered whether Israel was to be a .. 'miniature Middle Eastern Prussia' ruling subject Arab populations by 'blood and iron'. Other newspapers joined the swelling chorus, referring to Israeli armored units as 'Panzers' insisting that Israel sought not security but lebensraum, describing operation Peace for Galilee as 'genocide' and representing Jerusalem as executing its 'final solution' of the Palestine problem. None, however descended as far as William Pfaff who began an article on June 21 'Hitler's work goes on'. From there he went on to write 'What would, of course, allow Hitler to find rest in Hell would be to acknowledge that the Jews themselves, in Israel, have finally given up their troublesome message and accepted his own way of looking at things.'"
  49. ↑ Druks, Herbert, The uncertain alliance: the U.S. and Israel from Kennedy to the peace process Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, page 50:
    "[following the 1967 war] The Russians charged Israel with using Nazi tactics…. On June 16, the Israeli Foreign Office responded to the Soviet accusations. Israel expressed its 'profound revulsion at the accusations voiced by the Soviet government' which charged Israel with Hitlerian practices."
  50. ↑ Gordis, Daniel, Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End, John Wiley and Sons, 2010, page 97:
    "Wasil Taha, another Arab member of the Knesset, said that 'resistance is not terror, but it is a moral value. As for terror, [Israel is the party that] carries it out'. And Nimer Nimer, an Israeli Arab author, claimed as the war was being fought, 'What happened in Nazi Germany 60 years ago occurs today in … Gaza and Beirut." To them [Taha and Nimer], Hezbollah's militias were not terrorists, but heros; not only did decency require of Israeli Arabs that they should show solidarity with Hezbollah, but Israel now was equated with Nazi Germany…. Israel's Arabs as a group did not dispute the vulgar analogy; they either agreed, or were silent."
  51. ↑
    • Gordon, Hayim, Beyond intifada: narratives of freedom fighters in the Gaza Strip, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, page 131
    • Sandercock, Josie, Peace under fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement, Verso, 2004, pp 209-231. Sandercock describes Gaza as the "largest concentration camp in the world"
  52. ↑ Sharan, p 123
  53. ↑
    • Peter Schmidt, ({{{year}}}). "Head of Anti-Defamation League Urged Santa Barbara to Act Against Critic of Israel," The Chronicle of Higher Education, {{{volume}}}, .
Retrieved from "http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Temp1&oldid=46231"