Is anti-Zionism anti-semitic?

The French have passed a Bill equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. 127 Jewish intellectuals have signed a letter criticizing it. No doubt, from a theoretical point of view, they are right. There are many Jews who for religious or philosophical reasons are critical of the State of Israel and who cast doubts on its legitimacy. However, the plain fact is that 'dirty Zionist', in France, has exactly the same meaning as 'dirty Yid'. Jews are subject to half of all racist attacks despite comprising only one percent of the population. Thus, criminalizing anti-Zionist hate speech is a necessary step in combating a problem of increasing severity. It is unlikely that Jewish or other intellectuals who criticize Israel on ethical or other grounds will be prosecuted for hate speech unless some other law is simultaneously being broken- for e.g. the Gassyot Act (1990) which criminalized Holocaust denial along with denial of other historical crimes against Humanity.

In Europe, a number of prominent right wing politicians and intellectuals have been imprisoned for Holocaust denial. A recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has upheld such sentences passed by courts in Europe. Australia, among the English speaking countries, has a similar law. The question now is whether the UK will follow the Australian example.

From the point of view of jurisprudence, it is well established in law that a denial of incontrovertible facts for the purpose of stirring up hatred against a person or group of people is a criminal act. Most people would agree that Racism, Misogyny, Homophobia etc, are based on the denial of scientifically established and empirically verifiable facts. The question facing countries which do not have robust laws against anti-Zionism is whether there is any version of that thesis which does not involve the denial of incontrovertible facts. So far as I can see, no such version exists. It may be that God does not want Israel to be created till the Messiah comes. That is a Religious belief. It is not scientific or empirically verifiable. This Belief can entail no special immunity against committing a crime. Similarly, it may be the case that there is some immaterial 'Geist' which presides over Human History and, for some occult reason, the Geist does not want Israel to exist. Once again, this is not an scientific or empirically verifiable proposition. A Belief of this sort can't provide an immunity from prosecution for uttering hate speech.

In a previous post I examined the arguments put forward by Peter Beinart for considering Anti-Zionism to be a special case such that it is immune to prosecution for racist hate speech. In that post, I found- on the basis of arguments from 'Law & Econ'- that every single argument he put forward was fatally flawed.

In this post I want to examine the type of arguments put forward by 'progressive' Jewish intellectuals in America justifying an immunity for anti-Zionism. Before doing so, however, I acknowledge that America is exceptional. It can materially change facts on the ground in the Middle East. Its Jewish population is the largest and most influential in the world. Thus 'progressive' Jews may well want to grant an immunity to anti-Zionist hate speech as a way of 'leveling the playing field'. Equally, the State of Israel may want rabid gobshites to go running around in America's ghettos and backwaters spewing hate against the Jewish people. This is likely to create a backlash such that American Jews shift support to the Israeli Right Wing.

Donna Nevel: I’m troubled by a common refrain I see expressed by progressive Jews on social media, directed toward social justice communities. They say, in effect: those who aren’t Jewish need to believe us when we talk about anti-Semitism, when we say we’re vulnerable.
On the one hand, that makes perfect sense: we should listen to Jews who say they are the victims of anti-Semitism, just as we would listen to those impacted by other injustices. But we also need to look more deeply at this particular call and its consequences, given how routinely false accusations of anti-Semitism are hurled at Palestinians and those who support Palestinian rights, at Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim, and at others—most often people of color—involved in antiracist movements.
False accusations have done real harm to people’s lives and careers. The threat of such consequences has a pernicious chilling effect on what people say and do.

American jurisprudence has a notion of 'group libel' and the Supreme Court verdict on Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) upheld the constitutionality of restrictions on freedom of expression. This verdict was not overturned, but the Bench has tended to move in the other direction on free speech. However, Clarence Thomas is believed to be against Sullyvan vs NYT, and that might be overturned in the near future.

Suppose the US adopted a Law on the Australian or French model clearly distinguishing what is and what isn't protected speech on this issue. The result would be much greater clarity. Employers and Publishers would know exactly where to draw the line. 'False accusations' would be justiciable. It is one thing for me to say you are unscrupulous. It is another to say you stole such and such item and thus broke the law.

I believe that many hard working people in America live in terror that they may be accused of having a racist or misogynist or homophobic attitude. Furthermore, the countervailing power of Trade Unions has decreased or vanished. Legislation, in some States, has narrowed the scope of challenges to 'for cause' dismissal.

Many people hesitate to engage with these issues because of the well-substantiated fear that they will be falsely accused of anti-Semitism—and bullied and intimidated in the process.

We often hesitate to intervene in a situation where we don't know the law or where the law is silent as to our rights and entitlements. No doubt, a highly skilled lawyer may be able to say 'according to the Judgment in X v. Y, I have such and such right'. But even in that case there is no guarantee that a higher court may not reverse X v. Y. The substitution of case law by legislative codification is a great boon to a society. It reduces uncertainty re. rights and obligations.

These false accusations generally get a lot of air time and have done real harm to people’s lives and careers.

Making such matters justiciable immediately dispels the miasma of accusation and suspicion. It is easy to say 'no smoke without fire' when there is no law against arson. However, if there is such a law then the question arises- why has no one been arrested for arson? A crime has been committed. Let the police investigate the matter and either clear the accused or provide evidence sufficient to convict him.

The threat of such consequences has a very real and pernicious chilling effect on what people say and do. We need to take this reality into account when statements are made regarding who is “entitled” to speak, and to be listened to.

There is no question that 'Strategic Litigation against Public Participation' has a chilling effect. But the solution is detailed codification by the Legislature. Where the Law is clear and unambiguous, not vague or excessively broad, fat cat attorneys lose their power to intimidate.

We all have a lot to learn by engaging honestly and thoughtfully about anti-Semitism, both its history and its current manifestations. The rise in white nationalist anti-Semitism in this country should be addressed, but that reality should not be used to buttress overzealous, reckless accusations of anti-Semitism.

The moment a thing becomes justiciable under a clear and ambiguous piece of legislation, 'overzealous and reckless' accusations can themselves attract a penalty. I may say that Margaret Thatcher's sexual abuse of me was unconscionable- as indeed it was. She used to rape me with her eyes every time she appeared on my TV set. But this is not a crime under existing British legislation. When the Police turned up at my home to take my statement, they told me I could be charged with a criminal offence if I continued to publish graphic accounts of the sexual abuse Mrs Thatcher subjected me to.

We must acknowledge how deeply the conflation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has become normalized, including within some progressive Jewish circles.

Why must we acknowledge this? It is common knowledge that people say 'Zionist pig' instead of 'dirty Yid' because they think they can escape prosecution by doing so.

As for 'progressive Jewish circles' how are they different from 'circular firing squads'? Why bother with them?

Mark Tseng-Putterman: I also see this admonition—to trust Jews when we talk about anti-Semitism—as problematic. Of course we need to consider Jewish experiences and analyses. But there is a tendency in “social justice” spaces to defer to individual subjectivity over substantive institutional critique that becomes especially dangerous in the context of discussions of anti-Semitism.

Fair point. Let us have well-drafted Legislation covering every type of discrimination rather than rely upon self-reported injury. This takes away the subjective element. I was expelled from the Labor party not because Neil Kinnock supported Mrs. Thatcher's sexual abuse of me but because, from the legal point of view, no sexual abuse had actually occurred. This is not to say that several members of my local Labor cell were not greatly titillated by the video re-enactments of my travails which I sold to them for a modest fee.

Is “trust” politically efficacious given that criticisms of the state of Israel or of U.S. Jewish institutions like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are so frequently shut down by Jews claiming anti-Semitism?

'Trust' is only politically efficacious if it corresponds to truths of a justiciable kind. Shutting down mischievous or wholly meshugannah criticism is a good thing. It enables institutions and organizations to concentrate on useful work.

In order to think critically about Zionism and white supremacy, we must all have the nuance to recognize and call out bad faith claims of anti-Semitism when we see them.

In order to think critically about a subject one must be an utter cretin.  By contrast, useful thinking is not 'critical' at all. It identifies an alethic structural causal model and considers how to improve its working in the real world.

There is a tendency in “social justice” spaces to defer to individual subjectivity over substantive institutional critique.

But 'social justice' spaces are the vomitorium of intellectual bulimics. Who cares what they defer to? What good have they ever done?

Consider an example. The assertion that white Jews reap white privilege—and, like all white people, play a role in upholding white supremacy—is now being denounced by reactionaries wielding social justice language as anti-Semitic, Jewish erasure, and even gaslighting.

Sensible people reap the privilege which attaches itself to sensible behavior. A White person who takes a lot of drugs and starts stabbing people to get money to buy more drugs soon finds that he or she isn't privileged at all- unless getting reamed in a prison cell is a privilege.

'Reactionaries' don't exist any more than 'Revolutionaries' do. Why pretend otherwise at this late hour?

I worry that a consequence of this “trust Jews on anti-Semitism” language is to silence the criticisms and analyses of people of color—including Jewish people of color—about racism and complicity in Jewish communities.

People of color, like albinos, don't benefit at all by sitting around denouncing other groups which have got ahead through foul means or fair.

Many Jews do indeed refuse to accept, or even sit with, such criticisms.

They also refuse to sit with me as I recount the sordid tale of my incessant mental rape by Margaret Thatcher. However, the reason for this is not their heritage. It is because they have better things to do with their time.

They also raise the specter of supposed “left anti-Semitism,” claiming that Jews are being excluded from progressive spaces. And many progressive Jews have been too quick to accept the premise that there exists a unique “left anti-Semitism” that must be engaged. The result, I worry, is a vacuum where Jewish communities and institutions can cover their ears and block out critical conversations about white supremacy and Zionism happening on the left.
Of course anti-Semitism exists in pockets of the left, as does ingrained racism, misogyny, and transphobia. But, to me, the way we talk about “left anti-Semitism” reeks of a smear campaign designed to block critiques of Zionism. These admonitions aren’t about seeking greater Jewish inclusion or participation in the left; they’re about delegitimizing some of the most important social justice movements of our time, from Black Lives Matter to the global call by Palestinian  civil society for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS). As Jews on the left, we need to ask ourselves how our deference to the sensitivities of some Jews is enabling this rhetorical violence.

What the fuck does 'Black Lives Matter' have to do with Israel? If that movement has been infiltrated by anti-Zionist nutters then it is Black People in America who lose out. As for the BDS campaign- a product of the second Intifada- the fact is, it has backfired enormously. Why? Israel is a Knowledge Economy. It sells hi tech stuff as well as environmentally essential water management technology for which no substitute exists. Thus, whereas formerly, a lot of countries were prepared to pay lip-service to the Palestinian cause, they now give the Palestinians the cold shoulder. Only Iran- against whom sanctions have been highly effective- continues to pretend to espouse their cause. Indeed, they are prepared to fight Israel by sacrificing the life-chances, if not yet the lives, of every last Palestinian.

BDS is a miserable failure. Since 2006, Israel's GDP has doubled and foreign investment has tripled. One reason anti-Zionism is being criminalized is so as to get rid of the nuisance BDS has created.

Thirty years ago most of us believed that a Palestinian State would come into existence in the near future. Thus when Palestine declared independence in 1988, countries like India rushed to recognize the new entity. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the re-emergence of States like Lithuania and Uzbekistan, as well as the transition to Majority rule in South Africa appeared to confirm the belief that a cohesive, increasingly prosperous, Palestine would emerge before the end of the Millennium. Then came the Gulf War. Arafat backed the wrong horse. Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait. Saddam was defeated. The Monarchies in the region cooled in their attitude to the Palestinians. Young people were more attracted to Al Qaeeda and the promise of liberation from their own gerontocratic leadership. Palestine became a sideshow. When young Palestinians tried to take their fate into their own hands they attracted sympathy but no concrete support from regional powers. The Egyptians had soured on their cause. On the left, most sided with Kanan Makiya in his dispute with Edward Said. Makiya persuaded Dubya to invade Iraq. Initially this seemed to vindicate Said. However, after Syria and Libya turned into an even worse dog's breakfast than Lebanon, people were ready to acknowledge a bitter truth. Zionism was good at State building. Ba'athism or any other 'Secular-Socialist' cocktail was good at Mukhabarat building but sooner or later the people killed the secret police and buggered the corpse of the Great Leader. What followed was anarchy.

There is no 'right to self-determination' for peoples whose leadership is determined to fuck everything up while lining its own pockets. Syria seemed well established- so did Iraq at one time. Now look at them. Dysfunctional Lebanon seems a paradise in comparison. Only the British trained Hashemite Monarchy seems viable.

There was a time when 'progressives' in the West thought that NATO could implement a liberal solution in the region. Cometh the hour, cometh the man- Barrack Hussein Obama. But he fucked up monumentally. His legacy was ISIS and the return of Russian influence in the region.

With the apotheosis of Trump, everyone now accepts that the 'progressive circles' were, in Obama's words, a 'circular firing squad'. The lesson the Brits learned in the Palestinian Mandate must not be forgotten. The West has no business meddling in the Middle East. Also, its own 'progressive intellectuals' are nothing but a public nuisance. Steer clear of shit-storms emanating from Arab or Ivy League fora. As Obama said 'American foreign policy consists of doing stupid shit. Our new policy must be 'don't do stupid shit'. Sadly his second administration failed to live up to this promise. We no longer see TV serials- like 'the West Wing' where an avuncular ex-professor becomes President and puts the world to rights. Reality TV has usurped the reality we tune in to from time to time on TV.

To conclude, anti-Zionism is a nuisance which must be curbed by the Law. It may not be anti-Semitic but it is a great big pile of shite. Just as we have laws forcing dog owners to pooper-scoop, so too must we have laws to make progressive intellectuals shit into their own cupped hands and dispose of their gesture political feces in a hygenic manner. Only then can we concentrate on the genuine problems facing our societies- e.g. my incessant rape by Margaret Thatcher.