Israel doesn't cause antisemitism, but double standards do

Is calling for the destruction of a state an expression of xenophobia, racism or bigotry? It might be radical, but it’s not anything more than that. Take anarchists, for example; they call for the destruction of states all the time. So too do those in Brussels who want a European super-state; they call for the destruction of France, Germany and Poland as we know them. Nobody suggests that those making such calls are in any way racist or bigoted. When it comes to Israel, though, calling for the destruction of the state is considered to be “anti-Semitic”. Why?

I support a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine, because deconstructing the state of Israel would be an impossible task. I’m happy to say that I wouldn’t have supported the establishment of Israel in 1948; I would have sided with those British Jews who were baffled by the Zionist radicals, unable to understand the logic of moving to the Middle East in order to be safer, particularly as anti-Semitism was rising there as it ebbed away in the West.

Those times have passed, and although there are plenty of Arabists in the British parliament today, their voice is drowned out by the sophistry of the pro-Israel lobby; sophistry that it must rely on increasingly to defend the indefensible (and illegal) settlement-building programme, the Gaza blockade and the occupation of the West Bank. Israeli policies and practices treat international law with contempt and I suggest that it is the unqualified support given by Western politicians to Israel despite such illegal activities which is a prime source of anti-Semitism in the world today; Israel per se doesn’t cause anti-Semitism, but the application of double standards in international relations does.

Hence, when desperate and unimaginative lobbyists use dramatic language like “the destruction of the Jewish state” to insinuate that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign is anti-Semitic, the damage to the Jewish community in Britain is immeasurable. Indeed, if that’s a price that Israel thinks is worth paying to protect itself, it strikes me that Israel may have lost its way.

Nowhere in the BDS manifesto does it call for the destruction of the Jewish state. Instead it calls for, “Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.”

Read: Clinton or Trump, it will be a sad day for the future of occupied Palestine

I find little in common between this and the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler. The sophists insist that the Palestinians’ legal right to return is anti-Semitic, because ultimately it means “the destruction of the world’s one and only Jewish state.” Yes, the right to return probably would entail that, as the demography would change, inevitably so, but it’s still not anti-Semitic. If, on the other hand, Palestinians then started to drag people out of their homes to check if they’re Jews, Muslims or Christians, and persecuted any Jews that they uncovered in this way, well, that would be anti-Semitic.

When anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews call for the destruction of the world’s one and only Jewish state, are they anti-Semitic? Thousands did that recently in the United States, but their demonstration was no more anti-Semitic than I would be for objecting to a synagogue being built near my home for which the synagogue owners have asked me to knock down my garage to accommodate their new building. Anti-Semitism is about hate. Proposing political solutions, or adopting radical political positions, should not be confused and conflated with hate.

Last week, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, urged the European Union to incorporate criticism of Israel into its working definition of anti-Semitism, because “anti-Israel bigotry tends to morph into anti-Semitic hate.” Does it? I suspect that Arkush could not prove that if challenged; there are plenty of pro-Palestine activists who have campaigned for decades and never shown any anti-Semitic tendencies. There is, however, no doubt that some anti-Semites are attracted to the Israel-Palestine crisis like moths to a flame, which is hardly surprising given that Israel is “the world’s one and only Jewish state”, but do they figure in organised campaigns such as BDS? I think not.

The moment we try to second-guess whether someone is anti-Semitic or not, based on what they say, rather than what they do, we engage in thought-policing, and repress freedom of speech. Tony Blair was keen on policing people’s thoughts; he hired anti-racism campaigner Trevor Phillips to establish and maintain norms of “political correctness”, an insipid form of censorship that has contributed to the rise of unsavoury figures like Nigel Farage in Britain and Donald Trump in America. For ten years, Phillips ran an expensive and pointless organisation called the Equalities Commission, with responsibility for drafting and enforcing race equality laws. “Campaigners like me believed that if we could stop people expressing prejudiced ideas, then eventually, they would stop thinking them,” Phillips has said, “but now, I’m convinced that we were utterly wrong.” To watch Trevor Philips’s powerful polemic documentary, which features a brief discussion of Jewish issues, as well as leading race activists opposed to Phillips stance, go to Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True.

Read: Are you now or have you ever been an anti-Zionist?

If the Board of Deputies thinks that changing a “working definition” of anti-Semitism is going to prevent such crude racism, it is seriously underestimating anti-Semites. They really don’t pay much attention to working definitions, let alone those produced by the EU. In fact, such a move would probably embolden them by “proving” that Jewish citizens are treated differently to other people.

The best way to tackle anti-Semitism is to allow free and open discussion of Jewish issues, and not try to shut down criticism or radical discussion about Israel, including its diplomatic efforts and the pro-Israel lobby in Britain, which is largely composed of British citizens, many of whom are Jewish. We should be able to discuss ideas, radical ideas and uncomfortable ideas, and cause offence, so long as we recognise when we’re wrong and apologise if we overstep the mark. This should include political proposals such as a one-state solution called Palestine, the refugees’ right to return and forcing every other Palestinian and every other Israeli to paint their toe-nails blue. Those ideas might not be sensible or even popular, but they’re ideas and have to be discussed openly and honestly.

It’s even possible to have a fascinating and constructive intellectual discussion about why Jews are so successful and influential (for an example from the United States, see here), without being anti-Semitic. If you try to shut down that discussion, you’re betraying the Jewish people. As the Daily Mail columnist and investigative journalist Peter Oborne puts it, “The culture of silence that surrounds [Israel] allows sinister conspiracy theories and, by extension, genuine anti-Semitism to thrive.”

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.