EU slams Gandhi

Mark Elf, over at Jews sans Frontières, drew my attention to Arthur Neslen’s post on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is free’ site. Entitled ‘When an anti-semite is not an anti-semite’, the article discusses the EU Monitoring Commission’s ‘Working definition’ of anti-Semitism, which has come up on this blog before.

His main point is that under the EU definition, such luminaries as Mahatma Gandhi and Albert Einstein would be tarred with the antisemite brush, while Lee Barnes of the Nazi British National Party might very well not. According to Neslen, it turns out that the framer of the EU definition was one Kenneth S. Stern, the American Jewish Committee’s specialist on antisemitism. What prompted Neslen’s article is that Britain’s National Union of Students has adopted it as official policy. It’s frightening that other bodies are now jumping on the bandwagon. Neslent claims ‘the British government has pledged to re-examine its own definition of anti-semitism’ and ‘the US state department's special envoy for combating anti-semitism’ has endorsed the EU Working definition. In fact, according to the State Department site that he links to is quite explicit that ‘The recitation of the EUMC "working definition" of anti-Semitism should not be construed as an acceptance of that definition, or the statements and examples thereunder, as United States policy’. Still, it’s a worry that they’ve given it pride of place there and I’m not aware of any other definition on the State site.

Anyway, I was impelled to post this as a comment there.

Canadian philosopher Michael Neumann argues, somewhat tongue in cheek, that when the definition of antisemitism is perverted to incorporate principled opposition to Zionism and to Israeli policies in this way, it transforms antisemitism from a racist atrocity into a virtue. And that really is one of the dangers of a widespread acceptance of a definition along the lines of the ‘Working definition’.

The approach I want to take here is to analyse the relevant passage of the ‘Working definition’ and see where it leads.

To begin with, I think it’s important that we know exactly what the EUMC definition actually says in this regard:

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

· 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 anti-Semitism (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.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

1. The right to self determination

It is all very well to demand the right of self determination for Jews in Palestine, but it is not exclusive of other internationally recognised human rights. To use the right of self determination to establish an ethnically exclusive state that deprives the indigenous population of their rights, including, significantly, the right to self determination itself, is an exercise in the crudest cynicism. This is in fact one of the reasons that the existence of a State of Israel as a specifically Jewish state is a racist endeavour.

2. Double standards

Contrary to the opinion of people who don't accept the conventional rules of argument, in a discussion of Israeli policies, Saudi and Jordanian policies aren't actually relevant. The fact is, most critics of Israel are also critical of other countries. And uncritical supporters of Israel demand quite unreasonably that every time anyone criticises Israel, they firsts criticise Egypt, or Pakistan, or Canada, whether it’s relevant or not. It is also relevant to point out that whatever crimes the Jordanian government may commit against its own citizens and its neighbours, it never claims to be doing it on my behalf, as Israel does. In making this claim, Israel gives me special rights to criticise its policies and its existence and indeed, in my view, imposes a special obligation on me to do so.

3. Symbols

It probably really is antisemitic to accuse Israel of ‘christ killing’ and the like, although those who are serious about the right to freedom of expression would want such forms of atrocious speech protected.

4. Nazi comparisons

This is another red herring. Nobody claims that the state of Israel is rounding up Palestinians and literally transporting them to death camps. But former Israeli Justice Minister, Yosef Lapid, himself a Holocaust survivor and Chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, was recently reported comparing the behaviour of Hebron settlers with the antisemites who tormented him in his childhood in Yugoslavia. On 1 December 2004, however, Akiva Eldar reported in Ha’aretz that Machsom Watch had filmed 28 year old West Bank music student Wissam Tayam being forced to play his violin for the entertainment of the soldiers at the Beit Iba checkpoint near Nablus. Trivial examples, perhaps, but the point is that if Israelis are so sensitive about comparisons with the Nazis, it would behove them to eschew behaviour that invites such comparisons.

5. Collective responsibility

Ultimately, the EU ‘Working Definition’ undermines itself. If it is anti-Semitic to deny that a Jewish state has a right to exist, or to compare Israeli policies to Nazi policies, the inescapable implication is that it is anti-Semitic because to do so impugns all Jews, and not just Israelis or the Jewish state itself. If it reflects upon Jews in general to criticise Israel in these ways, then that must mean that those defining anti-Semitism believe that all Jews actually are responsible for the State of Israel and its policies. So Stern and whoever else framed the ‘Working definition’ are themselves ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel’. In this way, by defining antiZionism as anti-Semitic, the EU and those who seek to apply the ‘Working Definition’ betray that, under their own definition, they are anti-Semitic themselves.