Natan Sharansky and anti-Semitism

[Mycroft]

I'm moving this to the political forum because it's political.

In another thread, in the community forums, another user made the assertion that Natan Sharansky believes criticism of Israelis anti-Semitism, saying:

Originally posted by The Fool
...This only follows if the likud party line (as propagated by Sharansky) Is used...that criticizm of israel is anti-semitism.

Later, he quotes:

Originally posted by The Fool
Its not my fault if you get ticked off when people state well known positions of Sharansky....He is a major champion of the line that criticism of Israel is anti-semitism.

In his own words...

" In fact, over the past year, whenever we have criticized particularly virulent anti-Israel statements as being rooted in anti-Semitism, the response has invariably been that we are trying to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel by deliberately labeling it anti-Semitism."

"rooted in" lovely usefull term, requires no proof just your opinion where a criticism is "rooted".

Criticism that is "particularly virulent" ........which is pretty much all of it eh?

The quoted paragraph does not support the assertion, even taken out of context. In context, it makes even less sense since it's quoted from an article written by Sharansky on distinguishing legitimate criticism from criticism rooted in anti-Semitism. Obviously pointless if, as the Fool dishonestly claims, his beliefe is that all criticism of Isreal is anti-Semitic.

I won't quote the full article, but his criteria for making this distinction is worth looking at:

by Natan Sharansky:
DEMONIZATION

The first D is the test of demonization.

Whether it came in the theological form of a collective accusation of deicide or in the literary depiction of Shakespeare's Shylock, Jews were demonized for centuries as the embodiment of evil. Therefore, today we must be wary of whether the Jewish state is being demonized by having its actions blown out of all sensible proportion.

For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz -- comparisons heard practically every day within the "enlightened" quarters of Europe -- can only be considered anti-Semitic.

Those who draw such analogies either do not know anything about Nazi Germany or, more plausibly, are deliberately trying to paint modern-day Israel as the embodiment of evil.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

The second D is the test of double standards. For thousands of years a clear sign of anti-Semitism was treating Jews differently than other peoples, from the discriminatory laws many nations enacted against them to the tendency to judge their behavior by a different yardstick.

Similarly, today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively. In other words, do similar policies by other governments engender the same criticism, or is there a double standard at work?

It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored.

Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross.

DELIGITIMIZATION

The third D is the test of deligitimization. In the past, anti-Semites tried to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish religion, the Jewish people, or both. Today, they are trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state, presenting it, among other things, as the last vestige of colonialism.

While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic. If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people have a right to live securely in their homeland.

To remember the 3D test I suggest we recall those 3D movies we enjoyed as children. Without those special glasses the movie was flat and blurred. But when we put on our glasses the screen came alive, and we saw everything with perfect clarity.

In the same way, if we do not wear the right glasses, the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism will be blurred and we will not be able to recognize this ancient evil, much less fight it.

But if we wear the special glasses provided by the 3D test -- if we check whether Israel is being demonized or deligitimized, or whether a double standard is being applied to it -- we will always be able to see anti-Semitism clearly.

And with moral clarity, I have no doubt that our efforts to combat this evil will prove far more effective.

Full article

 

[Cleon]

It's a load of crap, but that's to be expected.

Sharansky is essentially saying that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but anyone who actually criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. It's a self-fulfilling definition.

"Demonization," for example, can be applied to any criticism of Israel. It's a purely subjective term, deliberately used to describe anyone who has any strong opinion regarding Israel.

Ditto for "double standards"--what, how DARE you criticise Israel, but not Cuba, the Sudan, North Korea, and the People's Republic of Santa Claus??!!! This can be applied to anyone who criticizes any country, for any reason.

As for "delegitimization"--well, sorry, but Sharansky's wrong here too. Because much as he pretends otherwise, Israel is not some natural Jewish formation based on the population of the region. Israel was deliberately created by and made up of Europeans. Which is not to say said people should be expelled or destroyed, but creating a "Jewish state" composed of a region where Jews are merely one population among several is arrogant, to say the least.

 

[The Fool]

The quoted paragraph does not support the assertion, even taken out of context. In context, it makes even less sense since it's quoted from an article written by Sharansky on distinguishing legitimate criticism from criticism rooted in anti-Semitism. Obviously pointless if, as the Fool dishonestly claims, his beliefe is that all criticism of Isreal is anti-Semitic.

I won't quote the full article, but his criteria for making this distinction is worth looking at:



Full article

he distinguishes legitimate criticism from criticism "rooted" in anti-semitism.....how? By applying subjective judgement. What passes? Whatever Sharansky decides passed. What fails? Whatever Sharansky decides fails.

Mycroft. I have decided that your criticism of the palestinian authority is "rooted" in racism. How? no particular method...I just decide that its virulent enough to be rooted in racism....It also matches all three of Sharanskys criteria for racism....How do I know that? Because I decided it does. QED.


So you think any criticism of Israel that you decide crosses an elastic line is anti-semitic and in support of that you provide the evidence "nate agrees"...fair enough, your entitled to your opinion but don't be offended if I rank it alongside your opinion that palestinian cuisine is twisted to encourage genocidal hatred of jews.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
It's a load of crap, but that's to be expected.

Sharansky is essentially saying that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic, but anyone who actually criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. It's a self-fulfilling definition.

Except that he doesn't say anyone who actually criticizes Isreal is anti-Semitic. Further, he himself has criticized his own government, even going so far as to resign his position to do it.

Originally posted by Cleon
"Demonization," for example, can be applied to any criticism of Israel. It's a purely subjective term, deliberately used to describe anyone who has any strong opinion regarding Israel.

From the examples he gives, it's clear he's talking about excessive hyperbole. Think of the flap over AI saying "gulag" and get an idea.

Originally posted by Cleon
Ditto for "double standards"--what, how DARE you criticise Israel, but not Cuba, the Sudan, North Korea, and the People's Republic of Santa Claus??!!! This can be applied to anyone who criticizes any country, for any reason.

I'd actually tend to agree with you on this if it were just a matter of one person giving his opinion, but the examples cited by Sharansky are of international organizations. If you and I are talking, it's not evidence of anti-Semitism if you want to single Israel out of all the nations, but when the United Nations can summon an emergency session overnight to condemn Israel for killing a couple dozen militants, but can let tens of thousand die in Sudan go for years, there is a problem.

And why can't Mogen David Adom join the International Red Cross, but Red Crescent can?

Originally posted by Cleon
As for "delegitimization"--well, sorry, but Sharansky's wrong here too. Because much as he pretends otherwise, Israel is not some natural Jewish formation based on the population of the region. Israel was deliberately created by and made up of Europeans. Which is not to say said people should be expelled or destroyed, but creating a "Jewish state" composed of a region where Jews are merely one population among several is arrogant, to say the least.

Which may have been a great reason to oppose the idea 80 years ago, but today the nation does have the right to exist and to keep its citizens secure.

 

[Earthborn]

I don't think this 3D test makes a whole lot of logical sense. It is obviously true that demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation have been part of antisemitism throughout the ages.
It is also true that demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation are sometimes part of unfair criticism of Israel. But I don't see how that means that all demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation of Israel is necessarily antisemitism.

It may be that they are two distinct things that just happen to contain some common characteristics. It does not imply that they must be the same thing.

An example:
Let's suppose we do a 3F test of an object. The Fs stand for Fruit, Fructose and Flavour.

An apple is a Fruit, contains Fructose and has Flavour.
A pear is also a Fruit, contains Fructose and has Flavour.

Does that mean apples and pears are the same thing? Or does it mean that they just have things in common? I think the latter is true.

If you want to figure out whether two things are the basically the same, you'll have to find out whether there are differences as well. There are differences between pears and apples that are large enough to consider them different things.

So we should see whether there are differences between antisemitism and the unfair criticism of Israel. One difference stands out: antisemitism implies the hatred of Jews, while unfair criticism of Israel does not necessarily have that characteristic.

The Red Cross that does not want the admission of the Israeli ambulance service may use a double standard, but not necessarily out of hatred for Jews. Therefore it may not be antisemitic, even if it is grossly unfair.

 

[Cleon]

Except that he doesn't say anyone who actually criticizes Isreal is anti-Semitic.

Of course he does, you're just not paying attention.

- If you "demonize" Israel (of course "demonizing" is entirely subjective)
- If you have a "double-standard" (criticizing Israel but not every other injustice in the world simultaneously)
- If you "delegitimize" Israel (i.e., pointing out Israel's less-than-savory past)

With all that, there is no possibly way you can criticize Israel without being dubbed "anti-Semitic." How does Sharansky get away with it? Because he wrote the rules, and because he writes from an uber-nationalist point of view.

And why can't Mogen David Adom join the International Red Cross, but Red Crescent can?

Obviously, it's a big anti-semitic conspiracy.

Which may have been a great reason to oppose the idea 80 years ago, but today the nation does have the right to exist and to keep its citizens secure.

Which essentially translates to, "Israel has the right to do whatever it likes, as long as it claims to represent Jews." What a load of hooey.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think this 3D test makes a whole lot of logical sense. It is obviously true that demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation have been part of antisemitism throughout the ages.
It is also true that demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation are sometimes part of unfair criticism of Israel. But I don't see how that means that all demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation of Israel is necessarily antisemitism.

I tend to agree with you. His test is better at revealing unfair criticism than it is at anti-Semitism.

 

[Cleon]

I tend to agree with you. His test is better at revealing unfair criticism than it is at anti-Semitism.

And "fair" criticism would be what, exactly?

 

[The Fool]

And "fair" criticism would be what, exactly?

not unfair.

 

[Cleon]

not unfair.

Heh. I'm guessing it probably means something like "criticizing anything except Israel's existence, policies, laws, actions, or methods."

ETA: And history! Can't forget history. Don't want people criticizing Israel's past actions, either.

 

[demon]

I don`t only criticise Israel, I`ll give it praise too where it`s due...afterall, it is very good at appropriating Palestinian land and resources, playing the victim, and running the biggest human zoo in the world.

I`ve often head it said that Sharnasky is an expert on Middle Eastern issues. He`s not. He`s an expert on the interests of Israel.

 

[username]

It may be that they are two distinct things that just happen to contain some common characteristics. It does not imply that they must be the same thing.

An example:
Let's suppose we do a 3F test of an object. The Fs stand for Fruit, Fructose and Flavour.

An apple is a Fruit, contains Fructose and has Flavour.
A pear is also a Fruit, contains Fructose and has Flavour.

Does that mean apples and pears are the same thing? Or does it mean that they just have things in common? I think the latter is true.

Actually, they are both fruits so I think your analogy fails.

Example:

criticism A of Israel meets the 3 D criteria.
criticism B of Israel meets the 3 D criteria.

Are they both the same or does it just mean they have things in common. They are both the same in that they are anti semetic just as the apple and pear both qualify under your 3F test as fruits.

They are not the same criticism, but they are the same type of criticism (anti semetic AKA racist) just as apples and pears are not the same species, but the are from the same food group.

I dunno, I think the 3D test makes sense. Certainly it can be applied in a hopelessly subjective manner, but that doesn't make it worthless, it just makes one person's application of it worthless. If a criticism actually is demonizing, deligitimizing and employs a double standard then it probably is anti semetic.

I mean if I made a comment about a race such as blacks or asians or which ever ethnic group and my comment was demonizing, delegitimizing and relied upon a double standard would anyone waste time in labeling my comment racist? Should anyone delay in labeling those comments as racist?

Let's try an example just for fun.

Race X continues to commit more rapes and murders than any other while setting records for illegitimate child births. Unless this is stopped they will destroy the nation. (demonizing)

Race X is a substandard race that couldn't even continue to exist in modern times if not for handouts from superior races. (delegitimization)

Race X individuals who cause any diciplinary problem in school should be permanently expelled on the first offense and adults commiting crimes should always receive the maximum possible sentence. (double standard)

Are my comments racist? Of course they are. How can comments that meet the 3 Ds not be racist? Racism toward Jews is anti semitism.

 

[Earthborn]

Should anyone delay in labeling those comments as racist?

No, but that's because then you are directing those comments at a 'race'. That's not what the test is meant to do. The test is meant to determine whether criticism of a Israel is antisemitic.

If you demonise, delegitimise and use double standards against Jewish people it is obviously antisemitic. But if you do the same thing against the nation of Israel it may not be.

Suppose you use such unfair criticisms against Mali. You say things like "the Malinese army is basically just a bunch of Nazis", claim that Mali does not deserve debt relief but Senegal does, or say that "Mali should not exist". Does all this mean that you are necessarily an anti-black racist? Or does it mean you are unfairly critical of Mali?

I think it is the latter. Someone who says that may also be anti-black, but it is not something that is in evidence.

Example:

criticism A of Israel meets the 3 D criteria.
criticism B of Israel meets the 3 D criteria.

Are they both the same or does it just mean they have things in common.

Your example is irrelevant and should read:

Antisemitism meets the 3D criteria
Criticism A of Israel meets the 3D criteria.

Does criticism A equal antisemitism? No, it doesn't.

 

[username]

No, but that's because then you are directing those comments at a 'race'. That's not what the test is meant to do. The test is meant to determine whether criticism of a Israel is antisemitic.

If you demonise, delegitimise and use double standards against Jewish people it is obviously antisemitic. But if you do the same thing against the nation of Israel it may not be.

OK, I follow what you are saying, I just think I don't agree.

Can you provide an example where you demonise, delegitimise and use double standards against Israel that you feel isn't antisemitic?

Perhaps seeing a criticism that meets all of the 3d criteria that isn't antisemitic would clarify things for me.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Of course he does, you're just not paying attention.

Sure I am. I'm just applying my reason to what he say's rather than what you fear he might say.

Originally posted by Cleon
- If you "demonize" Israel (of course "demonizing" is entirely subjective)
- If you have a "double-standard" (criticizing Israel but not every other injustice in the world simultaneously)
- If you "delegitimize" Israel (i.e., pointing out Israel's less-than-savory past)

Originally posted by Cleon
With all that, there is no possibly way you can criticize Israel without being dubbed "anti-Semitic."

Sure you can.

For example, I could say "I think the Israeli policy of bulldozing homes of suicide bombers is too extreme. It's unfair to family members who may have had nothing to do with the crime, and it's a visable focus of anti-Israeli activism and a recruitment tool for terrorists."

See how easy that was?

I didn't demonise. I didn't compare them to Nazi German, South Africa, nor accuse them of genocide. I didn't apply any double standards, because I could be against any country bulldozing homes of criminals. I didn't deligitimize Israel because nothing I said could be interpreted to mean I don't think they have the right to exist or defend themselves.

Let's try another one, I could say, "I think Israel should adopt a civil marriage law to accomidate people who may be athiests, who may not want a religious wedding, or for couples who may be of different faiths who still want to marry."

See? Another criticism with no demonization, double standards or deligitimization. It's actually pretty easy to meet these standards, and you still get to protest what you think is wrong with Israel.

Originally posted by Cleon
How does Sharansky get away with it? Because he wrote the rules, and because he writes from an uber-nationalist point of view.

What does he get away with? How is he "uber-nationalist"?

Originally posted by Cleon
Obviously, it's a big anti-semitic conspiracy.

Ooh, biting sarcasm yet you offer no other explanation.

Originally posted by Cleon
Which essentially translates to, "Israel has the right to do whatever it likes, as long as it claims to represent Jews." What a load of hooey.

That's a fantastic straw-man.

Israel has the right to exist and defend itself because every nation has that right. Period. Full stop.

It has that rights if it claims to represent all Jews or not. Period. Full stop.

Nobody says it has the right to "do whatever it wants" with or without a silly reason made up by you. Existing and defending its existence does not equate "doing whatever it wants", it equates existing and defending its existence.

Originally posted by Cleon
And "fair" criticism would be what, exactly?

I'm curious, Cleon. Have you ever seen criticism of Israel you would consider unfair? If so, could you give us an example and explain why you thought it was unfair?

 

[a_unique_person]

OK, I follow what you are saying, I just think I don't agree.

Can you provide an example where you demonise, delegitimise and use double standards against Israel that you feel isn't antisemitic?

Perhaps seeing a criticism that meets all of the 3d criteria that isn't antisemitic would clarify things for me.

I think that if you are trying to prove a point, then you are only going to be presenting one side of an argument, that would make it appear that you are doing all of the above.

Eg, my contention that the occupation is a source of much of the present troubles. (But by no means all).

If all I do is present evidence of this, then Israel may well appear to be demonised by me, deligitimised, and double standards applied.

That is because I am trying to prove a point. If you are trying to demonstrate that a lion is a carnivore, then it might not come out looking too good either. That is because all you are doing is concentrating on it's ability to go for the weakest animal in a group, hunt it down, and kill it.

 

[Mycroft]

OK, I follow what you are saying, I just think I don't agree.

Can you provide an example where you demonise, delegitimise and use double standards against Israel that you feel isn't antisemitic?

Perhaps seeing a criticism that meets all of the 3d criteria that isn't antisemitic would clarify things for me.

I kind of interpreted it to mean any one of those, not all three at once. For example, a claim that Israel steals Arab organs for transplants would certainly be demonization, but it wouldn't be double-standards, or deligitimization.

I initially agreed with Earthborn because I was reflecting that the United States is often demonized, but what kind of bigotry does that prove?

Now that I've given it some thought, demonization of the United States still proves prejudice even if it's not an ethnicity. Earthborn's argument may rest on the 3D proving prejudice, but not specifically anti-Semitism. If so, it's a pretty find hair, in my opinion.

 

[username]

I think that if you are trying to prove a point, then you are only going to be presenting one side of an argument, that would make it appear that you are doing all of the above.

I think Mycroft just did a great job of demonstrating how one can criticise Israel without resorting to any of the 3 Ds.

Eg, my contention that the occupation is a source of much of the present troubles. (But by no means all).

To say that a nation occupying the territory of another nation can lead to troubles is simply expressing one's point of view. There is no meeting of any of the 3 Ds involved.

If all I do is present evidence of this, then Israel may well appear to be demonised by me, deligitimised, and double standards applied.

I honestly don't see how one could find the 3Ds met in such criticism just as Mycroft's examples of criticism don't meet any of the criteria. It doesn't mean someone won't call you an antisemite, people tossing round labels are a dime a dozen.

 

[Mycroft]

I think that if you are trying to prove a point, then you are only going to be presenting one side of an argument, that would make it appear that you are doing all of the above.

Eg, my contention that the occupation is a source of much of the present troubles. (But by no means all).

If all I do is present evidence of this, then Israel may well appear to be demonised by me, deligitimised, and double standards applied.

That is because I am trying to prove a point. If you are trying to demonstrate that a lion is a carnivore, then it might not come out looking too good either. That is because all you are doing is concentrating on it's ability to go for the weakest animal in a group, hunt it down, and kill it.

No, you should be able to make your point without demonizing, using double-standards or deligitimizing. If you can't, your point is very weak.

For example, if your interest in the region was based on your feelings that the occupation army is causing all the problems, why would you support the debunked Liberty attack theory? That has nothing to do with any occupation, nothing to do with Arabs or Palestinian-Arabs, and serves only to demonize Israel.

 

[The Fool]

For example, I could say "I think the Israeli policy of bulldozing homes of suicide bombers is too extreme. It's unfair to family members who may have had nothing to do with the crime, and it's a visable focus of anti-Israeli activism and a recruitment tool for terrorists."

This is anti-semitic, you have not critisized any other nation that practices collective punishment, I don't care if you now say that you may have the same attitude to other nations, where are the threads you started about them? where are the posts criticising them?. Plus, your criticism of israel is "particularly virulent". But anyway....Even if you don't agree that it is anti-semitic on the surface it is obviously "rooted in" anti-semitism. QED

"I think Israel should adopt a civil marriage law to accomidate people who may be athiests, who may not want a religious wedding, or for couples who may be of different faiths who still want to marry."[/i]

There you go again! this is definitely establishing a long history of Jew bashing.

get the Idea? Thats how its done......

[/B]