The weaponization of antisemitism,[1] also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism,[2] is the bad faith use of the charge of antisemitism against a person for political purposes, particularly with respect to criticism of Israel.[3][4] It has been criticized as a form of playing the race card, smear tactics and an "appeal to motive".[5][6] Critics of the concept have in turn argued that the charge is an antisemitic ad hominem attack whose use fails to address the issue at hand of antisemitism, and have termed the rhetorical formulation the Livingstone Formulation after British politician Ken Livingstone, who in 2005 made the argument that he was being subjected to weaponized charges of antisemitism after he compared a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.[7][8] The formulation has been described by Terry Glavin as a device deployed to shield left-wing anti-Semites from scrutiny.[9]

In the 1970s, the concept of "new antisemitism" emerged, with cultural critics identifying a novel form of antisemitism disguised as critique on Israel and Zionism.[10]

Suggestions of such actions have been highlighted during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, in the adoption of the controversial Working definition of antisemitism by various organizations,[11][12] the 2014-20 allegations of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party,[13] and the 2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism.[14]

According to Joshua Leifer, an editor of Dissent magazine, the goal of public relations campaigns which redefine anti-Zionism as antisemitism is to shift any criticism of the actions of the Israeli government "beyond the pale of mainstream acceptability".[15] The presumption that Muslims or Arabs criticizing Israel are motivated by antisemitism has been described as Islamophobic.[16] Ronnie Kasrils has compared claims of antisemitism in Britain to rhetorical strategies employed against the anti-apartheid movement by supporters of the South African government.[17]

Sociologist David Hirsh has criticized the concept's invocation in discourses about Israel, arguing that accusations of ‘playing the antisemitism card’ are often made in bad faith, and that such accusations contain "a counter-charge of dishonest Jewish (or ‘Zionist’) conspiracy" and rely on a stereotype of "devious and conspiring Jews".[18][7] The charge has also been criticized as a "testimonial injustice", rooted in presumption rather than evidence.[18][19]

History

Charges of antisemitism relating to pro-Palestinian sentiment have been levied against prominent individuals such as President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.[20]

Scholars such as John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have described a pattern where accusations of antisemitism rise immediately following aggressive actions by Israel: following the Six-Day War, following the 1982 Lebanon War, the First and Second Intifadas and the Israeli bombardments of Gaza.[21][22][23]

US politician Paul Findley, in his 1985 book They Dare to Speak Out, wrote: "In its latest usage, the term anti-Semitism stands stripped of any reference to ethnic or religious descent, signifying nothing more than a refusal to endorse all policy decisions of the government of Israel ... It has been a powerful factor in stifling debate of the Arab-Israeli dispute."[24]

According to Abraham Gutman of the The Philadelphia Inquirer, weaponization for the purpose of silencing criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian human rights may be based on the rationale that since Israel's leaders claim to represent all Jews worldwide, criticism of those leaders must be equivalent to prejudice against all Jews.[25] Chomsky argued this in 2002: "With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what's called 'propaganda' when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there's no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel."[23]

Criticism

Charges of antisemitism raised in discussions of Israel, described by Mearsheimer and Walt as "the Great Silencer"[26], can have a chilling effect,[27][28] deterring critical commentary on Israel[27] due to fear of being associated with beliefs linked to antisemitic crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust. Further, the charge can discourage others from defending in public those against whom the charge of antisemitism has been made.[29]

Weaponization of antisemitism has been criticized as being negative for all involved, including Israel and the broader Jewish community.[30] Mearsheimer and Walt argue that by stifling discussion it allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged.[31]

Kenneth L. Marcus warned against the rhetorical overuse of the 'anti-semitism card', paralleling concerns raised by Richard Thompson Ford with the broader misuse of the race card: that it is dishonest, mean-spirited, risks weakening legitimate accusations of bigotry, risks distracting socially concerned organizations from other social injustices, and hurts outreach efforts between Jewish and Arab or Muslim groups.[32]

Conceptual criticism

Sociologist David Hirsh coined the name the Livingstone Formulation, after Ken Livingstone, to refer to the charge of weaponizing claims of anti-semitism. He criticizes the rhetorical formulation as containing within it "a counter-charge of dishonest Jewish (or ‘Zionist’) conspiracy".[7] He also observes an inversion within the argument, in which antisemitism that has nothing to do with Israel is rhetorically defended with the claim that charges of antisemitism are misapplied to all criticisms of Israel. He terms this 'crying Israel', as opposed to 'crying antisemitism'.[33] He writes: "The Livingstone Formulation does not allege that Jews often misjudge what has happened to them, it alleges that they lie about what has happened to them. It is not an allegation of error, or over-zealousness, perhaps explicable by reference to the antisemitism of the past. It is an allegation of conspiracy."[34]

Jon Pike argues that the charge of weaponizing antisemitism is an ad hominem attack that does not address the allegation of antisemitism levied: "Suppose some discussion of a ‘new antisemitism’ is used in an attempt to stifle strong criticism. Well, get over it. The genesis of the discussion and the motivation of the charge [don’t] touch the truth or falsity of the charge. Deal with the charge, rather than indulging in some genealogical inquiry."[7]

Hadar Sela, writing for the Jerusalem Post in 2019, criticized the BBC for "amplification of antisemitic tropes" in alleged use of the Livingstone Formulation.[35] Lesley Klaff called the charge a "denial of contemporary antisemitism [that is] commonplace in Britain."[8]

David Schraub has called the charge "a first-cut response that presents marginalized persons as inherently untrustworthy, unbelievable, or lacking in the basic understandings regarding the true meaning of discrimination."[18]

See also

Bibliography

References

  1. ↑ 128 scholars of Jewish history and Holocaust studies 2022.
  2. ↑ 104 civil society organizations 2023.
  3. ↑ Waxman, Schraub & Hosein 2022.
  4. ↑ Harpin, Lee (2020-07-07). "Former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy tells Expo event antisemitism 'weaponised' to silence Palestinian struggle". The Jewish Chronicle.
  5. ↑ White 2020.
  6. ↑ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 9-11.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Hirsh, David (January 2010). "Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitism: The Livingstone Formulation, 'playing the antisemitism card' and contesting the boundaries of antiracist discourse" (PDF). Transversal: 47–77.
  8. 1 2 Klaff, Lesley (2016-12-01), Wistrich, Robert S. (ed.), Holocaust inversion in British politics : the case of David Ward, University of Nebraska Press, pp. 185–196, ISBN 978-0-8032-9671-8, retrieved 2024-01-09
  9. ↑ Glavin, Terry (2 May 2016). "Terry Glavin: The left confronts its antisemitism". National Post.
  10. ↑ "2020 Report on International Religious Freedom". United States Department of State. Retrieved 2024-01-09.
  11. ↑ Ahmed, Nasim (2023-09-15). "Weaponised definition of anti-Semitism is a 'tool' to undermine free-speech". Middle East Monitor.
  12. ↑ Stern, Kenneth (2019-12-13). "I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it". the Guardian.
  13. ↑ Graeber, David (2020-04-12). "The Weaponisation of Labour Antisemitism". Double Down News.
  14. ↑ Steinberg 2023.
  15. ↑ Leifer, Joshua (2019-08-26). "Israel's one-state reality is sowing chaos in American politics". +972 Magazine. The Israeli government long ago adjusted its public relations strategy for the post-two-state reality, spending vast sums of money to oppose the BDS movement, despite its relative marginality, and combat what is often called "delegitimization" of Israel. Today, the Israeli hasbara apparatus's most active front is the attempted redefinition of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, with the goal of rendering any opposition to the occupation, Zionism – or even simply Israeli policies themselves — beyond the pale of mainstream acceptability.
  16. ↑ Plitnick & Aziz 2023, p. 47.
  17. ↑ Kasrils, Ronnie (2020-12-17), Against the Witch Hunt: On the Instrumentalization of Antisemitism in Britain’s Labor Party
  18. 1 2 3 Schraub, David (2016). "Playing with Cards: Discrimination Claims and the Charge of Bad Faith". Social Theory and Practice. 42 (2): 285–303. ISSN 0037-802X.
  19. ↑ Digital, Ascet (2017-05-03). "Scribblings: Exposing the Livingstone Formulation". AIJAC. Retrieved 2024-01-09.
  20. ↑ White 2020, p. 67: "Israeli officials, as well as Israel advocacy organizations internationally, have a long history of charging Palestinians and their allies, as well as Israel's critics and human-rights campaigners, with anti-Semitism. Prominent individuals are not exempted."
  21. ↑ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 190-191: "Supporters of Israel have a history of using fears of a "new anti-Semitism" to shield Israel from criticism. In 1974, when Israel was under increasing pressure to withdraw from the lands it had conquered in 1967, Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein of the ADL published The New Anti-Semitism, which argued that anti-Semitism was on the rise and exemplified by the growing unwillingness of other societies to support Israel's actions. In the early 1980s, when the invasion of Lebanon and Israel's expanding settlements triggered additional criticisms, and when U.S. arms sales to its Arab allies were hotly contested, then ADL head Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released The Real Anti-Semitism in America, which argued that anti-Semitism was on its way back, as shown by the pressure on Israel to make peace with the Arabs and by events like the sale of AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The Perlmutters also suggested that many "anti-Semitic" actions, which they define as acts not motivated by hostility to Jews, may nonetheless harm Jewish interests (and especially Israel's well-being), and could easily bring back genuine anti-Semitism. The troubling logic of this argument is revealed by the fact that there was little mention of anti-Semitism during the 1990s, when Israel was involved in the Oslo peace process. Indeed, one Israeli scholar wrote in 1995 that 'never before, at least since the time Christianity seized power over the Roman Empire, has anti-Semitism been less significant than at present'. Charges of anti-Semitism became widespread only in the spring of 2002, when Israel came under severe criticism around the world for its brutal behavior in the Occupied Territories. … Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who is now a prominent Israeli author and politician, declares, 'The new anti-Semitism appears in the guise of 'political criticism of Israel', consisting of a discriminating approach and double standard towards the state of the Jews, while questioning its right to exist.' The implication is that any one who criticizes Israel's actions … is opposed to its existence and is therefore hostile to Jews. But this is a bogus charge, because it conflates criticism of Israel's actions with the rejection of Israel's legitimacy... the charge of anti-Semitism remains a widely used weapon for dealing with critics of Israel...
  22. ↑ Muzher, Sherri (2005-10-27). "Beyond Chutzpah: An Interview with Professor Norman Finkelstein". Campus Watch. Whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle such as the Intifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the 'new anti-Semitism.' The purpose is several-fold. First, it is to discredit any charges by claiming the person is an anti-Semite. It's to turn Jews into the victims, so that the victims are not the Palestinians any longer. As people like Abraham Foxman of the ADL put it, the Jews are being threatened by a new holocaust. It's a role reversal – the Jews are now the victims, not the Palestinians. So it serves the function of discrediting the people leveling the charge. It's no longer Israel that needs to leave the Occupied Territories; it's the Arabs who need to free themselves of the anti-Semitism.
  23. 1 2 Chomsky 2002.
  24. ↑ Findley 1987, p. 316.
  25. ↑ Gutman, Abraham (2021-05-27). "Supporting Palestinian rights is antisemitic because Israel wants it to be". nbcnews.com. It is this conflation between Israel and Judaism, one that is baked into the foundation of Israel and perpetuated by its leaders, that leads to a problematic tautology: Israel's leaders represent all Jewish people, and thus by definition any criticism of Israel must be criticism of all Jewish people — and hence antisemitic. This tautology allows accusations of antisemitism to be weaponized, particularly against people who speak up about Palestinian rights — sometimes in ridiculous ways.
  26. ↑ Marcus 2010, p. 73: "Indeed, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer recently called anti-Semitism allegations the “Great Silencer.”
  27. 1 2 Lerner, Rabbi Michael (2007-02-07). "Highest Jewish values sometimes conflict with Israeli policy". The Mercury News. The impact of the silencing of debate about Israeli policy on Jewish life has been devastating. But the most destructive impact of this new Jewish Political Correctness is on U.S. foreign-policy debates. We at Tikkun have been involved in trying to create a liberal alternative to the Israel-can-do-no-wrong voices in U.S. politics. When we talk to congressional representatives who are liberal or even extremely progressive on every other issue, they tell us privately that they are afraid to speak out lest they, too, be labeled anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. If it can happen to Jimmy Carter, some of them told me recently, a man with impeccable moral credentials, then no one is really politically safe.
  28. ↑ Thompson 2012, p. 12: "They called the charge of anti-Semitism “the Great Silencer.”"
  29. ↑ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 191b: "Second, smearing critics of Israel or the lobby with the charge of anti-Semitism works to marginalize them in the public arena. If the accusation sticks, the critic's arguments will not be taken seriously by the media, government officials, and other influential elites, and groups that might otherwise pay attention to that person's views will be discouraged from soliciting them. Politicians will be especially reluctant to associate themselves with anyone who has been charged as anti-Semitic, because doing so could have a chilling effect on their own careers."
  30. ↑ Omer, Atalia (2021-01-21). "Weaponizing Antisemitism is Bad for Jews, Israel, and Peace". Contending Modernities. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  31. ↑ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 196.
  32. ↑ Marcus 2010, p. 68-69: "Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that overplaying the "anti-Semitism card" must be avoided for several reasons. These are, generally speaking, a subset of the risks of playing "the race card" that Stanford Law Professor Richard Thompson Ford catalogued in his important recent book of that name. First, it is dishonest (at least if it is done intentionally)… Second, it is shortsighted and dangerous in the way of the boy who cried wolf. It may be regretted if it is needed later, especially if others become wary of false or exaggerated claims. Third, it can be mean-spirited because it involves the use of charges that in some cases can have serious repercussions. In addition, there are two other dangers that Ford does not discuss. Even if true, an overplayed "anti-Semitism card" may distract socially concerned individuals and organizations from other pressing problems, including social injustices facing other groups. Finally, it may disrupt or retard outreach efforts to other groups, including Arab and Muslim groups, with whom partnership efforts may be jeopardized."
  33. ↑ Hirsh, David (2007). Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Cosmopolitan Reflections. Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism. ISBN 978-0-9819058-0-8.
  34. ↑ "It was the new phenomenon of Israel-focused antisemitism that required the new definition. David Hirsh responds to a recent 'call to reject' the IHRA". Fathom. Retrieved 2024-01-09.
  35. ↑ "How the BBC proliferates antisemitism in the UK". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2019-02-10. Retrieved 2024-01-09.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.