Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitism? (News in Brief: Canada).

The Globe and Mail's Paul Knox in a thoughtful article on Dec. 11, 2002, asked: "Is it possible to criticize the Israeli state without being anti-Semitic? Jewish lawyers like Clayton Ruby (of Morgentaler fame) maintain that it is not, given that the line between the secular state of Israel and the Jewish religion is blurred. He and others maintain that "anti-Jewish expression" has become a feature of anti-globalization protests. Knox didn't accept this. He believes that one can protest Israel's illegal occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank without being charged with anti-Semitism, just as one can condemn terrorist bombings and Yasser Arafat's betrayal of the Palestinians without denying the legitimacy of their grievances . . ."

Then, in the National Post of Jan. 8/03, Norman Spector, also Jewish and a former Canadian embassador to Israel, accused the CBC of bias in reporting news from the Middle East. Spector, a columnist in the Asper-owned paper, voiced the opinion that the CBC somehow encourages demented views like those of David Ahenakew (a former native leader who made racist comments about Jews and immigrant groups). He recorded a whole litany of terminology that the CBC either does or does not use when reporting on Mid-East events, showing in his opinion, a clear bias against the Israeli viewpoint. A subsequent CBC debate with veteran CBC correspondent Neil Macdonald was called off, with Macdonald eager to support the CBC position. The CBC has said that it will not abandon the issue, but will look at a different format. Spector and the Post declared this unacceptable.

In February, 2003, the University of Toronto hosted a conference on anti-Semitism. The remarks of Dr. Todd Endelman of the University of Michigan featured prominently in the National Post (Feb. 11/02). He declared that "the role of the Palestinians in the imagination of the European left today was played previously by other progressive, freedom-loving peoples, including the Cubans, the Vietnamese, the Nicaraguans and the Chinese." In other words, those who profess support for the Palestinians are of the same ilk as those leftist liberals who expressed their solidarity with the Vietcong some 30 years ago. Dr. Endelman did accept that "there is a clear distinction between thoughtful disagreement with Israeli policies and anti-Semitism," but the line is crossed when opponents question the legitimacy of the Jewish state but no other state or nationalism; blame the Arab-Israeli conflict on Jews alone; and when "there is an obsessive concern for the sins of the Israelis and the plight of the Palestinians," while ig noring other nationalist issues, occupations, and human suffering (Globe, Feb. 11/03).

So can Canadian citizens criticize Israeli policies and actions without being labeled as anti-Semitic? Can a Canadian oppose the possible upcoming war against Iraq without being critized as wanting Israel to be annihilated by the surrounding Arab countries? Does activism in anti-globalism target one as an anti-Semite as Dr. Endelman has concluded?

If free speech in Canada means that we must always parrot the Israeli line, then those on the right, the left, and right down the middle, who take a thoughtful stand which is not in the interests of, or favourable toward Israel, may find themselves being accused, as the students were, of the "freedom to hate."

Comment:

While anti-Semitism remains a factor to be condemned and to be reckoned with, we believe that much current anti-Jewish feeling originates from anger at Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. The two, anti-Semitism and anti-Israel, are not the same. Anti-Semitism--a hatred for Jews just because they are Jews--is to be totally rejected. A critical examination of the policies of the Israeli state, on the other hand, is not only welcome but necessary. So too, is an examination of the Jewish religion as practiced by Jewish Orthodox fundamentalists (see our article "Israel Shahak" in the March issue).

The case of anti-Islamism is perhaps even more difficult to resolve because it involves the entire Islamic religion, which throughout its history has relied on military conquest. In other words, conquest and the scimitar are part and parcel of the Islamic religion. To bring about a change, one has to change Islam itself.