Further to  Ben’s earlier post…

Antony Lerman says,

Others (this writer included) fundamentally dispute that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are synonymous.

1.

I don’t think they are synonymous either. Antisemitism is thousands of years old while anti-Zionism arose as a reaction to Zionism, the name given to Jewish nationalism, a political movement that dates from the 19^th century, a period when there were also revivals of national feeling among other peoples in Europe. The fact that they are not synonymous, however, doesn’t mean that they are not so closely related that it becomes very difficult to distinguish one from the other.

2.

It’s possible to imagine an anti-Zionist position that is not antisemitic. This would involve a rejection of the whole idea of groups of individuals imagining themselves to be some sort of collectivity, based on real or imagined bonds of religion, language or ethnicity. It would also reject the idea that such collectivities might see the nation state as an appropriate means of self-realization. This rejection of imagined communities and nation states would have to apply across the board; it wouldn’t be possible to apply it to some cases and not others on the basis that one finds, say, the Irish to be appealing and the Kurds to be repulsive.

3.

Questions of practicality might be appealed to limit the general application of a rejection of nation states and imagined communities. One might say, “Well, the nation state is a lamentable phenomenon but people seem rather attached to them, so let us have no more. Sorry about that you Basques, Kurds and Catalans, you have missed your chance.” Or one might say, ” Regrettable though they are in principle, there are more and less acceptable examples of nation states.” and then seek to devise a general rule the application of which would classify some existing countries as acceptable and others as unacceptable.

4.

A possible example of such a general rule would be “States which were founded on the extermination of a pre-existing population and its replacement by immigrants are illegitimate.” Well, bye, bye Argentina and many other countries besides. Another possible rule would be, “States without clearly defined frontiers are illegitimate.” A good thing, therefore, that Ireland recently amended its constitution to drop its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland or the application of this rule would have rendered it an illegitimate state.   Yet another possible rule would be to categorize as illegitimate any state that came into being as the result of interference by a foreign and/or imperial power in the affairs of an existing state or polity. That would mean goodbye to Uruguay and Panama and many other nations besides. A suggestion for a rule that anti-Zionists might find particularly appealing: “Nations which have large communities of ethno-religious brethren living in the United States, communities that do all they can to influence US policy in favor of the nation in question, are illegitimate.” The application of such a rule would certainly be problematic for Israel, and Ireland and Armenia too. A further suggestion that might whet the appetite of anti-Zionists would be something along the lines of “No legitimate state may exist on the basis of adherence to any particular religion or the recognition of a special status for any religion.” Possible problems for Israel here, no doubt, but a definite early bath for Pakistan, Iran and Sri Lanka, to name just three. Or we could try, “States whose foundation involved warfare and an exodus of refugees are illegitimate.” Again, Israel would have questions to answer but so would India, Pakistan, Greece and Turkey.

5.

“But Eamonn, what’s with the rules?” If we don’t apply general principles to politics, general principles which have to be continually tested and reshaped if necessary but general principles nonetheless, we are not really engaged in political or, indeed, moral reasoning at all, we are, at best, engaged in aesthetics.

6.

A non-antisemitic anti-Zionism would necessarily involve the rejection of Palestinian nationalism too.

7.

Any anti-Zionist position that does not base itself on the general application of a rule or principle held to be valid for all states, and which rejects the existence of Israel and no other state is necessarily antisemitic. Israel is the product and realization of Jewish nationalism, no more and no less a logical, justifiable or legitimate nationalism than that of the Armenians, the Turks or the Moroccans. One cannot regard Jews as truly equal to the rest of humanity while granting them all rights but one, that of national self-determination, or, if allowing them the right to self-determination, demanding that it be realized to a higher standard than that demanded of other groups. The latter point is especially true if attempts are made to justify it on the basis of certain cultural characteristics alleged to be typical of Jews or the history of persecution suffered by Jews.

8.

Antisemitic anti-Zionism may not represent the entire range of anti-Zionism but it certainly represents a very great part of it. You, reader, might regard yourself as an anti-Zionist and be outraged by my description of you as an antisemite. In your mind’s eye “The Triumph of the Will” is playing and you are saying to yourself “I’m not like them!” I accept that you are not, but you are still an antisemite because you regard Jews as almost equal to the rest of humanity, but not quite.

9.

Opposing a wide range of Israeli government policies and decisions does not make anyone antisemitic. Opposing the existence of Israel does.

10.

Proponents of the so-called “one state solution” ought to ask themselves on what basis they would deny the right of self-determination to both Jews and Palestinians. Assuming, of course, that is in fact what they want.

11.

Those of us who have no particular objection to Jewish nationalism should relax and get used to calling the bulk of anti-Zionists what they are, namely, antisemites. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are despicable or immoral people or comparable to the Nazis, though of course some of them may be. It just means a recognition of the fact that they get very irritated by Jews exercising certain rights while regarding the exercise of such rights by Iranians and Sri Lankans, for example as unremarkable and natural.

12.

Antisemitic anti-Zionists should also chill out about being referred to as such. We know that you, well, most of you at any rate, wouldn’t stand for having your Jewish colleague attacked in the street because of his ethno-religious identity. You are perfectly happy to for him to work alongside you and to buy the house next door. You have no problem whatever with Jews as long, of course, as they behave themselves.

13.

A final word on another question raised by Lerman: that of “self-hating” Jews.  I find it hard to make sense of this term. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with Jewish people sharply criticizing the actions or policies of the Israeli government and campaigning and organizing against them; to suggest otherwise would be to endorse ethno-religious solidarity as coming before rational argument and criticism.  It’s also the case that there are many Jewish people around the world who are not particularly interested in Israel and there is nothing wrong with that either. There, is, however,  a certain type of Jewish critique of Israel that positively luxuriates in its anti-Zionism, that uses phrases like “speaking out” and “breaking the silence” and that bends over backward to demonstrate what it regards as its unique virtuousness. I think that those who offer this critique would be better described as “self-loving” rather than “self-hating” and I also  think that an aspect  of their performance is  directed at the audience described in points 11 and 12 and that their message for that audience is “See how well behaved we are!”