Steve Apfel is an authority on anti-Zionism and a prolific author of fiction and non-fiction. His blog, ‘ Balaam’s curse ,’ is followed in 15 countries on 5 continents To rely on mankind’s go-to source Wikipedia, antisemites tick three boxes. They are hostile to Jewish people, are prejudiced towards them and discriminate against them. So far so good – no one quarrels with the obvious. But introduce Israel into the argument and just about everyone quarrels. The bugbear is simple. To a glib world the Jewish people and the Jewish state don’t have a common destiny and fate, giving hostile actors freedom to unhook anti-Zionist from anti-Jewish. This identity split clarifies why cocksure Stefanie Dox, Director of Jewish Voice for Peace, can stoop to declare a fatwa on the Jewish state. Her progressive kith and kin are the token anti-Israel Jews paid to renounce Zionists. The convenient split between Zionists and Jews equally excuses advocates for Israel taking such a beating on the propaganda front. So long as anti-Israel Jews can monetise and martyr their “speaking out in solidarity with a free Palestine” so long will antisemites exploit those dandy human shields. Long after the wars on Israel’s borders and beyond have been fought and archived, its other war – on legitimacy – will drag on and on. One can adopt the rule that ‘anti-Zionism =anti-Semitism’ until the proverbial cows come home; Israel-hatred is infinitely adaptable. To grapple with the ridicule that supports it (per the sample below) is like trying to crush a brazil nut on a slippery counter. “The anti-Semitism gag is wearing thin by being so freely bandied about against anyone who criticises the Israeli government.” (A political editor) “Whenever Israel comes under international pressure to resolve the conflict its apologists cry that the world is awash in antisemitism.” (Norman Finkelstein. ‘ Beyond Chutzpah ”) “The government of Israel is placed on a pedestal, and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic.” (Archbishop the late Desmond Tutu) Were someone to develop a quick and unassailable response to “critics of Israel” imposters, a Nobel Peace Prize would be a meagre reward. But a realistic hope of this happening is meagre when even the Jerusalem Post is all at sea. It can do no more than hint or surmise that anti-Israel demos are different from antisemitic demos. “When anti-Israel and often antisemitic demonstrations roiled US campuses, Iran’s leader expressed support for them.” One wishes the reporter had divulged the principle by which he differentiated one type of demo from the other. Then again what to make of social media company Meta looking to ban derogatory usage of the term, ‘Zionists’ (e.g. comparing Zionists to rats). When will ‘Zionists’ be derogatory and when won’t it be? Jewish groups were quick to celebrate. Too quick: Meta is pondering how far the ban should go. ‘Zionist criminals’ might not be derogatory when accusing the IDF or Netanyahu of war crimes or plain genocide. Under cover of bickering, complicity and confusion, anti-Zionism flourishes. Or is it pro-terrorism? It would be difficult to refute that Anti-Israel protesters waving a Hezbollah flag and yelling for intifada outside a Queens synagogue are pro-terrorist rather than anti-Zionist. And where to put Peter Beinart the New York Times columnist and author of “The crisis of Zionism ”, a book that launched his career? When he favoured the two-state solution Beinart’s claim to be a critic of Israel was credible. Now that he advocates a ‘bi-national state’ the euphemistic formula to replace Israel with a country where Jews live in a minority at the sufferance of a Muslim Arab majority, Beinart has made his bed and must lie on it. He drops down the pecking order from a harsh critic to a crass anti-Zionist Jew. Together with his opposing the measures taken to quell the hotspots and flashpoints of Jew-hatred on campuses, Beinart can hardly complain if he is fingered for bigotry. “Actions taken to fight antisemitism did not do much to protect Jews,” he said, “but did do much to victimize Palestinians.” What got his goat was the official adoption of a definition developed by (a mouthful of a name) the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It says that antisemitism, “may consist of contemporary examples denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.” Of course Beinart grimaced; it made him a card-carrying Jew-hater. Did he deserve it? Beinart’s is the perfect case for tackling that problematic million dollar question: Are anti-Zionists a priori antisemites? Naturally he would spurn and spit on the possibility . To forestall having the ‘antisemite’ ticket pinned on him, Beinart built what appears on first reading to be a good defence. Let’s go into his arguments and see if they hold water. Beinart relies on his analogies between a Jewish minority lucky to be given a state when other ethnic minorities were denied this privilege. “Basques, Catalans, Scots, Kashmiris, Tibetans, Abkhazians, Ossetians, Lombards, Igbo, Oromo, Uyghurs, Tamils, Quebecois and dozens of other peoples have created nationalist movements to seek self-determination but failed to achieve it.” Why the analogy is false: (1) The minorities mentioned had no record of international law supporting their right to self-determination. (2) On the other hand the state of Israel was supported by a history indelibly written into articles of international law A second analogy is supposed to demonstrate that Beinart’s opposition to a Jewish state is not necessarily antisemitic. “Barely anyone suggests that opposing a Kurdish or Catalan state makes you an anti-Kurdish or anti-Catalan bigot. It’s widely recognized that states based on ethnic nationalism — states created to represent and protect one particular ethnic group — are not the only legitimate way to ensure public order and individual freedom. Sometimes it’s better to foster civic nationalism, a nationalism built around borders rather than heritage: to make Spanish identity more inclusive of Catalans or Iraqi identity more inclusive of Kurds, rather than carving those multi-ethnic states up.” Why the analogy is false: There has not been a millennial worldwide hatred of Kurds or Catalans. They had no Hitler in their history, no death camps, no obsession to exterminate every Kurd or Catalan. They are bound by culture only. Zionism on the other hand is part religion. When David Ben Gurion recited the text of Israel’s “scroll of independence,” he read, “ be-ezrat tsur Yisrael. ” In Judaism the Rock of Israel alludes to God, in politics it alludes to the cultural and historic heritage of the Jewish people and State of Israel. Among the six co-drafters of the document (written on parchment by a traditional scribe) were Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon, cofounder of the Mizrahi movement, and Haim-Moshe Shapira, a practicing liberal Jew. He conceals the most critical fact of all. As Israeli Professor Shany Mor put it, “Beinart is the Basil Fawlty of modern Mideast history, hissing under his breath to everyone not to speak of Arab antisemitism.” Beinart’s third analogy is again dishonest. As South Africa transitioned to a unified state of different black and white ethnic groups so, he argues, Israel could transition to a unified state of Jews and Muslims. “By ending apartheid South Africa replaced an Afrikaner ethnic nationalism and a white racial nationalism with a civic nationalism that encompassed people of all ethnicities and races. It inaugurated a constitution that guaranteed the right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination. That wasn’t bigotry, but it’s opposite.” Why the analogy is false: No black ethnic group in the country had a charter containing a God-given command to exterminate every white person. Hamas on the other hand has lived and acted by a charter to exterminate every Jew in Israel, the most recent and bloodiest act being the horrific pogrom henceforth known as ‘Oct 7’ Beinart omits the unifying factor in South Africa’s peaceful transition: the towering figure of Nelson Mandela. Where is his Palestinian Mandela? Who will coax and charm Muslim Arabs to coexist with Jews in one harmonious utopia? Tellingly Beinart can’t give a modern example, or ancient one, of Muslims agreeing to live and let live, of accepting that Jews are human and that religious freedom is a human right. He quotes long dead Jews who are like him, mad about bi-nationalism. What Beinart fails to disclose is that besides failing to convert more than a tiny fraction of Jews to give up the idea of settling Palestine, his model Jews couldn’t find one Arab partner for their bi-national project. On a second look therefore Beinart’s arguments are pie in the sky. This begs some obvious questions: How could an otherwise very smart guy be so silly? How could he expect nonsensical comparisons to win the day? Why would a Jew – a fully identifying, observant and proud Jew– constantly challenge the right to exist of the one Jewish state in the world while he accepts the legitimacy of even failed states? If fake analogies can be excused by Beinart’s handwringing over the plight of Palestinian Arabs for whom he deeply cares, it would surely make him as great a rarity as a Trumpist Ivy League president. After all, how many pro-Palestinian Arab activists are really anti-Israel activists in all but name? How many of his fellow activists care for the forgotten Palestinian Arabs languishing in refugee camps around Israel’s neighbourhood? Killed or treated no better than dogs around Israel’s neighbourhood. Jordan has over 3 million Palestinian Arab refugees, Syria over half a million, Lebanon nearly that many, and Egypt a quarter of a million. Is Beinart on record protesting Muslim rulers maltreating Muslims? Or is care reserved for Jews maltreating Muslims? And did Beinart protest the refusal of Muslim states to accept Palestinian Arab refugees from the Gaza war? Assuming Beinart is fairly well read, he must know why Israel’s neighbourhood turned up a curved nose at Palestinian Arab refugees from the Gaza war. It may be worth quoting part of the explanation given by former U.S. Ambassador to the Mid East, Ryan Crocker. “In truth nearly every Arab state has long viewed the Palestinians with “fear and loathing. This is especially true of Egypt, which will continue to refuse to admit Palestinians from across the border. What’s noteworthy in this entire conflict since Oct. 7 has been the lack of reaction or response from the Arab world. Saudi Arabia continues to hold the door open for a peace agreement with Israel. The UAE, Morocco and Bahrain didn’t even withdraw ambassadors. Jordan did, but of course with about half of its population being Palestinian, Jordan has a particular problem. That lack of reaction I think is very telling. If you needed another example that Arab states are not viscerally concerned about the Palestinians and their cause, this is it.” It seems that Beinart’s anti-Zionism makes him care for Palestinians only when Jews are the devil. Just as trade unions do not use workers for the workers’ good, so pro-Palestinian people like Beinart use Palestinian Arabs to get at Israel. Beinart’s behaviour echoes the words of a Palestinian-American philosopher, academic, literary critic, and political activist. This is what Edward Said told the Israeli daily Haaretz in August 2000: "I don't find the idea of a Jewish state terribly interesting. I wouldn't want it for myself. Even if I were a Jew, I'd fight against it. And it won't last.... Take my word for it.... It won't even be remembered." Making his vision explicit, Said added: "The Jews are a minority everywhere. A Jewish minority can survive in Palestine the way other minorities in the Arab world survived." The one difference is remarkable: Beinart cares less for the fate of Israeli Jews than even Israel-hater Edward Said. When the interviewer asked Said, "Knowing the region and given the history of the conflict, do you think such a Jewish minority would be treated fairly?" Said responded: "I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don't know. It worries me." (Edward Said, "My Right of Return") As Professor Efraim Karsh observed: "Said at least took the trouble to feign concern for the fate of yet another six million Jews who were to be ethnically cleansed and their thriving state destroyed to make room for his envisaged "bi-national state"—though it did not lead him to (abandon) the genocidal idea.” (The War against the Jews. Efraim Karsh. Israel Affairs. July 2012) No Jewish death and suffering will lead Beinart to abandon his genocidal idea.
