A new anti-Semitism

CYNTHIA RAMSAY

Are we too thin-skinned? This was one of the questions posed by a Dec. 1 forum presented by Canadian Jewish Congress-Pacific Region, Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver and Temple Sholom Synagogue. Other issues discussed included when anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitic and what we, as Jews, should be teaching our children about dealing with anti-Semitism.

The forum at Temple Sholom featured addresses by Mark Freiman, a lawyer and national president of CJC, and Rabbi Robert Daum, an associate professor of rabbinic literature and Jewish thought and founding director of the newly established Iona Pacific Inter-Religious Centre at Vancouver School of Theology (VST). A panel discussion followed, with brief remarks from Robert Matas, national correspondent with the Globe and Mail, and Barbara Yaffe, national political columnist with the Vancouver Sun. Rabbi Philip Bregman, spiritual leader of Temple Sholom, moderated, as well as contributed to, the discussion and managed the question and answer period.

Freiman gave a very brief overview of how, until the Second World War, there was public acceptance of anti-Semitism. "Today, in North America, the term anti-Semitism as descriptive of significant social or political attitudes is out of favor. Anti-Semitism, to the extent that it is still a significant ideology, is portrayed as something that exists only in foreign, benighted places. On this side of the ocean, we are told, except for kooks and crackpots ... we don't have real anti-Semites and don't need to trouble ourselves with concerns about residual anti-Semitism: it can't happen here. We're all anti-anti-Semites now, to the point where those who suggest a continuing domestic issue of anti-Semitism in Canada find themselves being upbraided for being motivated by ulterior purposes and resorting to the label 'anti-Semitism' to insulate themselves and their political allies from legitimate criticism. At least that's the view you'll find endlessly repeated in the impressive volume of submissions sent to the [Canadian] Parliamentary Coalition [Combating Anti-Semitism (CPCCA)] by groups and individuals who unanimously preface their messaging with the declaration that they are not anti-Semites themselves. They tell the coalition that they deplore real anti-Semitism but then maintain that an inquiry is not at all necessary and that, in fact, the parliamentary inquiry appears intended to be 'by certain groups' to serve as a means to muzzle criticism of what these 'non-anti-Semitic' groups and individuals describe as racist policies and behavior by the state of Israel."

Historically, explained Freiman, "anti-Semitism is, as often as not, hatred of Jews in search of an alibi. The basic message of anti-Semitism has remained remarkably constant: the Jews are not like the rest of us and they mean to do us harm. What varies over time is the motive imputed for the Jewish bad behavior and Jewish bad intentions being alleged. Sometimes, this motive is located in theology: the Jews are plotting to harm us because they hate Christianity. Or is it Islam they hate? Sometimes the motive is located in politics: the Jews ruin societies by promoting and practising the excessive individualism of capitalism. Or is it the fanatical anti-individualism of communism that they support? Sometimes, the motive is located in genetics, sociology or anthropology: the Jews are a danger because they are genetically or culturally inferior. Or is it because they are excessively successful? What remains the same in all these patterns is the underlying message: the evils that beset us are caused by the Jews. Anti-Semitism is the oldest existing hatred and, like other enduring infections, it survives by successfully mutating over time.

"Its latest mutation ... redefines its Jewish target. Instead of the Jewish religion or the so-called Jewish race or the Jewish culture of decadence or the Jewish financial influence, the target is now redefined as the Jewish state and, of course, the international Jews who support it."

Freiman stressed that "it is no more anti-Semitic to criticize specific Israeli policies or actions than it is to criticize the actions of an alleged wrong-doer who is Jewish. What is anti-Semitic on the level of personal behavior is to attribute the alleged bad acts of a Jewish person to the fact that he or she is Jewish, to characterize a particular misdeed as an example of a Jewish vice. What is equally anti-Semitic on the broader level is to attribute what are said to be the misdeeds of the state of Israel to its status as a Jewish state, to characterize alleged misconduct as an example of the inherent evil nature of Zionism.... The ideological tools long used by the older form of Jew hatred, namely double standards and demonization aimed at dehumanizing the target, are now wielded in barely altered form against the Jewish state, as double standards and demonization aimed at delegitimizing the Jewish state."

Daum agreed that Jews "have good reason to be concerned of and vigilant regarding political anti-Semitism." He said, "The seriousness, complexity and variability of the threats that face us as Jewish Canadians and of other forms of prejudice faced by our friends in Muslim, Christian, First Nations and many other communities calls for serious, complex, contextualized responses."

In his remarks, Daum cited British philosopher (and self-described Christian) Bernard Harrison, who now teaches in Utah. Harrison proposes precise criteria that define political anti-Semitism, said Daum. "The criteria are unfairness and continuity with classic motifs of anti-Semitism, particularly what he [Harrison] calls the postulate of conspiratorial power and the postulate of absolute wickedness. This form of anti-Semitism is especially disturbing when it emanates from what some may identify with the left.

"As Harrison puts it, 'the issue is not whether critics of Israel and the Israel lobby are to be charged with anti-Semitism, the issue is, rather, whether some of the more unbridled progressive critics of Israel, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are sufficiently aware of the dangers of contributing, through the overuse of certain appealing but deeply compromised arguments and rhetorical tropes, to the growth of the climb in opinion, largely among non-Jews' – and he says that he is writing this as a non-Jew – 'whose consequences in the long run may be very different from those they imagine themselves to be pursuing....' Associating Israel with Nazism and apartheid is dangerous because it is predicated, as Harrison and others contend, on a simplistic and destructive moral manichaeism [form of dualism]. This moral calculus divides the world into good and evil, seeking to delegitimize Israel and her defenders by associating us with evil regimes whose right to exist among the family of nations is, therefore, to be universally rejected.

"This is why even those here who may be critical of particular aspects of Israeli policies, or particular behaviors of individual Israelis or particular aspects of the Diaspora organizations or individuals, are repulsed by boycott campaigns aimed at Israel but against no other states, by statements condemning Israel but no other state, by attempts to shame and delegitimize the Jewish people's right to self-determination but no other people's.

"At the same time," Daum continued, "we betray our own principles if we do not apply these same standards of fairness and anti-racism to those whom we criticize. Just as I am repulsed by toxic, defamatory smears on Israel, employing inflammatory terms such as 'apartheid wall,' 'Zionist conspiracy' and 'Zionism is racism,' so, too, I am repulsed by Nazi-tainted smears, sometimes heard from within our own community on members of our own community, such as 'self-hating Jew' or 'kapo.'"

Daum noted the importance of differentiating between intent and content. Organizations like UN Watch and CJC, he said, "properly devote a good deal of their expertise to addressing intentional anti-Semitism. More often, however, we are confronted in the academic domain and elsewhere with anti-Semitic discourse that may not be intentional ... and our response must be calibrated accordingly."

Daum concluded, "Politics is local and community relations and their consequences are also local. In such contexts, we should embrace the opportunity of a teachable moment. We must not threaten to sever ties with our friends and other faith communities [like the United Church of Canada] when they inadvertently offend or alarm us, and not even if they have inadvertently shamed our community. Likewise, we must not shame members of our own community, even if we believe that they have shamed our community. Rather, we ought to affirm their good intentions to act on behalf of their social justice commitments but, at the same time, seek to teach them, and be open to learn with them, how to do so in a way that is genuinely just."

Referring to a Nov. 30 article by Barbara Kay in the National Post on "the disturbing phenomenon of overt Jew hatred in high schools," Bregman shared with the audience some of the stories from his Monday Vancouver Talmud Torah Grade 7 class: several of the students had experienced anti-Semitic slurs outside of school. "This is something that I have not heard from my students in a long time," said Bregman. "All of a sudden, yesterday at Talmud Torah, unsolicited, as I'm talking about this article by Barbara Kay, five kids start to respond. And there were other hands that were going up as I had to leave the class. Something's happening. The political agenda, I believe, is filtering down somewhere else."

Matas spoke about the origins of the CPCCA and the claim for its establishment that "the extent and severity of anti-Semitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War." He pointed out that, while anti-

Semitic incidents happen, "Statistics Canada reports that hate crimes against Jews in Canada have dropped every year since 2001. Blacks in Canada are almost twice as likely to be the target of hate crimes than any Jew in Canada – and that's actual crimes. If you look at attitudes, which the [U.S.] Anti-Defamation League did, you have similar results: they found the level of anti-Semitic attitudes was at its lowest in 45 years, since they started polling."

The parliamentary inquiry concerned Matas in how it might deal with the media. "I don't think anyone complains about how the media covers traditional anti-Semitism when it occurs and people are aware of it. The media reports a swastika on a Holocaust memorial, everyone knows what it means. There's no two sides of it. No reasonable person expects the media to go out there and to look for comments on the other side in order to be balanced and fair. That's just the way it is. But when you're talking about ... the coverage of Israel, criticism of Israeli policies, military actions, there is more than one side, regardless of who says it ... and I feel media has a responsibility to represent a diversity of views. If the media were operating as it should, every report would include a number of voices, but when the media pays attention to the diversity of views, quite often on Israel, the media is accused of bias, just for that range of views that are presented. I suspect critics would like media to treat remarks about Israel and Gaza as they treat traditional anti-Semitism."

Of course, there are lazy journalists and sometimes media are too quick to report a story, but "incompetence is not anti-Semitism," said Matas. "Most media make serious efforts to be accurate, correcting mistakes. The Globe and Mail, where I have been for a while, has made more than 40 corrections and clarifications on the Middle East coverage since 2005."

Matas said, "When you start shouting anti-Semitism at the media, it sounds like nothing more than name calling."

It's almost impossible to wage war against the media and win, he added. "The most effective response to what you see as anti-Semitism is to engage the media, to acknowledge that the media is doing no more than holding up a mirror to society and respond to the lapses in coverage that you detect – without name calling."

Yaffe spoke not only as a journalist, but also as a Jew, and, in responding to the forum's title, which included the question, "Are we too thin skinned?" Yaffe answered, "We are exactly the right thickness of skin."

"There is no question that Israel is vilified way out of proportion to its size and, frankly, its importance in the world," she said. Population-wise, she added, Israel is similar to Burundi, Serbia and Bulgaria. "How often do you hear about those countries?"

Yaffe said, "The challenge for the Jewish community is using discipline about where we draw the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Zionism that constitutes anti-Semitism. I think that we have to be really careful because, obviously, what's at stake here is freedom of speech and the community could face a real backlash in the broader society if it too liberally labels criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. So, sure, calling the fence an 'apartheid wall' is anti-Semitic, but what about someone who is arguing the case for a one-state solution, an Israel for both Arabs and Jews? It's not something I would ever personally support, but many would say this is a legitimate viewpoint and should not be labeled as anti-Semitic."

She warned, "It's extremely important, in advancing the position that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, Jewish people be very, very specific about what it is they deem unacceptable and why."

In the discussion that followed, many of the speakers refined their points. For example, Freiman laid out exactly what he considered to be legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy: "criticism that envisages an alternative policy to the one being criticized that would not involve the Jewish state committing suicide, that would not involve the state ceasing to have a Jewish identity and that would not label Israel as the sole source of the problem or evil in the situation."

Other topics that came up were the role of the Canadian Criminal Code versus that of human rights committees, legality versus immorality in what gets covered by the media, and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission approval for Al Jazeera English. The evening concluded with a question posed by Bregman: How do we talk to the younger generation of Jews?

Matas was the first to respond: "They should read as widely as possible and not be confined into a very small space.... You should always look, as the phrase goes, 'outside your comfort zone.' You should know what your enemy is thinking. If you're just reading things to reinforce what you already know or want to believe, you'll never grow and you'll never be able to respond to the world outside you."

Yaffe echoed that advice: "The best preparation for life is to be informed, and it's really very disconcerting to me that newspapers aren't being read by young people and they're getting things in little clips on television or on the Internet ... and I worry greatly for the next generation because of that."

Freiman said, "I think there are two things that are necessary to be instilled in young people. One is knowledge and an interest in understanding what there is out there.... There is an obligation we have to inform the younger generation of Jewish national history, which includes, sadly, the Holocaust, and why we are concerned about anti-Semitism and what historically anti-Semitism has caused. Simultaneously, and this is more difficult, we need teach people to think critically, to be able to confront messages and to deconstruct them, to pull them apart, to question what they're being told – not because everything that everybody says is wrong ... but to subject it to an analysis and to demand that, when people say things, they be able to logically back up what they have said."

Daum pointed out that "most serious problems in life are more complicated than they seem" and "the quick fix and the quick answer and the sound-bite solution to complex social problems is probably missing something very important."

Bregman concluded the night with this advice as to what parents should be telling their children: "Pack your bags, we're going on a trip to Israel."

Approximately 300 people attended the forum, which was opened by CJC-PR chair David Schwartz and closed by Temple Sholom president Tobin Robbins.

^TOP