Anti-Isrealism is not Anti-Semitism
| June 30th, 2003The latest fuss in Blogtopia is over this email from an Oxford professor, rejecting an applicant for a doctoral position because the applicant is from Israel. (The professor has since apologized).
Naturally, the accusations of anti-Semitism have flowed like Manischewitz. The accusations are without foundation; the professor’s email makes it clear that his bias is against Israelis, not against Jews. There’s no reason to suppose that he would have discriminated against a British Jew applying for the same position, for instance.
Being anti-Israel is not being anti-Semitic; to assume the latter from the former is illogical.
Of course, none of this excuses the professor’s action; discrimination based on nationality is wrong. But it’s not anti-Semitism.
(Boomshock makes a similar point, but states it much better.)
June 30th, 2003 at 4:03 pm
Wilkie’s comments discriminate on the basis of nationality at the least - and strongly suggest anti-Semitism prompted by the Likud government’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Remember - most Jews aren’t Israelis. And many Israelis aren’t Likudniks or members of conservative parties wanting to expand settlements.
There’s no way Wilkie’s going to admit to anti-Semitism. But what he said was monumentally foolish, and implies anti-Semitism VERY strongly.
This comment was written by Aaron.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 7:05 pm
I guess I just disagree. I deny entirely that anti-Semitism is “strongly implied” by dislike of Israel, however foolishly put.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 7:38 am
Hmmm …. I can totally see your logic, Amp. And I am not sure that I can logically refute it. And if Professor Wilkie was a North American I would be much more likely to agree with you. But the history of anti-semitism in Europe is so long and its roots are so deep and pervasive that I am *extremely* skeptical whenever a European takes a truly strident anti-Israel stance. And you have to admit Wilkie’s position is pretty strident and extreme. Thought experiment: If the applicant was from Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Syria or Gaza and Wilkie made the same decision on poltical grounds because he was opposed to terrorism, what would you think? Or if the applicant was from Congo and Wilkie made the same decision in order to protest the atrocities being perpetrated there?
This comment was written by ibyx.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 8:55 am
You make a fine distinction, my dear Amp, that works intellectually, but I doubt it finds reflection in the real world. Not simply because Europe has a history of antisemitism (so does North America, just not as violent); in fact, I think defenders of Israel too easily jump to charges of antisemitism among European critics, a subject you have handled well on this blog before. What bugs me is how Wilkies’ email reflects a general intellectual boycott of Israeli scholars that violates a vital academic principle that values scholarship over national origin. It runs against the grain of transnational scientific inquiry that grew during the middle ages and has matured from the Renaissance to the present day. Moreover, it holds academics accountable to the sins of politicians, regardless of the scholar’s true political affiliations. These internationalist principles are core values of academic freedom that Wilkie et al. are no doubt aware. They are not suspended lightly. So to suspend them does make a serious statement against Israeli policy. But to do so in such an exceptionalist way—when, as ibyx points out, there is plenty of sin to go around—suggests that, among a few of the boycotters, it expresses a latent anti-semitism.
How that pertains to Wilkie, I can’t say; I don’t know him. But to take such drastic measures against an innocent scholar is extreme and, academically speaking, unethical. His later expression of regret may just be that, regret for having vented his anger in the wrong direction, for recognizing he violated a fundamental principle of academic inquiry. He’s human, after all, and there is much that the Sharon government does to piss off any decent person. But that’s for him to make clear to the academic community, not for us to tease out of him.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 8:59 am
Do you really think Wilkie would decline to hire a veteran who was Chinese (Tibet) or Russian (Chechnya)? Why single out Israel, the Jewish state?
What’s funny to me, is how many Wilkies who say “I’m not anti-Jew; I’m anti-Israel/anti-Zionist” would dismiss as totally illogical a statement like “I don’t hate women, I just hate feminists” or “I am not opposed to Palestinian people, just the ones who insist they have a right to their own nation.”
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 12:26 pm
We’re all in agreement that Prof. Wilkie discriminated unfairly. If he’s capable of prejudice based on nationality I don’t think it’s so far out to say he’s probably capable of other prejudices as well. One who cherishes liberal values of tolerance and respect does not behave this way. True, you can’t “prove” anti-Semitism from this incident, but I for one think it’s a pretty safe bet.
This comment was written by Hasidic Rebel.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 2:01 pm
I think this e-mail is incredibly bigoted and prejudiced. But that bigotry and prejudice is not inherently anti-semitic, it is bigotry and prejudice against national origin. That doesn’t make it any less bigoted or prejudice, just a different kind of bigotry and prejudice.
I oppose the idea that assuming an Isreali is supportive of the Isreali government in it’s entirety. And that comment about the applicant having served in the Israeli army is assinine, seeing as how every Israeli citizen must participate in the army.
However, for the same reason (and using the same logic), I am opposed to assuming that his statements are anti-semitic simply because Europe has a history of anti-semitism.
I can’t deny that this e-mail could be based on anti-semitism. But the fact remains, it can’t really be known either way. It is not, in any way, inherently anti-semitic. In order to know if this e-mail (and the decision) had anti-semitic undertones, one would have to know a lot more about the professor in question. Would he have rejected a white South African scholar in the 1980’s? In fact, would he reject a Chinese or Russian scholar**? We simply don’t know. One can make as many assumptions as they want — but unless you have some inside information that no one else in the media or here has, it is nothing more than an assumption — which could simply be based on the assumption-holders own biases and prejudices.
**I’m not sure that using China or even Russia is a perfect analogy — because the desire and need for European support is vastly different between Israel (and even 1980’s S. Africa) than it is in China or Russia.
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 2:10 pm
“I’m not sure that using China or even Russia is a perfect analogy — because the desire and need for European support is vastly different between Israel (and even 1980’s S. Africa) than it is in China or Russia”
Of course it’s not perfect; no analogies are. :)
Let’s set aside China’s occupation of Tibet for a moment, and look at Chechnya. How do they need European support any less than the Palestinians?
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 2:19 pm
We’re all in agreement that Prof. Wilkie discriminated unfairly. If he’s capable of prejudice based on nationality I don’t think it’s so far out to say he’s probably capable of other prejudices as well. One who cherishes liberal values of tolerance and respect does not behave this way. True, you can’t “prove” anti-Semitism from this incident, but I for one think it’s a pretty safe bet.
I’m not so sure I agree with this — for a number fo reasons.
First, I am strongly opposed to calling all anti-Israeli sentiment “anti-semitism.” They are simply not inherently the same (although there can be cross-over). One can be strongly opposed to Zionism without being opposed to Jews. Conflating the two seems untruthful, unfair, and, frankly, bigotted in it’s own way.
Second, if something is bigotted and prejudicial, there is no need to exaggerate the extent of said bigotry and prejudice, particularly when the exaggeration cannot be known. Exaggeration in these cases does more harm than good, in the end, IMO — when the situation is bad, making it worse without fact simply makes the entire argument open to rejection for it’s untruthfulness.
No, a liberal should not accept intolerance of a person simply based on national origin. That’s enough to oppose this e-mail. There is no need to assume that it is also something that it may not be.
However, I think if one were to look at it in the context of say 1980’s South Africa, for example, the difference would be clearer. If this prof. had simply rejected a candidate because he was from South Africa (and white), I would oppose that decision — because he would be assuming that said candidate supported the South African government without any supporting knowledge of that fact. However, if it was known that the candidate was in full support of the white South African government and a full supporter of Apartheid, I would have no problem whatsoever with rejecting said candidate. Either way, I would assume that the rejection was based on a political stance, not an “anti-white” bigotry. I feel the same way about the difference between anti-Israeli prejudice and anti-semitism.
IMO, what this professor did was wrong because he assumed that the applicant, simply because he was from Israel and served in the Israeli army (a requirement for all citizens) that he supported the government.
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
July 1st, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Let’s set aside China’s occupation of Tibet for a moment, and look at Chechnya. How do they need European support any less than the Palestinians?
I was talking about Israeli’s needing European support, not the Palestinian’s (therefore, Europeans possibly being able to influence Isreali policy). So, the question wouldn’t be whether Chechnya needed as much European support as Palestinians, but whether Russia needed as much European support as Israel.
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2003 at 6:10 pm
Having lived in England for 15 years, I’d guess that an Oxford professor (I went to Cambridge) who wrote this objectionable email would indeed have rejected a white South African. I refer you to the Special AKA, who sang “Free Nelson Mandela” and also “War Crimes”, about Lebanon (I won’t listen to the second, which compares Beirut to Belsen).
This comment was written by John Isbell.As to the argument that denunciation of Israel is inherently anti-semitic, I’d be happy to introduce the above commenters to my friend who simply says “I hate Israel”, despite her brother the Lubavitcher rabbi in Israel. Yes, she keeps kosher, yadda yadda yadda. You’re welcome to ask her how anti-semitic she is. Sharon’s Israel and Judaism are not coterminous.
This does not preclude the possibility that the professor, besides being an apparent bigot, is also an anti-semite. We can examine that on the day it is granted to us to look into other people’s hearts, like the Shadow. I will say, in fairness since that seems a worthwhile aim here, that he may feel he is taking academic boycott one step further by refusing to admit someone, as a political action. If so, the term “bigot” to describe his motivation might be a little hasty, but I would still utterly condemn this aproach.
Report this comment to the moderators