Here’s the cartoon in question… And read this link explaining what the blood libel myth is, if you don’t know already.

Trish Wilson provides a link to The Independent’s response page: it includes three defenses of the cartoon, one written by the cartoonist himself. They also publish a critique by Ned Temko which makes the primary criticism clear:

But it is not the cartoon’s skewed picture of the conflict that is at issue. It is its use of one of the oldest images of European anti-Semitism, the fuel for pogroms and ultimately for the Holocaust ‘ the classic “blood libel”, of Jews murdering gentile children for their blood.

But despite Temko’s editorial, none of the three defenses even address the “blood libel” issue. Cartoonist Dave Brown, understandably, takes the route of explaining his intentions; but (as I argued in the post below this one), even if we take his word that his intentions were benign, that doesn’t make the cartoon itself non-anti-Semitic. Philip Hensher explains the Goya connection, and argues:

What is apparent to me is that the accusation made by the cartoon, though severe, is one that ought to be within the means of graphic satire. Similar pictures were produced of Mrs Thatcher in her prime. Critics of the image should ask themselves, above all, not whether they agree with it, but how this accusation would be made, with the same legitimate force, by a cartoonist with no anti-Semitic prejudices; because, surely, everyone must concede that criticism of a specific policy of a specific Israeli government need not proceed from racial prejudice. I think the answer is that it would look very much as the cartoon actually does.

For Hensher’s argument to make sense, we’d have to believe that political cartoonists are unfairly constrained from criticising Israeli governments (or from implying that Palestinians are symbolically Israel’s children) if they have to refrain from drawing prominent Jews eating gentile children or drinking blood. Calling this argument “ridiculous” is a terrible understatement; there’s an entire universe of strong images available to cartoonists which don’t recall the blood libel.

Furthermore, because this cartoon recalls traditional anti-Semitic imagery so strongly, it shouldn’t even be claimed that this cartoon successfully criticizes “a specific policy of a specific Israeli government”; the cartoonist’s intent (accepting, for the sake of argument, Hensher’s interpretation) has not been communicated clearly, but is drowned in his insensitivity and ham-handed use of traditional anti-Semitic imagery. As ‘Journalista! puts it:

I suppose it’s a fine defense in theory, but given the “blood libel” myths flung at Jews past and present, you have to wonder just how naive Brown was being in not anticipating accusations of anti-Semitism. Aren’t cartoons supposed to communicate their ideas a little more clearly than that?

The cartoon’s defenders bring up the deplorable habit of some Israel-advocates of labeling any strong criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. In general, this is a fair point (and one I’ve made before). But it’s not true in this specific instance. I’m a left-wing political cartoonist who loathes Sharon and the Israeli government - hell, I’ve even been accused of anti-Semitism myself, for cartoons like these (1 2 3 4) - and yet even I think Brown’s cartoon is grotesquely anti-Semitic. Yes, some of the criticisms of anti-Semitism are baseless; but that doesn’t mean that every criticism of anti-Semitism should be dismissed.

That not one of The Independent’s defenders even addresses the issue - which is not criticism of Israeli policy, but the use of a traditional and vicious anti-Semitic image - is disappointing.

Update: Musings provides a cartoon from an Arabic newspaper for comparison.

Letters from Gotham points out a grossly anti-Semitic cartoon from The Independent which draws on the old “Jews eat gentile children” blood libel. She also provides an email address for The Independent’s news editor, in case folks would like to share their thoughts.

Needless to say, I do think cartoonists have the right to criticize Israel as harshly as they want - even cartoons like this one, which cross the line into anti-Semitism. But we readers have the corresponding right to tell newspapers what we think; and newspaper editors have the right to choose not to publish anti-Semitic dribble if they don’t want to.

Update: As Kip pointed out in the comments - and as I should have spotted myself - the cartoon is a riff on a famous Goya painting of Saturn eating his children, which suggests that the cartoonist may have had something more, or something other, in mind than just blood libel. (For those of you who don’t know, the blood libel is a centuries-old anti-Semitic myth that Jews eat gentile children. It’s a good deal better-known in Europe than it is in the US).

So does that change anything? Well, it brings up the possibility that this may have been accidental anti-Semitism; perhaps the cartoonist was just tasteless, insensitive, ignorant. But I never said that the cartoonist himself (herself?) is an anti-Semite. I don’t know or care what was in the cartoonists’ heart; all I know is what was drawn in the cartoon. And what was drawn was one of the most pernicious and vicious anti-Semitic myths in history; a slander that is still current in parts of the Arab world.

(It’s on a par with an American newspaper editor printing a cartoon showing Colin Powell raping white women. It’s not just tasteless; it’s drawing on a specific, deeply-felt cultural image of bigotry. And it draws on that racist imagery regardless of intent.).

Look, somebody could, in theory, grow up miraculously ignorant and not know the word “kike,” or think the word is just a fancy, non offensive word for “Jew.” They could then write a perfectly reasonable petition calling for Jewish settlers to lay off of Palestinian olive groves, all without a trace of anti-Semitism in their heart. But if the petition they wrote used the wording “the kike settlers should lay off,” then I’d call that an anti-Semitic petition. That there is a theoretical possibility that the writer is not an anti-Semite is just a distraction; it doesn’t call the anti-Semitism of the petition’s wording into question.

In this case, the cartoon was drawn by the cartoonist and approved by an editor. If it was by some miracle an innocent mistake, then it is still a mistake that shows a staggering tastelessness, ignorance and insensitivity. And regardless of motive, the result was the printing of an anti-Semitic cartoon; at the very least, The Independent’s editors owe all their Jewish readers an apology and an explanation.

Also in my comments, Jake writes:

I dunno. I mean it’s disgusting, and it’s certainly anti-Sharon, but I think that’s all it is. I didn’t interpret it as anti-semitic. And I know Amp’s often the first to point out that anti-Sharon != anti-semitic, so I’m wondering why you feel this is.

Consider again my hypothetical example of a racist cartoon about Colin Powell. Does it cease to be racist because it is using racist imagery against one particular black person, rather than against black people as a whole?

Look, I hate Sharon; I think he’s a war criminal, a bigot, and an enemy of peace. I’ll gladly call him terrible names and draw him doing horrible things. But I will never draw him eating babies; because that’s a traditional way anti-Semites attack Jews. It’s fair game to criticize Sharon for being a warmonger or even a murderer; but bringing in “blood libel” imagery turns the cartoon into a criticism of him for being a Jewish warmonger, and that’s anti-Semitic. There’s a big difference between criticism of Sharon and anti-Semitic criticism of Sharon.

How George Bush is trying to prevent peace talks.

I don’t know how I missed linking to this excellent post by Jim at Objectionable Content last week: "I think that, at times, alarmist reminders are valuable — if the situation is alarming. But one cannot cry ‘holocaust’ at every injustice. This charge has been leveled at some Jewish people, and it is ironic now to see it leveled at Palestinians too."

UPDATE: Whoops, it turns out I already linked to Jim’s post (as Jim pointed out to me via email). You know, I kindathought I had, but I couldn’t find it. Oh, well, it’s good enough to link to twice.

Two articles on the olive grove situation: one from the Guardian nicely summing up recent events, and another from Israeli peace activists searching for a way to help (scroll down for the section about olive groves).

Armed Liberal responds to an email I sent him - thanks, A.L.!. I’ll try to respond sometime in the next week. (If the permalink isn’t working, then go to Armed Liberal and scroll to the entry for October 14, 2002, entitled "I see smart people.")

Finally, I recommend this essay by Michael Walzer, arguing that there are not one but four wars going on between Israel and Palestine.

The first is a Palestinian war to destroy the state of Israel.
The second is a Palestinian war to create an independent state alongside Israel, ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The third is an Israeli war for the security of Israel within the 1967 borders.
The fourth is an Israeli war for Greater Israel, for the settlements and the occupied territories.

Although I don’t agree with every word (Walzer’s take on Camp David is, in my view, overly biased towards the blame-Palestinians-for-everything view), on the whole it presents a very useful lens through which Israel/Palestine can be examined.. Through this lens, he brings up a solid (albeit not new) critique of settlers:

For the settler movement is the functional equivalent of the terrorist organizations. I hasten to add that it is not the moral equivalent. The settlers are not murderers, even if there are a small number of terrorists among them. But the message of settler activity to the Palestinians is very much like the message of terrorism to the Israelis: we want you to leave (some groups on the Israeli right, including groups represented in Sharon’s government, openly support a policy of "transfer"), or we want you to accept a radically subordinate position in your own country. The settlers’ aim is Greater Israel, and the achievement of that aim would mean that there could not be a Palestinian state. It is in this sense only that they are like the terrorists: they want the whole thing.

He also (to bring up a subject that I’ve talked about too much lately) has a good critique of the "divestment" movement:

The current boycott campaign against Israel, modeled on the 1980s campaign against South Africa, aims at a very one-sided delegitimation. And because the other side isn’t led by an organization remotely like the African National Congress, or by a man remotely like Nelson Mandela, the success of this campaign would be disastrous. It would strengthen the forces fighting the first war. Only when European critics of Israel are prepared to tell the Palestinians that there will be no help for a PA complicit in terrorism, can they ask American critics of the Palestinians to deliver a parallel message to the Israeli government. Intellectuals committed to internationalism can best serve their cause by explaining and defending the two messages together.

Waltzer argues for the next step:

Ultimately, the partisans of wars two and three must defeat the partisans of wars one and four. The way to peace begins with these two internal (but not necessarily uncoordinated) battles.

But also acknowledges the vast uncertainties involved in his approach:

An American or American/European sponsored truce would help the moderates on both sides, but, at the same time, the success of the truce depends on the strength of the moderates. Right now, it is hard to judge whether the "reform" of the Palestinian Authority would increase that strength. All good things don’t come together in political life: some of the most moderate Palestinians are among the most corrupt, while the suicide bombers are no doubt idealists. Democratic elections in Palestine may well play into the hands of nationalist and religious demagogues; this is a real possibility in Israel too. Still, a more open politics among the Palestinians would allow public expressions of support for a compromise peace, and that would be a major advance.

I don’t mean for this to become an "all-Israel, all the time" blog, although it’s felt that way lately. Israel and Palestine is a lifelong interest of mine, but it’s not my only interest. There are another few big blog posts on my plate about Israel and Palestine, and then I plan to take a break from the mid-East, so that some of the other topics that have been waiting in line shuffling their feet (Oregon politics, manners and morals, and abortion, for example) will have a chance.

Many of the above links were found via the excellent Third Way blog, by the way.

Meryl Yourish has posted a legal brief by some folks who were suing to shut down the "“Second National Student Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement" (Occam’s Toothbrush posted some quotes from the same document). A few comments:

I have no way of knowing if most of the document’s claims are true or not; it gives next-to-no verifiable information on where its facts come from (not even for such a basic question of where the list of speakers was announced).

I do agree that if the document’s claims about Sami Al-Arian, Hatem Bazian and Mahdi Bray are uncontroversially true, then inviting them was, in the most generous possible interpretation, the work of ignorant morons. What’s more likely is that the people who invited them are asshole anti-Semites, in which case the conference will do nothing but harm; harm to Jews, harm to Israelis, and harm to Palestinians.

However, in the two cases in which I was able to double-check the brief’s claims against reality, the brief was deceptive.

1) The brief says: "The University of Michigan, while officially claiming to be neutral and not endorsing the stated goals of the Conference, features a link to the Conference website on The University of Michigan’s official website, http://www.umich.edu, at: http://www.umich.edu/palestineconf.html#safety. Links to opposing organizations’/conferences’ websites are not listed on the official University of Michigan website."

It’s true that the website has a link to SAFE, the conference organizers. But the same document also has links to U-M Hillel and Michigan Student Zionists, both of whom oppose the conference.

2) The brief says this about two scheduled conference speakers.

But in context, Shapiro and Arraf were advocating that suicide bombers should use "nonviolent direct action" instead of terrorism. From the article "Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada":

Personally, I disagree with Shapiro and Arraf on many things, but that’s not the point. Shapiro and Arraf are arguing for less violence and in favor of nonviolent resistance; the brief used out-of-context quotes to give exactly the opposite impression. No matter what you think of Shapiro and Arraf, the way the brief quoted them was dishonest.

I think it’s quite possible, from what the brief says, that some of the conference’s organizers and speakers are anti-Semitic shitheads. But I can’t be certain, because the brief itself doesn’t seem trustworthy.

The Lincoln Plawg has a good piece dissecting Larry Summers’ famous speech (as regular readers know, this is a subject I’ve commented on a time or three myself). Here’s a sample from the Lincoln Plawg:

It’s a little bit close to “fisking” for my taste, but it’s nonetheless a nicely-done examination of a bad idea. Check it out.

Anti-Semitism is rampaging over our college campuses, right? Well, maybe not.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - a group who no one could accuse of being in denial about anti-Semitism - ran a survey which found just the opposite. According to the ADL, “campus faculty and students are the least anti-Semitic” group in America. Not only is anti-Semitism on college campuses “virtually non-existent,” the ADL clearly finds that criticizing Israel doesn’t correspond with anti-Semitism: “Importantly, while criticism of Israel is high relative to the national population — especially among college faculty — there is no corresponding evidence of significant anti-Semitic sentiment.”

(Who is most likely to be anti-Semitic, according to the survey? Blacks, hispanics, the less educated, older folks, and people who are racists or homophobes.)

The ADL’s results pretty much matches my experience as a Jew at several of the most liberal campuses in the US (Oberlin, UMass Amherst, and Portland State University). To hear conservatives talk about it, liberal students on American campuses routinely sit around perusing Protocols of the Elders of Zion and planning David Duke rallies; but is that even remotely plausible? Especially considering that many campus liberals are themselves Jewish? Most campus liberals are almost as as terrified of being labeled “anti-semitic” as they are of being “sexist” or “racist.”¹

Who is anti-Semitic on college campuses? In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, it’s the religious fundimentalists. I’ve occasionally heard Muslim or Islamic fundimentalists talk about how “the Jews” are responsible for [insert moronic conspiracy theory du jour here], for example. According to conservatives, these folks are “the left” - even though those sexist, homophobic religious fanatics have more in common with Ralph Reed than Ralph Nader.

It may also be that many Blacks and Hispanics are anti-Semitic - that’s what the ADL survey found - but I haven’t experienced it personally, except from some Nation of Islam types. Perhaps I’ve been lucky in the folks I’ve known.

I’ve also heard Campus Crusade for Christ folks cheerfully predicting the day when their oh-so-just God will send all Jews to burn in hell for eternity - which is also anti-Semitic, but since it’s not anti-Israel no one minds. (Certainly no one on the political right.)

Even among religious fundimentalists, in my experience, the large majority on campus are not anti-Semites. This is unsurprising, considering that evidence shows anti-Semitism is “virtually nonexistant” on campus. So why have conservatives focused so unerringly on campus anti-Semitism, while ignoring more prevalent anti-Semitism virtually everywhere else in America?

It seems to me the real issue here isn’t anti-Semitism, but opposition to Israel. Fair enough - but I wish conservatives wouldn’t reflexively call everyone who dissents from their views on Israel an anti-Semite. It distorts reality and trivializes real anti-Semitism.

1. This sentence originally read Most campus liberals are as terrified of being “anti-semitic” as they are of being “sexist” or “racist.” That isn’t a statement I can believe or stand behind, so I’ve edited the sentence to reflect my actual beliefs. (back)

(Note: I’ve also criticized leftist anti-Semitism and partisanship. But because this post responds to others’ disagreements with me, and no one disagreed with that point, it doesn’t come up in this post.)

In an earlier post, I wrote this:

This wasn’t the main point of my post, by the way. My main point was deploring how pro-Israel partisans label all anti-Israel activism as anti-Semitic. A clear example is the Harvard divestment petition, which Larry Summers called "anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent." Yet absolutely nothing about the petition is anti-Semitic, if anti-Semitism means displaying animus towards Jews in general. (It does criticize the current Israeli government, but you can dislike the current Israeli government without hating the Jewish people - right?). It seems to me Summers’ statement represents a harmful broadening of the term "anti-Semitism," for purely partisan purposes.

Unfortunately, none of the folks who responded to me explained how someone saying "I favor divestment from Israel to pressure the Israeli government to remove settlements" is anti-Semitism. Instead, people responded to me about the word "feminazi." Armed Liberal wrote:

Lynn of In Context lays out a similar case:

Both these folks are mistaken about where the term "feminazi" comes from. The term was invented by Rush Limbaugh. He didn’t mean it as a friendly gibe, the same way AL’s friends might call AL a "safety nazi," or that my friends have called me "wedding nazi" (I’m a wedding coordinator for a living). The term is not restricted to rigid feminists - even Naomi Wolf, who flirts with being pro-life and writes prose-poems about loving penises, is called a feminazi. And Rush (who Lynn presumably doesn’t know of) explicitly meant the term to accuse feminists of perpetrating a Holocaust. Rush used the term to suggest that Nazis are to Jews as feminists are to babies, which is Rush’s idea of contributing to the abortion debate.

So. Do I think the term "feminazi" is anti-Semitic?

I think there’s a good case to be made that it is. The comparison trivializes the harms done by Nazis to Jews, and it shows (at best) a stunning indifference to Jewish feelings. These two elements combined suggest - if not actual anti-Semitism - well, then, a perverse willingness to not give a shit about Jewish history or feelings. (Over the years I’ve explained this to several conservatives who use the term "feminazi," but only one responded by giving up the term).

Going further, AL and Lynn are very quick to assume it’s not significant when the word "Nazi" is used against a movement that has been led disproportionately by Jewish women. I’m not sure I agree. There is no way of overstating the impact Jewish women have had on American feminism: to list just a handful, where would feminism be without Betty Friedan, Gloria Stienem, Bella Azbug, Naomi Wolf, Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, Shula Firestone, Robin Morgan, Rebecca Walker, Katha Pollit, Karen Nussbaum and Judy Chicago?

If conservatives recognize the historic connection between feminism and Judaism and deliberately choose to use "nazi," that’s plainly disgusting. But even if we assume that conservative critics of feminism don’t know much about feminism, they’re still not off the hook. The term "feminazi" has such hellish staying power because it stings, it bothers feminists like no other epithet; and a major reason it stings is because so many feminists are Jewish. Maybe the folks perpetuating "feminazi" don’t know that; but they sure enjoy seeing the sting, and that’s why they keep using the term.

What would we say about someone who is (somehow) unaware of the racial history of the term "boy," but who likes using the term against NAACP members (not all of whom are black), because he’s noticed it has such a sting?

But I’ve forgotten to answer my own question. Do I think the term "feminazi" is anti-Semitic?

I’ve been thinking about this all week. And the answer is, no, I don’t.

Most people who use the word "feminazi" are thoughtless at best, cruel at worse; and they have (to repeat myself) a perverse indifference to Jewish history and hurting Jews; but they probably don’t have any particular animus against Jews. And at the end of the day, Anti-Semitism has to involve prejudice against Jews because they are Jewish. Otherwise the term loses meaning.

However, that’s my opinion.

It’s not Cathy Young’s opinion; it’s not Larry Summers’ opinion; and I presume it’s not the opinion of anyone who agreed with Summers’ speech. Why? Because Summers’s speech presented a radical new idea of anti-Semitism: anti-Semitism in effect, even when there isn’t anti-Semitic intent. In this new version of anti-Semitism, an anti-Semitic action is one that hurts Jews, whether or not prejudice against Jews - "intent" - is involved. (Say, if an earthquake levels a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, is that anti-Semitism?).

But here’s my problem with Israel’s paritsans - they want to have it both ways. When it comes to criticizing liberals, they use the broadest definition of anti-Semitism imaginable, so that even a purely political action against the government of Israel, conducted by folks who have never shown any sign of anti-Jewish prejudice, is anti-Semitism.

But let their attention be drawn to a conservative action - such as the tarring of Jewish feminists with the term "Nazi," or attempts to institutionalize Christianity in schools and public functions, or Christian fundimentalists who say Jews are going to Hell; - and those same people will become fountains of excuses and special pleadings. It’s not anti-Semitism unless there’s a comparison to the Holocaust. It’s not anti-Semitism because there was no prejudicial intent It’s not anti-Semitism to call liberal feminist Jews Nazis, it’s only anti-Semitism when Zionist Jews are called Nazis. It’s not anti-Semitism because it’s just a funny joke (funny to whom?). In short, when it comes to the things conservatives say and do, suddenly anti-Semitism is defined as narrowly as possible.

It is ridiculous. It is intellectually dishonest. And it is nakedly partisan.

Pick one standard and stick with it. If you criticize leftists for anti-Semitism for the smallest thing - like signing a petition that says not one word against Jews - then have the moral fiber to admit that, defined that broadly, the term "feminazi" used against Jewish women is also anti-Semitic; and so is someone who thinks Jesus belongs in our public schools. Personally, I think that’s an overbroad definition of anti-Semitism, but it would at least be consistent.

Or, if you want to say that the word "feminazi" is appalling, but not anti-Semitic, then that’s fine too - but show the same leniency when talking about liberals and leftists. Either anti-Semitism requires prejudicial intent, or it doesn’t. Either it’s defined narrowly, or broadly. You can’t have it one way for conservatives, and another for liberals.

Related links: D-Squared Digest thinks he has a solution: Let’s just stop using the words "Israeli" and "Zionist" and replace them with "Likudist". (The permalink doesn’t seem to be working, so scroll around for the October third entry named "Politics and the English Language, redux.")

Organizers of the Harvard petition respond to Larry Summers.

Junkyardblog says "ya got me. Fair ’nuff" in response to this post of mine. I gotta say, I admire that - it takes class to admit you’ve made a mistake. It would have been even better if he hadn’t made excuses for the ways conservatives use "Feminazi" - excuses that I doubt he’d make for left-wingers who think calling their opponents"Nazi" is funny.

UPDATES: Armed Liberal and In Context have both posted replies to my post. Also, Meryl Yourish has posted her thoughts on the divestment issue.

Regarding the “talking about Israel if you’re not also talking about every other abusive state in the world is anti-Semitism” meme, I think D-Squared Digest pretty much covered it:

Finally, thanks to Ignatz for his very kind link to this post.

Harvard President Larry Summers weighs in against the anti-Semitic menace of divestment. According to The Harvard Crimson (via Meryl Yourish):

How is advocating divestment from Israel anti-Semitic?

Summers suggests that it’s anti-Semitic because Israel is being "singled out." This is a common argument from those who see anti-Semitism behind every criticism of Israel; why else, they implore, could Israel be criticized? Here, for example, is perennial bigmouth Alan Dershowitz (who says he’ll resign from Harvard’s faculty if Harvard divests - another argument in divestment’s favor):

Despite Dershowitz’s claim, there are legitimate reasons to "single out" Israel.

• Israel is the leading beneficiary of US foreign and military aid.

  When I shop, I consider the ingredients of the groceries I buy - I don’t want to be swilling dolphin along with my tuna, and so forth. I don’t waste my time peering at the ingredients of Spam (enlightening as they doubtless are), because I’m not paying for Spam. The fact that Spam is worse than tuna is irrelevant. Similarly, I’m bothered more by what Israel does than by what Zimbabwe does, because I ain’t paying for Robert Mugabe’s guns.

  Presumably Summers, when he visits the A&P, reads each and every label, to avoid "singling out" the groceries he’s paying for by treating them differently from those he isn’t paying for. But not all of us go so far overboard when attempting to be evenhanded.

• Israel was created in a mostly nonwhite, nonwestern region by a white, western government (England). Israel’s government is dominated by white westerners, who use American-manufactured weapons to rule over non-white-westerners in the West Bank and Gaza. Given how concerned student leftism is with white, western imperialism, is there any reason to doubt that many student protesters would be protesting even if the average Israeli were Christian?

  It’s really funny. For decades, right-wingers have been complaining that campus leftists protest anything white and western (dead white men, California egg farms, whatever). But when it comes to Israel, they imply the campus left objects to Israel out of anti-Semitism, as if campus leftists would be fine with white-westy-dominated Israel if only it weren’t Jewish. Do conservatives even attempt to be consistent? (I know Summers isn’t right-wing - but some of the folks applauding him are.)

  (Some will object that Israel’s actions are justified self-defense. But that’s a separate issue; it goes to the question of whether the protesters are right. The question at hand is whether a "divest from Israel" campaign is anti-Semitic; even if you say the protesters are wrong, that doesn’t show they’re anti-Semitic)

• Here’s a head’s up: nobody can protest everything. (Not that everything doesn’t deserve it, dammit!) It’s called "specialization" - to be effective, activists must "single out" particular concerns, and that’s the way it’ll be until God curses us with a 3000-hour day. Dershowitz understands this perfectly well, which is why he’s not slamming pro-Israel activists for ignoring the human rights situations in Tajikistan, Togo and Tibet. Yet when the divestment campaign does the same thing, it’s accused of anti-Semitism.
• A lot of protesters are either Palestinian or Jewish. All Palestinians and Jews have (like it or not) a connection to Israel/Palestine; our connection makes it legitimate for us to "single out" the region for special concern.

  (You know, when I was a kid, I was taught to think of Israel as something special in the world. Now I’m told that if I hold Israel to standards higher than the most dismal tin-pot third-world dictatorial human-rights-abusing nation on the globe, I’m a self-hating Jew. Ironic how times change.)

• Finally, Israel and Palestine get so much attention from protesters simply because it’s a popular media issue. It’s rare to go a week without seeing TV stories, front-page news, and editorials about Israel and Palestine, most of which is written and narrated by professional shallowists who don’t give a crap about Israel or Palestine, so long as ratings are strong. Probably it’s silly to pay more attention to whatever drivel the media is feeding us, but hey, that’s the way things work - and it’s not anti-Semitic

Why do I care? Well, as others have written, the use of false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence dissenting voices is disturbing. But primarily, it bothers me because anti-Semitism is not a joke.

Let me repeat that: Anti-Semitism is not a joke. It’s a serious problem about real harms caused by real bigots. That so many of Israel’s supporters seek to cheapen the term and make it meaningless, by accusing everyone who criticizes Israel of anti-Semitism, disgusts me. It harms Jews to have the idea of "anti-Semitism" become yet another empty partisan label.

Summers knows better - or he did, in the past. It’s disappointing to see him join the chorus of Israeli advocates determined to leech all meaning from the term "anti-Semitic"

Here’s a few related links I’ve seen today (many via Instapundit).

The writers of the petition commented on this issue - quite a while ago, in fact.

Hub Blog (permalinks not there, so scroll around for it) weighs in with this:

Who, exactly, has said that anti-Semitism isn’t part of the overall equation? No one I’ve read.

I think the "effect/intent" distinction (which isn’t in the Crimson story, but is in the full speech) is in this case a bunch of hooey. The "effect" of divestment won’t be to wipe out Israel’s existence, which is what anti-Semites want; it would be to pressure Israel to leave the occupied territories and end legal torture (as the petition demands), neither of which are distinctly anti-Semitic goals. To be "anti-Semitic in effect," the petition would need to achieve, or at least strive for, some distinctly anti-Semitic goal; it does not.

Hub Blog takes, I think, a slightly different stance than Summers’ intended. He argues that "the minority of divestments supporters" who are anti-Semitic justify calling divestment itself "anti-Semitic" in effect if not in intent. But if a minority of bigoted supporters deligitimize an entire moment, what movement is legitimate? I can’t think of any that couldn’t be said to have a minority of bigoted supporters.

For example: although most Israelis and pro-Israeli advocates aren’t anti-Arab racists, some are; would Hub Blog therefore agree that the pro-Israel movement is racist "in their effect if not their intent?" That’s where his logic leads.

Finally, check out this excellent and very balanced critique of "Campus Watch" by Jacob Levy. You may have to hunt around a bit, since blogspot’s permalinking is permastinking lately.

There’s been much snickering in blogdom regarding Andrea Dworkin’s essay on female suicide bombers. But Andrew Edwards of Sketch has taken it a step further, by claiming that Dworkin “thinks that mass murder is an appropriate response to ‘the stigma of being a woman’.” Note the deceptive use of a sentence fragment there; Dworkin’s essay in no way suggests that suicide bombing is “an appropriate response.” Edwards should distinguish between understanding motives behind terrorism - which is what Dworkin’s essay attempts - and saying that terrorism is appropriate.