Criticize Israel? You're an Anti-Semite!?

Question

How can we have a real discussion about Mideast peace if speaking honestly about "Israel" is out of bounds?




Ever wonder what it's like to be a pariah?
Publish something sharply critical of "Israeli" government policies and you'll find out. If you're lucky, you'll merely discover that you've been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you're less lucky, you'll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.

This, at least, is what happened to Ken Roth. Roth - whose father fled Nazi Germany - is executive director of Human Rights Watch, America's largest and most respected human rights organization. (Disclosure: I have worked in the past as a paid consultant for the group.) In July, after the "Israeli" offensive in Lebanon began, Human Rights Watch did the same thing it has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Congo, Uganda and countless other conflict zones around the globe: It sent researchers to monitor the conflict and report on any abuses committed by either side.

It found plenty. On July 18, Human Rights Watch condemned Hizbullah rocket strikes on "Israel", calling the strikes "serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes." So far, so good. You can't lose when you criticize a (so-called) 'terrorist' organization.
But Roth and Human Rights Watch didn't stop there. As the conflict's death toll spiraled - with most of the casualties Lebanese civilians - Human Rights Watch also criticized "Israel" for indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Roth noted that the "Israeli" military appeared to be "treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone," and he observed that the failure to take appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants constitutes a war crime.

The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to (so-called) 'terrorists' and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hizbullah and anti-'Israel' bias" and accused him of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive 'Israel'-basher ... who, in his zest to pillory 'Israel' at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make "Israel" look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust."

Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch - or with Roth - knows this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan - it doesn't "take sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on the insane.
But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize "Israel" can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about "Israel", because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism.

Think "Israel's" tactics against Hizbullah were too heavy-handed, or that "Israel" hasn't always been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the United States should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military support for "Israel"? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless you want to be called an anti-Semite - and probably a terrorist sympathizer to boot.
How did adopting a reflexively pro-"Israel" stance come to be a mandatory aspect of American Jewish identity? Skepticism - a willingness to ask tough questions, a refusal to embrace dogma - has always been central to the Jewish intellectual tradition. Ironically, this tradition remains alive in "Israel", where respected public figures routinely criticize the government in far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.

In a climate in which good-faith criticism of "Israel" is automatically denounced as anti-Semitic, everyone loses. "Israeli" policies are a major source of discord in the Islamic world, and anger at "Israel" usually spills over into anger at the U.S., "Israel's" biggest backer.
With resentment of "Israeli" policies fueling terrorism and instability both in the Middle East and around the globe, it's past time for Americans to have a serious national debate about how to bring a just peace to the Middle East. But if criticism of "Israel" is out of bounds, that debate can't occur - and we'll all pay the price.


Back to Human Rights Watch's critics. Why waste time denouncing imaginary anti-Semitism when there's no shortage of the real thing? From politically motivated arrests of Jews in Iran to assaults on Jewish children in Ukraine, there's plenty of genuine anti-Semitism out there - and Human Rights Watch is usually taking the lead in condemning it. So if you're bothered by anti-Semitism - if you're bothered by ideologies that insist that some human lives have less value than others - you could do a whole lot worse than send a check to Human Rights Watch.

From my last Question people are pointing that i am anti-semite i am not i have plenty of jewish friend and they know my point of view

It is not defending it is attacking and it does not have the right to exist if it continues shedding blood like it has been the jewish people lived side by side with the arabs for thousands of years in peace. only in the past 50 years we see this kind of state terrorisem why?

BMCER good points but no answer

Answer 1

It is perfectly acceptable to criticize the Israeli government if you have a legitimate reason to criticize it. If you get involved in criticizing politicians of any stripe you can guarantee that you will take heat from somewhere. If you are a liberal, the conservatives will bash you and vice versa.

It is not OK to condemn Jews simply for being Jews. And there are a lot more human rights violations going on than in just Israel - yeah - some of us know the truth. I can support Jews without supporting the Israeli government - a lot of the Israelis are critical of their own government - are they anti-Semites? Are they hating themselves? I am critical of the Israeli government - I refuse to be critical of Jews just for being Jews as that is just ridiculous.

And, btw, WAY TOO LONG!!!

Answer 2

I agree that a dialog about Israel is essential to lasting peace in The Middle East. Israel is not without fault in the on-going strife in the region and the United States should not take sides automatically with Israel in disputes between the warring factions.I don't know why being critical of the Jews and their policies in Lebanon and the Gaza means that you are an Anti-Semite.I know that their is a huge Jewish lobby in the United States,especially in Washington D.C., that influences public opinion to always side with Israel no matter what the issue.On the other hand, Israel is surrounded on all sides by their enemies and has no Allies in the region to help them if they're attacked.They do need the United States to be a staunch allie to dissuade her neighbors (Iran) from thinking twice about becoming aggressive for Anti-Semitic reasons.I don't believe that Israel's missteps in policies towards their neighbors should be out of bounds when discussing peace in the region. I think all things should be on the table for discussion and debate about all the issues that divide the principles in the on-going upheaval in the Middle East.

Answer 3

It Okay to criticize Israel, as long the criticisms are based on some facts not wild accusations based on silly propaganda that Jews rule the world. All they want is to live in peace in there small a little country (Israel) that's no more than mustard stain on a map. Lets remember every war which includes Israel including the war against Hezbollah was initiated the Israel enemies. First they attack Israel, then when Israel retaliates they go crying to the world "oh look at all the civilian casualties", there wouldn't have been civilian causalities or a war, it the left the Israel alone. If for instance the Hezbollah was so worried about their Lebanese civilians, they should stop hiding among civilians like cockroaches. Israel always says it would retaliate ten fold upon any who attacks them, they are keeping their word.
What about all the Israel civilians who died because of terrorist attacks. Israel's enemies ( for eg.Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah) don't even try to avoid civilian casualties, they purposefully target Israeli civilians. I don't hear too many complaints about that, I wonder why?

Answer 4

I agree there is much to be critical of regarding Israel. Here in Ireland people sympathise with the Palestinians because they are fighting for their independence just as the Irish did - and the Americans did too (though many suffer from amnesia when this parallel is pointed out). Personally I think the problem isn't the Jews. Jews are human beings like anyone else - some good, some bad. The main problem in the US is a bloc of voters -around 36% judging by polls - who are Christian Zionists. They believe that supporting Israel is a religious duty. I take issue with these people and hope they will wake up some day. The references to Israel in the Bible refer to the ancient kingdom of Israel and anyway, the Bible was written by Jews. As such of course it is going to view things from a Jewish perspective i.e. pro-Israel.

For my part, I prefer to view the Middle East conflict from a human-rights perspective and in terms of international law, and in the latter context, certain facts are clear. Firstly, Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. UN Security Council Resolution 141 requires Israeli withdrawl from those territories. In that context while I condemn Palestinian terror attacks on Israeli civilians, I support the Palestinians right to fight the IDF because it is an army of occupation and international law supports their right to a state. Hamas, an organisation I despise, nonetheless won the Palestinian elections. If we are going to preach democracy to the Muslim world then we could do worse than recognise the results of those elections. Instead of embracing the results of those elections as an opportunity to get the most radical elements of Palestinian society on board in terms of a negotiated settlement with Israel, the Bush administration and govts pressured by them decided on a policy of isolation the cornerstone of which are economic sanctions that have resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian public-sector workers being impoverished. In such circumstances political-upheaval results. Israel is the clear beneficiary of such a policy as it allows them to portray the Palestinians as inherently incapable of governing themselves, but in fact the whole situation is contrived. Such instability can only fuel extremism which suits the Israeli govt as they can then claim "the Palestinians don't want peace" when this results in attacks on Israel.

Meanwhile Israel continues its expansion of illegal Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land. I know that if a foreign army was demolishing Irish homes to replace them with foreign settlers I would not take kindly to it nor would I consider resistance to it to be "terrorism". I wonder do Americans consider rebellion to always amount to terrorism and if so what does that make George Washington? 40 yrs of occupation are long enough. Israeli colonisation of the West Bank and Golan Heights constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention under which population-transfer into an occupied territory is illegal. When judging the Palestinians we should not forget our respective national histories.

Answer 5

I think too many people take sides in this conflict if they mean it or not. I say that both sides keep adding to the conflict obviously and both are doing a bad job of keeping the peace. It is unfortunate that if you criticize either country, you are anti this or that. There are plenty of people hating for hating's sake, but it is best to just avoid those people as best you can.

Answer 6

There is nothing to disagree. Criticism may be due to lack of understanding. No human life is of less value than others. This is narrow mindedness. History is past. I feel that young generation (Arabs and Jews) wanted to live in peace and free from fear. Is approach of our politicians is outdated? It is mindset of most of the Jews to call Anti-Semitic any person who criticize the Israel without understanding reality.

Answer 7

From what I can see, most of you have forgotten something. Arabs are also Semites! Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages. If I am pro-Palestinian I cannot be anti-Semitic.

Answer 8

tell them to stop strapping bombs on and maybe it will start a new beginning until then ,I support Israel,I do believe they're are atrocities and if he reported both sides,fine,but the picture is much bigger than that,and The middle east countries need to clean up there mess or like all people know,someone will do it for them,how long must we smell they're stink before we clean it up?

Answer 9

You wrote: "It is not defending it is attacking and it does not have the right to exist if it continues shedding blood like it has been the jewish people lived side by side with the arabs for thousands of years in peace. only in the past 50 years we see this kind of state terrorisem why?"

You whine and complain in a long post (is it really you, or are you just copy/pasting? It sometimes is hard to tell what's original these days) about how a hard life you have in critisizing Israel and about how there is allegedly "no honest debate". Yet, you let the cat out of the bag by exposing your extreme bias by saying that Israel is engaged in 50 years of state terrorism. and yes, such a bias is extreme as it puts you at the edge of those who may be considered "more reasonable and honest" when they critizie Israel with the realization that it is a democratic country that has to defend itself in various situations.

So, your assessment of Human Rights Watch and its alleged non partisanship is hopelessly coloured, both by your adimitted relationship with it and by your admitted extremism. For the record, called Israel a terrorist state and admitting that you consult with HRW actually gives credance to the critics you cite.

But enough of that.
What I find disturbing is that non only is there no shortage of critics of Israel, both extreme and measured, but there is also a glut of those people who whine and complain that they can't whine and complain about Israel, while in the middle of whining and complaining about Israel! Anbd what's even interesting is that those whiner and complainers, such as yourself, try to sheild themselves by saying things like "oh He's Jewish" or "Oh, he's Jewish and his parents went through the Holocaust" as if that makes him/her immune to counter critisim.

Well, guess what? One of the principals of democracy is freedom of speech. What that means is that not only does Human Rights Watch and its followers (such as yourself) have the right to say what they say, their critics have the right to point out their failings. It seems you wish that they didn't exercise that right.

Well, guess what, too bad!

Update:

It is my personal belief that you did not write the original post but copy pasted it, based on closer analysis of your follow ups. The original post was perfectly spelled with good grammar and the follow ups aren't. The style seems different to. I don't mind if you copy and paste an article, but please have the good sense to say what you are quoting from.

Answer 10

Do you really expect anyone to read this long rant?

The most revealing statement was that some of your best friends are Jews. That is a standard claim--a cliche spouted by all anti-Semites.

If it looks like a duck and goes quack quack like a duck, I guess it must be a duck.

Oh, yes. The Human Rights watch has been so very one-sided that they have lost their credibility.