'If You Don't Agree With Us You're Antisemitic'
The Womp
By Antony Loewenstein and Michael Brull
Source:
http://newmatilda.com/2009/07/07/if-you-dont-agree-us-youre-antisemitic
Labor MP Michael Danby's accusation of antisemitism against two Jewish
writers is a false and dangerous misuse of that term, write the
accused, Michael Brull and Antony Loewenstein
Sometimes, people make malicious slurs that are worth refuting.
Sometimes, people make frivolous, silly accusations that are worth
ridiculing. Jewish Federal Labor MP Michael Danby and the so-called
"Anti-Defamation Commission" ("ADC") have done both. Having been
jointly targeted by this duo, we felt obliged to jointly respond. We
apologise in advance for our failure to capture the seriousness of the
accusations against us. We can only promise that we're not making this
up.
So what exactly did they say? Let us start with Michael Danby. He
basically thinks that "Brull, Loewenstein et al.", with their "broadly
similar views", are guilty of "sloppy journalism", or antisemitism. He
rules out sloppy journalism, because he thinks we are guilty of
demonising Israel, delegitimising it, and double standards. Therefore,
we are both antisemites. Jewish antisemites.
If that was the end of the story, we could stop writing here. It could
almost fit into a long headline: "Michael Danby erodes his credibility
by accusing two Jews of antisemitism because they don't agree with him
on Israel". We should add a personal interest � Danby has been
vociferously criticising one of us for years, and attempted to stop
publication of My Israel Question.
However, the story does not end there. Danby's article does not only
smear us as antisemites. Fellow travellers include newmatilda.com and
Crikey.
At first, it seemed as though he would have been happy just to say
they were "biased" and "partisan". Danby gave an example of this
"bias": a Crikey contributor suggested Israel had moved to the Right
in its last elections. Not so, says Danby � Kadima won more votes than
anyone else. Kadima, founded by Ariel Sharon, is according to Danby,
"centre-Left". This was in an election that produced a Likud Prime
Minister; where Avigdor Lieberman was the "kingmaker" courted by all
sides, after being ridiculed by Labor's Ehud Barak for not having shot
any Arabs personally. According to Danby, this is a victory for the
centre-Left, including "longtime advocates of peace with the
Palestinians". At this rate, in a few years we can expect Danby
instituting new loyalty oaths: declare Avigdor Lieberman an
Arab-loving socialist, or you're antisemitic.
However, it is not just Danby's accusations of bias and antisemitism
that were incredible. Danby reveals that the B'nai B'rith
"Anti-Defamation Commission (sic)" wrote a letter to newmatilda.com on
the subject of the comments after the articles, and (one suspects, the
important thing), the "partisan opinion" featured in the articles.
What's that? The "Anti-Defamation Commission (sic again)" wrote to a
magazine complaining about partisan coverage of Israel? Why did it do
that? Suppose newmatilda.com ran articles criticising Israel's
treatment of the Palestinians every single day � why would that bother
a supposedly anti-racist organisation?
In June 2009, the "ADC" group published a public notice on their site
about newmatilda.com. However, according to Danby, they had privately
written to the site's editors about their "concerns" in April. Neither
of us was informed of our alleged antisemitism by newmatilda.com or by
the "ADC". Indeed, if Danby is correct, it seems that the "ADC" has
quietly, behind the scenes, pressured a magazine to stop printing
"partisan" articles about Israel. The "ADC" apparently holds that
criticising the Israeli Government is antisemitic, and no magazine or
journal in Australia should engage in such activity.
We wondered if they had a different understanding of antisemitism to
that accepted by most of society, so we had a look at the "ADC"
website. They explain that antisemitism can take many forms. One
"manifestation" is "attacks on the State of Israel". Another
manifestation is using the terms Zionist and Jew "interchangeably".
However, somehow they consider it confirmed that "antisemitism and
anti-Zionism are one and the same."
But if they consider all Jews to be Zionists, it seems the "ADC" is in
danger of meeting its own criteria for being antisemitic. In fact,
there are even stronger grounds than this for charging the "ADC" with
antisemitism. Modern Zionism is a relatively recent phenomenon and
took time to become established among Jewish communities. As these
communities were not yet predominantly Zionist, the "ADC" should
therefore consider most Jews 100 years ago to have been antisemitic.
Indeed, it seems that the "ADC" is involved in a conspiracy of
antisemitism. According to them, it is antisemitic to talk of a
"Jewish lobby". To do so, they say, is to subscribe to an antisemitic
conspiracy theory � the wacky view that "Jews use bullying and
pressure behind the scenes to censor adverse opinions".
Right. So an organisation supposedly devoted to fighting antisemitism
and racism considers it antisemitic to suggest that the Jewish lobbies
bully and "pressure behind the scenes to censor adverse opinions". And
in pursuit of this mandate to fight antisemitism, they did clearly
pressure newmatilda.com behind the scenes, so that they would curtail
their habit of publishing "adverse opinions".
Our problem is that if we suggest the "ADC" has therefore done exactly
the kind of thing that they deny happens, we will no doubt be guilty
of even more antisemitism.
So let us return to our old friend Michael Danby. He suggests that a
telltale sign of antisemitism is the three "D"s � "demonisation,
delegitimation, and double standards". Plainly, he has demonised and
sought to delegitimise both of us. Is he guilty of any double
standards? Yes, and they are glaring. Firstly, he complains regularly
that people keep criticising Israel when there are lots of other
democracies in the world we could be criticising. Okay, suppose we
accept that Israel actually is a liberal democracy. Doesn't he display
this so-called double standard when he keeps praising it? What about
democracy in Sweden? Or Norway? More seriously, what about Rudd's "new
friend" � the United Arab Emirates? Will Danby criticise the UAE's
dreadful suppression of human rights? Or Saudi Arabia's? Will he help
end Australian complicity in Indonesia's crimes in West Papua? Does he
support the US plan to install a former US ambassador as un-elected
dictator of Afghanistan? Does he think Australia should be part of a
war to colonise Afghanistan? If anyone is guilty of Danby's definition
of a double standard it is himself.
We consider it our duty to delegitimise all governments, everywhere,
especially those who act in our name. That includes Rudd's Government,
which has supported Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. It also
includes the US, with whom we are in a military alliance. However, we
have also criticised oppressive regimes elsewhere. One of us has
written a book, The Blogging Revolution, about repression in China,
Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iran, Egypt and Syria. In short, we "demonise" all
governments, everywhere, and urge everyone to do likewise (full
disclosure: one of us wrote an undergraduate thesis on anarchism).
But when it comes to Danby's own beloved Holy State, he prefers to
take the Walter Duranty approach. That is why he describes critics of
Israel's Government as "partisan" and "biased", whereas on the other
side he does not seem to think it a valid criticism to call Greg
Sheridan an "Israeli propagandist". Danby is so committed to a double
standard in principle that he ridiculed Loewenstein's suggestion that
Jewish groups should condemn all forms of racism, not just
antisemitism. Indeed, at the time of writing this, the Australian
Jewish News has online interviews, on the subject: "What would you say
to Jews who don't think Israel should exist?" The first person says "I
would feed you to the Arabs." Danby and the "ADC" do not even notice
this racism. Perhaps they have yet to discover that Arabs are humans
too.
So, since he's guilty of the three "D"s, should we conclude that Danby
is the real antisemite? Of course not. The problem is that Danby and
the "ADC" ignore the real dangers of racial hatred in their desire to
use the charge of "antisemitism" as a political weapon. Danby and the
"ADC"'s quarrel is not with double standards � their quarrel is with
all criticisms of Israel, which they choose to call antisemitic. This
is their way of preventing critical discussion of Israel's actions,
such as its most recent onslaught on Gaza, or its savage siege.
Sadly, this problem is not unique to Danby and the "ADC". The problem
is more widespread. As we have written in the past, the major
organisations which identify as Jewish � not Zionist � nevertheless
see it as their duty to uncritically support almost everything the
Israeli Government does. A consensus has emerged within these
organisations (across much of the political spectrum), that those who
hold the wrong opinions on Israel or Zionism are to be labelled
antisemitic.
As we've said, when Israel apologists treat antisemitism in this
frivolous manner, the danger is that they trivialise real hatred
towards Jewish people. We strongly believe antisemitism needs to be
taken seriously. It would be good if Michael Danby and the "ADC"
thought so too.
--
Clean Feed, it "cleans" the Internet in the same way that Ethnic
Cleansing "cleanses" the population.
Peter Webb
Hmm.
What is "Zionist" supposed to mean in this story, exactly?
Does anybody know?
B J Foster
> 'If You Don't Agree With Us You're Antisemitic'
>
> By Antony Loewenstein and Michael Brull
> Source:
> http://newmatilda.com/2009/07/07/if-you-dont-agree-us-youre-antisemitic
>
> Labor MP Michael Danby's accusation of antisemitism against two Jewish
> writers is a false and dangerous misuse of that term, write the
> accused, Michael Brull and Antony Loewenstein
It's refreshing when there is a robust debate *within* the Jewish
community - especially about the creeping settler issue.
Why is it Danby's concern anyway? Since when did he feel it necessary to
defend Israel? Is he not an *Australian* MP?
> Sometimes, people make malicious slurs that are worth refuting.
...
>
> As we've said, when Israel apologists treat antisemitism in this
> frivolous manner, the danger is that they trivialise real hatred
> towards Jewish people. We strongly believe antisemitism needs to be
> taken seriously. It would be good if Michael Danby and the "ADC"
> thought so too.
>
I agree.
Gordon Levi
_You_ have already provided a perfectly satisfactory definition of
Zionist - "the belief that there should be a homeland for the Jews in
the Middle East"
<http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/268882f4daf58c89>.
Apart from the location of the homeland, everybody from Herzl to
Hitler would accept your definition. Why do you think the meaning of
Zionism is open to interpretation?