For weeks now, I have been reading in the Daily Bruin about
supposed Jewish-Muslim tensions on campus. In the latest piece of
yellow journalism on this topic, Jackie Vayntrub’s Viewpoint
submission titled “Anti-Zionist pamphlet insulting,”
(Nov. 20). I found just how profitable it is for unconditional
supporters of Israel to label criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.
By doing this, such people skillfully avoid the task of defending
Zionism or Israel using logic and facts, instead employing a tactic
that itself creates prejudice against entire groups of people.
Despite the author’s implications, Zionism, like any other
type of nationalistic ideology or political philosophy, is not an
ethnicity or a religion. Not all Zionists are Jews, nor are all
Jews Zionists. In fact, many prominent Zionists are Christians and
atheists, and many critics of Israel are in fact Jewish. Thus,
anti-Zionism cannot be labeled as anti-Semitism.
Zionism is a political program established in the late 19th
century with the aim of securing for European Jewry a sovereign
state in ancient Palestine. Such an endeavor, even without
consideration of its proposed racist and exclusivist goals, may
actually have escaped controversy had it not been for one small
factor: Millions of people already lived there. The convenient
disregard for this factor, along with the forced and coerced
displacement of hundreds of thousand of indigenous Palestinians,
sparked anti-Zionism. Nowadays, with most of the remaining
indigenous Palestinians removed from the country, and Israel still
leaving much room for criticism in its inhumane treatment of the
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, anti-Zionism
continues to survive in the political realm.
Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a cunning tactic
used to delegitimize anti-Zionism while pretending that criticism
of Israel comes only from neo-Nazis. This is a common strategy
among Israeli leadership. According to The New York Times,
Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon believes criticism of
Israel’s use of force to defend its “birthright”
is anti-Semitic. If this is true, then the Belgian government must
also be accused of anti-Semitism because of its willingness to
entertain a move to bring Sharon to court for his alleged role in
the Sabra and Shatila massacres of over 700 civilians.
Or what about the United States, which repeatedly criticizes
Israel for its illegal settlements in what is internationally
ordered to be sovereign Palestinian land? Even more ridiculous
would be to claim that the group of Orthodox Jews who see
Israel’s establishment as blasphemy against God’s will
should be considered anti-Semitic, simply because they are critical
of the way Israel was established.
If Zionists take a moment to actually examine their blind
support of Israel, the legitimacy of such criticism can easily be
seen. According to “A History of the Modern Middle
East” by W. Cleveland, when Israel was established, massacres
led to the expulsion of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians. Even
now, Israel operates on racially exclusivist doctrine. The millions
of Palestinians living under harsh Israeli occupation are not
granted citizenship, the right to vote or humane living conditions.
Factions inside of Israel, with attitudes reminiscent of fascism,
still call for the forced transfer or death of the occupied
Palestinian population. In addition, documentation of Israeli
torture, brutality and racism toward the occupied Palestinians can
be found from U.N. reports and even from the Israeli government
itself. This year, the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) passed a
law preventing Palestinians who marry Israelis from living in
Israel. While almost any other nationality is granted citizenship
in such a case, apparently Israel finds Palestinians different.
Modern criticism of Israel is primarily directed against Israeli
colonialism and conquest, not against Judaism. This phenomenon of
colonialism is hardly new; according to Cleveland, former Prime
Minister Menachem Begin believed the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan and
other sovereign territories should be annexed into Israel, an idea
still held by some members of Israel’s leadership. As a
result, hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli settlers continue
to occupy Palestinian land, indiscriminately residing in areas once
designated for Palestinian homes or land.
As the only answer to such criticism, Vayntrub argues the
supposed equality of Israeli Arabs to Israeli Jews. Contrary to
what she argued, most Israeli Arabs do not serve in the army.
Non-veterans are barred from government tax benefits, social
welfare and employment offered only to army veterans. Secondly, the
Israeli Democracy Institute constantly reports serious political
and economic discrimination against the Arab minority. Regarding
the final claim that Israel is a democracy, according to
www.knesset.gov.il, Israeli Arabs make up almost 20 percent of
Israel’s population, but rarely hold even 10 percent of the
120 Knesset parliament seats.
In an academic institution, such political issues are meant to
be dealt with in a scholarly manner. Political positions, including
Zionism and anti-Zionism, need to be defended on the basis of facts
and logical arguments, rather than resorting to childish
name-calling. Calling criticism of Israel blanket anti-Semitism
without propounding an argument is silly.
To accuse Al-Talib, the Muslim Students Association and
anti-Zionists of bigotry on the basis of political views can only
create prejudice, racism and hate toward entire groups of people.
So maybe Vayntrub needs to take her own advice and “reflect
on the morality of (her) actions.”
Khan is a second-year political science student.