Those Greasy, Greedy, Hook-Nosed, Jew States...

The debate about the "new" anti-Semitism has been had so many times on the internet I hate to even delve into it. But I will, because Stanley Fish is wrong, and bad at math, and for some reason he still gets to write on the Times website.

The whole argument centers around the question of people like me, or people who take slightly more extreme views that I'm ambivalent or disagree with. These people sometimes claim that the occupation of Gaza and the West-Bank is illegal and a human rights violation, that Israel and the Zionist movement are imperialist, and that they don't deserve the support of the United States, that a state reserved for a Jewish majority shouldn't exist, or that it was a mistaken product of imperialism that should never have been created, that there should be a "one state" solution involving the incorporation of the West Bank, etc.. So, are these folks who oppose the state of Israel or its policies anti-Semitic?

Well, he cites a study by Small and Kaplan which claims that in Europe “Those with extreme anti-Israel sentiment are roughly six times more likely to harbor anti-Semitic views than those who do not fault Israel on the measures studied, and among those respondents deeply critical of Israel, the fraction that harbors anti-Semitic views exceeds 50 percent.” The fact that the hostility to a country would coincide to hostility towards the people living there is not terribly surprising, I think. Fish then goes on to completely butcher the study. "Small and Kaplan are careful to disclaim any causal implications that might be drawn from their analysis ... [If you] scratch an opponent of Israel and you are likely – 56 percent of the time – to find an anti-Semite. This does suggest that if opposition to Israel increases, there will be an increase in anti-Semitism because the population of the 56 percenters will be larger. Is this something Jews, even Jews living in the United States, should be apprehensive about?" Well, it's not something to be apprehensive about because it doesn't make any effin' sense. If two groups (anti-Semites and Israel critics) have no causal relationship, then guess what happens to one group when the other grows? Nothing! Or, as my roommate put it, "hasn't he ever heard of a Venn-diagram?"

The way that the study measures anti-Semitism seems rather fair, but brings up a big pet peeve of mine. If the respondents agree with statements like “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” or “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country” or “Jews have too much power in international financial markets” they are considered anti-Semitic. I'm inclined to agree with that, but I would like to point out that when people say similarish statements about blacks (that they are lazy, should work harder, aren't owed anything etc.) in the U.S., we call it "racial conservatism." I wish we recognized those stereotypes as racism as easily as we recognize the first set as anti-Semitism. But I digress.

Fish goes on to say that he basically believes in this New Anti-Semitism, and critics of the occupation are using it as a pretext for their desire to gas the Jews. He fantasizes about being dispossessed. Apparently, his experience on College campuses has convinced him that this movement of covert anti-Semites exists. I find this interesting because my experience on a college campus is that I meet a lot of other Jews from all over the country, many of whom have been to Israel and identify much more strongly than I do, and they almost universally reject a brutal occupation being carried out in their name.

I think it's a good rule that if a majority or sizable minority of an ethnic group believe something, that belief probably isn't motivated by racism against that same group. For example, one could say that the states of Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina should be a Black State, and that all the whites currently living their should be forced to live in an area the size of Rhode Island under Jim-Crow conditions. One could also say that everyone who disagreed with that is motivated by hatred of black people. The problem here would be that most black Americans would think that was insane. Similarly, plenty of American Jews (I count myself among them) think the occupation of Palestine, and the invasion of Iraq (and possible invasion of Iran?) are just plain crazy. Not good for the Jews, just crazy.

Finally, he brings up a good friend of his who believes that you can be politically opposed to Israel and not a racist. He says "He is 10 years my junior. I remember World War II. By the time he was born it was history. Maybe it’s that simple." I wonder how well he really remembers WWII, because I'm pretty sure Hitler sounded a lot more like Marty "We have higher standards of civilization than they do" Peretz than like Tony Judt.