In light of recent events on this campus as well as articles in the media, we find it necessary to highlight a number of misconceptions about Islam and anti-Semitism. We would like to dispel the notion that criticizing the Israeli government or military amounts to a condemnation of Judaism or Jewish people (just as a critique of Saudi Arabian state is not automatically anti-Islam or anti-Arab).
Edward Said’s seminal work on orientalism serves as our first point of reference. Said asserts that Western conceptions of the Middle East do not arise from an objective analysis of the region, but rather are viewed through a lens that in effect distorts reality. Orientalism propagates a false historical narrative through its creation of an “ideal other.” Said’s conception of American Orientalism is particularly relevant to our analysis of current campus events and to the larger narrative of Islamophobia. The history of orientalism in Europe differs from the American narrative, as the United States never possessed colonies in the Middle East. As a result, America’s brand of orientalism is entirely unique, defined and politicized by its relationship with Israel, a Western democracy.
Along the same vein, Said remarks that Israel regards the entirety of the Arab world as its principal enemy. Viewed through this framework, the Palestinian desire for national determination is seen as a disturbance to Israeli security. Resultantly, Palestinians and pro-Palestinian Arabs are seen as irrational, violent and inclined toward terrorism. This very fact helps explain the sheer magnitude of Islamophobia on both this campus and in the United States in general. Similarly, these massive generalizations conflate a number of distinct categories, as many individuals believe all Arabs are Muslims, and these two categories are regularly conflated with violent terrorists.
The conception of the “dangerous Arab terrorist” is also manifested in the portrayal of the Middle East in Western media. In emphasizing the figure of the dangerous Arab terrorist, the media propagates the false presumption that all Arabs are a threat to Western interests. This tendency is visible in the Washington Post article published about the current situation on our campus. David Bernstein, author of the article and also a Professor of Law at George Mason University, singles out a student who wears the hijab as the sole voice on campus who spoke out against Pessin’s anti-Palestinian post, ignoring the numerous other members of the Connecticut College community who were alarmed by it. Our own Hillel House issued a statement on March 25th as a result of the Facebook post stating “We do not condone racist speech or actions toward any group under any circumstance.” Bernstein also quickly conflated criticism of the post with anti-Semitism itself, as if a critique of the Israeli government was itself anti-Semitic. Finally, his thinking ignored the fact that many Jews themselves are critical of the Israeli government as are other citizens of the United States. Singling out the most visible Muslim woman on campus as the sole voice was permissible precisely because of the Islamophobic discourse in the media and the broader public. The media’s tendency to generalize and broadcast false assumptions detracts immensely from a clear-headed discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
With these ideas in mind, it is imperative to turn now to Norman Finkelstein, an American political scientist and author of Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Finkelstein argues that charges of anti-Semitism, identical to the accusation David Bernstein made in The Washington Post, are essentially misuses of anti-Semitism that serve to delegitimize valid criticisms against the Israeli state. In other words, criticisms against Israel as a state are in fact not anti-Semitic in nature. Criticizing Israel’s policies does not amount to criticizing Judaism or Jewish people. With Finkelstein’s remarks in mind, we as the authors want to make an imperative clarification. In criticizing Professor Pessin’s original Facebook post, which likened Palestinians to rabid pit bulls, students were not invoking anti-Semitism but were simply criticizing the racist and orientalist nature of his remarks. We can see how this is an instance of anti-Semitism discotorse being appropriated to mask Islamophobia.
The polarizing nature of the current conversation precludes productive dialogue on this subject. In order to transcend orientalist assumptions and language, we must stop making generalizations that impede dialogue. Similarly, we must become more critical of the way in which Western media portrays issues of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, using anti-Semitism to avoid criticism of the Israeli government and ignore orientalist assumptions about Arabs and Muslims. It is evident from the events that have transpired on this campus that generalizations about Islam, Arabs, Jews and all of their representations perpetuate unproductive dialogue. We hope that in invoking Said’s discussion on Orientalism and Finkelstein’s discussion on anti-Semitism we have begun to provide a greater understanding of Islam and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. •
Criticism of Israel is obviously not a priori antisemitic, but it does not therefore follow that no criticism of Israel is antisemitic. You are arguing against a straw man. Evidence that much criticism of Israel is motivated by an animus includes the frequent indulgence in anti-Jewish stereotypes by campaigners against Israel, the demonization of the country by the assumption of bad faith on every issue, and the tendency of such people to believe in and propagate assertions that are easily proven false, and then a failure to yield when those assertions are proven false.
I agree that taking issue with israel’s policies alone is not anti-semitic, and that an automatic response from those Jews and others who support Israel to this effect is not helpful in resolving the problems existing between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. However, your own article writing illustrates how your positions can be seen as anti-Jewish. FIrst off, both Edward Said and Normal FInklestein are hardly dispassionate when it comes to this discussion — both are anti-zionists who believe that the establishment of the State of Israel was an error, and, unlike other people, that Jews have to no actual right to self-determination nor to return to their own country. This is in essence, anti-Jewish. It sees the Jewish people just a religious group, and citizens of the world, not as a distinct nationality, with its own culture, history, ethnicity, religion, language, and historical origin in Palestine etc. Your choice of them as sources without providing other, more dispassionate (and many such sources exist, they are not neccesssarily pro-Zionist or even pro-Jewish) reveals your own bias.
The other reason criticms of Israel becomes anti-Jewish is that a double standard is used when it comes to Israel that is not applied to other countries’ policies in the rest of the world, especially the Arab world. People rail against so-called “apartheid” in Israel, suggesting that Israel discriminates against the people whose and they occupy on the basis of the Arab-Israel military conflict. And yet, there are other nations who occupy other peoples lands, even today, and no one hears about it. An example is the Turkish occupation of Cyprus and the lack of equal citizenship rights afforded that population there. What about the Russian occupation of Crimea? What about the Indian occupation of Kashmir? Israel was condemned by the rest of the world for fighting Hamas in Gaza, after Hamas shot missiles into Israel and built tunnels to invade Israel, and presumably kill Israelis. And yet, there is no criticism of the Saudi invasion of Yemen, going on right now, resulting in over 500 civilian deaths. Criticism of Israel alone implies that Jews, more than anyone else, are the only practitioners of force in military conflict, with comparisons made to the Nazis by Arab propogandists. This is patently unfair, biased, discriminatory, and feeds historical anti-semitic perceptions of Jews, who have since Jesus’ time (even before) been held to a double standard by ruling powers, which has been used to justify their persecution.
If you dont agree with this, study the history of anti-semitism. You will see that, whether it comes from the Church Fathers, the Crusades, exiles from western Europe, the Russian persecution with Pale of Settlement and pogroms, right through the nazi persecution of Jews, that historical anti-semitic tropes have been articulated, sometimes sub-consciously but often purposely by anti-semites purporting to be critical of Israel’s policies. The use of the double-standard to condemn the Jews, and the portrayal of Jews as evil “others’ when the rest of the world is fine, as well as the notion that Jews do not deserve to practice or live as Jews, even the justification of anti-semitism on the basis that anti0-semites cant help themselves, they are so upset by Israel’s policies, are all classic anti-semitic tactics used throughout the ages at least for the last 2000 years) to persecute the Jewish people. Before you go about classifying what is anti-semitism and what isn’t study the history of anti-semitism. I bet you will be surprised as to how it is so ingrained and legitimated by our Western (and islamic) worlds.
Uh, what gibberish. Professor Bernstein documented a defamation scheme. Your evasive and obscure discussion of Edward’s Said’s book does not grapple with that fact.
Is this the same norman finkelstein from this interview?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTWxfdVHJWU Because, frankly, if it is, he’s hardly bears the signs of a good academic. If you’re going to argue a point based on a source (benny morris), and then are in an interview with that source (benny morris), AND THEN proceed to shout over him as he attempts to explain why he disagrees with your interpretation of his texts, then you really aren’t a person who listens, considers, and tries to arrive at the truth of your subject. And if you aren’t that, then you shouldn’t be a respected academic. A respectable entertainer, maybe, but an academic and scholar, no.
LINK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTWxfdVHJWU
TRANSCRIPT OF SALIENT PARTS
Morriss: “You cannot attribute to me, views which are not mine.”
Finkelstein: Dr Morris, I know your books quite well.
Morris: you have but you haven’t understood them apparently
Finkelstein: alright, Dr Morris, I know your books quite well.
Morris: no no no, quite well isn’t good enough, you have to know them very well to actually know them
Finkelstein: dr Morris, you really shouldn’t deny what’s already in print.
Morris: i’m not denying anything–
Finkelstein: dr. Morris you shouldn’t deny what’s already in print
Morris: no no transfer—
Finkelstein: dr Morris dr Morris
Morris: no no no you are distorting what I’ve said, transfer— no no no
you are distorting
Finkelstein: dr Morris
Morris: you Are distorting what I’ve said
Finkelstein: dr Morris! Dr Morris!
Morris: I think the moderator has to— no no no you can’t have finkelstein telling me what I wrote, when I know what I wrote.
Moderator: gentlemen let’s move forward we did some history let’s talk about the present…
And if you look at the end of the video, it’s quite clear that finkelstein yells over people until he can figure out which of his ad hominem research-I’ve remarks he wants to make.
I’ve seen a lot of finkelstein’s work and appearances. For me, seeing this interview was the moment I saw this interview, it was the moment I stopped being charitable to the claim that he is a reliable source. That moment was well before I saw this article.
[…] Demystifying Media Bias Surrounding Anti-Semitic and Islamophobic Discourses […]