Here's a long piece by Hillel Halkin from February 5 that perfectly illustrates one of the central problems in grappling with the ethical considerations raised by the very real phenomenon of anti-Jewish prejudice, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries. Namely: the dogmatic, irrational, and downright illogical insistence that Israel (a State, a piece of earth) is the Jewish people. Consider Mr. Halkin's equation:
“…one cannot be against Israel or Zionism, as opposed to this or that Israeli policy or Zionist position, without being anti-Semitic. Israel is the state of the Jews. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state. To defame Israel is to defame the Jews. To wish it never existed, or would cease to exist, is to wish to destroy the Jews.”
As an argument, this is faulty beyond repair. There is no cogent logical connection between the statements "Israel is the state of the Jews" and "Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state" that supports subsequent equivalence between the defamation of Israel and that of the Jewish people. The conflation of Israel (a State, a piece of earth), with Zionism (an expansionist political doctrine that is more complex than Mr. Halkin seems to think it is) is problematic at best. Finally, not every Israeli citizen is a Jew: there are Christians, from Greek Orthodox to Arab Lutherans, and a sizable Muslim minority. Mr. Halkin admits these faults, but simply acknowledging the objections without responding to them in any substantive way does not strengthen the argument.
Mr. Halkin delves into our subconscious minds: "Can one then be anti-Semitic without knowing it? Of course one can, just as one can be unconsciously antiblack or antigay or a misogynist." This is the essense of postmodern identity politics: the denial of an individual's ability to perceive the social power relationships that form his opinions and even his personality. Mr. Halkin regards harsh judgment of Israel as a cultural neurosis. Which means, of course, that it is mentally unhealthy for us to judge Israel harshly.
Like his other personal anecdotes, Mr. Halkin's account of the CNN coverage of a single incident proves nothing. His earlier admission to having "no hard data about the rise of anti-Semitism" serves as an excuse for the repeated use of such personal observations throughout the piece in lieu of hard data. Again, admitting the objection does not constitute a response to it. His question, "Who at London dinner parties makes nasty remarks about Hindus because India has militarily occupied Muslim Kashmir for half a century?" referring to an recent incident in which an the French ambassador to Britain wanted to know why the rest of the world should go to war on behalf of Israel, misses the point. Chances are that no one in Europe or America is going to die because of an Indian occupation. That is not true in the case of the Israeli occupation. I'm also sure that Mr. Halkin merely overlooked the British invention and use of the term "wog," as applied to dark-skinned folks in general and Arabs in particular. There are many "shitty little countries" out there, and the fact that the French ambassador used those words when speaking of Israel within earshot of a reporter says more about the ambassador's lack of good sense than his anti-Semitism.
To suggest that “anti-Israeli” means “anti-Semitic” is to give the lie to the idea that Israel is a pluralistic democratic society, which is a reason often given by folks like David Horowitz to explain their unreserved support of Israel.
It can't be had both ways: either Israel is a democracy, or it is intended to be an ethnically pure state in which non-Jews are second-class citizens.
Mr. Halkin is right to point out the possibility that a double standard is applied to Israeli policies and conduct. But he should know that God did it first:
“You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth. That is why I call you to account for all your iniquities.” (Amos 3:2)
To be chosen is to be called to account. I would suggest giving up the idea of being “Chosen.” Perhaps that would simplify relations with the rest of the world.
