To the Editor:
Israel is morally undermined not by anti-Semites, as Hillel Halkin would have us believe, but by racist Israeli laws, and by those like Mr. Halkin who try to justify the unjustifiable [“The Return of Anti-Semitism,” February]. Even though his grandfathers may never have set foot there, any Jew may go to live in Israel; but the Palestinian whose former home still stands there may not return to reclaim it simply because he is not a Jew.
The recent UN conference in Durban, where nongovernmental organizations and human-rights agencies branded Israel a racist state, should have served as a moment of truth for Israel. In modern times, there have been two apartheid regimes: one based on race and the other on religion. The one based on race was defeated because the rest of humanity turned against it. The one based on religion is facing the same prospect.
Israel and its supporters exhort us never to forget what the Jewish people suffered 60 years ago, and at the same time demand that we turn a blind eye when Israel victimizes Palestinians. Mr. Halkin confuses the agitation against this blatant hypocrisy with anti-Semitism.
Hassan Abdurrahman
Edmonton, Canada
_____________
To the Editor:
Hillel Halkin’s equation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism cannot be sustained. If Israel violates the standards by which other states are measured, then it deserves the resulting blame. In this regard, his most egregious and revealing claim is that, “There are times when only an anti-Semite can accuse Israel of what it is guilty of.” This is pure sophistry, and simply adds fuel to the genuine anti-Semitic fire of many misguided individuals and groups.
David E. Stephens
Concord, Massachusetts
_____________
To the Editor:
By Hillel Halkin’s standards, I am an anti-Semite. I reject and resent the charge. When I argue that the Israeli government practices racial discrimination against the country’s Arab minority in housing, education, and economic policies, I am under no moral obligation to soften the accusation with a blanket endorsement of the state. And when I argue that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is cruel, stupid, and illegal, I violate no ethical standard by omitting any reference to the government’s claims about the right to self-defense.
T. Edward Rhodes
Venice, Florida
_____________
To the Editor:
Hillel Halkin writes that “the new anti-Israelism is nothing but the old anti-Semitism in disguise.” How easily this answers criticism of Israel, a country whose policies often have little to do with its Jewishness. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a Jew, but his heartless, aggressive actions are those of any ultra-militant soldier.
The impression one receives from Mr. Halkin is that there is an attitude among many—if not most—Jews that they have suffered so much that nothing they do can compare with what has been done to them. This allows Israel to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land and then to blame the Palestinians for causing the resulting conflict.
William H. Riddell
Tampa, Florida
_____________
To the Editor:
Although I am generally pro-Israel, I object to Hillel Halkin’s attempt to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. He is right that Israel is the state of the Jews, but that does not make Israel the equivalent of the Jewish people. An anti-Israel political stance might be naive, misguided, or even dangerous, but it is not necessarily immoral the way racism is. Mr. Halkin should be ashamed for indiscriminately leveling so serious a charge against his political opponents.
Peter A. Speckhard
Green Bay, Wisconsin
_____________
To the Editor:
Hillel Halkin overlooks the most rational explanation for the various recent eruptions of anti-Semitism that he documents: self-interest. Consider, for example, the French diplomat’s distasteful reference to Israel as “that shitty little country.” His disparagement is perfectly understandable, if crudely stated. What, after all, is Israel to the vital interests of France other than a persistent cause of tension with the vast Muslim world, to which France is beholden for its oil supply?
We ought not to blame age-old, implacable hatreds for the current surge of anti-Semitism. Though such underlying feelings undoubtedly exist, they are not the overriding cause. If the Israelis were not Jews but Hindus or Mormons causing the same problems, the French diplomat would not have spoken differently.
Arthur S. Bay
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
_____________
To the Editor:
Hillel Halkin is undoubtedly correct that many anti-Semites use the Arab-Israeli conflict as an excuse to vent anti-Jewish feelings in a publicly acceptable manner. But there is another dynamic at work here that his analysis points toward but stops short of describing. “Support for Israel,” Mr. Halkin writes, “is difficult to justify on cold grounds of national interest.” “Such support,” he continues, “entails not only large sums of money but also, more than ever since September 11, large perceived risks.”
If support of Israel is not in America’s perceived national interest, and if such support involves considerable costs to America (in terms of foreign aid, domestic security, and good relations with the Muslim world), then domestic Jewish support for Israel may increasingly be seen as anti-American. Thus, while Mr. Halkin is correct that anti-Israeli feelings can cloak anti-Semitism, it is also true that the pro-Israel disposition of American Jews may intensify American anti-Semitism.
Russ Nieli
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey
_____________
To the Editor:
In eloquently making the case for Israel, Hillel Halkin claims that the recent surge of anti-Israelism is just the old Jew-hatred in a new guise. But today’s anti-Semitism is coming from a different direction from before, and with different consequences.
Mr. Halkin cites survey research showing that most American Jews still agree that anti-Semitism is a “serious problem.” This result can be explained, I believe—and Mr. Halkin cites me on this—if we understand that most of these Jews are referring not to the present situation but to their foreboding about the future. According to one survey, while the majority of American Jews were worried about anti-Semitism in the U.S., only a small minority were worried that they would face economic or political discrimination—the traditional expressions of the “old” anti-Semitism. But a large majority felt that anti-Semitism was increasing in the form of “anti-Israel sentiment.” This seems to jibe with Mr. Halkin’s proposition that hostility to Israel and to Jews in general are now virtually indistinguishable. But it also suggests that the new surge of anti-Semitism is a new form of anti-Semitism.
The difference, I think, is that after all these centuries, the torch of anti-Semitism has moved largely from Christianity to Islam. Since World War II, the creation of Israel, and the stunning Arab defeat of 1948, the Arab Muslim world as a whole has become infected by the traditional anti-Semitism of Christian Europe. With the recent growth of radical Islam, this variety of anti-Semitism has now become a global ideological force. In Europe, most anti-Semitic acts are now committed by Muslims reacting to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This new source of anti-Semitism may be just as deadly as the old one, but the differences between the two are not insignificant. The Islamists direct their most active rage at the West—particularly America—for keeping the “secularist” Arab regimes in power and defiling Islam. They hate Israel because they see Jews as the West’s surrogates.
Since anti-Americanism and even anti-Christianity lie at its center, this form of anti-Semitism is not likely to sweep the American masses off their feet. Indeed, despite the growth of this ideology, old-fashioned anti-Semitism has continued to fade in this country, and support for Israel has risen.
It is not yet time for American Jews to abandon their worries. But if anti-Semitism revives in the U.S.—and even if it involves a backlash against Israel—it will be of the old European-Christian variety, which is immiscible with the new Islamist kind. Both are abhorrent, but they require different remedies. Simply fusing anti-Semitism with anti-Israelism, as Mr. Halkin does, will not advance the strategic battle against either.
Earl Raab
San Francisco, California
_____________
To the Editor:
How is it that Hillel Halkin, one of the smartest people in Israel, can write of the “return” of anti-Semitism without once mentioning the Israeli ingredient in the unwholesome stew he so shrewdly analyzes? “When it comes to defaming Jews,” says a character in Philip Roth’s Operation Shylock, “the Palestinians are pisherkehs next to [the Israeli newspaper] Ha’aretz.” Can Mr. Halkin think of any Arab atrocity that the typical Israeli leftist would not justify by pointing to “the occupation”?
What is crucial is not merely the existence of anti-Semitism in Israel—everyone understands that anti-Semitism is not a genetic affliction confined to non-Jews—but also its tremendous export value. Back in 1987, the Israeli cartoonist Dosh drew a picture of a shopper in a European supermarket specializing in anti-Semitic merchandise reaching for an expensive package on the top shelf. The box was adorned by a Nazi-style caricature of a Jew and prominently labeled “Made in Israel.” Dosh’s point: discriminating shoppers, tired of grade-B merchandise from British leftists and French neo-Nazis, wanted authentic material from local sources, and Israeli artists and intellectuals were responding with alacrity. Today, they still are—and business is booming.
Edward Alexander
Seattle, Washington
_____________
To the Editor:
Hillel Halkin is right to see anti-Semitism in a Belgian court’s decision to prosecute Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, while declining to take similar action against Dutch NATO troops who failed to prevent Serbs from killing thousands of Muslims in Srebrenica.
But this instance of anti-Semitism becomes even more obvious when one considers that the Belgians never even weighed prosecuting the actual perpetrator of the September 1982 massacre in Lebanon: Elias Khobeika, the commander of the Phalange militia who personally supervised the slaughter. Until his recent assassination, Khobeika was a prominent political figure in Lebanon, serving in parliament and as a minister, and even running for president Through it all, it never occurred to anyone in Belgium to bring charges against him for actions he readily acknowledged. A justice system that behaves in this way indicts none but itself.
Uri Kaufman
New York City
_____________
To the Editor:
The return of anti-Semitism, as described by Hillel Halkin, is certainly disgusting, but perhaps it is less threatening than he suggests. For the past several decades, anti-Semitism in the West has been a marker of low social status, political frustration, and intellectual disarray. Its adherents have been particularly disreputable in the United States, but they have been marginal even in Western Europe.
The current anti-Israel manifestations of anti-Semitism follow the same pattern. The difference is that this form of anti-Semitism is expressed by people who used to have prestige and influence but who are now losing their status: European and American academics, journalists, and transnational bureaucrats. This ex-elite cannot pretend to run the world anymore, and its members no longer receive automatic deference. Their resentment is conspicuous. It is not surprising that, like other losers, they would blame the Jews. They are in good company with their Arab allies, who similarly once assumed that history was on their side.
Mark Mittleman
St. Louis, Missouri
_____________
To the Editor:
I am grateful to Hillel Halkin for “The Return of Anti-Semitism.” For the phenomenon he describes, however, it would be better not to use a word crafted to advance the cause of those who hate Jews.
The term “anti-Semitism” was coined in the 1890’s by a Jew-hating German politician and crackpot racial theorist, Wilhelm Marr, who calculated that the euphemism would be more congenial to delicate bourgeois sensibilities than its antecedent, Judenhass, or Jew-hatred, which so baldly proclaimed an unreasoning, murderous hostility. Events soon proved, of course, that while “anti-Semites” might have lacked the virtue of honest self-description that Jew-haters could boast of, their purpose was the same.
By devising a word intended to condition people to think of Jews as racially distinct, Marr contributed to the process of converting Christendom’s age-old antipathy toward those who had “rejected Christ” into the 20th-century passion to purge Europe of a supposedly alien “race.” Marr’s “modern,” “scientific” term was simply perfumed cover for the desire to extirpate Jews.
A nonsensical word with such a pedigree and purpose should be consigned to the dung-heap from which it sprang. There are no anti-Semites, only Jew-haters.
Maynard F. Thompson
Cleveland, Ohio
_____________
Hillel Halkin writes:
It is always frustrating for a writer when some of his readers do not know how to read. I explicitly stated in my article that I do not regard criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic and that everyone—including Hassan Abdurrahman, David E. Stephens, T Edward Rhodes, William H. Riddell, Peter A Speckhard, and Arthur S. Bay—has a perfect right to criticize Israel without being accused of prejudice on the condition that his criticisms do not reflect a double standard.
Thus, if Mr. Abdurrahman will send me copies of the angry letters he has written to protest the religiously discriminatory adoption of Islamic law by the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, and many other Muslim countries; if Mr. Stephens will provide me with a list of the “other states” against which he proposes to measure Israel; if Mr. Rhodes will give me a token of his past concern over “racial discrimination . . . in housing, education, and economic policies” by the Czech, Romanian, and Hungarian governments against their Gypsy minorities, by the Lithuanian and Latvian governments against their Russian minorities, by the Moroccan and Algerian governments against their Berber minorities, by the Thai government against its Burmese minority, or similar cases; if Mr. Riddell will publicly proclaim that the Palestinians’ past suffering at the hands of Israel does not justify violence against Israelis; if Mr. Speckhard will assure me that a consistently anti-African political stance does not mean one is prejudiced against blacks; and if Mr. Bay will explain why, although the continued Indian occupation of Kashmir could lead to war between nuclear powers, French diplomats do not feel sufficiently threatened by it to call India nasty names, then I will gladly exonerate each and every one of these gentlemen of the slightest suspicion of prejudice in their criticisms of Israel.
Russ Nieli may be right in saying that, should anti-Israel sentiment in America increase, “the pro-Israel disposition of American Jews may intensify American anti-Semitism.” This is why Earl Raab may be wrong. But to be honest, my concern is not, as I wrote in my article, for American Jews. I do not think they are in any danger. Israel is. Anti-Semitism in the world today is directed largely against it. The relevant question for American Jews is not so much whether they will encounter serious anti-Semitism in the US. as whether they will be deterred by the fear of it, or by growing criticism of Israel, from persisting in their traditionally strong support for the Jewish state.
The Jewish self-denigration of part of the Israeli Left is something that exists, and it was for reasons of space rather than of principle that I did not touch on it or on the question of Jewish self-blame in general. But Edward Alexander should keep in mind that here, too, we are dealing with a two-way street: just as anti-Semitism in the world thrives on the “testimony” of self-blaming Jews, so Jewish and Israeli self-blame is exacerbated when anti-Semitism thrives in the world.
Uri Kaufman is absolutely correct. The whole story of Elias Khobeika, both in terms of Belgian justice, which was reportedly considering offering him impunity as a state witness to testify against Ariel Sharon, and in terms of an Arab world that never lifted a finger to punish him for the 1982 massacre, is a scandal. The fact that Khobeika remained a free and prominent figure in Syrian-controlled Lebanon for twenty years after Sabra and Shatila shows how hypocritical the Arabs were and continue to be in their condemnation of Israel for what happened there.
I wish I were as sure as Mark Mittleman that the “academics, journalists, and transnational bureaucrats” who are leading the current intellectual offensive against Israel represent an “ex-elite now losing their status.” I would be interested in knowing what this analysis is based on.
Finally, although I agree with Maynard Thompson that “anti-Semitism” is an unfortunate term, it is one, I am afraid, that we are stuck with. I would not advise wasting our energies on combating it rather than the phenomenon it refers to.
_____________
