When it stops being just "criticism of Israel"
Sometimes it's legitimate. But there's a point where it's about something darker.
Joel Harden, a member of the Ontario legislature from the left-wing New Democratic Party, is under fire for allegedly antisemitic remarks.
But did they truly betray hatred or distrust of Jews, or was it just overheated criticism of the state of Israel? Let’s examine the evidence:
An Ottawa-area provincial politician has apologized for comments that critics deemed antisemitic.
On Sunday, Joel Harden, the Ottawa-Centre member of Ontario’s provincial parliament, apologized for comments he made in a video roughly one year ago in which he said the “single greatest origin of violence in the Middle East is unquestionably the state of Israel.”
[…]
In the video, Harden makes claims about the state of Israel dehumanizing Palestinians. He also discusses the criticism that critiques of Israel are cast as antisemitic.
He said he’s been called an anti-Semite for his views.
“I don’t shrug it off,” Harden said. “I understand why people are active and vigilant in fighting antisemitism because it’s a real problem.”
He said that he calls out people who say antisemitic things, and explains that he believes his role is to “humanize the Palestinian people” instead of calling Israel names.
Israel as “the single greatest origin of violence in the Middle East” is certainly a take. I’d agree its existence might be the greatest excuse for violence in the region - if you’re a Middle Eastern dictator or terrorist organization, it’s amazing how many atrocities you can get away with if you keep deflecting back to the evils of Zionism - but if you’re blaming a state founded in 1949 for conflicts that long predate its existence, and that state just happens to be the one where the Jews live, that raises some questions about where you’re coming from.
Still, countries get blamed for things all the time. Saying Russia has historically been the main driver of unrest and violence in Eastern and Central Europe doesn’t necessarily make you prejudiced against Russians. Nor does blaming the United States for the plight of Latin America mean you hate individual Americans. (The two often go hand in hand, but they don’t have to.)
Israeli policies can and often should be criticized without people denouncing you as being antisemitic. Heck, I’ll go further and argue that believing the state never should have been founded, and/or should be dismantled, isn’t necessarily antisemitic.1 There are Jewish people who, for religious or ideological reasons, believe just that.
“Go back to the humanity, and the inhumanity, of what’s happening in Palestine,” said Harden. “I can also understand, from the pro-Palestinian standpoint, the barbarity and scale of viciousness can lead someone to strike out with intemperate, hateful language, because of that real hurt, where people are at.”
Here’s where we’re getting warmer. Imagine someone accosting or violently attacking Muslims, and a New Democratic Party politician saying it’s bad but that this rage must be understood because of the 9/11 attacks and atrocities carried out by ISIS.
Yeah, right. It seems like this is the only hatred against a minority we’re ever called upon to “understand.”
But here’s where he really gives the game away:
“I have asked many questions of Jewish neighbours here about how much longer we should put up with this,” said Harden, an Ontario New Democrat.
So, which is it, Mr. Harden? Is Israel a fraud which only purports to represent Jews all over the world, or are all Jews, wherever they live, collectively responsible for its actions?
It cannot be both, though “anti-Zionists” are adept at code-switching depending on which audience they’re talking to.
That Jews are some kind of hive mind, collectively responsible for the actions of other Jews, is very much in line with what Jean-Paul Pagano argues at his new Substack (which promises to be a must-read).
That is, while there’s certainly a lot of overlap between hatred of Jews and other prejudices (it’s rare for an antisemite to hate only Jews) there is a conspiratorial element that distinguishes it from other forms of hatred:
It's customary to hear well-meaning people intone something along these lines: "Antisemitism and anti-black racism are part of the same fight.” In a basic sense, this is true: they are both odious forms of hatred that endanger people and corrode society. Diminishing them as much as possible is part of the same overarching defense of our civic health.
But it’s a platitude that papers over essential differences between two opposite forms of racism. Few human phenomena can be described with an algorithm. There are always ambiguities and exceptions. Nevertheless, it’s heuristically valid to arrange racism into two categories: a caste-oriented, “down-punching” form and a conspiracist, “up-punching” form.
By and large, anti-black racism constructs an underclass that the racist regards as inferior, to be segregated, plundered, and exploited. In the main, Antisemitism views the Jews as a preternaturally powerful, evil elite that plunders and exploits the Antisemite—and the broader society he seeks to awaken to the struggle. In the ugliest of ironies, however much he rails about Jewish degeneracy, the Antisemite invests the Jews with traits and abilities that make them seem diabolically superior.
At least Harden has apologized for his remarks, which is more than you can say for this old commie:
Imagine any other situation in which someone like Svend Robinson would lecture people about what actually constitutes hatred against them. Again, there’s only one group to whom this ever applies. How very strange.
On the subject of collective responsibility, I came across this post by Ilya Somin a few months back, when Europe was embroiled in controversy over Russians fleeing the country to escape Putin’s “partial mobilization”:
The idea that all citizens responsible for the actions of their government is hardly new, and certainly isn't limited to the present situation in Russia. But it is wrong nonetheless. That is especially clear in the case of authoritarian regimes. But it is largely true for citizens of democratic ones, as well.
In some situations, inflicting harm on innocent citizens of unjust governments may be justifiable "collateral damage" of policies essential to curbing the evils of those states. But that's a different issue from the theory that citizens are fair game because they are somehow responsible for their government's actions.
At the very least, the citizen-responsibility theory doesn't apply to ordinary citizens of authoritarian states—including Putin's Russia—who have no meaningful influence over their governments' policies. If I had the opportunity, I would like to ask the Prime Minister [of Estonia, who declared that “every citizen is responsible for the actions of their state”] whether she believes that ordinary Estonians were responsible for the actions of the USSR.
From 1940 to 1991, Estonians were citizens of the Soviet Union. During that time the Soviet regime committed a wide range of atrocities, war crimes, and other human rights violations, including initiating multiple unjust wars. For most of that period, the vast majority of Estonians (like the vast majority of other Soviet citizens) did little or nothing to oppose the regime. Were they therefore responsible for its actions?
The right answer is "no." Most Estonians (like most other Soviet citizens) did not cause the injustices of the state, had almost no chance of changing them, and would have risked severe punishment had they spoken out. We rightly admire dissidents who risk dire consequences to oppose unjust governments. But such heroism is not morally obligatory. And those who refrain from it do not thereby become responsible for the regime's injustices.
[…]
Estonia may be justified in restricting Russian migration on some other basis. In Chapter 6 of my book Free to Move, I actually note this case as one of the rare situations where migration restrictions might be defensible. But neither they nor other states should bar Russians—or anyone else—on the theory that citizens of authoritarian states are somehow responsible for the actions of their governments.
The plight of Russians is a sideshow compared to what Ukrainians are going through. But collective responsibility based on nationality, when put into practice, never ends well. Especially in Europe.
Mind you, while I hate to protest-shame people in countries like Russia - it’s easy for you to sneer about them not doing enough from the comfort of your basement in Canada - the people of Iran are giving a master class in how to fight an oppressive dictatorship.
Even when the spotlight is brightest:
A free Iran is coming.
A good test: how does the person who wants to abolish Israel feel about other “settler-colonial” countries like Canada, or other countries with state religions like…well, take your pick. If it’s only the Jewish state whose very existence offends them, that’s a tell.
There is actually a lot of overlap between those who want Israel abolished and those who want Canada abolished. (How are either of these supposed to happen? The answer is, “it’s not my job to educate you.”) They rarely have a problem with the Islamic Republic of Iran, though.