In her Jan. 26 response, Melissa Sidman '06 voiced a nasty, epidemic strain of anti-anti-Semitism. Now most Amherst students and professors care more than think about the Middle East, Islam(ism), and-in Sidman's telling simplification-"the question of Israel." Chatter about distant events may be harmless, but callousness toward the weighty allegiances and criticisms of Judaism, Zionism or Israel is not. The thoughtless thought-police are loosed, enforcing their doctrines and rounding up resisters. Rigor must be defended.
Sidman wrote, "I disagree with the sentiment expressed in Rudy's letter. I see no inherent problem with Massad's Palestinian bias ... " But I had denied Massad's "anti-Semitism." What has "anti-Semitism" to do with "Palestinian bias"? Did she associate "Palestinian bias" with "anti-Semitism"? Let's find out. She cites "Massad's anti-Semitism" as "hate speech and inflammatory behavior." On what basis? Well, Massad (1) asked an Israeli soldier how many Palestinians he had killed, and (2) "has attempted to delegitimize Israel and has written that Zionism, as an ideology, is racist." Now (1) involves private (not student-teacher) language and (2) involves public arguments. Neither (1) nor (2) evidences public intimidation of students, so the charges are nonsense by definition. Why isn't this obvious? Because "anti"-Israeli or "anti"-Zionist arguments allegedly constitute anti-Semitic hate speech. Let's review our lesson. First, to confront Israel, its military or Zionism is anti-Semitic. Second, professors who do so should be fired as anti-Semites. Third, "Palestinian bias" critical of Israel and Zionism is anti-Semitic. (Sidman was disingenuous-she would forbid "Massad's Palestinian bias.") Finally, "we should ... decide whether this type of behavior by faculty is acceptable." Imagine. Amherst College should fire professors for criticizing Israel or Zionism.
Actionable bullying must be hateful, we're instructed. But when is criticism hateful? Does opposing Israel or Zionism entail hatred? But no hard questions for the judge-and-jury method: simply conflate criticism and hatred, define no terms, cite no works, ignore facts, censor the accused, feign disinterest with phrases like "if the allegations are true," then convict: "Their classroom conduct crossed the line from providing a legitimate perspective to creating an intimidating academic environment ruled by hate speech and inflammatory behavior." Such justice loves a body count. And so we are unsurprised that, "After viewing the film, Congressman Anthony Weiner ... called on Columbia to fire" Massad. Behold the lawmaker in his deliberations. What quality of man trusts slander to tar a person with hideous offense? When Amherst does "decide acceptable faculty behavior" and considers, as requested, destroying careers, silencing criticism and branding people anti-Semitic, might we best this slovenly lynch-mob? We could start by having some idea what we're talking about.
What is anti-Semitism? It is hatred of all Jews. The worst Jew-haters think bloodline eradication: extermination of anyone physically linked to a Jewish parent. Others settle for expulsion, conversion, or assimilation. People hate Jews for blood or belief. Generalized Jew-hatred is despicable and indefatigable. But self-identification is central to vocabularies of hatred. Enemies who self-identify as Jew and Arab may hate each other as "Arab" and "Jew." Cultivated in war, hatred marks the specific enemy, not a larger group. Combatant self-identification as Jewish makes "Jewish enemies." This is not anti-Semitism. Murdering innocent Jews for the "sins of their kin" is. Intelligent Israelis and Palestinians understand this. Anti-Semites hate Jews in general for their imaginary unifying features. Anyone who does not hate Jews in this way is not anti-Semitic. Proving anti-Semitism requires proving hatred of Jews qua Jews. ["Anti-Semitism" is a misnomer for Jew-hatred, but I follow convention.] What follows from this?
Is it anti-Semitic to call Zionism racist? Two kinds of Zionism demand safety from Jew-hatred. One Zionism advocates a juridical state offering citizenship to all Jews. This state could be inclusive, a pluralist democracy, secular socialism, et cetera. Another Zionism seeks a theocratic state with second-class citizenship for non-Jews all the way to the Jordan River. Both Zionisms are problematic. The first grants outsiders (non-Israeli Jews) rights superceding those of refugees or indigenous non-Jews. The second institutionalizes irredentist religious nationalism. Jews, Zionists, and Israelis have regularly considered the latter Zionism racist and minatory. Zionists have never evinced a consensual Zionist ideology. Critics wrongly forget that all nations set discretionary membership criteria, but rightly observe that any Zionism prioritizes Jews over non-Jews and is arguably racist. To call this logical truism "anti-Semitic" is delusional.
Is it anti-Semitic to criticize Israel? States differ from policies. We can always question a state's "legitimacy." Are the U.S. and Germany "legitimate"? Why not disband these genocidal states and disperse the proceeds? Is Israel "legitimate"? Ask the anti-Zionist khasidim. States are conquests soaked in blood and marinated in morality tales. Some states atone for their sins. Israel has occupied, expelled, tortured and murdered Palestinians for decades. Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, and Dayan were more honest about this than Zionist leaders since. Are Jewish, Zionist and Israeli opponents of Israeli ethnic cleansing anti-Semites? Are my harsh descriptions anti-Semitic? It is a flat non sequitur to say so. Disapproval of Israeli policies indicates nothing about my feelings about Jews-just as my hatred of Arab dictatorships, Islamist thugs or duplicitous Palestinian "leaders" is silent on Arabs or Islam.
I for one need no lectures about the viciousness of anti-Semitism. So I abhor one of its principal incitements-the confusion of Judaism, Zionism, and Israel. The village idiot Abe Foxman calls "anti-Zionism a mask for anti-Semitism" and the sanguinary Ariel Sharon burbles that Israel represents "the Jewish people." These old formulas disgracefully immure Israel's occupation and Zionist militarism from "anti-Semitic" critics. They also mean to crush Jewish dissent, deny Jewish diversity, and sanctify "Jewish" atrocities. So who again are the anti-Semites?
Sayres Rudy is a Visiting Professor of Political Science
Rudy can be reached at ssrudy@amherst.edu