New anti-Semitism faked as anti-Zionism

PETA KROST MAUNDER

“This modern and murky anti-Semitism legitimises an atmosphere of hatred towards Jewish communities,” says Yogev Karasenty, the director for combatting anti-Semitism in the ministry of diaspora affairs in Israel. “In so many instances, we see that boycotts against Israel are actually boycotts against Jews or Jewish communities [which are the first ones to suffer the consequences].

“For instance, when certain towns or shops self-declare as an ‘Israeli-apartheid-free zone’ and take off kosher products from their shelves or ban Israeli literature from their libraries; they are actually harming local Jews.”

Karasenty told the SA Jewish Report this had been gleaned by his department in Israel, which is in charge of coming up with an overall strategy and projects to fight anti-Semitism.

He confirmed that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement and its ideological allies were the main engine behind the worldwide spread of the new and less blatant form of anti-Semitism.

“New anti-Semitism comprises the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations,” says Karasenty.

He says this contemporary form of anti-Semitism has evolved from discrimination against Jews as individuals to discrimination against Jews as a people and the Jewish state. “What anti-Semites cannot or don’t want to say nowadays about Jews, they say about Israel,” he says. So, instead of targeting individuals for being Jewish, they focus on the Jewish state among all states.

While classic anti-Semitism hasn’t disappeared, the modern form is addressed by the final part of a three-dimensional International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. Its definition of hostility towards Jews includes Holocaust denial, prejudice against Jews, and finally, the denial of Israel’s right to exist. The ministry of diaspora affairs, in fact, spearheaded the ratification of IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism by the Israeli government in 2017.

This new form of anti-Semitism took off in the 1990s, and reached the global stage at the World Conference against Racism in Durban in September 2001, according to Karasenty.

“Demonisation of the state of Israel, together with virulent anti-Semitic imagery and language, acquired a global tone that has grown exponentially and has been catalysed by social media since then,” he says.

“Prejudiced individuals hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, or use symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterise Israel. It makes it obvious that this new form of anti-Semitism is nothing but old wine in new bottles.”

Karasenty says that while the globalisation of mass and social media empowers anti-Semites, it also promotes awareness and facilitates countermeasures against this pernicious phenomena.

He makes it clear that criticism of Israel, per se, is fair and acceptable, akin to what is directed at any other country. He tells the SA Jewish Report about a practical tool to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. This is known as the 3D Test of Anti-Semitism, proposed by former Soviet refusenik and until recently Jewish Agency head, Natan Sharansky, and Professor Robert Wistrich.

The three Ds are: demonisation, double standards, and delegitimisation. When an individual or organisation criticises Israel, one needs to ask whether Israel’s actions or image is being demonised, or the Jewish people’s right to self-determination is being denied, or criticism of Israel is being applied selectively.

If the content of any of the arguments employed can be categorised by at least one of these Ds, then anti-Semitism should be quickly identifiable.

He cites clear examples of recent new anti-Semitism:

•     Under the guise of political commentary, the New York Times published a cartoon on its opinion pages in April that drew widespread condemnation. It was particularly reminiscent of the (Nazi) Der Stürmer cartoons. In it, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu features as a dog wearing a collar with a blue Star of David, guiding a “blind” President Donald Trump who is shown wearing a kippah;

•     During the 2019 European Parliament elections, the neo-Nazi party Die Rechte in Germany turned the Nazi slogan, “The Jews are our misfortune!” into “Israel is our misfortune!”. This slogan appeared across Germany together with other anti-Israel messages; and

•     Earlier this year, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro accused opposition leader Juan Guaidó of being a “CIA agent who serves interests of the US and the Zionists” in an interview with the Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese Al-Mayadeen TV.

Blaming Israel for the world’s suffering and “Nazifying” Israel by comparing Zionism with racism are clear examples of how this demonising is done, says Karasenty.

“Singling out Jewish national rights as an illegitimate and racist endeavour, and the consideration of the mere existence of the state of Israel as a colonial act of aggression are the new ‘ugly head’ within the historical evolution process of anti-Semitism,” he says.

According to the diaspora affairs ministry’s anti-Semitism cyber monitoring system (ACMS), which monitors social networks, most of the anti-Semitic incitement in South Africa stems from university campuses, and the political discourse of diverse individuals. Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) – which was created by BDS – is highlighted for its detrimental national effects.

BDS employs online campaigns, “apartheid weeks” on campuses across the globe, and the promotion of conspiracy theories and blood libels about Israel. The organisation’s key aims qualify as anti-Semitism according to the 3D Test, according to Karasenty.

The ACMS data show that 70% of all anti-Semitic social-media posts are clearly within the new anti-Semitism category, with the remainder divided between Holocaust denial and distortion, and classic anti-Semitism. The data was obtained by flagging and analysing more than 55 million posts across social networks worldwide throughout 2018.

Nearly 240 000 online anti-Semitic users worldwide were responsible for the dissemination of the virulent content, according to Karasenty.

One of the most concerning effects of the new anti-Semitism is the growing unwillingness of Jews to self-identify as Jews in the public sphere, and to express their connection to Israel, according to Karasenty.

“In the best scenario, the normalisation of such discourse on university campuses challenges Jewish collective identity among youngsters. In the worst scenario, anti-Semitic hate speech often precedes hateful acts of violence against Jews.”

Karasenty believes that new anti-Semitism has been catalysed in social media due to a chronic lack of enforcement – or refusal to enforce – pre-existing community standards, or to recognise the hateful nature of online anti-Semitic rhetoric.

“The absence of suitable sanction both by the state and the platform providers when grave violations of the standards occur contributes to the growing inflammatory discourse.”

The diaspora affairs ministry is engaged in ongoing efforts vis-a-vis leading IT companies. In the past three years, it says it has seen a significant shift in the companies’ willingness to enforce their own community standards. This occurred mainly due to increased awareness by legislators on national and transnational levels, as well as increased public awareness of the harmful potential of the phenomena.