Tag: Israel

About the Antisemitism Awareness Act – MAGA Forgets Its Own Core Antisemitism

Michael Matheron2 Comments

Quick Background

Six years ago, the publication Inside Higher Education ran an article about 2018’s version of the Antisemitism Awareness Act and observed,

“anti-Semitism’s manifestations change over time. There is a robust debate, both inside the Jewish community and among experts on the issue, over the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Sometimes anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism; sometimes it doesn’t.”

Their bifurcation framed antisemitism as a set of definitional issues regarding

  • antisemitism directed against the state of Israel as a state, i.e., a sovereign corporate entity, and thereby a diplomatic issue about which the State Department has its own definition, and
  • in the education sector, antisemitism directed at individuals, i.e., a civil rights issue under the Department of Education Civil Rights Division’s definition of antisemitism to be used to determine schools’ antidiscrimination legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) “to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” (Note that Title VI does not apply to discrimination based upon religion itself, but applies to race, national origin, and ethnicity which creates confusion in policy. Also note, Title VI applies to institutions which receive federal aid.)

Much comes to mind since the Inside Higher Education article referenced above pointed out the perennial truth that “anti-Semitism’s manifestations change over time.” Today’s manifestation arises from the latest and most vicious war in many years between the state of Israel and Gaza’s Hamas. In the education sphere regulated under Title VI, mass protests grow in intensity and they often mix attacks on Jewish and Palestinian individuals with attacks upon the Jewish state.

How broad or narrow ought antisemitism be defined to maintain reasonable First Amendment free speech rights? And what about the distinction between the diplomatic vs. the personhood definition for federal enforcement purposes? And that definition variance is the rub. What makes this bill so controversial is its reliance on equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism: one is criticism of an entity, the other of a person. Indeed, it’s a categorical error. So, it appears, if the bill passes Senate muster, on-campus criticism of the Jewish state is antisemitic. And the Antisemitism Awareness Act seeks to resolve this by empowering the Education Department to take action against educational institutions that do not sufficiently combat anti-Israel speech on campus where this kind of “diplomatic” free speech ought to be encouraged in order to air out attitudes about countries’ treatment of, for example in Gaza, noncombatant rights.

This round of concern has, of course, arisen as fallout from the ongoing Israel-Palestine war, and the resulting protests roiling campuses. And this is a time of existential crisis for both sides, their disputed homelands up for destruction. The bill, titled the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would mandate that the Education Department adopt a broad definition of antisemitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRM), an intergovernmental group. The group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel. These manifestations are directed at Jewish individuals and ought to be prevented even to the point of shackling free speech rights.

However, as noted above, importantly, the House-adopted definition of antisemitism arguably includes offenses against the Jewish state, ‘‘[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,’’ and ‘‘[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’’ This is the substance of the Antisemitism Awareness Act. The scope of this expanded definition makes it illegal in an educational setting to merely claim “that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” or, if heavily enforced by DOE, to forbid any criticism of, for example, Israel’s brutal conduct of the present conflict. That goes too far, discussions of the behavior of our allies must be free-flowing, particularly in an educational setting.

An Example That Eats the Rule

Interestingly, and counterintuitively, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRM) examples of antisemitic behavior adopted by the House-passed bill contain a limitation:
“However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” [emphasis added]

Is this the exception that eats the rule? After all, most of the present on-campus criticism of Israel is based upon the international laws of war, and the responsibility for treatment of refugees and noncombatants. And isn’t this the same kind of criticism any other country receives in these circumstances, and therefore, according to the definitional section of the Antisemitism Awareness Act itself “cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” That creates confusion, it does not resolve it. Thus, the Antisemitism Awareness Act which is intended to, in large part, prevent criticism of Israel, the sovereign nation, contains a serious internal contradiction provided by the very IHRM definition it seeks to codify. As such, it needs to be considered carefully by the Senate.

MAGA’s Core Antisemitism

As an aside, but an important one, it’s interesting to note the overwhelming support of Republicans for a measure that supports Israel’s stated right to exist as a state. The GOP has not shown itself to be an avid supporter of Jewish causes, particularly since Jewish voters are largely Democratic party voters. Hardly a day goes by when a Marjory Taylor Greene or the erstwhile Kevin McCarthy pins most of the world’s problems on George Soros, in general, or the Rothschild’s Jewish Space Lasers. How there are Jewish Zionist Republicans I’ll never understand.

The MAGA movement (which is, basically, the Republican party at this point) is riddled with proud nazi sympathizers who openly encourage an end to the Israel and to the Jews themselves. Trump himself doesn’t have a clearly stated policy and recently has used antisemitic rhetoric that directly quotes many classic bits of antisemitism, for example, that Jews support Democrats, that they support Israeli interests over American interests. As has been pointed out often, Trump is a “transactional” political actor, so his position may remain forever unknown, but he does know his supporters are primarily and loudly antisemite, singling out both Israel as a country and Jews as individuals.

So here’s how the GOP/MAGA party acolytes voted. Given their widespread antisemitism, one is reminded that Napoleon once remarked,

“In politics, absurdity is not a handicap.” 

House Roll Call (go here to view each Member’s vote)
MAY 01, 2024, 04:50 PM | 118TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION

Republican1872109
Democratic1337009
Independent0000

Genius Gingrich’s Anti-Palestinian Stance Unintentionally Buttresses Native American Claims to the United States

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

December 12, 2011

Newt’s claim a few days ago that “Palestinians are an invented people” has caused a bit of a furor, on all sides. The Perfesser was attacked roundly for it by Mitt Romney at last night’s debate. Gingo didn’t back down, but instead extended his swing towards Israel in the dispute to end all disputes. In fact, though, if one “extends” Gingo’s logic to what we call our own country, well, according to Gingo Logic, we better pack our bags . . .

So, here’s Newt Gingrich, an untenured and unmoored history perfesser, at the  GOP Presidential Debate, December 10, 2011:“I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth, just as was Ronald Reagan who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire and who overruled his entire State Department in order to say, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Reagan believed the power of truth restated the world and reframed the world. I am a Reaganite, I’m proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it’s at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.”

That’s pure Gingo, speaking about his superior brand of courage. His courage to “tell the truth.”  In this case, his truth-telling was about the Palestinians, as in “Palestinians are an invented people.” That’s the wildly irresponsible statement he made a few days before during a Jewish Channel interview. Last night at the circus called the GOP Presidential debate in Iowa, he added to his assertion, “The fact is, the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story,” and “Palestinian’ did not become a common term until after 1977.” 

Well, this is classic Gingrich. The self-praising historian. Here he conflates two statements to cater to an Iowa GOP voter who is primarily an evangelical or Millennial Christian. They believe in Israel. Israel, the land of Jesus, is their foundational history and theology: so “Palestinians” do not exist, except as a terrorist force seeking to claim Israel. The real historical scholars, of course, differ in their conceptions of both “Palestine” and “Israel.” Their differences are valid. The history of the eastern Mediterranean is wide and deep. Much must be inferred from scattered and often unreliable ancient histories as politically motivated then as they are today. 

As for Gingo’s “history,” he has great audacity when he presents the history of that area to be his history. He is such an oversized personality, thanks primarily to his wrongdoing, that he gets very little push-back among his GOP panelists. Bachmann, the exception in all things, made a good run at him, but ultimately, she’s Bachmann who no one takes seriously at this point in the race. So, after brushing off a raid by Romney, Gingo was able to emerge a virtually non-contested winner in a one-sided history contest.

Gingo’s history conforms to many scholarly influences. As an example, Dr. Yohai Sela, Assistant researcher at The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies – Tel Aviv University, wrote this: “The word Palestine has no meaning in the Arabic language, neither do the words Jordan and Lebanon – all are taken from the Hebrew language.” Indeed, let’s accept that as true. Does Gingrich claim the same about our Jordanians and the Lebanese as he does about the “invented people” of Palestine. For God’s sake, Aristotle wrote of Palestine in the 4th Century B.C.E.!  So, Newt is speaking of “Palestine” as the original Jewish state. The consequences of that belief, however, would seem to lead to the equal claim that both Jordanians and Lebanese are “invented” people too. So then, are Jordan and Lebanon the property of Israel as well? Aren’t they too “invented” countries? Those questions arise as a logical result of Gingo’s incontrovertible “history.”

Thanks Gingo, You’ll Love Scotland! Moreover, by analogy, Gingo unwittingly provides Native Americans a valid legal claim on the territory called the United States. He simply just says anything without consideration of the general consequences of a particular statement.

For example, I grew up on Long Island, that huge finger pointing away from New York City. Well, in the same way that Professor Sela claims the word “Palestine” is of Jewish origin, the word Manna-hatta, Massapequa (as in today’s Massapequa Parkway), and Montauk Point (Long Island’s easternmost point) have no meaning in English. Twenty-four of our states claim their names from Native peoples’ languages, among them Ohio, Alabama, Massachusetts, Illinois, and the very next GOP primary state, Iowa. So, a la Gingo (and Professor Sela), have we an English language meaning for an Alabaman, Wisconsinite, or an Iowan?

The Native peoples of our country were forcibly pushed off what was collectively their land thousands of years before. Through Gingo’s exacting history and his oft-claimed political and philosophical consistency, it follows, “Americans are an invented people.” We better get our bags packed.