Israel to Icke

Israel to Icke

Israel and Jews are in the news a lot. Anti-Semitism, or the "socialism of fools," frequently drives this obsession with Jews, merely 13 million people on the planet. It is a worldwide illness with no cure. And increasingly Israel and Jews are subject to conspiracy theories, including one of the most popular proposed by the former British footballer and writer David Icke (b. 1952). In And The Truth Shall Set You Free, Icke argued that a secret Global Elite rules the world. In addition, he insists that Hitler and the Holocaust were supported by prominent Jewish banking families. At other times, Icke argues that the Global Elite, which caused all the world's great revolutions and wars, as well as 9-11, consists of a cabal of Jews and non-Jews. His works have been praised by Christian patriots, ultra-nationalists, and militia movements in the United States, which insist that the United States is a "Zionist Occupation Government" run by Israel. In 1999, at the request of the Canadian Jewish Congress, his books were removed from Indigo stores. In that same year, he spoke for four hours at the University of Toronto and received a standing ovation.

In today's blog, I want to offer an Israel-Canadian perspective on Israel. Icke and other conspiracy theorists increasingly gain popular support in a post-9-11 climate. The National Post's Jonathan Kay reported today that in one poll 39 per cent of Canadians think 9-11 was an "inside job." That is, 9-11 was not an al-Qaeda operation, but conducted by elite neo-conservatives within the US government, powerful Jews, the Mossad, Israel, the Illuminati, or a Global Elite to advance US geopolitical and economic goals. These conspiracies are a reaction to increasing global cynicism vis-a-vis democratic institutions, the mainstream media, and the corruption of politicians of all ideological stripes. That the conspiracy theories sometimes target Jews is no surprise, given the history of global anti-Semitism and the worldwide, popular circulation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion from Egypt to Russia.

In Canada, the Jewish community is divided on Israel, although the vast majority support Israel's right to exist, Zionism's goal of Jewish self-determination, and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts. Yet, there is also a strong anti-Zionist Jewish intelligentsia in Canada, which subtly revives conspiracy theories related to Israel's disproportionate impact on regional and global affairs. These left-wing Jews are not like the aforementioned Icke (after all, they do not trumpet the Icke position that the Global Elite consists of shape-shifting reptiles!), but they analyze the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a simplistic manner that ignores the impact of numerous players such as the Palestinians, Arab and Muslim states, the United States, the European Union, and Israel.

In the March 19-25 issue of Toronto left-wing weekly Now, 161 Jewish Canadians published a manifesto entitled “Jewish Canadians Concerned about Suppression of Criticism of Israel.” The signatories included numerous academics, anti-globalization guru Naomi Klein, peace activist Ursula Franklin, and renowned pianist Anton Kuerti.

The manifesto is mind-boggling for its distasteful one-sidedness and naïve inability to see increasing genocidal, realpolitik threats to Jews and Israel from radical Islamism and assorted secular foes. Moreover, the tone of the manifesto is manipulative moralizing in respect of silencing of criticism of Israel. As a political science professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, I express my deepest concern “About Jewish Canadians Concerned” in a two-fold manner. I first flesh out the main contents of the manifesto. Second, I comprehensively critique the manifesto. I offer an antidote to a neo-Marxist manifesto that sees all of political reality in simplistic terms: Israel the evil bourgeoisie and Palestinians the saintly, oppressed proletariat marching to victory.

The opening line of the manifesto states: “We are Jewish Canadians concerned about all expressions of racism, anti-Semitism, and social injustice.” These are indeed noble yet disingenuous sentiments. Where was a manifesto when genocidal, Iranian-backed anti-Semites bombed the Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 killing 85? Or, when Hamas and Fatah suicide bombers repeatedly killed Israelis of all faiths, but really hoped to kill as many Jews as possible? Or, when our Jewish students at York, Concordia, and Laurier no longer feel safe on campuses because the collective Jew (the state of Israel) is the most vilified, allegedly “apartheid” state in the world? Where were your voices when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, but received the gifts of thousands of rockets from annihilationist Hezbollah and Hamas seeking to cleanse the planet of Jews? Or, when police officers vandalize synagogues in Venezuela or French Jews are beaten and killed merely because they are Jews?

I know your responses. I anticipate them in advance. Israel’s “crimes” against the Palestinians cause anti-Semitism to climb. Before 1948 Jews had no state and lots of enemies. Do you not remember Pale of Settlement, massacres of Jews in Hebron in 1929, or the ghettoes under both Christian and Muslim rulers? And after 1948 with a state Jews have lots of enemies, including the vast majority of the Muslim Arab world that sees all of Israel as usurped Muslim land, traditional anti-Semites on the right, and “progressives” that hide behind the rhetorical fog of anti-Zionism to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination and statehood.

Let’s move to the second line: “We believe that the Holocaust legacy ‘Never again’ means never again for all peoples.” The reality is very different. Genocide scholars understand the systematic, unique nature of the Holocaust. Its lethal combination of traditional anti-Semitism, scientific racism, distancing mechanisms (race laws, ghettoes, removal of Jews from professional life, denial of legal and citizenship rights, etc.), and cold-blooded, technological bureaucratization of state killing was unique in human history. The nearly 6 million Jewish dead is a lesson for the world of humanity’s inhumanity. Yet, the reality is that genocides all proceed in the fog of war and due to the indifference of the international community. The language of “genocidal Israel” coming out of Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), which the signatories support, is both inaccurate and an affront to the victims of real genocides from Jews and Armenians to Tutsis and Darfuris. Israel, like any state sometimes lacks proportionality, but its intent is not genocidal vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Jews were not armed and were without a state during the Holocaust, while Palestinians, Arabs from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran are armed and openly express their genocidal intentions in respect of Jews and Israel.

The third line of the manifesto: “It is a tragic turn of history that the State of Israel, with its ideals of democracy and its dream of being a safe haven for the Jewish people, causes immeasurable suffering and injustice to the Palestinians.” First, better to have ideals of democracy and fall a little short than have no democratic dreams and languish in state authoritarianism like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and the entire Arab world. Second, Israel sometimes causes harm to the Palestinians by unwittingly killing civilians as a by-product of military or counter-terrorist operations. Israel is allowed to respond to threats to its citizens like any self-respecting state. Third, Israel alone has not been the sole cause of the Palestinian drama. Israel, Palestinians, Arab states, the Muslim world, and great powers have all played their role in perpetuating an addictive conflict. This story is not told by the signatories because it is too complicated and pierces the veil of Israel as absolute oppressor and Palestinians eternal victims.

The manifesto argues that “prominent Jewish organizations and leading Canadian politicians” have sought to “silence protest against the state of Israel.” The signatories are alarmed by “fear tactics” akin to the anti-communist, McCarthyism of the 1950s in which IAW activists are accused of anti-Semitism to “deflect from Israel’s flagrant violations of international humanitarian law.”

B’nai Brith was correct to call IAW an anti-Israel “hate-festival,” but inconsistent with liberal democratic values when it sought to ban IAW. At all 13 IAW participating cities in Canada, there was not one pro-Zionist speaker. In comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa the insinuation was that demonic Israel should be liquidated. Jews as a collective cannot be allowed to exist. No speakers even called for a two-state solution to the conflict. Is this what passes for debate on university campuses?

It is true that there is silencing, but the silencing of pro-Israel positions on university campuses that rush to embrace the Palestinian cause as the human rights struggle of our age. The fear that the signatories speak about are not of my Jewish students. During IAW they were afraid to express their pro-Israel positions, even if they support the creation of a Palestinian state. The hostile campus atmosphere against Jews led PM Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to speak out against anti-Semitism on campuses. When Israel is completely demonized without any redeeming features, as was the case during IAW, then real attacks on Jews will follow.

And political authorities silencing protest against Israel? Last time I checked Haroon Siddiqui still wrote his incomprehensible anti-Israel ramblings in the Toronto Star. IAW took place once again with the support of university administrators and professors across Canada. Now published its manifesto. Even the pro-Israel National Post opened its pages to IAW supporters Judy Rebick and Alan Sears. If this is silencing of criticism of Israel, then I ask the signatories to travel to China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Egypt, and Russia to see what real press silencing looks like with the assistance of the barrel of the gun.

In addition, the signatories fail to see any anti-Semitism in the disproportionate criticism of Israel at IAW, its singling out on the international stage at the UN and Durban, and the anti-Zionism that once succeeded in calling Israel a “racist” state in 1975. There are older and newer guises of anti-Semitism. The newer ones code their anti-Semitism: “anti-Zionism,” “one-state solution,” “genocidal Israel,” “prominent Jewish lobbies,” and the like. If as a national collective Jews are denied the right to statehood, unlike any other nation in the world, then I am prepared to say that anti-Semitism is a motivating factor. Remember I also support the creation of a viable Palestinian state, as long as it lives in peace with Israel. I am not so sure what the signatories support, but they would make their case more clear if they offered constructive solutions rather than absolute demonisation of Israel without any historical context.

Finally, the spurious claim is made that IAW call for boycotts of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Boycotts against Israeli academics, many who are critical of the state of Israel, has the whiff of boycotts of Jews in inter-war Europe and Nazi Germany. Anti-Semitism, the signatories insist, masks Israeli international law violations. It is true that boycotts per se do not have to be anti-Semitic, but then why no similar boycott of “apartheid Canada” for its reservation system vis-à-vis Natives? Or, Russia for the 100,000 dead in the Chechen wars. Or, the Turks for their cruel treatment of the Kurds? Or, Sudan, who’s leader al-Bashir has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” for killing 300,000 in Darfur and sending another 2.5 million into exile?

On the international law issue, Israel has been accused of so many gross violations of international law and “massacres” like the fiction of Jenin that we surely cannot rely on the UN for a modicum of balance. No state is so denigrated by the international community as Israel. In terms of the Gaza operation, Israel had a legitimate right to respond after thousands of rockets fired into southern Israel. Such a declaration of war allows a state to respond. One can dispute the proportionality of the response. International media outlets and human rights organizations repeat Israel’s illegal use of white phosphorous, although it is only illegal in civilian areas. They repeat it because they know that Israel followed the international law principle of “military necessity” against a foe that hides behind civilians. Where were the petitions for the residents of Sderot or Kiryat Shmona for stoically suffering years of rocket fire? Were these not violations of international law? In fact, a case can be made that they are more so violations of international law because the shells are fired indiscriminately into civilian areas without any military necessity.

I happen to be against the Israeli presence in the West Bank and the building of more settlements, but I am not so naïve as to think that Israel’s withdrawl will usher in an era of peace. Educated and uneducated Palestinians and Muslims in general continue to see Israel as a “foreign body” in the region. Textbooks and mainstream media in the Arab world, as well as Muslim regimes, continue to repeat Holocaust hoax theories. Demonisation of Jews as individuals and as collective (Israel) are standard, while the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is spuriously repeated as a plot devised by Jews to rule the world. These fictions flourish in authoritarian political climates precisely because people have ceded political power to Arab monarchs, secular autocrats, or Islamist theocrats. In short, they have no real power over the political process, unlike democratic Israel, and hence blame Jews for all their ills. Similar anti-Semitic conspiracies flourish in Eastern Europe, which lived under the totalitarian tutelage of the Soviet Union.

The signatories claim that Jewish organizations “pressured university presidents and administrators to silence debate and discussion regarding Israel/Palestine.” B’nai Brith has every right to withhold funds from universities for supporting IAW. Would the Canadian Arab Federation open its wallets to universities if they promoted Arab or Muslim “apartheid” weeks? Moreover, the insinuation here is that the Jewish organizations have great pull, but the reality is that they were impotent to stop IAW.

It is true that some free speech was undermined, which I cannot support because it contravenes the ethic of a liberal democracy. Yet, this was a negligible denigration of speech such as the banning of an IAW poster at Carleton University. Do we forget that these same IAW supporters prevented current Israeli PM Netanyahu from speaking at Concordia University in 2003 by violently rioting? And do we forget that university administrators shamefully capitulated to the doctrinaire ideologues?

Near the end of the petition, the authors state: “We do not believe that Israel acts in self-defense.” Israel, they argue, is the largest recipient of US aid at $3 million per day. It also has “the fourth strongest army in the world.” The last claim cannot be corroborated because how do we test the “strongest army in the world”? Is it technological sophistication, manpower, training readiness, or esprit de corps? In terms of manpower, Israel cannot be the fourth strongest army because the United States, Russia, China, North Korea, Britain, and France all have larger armies than Israel.

From a realist perspective, all states in an anarchical international system seek to augment their power, will use violence to do so, and will seek to get an upper hand on their regional foes. Israel is no different from other states, yet it is treated like the pariah among world states. Furthermore, if we follow the realist logic, states sometimes have to act offensively to avert greater catastrophes (i.e., state survival) or to aggrandize their power. In its history Israel has acted defensively in 1948 and offensively as in the Six-Day War in 1967 because they feared an imminent attack by Arab armies. When Israel struck the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981, it acted offensively yet in a defensive capacity against a Ba’athist regime that openly threatened its existence. The theocratic, genocidal Iranian regime today presents Israel with similar difficulties should it acquire nuclear weapons. Finally, if Israel acted offensively in Lebanon (1982 and 2006) and Gaza in 2008-9 the operations were also defensive counter-reactions to non-state terrorist groups that seek its destruction and threaten the security of its citizens.

The petition ends with an unintended ironic note. The signatories twice reject “specious claims of anti-Semitism” and “false charges of anti-Semitism” for those that criticize Israel. Why so much barking about anti-Semitism by the signatories? Could it be that they bark too much because they have the most to hide? They call for freedom of speech and “legitimate criticism of Israel.” The problem is that the IAW “progressives” do not engage in “legitimate criticism of Israel.” Israel is singled out among the community of nations, allusions to unsubstantiated Jewish power are made, and IAW calls for a “one-state solution” that would in effect lead to the liquidation of Jewish and democratic Israel.

The sad reality is that there is a more reasoned examination of Israeli “apartheid” at Israeli universities or Ha’aretz than the petition in question or IAW debates on Canadian campuses. This speaks to the poverty of authentic political debate in Canada, the sloganeering moral righteousness, and the desire for partisanship rather than genuine solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli tragedy.

In conclusion, the silent majority of Canadian Jews would probably express the gravest concern about “Jewish Canadians Concerned about Suppression of Criticism of Israel.” The manifesto highlights the psychological delusions of left-wing “progressives” that follow fads with the hope that they will one day be saved by their tormentors. The manifesto comes at a time when the worldwide demonisation of Israel has reached fever pitch. Criticism of Israel has become the Che Guevara chic of recent years. It is good for academic careers. How can there be suppression of criticism of Israel when criticism of the state has become fashionable? The chorus of anti-Zionists runs the gamut from Islamist theocrats to European left-wingers, and conspiracy theorists of the Icke mould to North American neo-Marxist secularists. And anti-Semites of a traditional hue. Icke disingenuously denies that he fits the anti-Semitic category, despite his position that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a political truth. The downplaying of any anti-Semitic motives by the signatories is both farcical and tragic. What the signatories fail to realize is that Israel’s foes are coming for the Jews and democracy. There will be no distinction between good Jew and bad Jew. If Israel fails, not one of us will remain.

Tamir Bar-On