The debate about campus antisemitism in the US is a distraction
JVL Introduction
A wonderful contribution from Peter Beinart helps us make sense of the conversation in the United States which is currently not about what is happening in Gaza but about university presidents allegedly not opposing calls for genocide of Jews on college campuses.
This kind of deflection happens a lot, but particularly, suggests Beinart, when it is hard for Israel supporters to defend what is happening on the ground.
In other words, it is a diversionary tactic: you turn the conversation towards the alleged antisemitism of people who are calling for one equal state or calling Israel an apartheid state.
This isn’t a conspiracy view but simply expresses a “a natural desire by a lot of people who support Israel to not focus on something which is really, really difficult and unpleasant, which is what’s happening in Gaza, and doesn’t allow Jews to be in the role of the victims.”
Beinart is also very worried by the increasing efforts to silence critics of Israel by whatever means necessary: The struggle “to end Israeli impunity is also a struggle for academic freedom and free speech in the United States.”
RK
This article was originally published by the Beinart Notebook on Mon 11 Dec 2023. Read the original here.
Elise Stefanik, University Presidents, and the Politics of Distraction
Loading article text…
It’s never been anything but a diversion….before 7th October and upped a gear in 2014. Think of all the time, energy and resources the Labour Part had to use to defend itself, rather than getting on with selling its manifesto to the electorate
The film “Israelism” is being shown in US University campuses and I would suggest that JVL members that have links to socialist societies ask them to show the film in their campuses.
Students are always warned to “define your terms” before arguing a case.
Had the academics insisted on the use of the Jerusalem Definition of what antisemitism IS, they’d have made themselves less vulnerable. The academics would still have needed plenty of determination and emotional resilience to press the pro-Israel politicians into explaining WHY student protests against the bombing and oppression of Gazans showed “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)” …. but they might have won. That kind of an argument is one in which academics have far more expertise than politicians.
To anyone fair-minded, it would also have been very clear what the real issues were. The Jerusalem Definition is simple and clear on what is and isn’t antisemitism. The IHRA Definition isn’t. It’s easier to argue a bad case if you use a wildly “fuzzy” definition of what the case is about.