Delegitimizing Israel is antisemitic

Airbnb’s announced boycott of Jewish-owned homes in Judea and Samaria is by no means the only boycott of Israel or even the worst. The attempts by BDS to boycott Israel are never-ending, and even if they don’t succeed, they are managing to create an association in people’s minds between Israel and memes like “boycotts”, “apartheid”, “racism”, and in general delegitimizing Israel in the community of nations.

Let’s start with the worst of all the delegitimizers – the UN itself. The indefatigable Hillel Neuer of UN Watch documented last week’s outrageous UN vote on the Golan Heights and the  rest of the upcoming votes on Israel – and only Israel amongst the other almost 200 members of the UN:

Listen to Hillel Neuer on Sky News Australia as he talks about the UN’s scapegoating of Israel:

Moving to my “favourite” antisemites of the present day, see how the antisemitic activists of the Labour Party are planning to disrupt comedian Maureen Lipman’s show purely because she opposes Jeremy Corbyn and she is Jewish:

The behaviour of this group is shameful and ought to be condemned by every decent person, no matter which political party they support. But I am not holding my breath, and certainly not expecting any decency from the likes of Labour’s extreme fringes.

And to conclude today’s sad trifecta of boycotters (and you can be sure that this is but the tip of the iceberg), the British Quaker Church announced its divestment from Israeli settlements. This fact in itself is neither surprising (since it has previously declared its opposition to Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria) nor of practical effect since they readily admit they do not invest in the settlements in the first place However what is disgusting is that they compare the Jewish presence in its historical Biblical heartland (and they should know about the Bible given that they are a church) to the 19th century slave trade! From the first link above:

The Quakers in Britain Church, a group of approximately 17,000 members, announced that it was the first church in the United Kingdom to divest from companies that derive profit from Israeli activity over the pre-1967 lines, noting that to do so was equivalent to benefiting from the 19th-century slave trade.

Quakers in Britain stated that the decision had been reached in consultation with the Quakers national representative body, called Meeting for Sufferings.

It “fits into a long Quaker history of pursuing ethical investments. It follows decisions not to invest funds in, among other [things], the fossil fuel industry, arms companies, Apartheid South Africa and – going even further back – the transatlantic slave trade.”

The move is largely symbolic, since the church has not knowingly invested in such companies. It explained that it wants to ensure that it does not do so in the future. The church had already adopted a decision in 2011 to boycott settlement products.

In other words this was simply a rah-rah statement affirming their “right-on” radial chic politics and virtue signalling to all the right people that they are in agreement with them.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews uncharacteristically slammed the Quakers:

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the central umbrella body for British Jewry, condemned the decision, and essentially accused the Quakers of double-standards in their singling out of Israel for divestment.

“The appalling decision of the Friends House hierarchy to divest from just one country in the world – the only Jewish state – despite everything else going on around the globe, shows the dangers of the obsessive and tunnel-visioned approach that a narrow clique of church officials have taken in recent years,” said BoD President Marie van der Zyl.

The Quaker’s pathetic declaration says more about the Quakers than Israel. It tells us that they care more about politics than ethics, and that they have forgotten the Bible on which they are presumably based.

This virtue signalling and radical chic politics in fact describes the motivations of most of Israel’s boycotters, whether they boycott the whole country or only the “settlements”.

Objecting to Jews returning to their homeland and rejecting any Jewish right to the territories while blindly accepting the Palestinian narrative that Judea and Samaria are their land does not only smack of antisemitism. It IS antisemitism for it singles out the Jews for discriminatory practice and scapegoating.

This entry was posted in Antisemitism, Boycotts and BDS, Lawfare and Delegitimization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Delegitimizing Israel is antisemitic

  1. Pingback: Delegitimizing Israel is antisemitic – 24/6 Magazine

  2. Jeff Polaski says:

    Here in America, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) actively supports BDS. The Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry, under Gilad Erdan, included the AFSC in a list of 20 such pro-BDS organizations.
    A half-century ago the AFSC won the Nobel Peace Prize protecting Jews from Nazi and other predation. Now in the 21st Century, the AFSC has apparently turned around completely.

    • anneinpt says:

      Indeed, the Quakers, or Friends, have a name for being anti-Israel. I think it stems not from antisemitism but from being achingly “right-on”, wanting to always support the underdog. Only in the case of Israel they have mis-identified who the underdog is, and besides, being the weaker side does not make you the right side.

      they are also militantly pacifist (if that makes any sense) so will not support the “aggressive” side. Israel has been cast internationally as the aggressor although it is painfully clear to anyone who looks properly that Israel is the defender. But go argue with closed-minded people.

      • Jeff Polaski says:

        In my experience, Friends have always been solidly pacifist and anti-war. Their children are taught this from birth. Most of America knows this and many Americans honor this. Some Friends also have highly valued their American nation-state and served with valor during wartime as noncombatant medics, for instance. This is honorable and commendable.

        John Lukacs, the historian, has said that public opinion has been replaced by public sentiment, a much more transient and superficial way of thinking. You are correct, Anne, in showing that the anti-Israel sentiment is not only anti-Semitic but also very carelessly considered.

Comments are closed.