Michael Zusev, Photo Editor
Featured illustration by Christopher Lai, Comics and Graphics Editor
Two Israelis walk into the Middle Eastern Students’ Association and ask if they can join.
“Of course,” says the MESA representative. “But we don’t recognize Israel as a state.”
The punchline to this joke made me question my Israeli identity. I was born in Israel, raised in Canada, and my parents celebrated Jewish traditions but I grew up highly secular. Other than birth and familial ties, all my connections to Israel have been severed. Yet there still exists a stark association of my identity as an Israelite and as a Jew. Since there has been some recent talk about anti-Semitism on campus, I would like to add my perspective and opinion of one Russian Jew.
Anti-Semitism is strictly defined as the hatred of Jews for no other reason than the simple fact that they are Jewish. It is an irrational type of hatred; it has no bearing on reality and its consequences are severely inhumane. There are strong reasons for fearing anti-Semitism as any other hate crime.
However, hatred of the state of Israel for no other reason than the fact that it is engaged in brutal violence and occupation is not anti-Semitism.
Herein lies the interesting phenomena of “new” anti-Semitism: the conflation of critiquing Israel and the irrational hatred of Jews. Anytime a thorough and developed argument against Israel comes to light, the very action of labelling it as anti-Semitic is supposed to disqualify it as an argument. It seems as though any anti-Israel sentiments are simply discarded as anti-Semitic. This is a dangerous counter-argument since it accuses the critic of Israel as irrational and potentially violent. This very editorial, due to its critical stance of Israel, will no doubt convince some that I am anti-Semitic.
Yet not a word of it will be about the Jewish people.
A recent example of this new anti-Semitism is the reaction to the “Palestinian Roots” mural in the Student Centre. It presents a historical narrative from the perspective of a rebellious Palestinian citizen while an Israeli military vehicle plows land for illegal settlements. Critics have attacked the mural; some might say it illustrates Israel as inhumane and is a “call to action” against Israel. I agree with this sentiment. The actions that Israel takes to continue its occupation in the Middle East is inhumane and there ought to be action against it.
Part of new anti-Semitism’s conflation is due to the throes of victim mentality. Jewish heritage would like to inform us of a unique moral prerogative for a Jewish state, particularly after World War II. This is problematic because instead of being a warning against totalitarian regime, it becomes the justification for violent occupation. I have relatives who were persecuted for being Jewish during the Soviet Union, but I am not ready to say that because of this persecution the state of Israel has a right to exist. I believe that any persecuted group deserves a safe-haven, but not at the cost of another group’s livelihood.
The truth of the matter is that I feel more fear writing my opinion in this editorial than being a Russian Jew on campus. I feel more pressure to unquestionably protect Israel from critical attack than I feel fear from hatred or violence from a so-called anti-Semitic campus. Because frankly, an idiot drawing a Swastika in the bathroom does not make me feel unsafe; I feel more sympathy for the persecuted groups on campus whose attack does not warrant a mass-email from Mamdouh Shoukri.
” I believe that any persecuted group deserves a safe-haven, but not at the cost of another group’s livelihood.”
How many times have I heard this sentence written in defence of Anti -Semitism , some time even by self hating Jewish professors at York University . In 1947 ,what was then called India, the United Nations decided to separate the Hindu and Muslim populations that had been living in common areas of religious hate. And set a day of exchange of land because the animosity between the people of two religions was increasing . This unpresident animosity was exposed came from the time on the day of separation , and did not end until three million Hindus and Muslims were ‘ butchered ‘ in the exchange of land. But eventually the land given to to each was exploited with farms and industry. There were some continual attacks and eventually a state of peace occurred . The United Nations decided in 1948 to repeat the same separation of Arabs and Jews. How ever on the day of separation the Arab population refused to move. Because their Arab brothers in Egypt, Egypt , Lebanon Syria and Iraq told these Arab residents in land apportioned to the Jews .” No need to move” because they would attack these sections given to the Jews . Thus these Arabs did not move on the first day of separation, expecting the Jews would be driven into the sea. Even though the much of this unused marsh land was purchased from these same Arabs.. . And to this day , we see the folly in that decision, being played out in attacks on the campuses of Canadian and America universities by students and professors . Using the anti -semitism that Canadian and American Jews thought was at a minimum , However with the influx of Muslin students on campuses. And with word ‘Apartheid ‘ this new cleansed renamed anti -Semitism grew as a root from the old Anti-Semitism. No matter how often these activists deny they are using Israel as their whipping boy to raise the temperature of anti-Semitism on campuses