[Thread]: 122 Palestinian & Arab academics want to lecture Jews (& everyone else) about antisemitism.

Their letter mischaracterizes the IHRA definition of antisemitism, continues a tradition of erasing/distorting Jewish history & ID, & tokenizes Jews. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/nov/29/palestinian-rights-and-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism

It’s hard to know where to begin. Some of the signatories are impressive scholars whose work I’ve followed. They are intelligent people who should know better & be capable of more nuance. I’m left w/ the impression their political/ideological frame allows for little.

So let’s dive into the letter...

The signatories continue in the tradition of total disregard for Jewish connection to the land; its centrality to our ID, history, & tradition. They paint Palestinians as “the natives,” casting us, by implication, as alien settler colonialists.

Despite the historical, archaeological, genetic, & literary evidence, they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge our indigenous status. The reality of Israel/Palestine is of two native or indigenous groups w/ ties to the same land. You wouldn’t know it from reading the letter.

It’s odd that in a letter purportedly in favor of combating antisemitism, the signatories seem to leave the door open to - & perhaps engage in - the erasure of our history, including our origin in Judea & the fact we always understood ourselves as an exiled diaspora community.

Now some historical context re: their claim that Israel is based on uprooting “the natives.” Even the most accommodating Palestinian nationalists in the pre-State era were unwilling to entertain a binational state. Only a large Arab state w/ a small, protected, Jewish minority.

In response to Jews’ desire to return home, the Palestinian national movement pressed Ottoman & then British officials to severely restrict & eventually stop all Jewish immigration to our indigenous homeland. Arab pressure kept the borders shut, even during the Holocaust.

In the lead up to statehood after WW2, Jews accepted the UN partition plan, which granted us a small piece of our historic homeland & of what we hoped for. The Zionist movement accepted the plan, though it represented a painful compromise for Jewish national aspirations. However,

The Palestinian national movement rejected the compromise, initiating a civil war between Jews & Arabs in Palestine w/ the aim of preventing Jews from exercising sovereignty within any borders, however small.

Historically, the Palestinian national movement refused any compromise - either a true binational state or a partition/two-state-solution. By violently opposing Jewish statehood in 1947, they & their Arab allies rejected the plan that would have granted them statehood.

Israel’s sin in 1947-49 was surviving & winning a total war waged against it by a Palestinian national movement, & Arab states, whose goal was complete denial of Jewish indigenous rights within any borders whatsoever.

Had Israel lost in 1947-49, there wouldn’t be a binational state or two states today. There would simply be no Israel. In a bid to destroy Israel, Palestinians almost destroyed their own national aspirations. All because they couldn’t accept that Jews wanted to come home.

Here, we again see a total lack of context, bordering on academic dishonesty. First, the IHRA definition clearly does not include criticism of Israeli policies or of the occupation as antisemitic. The signatories should know. They quote the definition.

Here are all the examples from the IHRA working definition of antisemitism that mention Israel.

IHRA examples are carefully worded to avoid labeling criticism of specific Israeli policies as antisemitic. The IHRA’s position is that denying Jewish self-determination, or claiming Israel is necessarily racist by definition, is antisemitic. Criticism of Israel isn’t antisemitic

What the signatories are essentially advocating for, as far as I can tell, is for everyone to pretend that denying Jewish indigenous rights is somehow not deeply anti-Jewish.

Conflating the denial of Jewish self-determination w/ criticism of Israel is an attempt to gaslight Jews and others. Jews know the difference. We understand antisemitism pretty well. And we recognize the difference b/w a serious criticism of Israel & something more dangerous.

Finally, the letter is characterized by the application of a troubling, & very common, double standard.

I agree that self-determination should not be based on denying a people from returning to their land. But that is precisely what the Palestinian national movement has always attempted to deny the Jewish People.

Israel lost 1% of its total population in 1947-49 in the Palestinian attempt - aided by the Arab states - to deny Jews that right. Palestinian rejection of both binationalism and of partition were predicated on denying Jews that right.

It’s also curious that while the signatories resent the suggestion that denying Jews the right of self-determination is anti-Jewish (antisemitic), they go on to write that, “justice requires the full support of Palestinians’ right to self-determination” with no sense of irony.

Which is it?
Is self-determination a right, the denial of which constitutes a gross injustice, or not?

I can only think of so many ways to explain the inconsistency:

- The application of a double standard?

- The erasure of Jewish history, denial of our indigenous connection to Israel?

- Some mysterious formula according to which only some indigenous groups have rights?

...

The letter makes clear the signatories’ belief that self-determination is a right Palestinians must achieve as a matter of justice, yet it isn’t unjust to advocate against Jews’ self-determination. In that, they’re truly the intellectual heirs of the Palestinian national movement