Legitimate criticism of the state of Israel is something which should be encouraged, as it should be for any state. However, with the ethnoreligious nature of Israel and the intense, propaganda-fueled tension surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this criticism has and will continue to often spill over into antisemitism. Luckily, there is a useful test, little-known to non-Jews though it is, created by Natan Sharanksy, an Israeli Human Rights Activist and Soviet refusenik, to distinguish between the two. This test can be applied to many situations, especially regarding modern, non-classical antisemitism. As Sharanksy puts it, ‘hiding behind the veneer of 'legitimate criticism of Israel', this new antisemitism is much more difficult to expose’.
The “3D test” is by no means rigorous, but it is a good blanket measure to see if something is antisemitic in nature. If the subject fails in one or more of the Ds, it is likely antisemitic.
The first criterion is delegitimization: This refers to the outright denial of the right of Jews to self-determination, a basic human right ensuring people can live and be governed where and by whom they like. This right is especially important to Jews, given the almost continuous stream of Jewish people seeking refuge in Israel (for example, those having to flee persecution in France, India, and China, etc.). Examples of delegitimization include attacking Israel as an entity, rather than specific criticisms of its government, for instance, calling Israel a racist endeavour, supporting the dismantling of it, or otherwise undermining it’s rights to exist, govern, and accept refugees.
The second is demonization: This refers to the demonization of Jews or Israelis as evil, demonic or satanic. This often comes from antisemitic canards (stereotypes/tropes). For example, statements about the supposed hidden control over the world of Jews/Israelis, rhetoric related to blood libel, dehumanization of Jews/Israelis, and the almost instant suspicion of Israel after any major disaster, for instance, 9/11.
The final criterion is the use of double standards: This refers to people using different sets of principles and standards when judging Israel compared to other states. One example would be how the media portrays Israeli citizens settling in occupied territories differently than they do Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus, or Moroccan settlers in the Western Sahara. In fact, in the latter two cases the settler population actually now exceeds the preexisting one, whereas, in the West Bank, Israeli citizens only make up around 1/5th of the population. Using a different moral standard for Israel and Jews than the rest of the world clearly discriminates against a specific group, and so is antisemitic.
Written by Noah Mitchell
Artwork by Izzy Johns
Comments