Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism

So Claus, do you think that this study is bogus?

The link to Yale University doesn't work. The conclusion at Cross-Currents "Anti-Zionism Equals Anti-Semitism" is obviously flawed, wouldn't you say?

Why so defensive?

It's defamation of character to call people anti-Semitists. I know of law suits regarding this. If you do so by making anti-Zionism equal to anti-Semitism, you charge many Jews with anti-Semitism too. You have the "decency" not to name names, but I think most of the regular users here know who is hinting at whom when they write and publish their "inspired by" articles. In this case, thank you mentioning that you do not think of me as an anti-Semitist. Still, I am anti-Zionist. Does that make you study bogus, or me?

About the race card, I was thinking of Zionist Jews and some Israeli in general, not your statements in general, but yes, this article in particular. Since you do not attack me in person your article and do not have some thinly disguised secret agenda to discredit me as some "writers" have displayed over the last couple of weeks, peace be with you Yaakov. Your article does not exceed what I consider appropriate, and you are entitled to your views. I just counter them from my perspective.

However, you ask me twice why I am being so defensive, which I can only interpret as an insinuation, and the rest of your reply comment, including link, clearly indicates that you had me in mind before publishing the article. So, let me reply twice: There is usually only basis for a law suit if the libel or slander are towards a legal entity. An unnamed and undefinable group of critics are open game.

That's the technicalities. On a more personal level I find that you may be on treacherous ground, if I interpret you correctly. I have had a number of persons playing for the audience, acting innocently, while trying to make me - or other users look bad. I am sure we all remember at least two persons who self-destructed in public displays of some of the poorest prose known to the blogosphere ever over a Keld Bach dispute.

Personally I am not a politician. I am not aiming for crowd control, but known for speaking my mind rather freely with little regard for how my image is affected. Like Israel or any other state I have the right to defend myself, even if attacks are subtle and fired from stealthy positions where legal authority has no reach. I can argue in a rational manner, as long as it makes sense, but people who make outrageous statements should also expect to be met with a staunch reproach.

This is why I am so defensive.

Let's just agree that we need to keep an avenue open for criticizing Israel. No regime on Earth can justify an exclusive position where they are exempt from judgment from the outside.

You, being a red-blooded Bosox fan, start shouting things like "Go Red Sox!" and "Easy out! Easy out!"

Then you shout, "New York sucks!" at which point stadium security arrests you, turns you over to the NYPD, whereupon you are hauled off to jail and charged with a hate crime for shouting "New York sucks!"

It seems that New York has determined that any criticism of their team, especially in regard to how they play the Red Sox, is racism and should be treated as a hate crime.

That sounds pretty loony, doesn't it?

The government of the state of Israel, which is considerably less likeable than the New York Yankees, has decided that this is how it will handle any and all criticism of its policies, particularly in regard to how it treats the Palestinians.

However, does condemning the policies of Musharraf and Vajpayee equate to hatred of the Indian and Pakistani peoples? It does not.

To try to blame that purely on anti-Semitism is idiotic. It's also dishonest, self-serving, and nothing more than trading in on residual guilt from the Holocaust to try and cow people into not criticizing Israel.

I referred to Sharon as a nazi a few weeks back – Sharon alone, mind you. ignoblus said that it was a particular insult to call any Jew a Nazi. She then said that I had insulted every Jewish person in the world.

Does America support the MAfia because they are good Catholics. No. So why should they support Zionist waqr criminals who belittle the Holocaust, by breaking the laws they pushed into the UN.

Israel is unpopular primarily because it has a blood-thirsty and vicious regime that is committing atrocities. To try to blame it on anti-Semitism alone is dishonest and disingenuous.

Now watch: I'll get mail accusing me of being a Holocaust denier as a result of this

First, I would like to apologize to Newsvine and the Newsvine community for using a second account. For whatever reason, I have been unable to post under my normal account. I have not received any reason for this, and can't imagine that it is any sort of sanction. I have so far limited my activities to what that account is still able to do - seeding stories, voting, etc. However, at this moment, I have been referred to by name, and I judge that a response is most appropriate. I would be happy if editors can put this under my "real" name. (As well as fix whatever is wrong - I understand someone's working on it).

To try to blame that purely on anti-Semitism is idiotic. It's also dishonest, self-serving, and nothing more than trading in on residual guilt from the Holocaust to try and cow people into not criticizing Israel.

I referred to Sharon as a nazi a few weeks back – Sharon alone, mind you. ignoblus said that it was a particular insult to call any Jew a Nazi. She then said that I had insulted every Jewish person in the world.

You didn't refer to Sharon as a Nazi. (Or maybe you did and I missed it. In such a case, I probably would have said something similar, but it would have been less clear whether you were being antisemitic.) You referred to Israeli children as Brownshirts. Even Calvin responded, "we already know you think there is a great similarity between Israelis and Nazis," so it isn't just me who understood your comment as a generalized one.

I noted that the most widely used definition of anti-semitism, that sponsored by the European Union, includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" as an example of antisemitism. Clearly, by that definition you made an antisemitic comment. I asked that you stop making such comparisons. I most emphatically did not ask that you stop criticizing Israeli policy, only that you stop using such reprehensible tactics to do so.

It is insulting to Jews to hear a Jew compared to a Nazi.

Especially when the comparison is apt.

Part of the problem, Yaakov, is the way in which you characterize the study in your writeup. Indeed, the study seems to beg this sort of characterization by its very title, (in part) Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism. Coupled with statements within your writeup, its easy to conclude that the study says anti-Israel sentiment = Anti-Semitism. For example:

• " Unless someone says something that is obviously anti-Semitic, it has been very hard to say whether or not a connection exists, whether the accusation of anti-Semitism is coupled with anti-Israel too often and whether this is really a fair accusation to make in a serious discussion. Up until now anyway."
• "there is a very direct relation between the prevalence and intensity of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel opinions"
• "We read (and I myself have written) responses quite often that are along the lines of "don't just accuse someone of anti-Semitism because they are anti-Israel. The two are not the same!". Does this study make the equation of the two a more valid statement?"
• Not incidentally, a portion of the quote from the study is highlighted which says, "Even after controlling for numerous potentially confounding factors, we find that anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the likelihood of measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment observed."

Given that, it's fairly difficult not to conclude that what is being stated is not only that "Anti-Israel sentiment=Anti-Semitism", but that "more Anti-Israel sentiment=more Anti-Semitism." Naturally, those of us who decry many of Israel's policies take umbrage. How should we not?

And while Israel is not specifically "religious" in terms of enshrining the tenets of Judaism into law, it is far from a secular state. It's predisposed to favor Judaism, the ethnically Jewish, and the practicioners of Judaism. This makes it a bit problematic to state that Israel is secular, considering that one definition of the term is "not overtly religious." That "Jewish religious identity" which is "tied to the state very strongly" makes the state not very secular when combined with the state's aim to remain a specifically Jewish state.

With regard to the paper, it seems to be making somewhat of a mistake right at the start-- Anti-Israel sentiment is taken as de facto anti-semitism right at the opening, and seeks to bypass the legitimacy of the sentiment in favor of identifying whether the individual uttering the complaint is anti-semitic:

Presumably those with anti-Semitic leanings would be more likely to espouse anti-Israel viewpoints than those who are not anti-Semitic (given that Israel presents itself as a Jewish state)... We are thus interested in the fraction of individuals with anti-Israel views of differing severity who also harbor anti-Semitic views, as opposed to whether the anti-Israel views themselves are (or are not) inherently anti-Semitic.

This seems to smack of an approach lending itself to ad hominem attacks. Indeed, the authors basically defend the practice when they state "Based on this analysis, when an individual's criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism." What constitutes sufficiently severe? Why is the character of the individual making the criticism more important than the criticism itself? If the actions are defensible, they're defensible irrespective of the nature of the person criticising them, are they not?

Secondly, although the authors glibly dismiss the issue of non-response bias ("No information is available regarding those contacted who refused to participate in the study, which raises an obvious statistical question regarding nonresponse bias. However, given that the goal of our analysis is to examine the relationship between anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment, rather than to estimate the true prevalence of either, nonresponse becomes less of an issue."), this is a potentially debilitating issue for the conclusions of this study. One would think, if the authors had no axe to grind, that eliminating response and non-response bias in a survey which explores highly contentious issues would be a high priority. These authors choose instead to ignore both. While they certainly present a thoughtful argument as to why they chose to ignore this, it remains that this is not how such statistical surveys are generally conducted, nor conclusions reached. To claim that non-response cannot have impacted the results of the survey is to engage in confirmation bias. Naturally, any follow up to this study should explore whether, in fact, non response and response bias impacts any conclusions this study makes.

The study doesn't make clear whether the anti-Israel questions or the anti-semitic questions were asked first, or whether the questions were mixed together in some fashion. Question order often has an impact on responses. It woul dbe interesting to see the impact of changing question order on this survey, and the authors should have made clear in what way the survey was delivered.

Additionally, while interesting, the study cannot be used in the discussions which you present as examples, Yaakov, unless used as an ad hominem attack. What good does it do us to know that 50% of folks espousing firm anti-Israel sentiment are also anti-semitic if we cannot distinguish which 50% those folks are? If you're facing four opponents, all stating the same sentiment, which two do you dismiss and which two engage? Unless you're prepared to deal with the arguments being made (which, as the authors note, are not themselves anti-semitic), the strong temptation relying on a study such as this is to dismiss all four with blanket statements of anti-semitism-- a charge which does two of your opponents a grave injustice.

What the study really shows is that folks who are anti-semitic are also anti-Israel. Well, this is hardly a surprise, and is in fact exactly what the authors posited to begin with as a founding assumption of the study. We assumed that folks who were anti-semitic would be largely anti-Israel, and we found that to be the case, therefore, anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-semitism. What? Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore all men are Socrates.

The overall percentage of folks who scored as anti-semitic was 14%, the authors fail to mention what percentage of the pool harbored anti-Israel sentiment. Another interesting way to cut the data, which was sadly overlooked and/or unreported, would have been to separate from the pool individuals who are muslims, immigrants, or both, and see how that impacts the results. Sadly, the authors leave unexplored whether individuals with direct negative experiences of Israeli practices bias the results of the study.

In short, I think this study leaves a lot to be desired, both in the mechanics of how it was conducted and in the conclusions the authors draw from the data they collected. Sadly, I imagine this study will be seized upon by those who have already made up their minds that criticism of Israel = anti-semitism as proof that anyone disagreeing with them is secretly anti-semitic and therefore safe to dismiss.

Yaakov, in no way am I trying to minimize anti-semitism. I am well aware of its horrors and it goes against all that I hold true. What I am trying to point out is found in your comment. While there may be 100 million in Europe who are anti-semitic, there are over 714 million, 86%, who are not. Is the glass half empty or half full? My preference is to look for hope and discourse.

However, I see it as saying that there are a heck of alot of people out there who don't like us Jews.

This study is completely unrelated to this conclusion you're making here. This study in no way proves or even suggests that X% of Europeans are anti-Semitic.

Redruby: the accusations of anti-semitism are, among other things, intended to silence sensitive individuals. In your case, the tactic seems to have worked. The minefield you identify was purposely sown in your path.

Yaakov, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding regarding statistics here.

This study surveyed 1000 people in 10 different European countries

First of all, let's get the facts straight. They sampled 500 people from each of the 10 countries.

It is not a proof - no one surveyed every person in Europe.

You don't have to survey everybody in Europe to get statistically meaningful proof, but you do need a sample size much greater than 5,000. And the methods at which you sample these people relates to the viability of the conclusions.

Which brings me to my last point. The researchers surveyed specifically 5,000 people who took part in a larger study, possibly only the people who had anti-Israel sentiment. From the article:

However, given that the goal of our analysis is to examine the relationship between anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment, rather than to estimate the true prevalence of either, nonresponse becomes less of an issue. The situation is somewhat akin to epidemiological studies relating, say, the incidence of cancer to smoking behavior: there is no need for the proportion of smokers in such studies to mimic the true percentage in the population.

The researchers are basically admitting here that their study has nothing to do with how many people are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel in Europe, since they've chosen to only survey people who had anti-Israel sentiments in the first place.

It is just statistics.

Before you go making offensive generalizations about how anti-Semitic a whole continent is, you should seek to understand your own "statistics".

very often anti-Israel comments come from people who are anti-Semitic

I don't care if a person is anti-Semitic or not as long as their statements are meaningful and founded on reason.

It is not an accusation that Israel's defenders make up and use with no basis.

Israel's defenders shouldn't try to engage in character assassination to dismiss somebody's arguments. In a meaningful discussion, especially through the anonymity of the Internet, one would hope that we can keep the man and the message separate. We're not not on Newsvine to prosecute people for being bigoted, we're here to discuss. At least that's what I'm here for.

For an excellent movie about the portrayal of a self-hating jew, The Frenzy Report recommends The Believer (Grand Jury Prize winner of the 2001 Sundance Film Festival).

It's an excellent movie. However, I suspect the JDL and shooting at Palestinians are more typical reactions to that sort of tribal shame.

I'd be interested in the opinion of a copyright lawyer as to whether "do not cite" has any meaning in law, as opposed to indicating that it doesn't have scientific standing.

Yaakov: Can you please point out the flaws in their statistics and mathematics? You mean as opposed to flaws in their methodology? They can carry a one (i.e. do the math "correctly"), but if the methodology isn't sound, it doesn't matter if their math is right.

• They fail to adequately define both the terms "anti-Israel" and "anti-semitism." The questions which define both terms are presented as value-neutral questions with equal weight. Some questions to which a 'yes' answer might be true are considered evidence of anti-semitism or anti-Israel sentiment-- there seems to be little consideration given to whether these answers would be the answers a reasonable person might give.
• They glibly dismiss analysis of non-response bias.
• They fail to consider in any form whatsoever response bias
• They don't adequately explain their methodology for delivery of the survey, particularly question order and the impact it has on responses.
• They failed to control for elements of the population who might have reason to hold negative opinions of Israel. Namely, they fail to account for the real life experiences of immigrants and muslims who might have justifiable reasons for answers that would be labelled under this survey as "anti-semitic" or "anti-Israel"
• They fail to provide raw demographic numbers, leading to questions as to whether the survey pool forms an adequate cross section representative of the European population (or of the populations of the individual countries surveyed).
• Finally, the aim of the study is of little utility. When confronted with someone who criticizes Israel, of what utility is the knowledge that there's a 14% chance that the person so criticizing is anti-semitic? A 50% chance? At what point would there have to be a correlation for the knowledge to be of any practical use?

Given all these methodological flaws, whether or not they used a calculator correctly is a completely meaningless question.

You make some good points. Although I haven't read the study yet, I do disagree with one, though:

Namely, they fail to account for the real life experiences of immigrants and muslims who might have justifiable reasons for answers that would be labelled under this survey as "anti-semitic" or "anti-Israel"

While there may be some understandable reasons, there is absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever to be antisemitic.

Btw, I've written what I hope will be the first in a series on antisemitism. I hope it will create an atmosphere where theres less antisemitism, more effective critiques of Israel, and also less polarization.

While there may be some understandable reasons, there is absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever to be antisemitic. Agreed. However, I'm referring to the sense in which this study uses the term-- its definition of "anti-semitism" may be off-- hence the "scare" quotes. Feel free to substitute the term "understandable" for "justifiable." Those "understandable" reasons should have been considered and taken into account, if they present an issue-- the authors fail to even acknowledge the possibility.

And, of course, anti-semitism is wrong (as is any racism).

I avoid them because I find that their arguments are repetitive and seem to ignore significant parts of reality.

This is definitely an issue. Of course I've noticed it in different contexts than you, but I'm sure there are people like this in all directions. I agree that the best strategy is to ignore them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, yet another nomination for "Best Newsvine Quotes of 2006". Remember this one.

It was just an attempt at humor, I didn't intend to oversimplify your debate or put words in your mouth. I apologize. But hey, I got a nomination out of it, so I regret nothing.

But how applicable is this study to American readers?

Not applicable to Americans at all, since no Americans were sampled.

"What do I believe now? The current Israeli government may have forfeited the the right to the continued existence of the state of Israel. They have certainly destroyed any hope for peace in the next 10 years. Does that mean I am now anti-semitic? I would hope my jewish friends understand that it is not valid to equate anti-Israel with anti-semitism. "

as an australian do you believe your state has no right to exist? by the current standards applied to israel the crimes of australia dwarf any criticism of israel. the australians reduced the population of the aboriginals by a factor of 10.

i guess this is the hypocrisy inherent in a special standard for the jews. if its not to be called antisemitism i don't know what its supposed to be called.

By your argument Guido, Laotians should have lost their country's right to exist after the horrors of Pol Pot, many African countries after years of tribal warfare, all of Europe after the Hundred Years War and World Wars I and II, etc. up to and including just about every country on the face of the earth.

The goal of caring individuals everywhere is peace worldwide, but we humans haven't yet achieved that 'state of grace' as far as I can tell. That's why Jews can only wonder at the level of hatred directed at Israel, while other conflicts rage around the world with very little concern. What about Darfur, folks? I don't know why you have such a distored view of the world, with only Israel called out for its sins.

I also find it ironic that I often hear it mentioned that Arabs are also Semitic. That means you do understand that Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, therefore do have a birthright in the Holy Land.

Yaakov has unending patience.

That means you do understand that Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, therefore do have a birthright in the Holy Land.

Yeah. That's one perspective. Does not change the fact that it's not the Palestinians who banished the Jews. That was the Europeans after WWII.

I lost my faith in religion because it is simply exploited too much by all sides.

The idea of a birthright in the Holy Land...according to who, what one believes? would you let me move in your house and let me kick you out, using legal means, simply because my religious book told me to?

Yaakov does not have "unending patience". He feels the way he does because of the situation he is in. Had I been a Jew, had I been in that situation the ways Jews are in Israel, I would also be pro-Jew and believing in this "I'm VIP, my God tells me this is my land". But, that is not the case.

Everybody feels difference about this conflict because of their ideologies. If you are a holy man, and you are Jewish, you believe you're entitled to "Israel", it's yours, blah blah blah. But what if you don't believe in that faith? Should you simply let people takeover your world and stand by?

Would America shelter all the Darfur refugees if they said they had a "God-given-right" to the land of....Texas? C'mon guys.

I don't know why you have such a distored view of the world, with only Israel called out for its sins.

One of the major things that upsets me about Israel is that its crimes have been enabled through US support. That makes me at least partially responsible, and makes ending the support for those crimes my responsibility.

I'd like to see the US engaged in ending the genocide in Darfur as well. I think it would be an excellent opportunity to create a real pan-African union...but hey, we're discussing Israel here.

So you both seem to say that you hold Israel to higher standards than other countries. Please take a look at that inside yourselves for a moment. Is that not discriminatory? No country is without sin, nor is any human that has lived very long.

Guido: Who says that Israel is more advanced nation than Sudan? Seems to me to be a pretty Western-centric, superior or anti-Muslim (both sides are Muslim after all) statement to make. Why should any country be held to a higher standard of behavior than any other country?

Well, let's take a look at this quote from Wikipedia:

European Commission definition

The European Commission on Racism and Intolerance formally defined some of the ways in which anti-Zionism may cross the line into anti-Semitism. "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;

applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;

using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis; and

holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel."

Actually, I found that quote when looking for a definition of anti-Semitism on Wikipedia, after asking my question, not before.

I thought that since it comes straight from the EU, it might be more acceptable than a definition/statement from somewhere else.

And by the way, in my earlier comment, when I said both sides were Muslim, I was referring to Darfur/Sudan.

It might be interesting to note that Jewish-American groups have been at the forefront of the campaign to do something about Darfur, and Israel has openly debated whether to accept displaced Darfurians as refugees despite the fact that Sudan is at war with Israel.

Marylin L: You are right, I hold myself and my country to a higher standard than I hold others to. If Israel wasn't using my country as a means to commit its crimes, I would be less upset by them.

It's that basic principle, "clean up your own yard first," or as it was put by a famous philosopher, "take the log from your own eye before you try to take the mote from your brother's."

A very good friend of mine has the same viewpoint, so I've come to understand it, though I disagree with the results of it's application.

"Anti-Semitism also means Anti-Palestinians."

i've seen anti semites play this game. Its a bit like the homophobe that claims he clearly cannot be "afraid of man" as what the word could literally mean and as such is not a homophobe. It is a trick, a dodge.

Why does antisemitism only refer to the jews? It was coined by a jew to mean as such. As seen above words do not always simply get their meaning from their components alone. Its through the intent of the invention of the term and its common use. Pointing out trivialities and factoids is just a game some people like to play to divert ones attention from the real point.

Thanks for the link to jewsnotzionists. It's good to see people who can let go of tribal politics and grasp universal morality.

Corrections to #18 - our eminent Head of State was Sir Isaac Isaacs and I meant "humanitarian discourse".

Well said Jimmy Havok