Israel Must Be Subject To Legitimate Criticism

To the editors:

In “The Petitioners’ Big Lie” (Opinion, Oct. 24), Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz writes: “The divestment petition, which singles out Israel for criticism in the face of the reality that its human rights record is far better than that of any other nation in the region, is anti-Semitic in effect because it demonizes and delegitimizes the only Jewish nation for sins committed far more frequently and grievously by others.”

There are two contentions to Dershowitz’s argument: First, that singling out Israel rather than any other nation in the region for criticism using the divestment petition (and hence, delegitimization) is unfair. And second, delegitimizing the Jewish state is anti-Semitic in effect.

Both contentions are, in my opinion, fallacious.

While Israel’s human rights record with respect to its native Jewish and Arab population may be better than that of many other countries in the region, no other country in the region is recognized as militarily occupying land and assigning rights differentially between those occupied and those who are not. While the Egyptian government’s purges of Islamists, for example, may be heinous in nature, that is a government acting against a community perceived as being part of the nation, and hence is different in quality from Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories.

Furthermore, as several letter-writers from Harvard to The Crimson and the New York Times have pointed out, Dershowitz’s statement is argued as if there are no other differences in how we view Israel and other countries in West Asia. In actual fact, however, Israel is considered to be the strongest U.S. ally in the region. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the U.S. taxpayers who signed the divestment petition feel more of a responsibility for Israel’s actions than those of, say, the Sudan. Israel is “singled out” for criticism because it is already “singled out” for support by the U.S. government.

With regard to the second contention, the argument seems to imply that all those who believe that no state’s foundational ethic should be exclusive and ethnic in nature, and act upon that belief, are guilty of something morally equivalent to “effective” anti-Semitism, because they are “delegitimizing” that state. One can hold this belief without prejudice to which community is involved: To say that Israel should not be a “Jewish” state is not effectively anti-Semitic any more than saying India should not be a “Hindu” state is effectively anti-Hindu. If one believes that Israel should not be seen as “belonging” to any particular community rather than as a state of all its citizens, is one guilty of effective anti-Semitism? Dershowitz says yes. Many signers of the divestment petition, and others who are not Zionist, would say no.

In other words, if for the above reasons one does not accept a definitional linkage between Israel and Jews, it is difficult to see how any criticism of Israel, even if unfair, can be viewed as being anti-Semitic in effect. Unless, of course, as Dershowitz must clearly believe, all those who are not Zionist are “effectively” anti-Semitic. This redefinition of anti-Semitism would be very convenient for supporters of Israel.

Mihir S. Sharma

Oct. 24, 2002

The writer is a third-year economics student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.