36 No. 57 JUSTICE said that the blame associated with certain political and military decisions of Israeli authorities was “nearly always” or “often” ascribed to them. Answers recorded in the survey help clarify how antisemitism destructively affects the life of the people who experience its manifestations nearly every day. At the same time, the results show the depth and complexity of the social problem. The words of one of the respondents, a woman from the United Kingdom, are a good example: “I feel worried about antisemitism now in a way that I did not 30 years ago. Something that should have disappeared from social acceptability is instead becoming stronger.” Another disturbing example: In 2003, Andrew Wilkie, Nuffield Professor of Pathology at Oxford University, refused an Israeli student’s employment in his laboratory.10 In his e-mail to the student, Professor Wilkie wrote: Thank you for contacting me, but I don't think this would work. I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because the Palestinians wish to live in their own country. I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware, I am not the only UK scientist with these views but I'm sure you will find another suitable lab if you look around. Is Professor Wilkie, who committed an obvious act of discrimination based on nationality, an antisemite? An answer to this question can be only determined by a court inquiring into this case. However, the very language of the letter quoted, the group-based responsibility invoked, and the reference to an often repeated antisemitic mantra about Jews abusing the Holocaust, prove that Professor Wilkie participated in the kind of social exclusion that antisemites have always practiced against Jews. This trend translates directly into the atmosphere and events recorded at many prestigious university campuses, where students of Jewish origin are intimidated and oppressed and where there are often antisemitic acts of violence and vandalism – they all ostensibly stem from anti-Israeli attitudes. Because of this, “anti-Israeli anger” can be automatically and simply turned into “anti-Jewish anger.” As rightly pointed out by Walter Laqueur, in the case of the “new anti-Semitism,” a difficult question of key importance concerns the borderline after the crossing of which a criticism of the Israeli state, authorities and society or criticism of Zionism becomes a concealed manifestation of antisemitism.11 Therefore, in addition to advocating considerable caution before statements or actions hostile to Israel or anti-Zionist are classified as antisemitic, it is also necessary to boldly notice and call particular conduct and expressions antisemitic wherever they actually are such. Need for Legal Protection Undoubtedly, the behavior described above requires a legal response since it leads to the violation of various rights and freedoms: victims of any violation of human rights standards deserve help from the state and legislation. It is much easier to define/indicate antisemitism when the word “Israel” or “Israeli” is only a smokescreen for the use of the word “Jews.” Much more difficult dilemmas arise when it is hard to find antisemitic motivation or antisemitic tone in even very severe criticism of Israel. If, however, the criticism transgresses the borders of admissible public discourse, and makes those who associate themselves or who are associated with the Israeli state (in other words, the majority of the Jewish minorities living in European states) feel alienated, rejected or afraid, then there are equally strong grounds to guarantee protection to such persons, as is the case of “pure” hate speech or crimes motivated by hatred. Minorities have the right to feel safe and not be exposed to some kind of “collective liability” of all the persons of Jewish origin for the decisions of the Israeli government. The existing, applicable legal framework providing for the protection needed in the cases of anti-Israeli hatred offers some solutions. However, it remains to be answered how to make this protection effective. A few scenarios are possible, including: n amendments to the existing national (Council of Europe/EU member states level) legal frameworks: new laws defining anti-Israeli hatred as a form of hate speech/hate crime; n insisting on a different interpretation of the existing provision, allowing them to include instances of antiIsraeli hatred. 10. For a detailed description of the case, see Geoffrey Short, Antisemitism on Campus. A View from Britain, in THE GENERIC HATRED. ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF SIMON WIESENTHAL 123–24 (Michael Fineberg, Shimon Samuels & Mark Weitzman eds., 2007). 11. Walter Laqueur, THE CHANGING FACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM: FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY (2008).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=