Antisemitism

[takeo]

A grotesque choice

Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence of anti-semitism

by Max Hastings

IT is impossible to doubt that genuine anti-semitism -- racial antipathy towards Jews -- is resurgent in Europe and even, in some circles, becoming respectable. A few years ago, my wife and I found ourselves at a dinner party that included several Austrian guests. Mischievously, I asked a female member of the Vienna government sitting opposite me how her country was coping with the Nazi embarrassments of its president, Kurt Waldheim.

She stiffened. "President Waldheim is a fine and good man, who has been grossly traduced by a conspiracy of Jews," she said severely. Her husband interjected: "My father always told me that most of the things the Jews say about the war are lies." Our English host added supportively: "Jews cause most of the trouble in the world, what?"

At this point, the Hastingses departed without explanation. In the car, still shaking with rage, my wife said: "They weren't just pretending to be anti-semitic, were they? They were the real thing." It is rare to encounter such unashamed malevolence at a modern English dinner table, and thus all the more shocking when it happens.

Before the second world war, such sentiments were commonplace, not least in the "Clubland Hero" thrillers of Buchan, Sapper and Dornford Yates. "Bolshevik Jews" were responsible for many of the villainous conspiracies frustrated by Richard Hannay, Bulldog Drummond and Jonah Mansell, before they gave the culprits a good flogging.

It has often been observed that Hitler did the British ruling classes a favour by making anti-semitism no longer respectable. Yet as late as September 1944, a Foreign Office official named Arminius Dew minuted: "In my opinion, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Office is wasted on dealing with these wailing Jews." Only in April 1945, when the concentration camps were revealed to the world, did the historic sea change in sentiment take place.



I WOULD suggest that the first stirrings of renewed animosity towards Jews in Europe emerged in the 70s. When I made this point to an Israeli acquaintance, he observed sourly: "Yeah, when the world stopped seeing us losers on trains to the death camps." For it is, of course, the issue of Israel that has provoked some change of sentiment.

Many of the remarks that Jewish critics denounce as anti-semitic are, in reality, criticisms of Israel or its government. Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

A month or so later, I was lunching with Vere Rothermere, then chairman of the family newspaper company. "I had a visit on your account yesterday," he said with a quixotic grin. "From the Board of Deputies. They said you wouldn't see them. They say you are anti-semitic. They warned me that the Israeli Likud wants to organise a boycott of the Evening Standard."

I asked how he had responded. "I told them that such a boycott would be a very good story for the Standard," said Lord Rothermere, which helps to explain why, as an editor, I held his family in such respect as proprietors.



IN general, across the British media, managerial attitudes are less robust. Several proprietors are fervent Zionists, while rather more take the cynical view that the Middle East is an intractable issue of no more interest to their readers than Northern Ireland. Palestinians present an unsympathetic face to the western world. Given the ferocity with which some Jewish readers respond to criticism of Israel, many executives perceive sceptical coverage of Israel's excesses as more trouble than it is worth.

In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons.

It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success that many commentators seem happy to regard as just a possible peace deal that would leave Israel in control of settlements and strategic roads in a Palestinian state. It is a measure of how far matters have gone that when Ariel Sharon announced the closure of some settlements in Gaza, it was hailed as a historic breakthrough.

In the eyes of some of us, even the Oslo accords promised no realistic prospect of a viable Palestinian society. They represented the outer limit of what Israeli liberals believed they could sell to their own nation, but they offered the Palestinians no chance of economic, social or political lift-off because the terms denied any hope of self-respect.

I reply to every reader's letter accusing me of anti-semitism because the issue seems so important. They make the cardinal error of identifying the Jewish people with the Israeli government, wilfully confusing anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings.
For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies.

Charges of anti-semitism are not infrequently levelled against the growing number of Jews who express dismay about the behaviour of the Israeli government; they are "self-hating Jews", who betray their own kin. Yet surely it is those who make such cruel allegations who bring shame upon themselves.

Jewish genius through the centuries has been reflected in the highest intellectual standards. Attempts to equate anti-Zionism, or even criticism of Israeli policy, with anti-semitism reflect a pitiful intellectual sloth, an abandonment of reasoned attempts to justify Israeli actions in favour of moral blackmail. In the short run, such intimidation is not unsuccessful, especially in America. Yet in the long term, grave consequences may ensue. In much of the world, including Europe, a huge head of steam is building against Israeli behaviour.

More than a few governments are cooperating less than wholeheartedly with America's war on terror because they are unwilling to be associated with what they see as an unholy alliance of the Sharon and Bush governments. One of Germany's most distinguished postwar leaders expressed to me a few months ago his frustration that, as a German, he is unable to vent his feelings about the wickedness of what is being done in Israel's name.

I feel a commitment to the Jewish people, founded on awareness partly of their history, partly of their genius. Yet I see no reason why this should prevent me from asserting that the policies of Sharon and Netanyahu bring shame upon Israel.

It is ironic that Israel's domestic critics -- former intelligence chiefs and serving fighter pilots -- have shown themselves much braver than overseas Jews. If Israel persists with its current policies, and Jewish lobbies around the world continue to express solidarity with repression of the Palestinians, then genuine anti-semitism is bound to increase. Herein lies the lobbyists' recklessness. By insisting that those who denounce the Israeli state's behaviour are enemies of the Jewish people, they seek to impose a grotesque choice.

The Israeli government's behaviour to the Palestinians breeds a despair that finds its only outlet in terrorism. No one can ever criticise the Jewish diaspora for asserting Israel's right to exist. But the most important service the world's Jews can render to Israel today is to persuade its people that the only plausible result of their government's behaviour is a terrible loneliness in the world.

Max Hastings is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the London Evening Standard

comment@guardian.co.uk

[Womble]

Ahh, the stuff the guys from the Guardian come up with. If Jews are hated, it must be something they did, there's no way the haters can possibly be responsible for hating. Always blame the victims, its the safest way.

[takeo]

perhaps you didn't read the article, it doesn't say or imply Jews are responsible for antisemitism, but it says the abuse of the victimhood-status does sustain antisemitism. Worldwar two and the Holocaust should not be abused for political reasons in the middle-Eastern conflict, by neither side.

[Womble]

perhaps you didn't read the article, it doesn't say or imply Jews are responsible for antisemitism, but it says the abuse of the victimhood-status does sustain antisemitism. Worldwar two and the Holocaust should not be abused for political reasons in the middle-Eastern conflict, by neither side.

Actually no. Perhaps YOU didn't read the article, because it says, and I quote:

it is, of course, the issue of Israel that has provoked some change of sentiment

The general points this article makes are that:
1) Israel's actions against the Palestinians legitimizes anti-Zionism
2)Diaspora Jews too often confuse anti-Zionism for anti-Semitism and invoke Holocaust and since anti-Zionism is legitimate, such misrepresentation allows anti-Semitism to go mainstream as well.

Now, these claims stand on a number of false assumptions:

1)Anti-Zionism is not concerned as much with Israel's actions as it is with the fact of Israel's existence. Which, as noted by Martin Luther King in his famous essay, already constitutes anti-Semitism, as it implies that the Jews are the only nation in the world who has no right for independence. (Which naturally leads to the question often asked by the neo-Nazis- if a national expression of the nation is illegitimate, what does it say about this nation? Can you see my point now, Takeo?)

2)The writer seems to suggest that anti-Zionism should only concern the Israeli Jews and never the Diaspora Jews. I can even quote:

Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

In other words, "know your place, Jew". The British Jews should only be concerned with what happens in their own backyard. What he is saying here is that either the Jews specifically or subnational groups and diasporas in general should not be allowed to have a say in the host nation's politics. In both versions, it discriminates against the Jews (either just them or them AND other minorities), depriving them of the right to have an equal voice on all political issues in the country whose citizenship they hold.

3)In reality, it is not that common for the Israelis to play the Holocaust card. The Holocaust poses a certain ideological problem for Zionism and for the Israeli mindset, and the Israelis are normally quite reluctant to portray themselves as victims.

4)As it's been noted by Mil, when the journalists talk about how the Arab-Israeli conflict fuels anti-Semitism, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it is the media that keeps the magnifying glass over Israel 24/7/365. The scale of the Israeli-Palestinian violence is simply incomparable with any other conflict that occasionally makes front pages- whether it is Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda or Kosovo. Neither the number of casualties nor the size of the population involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is anywhere close to an average African civil war.

5)Finally, anti-Zionism all too often uses methods and rhetorics of the good old anti-Semitism. It has become too convenient a disguise- and I see no reason why it should not be addressed as anti-Semitism whenever there are valid grounds for it.

[Luke90]

I don't agree with the article, but it does show how both sides of the argument see the media as biased against them.

[Reffo]

"For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies."

Maybe so, but the opposite is also true ! Many critics of Israel also use the trump of accusing supporters of Israel that they have no better argument than the above. This achieves two objectives: Firstly it discredits supporters of Israel as intolerant people without credibility, and secondly it stifles debate before it even begins.

The writer of this article betrays his bias by the sentence: "... Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump:.....". Instead of saying "Israelis", he should have said "Some Israelis". He may or may not have meant it but the effect of his sentence is to generalise that ALL Israelis use this trump card. That is just plainly untrue !

[takeo]

Now, these claims stand on a number of false assumptions:

1)Anti-Zionism is not concerned as much with Israel's actions as it is with the fact of Israel's existence. Which, as noted by Martin Luther King in his famous essay, already constitutes anti-Semitism, as it implies that the Jews are the only nation in the world who has no right for independence. (Which naturally leads to the question often asked by the neo-Nazis- if a national expression of the nation is illegitimate, what does it say about this nation? Can you see my point now, Takeo?)

I'm not an anti-zionist, yet even anti-zionists aren't necessarily anti-semitic, there are quite some Jewish anti-zionists such as Chomsky. Not every nation has a state, the gypsies don't have one, for example, black-Americans don't have one, for example, Mayas don't have one etc. . I think the idea that every people should have its own state derives from the 19th century and was the base for quite some bloodspilling in the Balcans and elsewhere in the world. The french revolution, the first constitution in Europe to give Jews civil rights, is based on civic apartenance, not on one's language, religion or bloodties, not on chauvinist feelings.

2)The writer seems to suggest that anti-Zionism should only concern the Israeli Jews and never the Diaspora Jews. I can even quote:

Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

It wasn't anti-zionism but an issue which directly matters the Israeli state, since the paper was criticising Israeli policy.

In other words, "know your place, Jew".

actually, it was more "know your place, Brit"

The British Jews should only be concerned with what happens in their own backyard.

He only wants to answer to criticism from official Israeli instances, which is a usual reaction.

What he is saying here is that either the Jews specifically or subnational groups and diasporas in general should not be allowed to have a say in the host nation's politics.

no, what he's saying is that he only wants to answer to an official reaction and those Brits weren't representing the Israeli state as such.

In both versions, it discriminates against the Jews (either just them or them AND other minorities), depriving them of the right to have an equal voice on all political issues in the country whose citizenship they hold.

come on, this conclusion is really over the edge, many newspapers don't give any reaction at all to criticism unless it has an official caracter. But anyway, now we're at it, my mother still has Russian citizenship, but she's not going to claim to represent Russia in one or another way. If you live in another country you're not as closely connected to the situation in your motherland (or the nation whos nationality you hold), I think this is just obvious.

3)In reality, it is not that common for the Israelis to play the Holocaust card. The Holocaust poses a certain ideological problem for Zionism and for the Israeli mindset, and the Israelis are normally quite reluctant to portray themselves as victims.

that's right, luckily so, but some political circles, especially in the US and on this board, abuse the Holocaust to defend Israeli policy. But in Israel as well there are the extremist settlers who frequently compare rabin and now even Sharon to Hitler and more commonly Arafat was frequently compared to Hitler even if such comparisons are really an insult to the history of the Jewish people. Of course you don't have to be a Nobel price winner to understand that such abuse can only play in the advantage of holocaust-deniers and revisionists.

4)As it's been noted by Mil, when the journalists talk about how the Arab-Israeli conflict fuels anti-Semitism, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it is the media that keeps the magnifying glass over Israel 24/7/365. The scale of the Israeli-Palestinian violence is simply incomparable with any other conflict that occasionally makes front pages- whether it is Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda or Kosovo. Neither the number of casualties nor the size of the population involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is anywhere close to an average African civil war.

I've already answered this above. I just want to add that altough this conflict doesn't compare to other more bloody conflicts nevertheless the fate of the palestinians, dispersed all over the Arab world and denied their own land, is very symbolic.

5)Finally, anti-Zionism all too often uses methods and rhetorics of the good old anti-Semitism.

yes, sometimes, that's right, altough you can not generalise, on average, I think most European anti-zionists, and I know quite some are not antismitic. On the Arab side I agree the two go hand in hand.

It has become too convenient a disguise- and I see no reason why it should not be addressed as anti-Semitism whenever there are valid grounds for it.

whenever there are valid grounds for it, yes, but not always. It's too easy to to just call any criticism against the policy of Israel anti-semitic, as many posters on this site do. I hope you'll agree with me it's not fair and not helping the struggle against real anti-semitism.

The question is not so simple, some real antisemites use criticism against Israel as a disguise for their antisemitism which has become a taboo in contemporary Europe. But I think those are only a small minority of the criticisers of Israel, certainly in Europe and certainly in leftist circles.
The Arab world is another matter, yet even there it would not be exaggerated to state that antisemitism is closely linked to the policy of Israel in the region, and not vice versa, as arabs identify jews with the state of Israel, much more than Western Europeans do.


Eastern Europe is also another matter, there's some traditional antisemitism still very strong, and there I think antizionism is more often than not a disguise for some degree of antisemitism (for example poles do not like Jews, yet they also condamn the Holocaust and the nazi's in the strongest possible terms), even in communist circles. But Russia is an exception, Putin's policy towards Israel is based on geo-politics and nothing else.

[KettleWhistle]

I'm not an anti-zionist,

Yes you are.

yet even anti-zionists aren't necessarily anti-semitic,

Yes, they are.

there are quite some Jewish anti-zionists such as Chomsky.

Chomsky is an anti-Semite.

black-Americans don't have one

Yes they do. It's called U.S.A.

, for example, Mayas don't have one etc.

Yes they do. It's called Mexico.

The french revolution, the first constitution in Europe to give Jews civil rights, is based on civic apartenance, not on one's language, religion or bloodties, not on chauvinist feelings.

And why should we care about those French barbarians?

[Canajew]

I'm not an anti-zionist, yet even anti-zionists aren't necessarily anti-semitic, there are quite some Jewish anti-zionists such as Chomsky. Not every nation has a state, the gypsies don't have one, for example, black-Americans don't have one, for example, Mayas don't have one etc. . I think the idea that every people should have its own state derives from the 19th century and was the base for quite some bloodspilling in the Balcans and elsewhere in the world. The french revolution, the first constitution in Europe to give Jews civil rights, is based on civic apartenance, not on one's language, religion or bloodties, not on chauvinist feelings.

I'll just point out here that France has sold out both its Jews and the Jews at every opportunity. From the Dreyfus affair, which brought France's strong but suppressed anti-semitism out in full flair and convinced the early zionists that the French paradigm was flawed, to French complicity with the Germans in selling out its Jews to send them to the death camps to France's quick abandonment of Israel when Arabs threatened France's economic interests, the french example is perfectly illustrative of exactly WHY it is important that Jews have their own state.

This pinnacle of inclusion which you so proudly talk about failed its Jews many many times, as it is largely failing them now.

If we are to be safe, we must protect ourselves. The French at least have proven many times that when it comes to protecting Jews or the larger self interest of its majority population, it is not really a close call.

[goliath]

Always Dear Takeo , find something which it's bringing water to his mil.

Media are telling to all the countries of the world and for years and years ,what the people must think about the Israeo/Pal conflict ,and THIS is refuelling a serious resurgence of anti-Semitism adding a new layer over the innumerable old one.
Takeo Israel will never yield the way you hope.

[Mil]

Takeo, the Israeli/Pal conflict would not even make the evening news if Jews were not involved. There are much worse things happening in the world and especially in the Arab world that make this particular conflict pale in comparison. Anti-semitism is a direct creation of Europe and of European culture rather that of Israeli Jews.

Of course one must concur with the author, including me, that Israeli government makes mistakes and sometimes very unpopular moves, however, which government doesn't? Hell Austria or Poland with much larger population and with no less problems get much less world attention then Israel. The horrible human rights violations in Latvia get almost zero attention and the conflict in Chechnya gets almost no visability. It really makes me laugh when the BBC makes Sharon alleged inditment for fraudelant election money front page news, an event which is basically an internal Israeli matter and not relevant to anything (there are thousands of such things happening all over the democratic world including France) and somewhere on some obsecure link mentions that president of Lithuania (an EU country!!!) gets impeached (a first such act in an EU history)!!!! Both of the latter events happened at the same time.

Whatever Israel does is under the microscope and there are a few reasons for that:
1. Israel is a JEWISH STATE or state full of Jews
2. Anything that has to do with Jews (even the dumbest things) makes news
3. Israel is a free country

Europe is still living through its anti-semitic self otherwise Israel would never have the attention it currently recieves. Read the Guardian and see how many times there are news about France or Russia with 45 and 160 million population respectively and Israel with 6 million. I really doubt that there is less interesting things happening in Russia then in Israel. One Chechnya would make loud news stories every day. However, no one is interested in Russia but everyone is interested in ISRAEL for it being a JEWISH state. I really hope you understand this.

[KettleWhistle]

I really hope you understand this.

LOL

[takeo]

Takeo, the Israeli/Pal conflict would not even make the evening news if Jews were not involved. There are much worse things happening in the world and especially in the Arab world that make this particular conflict pale in comparison. Anti-semitism is a direct creation of Europe and of European culture rather that of Israeli Jews.

Of course one must concur with the author, including me, that Israeli government makes mistakes and sometimes very unpopular moves, however, which government doesn't? Hell Austria or Poland with much larger population and with no less problems get much less world attention then Israel. The horrible human rights violations in Latvia get almost zero attention and the conflict in Chechnya gets almost no visability. It really makes me laugh when the BBC makes Sharon alleged inditment for fraudelant election money front page news, an event which is basically an internal Israeli matter and not relevant to anything (there are thousands of such things happening all over the democratic world including France) and somewhere on some obsecure link mentions that president of Lithuania (an EU country!!!) gets impeached (a first such act in an EU history)!!!! Both of the latter events happened at the same time.

Whatever Israel does is under the microscope and there are a few reasons for that:
1. Israel is a JEWISH STATE or state full of Jews
2. Anything that has to do with Jews (even the dumbest things) makes news
3. Israel is a free country

Europe is still living through its anti-semitic self otherwise Israel would never have the attention it currently recieves. Read the Guardian and see how many times there are news about France or Russia with 45 and 160 million population respectively and Israel with 6 million. I really doubt that there is less interesting things happening in Russia then in Israel. One Chechnya would make loud news stories every day. However, no one is interested in Russia but everyone is interested in ISRAEL for it being a JEWISH state. I really hope you understand this.

I think as well Israel gets disproportionate attention in the western media (including American media) but I doubt very much it's because of anti-semitism. In france, if one thing is for sure, anti-Arab racism is much stronger than anti-semitism, so according to your logic attention for Arab countries derives from anti-Arab racism? I rather think the disproportionate attention is due to a combination of many factors: first of all Jews are an important and powerfull group in leading western countries such as France, GB and the US. And Jews, wether leftist or rightist, will most of the times be interested in what happens in Israel, as this site proves as well. Furthermore, due to the recent history and Holocaust, Israel logically gets more attention than any other nation in similar conditions not as crucial to our recent history.
Furthermore, Israel is situated in a very strategically region that has been a troublespot for decades and a main source for oil AND major focus of the foreign policy of the US, Russia and Europe since decades.
That's also the reason why Iraq gets a disproportionated share of the international newscoverage. Furthermore countries like France or GB which have a large share of Jews and Arabs, will naturally dedicate more attention to this conflict, whereas they don't have as much affinity with, let's say, the conflict in Nepal or the civil war in Colombia (however if you look at spanish television Colombia is almost every day in the news) or the war of independance of Banda Atjeh... etc.

[redcake]

Associating Israel with the Holocaust or some notion of a Jewish power is in itself antisemitic. The Zionist movement, and Israels foundations predate the Holocaust. Rationalizing that people merely fixate on Jews because they're successfull swirves the reality that people are still fixating because JEWS are involved. Otherwise, millions of dollars would be pumped into stopping the attrocities in the Sudan, instead of stopping some fiction "slavery" in Israel.

[KettleWhistle]

This article is just an apologetic piece that essentially says, it is OK for news media to create anti-Israeli propaganda. The author makes several assumptions to justify that view:
(1) Anti-Semitism is wrong
(2) Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but mere criticism of Israeli government's policies
(3) (hence) anti-Zionism is OK

The author goes the distance of defining anti-Semitism for us:

genuine anti-semitism -- racial antipathy towards Jews

Well, that's fair enough. But he doesn't do the same for anti-Zionism. Rather he portrays is as being something along the lines of criticism:

Attempts to equate anti-Zionism, or even criticism of Israeli policy, with anti-semitism reflect a pitiful intellectual sloth

So let's define anti-Zionism. I would define it as movement that opposes the existence of a Jewish state and activities that are intended to harm Israel. When it comes to media, the word describes propaganda that attacks Jews as a nation. Sure it is not outright blatant expression of anti-Semitism, but one can make a strong case for calling it subtle anti-Semitism.

And even there, many of the old themes are being reworked to be used against the Jewish national collective. While there are no accusations of blood libel, even big time media outlets like BBC run fictitious stories of IDF soldiers supposedly being given orders to target Pal children. The words are different, but the meaning is the same: "Jews" kill gentile children. During the U.S. elections several respected British and French papers published articles about "enormous powers" of Jewish lobbies, which essentially mimicked the old "Jews control the world claim." And those are just a few examples.

Interestingly, this Guardian editor does not even hide his bias towards Israel:

In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.

Sorry, but it is not a job of news organizations to display sympathy. Rather, they are supposed, and ought to be expected, to present material objectively. Yet, Hastings who already admitted to be biased against Israel, has the gall to state the following:

Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons. It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success...

I would really like to see this "Israeli propaganda" and apologias for Israeli conduct, which generally are mere restrained attempts to defend itself, all of which fully comply with the international law.

And then we have another expose of bias and distortion of reality:

It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success that many commentators seem happy to regard as just a possible peace deal that would leave Israel in control of settlements and strategic roads in a Palestinian state. It is a measure of how far matters have gone that when Ariel Sharon announced the closure of some settlements in Gaza, it was hailed as a historic breakthrough.

Not only does he try to delegitimize Israel's fully legitimate claim to some of the disputed territories, as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 242, but also blames Israel for ending up with some of the roads, most of which Israel have built. Maybe some persons don't believe that new roads can built by the Palestinians as needed, but there is no question of obvious bias and distortion in that statement, as is in the following:

In the eyes of some of us, even the Oslo accords promised no realistic prospect of a viable Palestinian society. They represented the outer limit of what Israeli liberals believed they could sell to their own nation, but they offered the Palestinians no chance of economic, social or political lift-off because the terms denied any hope of self-respect.

There are numerous other issues where he clearly exposes his anti-Israeli bias, but these should be enough to indicate that the materials this author publishes come from a deeply-embedded belief that Israel is in the wrong, and is the only party that needs to be "criticized." The term for such behavior is “bias,” and it is one that the author does not even try to hide.

More importantly, few, if any of the claims presented above are true criticisms. Rather, they are propaganda intended to delegitimize Israel. True criticisms of Sharon or Netanyahu would include explanations and consequences of their policies. They would include an analysis that would present positions of the Palestinian leadership, as well as some poll data where applicable. More so, they would rely on reality, rather than fiction, rumors and speculations, all of which are typically selected to cast Israel in negative light. Yet, what gets published is typically the anti-Israeli propaganda.

So while some may disagree with the above definition of anti-Zionism, the one that exposes it as an expression of anti-Semitism, a careful peruse of this letter should leave no doubts about the obvious one-sidedness of the author. And that begs another question: should the newspapers promote a political agenda? And can we trust news sources that do that? I think the answers to that are obvious.