There is an Egyptian proverb that’s difficult to translate into English. It’s because there is a verb in Arabic that means to apply mascara to someone, or to apply eye shadow to someone. It is as if you could say in English, she mascaraed herself or he eyeshadowed her. Thus, the proverb goes something like this: He tried to eyeshadow her. He blinded her instead.
The
proverb is used to describe someone that is so clumsy, he tried to improve on
something—could be anything—but made it worse instead. In fact, this is what
came to mind when I read Jackson Richman’s latest piece of work. It is an
article that came under the title: “How liberals are trying to redefine
antisemitism,” published on May 10, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.
It
is that Jackson Richman has tried to make the infamous definition of
antisemitism — put out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
(IHRA) — look better than it is, but managed instead to make it look sillier
than before. Richman did what he did by comparing the IHRA definition against
the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA).
Richman’s
clumsiness is giving us the opportunity to shed light on the ongoing quibble concerning
the occasions when it is antisemitic to single out the Jews or Israel, and the
occasions when it is philosemitic to single out the Jews or Israel. Look at the
following passage in Richman’s article: “The boycott, divestment, and sanctions
movement (BDS) is antisemitic as it seeks to target the Jewish state
psychologically and economically, and seeks its collapse by virtue of economic
pain”.
The
reason why Richman brought up this point, is that there is a difference between
the way that IHRA and JDA view the BDS movement. Whereas IHRA does not mention
BDS because it doesn’t see anything unusual about it, JDA mentions it as
acknowledged by Richman who wrote the following:
“The
Jerusalem Declaration states that, ‘Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace,
non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they
are not, in and of themselves, anti-Semitic.’”
This
caused Richman to criticize the Declaration, and to pushback against it, which
he did as follows:
“The
boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement is antisemitic as it seeks to
target the Jewish state psychologically and economically and seeks its collapse
by virtue of economic pain”.
Thus,
whereas the Jerusalem Declaration treats the Jews and Israel as equal to the
rest of the human race, Richman sets Israel and the Jews apart from the rest of
the human race. His article made it sound like what does not hurt ordinary
humans, can and does hurt the Jews. To reverse this reality and make it so that
the Jews are safe and free of pain, the authorities must treat them with
special care.
That
means you single out the Jews and Israel for a treatment that is distinct from
all the others. When you do that, you become philosemitic. But if you reject
this approach, and continue to treat the Jews the same as you do everyone else,
you become antisemitic. It’s because if you don’t already know it, you must learn
that what does not hurt others, will hurt the Jews who have different
sensitivities.
When
all this is said and taken into account, you’ll realize that you cannot be
neutral when it comes to Jewish matters. You either love the Jews or you hate
them. You are philosemitic or antisemitic. You are with the Jews or you are against
them. Either you fight to promote the Jews or fight to annihilate them.
The
fact that Jackson Richman deemed it necessary to push back against the JDA
analysis concerning what the BDS movement stands for — at a time when the IHRA
definition ignored the movement, having seen nothing wrong about it — says that
Richman is sensing something ominous. He is sensing that Israel is in the same precarious
situation where South Africa was when it succumbed to the international boycott
imposed against it, forcing it to terminate the apartheid regime it was
pursuing.
And
so, in doing what he did, Richman has failed to accomplish what he thought will
embellish Israel’s image. He may even believe he did so badly, he ended up
blinding Israel and her supporters.
But
to those who believe that salvation can only come when the truth is unveiled,
Richman’s attempt to do more for Israel than can be done, started a debate that
will in the end do good for Israel and the Jews, as well as the rest of the human
race.
This
has a good chance of happening because it demolishes the conclusion that was
reached by Jackson Richman who ended his article as follows:
“The
first step in combating a problem is correctly defining it. The Jerusalem
declaration minimizes the demonization of Israel and anti-Zionism. Pushing its
narrative aids and abets antisemitism”.
Whatever that means, it sounds like it bodes well for the future of relations among the various groups in America if not all of North America.