Commentary Magazine Stifles Free Comment

Barack Obama as "Muslim Socialist"

Allen Z. Hertz was senior adviser in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. He formerly worked in Canada's Foreign Affairs Department and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He studied European history at McGill University (B.A.) and then East European and Ottoman history at Columbia University (M.A., Ph.D.). He also has international law degrees from Cambridge University (LL.B.) and the University of Toronto (LL.M.).

Preface

Barack Obama's links to Islam are more fully discussed in a July 2013 posting entitled "Obama's Muslim Past Spells Appeasement of Iran." Many would prefer to avoid this controversial topic. But forthright talk about Barack Obama's ties to Islam and the Muslim world is demanded by intellectual honesty and professional integrity. Such candor is also required to safeguard vital national interests. Matters touching Islam and the Muslim world now affect the security of many countries -- including Canada, the USA, and Israel. It is also imperative to alert the Jewish People, which has already been victimized by Muslims for close to 1,400 years. Willy-nilly, an understanding of this President's Mideast policies is not possible without considering his extraordinary attitudes to Muslims and the Muslim world.

Introduction

At the beginning of November 2013, Commentary Magazine suddenly shut down its "Intense Debate" platform for offering readers a digital opportunity to quickly comment on the various blog posts on the publication's website. However, even before abruptly shutting the door to such rapid feedback from readers, Commentary Magazine was arbitrarily blocking the posting of some comments by readers. This censorship was an issue that readers had already started raising in talkbacks to the Commentary Magazine website.

In late October 2013, Commentary Magazine blocked the following comment which I had offered with respect to a Max Boot article criticizing the current round of defense-spending cuts in the USA.

Text blocked by Commentary Magazine

Max Boot's interesting essay omits from the current defense equation, the sitting President. On April 28, 2013, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Barack Obama significantly quipped: "I am not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be." Perhaps no longer so young, but maybe still something of the "Muslim socialist," as he himself put it.

Domestically, the "socialist" side is confirmed by a penchant for astonishingly big government and massive expansion of entitlement programs of near universal scope. This is tantamount to the systemic redistribution of wealth via relentless tax and spend. This President sometimes uses "guns or butter" lingo to justify deep defense-spending cuts. He says that USA tax dollars must instead go to existing and new social programs. His aim is to buy the electorate for a new vision of the country.

In terms of foreign policy, the "socialist" side underlines an extraordinary commitment to rapidly liquidate the post-WW2 pax Americana in favor of a new world disorder, in which the USA will play a more modest role. This includes acting through multilateral agencies like the United Nations and withdrawing from foreign entanglements. For example, Mideast allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel are to be abandoned, so that the region can be turned over to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Muslim optic comes into play in terms of the President's firm understanding that there is a socio-political phenomenon called the Muslim world. This contrasts with Western Civilization. Barack Obama is the first USA President to frequently frame his discourse in terms of Muslims and the Muslim world, in relation to which he clearly believes that apologies are owed by the USA, as expressed in his June 2009 Cairo speech. This President curiously thinks that the Muslim world should bulk larger in the affairs of the planet, which by definition means that the USA's role must be diminished. This diminution Obama sees as intrinsically positive.

A strong believer in distributive justice, Obama deplores the kind of economic and military-security advantages that Americans have for so long enjoyed. He is troubled that so many in the Muslim world suffer from insecurity and violence. So, this President wants to see more equality as between the lives of Americans and those in the Muslim world. His sensibility is offended that Americans (or Israelis) might be too happy and too secure. Accordingly, he favors deep defense cuts that would help align the situation of Americans more closely with the insecurity experienced by Muslims.

How can this be possible? The answer is that, unlike his predecessors, Barack Obama does not worship in the temple of USA national security. To the contrary, as a "Muslim socialist," he abhors the geopolitical status quo, which from youth he has always seen as intolerable. Accordingly, Obama frequently invites far-reaching change, without that fear of disorder which so terrified previous Presidents. By contrast, Barack Obama has always believed that chaos can be creative of new political and social relationships.

Earlier Presidents were leaders of "the free world." Namely, they were champions of Western civilization. By contrast, this President at best is impartial as among the various civilizations; and, at worst, he particularly favors the claims of the Muslim world, notably including the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, traditional USA prudence does not play in his foreign and defense policy.

The essential truth is that he will subject the USA to real risks to ensure realization of a distinctive worldview that was shaped during his childhood in Indonesia, where he went (1967-1971) to be reunited with his Muslim stepfather. Indonesia is a 90% Muslim country, to which Obama subsequently returned on at least five occasions during the 1970's and 1980's.

President Obama's particular worldview was also partly derived from his anthropologist mother, Stanley Anne Dunham. She married two Muslims; and spent most of her professional career in Indonesia, where she encouraged her son to adopt local culture. She was sharply critical of her fellow Americans, but deeply committed to both Indonesia and its people.

Kill Osama but not the Dalai Lama?

Bin Laden's death teaches that international law is akin to an ongoing discussion about rights

Allen Z. Hertz was senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. He formerly worked in Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He studied European history and languages at McGill University (B. A.) and then East European and Ottoman history at Columbia University (M. A., Ph.D.). He also has international law degrees from Cambridge University (LL.B.) and the University of Toronto (LL.M.). This posting is a revised version of an essay published in American Thinker on May 12, 2011.


Killing Osama an "open and shut" case?

On May 10, 2011, the New York Times published a Statement from the family of Sheikh Osama bin Laden. The grieving family accused the USA government of unlawful killing in violation of both international law and USA legal principles. I don't have strong feelings about this particular death. However, I still think this could be one of those "teachable moments" about which President Obama has spoken. Specifically, this dramatic killing might remind us that international law is much akin to an ongoing discussion about rights, in which every country and non-governmental organization (NGO) has its lawyers, and every law professor and layman a viewpoint.

And to be sure, the USA government likely has some good legal arguments to justify what it did to Osama. But probably it is a stretch too far to say that the USA government has overwhelming legal arguments that conclusively legitimate this unilateral act committed on the territory of a foreign State.

Osama Bin Laden

Agree who a terrorist?

The government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) applauded the killing of Osama. This should not surprise us, because the PRC government frequently seeks the cooperation of other countries in running its own war on terror. But, that should not cause us to believe that the PRC and USA governments always agree as to who is a terrorist.

For example, look at the case of the Dalai Lama. As a Buddhist spiritual leader, he is revered by millions worldwide. And, there are many who also regard him as a hero because of their perception that he champions the cause of the Tibetan People. By contrast, the Dalai Lama is generally considered to be a villain in China, where he is mostly seen as head of a dangerous separatist movement, alleged to have caused the death of thousands over the last few decades.

Flag of the People's Republic of China

Kill Osama but not the Dalai Lama? 

What legal arguments might the PRC government advance in the unlikely event that it would decide to follow the USA government's playbook with some unilateral action of its own? And here I am thinking of the purely imaginary hypothesis of a People's Liberation Army strike against the Tibetan Buddhist base in Dharamsala, India, to capture or kill the Dalai Lama, whom the PRC government regards to be a criminal just like Osama.

The Dalai Lama

This troubling scenario invites serious reflection on the subjectivity and partisanship of much of the discourse that invokes international law. No surprise there, because whether at home or abroad, law is a social phenomenon tied to politics and political institutions. But, is there a sense in which international law is more directly subordinate to politics than domestic law?


Less commitment to international law?

Domestic law operates within a civil society that is co-extensive with the sovereign State that at home importantly enjoys a monopoly of the use of force. Within that key context, the State normally devotes considerable human and financial resources to various facets of the country's legal system. Thus, a given national government normally has fairly strong incentives to maintain something like the rule of law, i.e. the integrity, consistency, impartiality and efficiency of its own legal system.

By contrast, governments seem to be somewhat less focused on international law, which functions principally in the broader world of States. There, almost every national government seems to be armed to the teeth and largely a power unto itself. Though upholding the rule of law internationally is normally among the interests of national governments, they commonly devote very limited human and financial resources to matters connected with international law and institutions. This marked lower level of investment perhaps suggests that governments may believe that they have more of a stake in domestic law than in international law, which is also less trusted.

Other aspects of perceived national self-interest are in practice often privileged over a government's natural concern for optimal functioning of the international legal system. Though international lawyers tend to think that international law is more important, historians and political scientists often have real doubts about how big a role international law actually plays in the conduct of States.


Law, continuation of war by other means?

Nineteenth-century Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz was among those thinking international law's role to be negligible. A famed proponent of what would later be called Realpolitik, Clausewitz opined that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." On March 27, 1954, The Saturday Evening Post quoted China's Premier Zhou En Lai as cleverly reversing Clausewitz’s famous dictum by saying: “All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.”

Significantly, Premier Zhou was not contradicting Clausewitz, because the latter's insight is logically compatible with its converse. In this particular context, international law is legitimately to be understood as part of diplomacy. Thus, it is relevant to note that the chances that international law can sometimes be the continuation of war by other means are significantly enhanced by at least three characteristics of the global system of States:

• Despite the United Nations, there is no "world government" with -- a monopoly of armed force; sovereign executive and legislative authority; and responsibility for the welfare of all humankind, without discrimination.

• Despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ), there is nothing like a "world supreme court" with -- truly independent judges; universal compulsory jurisdiction; and capacity to make final legal rulings that are regularly enforced.

• Despite increasing globalization, each State feels compelled to realize its own vital interests, within a context still significantly marked by stiff competition and difficult partnerships with other States.

Law, tool for political advantage?

A good example of the relationship between politics and international law is provided by the law of the sea. For more than three hundred years, the country with the strongest navy -- once Great Britain and now the USA -- has been the champion of the principle of freedom of the seas, including a right of navigation through "international" straits. By contrast, governments less able to project seapower have tended to favour more expansive jurisdiction for the coastal State. And, exactly these differences play as the USA and PRC governments now approach some disputed questions, including differences over the legal status of parts of the South China Sea.

In Mare Liberum (1609) Hugo Grotius formulated
 the principle that the sea is international.

Law, so certain?

Enhanced thoughtfulness and deeper awareness of divergent perspectives are urgently needed in discussions that rely on the authority of international law. For example, some supporters of the current USA administration have, for a number of years, tended to speak too emotionally and with too much certainty about alleged violations of international law, e.g., by the USA government under President George W. Bush. Within the USA and abroad, this bad habit of being so dogmatic about international law was perhaps accentuated by the debate that began in 2003 over the USA government's role in Iraq.

"International law" rhetoric may also have become somewhat more hyperbolic, due to the proliferation of NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Questions of international law now regularly receive attention from an increasing number of lawyers and laymen working for a variety of NGOs. There, a polemical discourse is shaped by the circumstance that many NGOs are both special-interest groups and political-action lobbyists.

With this recent experience in mind, it might be useful to encourage calmer, and more wide-ranging and illuminating exchanges about international rights and wrongs. This is difficult, because such an ongoing, open dialogue requires a mutual respect, able to accommodate the other viewpoints that almost invariably deserve to be considered. Audi alteram partem, hear the argument of the other side!

International law is akin to
an ongoing discussion about rights
where every country and NGO has its lawyers
and every law professor and layman a viewpoint.

"Lawfare" versus legal system?

Many Arab and Muslim countries, as well as some of their friends and allies, regularly use international law as "other means" for waging a never-ending war against Israel. They do so principally because they reject Israel's legitimacy and permanence as "the" Jewish State, i.e. as the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People in a part of its aboriginal homeland.

Overemphasis on anti-Israel "lawfare" is regrettable, inter alia, because that pattern of behavior undermines the consistency, integrity and reputation of international law and institutions, including the United Nations. Such persistent "lawfare" also likely lowers confidence in the possibility that there could ever be an international legal system that, in some significant sense, is both impartial, and respectful of the principle of the equality of States.


International Court of Justice political?

A prominent instance of anti-Israel "lawfare" was United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10114 (December 2003) requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In July 2004, the ICJ gave an advisory opinion that referred to "the Palestinian People" more than a dozen times. By contrast, absent was any reference to "the Jewish People" or to its specific rights between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. These Jewish rights are clearly set out, for example, in stipulations of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which is akin to a multilateral treaty.

A skewed reading of the Mandate for Palestine, and largely irrelevant generalizations about the broader system of Mandates established after the First World War, helped the ICJ reach conclusions that conveniently dovetailed with the strong political prejudice already inherent in the 2003 request from the General Assembly. Neither balanced nor persuasive, this advisory opinion probably further impaired the credibility of the ICJ, which previously had already lost much ground in its efforts to keep the trust of governments.


Goldstone Report lawfare?

Similarly flawed was the 2009 Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which was headed by Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa. The mission's mandate was, "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza." However, the Goldstone Report notably ignored the rule against bias with respect to mission members, procedure and conclusions. Moreover, Judge Goldstone in 2011 significantly admitted that the mission's report had serious mistakes and did not meet the standards for a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.

Judge Goldstone admitted that the 2009 Gaza report
had serious mistakes and did not meet
the standards for a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.

The Goldstone Report, the advisory opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and numerous other instances of anti-Israel "lawfare" suggest that  international law and institutions could play a larger and a more positive role, if more attention is devoted to scrupulously respecting fundamental requirements of fairness and natural justice. As in disputes involving other countries, Israel has explanations and arguments that deserve to be both impartially heard and carefully considered.


Soon regret precedents we set today?

The Obama administration now finds itself involved in a series of controversial international operations of its own -- as in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan. Perhaps this might bring more people round to an understanding that it's probably high time to be somewhat less categorical about what is said to be legal and illegal.

Moreover, fewer exaggerations about international law would be prudent, because with regard to legal system, "what's sauce for the goose is soon sauce for the gander." And certainly, that folksy reminder also applies to the legal discourse on Osama's case.

When Does Criticizing Israel Become Antisemitic?

Human Rights Give the Answer


Allen Z. Hertz was senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. He formerly worked in Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He studied history and languages at Montreal's McGill University (B.A.), and then East European, Balkan and Ottoman history at New York's Columbia University (M.A., Ph.D.). He later earned international law degrees from Cambridge University (LL.B.) and the University of Toronto (LL.M.).

Foreword

An earlier version of this article was published on the Opinion Page of the Jerusalem Post, on February 17, 2009. There are also Chinese-  and Hebrew-language versions posted to this website. The relationship among Jews, the Jewish People and Israel is more deeply explored in this website's May 2020 posting entitled "Aboriginal Rights of the Jewish People."


Jews, the Jewish People and Israel

Israel says that it is the Jewish State -- namely, the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People in a part of its aboriginal homeland. So, let us begin with the Jewish People. Under that same name, a then self-identified "Jewish" People has persisted for about 26 centuries in a variety of venues, including always in its birthplace.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says antisemitism means “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” This definition reminds us that Jews are more than simply adherents of a particular religion. Namely, Jews also self-identify as an ethno-cultural group, a tribe, a People -- just as there is a Japanese or an Italian People.

Today, most Jews around the world see themselves as part of the Jewish People, including within the context of the modern political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples. And in this optic, those who link together the three concepts of "Palestinians" and "the Palestinian People" and a putative "Palestine" would clearly have some logical difficulty simultaneously denying that the very same juridical ties connect Jews and the Jewish People to an actual country called Israel.

Firewall between criticism of Israel and antisemitism?

Like other countries, Israel has features that invite criticism. But, crafting a fair and non-discriminatory critique is troublesome because it requires something like sound social science, respect for natural justice, consideration of generally-applicable norms, reference to the usual practice of States, as well as giving reasons to support particular judgments.

Thus, criticizing Israel is not necessarily antisemitic. But, it is untrue to say that there is a logical distinction that prevents a persistent pattern of bitter criticism of Israel from ever being antisemitic. To the contrary, the methodologies applied in more than a half-century of modern human-rights law make it clear that a persistent pattern of targeting Israel with unfair and discriminatory criticism is antisemitic.

Why can criticism of Israel become antisemitic?

A persistent pattern of discriminatory criticism of Israel is antisemitic because modern human-rights methodologies are astute enough to examine not only a pattern of impugned speech or conduct but also the likely effects of that pattern. Consider the following:

• Jews have been an historically-victimized People for close to 2,000 years, just as the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada and African-Americans have also been historically victimized over shorter periods of time.
• Now with over 40% of the world’s Jewish population, Israel is the historic and current homeland of the Jewish People, just as Greece is the ancestral and modern home of the Greek People.

In terms of modern human-rights methodologies, the conclusion must be that a persistent pattern of discriminatory criticism of Israel is antisemitic, because likely to harm the more than six million Jews there, who are 75% of that country's population.

Critics of Israel linked to Jew-haters?

An imaginary watertight compartment separating Israel from the Jewish People is as improbable as trying to uncouple the notion of China from the Han Chinese People or Turkey from the Turkish People. This is an important point because the hallmark of the modern antisemite is precisely reliance on the improbable and unpersuasive claim that there is a clear line that prevents a persistent pattern of bitter criticism of Israel from ever being antisemitic.

To the contrary, statistical evidence suggests links between critics of Israel and antisemites. Firstly, public-opinion polls tend to show a clear correlation between respondents who strongly oppose Israel and those with marked negative feelings towards Jews and Judaism. Secondly, police records from Europe and elsewhere reveal spikes in local antisemitic incidents coincident with major military actions involving Israel, e.g., in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008-2009, 2012).

Moreover, anti-Israel terrorist groups regularly target local Jews in foreign countries, as in the deadly premeditated attacks in: 1994 on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires; 2008 on Chabad House in Mumbai; and 2012 on the Ozar Hatorah School in Toulouse. Thus, those who justify or explain local antisemitism by pointing to alleged misdeeds by Israel are simultaneously acknowledging the obvious link between Israel and the Jewish People.


Calls to kill 6 million Jews are antisemitic!

Our understanding of the meaning of "antisemitism" can obviously include a single, strong expression such as “Nuke Israel!” For example, exactly such an horrific wish was expressed by famed Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm (1917-2012). Along with some other left-wing Jews of his generation, he was a long-time Communist, who bitterly opposed Israel. Hobsbawm's shocking statement was evidently antisemitic, because it called for using nuclear weapons to kill Israel's more than six million Jews, who now constitute the world's single largest Jewish community.

Famed historian Eric Hobsbawm said
a nuclear bomb should be dropped on Israel.

A broader meaning of antisemitism?

In addition to the hatred of Jews evident in that one, terrible statement by Hobsbawm, modern human-rights methodologies have no difficulty understanding as antisemitic, persistent patterns of discriminatory criticism of Israel. Thus, the modern meaning of "antisemitism" also includes persistently targeting Jews and/or Israel and persistently applying to Jews and/or Israel a more exigent standard than regularly applied to other Peoples and countries, in the same or similar circumstances.

Friends of Israel may also be said to “target” Israel in the sense that they too focus on Israel. Friends are disposed to pay more attention to Israel than to other countries. But, they are unlikely to seek to tar Israel by persistently expecting more from Israel than from other countries, in the same or similar circumstances. To the contrary, friends are likely to defend Israel by applying normal standards or even by trying to apply less demanding standards.

Antisemites also persistently target Israel, but then go further to consistently judge Israel according to strict criteria that they do not regularly apply to other countries, in the same or similar circumstances. Antisemites aim to portray Israel in a negative light. Their underlying motivation is sinister, in that they seek to defame Israel to fabricate justifications for extreme measures likely to do grave harm to the more than six million Jews there.

Why is antisemitism so powerful?

Because of explicit pejorative references to Jews and Judaism, the texts of both the Christian Gospels and the Muslim Koran have directly played a role in spawning civilizations with exceptional attitudes towards Jews and Judaism. In the Western and Islamic worlds, many individuals find it natural to harbor distinctive (often negative) views about Jews and Judaism.

Thus, there is often a lack of awareness that the prevailing cultural software has been so significantly infected by the virus of antisemitism. For this reason, many individuals remain comfortable persistently targeting Jews and/or Israel and persistently applying to Jews and/or Israel a more exigent standard than regularly applied to other Peoples and countries, in the same or similar circumstances.

Adolf Hitler began with discrimination against Jews,
then persecution and finally genocide.

How did the Holocaust begin?

Shouting “Dirty Jew!” or attacking Jews in pogroms or sending Jews to die in concentration camps are obviously antisemitic. But many individuals in the Western and Islamic Worlds have a blind spot that prevents them from recognizing antisemitism in many other toxic manifestations, that fall short of the concentration-camp gates.

Here it helps to recall the 1940's Holocaust that killed six million Jews in Europe. That horrendous crime traced its immediate origins to 1933, when Germany’s leader Adolf Hitler began a comprehensive program of well-organized discrimination that persistently singled out Jews, via wide-ranging legal and bureaucratic expedients.

In the same way, modern antisemites contrive strategies to support persistent patterns of bitter discrimination, e.g., by targeting Israel in organs of the United Nations. The plan is to demonize Israel by persistently judging it according to a more exigent standard than regularly applied to other countries, in the same or similar circumstances. The ultimate goal is to justify destroying Israel and killing the more than six million Jews there.
 
Jewish antisemites?

Many Jews fail to understand that the modern meaning of antisemitism includes any persistent pattern of discrimination against Jews and/or Israel. There are also Jews who falsely imagine that the ad hominem argument of being Jewish or having Jewish parents (even concentration-camp survivors) is a logical defense to a charge of antisemitism.

However, the fact of being Jewish does not confer on a Jew a special license to engage in persistent patterns of discrimination against Jews and/or Israel. This is reasonable because the harm done by the persistent discrimination offered by some Jews is as real as that done by the antisemitism of non-Jews. In fact, persistent patterns of anti-Israel discrimination by Jews can do even more damage, because Jews can gain greater credibility by trumpeting their own Jewish credentials.

Advertising Holocaust survivor parents, Finkelstein is a USA communist
who has built an academic career that peculiarly focuses on
 attacking the Jewish People and Israel.

An ideological license to discriminate?

With respect to the principle of non-discrimination, human-rights methodologies offer no ideological exemption. Whether secular or religious, neither “the left” nor “the right” has a legal dispensation legitimating persistent patterns of discrimination against Jews and/or Israel. From a human-rights perspective, antisemitism cannot be excused with reference to an alleged greater good to be derived from: Nazism; Fascism; Liberalism; Socialism; Communism; Marxism; Environmentalism; Anti-Colonialism; the Non-Aligned Movement; Judaism; Christianity; Islam; or any other cause, ideology or religion.

Nonetheless, many enemies of Israel remain astonishingly confident in their mistaken belief that their preferred (secular or religious) doctrine entitles them to indulge in such a persistent pattern of discrimination, while simultaneously immunizing them from a human-rights charge of antisemitism. This is a pitiful and hollow illusion.

Intellectual honesty and decency demand that we decry discrimination, including the antisemitism of those who persistently target Jews and/or Israel and persistently apply to Jews and/or Israel a more exigent standard than regularly applied to other Peoples and countries, in the same or similar circumstances.

Anti-Semitism Could Kill Six Million Jews in Israel: Letter to My 94-Year-Old Aunt

Allen Z. Hertz was senior adviser in Canada's Privy Council Office serving the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. Earlier he was in the Foreign Affairs Department where he advised on intellectual property rights. He participated in treaty negotiations, including for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and represented Canada at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). He wrote the 1987 federal Green Paper on "Semiconductor Chip Protection in Canada" and was founding editor of "Computer Law: A Report for Business and the Professions." He taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. As an undergraduate he was at McGill University, and then did graduate work at Columbia University where he received an M.A. and a Ph.D., in history. Dr. Hertz also has international law degrees from Cambridge University and the University of Toronto.


Introduction

This letter to my Aunt Rita builds on my two 2009 Jerusalem Post articles, versions of which also appear on this website. Posted in January 2011, "When Does Criticizing Israel Become Anti-Semitic?" uses contemporary human-rights methodologies to explore the modern meaning of anti-Semitism. Most recently posted in May 2020, "Aboriginal Rights of the Jewish People" interprets Jewish history in the light of the political and legal doctrines of aboriginal rights and the self-determination of Peoples. As previously, the emphasis here is on the key principle of non-discrimination which is fundamental to human-rights methodologies and bedrock for understanding how to properly address matters pertaining to Jews, Judaism, the Jewish People and Israel.


Jews partly to blame in the 1930s?

My question to you about what you thought back in the 1930s assumed that you then already knew that Jews were having a hard time in Europe. I asked you what you then thought about that sad news, because I wanted to know whether at that time you ever imagined that Jews were perhaps partly to blame for the harsh treatment that they were getting from the Nazis. The reason I inquired was to make a telling point about the insidious and persistent nature of anti-Semitism.

Adolf Hitler's persistent expression of hatred for Jews
was prelude to killing 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.

Always a reason for targeting Jews?

In the minds of Jew-haters, there is always a psychologically plausible rationale for abusing Jews. Back in the 1930s and 1940s the rationale was what Germany's leader Adolf Hitler regularly expressed in his mad ravings. Today, the rationale is in the anti-Israel rants of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

But you must know that Muslims have generally been despising and oppressing Jews for the last 1400 years. In fact, part of the proof of the continuous presence of Jews in the aboriginal Jewish homeland is the historical evidence showing that, from the Arab conquest in the first half of the 7th century CE, Jews there were victims of persistent discrimination and periodic persecution.




Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
seeks political gain via fanning Muslim hatred for Jews and Israel.

Anti-Semitism an illness?

Also tainting the minds of some Jews, anti-Semitism is simultaneously a toxic ideology and a mental disorder. Anti-Semites are emotionally predisposed to believe bad things about Jews, Judaism, the Jewish People and Israel. Anti-Semites are emotionally unable to discipline themselves to regularly apply to Jews, the Jewish People and Israel the identical standards regularly applied to other Peoples and countries, in the same or similar circumstances.

This persistent discrimination is nourished by stubborn cognitive dissonance regarding Jewish history and peoplehood. The circumstance that the Jewish People has been under history's spotlight for more than two millennia does not deter anti-Semites from ambivalence or rejection with respect to key issues such as: the Jewish People's existence as a People like other Peoples; its political right to self-determination; and its aboriginal right to live safely in its historic homeland. There, in greater or lesser numbers, self-identified "Jews" have lived in each and every year since antiquity.


Some Jews anti-Semitic?

Recent days again prove that there are some outspoken Jews whose minds have fallen prey to anti-Semitism. And how could it be otherwise? The larger Western and Muslim societies have for centuries been warped by an enduring discrimination against Judaism, Jews and the Jewish People that is one of the ideological foundation stones of both civilizations. Therefore I can understand why some Jews are themselves uncomfortable and discriminatory with regard to Jewish topics, including matters touching Israel. Whether consciously or not, their thinking is biased by the anti-Semitism that is almost everywhere around them. And, there have always been some Jews who seek substantial personal gain by ostentatiously attacking Judaism, Jews, the Jewish People and Israel.

Advertising Holocaust survivor parents,
USA academic Norman Finkelstein has built a career
that focuses on attacking the Jewish People and Israel. 

Jews escape by betraying their own People?

Some highly-placed French Jews of the 1930s and 1940s scorned their pitiful Jewish cousins from Eastern Europe. In fact, there were some elite French Jews who shared many of the anti-Semitic feelings of their Christian neighbours. But, that demonstration of Jewish solidarity with Christian prejudice did not save those snobbish French Jews from the Nazi gas chambers, as was discovered by a long-time Jewish friend of the Vichy French leader Marshall Philippe Pétain.


Primed to believe bad things about Israel?

Like some non-Jews, there are now Jews in Europe and North America strangely expert on the topic of "the many crimes" of Israel. But truth be told, Israel is a country like any number of other countries, though one now in a particularly tight situation.

This recalls to mind the 1990s when Canada was in peril. Then, the international press had already given up on Canada which "smart talk" predicted would collapse in the face of Quebec separatism. What nonsense that turned out to be! But such faulty assessments occur when the media relentlessly push a skewed story line. By contrast, proper journalism requires fairness, including the presentation of relevant facts in a broad, horizontal context.

Sad to say, fairness and a comparative optic are generally absent in reporting about Israel. This in itself is a manifestation of the tsunami of anti-Semitism now washing over Europe and the Mideast, but also with major impacts elsewhere.


Israel linked to the Jewish People?

The more than 6.5 million Jews living in Israel are now the world's single largest Jewish community. Israel's Jews steadily approach half of world Jewry and are 75% of that small country's total population. Worldwide, most Jews see Israel as "the Jewish State." This means that Jews generally regard Israel as their aboriginal homeland and as the political expression of Jewish self-determination as a People, among the world's Peoples. An approach based on modern human-rights methodologies would therefore understand the topic of Israel as inextricably linked to that of the Jewish People, which for close to 2,000 years has been an historically-victimized entity.


Enhanced protection?

Questions regarding the Jewish People and Israel deserve the same empathy and sensitivity normally accorded matters touching, e.g., Black Americans and the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. The latter two populations are also instances of historically-victimized groups, which human-rights methodologies significantly identify as meriting: apology for deep historical wrongs; significant reparation; and enhanced protection in the form of extra vigilance against renewed attempts to re-victimize that same disadvantaged group.

In the same way and to a similar (or greater) extent -- apology, reparation and extra vigilance are also owed to the Jewish People whose centuries-long sufferings have certainly been no less than that of Black Americans and the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. Modern human-rights methodologies can therefore offer some criteria as starting points for crafting fair assessments of Israel.


Human rights suggest what?

1. Fair criticism is fine, but try to avoid "loose talk" likely to be discriminatory -- because Israel is home to the Jewish People, for close to two millennia a preeminent example of an historically-victimized population.

2. Anti-Israel words and deeds are prima facie suspect with reference to a chronic tendency to discriminate against Jews, which has been historically epidemic in Western and Islamic countries.

3. No other People has suffered more deeply than the Jewish People and no other People has greater entitlement to protection from the hate speech and evil-doing of racists, bigots and ideologues.

4. Because Jews, Judaism, and the Jewish People are owed fairness and sound social science, accusations require reasoned substantiation that must always apply to Israel standards identical to those regularly applied to other countries, in the same or similar circumstances.

5. The modern meaning of "anti-Semitism" includes persistently targeting Israel and persistently applying to Israel a more exigent standard than regularly applied to other countries, in the same or similar circumstances.


Anti-Semites on Jews and Israel

Anti-Semites (including some Jews) invert the foregoing propositions. First, they are notoriously incautious with regard to their wild talk about Israel which they savagely attack on every possible occasion. Second, anti-Semites are emotionally disposed to instantly credit even the most improbable anti-Israel accusations. Third, anti-Semites regularly accord Jews, the Jewish People and Israel less protection than normally afforded other Peoples and countries. Fourth, anti-Semites consistently fail to regularly apply to Jews, the Jewish People and Israel, the identical standards regularly applied to other Peoples and countries, in the same or similar circumstances. And these are not trivial sins!


Propaganda war against Israel?

No small country could easily survive the weight of such comprehensive and persistent discrimination. We in Canada ought to know this when we reflect on the endless lies separatists told about our great constitutional democracy. There was then a propaganda war against Canada, as today there is an even more dangerous campaign of discriminatory misinformation aimed at harming Israel and the Jewish People. If unchecked, this persistent discrimination could significantly contribute to the likelihood of Israel's defeat, probably resulting in the death or flight of the more than 6.5 million Jews there.


Killing another 6 million Jews?

Whether by Jews or non-Jews, such persistent discrimination is reprehensible beyond description! Dare we forget the Holocaust of the 1940s? And in centuries past, there were also many other large-scale attacks on Jews, whether by Christians in Europe or by Muslims in the Islamic lands.

Historically, anti-Semitism has shown itself to be an "action item." This means that expressions of hatred for Judaism and the Jewish People have in the past paved the way for further forms of discrimination, including persecution and the widespread killing of Jews. So, we can readily understand that persistently discriminating against Israel could similarly lead to the killing of the Jews there, by one or more of conventional, chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons.


Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
expresses hatred for the Jewish People and Israel.
Is this "hate speech" prelude to killing the Jews there?

对以色列的批评何时会演变成反犹主义言论？

Allen Z. Hertz, Ph.D.  贺雅士 博士

作者曾作为高级顾问任职于加拿大枢密院办公室为加拿大总理和联邦内阁工作。此前，作者还曾在纽约、蒙特利尔、多伦多和香港的多所大学教授历史和法律。作者现居华南。

A senior philosopher from a leading Chinese university prepared this Chinese-language version of "When Does Criticizing Israel Become Anti-Semitic?" The essay originally appeared on the Opinion page of the Jerusalem Post on February 17, 2009. A revised English-language version and a Hebrew-language translation are also available on this website.

犹太人是一个民族吗？


根据梅兰姆-韦伯斯特在线词典(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)的解释，反犹主义是“针对作为一个宗教、族裔或种族的犹太人群的敌意或歧视”。这个定义提醒我们，犹太人并非单纯指那些固执信奉一个特定宗教的人；犹太人还作为一个文化族裔群体、一个部族、一个民族来认定自己的身份，正如日本人、意大利人将自己认定为一个民族那样。


对以色列的批评与反犹主义之间的“防火墙”？


像其他任何国家一样， 以色列也有其可批评之处。但是，提出公允的批评并非易事，因为这要求人们做到以下几点：尊重自然正义、考虑普遍适用的规范、参照一般国家的通行惯例，以及给出合理论证以支持具体判断。因此，可以说，批评以色列并不必然意味着反犹。然而，下面的看法却是站不住脚的，即认为以固定模式对色列持续地进行的激烈批评和反犹言论之间存在一个逻辑的划分标准。恰恰相反，实施了半个多世纪的现代人权法方法论充分表明，以固定的模式针对以色列进行歧视性的批评是反犹的。


为什么对以色列的批评会变成反犹的？


我们说以固定模式针对以色列进行歧视性批评就是反犹，是基于现代人权方法论。这种方法论有充分的敏锐度。它不仅可以检测出受指责的行为的模式，而且还可以探明这种模式的可能后果。我们来考虑下面的情况：(1) 从历史上看，犹太人在去两千多年中是一个备受伤害的民族，正如加拿大的土著人以及非洲裔美国人也曾经受到伤害。（2）如今拥有世界上犹太人口的二分之一的以色列在历史上曾经是而且现在还仍然是犹太民族的祖国，正如希腊是希腊人的祖国。当我们依照现代人权方法论来考虑这两点时，我们就能得出这样的结论，即一个对以色列的歧视性批评的固定模式是反犹主义的，因为它非常可能伤害犹太人。


对以色列的批评从统计上看与反犹主义者相关吗？


以一个想象的密封舱来区隔以色列和犹太民族的做法几乎是不可能的，正如我们无法将中国与汉族分开，或者将土耳其与土耳其人分开。这一点非常重要，因为现代反犹主义的标志就是它依赖如下这个站不住脚的说法，即以固定的模式对以色列进行严厉的批评不会导致反犹主义，因为这中间存在着一条清晰的界限。事实恰恰相反，统计数据表明，对以色列的批评与反犹主义是相连的。首先，民意调查显示，在被访者中，激烈反对以色列的人与对犹太人及犹太教有反感情绪的人之间存在着统计上的相关性。其次，欧洲及其他地方的警察记录显示，针对犹太人的犯罪高峰总是同以色列采取的重大军事行动相伴随，如2006年在黎巴嫩以及最近在加沙的军事行动。不仅如此，针对以色列的恐怖组织也以身处其他国家的犹太人为目标，如1994年在布宜诺斯艾利斯对犹太社区中心发动的恐怖袭击。因此，那些指出以色列的所谓劣行、并以此来为反犹主义进行解释和辩护的人，恰恰认定以色列与犹太民族的联系。


反犹主义当今意味着什么？


现代反犹主义可以包括这样一个突出的、激烈的反犹口号“核攻击以色列！” 这一宣言显然是反犹的，因为它明确号召用核武器杀死近六百万犹太人，即75%的以色列人口，占世界犹太人总人口的一半。然而，除了这种显而易见的个别反犹言论，我们还可以在批评以色列的固定模式中找到一种不断增长的反犹主义。它以这样的方式进行，即总是以犹太人或者以色列为攻击目标；对犹太人和/或以色列所设立的标准总是比为其他民族和国家设立的标准更加苛刻。

对以色列友好的人士也常常因为过于注意以色列而被说成是“针对”以色列。这些人倾向于给以色列较其他国家更多的关注。但他们不大可能对以色列提出高于其他国家的标准并借此来抹黑以色列。恰恰相反，友好人士往往对以色列应用较为宽容的标准，并试图以此来维护以色列。反犹主义者也总是针对以色列，但他们总是进一步用苛刻的标准评判以色列，而这些标准他们一般不加诸其他国家。反犹主义总是试图对以色列进行负面的描绘。这其中所暗藏的动机是险恶的——他们对以色列进行持续不断的污蔑，为的是使人们相信，运用极端手段来伤害犹太人（无论是在以色列的还是在其他地方的犹太人）是正当的。

反犹主义的力量为何如此之大？


在基督教的福音书以及穆斯林的古兰经中都有明确的针对犹太人和犹太教的负面描述，这对于培育歧视犹太人和犹太教的文明起到直接作用。在西方以及伊斯兰世界，许多人觉得对犹太人区别看待（常常是在负面意义上）是非常自然的。然而，人们往往很少意识到，他们身处其中的主流文化早已深深感染了反犹主义的病毒。由于这个原因，许多人持续不断地以犹太人和/或以色列为攻击目标，持续不断地以更为严苛的标准（较之用于其他民族和国家的标准）要求犹太人和/或以色列，而在这样做时他们总是心安理得。


大屠杀是如何开始的？


大声喊出“肮脏的犹太人！”、对犹太人实行有计划的集体屠杀或者把犹太人送往集中营并让他们死在那里，这些做法显然都是反犹。但许多生活在西方及伊斯兰世界的人都有一个盲点，使得他们无法辨别反犹主义其他有害的表现方式。在此我们有必要回顾一下从1939年到1945年发生在欧洲的大屠杀（这场大屠杀杀害了六百万犹太人）。这一恐怖的罪行直接发端于1933年。当时，德国首脑人物阿道夫•希特勒开启了一项精心策划的歧视犹太人的行动方案，通过法律和行政途径将犹太人从其他人当中甄别出来。现代反犹主义者以同样方式谋划各种策略，来支持恶意歧视以色列的固定模式，例如，在联合国的各种组织内。这种策略就是以较之对其他国家更严格的标准来不断苛责以色列，从而达到将其妖魔化的目的。其最终目的就是为毁灭以色列并杀死那里的六百万犹太人辩护。


沾染了反犹色彩的犹太人？


特定的个人指出自己是犹太人或自己的父母是犹太人（甚至自己是集中营的幸存者），所有这些都并不能从逻辑上证明他或她必然不是反犹主义者。在当今的世界中，许多犹太人并不明白，反犹主义的表现之一就是以固定的模式进行针对犹太人和/或以色列的歧视。很多人错误地认为，由于他们自己是犹太人，他们便有资格毫无顾忌地以固定的模式对犹太人和/或以色列进行歧视。然而，犹太人的反犹言论与非犹太人的反犹言论所造成的危害同样真实。事实上，当犹太人以固定的模式发表反以色列的歧视性言论时，他们会造成更大的伤害，因为关于自己是犹太人的鼓吹会给他们带来更大的可信度。


一个容许歧视以色列的意识形态的许可证？

人权方法论中没有任何地方暗示，“左翼”或“右翼”人士有权以固定的模式歧视犹太人和/或以色列。有一类为反犹主义进行的辩护从某个意识形态（如纳粹主义、法西斯主义、社会主义、共产主义、环保主义、反殖民主义、不结盟运动）的立场出发，声称反犹是为了达到所谓更高的目的。这类辩护是完全站不住脚的，不管它以完成什么事业为借口，也不管它基于什么意识形态的理由。然而，许多以色列的敌人却仍对自己的错误想法抱有异乎寻常的信心，他们仍然坚定地相信，其所奉行的学说使他们有权肆无忌惮地以固定的模式进行歧视活动，而同时又可以使他们免于被指责为反犹主义者。这完全是一种可怜而空洞的幻觉。理智的真诚和正直要求我们明确反对这样的反犹主义者，他们持续不断地以犹太人和/或以色列为攻击目标，并总是用更为严苛的标准（较之用于其他民族或国家的标准）要求犹太人和/或以色列。

© Allen Z. Hertz

Obama: Walking on Israel in Chamberlain’s Shoes?

Allen Z. Hertz was senior advisor in Canada's Privy Council Office serving the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. Formerly he worked in Canada's Foreign Affairs Department and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He graduated from McGill University with First Class Honours and the Minister of Education's Gold Medal in History. He holds a Ph.D. in East European and Ottoman history from Columbia University and international law degrees from Cambridge University and the University of Toronto.

A version of this article was first published in September 2009 by The Jewish Telegraphic Agency -- JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People. Related postings on this website include "Religion and Politics: What Barack Obama could learn from Benjamin Disraeli" and "Obama's Cairo Speech: Line-by-Line Israel Analysis."


Neville Chamberlain’s three years (1937-1940) as British Prime Minister earned him infamy in Jewish history. His appeasement policy enabled Germany to become a giant by subversion of first Austria and then Czechoslovakia. And, with the whole of the Indian subcontinent still under British rule, Chamberlain then had added motivation to want to appease Muslims. Along with British interests in the Arab Mideast, a desire to cater to Muslim public opinion in India was also a factor that contributed powerfully to the 1939 decision to virtually close the doors of Mandate Palestine to Jewish refugees. They were then desperately searching for a haven from Nazi oppression. Nonetheless, Chamberlain told the British Cabinet (April 20, 1939) that it was of:

immense importance... to have the Moslem world with us... If we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs.

The fundamental immorality of impeding Jewish migration was all the greater because, with respect to the western part of Mandate Palestine, the international commitment to the Jewish People had already been crystal clear. From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, "a national home for the Jewish People" had been created via a series of declarations, resolutions and treaties from 1917 to 1923.  But, this was no concern of Chamberlain, who on July 30,1939 wrote to his sister Hilda: "No doubt the Jews aren't a lovable people; I don't care about them myself..."



Neville Chamberlain, UK Prime Minister 1937-1940
"No doubt the Jews aren't a lovable people;
I don't care about them myself."

As tension now grows over Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons, President Obama seeks rapprochement with the Muslim world, including dialogue with Iran. Can we ask if there are similarities between Obama and Chamberlain?

April 2009, Obama bows low to the King of Saudi Arabia at G-20 Meeting in London.

With scant foreign-policy experience, both came to office with an abundance of self-confidence to lead a declining Great Power with acute fiscal troubles and far too many global responsibilities. And, each arrived with a strongly held belief that international sins of his own country had to be made right as part of an energetic search for a general peace. Thus, Chamberlain saw the 1919 Versailles Treaty as a draconian imposition that had driven Germany to Nazi dictatorship. Similarly, Obama blames the USA and the West for colonialism and imperialism that are seen to have injured the developing countries, including the Muslim World. And, like Chamberlain, Obama reaches out to opponents, acknowledges their suffering and seems to promise reparation for past wrongs.

Chamberlain (left) too ready to betray friends
in order to appease dangerous opponents.

History’s verdict is that Chamberlain was astonishingly naive. As for Obama, it is too early to say whether he will follow Chamberlain’s path in seeking to appease dangerous opponents at the expense of friends. Chamberlain betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1938. And, had Hitler agreed to refrain from using force in 1939, Chamberlain was then prepared to offer Germany large parts of Poland’s territory.

Assuredly, the Chamberlain-Obama comparison is invidious and, in this partisan vein, it was raised during the USA presidential campaign in 2008. Now the comparison deserves fresh consideration, particularly in the light of President Obama’s June 4, 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim World.

June 4, 2009, President Barack Obama in Cairo.

In Cairo, Obama sought the appearance of even-handedness in discussing the long-standing dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But, read with an eye to the moral context, his Cairo speech was profoundly anti-Israel. This anti-Israel bias was camouflaged by a dramatic reference to the Holocaust and by other acknowledgements of Jewish suffering over the centuries. Obama was likely advised that such sentiments would resonate with USA Jews. However, Jews in Israel were too canny to be fooled by the Cairo speech, after which public opinion polls there saw his approval rate drop like a stone.

The meaning of “dissimulation” includes speech calculated to cause belief in something which the speaker has not literally said. Is dissimulation dishonest? An answer depends on the context, but honest or not, dissimulation has always been one of the main elements of statecraft -- as 18th-century King Frederick the Great insisted. Obama established his credentials as dissimulator no later than the campaign for the Democratic nomination, when he flip-flopped on his promise that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

In July 2008 Obama said:
“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

In 2008, he also denied his childhood practice of Islam; knowledge of the anti-Israel and anti-USA rants of his long-time pastor Jeremiah Wright; and a close relationship with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Marxist terrorist group known as the Weather Underground. His penchant for such implausible denials goes part way toward explaining why current opinion polling shows that USA perceptions of Obama’s trustworthiness are gradually eroding. The three denials were also early predictors that he would be cold to Israel for religious, cultural and ideological reasons.


Illinois State Sen. Obama with Palestinian nationalist Edward Said,
Chicago (May 1998) at an Arab fund-raising event,
where Said was keynote speaker. At Columbia University,
Obama had taken one of Prof. Said's courses.

White House speech writer Ben Rhodes has said that the Cairo speech showed “frankly, just how he [Obama] personally views the conflict.” Rhodes also said that Obama mulled over every line, every word of the speech. This is significant because, with respect to Israel, the Cairo speech was marked by dissimulation and implication that morally condemned the Jewish State, while largely validating the narrative of Arabs and Muslims.

Key dissimulation lay in the phrase: “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” These exact words were cynically chosen to elicit belief that Obama was expressing approval for current ties with Israel and promising future support. But, linguistically those two sentences neither said that he approved of those “strong bonds” nor offered a promise for the future. They were merely a bare statement of fact, presumably resting on Israel’s popularity with the USA public and in Congress. By contrast, there was both approval and a promise in the pledge that: “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.” The dissimulation with respect to Israel was further corroborated by a later passage, where Obama signaled change by saying: “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace.” And, who will be deemed to “pursue peace” must naturally be understood within the moral parameters of “just how he personally views the conflict.”

Dissimulation was also salient with regard to Jerusalem, in relation to which Obama implied that Israel has failed to accommodate the needs of Muslims and Christians. Moreover, the Cairo speech specifically spoke about working for the day when Jerusalem would be “a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra.” Here, Obama cynically calculated that non-Muslims would perceive this passage as an anodyne ecumenical reference, while Muslims would understand the Isra story as relating to the Prophet Muhammad’s alleged trip to Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque. There, the hadith say that Muhammad was validated as God’s final messenger by his prophetic predecessors, including Moses and Jesus. Thus, for Muslims, the Isra story points to their claim to Jerusalem and their belief that Islam is superior to Judaism and Christianity.

For two centuries, the political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples has been an engine of world history. The Cairo speech significantly referred to the Palestinian People at least five times without offering a hint that Arabs living around the Jordan River did not generally self-identify as a distinct "Palestinian People" before the late 1960's. By contrast, Obama referred only once to the very ancient Jewish People, not as proud bearer of rights, but in its Diaspora persona as victim. Otherwise, Obama used “Israelis” or words that implied an “Israeli People.” Obama’s terminology thus favored a newborn Palestinian People and implicitly challenged Israel’s legitimacy by ignoring its key political and legal claim to embody the self-determination of the Jewish People, whose subjective-objective national identity reaches back at least twenty-five centuries.

In Cairo, Obama had nothing to say about close to 1400 years of persistent Arab and Muslim discrimination against Jews, including periodic persecution of the Jews in the Holy Land (Eretz Israel). By contrast, he repeatedly implied that Israel is responsible for Palestinian Arab suffering from 1948 to the present. Thus, he referred to Palestinian refugees, failures in economic and social development, “daily humiliations… that come with occupation” and a so-called “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. Evidently, how Obama “personally views the conflict” is deeply flawed. For example, would the Mideast have had any Jewish (circa 850,000) or Arab (circa 600,000) refugees had Arabs locally and generally followed Jews in embracing the 1947 UN General Assembly resolution calling for peaceful creation of two new States, the one "Jewish" and the other "Arab"?

Similarly, the Cairo speech falsely implied that Israel has been the obstacle to a "two States" solution. Thus, Obama said nothing about Prime Minister Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. And, he was silent about Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas’s failure to accept far-reaching "two States" offers by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert, in 2000 and 2008 respectively. This goes to the crux of the long-standing dispute. Since the 1937 Peel Report, first Zionists and then Israel governments have repeatedly accepted the partition idea, i.e. two States for two Peoples. By contrast, Arabs locally and generally have largely rejected the principle of "the Jewish State," i.e. the idea of having there an independent country to embody the self-determination of the Jewish People.

In Cairo, Obama deliberately chose to ground rights in mere suffering. This was curious, because as a lawyer Obama had to have known volenti non fit injuria -- the Common Law principle that the plaintiff cannot recover damages to the extent that he himself has caused the harm. Moreover, plaintiffs are required to take timely steps to mitigate their losses, no matter how caused. But, the Cairo speech never asked to what extent Palestinian Arab suffering might be the result of their own bad choices, including their share of responsibility for starting the 1948 war, which was a self-proclaimed Arab attempt to exterminate the Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Cairo speech repeatedly drew from the familiar arguments of Israel’s bitter enemies. First, Obama’s present-tense references to “Palestine” clearly begged the question, because there is still no State by that name. Second, Obama slandered Israel by implying a false comparison between the suffering of Palestinian Arabs and that of Black people in the USA. Third, this invidious comparison was reinforced by a gratuitous reference to “segregation” which seemed to slyly point to the canard that Israel is an apartheid State. Fourth was an inappropriate nod to White South Africa and other instances where indigenous Peoples offered “resistance” to colonial rule. Fifth, Obama implied that Palestinian Arab suffering can be equated with the Holocaust, which is a grotesque and wildly inaccurate comparison that is close kin to the calumny that Israel behaves like Nazi Germany. Finally, Obama implied that the European murder of six million Jews was the ideological basis for Israel’s creation.

As a lawyer, Obama had to have known that Israel validates itself, not by the Holocaust, but by virtue of the political and legal doctrines of aboriginal rights (normally minority rights) and the self-determination of Peoples. The Jewish People has aboriginal rights in the same way as do the native "First Nations" in Canada. And, the Jewish People invokes its self-determination right exactly as does the great Arab People, whose self-determination is already expressed in the twenty-one countries that explicitly self-identify as Arab.

The Cairo speech pandered to Arab and Muslim prejudice by ignoring the presence since pre-Biblical times of large numbers of Jews in the Mideast, including some who -- in each and every decade -- lived in the Holy Land (Eretz Israel). There, of all extant Peoples, the Jewish People has the strongest claim to be aboriginal. For this reason, two decades before the Holocaust, the aboriginal rights of the Jewish People were embedded in international law by the settlement after the First World War. Within a larger Mideast and global framework, justice was done because simultaneously there was creation or recognition of several new Arab States that were freed from Turkish rule and placed on the road to eventual independence; as was the “national home for the Jewish People,” from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

By ignoring the Jewish People’s aboriginal and self-determination rights, the Cairo speech was notably devoid of a compelling moral or legal rationale for Israel’s creation. In Cairo, Obama called for an end to Palestinian violence which was dignified as “resistance.” But, apart from an appeal to end reciprocal suffering, he offered Arabs and Muslims no convincing moral or legal reason for stopping what they largely consider to be their just war against the Jews.

To the contrary, Obama probably diminished prospects for peace by alienating Jews in Israel and failing to provide Arabs and Muslims with an ideological foundation for a peaceful process to respectfully reconcile the prior rights of the Jewish People with the subsequent rights of the newborn Palestinian People. The latter now has claims to self-determination and some territory. But, such Palestinian claims cannot cancel the prior rights of the Jewish People, which notably include the right not to be killed by neighbors. This means that the newly self-identified Palestinian People lacks the right to wage a war of national liberation against the Jewish People, the presence of which is not colonial.

Though repeated lip service was paid to Israel’s "right to exist," the Cairo speech consistently painted a moral picture that seemed to argue the contrary. Saying “threatening Israel with destruction is deeply wrong” was probably calculated to resonate with USA Jews who are grateful for Israel’s survival. By contrast, most Jews in Israel have the commonsense to understand that their country deserves much more than mere survival. They know that Israel urgently needs the same rights normally enjoyed by other countries, and that Israel must be judged according to the identical standards regularly applied to other States, in the same or similar circumstances.

Obama’s existential focus was too starkly minimalist to accommodate Israel within the world of States, where each country is driven to advance its own economic and political interests. Given the USA’s touted “strong bonds” with Israel, Obama ought to have said less about a “right to exist” and more about USA help in advancing any number of Israel's aims. The bad news here is that Obama perhaps intends to sell Israel short. This recalls national security adviser James Jones’s earlier quip that the new USA administration was not about to “throw Israel under a bus.”

The structure of the Cairo speech implausibly suggested that Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons is today less “a major source of tension” than “the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab World.” In discussing this Iranian nuclear threat, Obama seemed to signal that he might be willing to break with a decades-old understanding that the USA would refrain from publicly addressing whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons. The implication here was that Obama would perhaps follow Chamberlain’s playbook by making Israel’s nuclear weapons part of a broader deal, embracing Iran and other States in the region.



Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has threatened "to wipe Israel from the pages of history."

Was a major shift in USA foreign policy heralded by the speech’s apparent challenge to Israel’s ideological foundations and security interests? Obama placed a special focus on Palestinian Arab suffering that disturbingly recalls Chamberlain’s exaggerated concern for Czechoslovakia’s three million Sudeten Germans. Chamberlain’s myopia rapidly led to the destruction of interwar Czechoslovakia, then the only democracy in Eastern Europe. With Europeans appearing as themselves and the Palestinian Arabs as the Sudeten Germans, does President Obama cast himself as Chamberlain?

The British Prime Minister earned obloquy by being too eager for a general settlement at the expense of “people of whom we know nothing.” While irresponsibly failing to face the question of Hitler’s ultimate aims, Chamberlain recklessly sought peace by catering to German demands, including at the 1938 Munich Conference. Is Obama similarly searching for a general settlement that betrays Israel’s vital interests to the advantage of 21st-century Hitlers as portrayed by Iran’s leaders with the help of proxies, including Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas?

A careful reading of the Cairo Speech suggests that Obama may believe that a weaker Israel now suits the interests of the USA. If so, he should honestly tell the American people why, instead of offering a fabric of dissimulation and implication. And, friends of the Jewish State should see Obama’s moral condemnation of Israel as a flashing red light that warns of the possibility of betrayal; just as Czechoslovakia was pressured to accept an unsafe peace that was prelude to disaster.

Neville Chamberlain with Adolf Hitler in September 1938.

Cairo and After: Does Obama Seek a Weak Israel?

This article was written after President Obama's September 23, 2009 speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. It was first published on January 18, 2010 by Israel Resource Review: Behind the News in Israel.


United States President Barack Obama’s June 4th Cairo speech to the Muslim World sought the appearance of even-handedness in discussing the long-standing dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbours. But, read with an eye to the moral context, the Cairo speech was arguably profoundly anti-Israel. This bias was camouflaged by a dramatic reference to the Holocaust and by other acknowledgements of Jewish suffering over the centuries. Obama was likely advised that such sentiments would resonate with USA Jews. However, Israelis were too canny to be fooled by the Cairo speech, after which public opinion polls there saw his approval rate drop like a stone.

White House speech writer Ben Rhodes has said that the Cairo speech showed “frankly, just how he [Obama] personally views the conflict.” Rhodes also said that Obama mulled over every line, every word of the speech. This is significant, because with respect to Israel, the Cairo speech was marked by dissimulation and implication that tended to morally condemn the Jewish State, while largely validating the narrative of Arabs and Muslims.

The meaning of “dissimulation” includes speech calculated to cause belief in something which the speaker has not literally said. Is dissimulation dishonest? An answer depends on the context, but honest or not, dissimulation has always been one of the main elements of statecraft. Obama established his credentials as dissimulator no later than the race for the Democratic nomination. Then, his campaign staff publically acknowledged the dissimulation in his earlier promise that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

In July 2008 Obama said: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

In Cairo, key dissimulation lay in the phrase: “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” These exact words were cynically chosen to elicit belief that Obama was expressing approval for current ties with Israel and promising future support. But, linguistically those two sentences neither said that he approved of those “strong bonds” nor offered a promise for the future. They were merely a bare statement of fact, presumably resting on Israel’s popularity with the USA public and in Congress. By contrast, there was both approval and a promise in the pledge that: “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

Dissimulation with respect to USA support for Israel was corroborated by a later Cairo passage, where Obama threatened change by saying: “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace.” And, who will be deemed to “pursue peace” must naturally be understood within the moral parameters of “just how he personally views the conflict.” The highly conditional nature of Obama’s support for Israel was again revealed in his September 23rd UN General Assembly speech, where he implied that the USA’s “unwavering commitment” to Israel would have to be paid for by concessions to fulfill “legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.”

In Cairo, dissimulation was also salient with regard to Jerusalem, in relation to which Obama implied that Israel has failed to accommodate the needs of Muslims and Christians. The Cairo speech specifically spoke about working for the day when Jerusalem would be “a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra.” Here, Obama cynically calculated that non-Muslims would perceive this passage as an anodyne ecumenical reference, while Muslims would understand the Isra story as relating to the Prophet Muhammad’s alleged trip to Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque. There, the hadith says that Muhammad was validated as God’s final messenger by his prophetic predecessors, including Moses and Jesus. Thus, for Muslims, the Isra story points to their claim to Jerusalem and their belief that Islam is superior to Judaism and Christianity.

For two centuries, the political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples has been an engine of world history. The Cairo speech significantly referred to the Palestinian People at least five times without offering a hint that Arabs living around the Jordan River did not generally self-identify as a distinct Palestinian People until after the mid 20th century. By contrast, the Cairo speech referred only once to the very ancient Jewish People ---not as proud bearer of rights--- but in its Diaspora persona as victim. Otherwise, Obama used “Israelis” or words that implied an “Israeli People.” Obama’s terminology thus favoured the Palestinian People and implicitly challenged Israel’s legitimacy by ignoring its key political and legal claim to embody the self-determination of the Jewish People, whose subjective-objective national identity reaches back more than twenty-five centuries. This glaring omission was implicitly acknowledged in the General Assembly speech, where Obama included one reference to Israel as “a Jewish state.”

In Cairo, Obama had nothing to say about close to 1400 years of Arab and Muslim discrimination against Jews ---including periodic maltreatment of Jews in the Holy Land (Eretz Israel). By contrast, he repeatedly implied that Israel is responsible for Palestinian suffering from 1948 to the present. Thus, he referred to Palestinian refugees, failures in economic and social development, “daily humiliations… that come with occupation” and a so-called “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. Evidently, how Obama “personally views the conflict” is deeply flawed. For example, would the Middle East have had any Jewish (circa 850,000) or Arab (circa 650,000) refugees had Arabs locally and generally followed the Jews in embracing the 1947 UN General Assembly resolution calling for peaceful creation of two new countries, "the Jewish State" and "the Arab State"?

Similarly, the Cairo speech falsely implied that Israel has been the obstacle to a "two States" solution. Thus, Obama said nothing about Prime Minister Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. And, he was silent about Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas’s failure to accept far-reaching "two States" offers by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert, in 2000 and 2008 respectively. This goes to the crux of the long-standing dispute. Since the 1937 Peel Report, first Zionists and then Israel governments have repeatedly accepted the partition idea, i.e. "two States for two Peoples." By contrast, Arabs locally and generally have almost unanimously rejected the principle of Israel as "the" Jewish State, i.e. as the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People in a part of its aboriginal homeland.

In Cairo, Obama deliberately chose to ground rights in mere suffering. This was curious, because as a lawyer Obama had to have known volenti non fit injuria ---the Common Law principle that the plaintiff cannot recover damages to the extent that he himself has caused the harm. Moreover, plaintiffs are required to take timely steps to mitigate their losses, no matter how caused. But, the Cairo speech never asked to what extent Palestinian suffering might be the result of their own bad choices, including their share of responsibility for starting the 1948 war, which was a self-proclaimed Arab attempt to exterminate Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Cairo speech repeatedly drew from familiar arguments of Israel’s enemies. First, though there is now no independent State called “Palestine,” the question was begged by present-tense references that also appeared in his General Assembly speech. Second, the Cairo speech slandered Israel by seeming to compare the suffering of Palestinians with that of Black people in the USA. Third, this invidious comparison was reinforced by a gratuitous reference to “segregation” which seemed to slyly point to the canard that Israel is an apartheid State. Fourth was an inappropriate nod to White South Africa and other instances where indigenous Peoples offered “resistance” to colonial rule. Fifth was the implication that Palestinian suffering can be equated with the Holocaust, which is a grotesque and wildly inaccurate comparison that is close kin to the calumny that Israel behaves like Nazi Germany. Finally, the Cairo speech misrepresented the murder of six million Jews as the ideological basis for Israel’s creation.

As a lawyer, Obama had to have known that Israel validates itself, not by the Holocaust, but by virtue of the political and legal doctrines of aboriginal rights and the self-determination of Peoples. Aboriginal rights are normally minority rights. Thus, the Jewish People claimed its right to its homeland in the same way as do the Inuit and First Nations in Canada. And, the Jewish People invoked its self-determination right exactly as does the Arab People, whose self-determination is already expressed in the 21 countries that explicitly self-identify as Arab.

The Cairo speech pandered to Arab and Muslim prejudice by ignoring the continuous presence since pre-Biblical times of large numbers of Jews in the Middle East, where they were around one million in 1900. And, these Middle Eastern Jews always included some who, in each year since antiquity, lived in their ancestral homeland, which by the 19th century had become significantly under-populated by comparison with both Roman times and today. Thus, of all extant Peoples, the Jewish People has the strongest claim to be aboriginal to the Holy Land (Eretz Israel).

For this reason, two decades before the Holocaust, the long-affirmed aboriginal rights of the Jewish People were explicitly and generally recognized by a series of consistent declarations, treaties and international enactments from 1917 to 1922, when the League of Nations created a “national home for the Jewish People” between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Within a larger global and Middle Eastern framework, justice was done ---because simultaneously there was creation or recognition of several new Arab States that were freed from Turkish rule and placed on the road to eventual independence, as was the “national home for the Jewish People.”

By ignoring the Jewish People’s aboriginal and self-determination rights, the Cairo speech could only point to an end to reciprocal suffering as a rationale for terminating Palestinian violence which was dignified as "resistance." By relying on this slender reed, Obama probably diminished prospects for peace. Thus, the Cairo speech alienated most Israelis and failed to provide Arabs and Muslims with an ideological foundation for a peaceful process to respectfully reconcile the prior rights of the Jewish People with the subsequent rights of the newly-emerged Palestinian People. The latter evidently now has rights to claim self-determination, independence and territory. However, these new Palestinian claims do not automatically cancel the Jewish People’s prior rights, which notably include the right of Jews not to be killed by their Arab neighbours. Exactly contrary to President Obama's reference to "resistance", the Palestinian People does not have a right to wage a war of national liberation against the Jewish People which is aboriginal there.

Though repeated lip service was paid to Israel’s right to exist, the Cairo speech painted a moral picture that seemed to argue the contrary. Saying “threatening Israel with destruction is deeply wrong” was probably calculated to resonate with USA Jews who are grateful for Israel’s survival. By contrast, most Israelis have the commonsense to understand that their country deserves much more than mere survival. They know that Israel urgently needs all the rights normally enjoyed by other countries, and that Israel must be judged according to the standards regularly applied to other States in the same or similar circumstances.

Obama’s existential focus was too starkly minimalist to accommodate Israel within the world of States, where each country is driven to advance its own economic and political interests. Given the USA’s touted “strong bonds” with Israel, Obama ought to have said less about a “right to exist” and more about USA help in advancing any number of Israel's aims. The real news here is that Obama perhaps intends to sell Israel short. This recalls national security adviser James Jones’s earlier quip that the new USA administration was not about to “throw Israel under a bus.”

The structure of the Cairo speech implausibly suggested that Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons is today less “a major source of tension” than “the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab World.” In discussing this Iranian nuclear threat, Obama seemed to signal that he might be willing to break with a decades-old understanding that the USA would refrain from publicly addressing whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons. The implication here was that Obama would perhaps be ready to make the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons part of a broader deal, embracing Iran and other States in the region.

At Cairo and in the General Assembly, was Obama challenging Israel’s ideological foundations and security interests? An answer can perhaps be found in his special focus on Palestinian suffering. This disturbingly recalls the exaggerated concern for Czechoslovakia’s three million Sudeten Germans that was the moral trigger for the 1938 Munich crisis. Then, myopia on the part of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain rapidly led to the destruction of interwar Czechoslovakia, which was the only democracy in Eastern Europe.

With Europeans appearing as themselves and Palestinians as Sudeten Germans, does President Obama cast himself as Chamberlain? At Munich, the British Prime Minister earned obloquy by being eager to appease at the expense of “people of whom we know nothing.” While irresponsibly failing to face the question of Hitler’s ultimate aims, Chamberlain recklessly sought safety by catering to German demands. The General Assembly speech announced that Obama is searching for a general Middle East settlement. Is this a context in which he will betray Israel’s vital interests to the advantage of 21st century Hitlers played by Iran's leaders with the help of proxies like Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas?

A careful reading of Obama’s remarks in Cairo and at the General Assembly suggests that the President may believe that a weaker Israel now suits the interests of the USA. If so, he should tell the American people why, instead of offering a fabric of dissimulation and implication. And, friends of the Jewish State should see Obama’s moral condemnation of Israel as a flashing red light that warns of the possibility of betrayal ---just as Czechoslovakia was pressed to accept an unsafe peace that was prelude to disaster.

Allen Z. Hertz was formerly senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. Earlier he worked in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He holds a Ph.D. in Ottoman history from Columbia University and international law degrees from Cambridge University and the University of Toronto.