Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event
The use of double standards against Israel has permeated large parts of the world’s mainstream. One finds it at the United Nations, among governments, in major media, academic institutions, NGOs, liberal churches and trade unions.
The definition of a double standard is rather simple. The Cambridge Dictionaries Online put it succinctly: “A rule or standard of good behavior which unfairly some people are expected to follow or achieve, but others are not.”
That the use of double standards against Jews was at the heart of anti-Semitism throughout the centuries has often been recognized.
Natan Sharansky, seeking to discern when anti-Semitism drives anti-Israel rhetoric and acts, invented the “3D test” – Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization. The definition of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, an EU affiliate, suggests that manifestations of anti-Semitism targeting Israel include applying double standards by requiring behavior of it that is not expected of any other democratic country.
Double standards can be broken down into seven categories, some of which overlap. A major category consists of one-sided declarations or biased reporting. The third Durban Conference in New York was a recent example of the frequent use of double standards against Israel in the UN environment.
One additional example: the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. was praised by Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin in 2004 by Israel was condemned by then-Secretary General Kofi Annan. The European Commission, along with the British and French governments, among many others, reacted with similar duplicity.
A second category is conscious self-censorship or omission of essential information that would render a balanced view. After the lynching of two Israeli reserve soldiers in Ramallah in 2000, Ricardo Christiano of Italian state TV Rai wrote a letter to the Palestinians stating it was another Italian station that had broadcast the pictures. He stressed that he would never have made them public.
A third category is disproportionality. Media and many human rights NGOs look at Israel through a magnifying glass and have repeatedly ignored major crimes in Muslim states.
Yet another category is interference in internal Israeli affairs. Liberal Party leader Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister of the U.K., has said the interests of the Israeli people are not being met by its government. One should ask him to show when he has said something similar about the Tunisian government, the Egyptian government, and too many others to recount here.
A fifth category would be that of discriminatory acts. Dore Gold relates that in 1997, when he was Israel’s ambassador at the United Nations, the Arab states succeeded in convening an emergency special session of the General Assembly to address Israel’s building of condominiums on the Har Homa hill. Gold learned there had been no such emergency sessions called when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, and when Turkey invaded Cyprus.
A sixth category is the application of double standards in international law.
A seventh type of double standards one can call humanitarian racism. It attributes intrinsically reduced responsibility to non-white people. The less some people are held responsible for their acts, the more they are considered to be demented, unintelligent or even animals.
The writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali told me that in the Netherlands she was taught that racism is only manifest among white people. She recalled, “My family in Somalia, however, educated me as a racist and told me that we Muslims were very superior to the Christian Kenyans. My mother thinks they are half monkeys.”
Humanitarian racists tend to hold Israel responsible for whatever it does to defend itself against terrorism. Palestinian responsibility for suicide bombings, missile attacks and the glorification of murderers of civilians is downplayed at best.
Many individuals and organizations apply double standards toward Israel. One can carefully choose a few such anti-Semites to be monitored. Most people are cowards. Many enjoy free anti-Semitic lunches, yet once it becomes clear that someone will have to pay for the meal, the number of diners will likely begin to drop.
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
About the Author: Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is a board member and former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (2000-2012). He is a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
Wye would be seen to have set the groundwork for the creation of a Palestinian state
Blaming Israel for the violence in Gaza, he ends up justifying Hamas’s terrorism.
In the Thirties it was common for anti-Semites to call on Jews to “go to Palestine!”
“This arbitrary ban is an ugly stain on our democracy, and it also undermines the rule of law.”
We take US “aid” for psychological reasons-if we have an allowance, that means we have a father.
ZIM Piraeus isn’t Israeli-owned or flagged, incidentally, it is Greek operated.
Foolish me, thinking the goals were the destruction of Hamas thereby giving peace a real chance.
The free-spirted lifestyle didn’t hold your interest; the needs of your people did.
And why would the U.S. align itself on these issues with Turkey and Qatar, longtime advocates of Hamas’s interests?
Several years ago the city concluded that the metzitzah b’peh procedure created unacceptable risks for newborns in terms of the transmission of neo-natal herpes through contact with a mohel carrying the herpes virus.
The world wars caused unimaginable anguish for the Jews but God also scripted a great glory for our people.
We were quite disappointed with many of the points the secretary-general offered in response.
Judging by history, every time Hamas rebuilds their infrastructure, they are stronger than before.
Studies show that large numbers of Europeans hold a demonic view of Israel.
On February 17, the Dutch Nederland 2 TV station broadcast an interview with Dutch Turkish youth conducted by volunteer youth worker Mehmet Sahin. In the broadcast the youngsters expressed their admiration for Hitler and his role in the murder of Jews during the Holocaust.
On October 15, the Knesset voted unanimously to dissolve itself. Elections will be held on January 22, 2013. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to take the step after realizing he could not obtain a majority for his proposed budget.
When Israelis say, “I worry about my grandchildren’s future,” it has a radically different dimension than similar concerns expressed in many other countries.
Since Oslo we have had some Israeli governments emulate Neville Chamberlain’s foolish position. While the current government has not done so, there certainly is vast room for improvement in the presentation of Israel’s case to the world.
There are few societies where the contradiction between Holocaust distortion and Holocaust commemoration is as pronounced as it is in the Netherlands. This phenomenon came to the fore earlier this month on National Memorial Day, May 4, designated to commemorate the many victims of the German occupier. One hundred thousand Dutch Jews – more than 70 percent of the country’s pre-war community – were by far the largest group of victims.
Last month the IDF responded to rockets being launched from Gaza into southern Israel by bombing Gazan targets. It took little time for some media outlets to equate the Palestinian aggressor with the Israeli aggressed. It took only slightly longer for many other media outlets to highlight Israel’s actions while shoving continued Palestinian aggression into the background.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/mainstream-double-standards-against-israel/2011/10/12/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: