When is it antisemitic to criticize Israel?

The bases on which Israel's supporters believe it is subject to unfair criticism, are eerily similar to the rationalizations of apartheid South Africa's defenders in the 1970s and 80s.





A beach for Whites only near the integrated fishing village of Kalk Bay, not far from Capetown (1970). Image credit KM via UN Photo (CC).

The��Israeli state��and its supporters frequently accuse its critics of being motivated by antisemitism, and although they usually��concede��that��it is not inherently antisemitic to criticize the country, recent controversies��have��proven that��it��is quite difficult to draw��precisely��where the line begins and ends.

One extremely popular method for delineating the borders of acceptable criticism��of Israel��is��the ���Three D���s of antisemitism,��� also known as the ���3D test��� developed by its one-time��Minister of Internal��Affairs,��Natan��Sharanksy.��This framework evaluates��criticism of Israel against three ���D���s���:��demonization (when ���Israel���s actions are blown��out of all sensible proportion���), double standards (when Israel is ���singled out��� or criticism is ���applied selectively���)��and delegitimization (when ���Israel���s fundamental right to exist is denied���).��If��a��critical statement��meets��any of these criteria, then��it is��determined to be��antisemitic.

The ���3D test��� has been promoted by the��likes of the��US��Anti-Defamation League��as a simple��way to distinguish ���anti-Israel��� criticism from��antisemitism,��but it falls short in at least one important way: its standards��can easily be applied to the discourse surrounding countries other than Israel. In fact, the ���three D���s��� mirror complaints made by supporters of apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 80s,��who��also��believed��that their��country was subject to unfair criticism.

A brief overview of pro-South African propaganda��reveals comparable accusations of demonization, double standards, and delegitimization.��Far from��providing a reliable tool of analysis, Sharansky���s ���3D test��� merely codifies the same rhetoric that was used to defend apartheid South Africa, turning the language of pariah states into supposed evidence of antisemitism.

Demonization

Glenn Babb, South African Ambassador to Canada from 1985��to 1987, often��criticized the ���exaggerated rhetoric�����that was used against South Africa. He felt that the country was being�����vilified��� in��the��public debate, and that its critics were��full of ���dismal ignorance.�����Babb claimed that��the Canadian government was conspiring with�����anti-South Africa��� groups��and the��African National Congress (ANC) to manufacture an unfriendly attitude towards South Africa���he referred to this ���incestuous relationship��� as�����the anti-South Africa industry.���

In fact,��South Africa���s supporters frequently complained that the country was��being depicted from��an entirely negative and one-sided point of view; they blamed the ���biased��� and ���liberal media��� for uncritically repeating disinformation from ���terrorists��� and Soviet Union ���puppets��� like the African National Congress (ANC), and for convincing the public that apartheid was uniquely evil.

Supporters argued that biased media coverage had triggered emotional responses at the expense of rational analysis, poisoning the possibility of constructive debate.��John Shingler, a professor at McGill University who was also a director of an elite pro-South Africa group,��wrote��that��campus��debates��around��South African��divestment��were�����unbalanced,��� ���one-dimensional,��� and ���wholly negative.�����The result was that��South Africa itself had become tainted as a country��(and��not just its policies),��which��had two main effects:��the��tone of the��debate��had become�����abusive�����and�����shrill,�����and��it had become impossible to take a ���moderate��� position or to oppose sanctions without being accused of being ���racists��� and ���fascists.�����By demonizing South Africa, any association with the country had become toxic.

Double Standards

A glossy��1987 pro-apartheid magazine called�����South Africa: Nation on Trial�����opened with a combative editorial claiming that�����South Africa bashing has become a national sport.��� The magazine, which was mailed to spouses of Canadian members of parliament, went on to complain that�����South Africa is judged by double, triple, and even quadruple standards.��Many of these are highly subjective, intellectually inconsistent, biased, racist, and downright arrogant.”

South Africa���s supporters��felt that many in the West had an ���obsession��� with the country, and questioned��the��disproportionate��attention��it received from governments.��John��Chettle��of the South Africa Foundation blasted the ���ruthless majority��� in the United Nations��for applying ���illegal sanctions�����against South Africa, and Babb pointed out��the ���selectivity��� with which ���the world singles South Africa out as a special case.���

Many��others��questioned why ���liberal do-gooders�����did not��boycott the Soviet Union or��other��African��states. An anti-sanctions advertisement published in November 1985 by both the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen��lambasted��Prime Minister��Mulroney���s ���one-sided ���get-South Africa��� threats��� and ���hypocritical��� sanctions, and asked why Canada was not��boycotting�����the Marxist dictatorship of��Tanzania.���

While allegations of��hypocrisy largely took an anti-Communist ideological line, South Africa���s defenders occasionally drew upon other examples.��As��one audience member remarked during a��public forum on South African censorship in 1988, during the First Intifada:�����What is this maniacal preoccupation with South Africa at the moment? I mean, 200 Palestinians are being shot to death in the streets on��the West Bank you know. I hope [you] will use the same kind of energy to bring inequities in Israel to the general public.���

Delegitimization

���There is a war going on,�����journalist Peter Worthington��grimly stated in his 1987 anti-ANC documentary, ���not against apartheid, but against South Africa itself.���

South Africa never had��an��argument��that was��exactly equivalent to Israel���s ���right to exist������that is,��its supporters��did not claim that white South Africans had a positive right to maintain ethnocratic control over the state, per se. Nonetheless,��they argued that��the demands of the anti-apartheid movement��would lead��to the violent overthrow or destruction of South Africa itself, and as such posed an existential threat.��In this, the��pro-South African lobby mobilized��an implicit idea of white self-determination as threatened by African and Marxist barbarism.

Supporters of South Africa rejected the call for ���one-person-one-vote��� by pointing to neighboring African countries to show that��democracy��has not��worked elsewhere on the continent but was in fact a ���cataclysmic failure.�����Toronto Sun columnist McKenzie Porter��blamed��this��on�����the inability of native blacks to govern well a modern state,�����and predicted that��if apartheid was dismantled,�����within a decade the only civilized nation on the African continent would collapse.�����Babb warned of a ���bloodbath,��� and��in a full-page article for the��Globe and Mail��titled ���The good side of white South Africa,��� Kenneth Walker wrote that one person, one vote�����is a recipe for slaughter in South Africa.���

Predictions were often apocalyptic. Most evocative was a��pro-apartheid comic strip��by Disney cartoonist Vic Lockman, whose��panel on the ���Soviet encirclement of South Africa��� presented��an image of a giant bear with a hammer-and-sickle, moving down from the African continent upon frightened South African factories and mines who��were��completely surrounded, declaring ���We shall drive South Africa into the Sea!���

The 3D test is fatally flawed

This is only a small sample of the arguments advanced by supporters of apartheid South Africa, who insisted that��criticism of the country was unfair��in a manner��consistent with��allegations��of demonization, double standards, and delegitimization. This suggests that the ���3D test��� for distinguishing criticism of Israel from antisemitism is fatally flawed: in effect, it bundles together a number of rhetorical strategies that are not unique to Israel but have been used by other pariah states to justify��their own��oppressive practices.��These strategies are, in essence, claims about a lack of fairness, and they are likely to be advanced by any country facing significant criticism.��Using these��tired and repackaged��arguments as a weapon against Israel���s critics will not��contribute to the fight against antisemitism, but��rather��undermine human rights activism.