FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Trivializing Anti-Semitism

by

Following the publication of a study from Brandeis University—“Antisemitism and the College Campus: Perceptions and Realities” – Ha’aretz reported that “Three Quarters of US and Canadian College Students Exposed to Antisemitism.” Strangely, although I have been living and studying in two different states of the US for over four years now, I have never heard of any case of antisemitism. In Israel, the depiction of antisemitism as a rapidly increasing phenomenon is circulated by cynical politicians, mainly from the political Right. Unfortunately, rather than expose the true scope of antisemitism, the Brandeis research similarly participates in an orchestrated campaign aimed to silence critics of Israel.

Its methodology, for one, is fundamentally flawed. One assumes that a report on antisemitism in North American campuses would be based on a diverse sample of Jewish college students. Instead, “the survey targeted a sample of applicants to summer 2015 Taglit-Birthright Israel trips.” A more proper sample that would reflect the seriousness of the issue would poll Jews of a variety of backgrounds, including those critical of or indifferent to Taglit.

An even bigger issue from which the research suffers is known as the self-selection bias. The study itself concedes that “Political conservatives were also more likely to see hostility toward Jews as a problem than moderates or liberals.” The results come as no surprise then, since the sample set proves conservative. Of those polled, only some 13% believed Israel violates Palestinian human rights. But within academia, as opposed to the Israeli public discourse, the violation of Palestinian human rights is an undeniable fact, documented even by ultra-Zionist scholars. The report claims to represent the experience of Jewish students in North America. However, with all its statistical pyrotechnics, it actually studies the views of a minority of respondents (25%) among a self-selected group of highly un-critical supporters of Israel, thus greatly skewing results from the outset. The report admits that “Connection to Israel is the strongest predictor of perceiving a hostile environment toward Israel and Jews on campus.” According to the respondents’ unawareness of the reality in Palestine, we can assume that connection with the Israeli Right was the strongest predictor of replying to the survey.

Despite the title of the report, in several notable instances the researchers conflate “hostility toward Jews and Israel”—as though they are synonymous, thereby contributing to the most prominent feature of Israel’s “public diplomacy.” Even the image on the report’s front cover depicts a protester with an “Israel” sign. But the attempt to collapse the categories “Anti-Israeli” and antisemitic does not hold water. The researchers acknowledge the differences between Anti-Israelism and antisemitism but fail, or refuse, to address these differences properly. As is the case on page 15 of the report, the researchers state that “Canadian universities, schools in the California state system…are over-represented among those schools with the highest average levels of hostility toward Israel.” But the words “and Jews” were mysteriously added to this finding regarding California and Canadian universities when placed on the first page of the report summary.

The research’s findings ultimately contradict its most basic assumptions. For example, only a minority of the respondents (27%) “defined criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitic.” But the research measures antisemitism by asking students whether they have been exposed “at one time during the past year to at least one of six anti-Semitic statements,” which includes the following statement: “Israelis behave ‘like Nazis’ toward the Palestinians.” It is without question that such a statement is ugly and ludicrous; however, it addresses Israel, and hence, according to the students themselves, has little to do with antisemitism.

While the report claims to “explore the extent to which criticism toward Israel evolves into antisemitism,” it does not successfully differentiate between the two phenomena and thus plays into the hands of Israel’s far Right discourse. Of course, governments like to wage wars without having to deal with anti-war protests, may it be Kent State in 1970 or UCLA in 2014. But the Israeli government’s wish to censor protests against its actions should not dictate the scholarly measuring of antisemitism. Unfortunately, the study follows the cynical and paranoiac logic of Israel’s current leaders. It is aimed to silence condemnation of the Israeli government as antisemitic in nature. The marriage of Israel’s Right and the supposedly unbiased institutions of academic research has produced a dangerously distorted narrative of rampant antisemitism, evinced in reports like this one. It ultimately trivializes the rare but real acts of antisemitism for the benefit of the most extreme government in Israel’s history.

Most students I have met and taught know better. Many support Israel but are aware of its ongoing occupation and its violations of Human Rights. And most importantly, as the study itself finds, they refuse to be blamed for Israel’s actions. The “75%” study is a scholarly debacle that reminds us that there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. The Brandeis report may gain headlines but draws a hysteric portrait that does not reflect the real situation in North American campuses. Instead, it strengthens a cynical hasbara campaign, Israel’s only reply to its critics.

More articles by:

Robert Eisinger received his BA in Philosophy and Literature from Tel-Aviv University and MA in Middle Eastern Studies from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

February 21, 2018
Cecil Bothwell
Billy Graham and the Gospel of Fear
Ajamu Baraka
Venezuela: Revenge of the Mad-Dog Empire
Edward Hunt
Treating North Korea Rough
Binoy Kampmark
Meddling for Empire: the CIA Comes Clean
Ron Jacobs
Stamping Out Hunger
Ammar Kourany – Martha Myers
So, You Think You Are My Partner? International NGOs and National NGOs, Costs of Asymmetrical Relationships
Michael Welton
1980s: From Star Wars to the End of the Cold War
Judith Deutsch
Finkelstein on Gaza: Who or What Has a Right to Exist? 
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
War Preparations on Venezuela as Election Nears
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Military Realities
Steve Early
Refinery Safety Campaign Frays Blue-Green Alliance
Ali Mohsin
Muslims Face Increasing Discrimination, State Surveillance Under Trump
Julian Vigo
UK Mass Digital Surveillance Regime Ruled Illegal
Peter Crowley
Revisiting ‘Make America Great Again’
Andrew Stewart
Black Panther: Afrofuturism Gets a Superb Film, Marvel Grows Up and I Don’t Know How to Review It
CounterPunch News Service
A Call to Celebrate 2018 as the Year of William Edward Burghardt Du Bois by the Saturday Free School
February 20, 2018
Nick Pemberton
The Gun Violence the Media Shows Us and the State Violence They Don’t
John Eskow
Sympathy for the Drivel: On the Vocabulary of President Nitwit
John Steppling
Trump, Putin, and Nikolas Cruz Walk Into a Bar…
John W. Whitehead
America’s Cult of Violence Turns Deadly
Ishmael Reed
Charles F. Harris: He Popularized Black History
Will Podmore
Paying the Price: the TUC and Brexit
George Burchett
Plumpes Denken: Crude thinking
Binoy Kampmark
The Caring Profession: Peacekeeping, Blue Helmets and Sexual Abuse
Lawrence Wittner
The Trump Administration’s War on Workers
David Swanson
The Question of Sanctions: South Africa and Palestine
Walter Clemens
Murderers in High Places
Dean Baker
How Does the Washington Post Know that Trump’s Plan Really “Aims” to Pump $1.5 Trillion Into Infrastructure Projects?
February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Mueller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OXFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail