Sir, – The writers of "AntiSemitism must not be elevated over other racism" (Opinion & Analysis, December 16th) prove without doubt the importance of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) response by using the definition of anti-Semitism as a platform to launch an attack against Israel. In fact, half of the article deals with the definition while the other half simply argues the BDS case for boycotting Israel.
There is no question that antiSemitism is a form of racism. The writers, however, fail to recognise that one of the reasons the State of Israel was established was to address the specific problem of anti-Semitism in the world and only after the nations of the world refused to accept Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust or survivors trying to find a new home – Ireland being a specific example in both cases. Thus, the state’s existence is inexorably related to Jewish history and the lessons it teaches us. Consequently, attacking the Jewish State on the basis of this is a form of modern anti-Semitism; the desire to contravene the right of the state to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people is a form of anti-Semitism.
To direct accusations against Israel that are not directed at other states, to hold Israel to a moral code unexpected of any other nation or state is to discriminate against the Jewish State. Making Nazi comparisons and accusing Jews of dual loyalty (to mention two IHRA definition examples) are classic examples of anti-Semitism. Denying the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state is not mere “criticism” – it is anti-Semitism.
To use lies and misrepresentations that involve words such as fascist, genocide or apartheid against a state whose army has been described by military experts as the most moral in the world, whose government includes Arab members from across the ideological spectrum, where Muslims, Christians, LGBT, and any other minorities enjoy freedoms unheard of in any country in the region, is not only anti-Semitic – it is defamation, pure and simple. – Yours etc.
LIRONNE BAR SADEH,
Ambassador of Israel,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – Sue Pentel and Jacob Woolf cite “Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, anti-Semitic”.
This statement, taken from the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism, is one of the general examples provided describing what is not considered to be anti-Semitism.
However, they omit to mention the more specific counter example: “Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality”.
Yet, as Omar Barghouti – one of the anti-Israel BDS movement’s co-founders – has repeatedly made clear, their aim is to achieve a one-state solution encompassing all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories, effectively calling for the elimination of the State of Israel. – Yours, etc,
DAVID M
ABRAHAMSON,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.