Israel’s rule is harsher than that of other countries, says the Jewish author of a book on anti-Semitism

• “Clear contempt”: The Vatican is investigating a guard over an alleged anti-Semitic incident
• “Inadequate” position: France summons the US ambassador after “unacceptable” statements about anti-Semitism

You’re making the comparison to structural racism. What do you think are the similarities and differences?

This is not a comparison between phenomena in terms of the seriousness or degree of cruelty of racism against blacks and indigenous people. What seems very clear to me is that these phenomena are equally structural in that they constitute a kind of collective imagination. Anti-Semitism is an ancient hostility, based on prejudices, stereotypes and some conspiracy theories, which is on the evil shelf of humanity. It is used when there is a need to find the culprits in certain facts and circumstances that are multifactorial, complex and caused by various factors.

Why did you decide to write it now?

The book arises from the need to understand how this phenomenon has persisted for so long and why it was reborn with such force during this period of conflict in the Middle East. The oldest idea of ​​anti-Semitism is religious anti-Semitism. From the 19th century onwards, racial anti-Semitism emerged. What has happened recently is that the State of Israel, founded in 1948, has become a regional power, and the virus of anti-Semitism has taken the form of a new discourse. The great appeal of our time is the call for the universality of human rights, and it is no coincidence that Israel is the world champion in bringing complaints to the International Court in The Hague for human rights violations that are often considered less serious than what other countries do. The country was the victim of a very serious terrorist attack, and immediately after the response, Israel began to come under violent attack. What we are witnessing is a kind of revival of old prejudices, old stereotypes, and old conspiracy theories.

In the book, she criticizes the use of the term “genocide” in relation to what happened in Gaza. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee classified what is happening as genocide based on four facts, including the intentional causing of living conditions that would cause the destruction of a people. Do you disagree with this understanding?

I think there are exaggerations on Israel’s part, the issue of proportionality, especially over time, is questionable, but I don’t think there is a clear description of an ultimate goal of annihilation. You only have to analyze the position of the UN Human Rights Committee with regard to other countries that routinely violate human rights to see that an unequal double standard is being used against the State of Israel. This does not mean that Benjamin Netanyahu’s foreign policy cannot be criticized. It seems to me that what is happening is the transfer of this political responsibility from the rulers to the Israeli people and the Jews in the diaspora. The judgment made by social networks and, above all, the press on a certain ideological bias is harsher regarding Israel than on other countries that violate human rights.

To this day, much of the criticism of Zionism relates to the expulsion of Palestinians from that region that became the State of Israel. However, you insist that anti-Zionism is almost always anti-Semitism. Why?

The two main characteristics of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are deliberate or guilty distortion of facts and double standards. An example of this is when they say that Israel is a unique premise for creating a nation-state in the Middle East. It was incredibly common in that historical period, of European post-colonialism in North Africa and the Middle East, for nation-states to be created as practical solutions to satisfy those peoples’ right to self-determination. Another example occurs in attacks on recent Israeli actions. When there is a violent response by France or the United States to terrorism, criticizing them does not at any time question the legitimacy of the state’s existence. But when it comes directly to the Israeli conflict against Hamas, the first thing people say is, “Actually, they occupied those lands without justification, and they created a Palestinian diaspora.” Unconscious hostility turns into a more condemning judgment. Elites in Brazil and other countries tend to be more tolerant of anti-Semitism than other forms of discrimination against minorities.

Do you think this leniency is greater on the left or on the right?

At this point, anti-Semitism became manifold. The European right remains virulently anti-Semitic to this day. But after the Six-Day War in 1967, the Soviet Union also began to embrace this doctrine. Since then, the yellow flag has appeared indicating that Israel is the preferred ally of the United States and that it will be an arm of North American imperialism in the Middle East. The Soviet Union even established chairs in its universities to prove that Zionism itself was a form of racism, a narrative that to this day tempts many on the left. There is an intellectual elite that embraces a narrative that the creation of the State of Israel itself was the product of a colonial movement. It is incredible how closely this novel adheres to the North American and Brazilian university environment, not to mention the European environment of the time. It is a phenomenon of anti-Americanism turning into anti-Semitism.

Do you see anti-Semitic practices in President Lula’s government?