Russian Anti-Semitism Rears Its Head over Syria

Sept. 27 2018

Last week, Israeli jets struck Iranian arms warehouses in northwestern Syria. The Syrian military responded—after the jets were already out of range—with antiaircraft missiles, one of which brought down a Russian surveillance plane, killing fifteen crew members. After initially blaming Israel for the fiasco, Moscow struck a more conciliatory tone, but only temporarily. It has now pledged to provide the Syrian army with its S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which could make it more difficult for the IDF to operate over Syria’s skies. And there has also been some all-too-familiar rhetoric on the part of Russian politicians and media outlets, as Ariel Bolstein notes:

The false accusation against Israel has awakened the ghosts of anti-Semitism that always existed in Russian society and which the ruling powers have made an effort to hide in recent decades. Russian television stations are permitting themselves to make harsh statements about Israel and a number of speakers, including senior delegates in the Russian parliament, have demanded that military air bases in the Jewish state be bombed in retribution. Until last week’s incident, such remarks were effectively prohibited in public in Russia, because officials were certain that the person at the top—President Vladimir Putin—objected to them.

But the new situation in which a major government entity in the form of the Russian Defense Ministry talks about Israel in language reminiscent of the cold war has unleashed anti-Semitic language in Russia in general.

The Russians’ unwillingness to accept the facts, along with their desire to insist that Israel is responsible, demonstrate that they intend to use the incident to squeeze out the diplomatic maximum in Syria. They will try to limit Israel’s operational freedom, albeit without getting dragged into a direct conflict. The manufactured crisis over the shot-down plane will be used as an excuse to bestow advanced military capabilities on the Syrian regime, such as the S-300 missile system.

In a situation like this, it is important that Israel stand its ground and keep operating as it did before the incident: on the one hand maintaining close contact with Russia about diplomatic and military matters, especially at the highest levels, while on the other hand allowing the IDF to operate in Syria as needed. When Moscow realizes that Israel will not capitulate, the understandings that were in place before the incident will remain in effect.

You have 2 free articles left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Israel Hayom

More about: Anti-Semitism, Israel & Zionism, Israeli Security, Russia, Syrian civil war

For Israelis, Anti-Zionism Kills

Dec. 14 2018

This week alone, anti-Zionists have killed multiple Israelis in a series of attacks; these follow the revelations that Hizballah succeeded in digging multiple attack tunnels from Lebanon into northern Israel. Simultaneously, some recent news stories in the U.S. have occasioned pious reminders that anti-Zionism should not be conflated with anti-Semitism. Bret Stephens notes that it is anti-Zionists, not defenders of Israel, who do the most to blur that distinction:

Israelis experience anti-Zionism in a different way from, say, readers of the New York Review of Books: not as a bold sally in the world of ideas, but as a looming menace to their earthly existence, held at bay only through force of arms. . . . Anti-Zionism might have been a respectable point of view before 1948, when the question of Israel’s existence was in the future and up for debate. Today, anti-Zionism is a call for the elimination of a state—details to follow regarding the fate befalling those who currently live in it. . . .

Anti-Zionism is ideologically unique in insisting that one state, and one state only, doesn’t just have to change. It has to go. By a coincidence that its adherents insist is entirely innocent, this happens to be the Jewish state, making anti-Zionists either the most disingenuous of ideologues or the most obtuse. When then-CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill called last month for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” and later claimed to be ignorant of what the slogan really meant, it was hard to tell in which category he fell.

Does this make someone with Hill’s views an anti-Semite? It’s like asking whether a person who believes in [the principle of] separate-but-equal must necessarily be a racist. In theory, no. In reality, another story. The typical aim of the anti-Semite is legal or social discrimination against some set of Jews. The explicit aim of the anti-Zionist is political or physical dispossession.

What’s worse: to be denied membership in a country club because you’re Jewish, or driven from your ancestral homeland and sovereign state for the same reason? If anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are meaningfully distinct (I think they are not), the human consequences of the latter are direr.

You have 1 free article left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at New York Times

More about: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Hizballah, Israel & Zionism, Palestinian terror