LRB Magazine »
14 Bury Place, London, WC1A 2JL. 020 7269 9030 | Home | Your Cart | Contact | Help | Cake Shop | Listen | World Lit Weekend
Printable version  |

£2.75

LRB Article PDF: No, it's not anti-semitic (<i>LRB</i> volume 25 number 16, 21 August 2003) 

LRB Article PDF: No, it's not anti-semitic (LRB volume 25 number 16, 21 August 2003)

Judith Butler

Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent.

Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002

When the president of Harvard University declared that to criticise Israel at this time and to call on universities to divest from Israel are 'actions that are anti-semitic in their effect, if not their intent', he introduced a distinction between effective and intentional anti-semitism that is controversial at best. The counter-charge has been that in making his statement, Summers has struck a blow against academic freedom, in effect, if not in intent. Although he insisted that he meant nothing censorious by his remarks, and that he is in favour of Israeli policy being 'debated freely and civilly', his words have had a chilling effect on political discourse. Among those actions which he called 'effectively anti-semitic' were European boycotts of Israel, anti-globalisation rallies at which criticisms of Israel were voiced, and fund-raising efforts for organisations of 'questionable political provenance'. Of local concern to him, however, was a divestment petition drafted by MIT and Harvard faculty members who oppose Israel's current occupation and its treatment of Palestinians. Summers asked why Israel was being 'singled out . . . among all nations' for a divestment campaign, suggesting that the singling out was evidence of anti-semitic intentions. And though he claimed that aspects of Israel's 'foreign and defence' policy 'can be and should be vigorously challenged', it was unclear how such challenges could or would take place without being construed as anti-Israel, and why these policy issues, which include occupation, ought not to be vigorously challenged through a divestment campaign. It would seem that calling for divestment is something other than a legitimately 'vigorous challenge', but we are not given any criteria by which to adjudicate between vigorous challenges that should be articulated, and those which carry the 'effective' force of anti-semitism.

LRB 21 August 2003 | PDF Download

Quantity 1 (this product is downloadable) Add to cart

Send to a friend

*

*

*


Send to a friend

Your cart

Cart is empty

View cart | Checkout

Customer Login



  Log in 

Recover password
Register for an account

Forthcoming events

February

John Lanchester

Thursday 11 February at 7.00 p.m.

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

Thursday 25 February at 7.00 p.m.

March

Evan Parker and Mark Wastell

Thursday 4 March at 7.00 p.m.

London Review of Books Winter Lectures

LRB Winter Lectures - The Rhetoric of War and Intervention

Monday 15 February at 6.30 p.m.


More Events..

Free Email Newsletter

Regular news and offers from the London Review Bookshop


Type the characters in the picture (enable images in your browser options if you can't see a picture):

Get a different code

Subscribe Go



Find us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Bookshop image