THIS is with reference to the article ‘Antisemitism charge’ (May 26). The advice therein about anti-Semitism is well-articulated and should be seriously considered, particularly by those who are in charge of Pakistan’s diplomacy. The question is: whose definition of anti-Semitism should we follow and to what extent?

Having spent over 50 years in the United States as a student, researcher and faculty member at several universities, I have considerable experience with those who are quick to charge people with anti-Semitism over the slightest criticism of Israel or the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Let me begin with the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. At the time, I was living in New York. An avid reader of the New York Times, I noted the dotted line in its maps showing the ceasefire line in Sinai brokered by the United Nations on Oct 22. These maps appeared for a few days with that dotted line until the Israeli forces announced that they had moved to encircle the Egyptian army and no longer recognised the ceasefire line. From then on, the New York Times ‘dutifully’ dropped that dotted line from its maps. I was called anti-Semite for the indiscretion of pointing that out.

Moving forward, what happened to Senator J. William Fulbright is another episode in this regard. He was elected by his state, Arkansas, as senator for multiple terms. Then for once, he faulted. On April 15, 1973, Fulbright, appearing on CBS television programme ‘Face the Nation’, said: “Israel controls the US Senate. The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion too much. We should be more concerned about US interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel.”

One can imagine the consequences of these words. He was up for re-election to the senate the following year. Up until then Fulbright was very much liked by the liberals in the northeast for most of the positions he had taken as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But after that statement, droves of volunteers, who were upset on Fulbright’s Middle East position, went down to Arkansas to campaign in the Democratic primary elections for Fulbright’s challenger, Governor Dale Bumpers.

Bumpers won and Fulbright’s Senate career ended there and then. Alas, he did not have the benefit of ‘saner’ advice back then. Around that time, there was election for mayor of New York City and I recall how the candidates outdid each other to show that they were more supportive of Israel than their competitors.

Then there was race for US Senate from New York. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was termed Richard Nixon’s favourite Democrat by the left-liberal magazine New Republic. As US representative at the UN, he had delivered many anti-Arab and pro-Israel speeches.

I had predicted back then that his speeches were directed not at the UN members, but rather at New York state voters. Surely, in the next elections Moynihan was duly elected.

I have had many contacts with people of the Jewish faith. Most of them are quite sensitive about Israel. They feel, understandably, that they have only Israel as their country, and Muslims and their allies around the world are out to destroy it. They sense the residual anti-Semitism in the US and Europe, and fear that Holocaust can happen again.

So they want a big, strong and invincible Israel. The more intelligent and humane among them understand that invincibility and strength will not come from expansion based on expulsion of Palestinians from their lands.

I have many Jewish friends who are critical of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and agree that apartheid is not the answer.

Hating the Jews is not quite justified, but what is also not acceptable is the act of slapping the ‘ant-Semite’ tag on anyone critical of Israeli policy of occupation of Palestine.

Syed Arif Kazmi
Karachi

Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2021