There is an interesting paragraph about anti-Semitism in the book, and I would like share it with you.The book tries to clarify the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Let us read it together: “The distinction between legitimate criticism, however, and anti-Semitism is usually quite clear and can be determined by what Natan Sharansky calls the 3-D test -- committing any one ‘D’ is usually indicative of anti-Semitism. The first D is the test for demonizing: Are Israel and its leaders being demonized and are their actions blown out of proportion? Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is one example of demonization. The second D is the double standard test -- as when Israel is singled out for condemnation at the United Nations for perceived human rights abuses while nations that violate human rights on a massive scale, such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, are not even mentioned. The third D is the test of delegitimization: Questioning Israel’s right to exist is always anti-Semitic. Unlike genuine critics, anti-Semites are not interested in improving Israeli society; their goal is to delegitimize the state in the short run and to destroy it in the long run. There is nothing Israel can do to satisfy these critics.”
Interesting, is it not? I wonder if you could pass the test. If you look at it from this angle, most criticism of Israel can easily be qualified as anti-Semitic. It is not my intention to discuss whether all elements in this test are valid or not. There is no doubt that there is some truth in it and that it provides food for thought. I think it also presents a good test for other kinds of criticism.
As we expected after the flotilla incident, there was much media coverage of Turkey, leading political party the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The chorus has started to sing the old song: “Islamist Turkey overreaches,” “Turkey’s clash of civilizations” and “Islamism 2.0” are just a few titles out of tens of thousands of articles and posts with exactly the same “theme” that have appeared on the worldwide web since the outbreak of the flotilla crisis. With the UN’s newly endorsed sanctions on Iran and Turkey voting against sanctions, sure, the chorus will be singing louder. These articles were written by some columnists who, I am quite sure, will endorse the accuracy of the test. I strongly recommend applying this test to these articles and others that declared Erdoğan and his ruling party Islamist.
I modify the test like this: Is the AKP and its leader being demonized and are their actions blown out of proportion? There is no doubt about that. The double standard test: If, for example, the Iran-Turkey-Brazil nuke deal was achieved by two European countries, would your reaction be the same? Would the UN impose the sanctions in spite of the deal? The third D is the test of delegitimization: questioning the AKP’s right to rule the country by constantly alleging that they have a hidden agenda and that one day they will show their real face. I think there is nothing the AKP can do to satisfy these critics.
Like Mr. Bard said there is, of course, legitimate criticism of the AKP on many different grounds, but this rotten, prehistoric claim about the hidden agenda of the ruling party is extremely Islamophobic, and we have had enough of it. Stop hitting below the belt.
