Beyond the Blood Libels: Falsifiers of History.

Natasha Hausdorff, barrister and legal director for UK Lawyers for Israel, has been increasingly vocal globally, in broadcast media and otherwise, in addressing what she terms “modern blood libels” against Israel. Natasha Hausdorff identifies four primary blood libels directed at Israel: genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and colonialism. The four blood libels are merely a modernization of historical blood libels that have targeted Jews throughout history.

On genocide, Natasha Hausdorff, argues that the term “genocide” is misapplied to Israel’s military actions, as true genocide involves the intent to completely eradicate a group.

On apartheid, the libel is challenged as it misrepresents the legal and social realities within Israel and the Palestinian territories.

On ethnic cleansing, the libel is disputed, as it often ignores the complexities of warfare and the measures taken by the Israeli Defense Forces to comply with international humanitarian law.

On colonialism, this libel intentionally ignores historical context and the legitimacy of Jewish claims to the land. Hausdorff draws parallels between modern accusations against Israel and historical anti-Semitic tropes, citing examples from history where Jews have been scapegoated for societal issues.

Natasha Hausdorff dismantles these blood libels by providing legal context and historical clarity, emphasizing the importance of understanding the intentions behind military actions and the need for accurate representations of Israel’s legal standing in international law. Her work aims to combat misinformation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within both legal frameworks and public discourse and unmask what the purpose and intent is behind these propaganda words used daily by those who seek to wipe the State of Israel off the map and annihilate the Jewish people globally.

Now, many historians have demonstrated the manufactured, negationist and the history falsification character of such slanderous characterizations.

Genocide.

Historians and scholars have argued that accusations of genocide against Israel can be seen as a modern form of blood libel, drawing on historical anti-Semitic tropes and delegitimizing the Jewish state. Some notable figures in this discourse include Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, Eugene Kontorovich, Ruth Wisse, and Magda Teter.

Alan Dershowitz, in his book The Case for Israel, argues that accusations of genocide against Israel reflect a continuation of historical anti-Semitic narratives, often exaggerated or unfounded, and similar to the blood libel tradition that has historically targeted Jews.

Daniel Pipes argues that allegations of genocide are often rooted in misconceptions and serve to incite hatred against Jews, paralleling the historical function of blood libel.

Eugene Kontorovich examines legal claims regarding Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories and argues that many accusations of genocide are based on misinterpretations of international law, echoing historical blood libels.

Ruth Wisse critiques the portrayal of Israel in academic and media contexts, arguing that accusations of genocide often lack context and perpetuate anti-Semitic myths.

Magda Teter explores the historical context of blood libels and their resurgence in modern discourse, highlighting how similar narratives can emerge in contemporary discussions about Israel.

Omer Bartov, a historian specializing in genocide and Holocaust studies, has warned that certain statements from Israeli officials could be interpreted as indicating genocidal intent. His perspective highlights the complexities surrounding the language used in political discourse regarding Israel and Palestine.

William Schabas, a legal scholar, has commented on the use of the term “genocide” in relation to Israel’s actions, suggesting that it is often employed to embarrass Israel rather than for legal precision. He emphasizes the importance of careful language when discussing such serious accusations.

Apartheid.

Historians have demonstrated that Israel is not in any fashion an “apartheid state”.

Benny Morris, an influential Israeli historian, argues that equating Israeli policies with apartheid undermines the legitimacy of any potential peace agreement based on a two-state solution.

Richard Goldstone, a former South African judge and UN rapporteur, publicly rejected the label of apartheid for Israel, asserting that while there are separations between Israeli Jews and Arabs, these do not constitute apartheid as defined under international law.

San Francisco University Faculty, in 2008, signed a letter asserting that “The State of Israel has nothing in common with apartheid” within its national territory. They described Israel as a liberal democracy where Arab citizens enjoy civil, religious, social, and political equality, arguing that comparisons to apartheid South Africa are misleading and part of a broader campaign of “malicious propaganda” against Israel.

Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, scholars, argue that while there are inequalities between Jewish and Arab citizens in Israel, labeling the entire state as apartheid overlooks the complexities of Israeli democracy and the rights afforded to Arab citizens within it.

The main arguments against the apartheid label include the democratic framework, the complexity of conflict, and the legal definitions. Historians who argue against this characterization emphasize Israel’s democratic elements, the rights of Arab citizens, and the multifaceted nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, contributing to a broader understanding of the issues at play beyond simplistic labels.

Furthermore, numerous internationally renowned historians have demonstrated that South African Jews played an important role in ending the Apartheid in South Africa.

Historians like Gideon Shimoni, Richard Mendelsohn, David Shain, Hannah Arendt, and Eugene C. O’Neill have extensively studied the role of South African Jews in the anti-apartheid movement. Gideon Shimoni’s book, Community and Conscience:

The Jews in Apartheid South Africa provides a comprehensive analysis of the Jewish community’s relationship with the apartheid regime, highlighting the paradox of Jewish privilege under apartheid and their eventual involvement in resistance movements.

Richard Mendelsohn‘s research emphasizes the disproportionate representation of Jews in anti-apartheid activism, including notable figures who participated in key trials against apartheid leaders.

David Shain’s work focuses on antisemitism in South Africa and its historical context, analyzing how Jewish South Africans engaged with the anti-apartheid movement while also facing social exclusion from other white communities.

Hannah Arendt‘s writings on totalitarianism and moral responsibility have influenced discussions about Jewish participation in anti-apartheid efforts, providing a framework for understanding the ethical implications of being part of a privileged group while opposing systemic injustice.

Eugene C. O’Neill’s research highlights individual stories of Jewish activists who played crucial roles in organizations like the African National Congress (ANC) and other anti-apartheid groups.

Their work highlights the duality of Jewish identity in South Africa, navigating both privilege and persecution, and sheds light on the moral complexities faced by individuals within a community grappling with its historical legacy.

Colonialism & Ethnic cleansing.

Several historians and scholars have addressed the accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israel.

Omer Bartov has engaged in debates about whether certain statements from Israeli officials could be construed as genocidal intent. While he acknowledges the seriousness of such claims, he also highlights the complexities involved in labeling actions as genocide, suggesting that doing so can sometimes reflect historical biases.

Martin Shaw has discussed the implications of labeling events like the “Nakba” as genocide. He argues for a nuanced understanding of such terms, emphasizing that while there may be patterns of violence and displacement, the historical context is critical in assessing these actions.

John Docker has written extensively about the “Nakba“, framing it within discussions of genocide. He suggests that the systematic displacement of Palestinians during this period fits within definitions of genocide, yet acknowledges the contentious nature of these discussions.

David N. Myers has explored how historical narratives about Jews and their actions have been manipulated to serve political ends. He discusses how contemporary accusations against Israel can reflect long-standing anti-Jewish sentiments, suggesting that they function similarly to traditional blood libels.

Several historians have also demonstrated how the techniques used by pro-Palestinian and jihadists movemetns such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement, Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Al-Haq, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), Palestine Legal, Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP), Palestinian NGOs Network (PNGO), Adalah, are smears and blood libels.

These movements’ smear and propaganda feed themselves and reactualize millennia-old antisemitic tropes found in founding texts such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This notorious antisemitic text has been widely discredited but continues to propagate harmful stereotypes about Jews. Several historians and scholars have addressed how the themes within this document and similar accusations of ethnic cleansing or genocide against Jews and Israel echo historical antisemitic tropes.

Norman Cohn, in his seminal work Warrant for Genocide, discusses the origins and impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, arguing that it serves as a foundational text for modern conspiracy theories about Jewish global domination. He highlights how such narratives have been used to justify violence and discrimination against Jews throughout history.

Deborah Lipstadt, a historian specializing in Holocaust studies, has written extensively about Holocaust denial and antisemitism. In her book Denying the Holocaust, she addresses how the Protocols and similar texts have been used to distort Jewish history and promote hatred, framing these narratives as part of a broader pattern of antisemitic propaganda.

Daniel Goldhagen, in Hitler’s Willing Executioners, explores the roots of German antisemitism, including the influence of texts like the Protocols. He argues that such works contributed to a culture of hatred that enabled the Holocaust, illustrating how these tropes have historical roots in European anti-Jewish sentiment.

David Nirenberg, in his work Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, explores how historical narratives about Jews have evolved over time, including references to domination and conspiracy. He discusses how these themes manifest in modern discourse about Israel and contribute to ongoing antisemitism.

The Protocols gained notoriety in the early 20th century and have been cited as justification for violence against Jews and have contributed to widespread antisemitism globally. Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a prominent Arab nationalist leader during the British Mandate in Palestine and his collaboration with Nazi Germany during World War II. He often echoed themes from the Protocols, capitalizing on fears that Jews were conspiring to dominate Palestine and the broader Middle East.

The circulation of the Protocols among Arab intellectuals and politicians, including al-Husseini, helped cement antisemitic attitudes within some segments of Arab society. Reports indicate that copies were distributed in Arab newspapers, further embedding these conspiratorial ideas into political discourse.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion serves as a historical example of how antisemitic tropes can be weaponized for political purposes. Figures like Mohammed Al-Husseini utilized these narratives to galvanize opposition against Jewish communities in Palestine, framing their existence as part of a broader conspiracy.

These historians collectively highlight how accusations against Israel regarding genocide and ethnic cleansing, apartheid and colonialism echo the themes and structures of traditional blood libels, serving as tools for propaganda and delegitimization. Their work emphasizes the need for critical examination of such claims within the broader context of historical antisemitism.