Antisemitism and Freedom of Expression

Dr. C Salek – London, 25/05/2024

Democracy and Freedom of Expression:

In his book entitled “On the Essence and Value of Democracy,”  Hans Kelsen,  who is known as “undoubtedly the leading jurist of the time” argued to convince the reader that a democratic system is the best possible guarantor of human freedom. He considered that democracy the only form of state that can breastfeed its most powerful enemies. He defended freedom, especially freedom of expression which is a cornerstone of democratic society, against all forms of infringement or assault on it.  So freedom of expression which includes speech, press, assembly, form and joins groups, artistic expression, academic expression and digital expression etc. has become the basic feature of western countries and democratic societies.

Is the Freedom of Expression at Stake?

Beginning on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on Israel, the freedom of expression has become a subject of speculation. The western countries generally guarantee the freedom of expression and enforce some restrictions on it.  So the speech that promotes hatred or discrimination  against individuals or groups based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation can be limited to protect public safety and individual dignity. Therefore, the Antisemitism is prohibited in its various forms in western countries. Furthermore, some western countries have strict laws against antisemitism and Holocaust denial such as Germany and French. In addition to the legal measures, many countries have organisations and initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism and promoting education about the Holocaust and Jewish history.

The question that recently arises, Is the right of freedom become arbitrarily restricted in Western by the concept of antisemitism?

Incidents:

To clarify this issue, some recent incidents in the western world should be reviewed.

In UK, Home Security, Suelle Braveman, has indeed condemned certain protests against Israel. The Home Secretary has supported and guided the police to take firm stance against illegal activities such as antisemitic behaviour. Braveman accused the police of being too lenient with protesters. The police, in response, defended their approach and maintained that their handling of the protest was in line with maintaining public order and safety.  They ensure that policing decisions are made based on the law and the need to protect public safety, rather than political directive. The dispute between the Home Secretary and the police has reached such a point that senior police officials in the UK have called for the law to be changed to better address issues such as antisemitism. The situation escalated to the point where Prime Minister  Rishi Sunak decided to remove Braveman from his position.

In Germany, the Minster of State for Culture and the Media, Claudia Roth, faced controversy for applauding a speech by Basel Adra, a Palestinian activist and Abraham Yakin, an Israeli Journalist,  during the Berlinale film festival. They discussed the situation in Gaza and criticised Israeli policies. Applauding the Minster was interpreted by some as an endorsement of the views expressed. Roth’s applause sparked backlash from various political figures and segment of public. They felt that her actions were inappropriate, because it could be viewed as sporting a narratives, that is critical of Israel, which could be understood as antisemitic behaviour. In response to the controversy, Roth clarified that her applause was directed towards Abraham Yakin, the Israeli speaker rather than the Palestinian activist. She emphasised that her intention was to support the contributions of the Israeli speaker, rather than endorsing political stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless the both speaker were in harmony and agreement. Yakin described the situation as apartheid situation that must end. He called for ceasefire and for political solution to end the occupation.

In USA, following the exaltation of violence between Israel and Hamas, there have been numerous protests American University campuses. These protests  often criticise Israeli policies and express for Palestinian rights.  The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the students protests at American campuses, labelling them as antisemitic. He and other Israeli officials have called on university administrations and the US-government to take stronger action against antisemitism on campuses.

In addition, there are many examples of employees who lost their jobs because of their expression of the current conflict in Gaza and Israeli military action. Many schools, collages, authorities and companies also prevented their employees from expressing their opinions on the the current conflict in Gaza. Some others prevented their employees and students from wearing any sign, such as the Palestinian flag and the keffiyeh, in schools, institutes, and workplaces. Many posts on social media were banned due to their content and their owners were banned from using the platforms for a specific period.

Multiple Interpretations of Antisemitism:

It seems clear from these examples that the concept of antisemitism has become loose. It does not only include any position against state of Israel, but also includes any criticism of Israeli government, and perhaps any stance supportive of the rights of the Palestinian people. In certain cases, it has been used as a tool to restrict freedom of expression.

It must be emphasised first of all that true antisemitism is a serious harmful form of bigotry and hate. Antisemitism as hostility, prejudice or discrimination against Jewish people should be classified as a criminal offence and punished with the most severe penalties, not just in Western but in all the countries, especially in the Arab and Islamic Countries. But it is not fair to use this concept to silence the mouths of Palestinian sympathisers and advocates of peace or Supporters of ceasefire. It is also unfair to use antisemitism to arbitrarily limit freedom of expression.

Danger of Using Antisemitism for Political Purposes:

This incorrect use of the concept of antisemitism, and using it to serve a specific agenda, is considered a disregard for the suffering of millions of Jews who were subjected to the most horrific types of persecution. It is also considered an underestimation of people’s sacrifices for the sake of establishing democratic systems and enshrining freedom of expression.

That is why the US senator Bernie Sanders criticised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s characterisation of student protest on American campuses antisemitic. He argued that Netanyahu’s use of the term to deflect criticism from his government’s policies is inappropriate and misleading. Sanders refuted Netanyahu claim, emphasising that criticising the Israeli governments policies is not antisemitic. It is the practice of expressing’s right as mandated by the American Constitution. He highlighted that expressing opposition to the polices of any government, including Israel  should not be conflated with antisemitism, as long as it does not incite violence or hate. He stated, “No, Mr Netanyahu. It is not antisemitic or pro-Hamas to point out that in a little over six months your extremist government has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000 – seventy percent of whom are women and children. It is not antisemitic to point out that bombing has completely destroyed more than 221.000 housing units in Gaza, leaving more than one million people homeless.- almost half the population.  He added, “Students are exercising their constitutional right to protest. They are standing in opposition to American policy …. Protest is not only that the right thing to do, it is the most effective to do. The focus must be on the suffering of the people in Gaza ”.

Finally, we must be aware the danger of using antisemitism for political purposes. There is no doubt that using it to serve a specific agenda may lead to the waste of its legal and moral value and content, and thus may affect its ability to protect the real victims of antisemitism in the future.