The Israelis’ war on the leader of the Labour Party is really a war on free speech that’s meant to silence critics of Israel in the U.K. and elsewhere, argues As’ad AbuKhalil.
By As’ad AbuKhalil
Special to Consortium News
In the last few decades, public opinion in the West has shifted from the early, post- World War II period. Support for Israel has declined while support for the Palestinians has increased. This shift has been particularly pronounced among youth, especially those who are liberals or leftists.
The view was much different when Israel established its occupation of Palestine in 1948. But Israel has committed too many massacres and perpetrated too many invasions to maintain the status quo. Its war crimes have been televised too often for the world not to notice and popular opinion not to change. Mainstream print media no longer can control the narrative and mold the coverage of Israel and its offenses like it once did.
Still, while the base of the Socialist Party in France or the Labour Party in the United Kingdom has shifted in a more pro-Palestinian direction, much of the leadership of those parties continues to uphold Israeli dogmas. These are the same dogmas to which all ruling parties of Europe and the U.S. and its establishment media have adhered to since the occupation began.
The U.S. is a prime example. Although the Democratic base has become more sympathetic to the Palestinians (and less supportive of Israel), the leadership of the Democratic Party has not wavered in its support for military and economic aid to Israel and for its unconditional support for Israeli wars and invasions with the mantra that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” This fact remains as true with Bernie Sanders as it is does with Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
Defining Anti-Semitism
Corbyn: Accused.
British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is the exception. Unlike Francois Hollande of France, Corbyn represents the progressive, youthful base of the his party on domestic and foreign policies.
His political rise poses a real problem for Israel. Therefore Tel Aviv’s latest target is Corbyn. Israel finds his stance worrisome because if he were to be elected prime minister, a real possibility, his views could influence a major shift in the foreign policies of other European ruling parties.
Various attempts therefore have been made to malign Corbyn and misconstrue his statements as racist. Corbyn obliged by giving a long interview to an Israeli publication in which he declared support for the occupation state.
But the more he gave in, the more the pressure increased. No matter what he had to say, it was not enough, and the accusation of anti-Semitism has been hurled in his face in an increasingly frenzied pace.
Corbyn’s repeated denunciations of anti-Semitism haven’t been sufficient because this is not really about anti-Semitism and its repugnance. The beef that British Zionists (and other Zionists especially in Israel) have with Corbyn is with his views on Palestine. He was asked to accept—without hesitation or equivocation—an Israeli definition of anti-Semitism, which was provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
Insistence on accepting this definition is an attempt to force Corbyn to tailor his statements and beliefs on the Arab-Israeli question to the Israeli position. The Israeli establishment wants to prevent grass-roots views on Palestine among British progressives from being reflected in the stances of party leaders.
The “working” definition of the IHRA in many ways is quite accurate: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” This statement is indisputable and sums up the various forms of hatred of Jewish people.
Exaggerating Jewish power in society and believing in a global Jewish conspiracy (or promoting grotesque fakes, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) are also manifestations of anti-Semitism. These ideas are not included in the IHRA definition (although some examples in the document later cover those forms).
Other examples the IHRA cites—such as “calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist religion”—cannot be debated. These vile sentiments are anti-Semitic and indeed represent a repugnant form of hatred. Of course anti-Semitism includes “accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group.” (This same blanket denouncement of a group of people applies to Islamophobia today, incidentally.)
Prejudice vs. Propaganda
The IHRA’s definition of ant-Semitism falters in its “guiding” examples and “illustrations” of anti-Semitism. In this regard, political considerations have been inserted into the definition. Combatting anti-Semitism always is—or should be—a humanitarian concern that goes beyond any political consideration. However, the IHRA reveals a political agenda: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
This is where we enter into the realm of Israeli propaganda. If one is to declare support for the rights of all religious groups to self-determination except the Jewish people, that would be anti-Semitism. But not every denial of religious rights of self-determination is anti-Semitic. What if one is opposed to the rights of self-determination for all religious groups without exception because one believes that the right of self-determination should be a political, and not religious, right?
Self-determination is tied to nationalist attachment to a piece of land. One has to ensure that a right of self-determination of one people does not impede or obstruct the right of self-determination of another people on the same piece of land. Maxime Rodinson, the French historian and sociologist, once observed, sarcastically, that there is no reason for one to oppose the establishment of a Jewish state, say, on the moon.
To support the right of Jews to self-determination when this self-determination has become bound up with Palestine—and only Palestine, when it wasn’t before the First Zionist Congress in 1897—is to deprive the native population of Palestine from their own right to self-determination.
Opposing the right of self-determination to Jews is not anti-Semitic if one is a) concerned about the right of the native population who were the original inhabitants of the lands or b) opposed to religious rights of self-determination as a matter of secular principle. If I am opposed to Muslim right of self-determination in California, can that be considered Islamophobic, if we follow the same Israeli logic?
As far as declaring Israel a racist state, that is hardly anti-Semitic. Remember, a majority of nations (75 to 35) in the world voted in the General Assembly of the United Nations in November 1975 (long before the U.S. imposed its will on the U.N. after the demise of the Soviet bloc) for the “Zionism-is-racism” resolution (which then was repealed in 1991). That is not in itself anti-Semitic.
Similarly, to accuse the Iranian regime or the Saudi regime of sexism or of repression is not Islamophobic. To criticize a state, or even to work for the dismantlement of its political institution, is not an act of hostility against the people of the state, even if that state—be it Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran—may speak on behalf of the entire members of a particular religion in the world. (Just last week, the Saudi regime adopted the Israeli playbook and declared that any criticism of the regime is an insult to Islam and to Muslims).
Laws and practices in Israel are racist. Labeling them as such does not malign all Jewish people because all Jewish people should not be held responsible for the actions and crimes of the state of Israel. just as criticizing the misogyny of the Saudi regime is not Islamophobic. (There are, of course, critics of Israel who are anti-Semitic just as there are critics of Saudi Arabia or Iran who are Islamophobic, but the criticism in itself is not necessarily a form of prejudice ).
On the contrary, to blame all Jews around the world collectively for the crimes and racism of Israel is anti-Semitism. And the Alliance concedes this last point, although it does not fit with the last example provided above.
Weaponizing the Holocaust
In recent years, Israel has resorted to classic manipulation tactics, perfected over decades, that conflate legitimate criticism about Israel with anti-Semitism. From early on in the history of Israeli immigration to Palestine, Israel attributed Palestinian opposition to its virtual invasion of Palestine to anti-Semitism—as if Palestinians would have been less opposed if Christians, Buddhist, or even other Muslims, were the ones taking over their homeland.
That Israel’s establishment took place in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust made it easier for the Israeli occupation state to present the takeover of Palestine as a tribute to Holocaust victims. Palestine was not the only place where a haven for Jewish refugees could be found. The takeover treated the native inhabitants of Palestine as though they didn’t exist.
Successive Palestinian and Arab leaders resisting this takeover have been compared to Adolf Hitler. Amos Oz and Elie Wiesel never hesitated to equate the Palestinian national movement with Nazism. Benjamin Netanyahu recently decided to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust and to instead blame Haj Amin Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem from 1921-1948, for the designs and execution of Nazi war crimes. The more Israel finds itself in an untenable position, given the changes in world public opinion in favor of Palestinians and their rights, the more Israel and Israelis worldwide invoke the memory of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism to silence critics.
Husseini: Worse than Hitler, says Netanyahu.
The question of comparing Israeli policies and actions with those of the Nazis is not a simple one. There is indeed a uniqueness to the horrors of the Holocaust that require special respect for its victims. To throw around the word “rape” in situations where there is no rape, is offensive to victims of rape. Similarly, one should not use the word “holocaust” casually because it connotes one of the worst crimes of the last century.
But Israelis can’t have it both ways. If the reason for their rejection of a comparison between Israel and the Nazi regime is out of respect for the victims of the Holocaust, then why did most—if not all—Israeli organizations (in the U.S. and elsewhere) popularize the comparison between the Syrian regime and the Nazi regime over the last few years of the Syrian war? Why do Israelis compare the Palestinian national movement to Nazism?
The Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. took a leading role in the propaganda production about Syria. Shouldn’t that be considered anti-Semitic, if a comparison between Israel and the Nazi regime is anti-Semitic? Either we reject any analogy between the Nazi regime and any other regime regardless of how criminal it is, or we accept it as part of the propaganda of war. Israelis can’t ban others from what they themselves permit themselves to do.
True Lies and False Virtue
Propaganda is how Israel still manages to find new and different ways to silence debate and ostracize dissent. Israel has campaigned to deny tenure to professors who are critical of its abuses (see Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, Steven Salaita and others). Israelis say the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement should be legally banned and have lobbied state governments in the United States to ban boycotting Israel, which the ACLU among others see as a violation of the First Amendment. Israel has also launched an app that directs users to make negative social media comments. In general, Israel wants to impose a rigid uniformity of discourse and terms about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Israelis fight—and kill—Arabs all over the world (Israel has not been shy about murdering Arab scientists, and U.S. media casually report on those assassinations without comments or repudiation). Arabs and non-Arabs cannot speak and write uncensored thoughts about the Arab-Israeli conflict without risking severe repression from the Israeli occupation state, including censorship on social media.
The war on Corbyn is a prominent part of Israel’s war on free speech in the U.K. and elsewhere.
Corbyn and other politicians should be expected to never resort to anti-Semitic expressions. But so far only evidence of his pro-Palestinian statements have been found and that should never be confused with the scourge of genuine anti-Semitism.
As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the Historical Dictionary of Lebanon (1998), Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New “War on Terrorism” (2002), and The Battle for Saudi Arabia (2004). He also runs the popular blog The Angry Arab News Service.
f you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
Dear Consortium News Team you are an eye opener, with great knowledge of the facts, unbiased and neutral, courageous,on the side of justice, the truth, the freedom of press and the freedom of speech. You are amazing! Thank you ! for defending our genius Julian Assange’ s rights.My family and I want him free to continuous his outstanding work, without intimidation and without fear of being extradited to the US, where justice is very unlikely.
With all our repect
Elsa Collins, Alan Collins and Family
WHY is it that the Holocaust is the worst crime in history?
Why are the destruction of Native communities, the slave trade or the horrors of imperialism/colonialism that led to massive death in the colonies not regarded as horrid crimes as well.
I think it is because what the Europeans do the “natives” is never seen as equal to what happens to white/Europeans
What a shame that so many more people lack the intestinal fortitude to make similar comments. No, standing up for Palestinians does not mean being anti Semite, it means being a human being with feelings for the downtrodden. Shame on all those smearing Corbyn…shame.
Fed up with the use of antisemitism
Thank you As’ad for a thoughtful piece of writing. I discovered this earlier at Unz review and though you and the commenters might appreciate it too.
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/trump-and-corbyn/
In the meantime …
44.000 Israeli soldiers sought psychiatric help last year.
Israeli primary school children are being taught in school to kill Palestinians – this is CHILD ABUSE.
And this is not even the tip of the iceberg.
If Israel were really the home land of the Jewish people – but that is not the case – the banks & mercenary greed is what israel is all about.
At the expense of – even the Jewish people.
*Great to see you writing Professor As’ad – come to Australia to promote your next book, we would be delighted to have you here.
“much of the leadership of those parties continue to uphold Israeli dogma” – KACHING, KACHING !!
Money is the root of all bullshit – n’est pas.
Mr. AbuKhalil arguments for the distinction between criticism of the state of Israel and especially its ruling elite and the racism towards jews is not only correct but fundamentally indisputable. The pervasive fear people in the public domain have of the word anti-Semitic is truly the root of the problem. To be accused of antisemitism somehow constitutes a greater offense than any other form of racism in the same way the Holocaust is inexplicably of greater importance than other genocide.
The only way to deconstruct this imbalance is to address the collective failure to uphold the integrity of language and denounce the misappropriation of terms from people manipulating their meaning. First comes Semitic:
Definition of Semitic
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3 : jewish
Take note of the order and pause a second to ponder what it implies.
To assign the meaning of antisemitic to relate to jews and jews only is a form of disenfranchisement. Palestinians are Semitic people by DEFINITION. The act of stripping them from a core identity is first and foremost a way to erase their history and origin. How perverted is it that people speaking in their defense do so in fear of being accused of antisemitism?
By perpetuating this contradiction we become prisoners of false rhetoric and naturally evolve into a state of intellectual feebleness. One can not argue against a fallacy if one does not recognize it. Only by dismantling this erroneous redefinition of language can the shackles be truly taken off and proper discourse reinstated.
I fail to even begin to understand how it has gotten to this point as this argument should be invariably stated every time this false accusation is thrown with imprudence. It has the power to not only debilitate the significance it falsely holds but also turn the table on the accuser.
Because by definition, European settlers carving a country by displacing the Palestinian people who inhabited it prior to their arrival and thus denying their rights as equal human beings ARE antisemitic. Once this truth enters public consciousness, addressing the problem will be possible and a legitimate attempt at conflict resolution should ensue.
Otherwise, as long as we fail to accomplish this fundamental redress of language, we will continue to debate in the realm of insanity.
Second comes Holocaust but this is already getting on the long side and duty calls.
Thanks for reading and thank you Consortium News for the invaluable service you make.
FK
The title raises an issue; that of the identity of Palestinians. Palestinians, whether they are Moslem, Jews or Christian are semites, while most Israelis are descendants of Europeans, or are European immigrants themselves. The Israelis are the antisemites, opposed as they are to the original inhabitants of Palestine.
You are right, how can a religion claim to be a race? Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese are Semites, so the term anti-Semite should be reserved for racism against them, not Zionists and Israelis. The Zionist captured the term ‘anti-Semite’, for the purpose of confusing the issue. As we have anti-Papist, anti-Islam, so hatred toward anyone Jewish should be considered anti-Judaism.
As for Corbyn, as long as he shows no leadership, but kowtows to the Zionists, he standing will suffer.
That is factually incorrect. The term semite means Hebrew, from Shem, meaning hebrew language. Semitic cultures use languages developed from Hebrew, but are not themselves Hebrew. Much the same way as most English speakers are not Latin, German or French.
M Kerrigan…as with statistics facts can be easily distorted.
I believe the Germanic noun “Judenhaas” which had been in use prior to Antisemitism conveyed its intent without mincing. “Jew hatred”.
I personally don’t believe that support for Palestinians is “Jew hatred”.
Sadly the leadership of millions of people in territories and nations across the Middle East could be correctly accused of inflaming and fanning the rhetoric of Judenhaas.
When I look at the history of the world – how does civilization truly return land to it’s earliest inhabitants ? It simply doesn’t.
It builds walls on the borders and within its heart.
If Zionism gets to rule the world unchallenged we’ll all know what it’s like to be Palestinian.
Here is a link to a very recent conversation the great George Galloway had with the righteous Professor Norman Finkelstein on this very subject. Highly recommended…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbmCPIpGLHg
Beverly – good interview. Thanks for posting it. The “crucifixion” of Jeremy Corbyn. Slightly different, but no less lethal, than the “crucifixion” of Trump. As Finkelstein says, these are mafia tactics. Both leaders, Corbyn and Trump, end up on their heels, can do nothing but defend themselves.
I agree with Finkelstein, this is Act One, Scene One only. More to come.
Whenever an outsider comes in, they will be hammered down through accusations of being anti-semitic, being a Putin puppet. Hookers, if available, are hauled out of the woodwork. Anything to bring the outsider down. No change is allowed.
Excellent analysis and take-down of the phony anti-semitism campaign that unfortunately seems to be damaging Corbyn and Labour pretty severely. However I was surprised to read this:
“In the last few decades, public opinion in the West has shifted from the early, post- World War II period. Support for Israel has declined while support for the Palestinians has increased. This shift has been particularly pronounced among youth, especially those who are liberals or leftists.”
Well I’ve only been following the news since 1970 or so, but in my experience I’ve seen little or no change in degree of support for Palestinians vs. Israel; of course that is the perspective from the mainstream media in the USA; I’m wondering if maybe the author’s observations are truer in Europe, where maybe there is greater diversity of opinion on this subject in the media? Palestinians seem to receive little to no love from NYT, WaPo or CNN; maybe the Guardian is slightly better.
What I find ironic is how many Israeli news outlets seem to accuse NYT, WaPo, CNN, and the Guardian of anti-Semitism. I haven’t read that many articles about it, but it’s something I find odd.
Michael Garber:
> “Well I’ve only been following the news since 1970 or so, but in my experience I’ve seen little or no change in degree of support for Palestinians vs. Israel; of course that is the perspective from the mainstream media in the USA;…
You are confusing public opinion with (mass-media) published opinion…
Any article or discussion that does not include “the Transfer Agreement” or George Steiner’s The Portage to San Cristobal is not getting to the heart of the matter. These accusations are much too similar to Me Too spokesperson leader, Asia Argento.
Of course this is true on both sides of the Atlantic. It is in the interest of everyone that no one group or one person has so much power over governments that it corrupts them while causing them to act against their own national interest. How it will be addressed is anybody’s guess, but nothing is set in stone.
f course.
It seems a shame anyone feels the need to say this.
Actually, he is not just “pro-Palestinian,” he is fair-minded, but that is not allowed on this topic.
And talk about Putin supposedly interfering in other counties’ politics. Here is the real thing.
Here is a search on one of my sites related to analyses and comments I’ve made on the topic:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/?s=corbyn+anti-semitism
What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is just one example of what was done to Jews during the holocaust. Palestinians are being held in one large concentration camp. They are being killed at will by Israeli soldiers often with no provocation. Palestinians are not free to come and go at will – they are -in-effect- prisoners of the Israeli government with the blessing of the western governments. Destruction or slaughter on a mass scale is taking place not only in Palestine but in countries throughout the world such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Central and South America and many more – much of this aggression being carried out by the United States of America. We all need to take a look at what is actually going on in the world and call it out for what it really is – a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life – basically a world-wide holocaust.
I am a humanist thus have no ties to religion or dogma. I believe that we all have a responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity. Unfortunately most of those with powerful positions in the world as well as many ordinary citizens won’t even know what I’m talking about or just don’t give a damn.
I cannot agree more. However, I think the war on free speech is meant to silence opposition in general not particularly to protect israel
Ron Unz, a Jew himself, has written a wonderful series of essays under the banner of “American Pravda”. In the 1930’s, the Jews fought back by calling for a worldwide boycott against Germany. Ron Unz said:
“After Hitler had been named Chancellor in 1933, outraged Jews worldwide had quickly launched an economic boycott, hoping to bring Germany to its knees, with London’s Daily Express famously running the banner headline “Judea Declares War on Germany.” Jewish political and economic influence, then just like now, was very considerable, and in the depths of the Great Depression, impoverished Germany needed to export or die, so a large scale boycott in major German markets posed a potentially serious threat. But this exact situation provided Zionist groups with an excellent opportunity to offer the Germans a means of breaking that trade embargo, and they demanded favorable terms for the export of high-quality German manufactured goods to Palestine, together with accompanying German Jews. Once word of this major Ha’avara or “Transfer Agreement” with the Nazis came out at a 1933 Zionist Convention, many Jews and Zionists were outraged, and it led to various splits and controversies. But the economic deal was too good to resist, and it went forward and quickly grew.
The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel’s establishment is difficult to overstate. According to a 1974 analysis in Jewish Frontier cited by Brenner, between 1933 and 1939 over 60% of all the investment in Jewish Palestine came from Nazi Germany. The worldwide impoverishment of the Great Depression had drastically reduced ongoing Jewish financial support from all other sources, and Brenner reasonably suggests that without Hitler’s financial backing, the nascent Jewish colony, so tiny and fragile, might easily have shriveled up and died during that difficult period.”
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/
Are some boycotts more ethical than others?
Israel could EASILY change its image overnight if it just simply treated the Palestinians like human beings instead of potential “terrorists”! I realize that in a world where massive profits are reaped from waging wars that peace is now the enemy to the powers-that-be. When Israel complains about being under some sort of phony siege from Palestinian “terrorists” they have no one to blame but themselves! Racism is alive and well in Israel and what does the US government continue to do- provide BILLIONS in “aid” while enabling and protecting Israel from its many crimes against humanity!
Treating Palestinians like Humana would contradict their visjon og a future state of Great Israel for jews without “arabs”.
The website of Unz is full of Nazi apologists and recently put up the text of a classic Holocaust denial screed, “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”. Unz calls this kind of thing “an alternative media selection” but frankly it damages the Palestinian cause when people like that come out of the woodwork.
Much of my problem with Unz.com is how many of its readers also hold views against blacks and oppose interracial marriage; in other words, racial ideology (it’s called the “alt-right”). Some even go as far as to denounce Biblical creationism if not Christianity as a whole.
I’m also torn between whether the Holocaust was real or bogus given the first-hand accounts I’ve read/watched.
But Unz.com isn’t devoid of useful info, and I wouldn’t say it’s full of Nazi apologists; they have rightly condemned the persecution of Palestinians in Israel as well as Israeli meddling in US politics. I nonetheless agree that some caution needs to be taken with it.
Jews like to make it out like the holocaust was the worst thing ever to happen. And it certainly was bad but the worst? No. I believe that honor goes to the autochthons of the New World who were systematically oppressed and murdered by the European invaders. A WHOLE lot more of them died directly and indirectly at the hands of the European invaders (which, of course, included Jews). I think second place goes to the Negros. Again, a WHOLE lot more of them died going from Africa to the New World and being slaves once they got here (if still alive). I think the Jews get third place. And, while they’ve got a good grip on third place, they do have competition from the Armenians and the Cambodians and the Chinese for that matter.There are lots of people who have been mistreated at the hands of racism and ideology and the Jews don’t have a corner on the market.
Mr AbuKhalil,
Thank you for taking on a very difficult topic. It is important for people to learn the difference between criticism of Israel and the ‘catch all phrase’ of anti-semitism.
Personally I believe Israel has burned through their sympathy cards many years ago as it relates to the Holocaust. If Americans were truly sympathetic, or empathetic towards evil deeds, the murdering of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalians, (and more) should be morally higher in their hearts than events which happened 75+ years ago, as horrible as that was. But WW2 was horrible in many ways for millions of people.
I am hoping the younger generations will see the murdurous deeds of Israel even today, and make these deeds a part of their criticisms of the State of Israel. So much is under-reported or never reported in the Western press so it will take effort and research for the younger generations to see through the mask of anti Semitism presented today as a defense for all things Israeli. To learn about the difference between Zionism and Judaism would also be a good start.
The best start for the State of Israel would be to join the world community and declare their weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear or chemical. To join with the IAEA, or even the diluted OPCW may be a good start for a younger generation to believe Israel is not deceitful in its dealings with the world, and not just their terrorizing of the Palestinians and constant land grabs. You mention “conspiracies” but it is much easier to believe Israel is conspiratorial in its nature. For whom are their 200+ nuclear bombs meant for anyway?
“Demonising” a person or a whole group of people because of a particular action or statement is the same blindness as “sanctifying” them. – Even a broken clock can be right sometimes, and even a clock that is perfectly correct may be broken.
As’ad makes a powerful plea for discriminating between an action or statement and the person or group responsible for that action. They will almost certainly have done some very good and some very bad things apart from that “defining” act.