“Anti-Palestinian Racism”
An entirely new category of “racism” has been proposed by the pro-Palestinian movement and awareness of this new “racism” is actively being promoted by them at school boards and on university campuses. But this new class of "racism" is different from other racisms. This is not a racism against a race. This is not a racism against a skin colour, nor is it racism against a “people” or a “nation”. Rather, this is “racism” against the pro-Palestinian movement and the “racism” they have invented is termed “anti-Palestinian racism”.
According to their own expansive definition, almost any form of pushback against the pro-Palestinian movement is “racism” regardless of whether that pushback is against Palestinians (and yes, there is a genuine category of bigotry or discrimination against Palestinian peoples which we mention below) or against their white, black, Asian or native Canadian or American supporters on Western university campuses. Anyone in the pro-Palestinian movement can be the target of this “racism”.
Anti-Palestinian “racism” fails to meet the bar of racism first and foremost because it does not refer to a race. It refers to an entire political movement of people drawn from all races and any nationality. These people have nothing more in common then that they have banded together for a political purpose. They have sought to silence criticism against themselves by weaponizing the term “racism”. This whole enterprise does great damage to our collective effort to fight genuine forms of racism that existed historically and still exist today. Of great concern is that the true racists will be glad to dismiss the concept of racism all together, if every disagreement in society will be labeled as racism.
At the time of writing (May 2024) the whole notion of anti-Palestinian racism is rather fluid and one key attempt to codify it1 stated that this fluidity is a desired characteristic so that the term can be adapted to attack any new form of push back against pro-Palestinian messaging.
Here we will dissect five of the most problematic examples of this proposed “racism” put forward by pro-Palestinian groups. These are derived from two sources, a technical piece that presents a working defintion together with a large series of examples1,2 and a primer presented to a school board during a professional development day2. Our aim is to demonstrate that the charge of racism in these specific examples is unfounded. The first two examples deal with pushback against hurtful actions or messaging of the pro-Palestinian movement. The last three examples deal with topics that are open for academic debate and research, but which have become holy grails around which the pro-Palestinian movement seeks to silence dissent.
EXAMPLE 1: Anti-Palestinian “racism” is “enacting anti-BDS laws”2
The BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement seeks to sanction interaction (financial, academic or otherwise) with Israeli companies, artists, authors, academics etc. In more expansive versions it also doxes and bans Zionists including those outside of Israel or any company that does business with Israel. BDS is cancel culture on steroids.
BDS measures violate Canada’s Human Rights Act because they discriminate against people on the basis of national origin. In Ontario, a Jewish group that was banned by BDS enacted at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology won a court case in the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal on the grounds of discrimination. Discrimination caused by BDS is likewise illegal in other countries. In France, it is a criminal offense to call for BDS against Israel or any other country. The Spanish supreme court has labelled the BDS movement to be discriminatory. Most states of the US have anti-BDS laws in place. Many western governments including those of Canada, Australia, the United States and many in Europe have made parliamentary condemnations of the BDS movement. BDS is generally, and in our opinion, rightfully banned from being enacted on universities in Canada and the United States. Student union governments who vote to enact BDS amongst their student body are often censured by university administration. It is this censure or banning of the BDS movement that the pro-Palestinian movement has put forward as an example of the anti-Palestinian “racism”.
Regardless of whether you support BDS or whether, like us, you consider the movement to be racist to its core, what should be clear is that BDS is highly controversial. It is completely inappropriate to make the moral judgement that banning the movement or censuring those who partake in it is in some way racist. If you engage in BDS, expect pushback – serious pushback. That is the reality of engaging in a human rights violation.
EXAMPLE 2: Anti-Palestinian “racism” is pushback against the movement's protest slogans like “From the River to the Sea…” by saying they are calls for genocide or violence 2.
Many pro-Palestinian slogans are easily interpreted as genocidal or calls for violence and for good reason. “From the river to the sea” refers to the entire region of Palestine that includes Palestinian territories and the State of Israel. Its version in Arabic, “From the Water to the Water, Palestine is Islamic” gives the true intent of the slogan as many Palestinians envision it. Learn more about why many Jews find this slogan genocidal in our article, "Is the slogan ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free’ a Call for Peace?".
And what about slogans invoking intifada? The second intifada used suicide bombers to kill over a hundred Israeli children and a thousand adults, the vast majority of which were civilians. The most recent intifada, Hamas’s Oct 7 butchery, killed similar numbers of civilians. Calling for this newest intifada to be globalized is simply cruel! For more details, see our article, "Do we really want to globalize the Intifada?".
But the pro-Palestinian movement, anticipating pushback for obvious reasons, has charged those of us decrying these slogans as “racists” because they say we assume that those using the slogans intend violence when in fact some do not. Sure, I suppose some who draw swastikas envision they look like butterflies. We are not judging the individual intent of those who use the slogan's. Personal intent varies widely according to polling -- but that same polling suggests that many in the West do indeed envision violence when they chant these slogans. Our recommendation to those engaged in pro-Palestinian protests is that if you are sensitive about the association of violence with your protest slogans, then invent new slogans that do not have violent origins or connotations, rather than falsely calling pushback “racism”. Trust us when we say that these slogans only work to delegitimize your cause in the eyes of the general public. Their use also prevents many of us Jews from joining pro-Palestinian causes that we might otherwise support. We are not anti-Palestinian just because we oppose harmful messaging; and we are certanly not "racist".
EXAMPLE 3: Anti-Palestinian "racism" is declaring that “no state of Palestine exists”1
This example is hard to comprehend. This is not a matter of opinion but rather of history and of present reality. Let’s examine that history briefly.
Jews had no fewer than three fully autonomous states and several semi-autonomous states in Palestine at different periods in history before the creation of the modern State of Israel. Jews are thus Palestinians and in fact they, together with their splinter group, the Samaritans were the two indigenous groups in the region when the Romans changed the name from Judea to Palestine. Jews and Samaritans are the original Palestinians and they have remained Palestinians throughout the past two thousand years up to the present time.
Here is the key. No other modern group of Palestinians beside the Jews have ever had such autonomous states in history. With the exception of the briefly lived and locally governed Frankish Crusader State, the region has been ruled from afar as a colonial backwater of big empires since the last of the Jewish states fell. The last indigenous state in Palestine before the modern period was the state of Judah, governed by Jewish monarchs who lived in the region.
I wish that Arab Palestinians had declared a state in 1948 when given the opportunity by the United Nations partition plan. So much war, bloodshed and suffering on both sides would have been avoided. But instead, Arab Palestinians sought all of Palestine “from the River to the Sea” to be their own, and so they refused statehood. In 1948, Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied and then annexed what then became called the West Bank. Arab Palestinians did not achieve statehood under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. Then in 1968, Jordan, Egypt and Syria again unsuccessfully tried to destroy Israel. Instead, Israel pushed Jordan out of the West Bank and Egypt out of the Gaza strip, and placed these territories under military occupation.
Finally, under the Camp David Accords of 2000 it looked as though a just two-state solution was about to be enacted by both parties. Unfortunately, the violent second intifada orchestrated by Hamas derailed the hopes for an accord. Further attempts at a two-state solution have failed.
In conclusion, there has never yet been an Arab Palestinian state either in antiquity or in the modern era. The closest thing resembling a state was the defacto state of Gaza which was given political autonomy upon Israeli military withdrawal in 2006 to 2024. While Gaza functioned as a defacto state, it was not recognized as a state by the international community at the time. However, some member nations of the United Nations do recognize a Palestinian State on paper, but the reality on the ground remains that no autonomous state currently exists.
These are simply facts of history and of the current situation as we understand them. It is not racism to state what is a historical or current reality. We look forward to a day in the future, when a peaceful two-state solution will be achieved and Palestinians will achieve statehood. May that day come soon!
EXAMPLE 4: Anti-Palestinian Racism is “denying the settler colonialization of Palestine”1.
“Settler colonialism” is a technical term. Its applicability to any given context is an academic exercise that may or may not be justified based on the given evidence and is open for debate. Academic issues are not closed issues.
While there are many clear examples of settler colonialism that are universally agreed upon, the formation of the State of Israel is not one of them. Calling Israel a settler colonial state is highly controversial because Israel does not fit well into the settler colonialist motif. It is thus inappropriate to claim that denial of the settler colonialism charge to the formation of Israel is “racism”. The racist charge here begs desperation and shows the true nature of “anti-Palestinian racism” as a weaponization of the term racism to stifle academic debate.
As for the charge. We deny it! Like the formation of Liberia by freed slaves, the formation of the Israel by destitute refugees in their indigenous homeland is not an example of settler colonialism but rather of re-indigenization. Instead, we argue the settler colonial charge only sticks due to racist constructs for reasons we discuss in our piece "Settler Colonialism or Re-indigenization?"
EXAMPLE 5: Anti-Palestinian “racism” is “failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an indigenous people”1
Again, this is a matter of academic debate and research, and not a clear black-and-white issue. Let’s explore just how complex this issue is.
The wording here claims Palestinians are one people. Are they one people or many peoples? Palestinians include Jews (who have lived continuously in Palestine from ancient antiquity long before the Arab conquerors arrived in the seventh century), Samaritans, Syrian Christians, Druze, Muslim Bedouin, and other Muslim Arab groups. It seems to us that these are disparate peoples that have artificially been brought under an umbrella category as one people. Not all of these groups may wish to be pigeonholed into a group collective as a Palestinian people. Jews do not wish it. Like Jews, Samaritans and the Druze have been heavily persecuted by Arab Muslims in Palestine. Do they wish it? We do not know, but can imagine why they might not.
For those groups who do wish this collective identity at the current time, was it simply the shared political events over the past century that resulted in this group collective, or did this group collective go back into antiquity? If recent events primarily shaped the identity, how is that any different from a “Canadian” or “American” identity arising within North America amongst the disparate immigrant nationalities that these groups descend from. We do not call “Canadian” and “American” collective identities to be indigenous even though those identities crystalized within North America.
Let’s discuss indigeneity in more detail. My paternal ancestor came from Europe to North America hundreds of years ago. Given my paternal ancestors have lived in North America for hundreds of years, am I indigenous to this continent? One logical approach to indigeneity is that a people is only ever indigenous to the geographic area they originally formed in as a unique people. I will thus never be indigenous to North America. That some Palestinian groups like Jews and Samaritans formed as indigenous groups within Palestine is undeniable. Other groups appear to have formed as peoples outside of Palestine and then immigrated into the region as part of the seventh century Islamic conquest of the Middle East and north Africa. Others came after the Islamic conquest, or their groups were heavily impacted by immigration of Muslims from the Caucasus and north Africa under Ottoman rule for example. Some Palestinian peoples are indigenous to Palestine; others may not be.
It gets more complicated because there has been genetic mixing between these groups. Due to religious persecution, some Jews and Samaritans converted to Islam and their genes undoubtedly linger within the Muslim Arab groups that are in Palestine today. Rape and liaisons outside of marriage also mixed the gene pool. But peoplehood is not based on genes. It is based on a complex of culture, traditions, religion, and stories of peoplehood that get passed on orally or in written form in an unbroken chain from one generation to the next. Does the presence of an unknown proportion of the Muslim Palestinian gene pool derived from indigenous Jewish or Samaritan converts allow them to be classified as indigenous or is it the culturally transmitted sense of peoplehood, regardless of genes, that define peoplehood? We argue the latter in our article, "Settler Colonialism or Re-indigenization?".
Given the complexity of this issue, we refrain from making a judgement about whether Palestinians are “an indigenous people”. It is fair to say that each of the various groups of Palestinians are each indigenous to the broader Middle East (except the German colony established in Jerusalem in the 19th century which has no indigenous roots in the region), but which of them are also indigenous to Palestine itself is an open academic question. This complexity demonstrates the inappropriateness of the “anti-Palestinian racism” charge surrounding the question of indigeneity and peoplehood.
We believe the weaponization of the “racism” charge arises because some groups of Palestinians are sensitive that their legitimacy as residents of Palestine is in question if they are not indigenous to Palestine itself. This fear is valid, but from a human rights perspective, it should be of no consequence whether any particular Palestinian group is indigenous or not. These groups have lived on the land for multiple generations, so they have rights to the land regardless of whether or not they originated as a people within Palestine, or instead originated from the descendants of the conquering Arab settler colonialists who invaded in the 7th century, or of the non-indigenous German colonists who arrived for the first time in the 19th century. International law protects both the descendants of the colonizers who have lived in the land for generations and those who are truly indigenous. None of us can choose where we are born. There is no crime in being born in a land you are not indigenous too.
How this affects campus
The five examples of anti-Palestinian “racism” examined here are each problematic. The charge of “racism” in each case is clearly false. Those who have coined the term “anti-Palestinian racism” together with its expansive definition, and those who popularize this term on university campuses, at school boards, and in society at large are guilty of intellectual fraud. But it is worse than simple fraud. There is nothing more chilling than the term racism. No one wants to be labelled a racist. By applying the term racism, the pro-Palestinian movement seeks to stifle valid pushback and criticism of what is a political movement, or valid academic inquiry into what are open academic questions. This is a clear case of weaponization of the language of social justice.
The term “anti-Palestinian racism” together with its expansive definition should not be promoted in academic circles and it should not be adopted as a valid category of discrimination by university administration, school boards, or civil governments. Those who apply these over-expansive charges of racism to specific individuals may be guilty of slander in a legal sense. Universities or school boards could likewise be liable for censuring students, staff or faculty for instances of “anti-Palestinian racism” falling under the categories mentioned above.
To end, we want to make it clear that while the term “anti-Palestinian racism” together with the five examples povided are unjustified, there is such a thing as bigotry against Arab Palestinians. Hatred or discrimination against Arab Palestinians simply because they are Palestinian is real, it is wrong and its presence on campus should not be tolerated. While we have critiqued five select examples put forward as “anti-Palestinian racism” we have not discussed all of them. Many of the other examples constitute reasonable categories of bigotry against Palestinians. Certainly, some of these have merit. We encourage university administration to protect Palestinian students, staff and faculty from discrimination, but ask that they do so without invoking the overexpansive definitions enveloped by the term “anti-Palestinian racism”.
Footnotes
1. Majid, D. 2022. Anti-Palestinian Racism: Naming, Framing and Manifestations, Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, CanLIIDocs 4618, 2. Zubi, B. & D. Chika. 2022. Growing up Palestinian: Anti-Palestinian Racism and Youth. This pamphlet was presented on February 18th, 2022 at a workshop at a professional development day for the Toronto District School Board educators in the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. The materials can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-75rPMNy4-CDNysU6rV9Gs19N5ThfKA9