Summary: Should organizations request dictionary
changes for political reasons?
Boycott Watch was sent notification
of a letter from the Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee to Miriam
Webster's Dictionary requesting a redefinition of the word anti-Semitism along
with a request to analyze the ADC letter from a non-biased perspective. Boycott
Watch accepted the challenge.
After conducting
extensive research, Boycott Watch wrote a letter to John Morse, the President
and Publisher of Merriam-Webster, Inc., outlining three critical areas of
concern, and showing how the ADC request is based on political expediency and
not fact.
The following is the Boycott Watch
response:
----- Original Boycott Watch letter -----
May 19, 2004
John Morse, President and
Publisher Merriam-Webster, Inc. 47 Federal Street P.O. Box 281
Springfield, MA 01102
Mr. Morse,
I am the
Executive Director of Boycott Watch, a non-profit and non-political
organization that verifies and publishes the facts behind boycott calls, so
that consumers can evaluate both sides of boycott issue and then determine
their own course of conduct based on the facts. In our capacity as consumer
watchdog, we often receive requests from our readers to investigate various
issues, and that is why I am writing to you today. One of our readers sent us
information about a letter from the Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee
(the "ADC"), requesting that you redefine the word "anti-Semitism" in its
dictionary. Our reader asked Boycott Watch to analyze the validity of the ADC's
request, and respond from a non-biased perspective. Boycott Watch agreed to
look into this matter, and reviewed the ADC request on 3 levels --
linguistically, sociologically, and politically -- all of which are
significant.
Linguistic concerns are of primary
importance to every dictionary, and thus that is where we begin. The second
edition of The Oxford English Dictionary defines a "Semite" as "A person
belonging to the race of mankind which includes most of the peoples mentioned
in Gen. X as descended from Shem son of Noah, as the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians,
and Aramæans." The Oxford Dictionary, however, specifically defines
"anti-Semite" as "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence
anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Semitic." There is
thus a distinct difference in the application of the words "Semite" and
"anti-Semite." "Semites" may include Arabs, but "anti-Semitism" is specifically
and only directed toward Jews.
The Oxford Dictionary
also indicates the first known usage of the word "anti-Semite" as being German
in origin. The Oxford Dictionary etymology is further supported by the research
of noted authors Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin. In their book, "Why The
Jews - The reason for Anti-Semitism," the authors describe the word
"anti-Semitism" as being German in origin and how it came into use. Prager and
Telushkin state that the word "anti-Semitism" has always specifically referred
to Jews and only Jews. From a linguistic standpoint, therefore, it is easily
established that the word "anti-Semitism" is in direct reference to Jews and
only Jews.
Dennis Prager is best-selling author,
nationally syndicated columnist and radio talk show host, as well as a highly
respected lecturer. Joseph Telushkin is a rabbi, scholar and acclaimed writer.
Individually, each author has the credentials to address this issue, and
together, they assembled an authoritative text about anti-Semitism. Their book
details why people are anti-Semitic, historical manifestations of
anti-Semitism, and that Zionism is an integral part of Judaism and can not be
separated from it.
From a sociologic view, Prager and
Telushkin dedicated a chapter in their book detailing that anti-Zionism is
anti-Semitism in practice and that groups, especially the Arab world, draw a
distinction between the two for the purpose of disguising their anti-Semitism.
Prager and Telushkin wrote, "There is only one possible reason people isolate
Israel of all the countries in the world to deny its right to existence. That
is because Israel is the only Jewish state. Anti-Zionism is
anti-Semitism…"
Merriam-Webster's current
definition of "anti-Semitism" includes "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy
for the opponents of Israel." This is a logical definition since those who are
opposed to Zionism, which is an integral part of Judaism, are therefore also
against Jews, thus anti-Semitic.
The
interrelationship of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is not lost among leaders
in the Arab world. A recent example of this was evident when Prince Bandar Bin
Sultan, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US, refused to mention Israel by
name during an interview. On Meet the Press (4-25-04), Bandar referred to
Israel just as 'the Zionists,' which is common in the Arab world. Israel is the
only country in the world which is referred to in the abstract by those who are
opposed to its existence. This stands in direct contradiction to the practices
of other countries around the world. Although the US, for example, does not
recognize the legitimacy of North Korea or Cuba, it still refers to those
countries by name. As Prager and Telushkin point out, Zionism is an integral
part of Judaism. The result, therefore, of Arab leaders such as Prince Bandar
not mentioning Israel by name is significant because that those who wish to
remove all Zionists from the region will inherently remove all Jews at the same
time, thus a de facto recognition of the inherent coexistence of Zionism within
Judaism, but the ADC would have you believe otherwise.
The notion that anti-Zionism is a form of
anti-Semitism is not a recent development. Dr. Seymour Martin Lipset, currently
the Hazel Professor of Public Policy of George Mason University and a professor
at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, also weighed in on this
topic. The noted sociologist and political analyst wrote the article "The
Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" which was published in the
December, 1969 (page 24) edition of Encounter magazine, and was reprinted in
other publications. The article states: "Shortly before he was assassinated,
Martin Luther King, Jr., was in Boston on a fund-raising mission, and I had the
good fortune to attend a dinner which was given for him in Cambridge...One of
the young men present happened to make some remark against the Zionists. Dr.
King snapped at him and said, "Don't talk like that! When people criticize
Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism!"
Thus, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. acknowledged
the interrelationship between Zionism and Judaism, and that anti-Zionism is a
mask that anti-Semites try to hide behind to avoid anti-social labels. It is
difficult to argue with the wisdom of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the
greatest civil rights leader of our era, especially when referring to hate and
civil rights. This great country has learned much from Dr. King and his lessons
are taught every day in this country and around the world. To start picking and
choosing which civil rights and anti-hate lessons of Dr. King we should follow
would pose a danger to freedom in this country and around the world.
The ADC's entry into this matter is based on
political, not linguistic or even sociological concerns. The ADC is a political
organization that has a vested interest in molding the definition of
anti-Semitism. A redefinition would benefit the ADC in its aim to affect the
shape of the proposed Palestinian state, which the ADC supports. The ADC is
apparently concerned that if it fits within the definition of "anti-Semitic,"
that label would lessen the value of the ADC's political arguments.
To further expose the political nature of the ADC's
request, this analysis would be remiss without examining the statements and
backgrounds of those requesting the redefinition. ADC Communications Director
Hussein Ibish has been under fire for his comments defending Hamas, a terrorist
group that has been responsible for blowing up busses in Israel and murdering
innocent Israelis and Americans, including women and children. Hamas murders
indiscriminately, and Ibish has praised those actions.
On June 5, 2000, Ibish appeared on CNBC's Rivera Live
program where Rivera asked, "How do you stand about Hezbollah and Hamas? Do you
condemn them?" ADC spokesman Hussein Ibish replied: "No. I think that Hezbollah
fought a very good war against the Israelis, a guerrilla war..." The "guerrilla
war" Ibish referred to included mortar attacks from Lebanon on civilian
communities in northern Israel. On May 26, 2000, Ibish was quoted in the Los
Angeles Times as saying, "Everywhere Hezbollah fighters, derided by the Israeli
and U.S. governments as 'terrorists,' conducted themselves in an exemplary
manner... [They are] a disciplined and responsible liberation force." Ibish has
thus established himself as not only a partisan in the Middle-East conflict,
but also as publicly defending and praising Hamas and Hezbollah, which are both
recognized by the US Government as terrorist organizations.
Praising Hamas hardly distinguishes oneself from
being an anti-Semite since a goal of Hamas is to kill Jews, yet Ibish wants you
to make that distinction. Ibish claims to be looking out for the best interests
of both Israelis and Palestinians, but he is actually an anti-Semite under the
first definition, "hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority
group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination" -
Defending Hamas' murder of Jews clearly displays hostility toward Jews. As
such, Ibish is an anti-Semite trying to change the definition of himself
because he does not like it. This alone should invalidate the ADC's request.
Also involved in the ADC's request is ADC President
Mary Rose Oakar, a former Cleveland area Congresswoman who was forced to retire
from Congress amidst the Dan Rostenkowski Congressional bank and post office
scandal. Oakar left Congress and did not run for re-election after the
discovery of a ghost employee on her tax-dollar-funded Congressional office
payroll. She claims she knew nothing about this ghost employee, yet she had to
personally approve the payroll. Oakar's decision not to run for re-election
resulted in her not having to answer questions about improprieties from her
constituency or the media.
In conclusion, the ADC's
request that Merriam-Webster change the definition of "anti-Semitism" is not
based on linguistic or sociological concerns, but rather political expediency.
The primary beneficiaries of the requested changes are strictly the ADC and
those who share its political aims. The proposed changes do not enhance or
facilitate linguistic usage of any words in any language whatsoever, and
actually are in direct conflict with other dictionaries. Granting the change
would, however, reflect an impossible separation of Zionism from Judaism, and
would effectively establish Merriam-Webster, Inc. as a partisan in the
Middle-East conflict.
Although this is not meant as a
comparison, it is important to note that the word "Jew" was most recently
redefined in the dictionary when Hitler came to power. He almost immediately
redefined Jews as non-human, a primary step leading to the Holocaust. This is
alarming evidence of the dangers of redefinitions associated with Jews. The
ADC's request to redefine "anti-Semitism" would be in direct conflict with the
teachings of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose lessons on combating hate
are held dear by Americans. Boycott Watch urges Merriam-Webster, Inc. to
disregard the ADC's requested all other similar requests for a redefinition of
"anti-Semitism.". The current definition properly recognizes the unique
connection of the word to Jews and to Zionism, and should not be distorted to
satisfy one group's political goals.
Thank you for
your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact Boycott Watch with any
comments or questions.
