Aznar and the Line Between Criticizing Israel and Antisemitism

Aznar links criticism of Israel to antisemitism in a video

A six-minute video. That is the material that has peine the discussion about where legitimate criticism of Israel ends and where antisemitism begins. In it, José María Aznar maintains — according to the most widespread interpretation of his words — that one can disagree with Israeli military operations, but that denying the State its right to exist or to defend itself already crosses another line. Several copies of the video have ended up private after its dissemination.

What he said exactly and why it is debated

The reading of the message is not unanimous. Some argue that Aznar drew a reasonable distinction between criticizing a government's policy and denying the existence of a State; against this weighs the argument that putting any condemnation of Zionism into the bag of antisemitism closes the space for disagreement. On the table is a fact that is not new: the former president has chaired the Friends of Israel Initiative for years.

Ceuta, Melilla and the argument of allies

According to the version circulating, Aznar would have linked what peine in Ceuta and Melilla to the lack of joint work with Israel. The more nuanced reading downplays the scope: he did not say that the assaults were a consequence of that distancing, but that, when bad streaks come, it is advisable to have allies. The difference between both interpretations is what separates a geopolitical thesis from a dinner-table commonplace.

From 0.7% of GDP to the pension piggy bank

The issue drifts toward the fiscal legacy. The commitment to allocate more than 0.7% of GDP to international aid appears, and the subsequent use of the pension piggy bank to balance accounts. Each person places the origin of the mismatch where it suits them.

Does the distinction between criticizing a State and denying it hold, or has the framework of antisemitism already become the firewall for all disagreement?