The Nation Magazine Discusses The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism

The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism

In 1879 the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, a former socialist and anarchist, founded an organization that was novel in two ways. It was the first political party based on a platform of hostility to Jews. And it introduced the world to a new word: "anti-Semite."

Marr was an atheist, and the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Anti-Semites) was hostile to Jews on the secular grounds that they are an alien "race." However, his account of "Semitism" was not essentially different from the demonic conception of the Jew that had existed in Christian Europe for centuries. It boiled down to this: Jews are a people apart from the rest of humanity. They are the enemy. Wherever they go, they form a state within a state. Conspiring in secret, they work together to promote their own collective advantage at the expense of the nations or societies in whose midst they dwell and on whom they prey. Cunning and manipulative, they possess uncanny powers that enable them, despite their small numbers, to achieve their ends. The term "antiSemitism" has come to refer to this discourse, or variations on the themes it contains, because the same rhetoric persists whether Jewish identity is seen as religious, racial, national or ethnic. Sometimes this discourse is explicit; at other times it is the subtext of attacks on Jews. Anti-Semitism, thus defined, is not new.

But a spate of recent articles and books assert the rise of a "new anti-Semitism." This is the thrust of "Graffiti on History's Walls" by Mortimer Zuckerman, the cover story of the November 3, 2003, issue of U.S. News & World Report. In December New York magazine ran a similarly sensationalist cover story, titled "The Return of Anti-Semitism," which spoke of "a groundswell of hate" against Jews and suggested that Jew-hatred was now "politically correct" in Europe. At least three books recently published in English make the same claim: Never Again? by Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League; The New Anti-Semitism by feminist Phyllis Chesler; and The Case for Israel by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. Most of the contributors to A New Antisemitism?, edited by Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin, take a similar view, with varying degrees of emphasis.

more...

The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism

Dredges interesting historical details from 1917 about the Jewish homeland, but is a little light on connections with the Holocaust and the resultant reticence many feel to criticize a nation defined by its historically persecuted people. If you say "Zionist", you are almost guaranteed to have the argument dismissed out of hand by a layman who has not carefully studied the issue, and certainly you *will* be labeled an anti-Semite. The author is a little shy himself, and often interjects "of course some anti-Zionism *can* be anti-Semitism, haha, we're all friends here" to his more substantial statements, and that makes his point perhaps better than anything else in the article.

Is Anti-Semitism rising, or is its definition being broadened? The flipside of this is that some genuine anti-Semitism is generated by anger towards the actions of Israel. In this case, the state of Israel being wholesale associated with Jewishness cuts both ways.

Is Anti-Semitism rising, or is its definition being broadened? The flipside of this is that some genuine anti-Semitism is generated by anger towards the actions of Israel. In this case, the state of Israel being wholesale associated with Jewishness cuts both ways.

It would appear as if the supporters of the Israeli state hope to broaden their support in the unsolicited inclusion of all Jews in the endeavor.

It jeopardizes Jews as a whole and, was I Jewish, I would clearly distance myself from such an insinuation.

Genuine anti-Semitism exists without regard to anything that Israel may or may not be doing. It s hatred of Jews because they are Jews. There is no justification for bigotry by definition.

Hatred of GOI may be because of what Israel is or is not doing but that is separate from anti-Semitism.

Talk about broadening a definition....

There are some ignorant folks who accuse anyone critical towards Israel of being anti-Semitic, because they believe the two are *always* connected. On the other side, there are those who see what violence and suffering Israel metes out as connected with all Jews, not just as actions of the state of Israel.

Both, in my opinion, illustrate the danger of connecting a state entirely to a religion or race of people.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

If there is any question about this anti-Semitism being "new", it is because it is really the same old crap. There are people who project their primal fears on alien groups, including Jews. Since Israel is a Jewish state, that projection is applied to Israel as well as to Jews.

In this respect, presumed anger over Israel's actions becomes a pretext for anti-Semitism, not a cause. If there were no Israel or if Israel lived in a state of peace and harmony with her Arab neighbors, these people would still fault Jews for many of the world's ill or their personal problems. However, that such people use the Middle East conflict this way does not change the fact that there is behavior by Israel as a state which may provoke offense as it would if any other state did the same thing. The problem is in distinguishing when that anger is simply a projection of a primal fear on Jews and things Jewish and when it is genuine anger at a state, Jewish or otherwise, whose specific actions are perceived as unjust or offensive.

As one who is angry at Israel's behavior, I try to distance myself from anti-Semites who simply use that behavior as a pretext to express a loathing of Jews.

that even Tikkun (which I am a member of) dedicated a whole issue to this perception. As such even the liberal movement is not immune.

I did a Google search and came up with this:
http://www.tikkun.org/

Does Tikkun mean anything?

There are several links to Tikkun, do you have any suggestions?

See also references to Rabbi Michael Lerner.

There's certainly been no significant increase in anti-Semitism in the United States. I have seen convincing evidence of an increase, anyway.

I don't really think there's been an increase in anti-Semitism in the Middle East, either -- simply because the degree of anti-Semitism there was so great in the first place.

Outside of these places, I think there's been an increased expression of anger towards Israel. And of course, certain groups seek to exploit this anger to encourage anti-Semitism, sometimes successfully.

However, the extent to which anti-Semitism has reemerged is exaggerated, sometimes to absurd proportions. And in many cases, I think it's a deliberate exaggeration -- one encouraged by right-wing Zionists in order to take attention away from the injustices that Israel has committed against the Palestinians.

I'm also taken aback by the amount of media attention the so-called "new anti-Semitism" has garnered in the U.S. media, particularly in comparison to the amount of attention discrimination against Muslims and those of Arab and South Asian descent.

in Europe, and somewhat in the US as well.

What makes it a "new anti-semitism", though, is its link to Israel, not simply the fact that it has risen. Once, the theory was that the Jews controlled everything for their own profit, and that they didn't care about anything else; now, the Jews/Zionists supposedly control everything so that their state can continue to oppress the Palestinians and gain more power. All actions by the US in the middle east are seen as an attempt to help Israel, because of the mythical Jewish/Zionist control over the US government and the US media.

That the new anti-semitism is using the Palestinian cause as an excuse for anti-semitism is undeniable (though it is also true that one reason they can do so with ease is the tendency of Israel and pro-Israel organizations to blur the line between Israel and the Jews.) This fact does not make the Palestinian cause any less justified, but advocates for the Palestinians and their cause should acknowledge this and condemn it - something that some refuse to do.

I agree with you that many charges of anti-semitism are untrue, and I do not believe that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism by definition. I also agree that anti-semitism is exxagerated in many cases. None of that, however, can alter the fact that anti-semitism is unfortunately on the rise, or that at this point it is certainly a part of the Israeli/Palestinian debate.

An example of cases where anti-semitism is exaggerated.

Try not to trot out the tiresome "I can be anti-Israel and not be an anti-semite" line. I will agree that legitimate criticism is not in itself anti- semitic.

However when the GOI is criticized and it is also criticized by the same person or group for every known or unknown problem in the world, I seem to think that person or group's agenda is anti-semitic. If that is your example of exaggeration, please don't bother to answer.

Your non-answer will speak for itself.

n/t/n

Some of us have obligations other than posting on DU 24/7. I'll get to your post eventually.

Grow up.

...

Wrong pew

I wasn't responding to you at all. Nor was I awaiting a response from you.

I'll put these exaggeration in two category: 1.) those which promulgate a definition of "anti-Semitism" so broad that it includes pretty much any criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and 2.) specific instances of anti-Semitic attacks that have been exaggerated or taken out of context.

What is meant by anti-Zionism? When some people say anti-Zionism, they really just mean opposition to right-wing Zionism. Others have no object not to the idea of a Jewish state in general, but to the establishment of such a state in Palestine. Still others are opposed to the establishment of any kind of a Jewish state, for a variety of reasons.

Since right-wing Zionists tend to assume that all those who call themselves anti-Zionists are of the last variety, and since I myself subscribe to it, I'll primarily address the arguments made against it.

The typical argument goes: all peoples have a right to self-determination, up to and including statehood. Thus, to deny this right to Jews is inherently anti-Semitic.

But I would argue that peoples *don't* have a right to self-determination. There are thousands of ethnic groups. There isn't enough land in the world to give them all states.

Peoples don't have a right to self-determination. *Nations* have a right to self-determination. What is a nation? A historically constituted, stable community sharing a common territory, language, consciousness, and culture.

By this standard, Jews are not a nation. They have no more a right to a state than, say, the Roma ("Gypsies").

But surely we can make an exception for the Jews? After all, they suffered through the Holocaust.

Well, no. The Jews did endure what was undoubtedly the most terrible genocide of the 20th century. But they aren't the only group to ever be subject to mass slaughter. Sadly, many other groups have endured these tragedies, and many of them don't have states.

Furthermore, the colonization of Palestine was not the first choice of most of the Jews who fled the Holocaust. It was the only country that would take them. Some Jews were even coerced by the Zionists. Massive Jewish support for Israel didn't clearly emerge until after the Six Day War.

Furthermore, many of those who object to the idea of a Jewish state (myself included) object to the idea of *any* state that favors a certain religion, "race", or ethnic group. I am every bit as opposed to Islamic states and Christian states as I am to Jewish states.

And I don't favor the "destruction of Israel". I favor a binational state. Bi-national: two-nation. A state in which both the Israeli and Palestinian nations are protected equally under the law -- just as in South Africa, both the white and black nations are now protected equally.

Then we have the argument that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because critics don't criticize states with human rights records just as bad or worse. This argument borders on the absurd. The measure of who is "worse" is ultimately subjective. Are we to add up the number of beatings, extrajudicial executions, instances of torture, etc., and then only condemn that state with the greatest number? Hell, by this standard, we shouldn't condemn Palestinian suicide bombers either!

More later...

It's ludicrous for anyone to try to deny that anti-Semitism is exaggerated at times, but if you want some examples, they're not hard to find...

The habit the Israeli govt has of labelling legitimate criticism of its policies as anti-Semitism...

The UN being called anti-Semitic due to Resolutions critical of Israels actions in the Occupied Territories...

Claims that the I/P conflict exists and suicide-bombings happen because of anti-Semitism...

On a personal level, because it's something I encountered personally, I was told a friend of mine was anti-Semitic because he did an impersonation of Sigmund Freud. Try to work that one out. I still can't. :shrug:

Now if these examples aren't what Darranar meant when he talked about exaggeration, he can correct me on it, but I'm pretty sure this is the sort of stuff he meant...

Now a question for you. How do you decide what is and isn't legitimate criticism of Israel? I've seen responses here by some to posts critical of specific actions by the GOI that have been met not with legitimate defence of those actions, but by questions like: 'So what don't you blame Israel for???' or 'My pet cat got run over yesterday. Going to blame Israel for that????' I've pointed this out many times in the past, but the point where legitimate criticism of Israel would cross over into anti-Semitism is if someone were to criticise Israel for doing something that they don't have a problem with other states doing. And when it comes to this forum in particular, claims that people are critical of Israel and not critical of other instances where similar things happen doesn't wash for the simple reason that this is the I/P forum, and that to criticise for example the habit of Israel for labelling legitimate attacks on military targets as terrorism doesn't mean any of us have to put in a long disclaimer explaining that we also have a problem with the US doing exactly the same thing when describing attacks on US troops in Iraq. Being a forum for progressives, this should be a given that the vast majority of folk here would oppose these actions and policies no matter where they occur...

As I thought Darranar's post, in particular that third paragraph was spot-on, it seems yr issue is with what constitutes legitimate criticism of Israel. If you agree with what I've just said, there's no need to reply. Yr non-answer will speak for itself ;)

Violet...

In case you overlooked it, let me repeat it for you.

"Try not to trot out the tiresome "I can be anti-Israel and not be an anti-semite" line. I will agree that legitimate criticism is not in itself anti- semitic."

Which is why I asked you to define what you see as legitimate criticism of Israel, because as I pointed out, that seems to be the issue. It's easy for people to say that legitimate criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic, but if they define legitimate criticism in a way that means they see most legitimate criticism of the state as anti-Semitism, it doesn't really mean much in the long run...

If you agree that legitimate criticism of the policies of Israel isn't anti-Semitism, then can you explain why yr disagreeing with Darranar? He pointed out, quite rightly, that there is exaggeration of anti-Semitism (which I pointed out to you, including an example that had zero to do with Israel or the I/P conflict) and also rightly pointed out that there are anti-Semites who hijack the cause of the Palestinian people, and that we should all be opposed to them...

Violet...

An example of cases where anti-semitism is exaggerated.

Sure:

1. When anti-israel rhetoric is depicted as anti-semitic rhetoric;
   
   
2. When it is claimed that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism;
   
   
3. When it is claimed that the world (or Europe) hates the Jews, and that is why it 'hates' Israel;
   
   
4. When it is claimed that Israel is a major issue because of anti-semitism;
   
   

Try not to trot out the tiresome "I can be anti-Israel and not be an anti-semite" line. I will agree that legitimate criticism is not in itself anti- semitic.

Why not? That is one example of the exxageration of anti-semitism I was referring to. If my answers to your questions must conform to your wishes, why should I answer them?

in Europe, and somewhat in the US as well.

From what I've read, I'm inclined to agree that there's been an increase in European anti-Semitism. But in the U.S.? No way.

According to FBI hate crimes statistics, there were around 1,100 attacks against American Jews per year from 1995 to 2001. In 2001, there were around 1,000, and in 2002, around 900. Thus, if anything, there's been a decline in American anti-Semitism. Any increase in anti-Semitism among certain segments of the population has been more than balanced out by an increase in feelings of solidarity with Israeli Jews in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Breakfast now... more later.

To continue: one might claim the decrease in anti-Semitic crimes was due to a general reluctance on the part of Americans to resort to crimes motivated by prejudice in the wake of 9/11. However, one would then have to explain why crimes against homosexuals increased from 2000-2002, as well as crimes against the disabled, against American Indians, and against Muslims.

What makes it a "new anti-semitism", though, is its link to Israel, not simply the fact that it has risen. Once, the theory was that the Jews controlled everything for their own profit, and that they didn't care about anything else; now, the Jews/Zionists supposedly control everything so that their state can continue to oppress the Palestinians and gain more power.

Here we see one of the biggest problems with theorists of "the new anti-Semitism": they claim that it is anti-Semitic to conflate all Jews with Israel or Zionists, then proceed to do the same thing themselves.

The fact is that "Jew" and "Zionist" are not interchangeable. Though most Jews are Zionists, some are not, due to religious and secular reasons.

And it's undeniable that AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington. It's a fact that (at least in the United States) Zionist organizations are much larger and better-funded (and consquently have much more political and media clout) than their pro-Palestinian counterparts. There's nothing anti-Semitic about stating these facts.

I agree that it's anti-Semitic to conflate Zionism and Judaism. So to Zionists, I say: quit being anti-Semitic!

All actions by the US in the middle east are seen as an attempt to help Israel, because of the mythical Jewish/Zionist control over the US government and the US media.

Israel is the #1 ally of the U.S. in the Middle East, and perhaps in the world, so of course the U.S. takes into account how its actions will affect Israel.

That's not to say that the U.S. is controlled by Israel. But there is a symbiotic relationship. Israel serves as a U.S. military outpost in the Middle East. The U.S., in turn, generally helps to protect Israeli interests.

One also has to keep in mind that neoconservatism has been very influential in shaping U.S. foreign policy for the past 20 years or so. Neoconservatives do believe in using U.S. military power to further Israeli interests, with the eventual goal of allowing Israel to exist independent of U.S. aid. It's not a secret.

So, while it's hyperbole to say that the U.S. is just doing Israel's bidding in the Middle East, Israel's interests are an important consideration, as anyone can see.

That the new anti-semitism is using the Palestinian cause as an excuse for anti-semitism is undeniable (though it is also true that one reason they can do so with ease is the tendency of Israel and pro-Israel organizations to blur the line between Israel and the Jews.) This fact does not make the Palestinian cause any less justified, but advocates for the Palestinians and their cause should acknowledge this and condemn it - something that some refuse to do.

I agree. But sometimes, the Web of deceit that right-wing Zionist (I refuse to say pro-Israel, since I don't think that they advocate actions that are in the best interest of Israelis, and I refuse to say just plain "Zionist", since many Zionists are sincere, well-meaing (if, IMHO, misguided) people) organizations is so thick and intricate that it's difficult to tell truth from deliberate falsehood.

I don't strongly disagree with anything you said. However, this support for Israel and Israel's interests is not due to any Jewish/Zionist control over the media and government. Rather, it is because Israel often serves the interests of those in power in the US.

The new anti-semitism is new because Israel and Zionism are incorporated into the usual anti-semitic conspiracies about Jewish control over the world. Nothing you have said contests that.

In support of what you have said here, Darranar, I just heard on the radio an interview (was also on Israel channel 2) with a leader of the Jewish community in Sweden. She spoke about the anti-Semitism there, as well as the recent incident involving the Israeli ambassador. She said it is the new anti-Semitism that is very prevalent. She has police guarding her house because of the constant threats she receives.

Is the rest of the world more anti-American since GWB took office? Or has the rest of the world grown more opposed to U.S. foreign policy? When suicide bombers hit our country, there was a great outpouring of sympathy for America. Apparently the neocon moral midgets at the helm thought that this sympathy should extend to their militaristic aggression disguised as revenge as well. When it became abundantly clear it did not, neocon pundits began decrying France and most of Europe as anti-American. The RW Israeli government and its apologists are squarely in the same position.