Fathom.antisemitismSpecial

7/28/2019 Fathom.antisemitismSpecial

1/28

1

FATHOM - FOr A deeper undersTAnding OF isrAel And THe regiOnAnTiseMiTisM

S 2013

For a deeper understanding o Israel and the region

The oldeST prejudice,in modern grbessays tays atsts

deining nTiSemiTiSm don DvD HH

libi nTiSemiTiSm NN G

The pleSureS o nTiSemiTiSm v GD


2/28

2

Thom - or deeper underSTnding o iSrel nd The regionnTiSemiTiSm

Dear Delegate,

I am delighted to make available to you three articles on contemporary antisemitism rom

Fathom Journal.

Defning Antisemitism Down by the sociologist David Hirsh o Goldsmiths College,

University o London, argues that when the academics union rejected the European Unions

ocial denition o antisemitism (Te EUMC Working Denition o Antisemitism) which

states that some kinds o criticism o Israel may be anti-Semitic while others are legitimate,

it opened up a loophole in the unions guarantees against racism and bigotry.

Alibi Antisemitism by the political theorist Norman Geras describes how Israel has been made analibi or a new climate o antisemitism on the le. (Tis is the text o a presentation by Norman

Geras to the YIVO Conerence on Jews and the Le held in May 2012 in New York City.)

Te Pleasures o Antisemitism by the moral philosopher Eve Garrard claims that antisemitism

is much more than a cognitive error. It attracts by providing the deep emotional satisactions o

hatred, tradition, and moral purity.

Fathom is a quarterly online journal and app that provides expert analysis, inormed opinion and

genuine debate about Israel and the region. It is available online ree at www.athomjournal.org

and as a ree iPad and iPhone app.

Have a good conerence.

Yours sincerely,

Proessor Alan Johnson

Editor o Fathom

Fathomis publishedquarterly by the Britainsrael Communications andesearch Centre (BC).To contact the ditor [email protected] call 020 7636 5500.

Designed by Hype!www.hype.co.uk

Sta f dav f a at-isa tst,d 2008P Photo/Burhan zbilici

2

FATHOM -FOrA deeperundersTAnding OF isrAelAnd THe regiOnAnTiseMiTisM

S2013

Fora deeperunderstanding ofIsrael and theregion

The oldeST prejudice,in modern grbessays tays atsts

defining nTiSemiTiSmdown DaviDHirsH

libinTiSemiTiSmNormaNGeras

The pleSureSof nTiSemiTiSm eve GarrarD


3/28

3


definingantisemitismdown: the EUMC working definitionand its disavowal by the

university & college union

did hirSh

What kinds o hostility to

Israel may be understood

as, or may lead to, or may

be caused by, antisemitism? One o the

ways this relationship is debated, or

otherwise contested, is through disputes

over how to dene antisemitism. In

this article I shed some light on the

struggles over denition by tracing a

brie genealogy o the EUMC Working

Denition o Antisemitism. I go on to

look at a case study o the denitions

disavowal during the 2011 debate

within the University and College

Union (UCU) in Britain and also

the mobilisation o the Equality Act

(2010) as an alternative denition

o antisemitism by a member o the

UCU who is alleging in court that the

union has an unaddressed problem o

institutional antisemitism.

When the UCU rejected the EUMC

Working Denition o antisemitism

which states that some kinds

o criticism o Israel may be

anti-Semitic while others are

legitimate, it opened up a loophole

in the unions guarantees against

racism and bigotry.

t-isa ptst at bfastcty ha, nv 2012

Gary cCulloch/Demotix/Press ssociation mages


4/28

4


dstat wt aats t aeassy, l 2011Howard Jones / Demotix/Demotix/Press ssociationmages


5/28

5


A brief genealogy of the EUMC working definition ofantisemitism

Te EUMC (European Union

Monitoring Centre on Racism and

Xenophobia, now the Agency For

Fundamental Rights, FRA) Working

Denition is controversial because it

states that particular kinds o hostility

to Israel could, taking into account the

overall context, include: accusing Israel

as a state o exaggerating or inventing

the Holocaust and accusing Jews o

being more loyal to Israel than to their

own nations. It oers examples o the

kinds o things which may be judged

antisemitic, taking into account theoverall context:

denying the Jewish people their

right to sel-determination, e.g.,

by claiming that the existence o a

State o Israel is a racist endeavor

applying double standards by

requiring o it a behavior not

expected or demanded o any

other democratic nation

using the symbols and images

associated with classic antisemitism

(e.g., claims o Jews killing Jesus or

blood libel) to characterize Israel

or Israelis

drawing comparisons o

contemporary Israeli policy to

that o the Nazis

holding Jews collectively

responsible or actions o the state

o Israel

Te denition then makes it clear

that, on the other hand, criticism o

Israel similar to that levelled against

any other country cannot be regarded

as antisemitic.

[Note that there are a number o US

spellings in the denition and this act

was later mobilised in the UCU debate

to demonstrate its illegitimacy as a

European and an antiracist document.]

Mike Whine o the Community

Security rust (CS) traces the pre-

history o the Working Denition back

to the immediate aermath o the all

o Communism. Te Organisation or

Security and Co-operation in Europe

(OSCE) was a pre-existing international

orum in which Europe, East and

West, the USSR, later Russia and the

secession states, and the USA, could

talk to each other. It was a orum which

lent itsel to the project o attempting

to shape the new Europe, in particular

by ormulating states commitment

to the principles o human rights and

democracy. In the 1990 Copenhagen

Conerence, commitments were made to

combat ...all orms o racial and ethnic

hatred, antisemitism, xenophobia and

discrimination... Tese commitmentswere subsequently endorsed by heads

o state in the Charter o Paris or a

New Europe.

Te peace process between Israel

and Palestine broke down decisively

in 2000 with the start o the Second

Intiada. Te coalition o pro-peace

orces in Israel and Palestine collapsed

into opposing national consensuses each

o which portrayed the other as being

responsible or the renewal o confict.

In September 2001, at a UN conerence

to discuss strategies or dealing with

racism globally, there was a ormidable

campaign to portray Zionism as the key

source o racism in the world. A number

o actors came together that week, in

the conerence venues and on the city

streets and beachront o Durban. At

both the inter-governmental orum

and at the parallel NGO conerence, a

huge event in a cricket ground bringing


6/28

6


together tens o thousands o activists,

there was an organised and hostile

anti-Israel ervour. Some o it was

expressed in openly antisemitic orms,some was legitimate criticism o Israel

expressed in democratic antiracist

orms, and some was antisemitism

expressed in ostensibly democratic

and antiracist language. A number o

antiracists who were there experienced

Durban as a swirling mass o toxic

antisemitic hate. For some o them, the

traumatic experience was heightened

by the act that they were unable to get

home in the ollowing days because air

trac was disrupted aer the attacks

on the USA on 11 September. Te

collapse o the peace process, Durban,

and 9/11, as well as the reverberating

symbolic representations o them, can

be understood as heralding what somehave called the new antisemitism.

Te Porto Conerence o the

OSCE in December 2002 declared its

concern over a rise in racist incidents

against both Jews and Muslims and it

authorized the OSCE to make strong

public statements against racism and

to ollow them up in meetings and

seminars. In Vienna in June 2003, the

OSCE agreed to oppose antisemitism.

However, argues Whine, there wasdisquiet rom the Jewish participants

ptst wt at-isa aa,l 2011

Graham itchell/Demotix/Demotix/Press ssociation mages


7/28

7


at the assembled governments

ailure to recognise that antisemitism

was now coming rom new and

dierent directions.

Tis sentiment was articulatedparticularly by the historian Robert

Wistrich, the ormer French Justice

Minister Robert Badinter, and the soon-to-

be Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

Tere were also, says Whine,

attempts to raise the issue within the

European Union. A series o meetings

took place between the EUMC director

Beate Winkler and European Jewish

Congress (EJC) ocials which resulted

in the commissioning o a report on

antisemitism in each country. Te

Centre or Research on Anti-Semitism

(ZA) at Berlins echnical University

was asked to analyze the reports and

publish a composite analysis.

However, Whine notes, the report was

badly received by the EUMC board

because it apportioned much o the

blame or the rise in antisemitism to

Muslim communities.

It was leaked to the press by the EJC

in December 2003.

A second report was published

side by side with the main country-

by-country analysis. Maniestations o

Anti-Semitism in the EU 2002-3 was

released on 31 March 2004 and the

accompanying press release said that

the ar right remained the main

promoter o antisemitism within

Europe, contradicting the body o

the rst report.

Mike Whine writes:

In its 2004 report on antisemitism,

the EUMC noted the lack o a

common denition and requested

one rom a small group o JewishNGOs. Tis [was] intended as

a template or police orces and

antiracist campaigners, or use

on the streets. Te denition was

disseminated in March 2004,

and although not directed at

governments or incorporation

into national legislation, it [was]

nevertheless expected that it [would]

seep into universal usage via

adoption by the relevant parties.

Tis in act happened. Delegates to

the OSCE Cordoba Conerence in May

2005 constantly reerred to it and the

All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into

Antisemitism in the UK recommended

its adoption, as did a number o similar

initiatives around the world.

Tere is a strong tradition on the

antiracist le o understanding racism

and antisemitism as closely related

phenomena and o opposing both

equally and on a similar basis. Te

exemplars o this tradition include Karl

Marx, anti-Fascism, Franz Fanon, and

the Black/Jewish alliance during the

civil rights movement in the USA. At

Durban in 2001, however, racism had

been dened such that Zionism was its

archetypal and most threatening orm,

and antisemitism was not only denied

but was also practiced with impunity.

A signicant number o antiracistsactivists and thinkers were subsequently

willing to lend implicit or overt support

to organisations such as Hezbollah and

Hamas, judging their antisemitism o

those groups either to be exaggerated

or o little political signicance. o be

sure, there is also a strong tradition

o antisemitism on the le, rom

Bruno Bauer to Mikhail Bakunin to

the Stalinists. Durban illustrated the

possibility o the re-emergence o aschism between the worldviews o

antiracism and anti-antisemitism.

Tere is a strong tradition on theantiracist le o understanding racism andantisemitism as closely related phenomenaand o opposing both equally and on asimilar basis.


8/28

8


The whitening of jews & the schism betweenanti-antisemitism & antiracism

Te issue o whiteness is key to

the understanding o contemporary

antisemitism and it is linked to a

number o developments in the 20th

century le. Te rst is a tendency

or parts o the le to understand the

oppressed, with whom it sides, more

and more in terms o nations and

national movements, which are ghting

or liberation against the imperialist

states, or the rich states, the West,

the North, or the white states. Tis

is a dierent ramework rom the one

in which the le thought o itsel assupporting the sel-liberation o the

working class, o women, and o other

subordinated groups.

Some ound that the logic o their

new position was to understand whites

as the oppressors and non-whites as the

oppressed, and to subordinate

other orms o stratication to this

central one.

Jews occupy an ambivalent position

with respect to this black/white binary.

On the one hand, antisemitism is

a racism, arguably the prototype

o European racism, and provides

perhaps the clearest lesson about where

racism can lead. On the other hand,

antisemitism has oen unctioned,

in the words o Moishe Postone, as

a etishized orm o oppositional

consciousness through which Jews are

thought o as conspiratorially powerul

and lurking behind the oppression o

others. In the USA Karen Brodkins 1998

bookHow Jews Became White Folks and

What Tat Says About Race in America

presented a narrative o the whitening

o American Jews, and many began

to picture Jews as part o the Judeo-

Christian white elite.

Israel, which in the early days was

understood by some to be a lie-ra or

oppressed victims o racism, a national

liberation movement against European

colonialism and a pioneer o socialist

orms like the kibbutz, later came to be

conceived o as a keystone o the global

system o white imperialist oppression

o black people. In April 2009, when

President Ahmadinejad o Iran made an

antisemitic speech at the UN, Seumas

Milne asked in his Guardian column,

what credibility is there in Genevas all-

white boycott?

A number o Jewish communal

NGOs responded to the deeat and

the trauma experienced at Durban

by withdrawing into the OSCE and

the European Union where they had

some success in getting a positive

hearing or their concerns. In this way

the ideational polarization between

black and white came to be mirrored

institutionally. Durban, dominated

by states which thought o themselves

as non-white, represented one way

o dening antisemitism; the Jewish

organisations retreated into the OSCE,

which could be seen as the international

coalition o white states, and won

it over to quite a dierent way o

dening antisemitism.

Te issue o whiteness is key tothe understanding o contemporaryantisemitism and it is linked to a number

o developments in the 20th century le.


9/28

9


Opponents o the EUMC Working

Denition have pointed to the act

that the denition was the result

o purposive political action by

international Jewish groups, and so it

was. But this genealogy can only cast

shadows over the denition i there is

thought to be something inappropriate

about their input. Normally it would

be unremarkable or communal groups

to be involved in dening a racism o

which they are the object. But in this

case the Jewish groups are accused

by anti-Zionists o acting in bad

aith. Te accusation implicit in this

understanding is that the Jewish groups

are not really working in the interestso the struggle against antisemitism.

Rather they are secretly prepared

to sacrice the struggle against real

antisemitism by co-opting its political

capital to a dishonest attempt to

de-legitimise criticism o Israel.

Te Jewish groups, and their

EUMC Working Denition, are

conceived o as being white and not

antiracist; as part o the struggle o Israel

against Palestine and neither part o thestruggle o Jews against antisemitism

nor part o the global struggle against

anti-black racism.

The UCU: a case study ofthe struggles over definingof antisemitism

In May 2011 the Congress o the

University and College Union (UCU) inthe UK voted overwhelmingly to pass a

motion which alleged that the so-called

EUMC Working Denition is being

used to silence debate about Israel and

Palestine on campus. Congress resolved

to make no use o the denition e.g.

in educating members or dealing with

internal complaints and to dissociate

itsel rom the EUMC denition in any

public discussion.

Representatives o the institutions o

the Jewish community in Britain judged

this disavowal to be the last straw, and

said that it was a maniestation o what

they called institutional antisemitism

within the union. Jeremy Newmark,

Chie Executive o the Jewish Leadership

Council said Aer todays events,

I believe the UCU is institutionally

racist. His view was echoed by Jon

Benjamin, the Chie Executive o the

Board o Deputies o British Jews,

who said the UCU has . . . simply

redened antisemitism. . . Te truth is

apparent: whatever the motivations o

its members, we believe the UCU is an

institutionally racist organisation.

Since 2003, there had been an

infuential campaign within the UCU

to boycott Israeli universities as a protest

against Israeli human rights abuses

while there had been no campaign

against the universities o any other

state. Some opponents o the boycott

campaign argued that this singling

out o Israel was antisemitic in eect

and that it brought with it into the

union antisemitic ways o thinking andantisemitic exclusions. Supporters o the

campaign, as well as some opponents,

objected strongly to the raising o the

issue o antisemitism, arguing that

it constituted an ad hominem attack

against critics o Israel.

From the beginning, the boycott

campaign sought to protect itsel against

a charge o antisemitism by including

clauses in its boycott motions which

dened antisemitism in such a way as to

make its supporters not guilty.


10/28

10



11/28

11


pposite: ptst aast isasgaza bka a attak

ataa fta, 5 j 2010Taker Flickr

At the Association o University

eachers (AU) Council in 2003,

Motion 54 was passed:

Council deplores the witch-hunting

o colleagues, including AUmembers, who are participating

in the academic boycott o Israel.

Council recognises that anti-

Zionism is not anti-semitism, and

resolves to give all possible support

to members o AU who are unjustly

accused o anti-semitism because o

their political opposition to Israeli

government policy.

A witch-hunt involves accusing

individuals o something which

could not possibly be true: witchcra.

o characterise an accusation oantisemitism as a witch-hunt implies

that it, similarly, could not possibly be

true. Te statement that anti-Zionism

is not anti-semitism is ormally true.

And nobody could argue against the

resolution to support members who

are unjustly accused o antisemitism,

unless it was a purposely ambiguous

way o insisting that all accusations o

antisemitism which relate to Israel or to

the boycott or to political opposition to

Israeli government policy must be unjust.

At the National Association o

eachers in Further and Higher

Education (NAFHE) conerence in

June 2005, a motion was passed which

included the text: o criticise Israeli

policy or institutions is not anti-semitic.

Te rst Congress o the newly

merged UCU passed a motion which

stated that criticism o Israel cannot be

construed as anti-semitic. While the

motion supported a boycott without

resolving actually to implement one,

the antisemitism clause reerred only to

criticism o Israel, the implication being

that boycott alls within the protection

aorded to criticism. Te cannot be

construed as element implies that there

is somebody who is trying to construe

criticism as antisemitic. It is an implicit

allegation o the collective bad aith

o those who raise the issue

o antisemitism.

Te ambiguity o the motion was

not accidental, since Congress explicitly

rejected an amendment to clariy the

wording so that it would read as ollows:

While much criticism o Israel is

anti-semitic, criticism o Israeli

state policy cannot necessarily be

construed as anti-semitic.

UCU Congress in 2008 passed a

similar motion which was supportive

o a boycott but which stopped short

o implementing one. Tis time the

wording on antisemitism was as ollows:

criticism o Israel or Israeli policy are

[sic] not, as such, anti-semitic. Tis

orm o words dressed up all sorts o

possibilities as criticism and reassured

us that as such, it is not antisemitic.

Tis long pre-history to the

disavowal o the EUMC denition is

consistent. Each new orm o words

reuses the straightorward position that

some kinds o hostility to Israel are

antisemitic while other kinds are not.

Instead, each species that criticism oIsrael is not antisemitic, and it implicitly

subsumes all kinds o hostility and

exclusions under the category o

criticism [see Te Livingstone

Formulation]. Practically, the result has

been to open up a loophole in the

unions guarantees against racism and

bigotry. One kind o racism is excluded

rom these guarantees, and that is any

antisemitism which can be read as

taking the orm o criticism o Israel.

Te rst Congress o the newlymerged UCU passed a motion which statedthat criticism o Israel cannot be construedas anti-semitic.


12/28

12


Instead o addressing the antisemitic

culture, the disavowal o the EUMC

denition allows the union to carry on

treating Zionists as disloyal, singling

out Israel and only Israel or boycott,

holding Israeli universities and scholars

responsible or their government, and

allowing Zionist union members to

be denounced as Nazis or supporters

o apartheid.

Israel murders children? Israel

controls US oreign policy? Star o

David = Swastika stuck on your oce

door? Jews invent antisemitism to

delegitimise criticism o Israel? Host

a man ound guilty o hate speechby the South Arican Human Rights

commission? Exclude nobody but

Israelis rom the global academic

community? All o these are considered,

implicitly by UCU motions, and clearly

by UCU norms, to constitute criticism

o Israel and so are dened, in practice,

as not being antisemitic.

Ronnie Fraser, a Jewish UCU

member, is bringing a legal action

against the UCU. His letter to theGeneral Secretary o the union written

by the lawyer Anthony Julius, says that

UCU has breached ss. 26 and 57 (3) o

the Equality Act 2010:

Tat is to say, the UCU has

harassed him by engaging in

unwanted conduct relating to

his Jewish identity (a relevant

protected characteristic), the

purpose and/or eect o which

has been, and continues to be, toviolate his dignity and/or create

an intimidating, hostile, degrading

humiliating and/or oensive

environment or him.

Te letter alleges a course o

action by the union which amounts to

institutional antisemitism and it gives

examples: annual boycott resolutions

against only Israel; the conduct o these

debates; the moderating o the activist

list and the penalising o anti-boycott

activists; the ailure to engage with

people who raised concerns; the ailure

to address resignations; the reusal to

meet the OSCEs special representative

on antisemitism; the hosting o Bongani

Masuku; the repudiation o the EUMC

working denition o antisemitism.

In this article we have looked at

two case studies o the practice o

dening antisemitism. One is the

result o an international coalition

o Jewish NGOs ghting or their

way o dening antisemitism within

particular international institutions.

Te other is the result o a union with

an anti-Zionist majority in its decision

making bodies ghting or a conceptiono antisemitism which excludes any

text, norms or practices rom being

understood as antisemitic so long as

they are maniested in the language o

hostility to Israel.

Te struggle between these two

ways o dening antisemitism is to be

judged by a civil court according to the

ramework provided by the Equality

Act. O course, legal practice and legal

denitions are also part o social lie,not above it in some kind o magically

impartial realm; they relate to ways o

thinking with roots in wider civil society.

Yet they also have a particular kind o

weight and authority deriving rom their

ability to enorce their determinations

and rom the norms and practices which

have developed over the centuries to

make that eel legitimate.

What happens in R. Fraser v UCU

will be signicant in the ongoingdebates and struggles over the denition

o antisemitism and may turn out to be

as infuential as academic debates and

the determinations o activists, pressure

groups and social movements.

Dr. David Hirsh is a Lecturer

in Sociology at Goldsmiths College,

University o London and the ounder o

Engage, a campaign against academic

boycotts o Israel. His book Law Against

Genocide: Cosmopolitan rials won the

Philip Abrams Prize.


13/28

13


In Marxs essay On the Jewish

Question, written in 1844, there are

two contrasting sets o themes vis--

vis the Jews. In Part II o the essay Marx

deploys some well-known negative

stereotypes, according to which: the

mundane basis o Judaism is sel-

interest, egoism, or, as Marx also calls

it, an anti-social element; the worldly

religion o the Jew is huckstering; and

the Jews jealous god in ace o which

no other god may exist is money. Te

emancipation o the Jews is said by him

to be equivalent to the emancipation

o mankindrom Judaism. Part I, on

the other hand, presents a version o

secular democracy in which the Jews,

like any religious or other particularistic

grouping, may retain their religion

and their separate identity consistently

with the state itsel rising above such

particularisms, and rendering these

politically irrelevant.

Tough Marx himsel regards this political emancipation as an

normn gerS

Israel has been made an

alibi or a new climate o

antisemitism on the le.

nw swvs t Ka

max mt ctz,

gay, 2012Hendrik chmidt/Press ssociation

images

alibiantisemitism


14/28

14


incomplete orm o emancipation, he

nonetheless articulates a genuine type

o moral universalism: dierent aiths,

ethnicities, peoples, have a right to

assert their specic identities and shared

belies within the ree secular order o

the democratic state. Te distinctions

between such groups just cease to have a

political bearing. Marx does not extend

this argument beyond the single state to

the global arena (that not being part o

the discursive context), but the correlate

at international level o what he argues

in Part I oOn the Jewish Question

is today embodied in the notion o a

right o nations to sel-determination,

as armed in Article 1.2 o the UnitedNations Charter.

Te contrasting themes o Marxs

essay may be taken as emblematic o

the state o aairs obtaining today

between Jews and the le. It is not

dicult to understand the long anity

there has been between them. Common

traditions o opposition to injustice,

the commitment within liberal and

socialist thought to ideals o equality

(whether this is equality under the lawor equality in substantive economic

terms), opposition to racist and other

similar types o prejudice these things

have long served to attract Jews to

organisations and movements o the le,

and they still do.

Israel as alibi

At the same time, that anity has

now been compromised by the existence

o a new climate o anti-Semitic opinion

within the le. Tis climate o opinion

aects a section o the le only, and not

the whole o it. But it is a substantial

section. Its convenient alibi is the state

o Israel by which I mean that Israel is

standardly invoked to defect the charge

that there is anything o antisemitism

at work. Israel, so the story goes, is a

delinquent state and, or many o those

who regard it so, a non-legitimate one

colonialist, imperialist, vehicle o

oppression and what have you. Similarly,

diaspora Jews who deend Israel within

their home countries are not seen as

the conduit o Jewish interests and/

or opinion in the normal way o any

other democratic articulation; they are

treated, rather, as a dubious orce the

notorious Jewish lobby as i their

organised existence were

somehow improper.

Tese themes pitch those who

sponsor them out o a genuine, and

into a spurious, type o universalism:

one where the Jews are special amongst

other groups in being obliged to settleor orms o political reedom in which

their identity may not be asserted

collectively; Jews must be satised,

instead, merely with the rights available

to them as individuals. I call this a

spurious universalism because peoples

rights to live as they will (subject to the

usual constraint o not harming others)

is an incomplete right a truncated and

impaired right i it does not include

the reedom to associate with others o

their own kind.

o repeat: Israel has been made an

alibi or a new climate o antisemitism

on the le.

But could it not be, perhaps, that

there is no such climate? Could it not

be that Israels critics are just what they

say they are, no more and no less: critics

o the policies o successive Israeli

governments, just in the same way as

there are critics o the governments oevery country? Well, it couldbe. Tere

has been enough to criticise, goodness

knows rom the long occupation o

the West Bank and Gaza to the policy

o permitting Jewish settlements on

Palestinian land. It not only could be,

it even in many cases is, since there

are both critics and criticisms o Israel

which are not anti-Semitic such as the

two criticisms I just made. Yet, i it both

could be and is, it also in many cases isnot. Much o the animus directed at


15/28

15


pst baak oaa vs aas as saks at t a isa p ffas ctt(ipc) vt ast, may 2011Jose Luis agana/ P/Press ssocia tion mages


16/28

16


Israel today is o a plainly anti-Semitic

character. It relies (just as Marx did

in Part II oOn the Jewish Question)

on anti-Jewish stereotypes. Tis can

be shown with near mathematical

precision; I endeavour to show it in

the rest o what I have to say.

Antisemitism asepiphenomenal

A rst orm o the Israel alibi or

contemporary antisemitism is the

impulse to treat such o the antisemitism

as there is acknowledged (by whomever)

to be in Europe, in the Arab world as a pure epiphenomenon o the

Israel-Palestine confict. One instance o

this was the statement by lm director

Ken Loach in March 2009 that i there

was a rise o antisemitism in Europe

this was not surprising: it is perectly

understandable (my emphasis), he was

reported as saying, because Israel eeds

eelings o antisemitism. Te key word

here is understandable. Tis might just

mean capable o being understood;

but since more or less everything is

capable o being understood, it would

be pointless to use the word in that

sense about the specic phenomenon

o a rise in antisemitism in Europe.

Understandable also means something

along the lines o excusable or, at any

rate, not an issue to get excited about.

o see plainly the way in which Israel

acts as an exonerating alibi in this case,

one need only imagine Loach, or anyone

else on the le, delivering themselves

o the opinion that a growth o hostility

towards, say, black people, or towards

immigrants rom South Asia, or rom

Mexico, was understandable.

Another instance o this rst orm

o the Israel alibi is provided by a

thesis o Gilbert Achcars concerning

Holocaust-denial in the Arab world.

Achcar is a proessor at the School o

Oriental and Arican Studies in London

and a longtime leist; he is editor o a

volume o essays on Te Legacy o Ernest

Mandel. Holocaust-denial as I shall

merely assert and not argue here isa prominent trope o contemporary

antisemitism; it is indeed continuous

with a practice o the Nazi period itsel,

when camp guards and the like would

mock their Jewish victims by telling

them that not only were they doomed

to die, but also all knowledge o what

had happened to them would be erased.

Tey would be orgotten; the world

would never know. Achcar accepts

that Western Holocaust-denial is an

expression o antisemitism.Much Arab Holocaust-denial, on the

other hand, he puts down to such

actors as impatience in the Arab world

with Western avouritism towards Israel,

a suspicion that the Holocaust has been

amplied or pro-Zionist purposes,

and exasperation with the cruelty o

Israels treatment o the Palestinians.

Whether or not these explanations

are valid, a racist belie does not cease to

be one on account o its having context-

specic causes. No one on the le

would dream o suggesting that a belie

that black people were lazy, eckless or

simple-minded, was less racist or being

held by a certain group o white people

on account o motives which eased

their way towards that belie. But the

Israel alibi is currently exceptional in its

legitimating power in this respect.

Much o the animus directed at Israeltoday is o a plainly anti-Semitic character.

It relies (just as Marx did in Part II oOn the Jewish Question) on anti-Jewishstereotypes.


17/28

17


No antisemitism withoutdeliberate intent

A second orm o the Israel alibi

or antisemitism is the plea that

antisemitism should not be ascribed

to anyone without evidence o active

hatred o Jews on their part; without,

that is to say, some clear sign o anti-

Semitic intent. A well-known case o

this second orm arose with Caryl

Churchills play Seven Jewish Children,

ollowing upon Israels invasion o Gaza

in 2008-9. Tis play puts into Jewish

mouths the view that Palestinians are

animals and that they want their

children killed to make people sorry or

them; but that there is no need to eelsorry or them; that we the Jews are

the chosen people and that it is our

saety and our children that matter;

in sum, that I wouldnt care i we wiped

them out. I will not insist here on how

this echoes the blood libel; it is enough

that Churchill ascribes to the Jews,

seeing themselves as chosen, murderous

racist attitudes bordering on the

genocidal. On the ace o it, one would

think, this is a clear candidate or

anti-Semitic discourse.

Churchill, however, disavowed that

charge when it came rom critics. She

did so on the grounds o what one mightcall an innocent mind. No antisemitism

had been intended by her. On the one

hand, the blood libel analogy had not

been part o her thinking when she

wrote the play; on the other hand,

those speaking the oending lines in it

were not meant to be Jews in general,

merely individual Israelis. Churchill is

evidently innocent here o any memory

o the gure o Shylock in Te Merchant

o Venice, long thought o, despite hisbeing only one character, as putting

Jews in a bad light. She is innocent, too,

o her own generalising tendencies in

naming her play SevenJewish Children

and then linking the broad themes o

the Jews as victims o genocide and as

putative perpetrators o it in their turn.

Contemplate, briefy, the idea o a

sociology o racism in which racism

was held to be a matter exclusively o

mental attitudes, o what some givenperson or group o persons had in

their minds and, most particularly,

o hatreds explicitly ormulated; but

not also o a language that embodies

negative stereotypes, or o unconscious

prejudicial assumptions, or o

discriminatory practices, and so orth.

For no other kind o racism would such

a narrowly-conceived sociology be

taken seriously even or a moment.

A much more recent instance othe same thing is Gnter Grasss poem

What Must Be Said. It imputed to

Israel, on the basis o absolutely nothing

in the way o evidence, a genocidal

ambition against the Iranian people.

Grass has been deended in his turn on

the grounds that he is not personally an

anti-Semite as i this might settle the

question o whether or not his poem

contained anti-Semitic tropes.

K laJim oran for N e /Flic kr


18/28

18


Programmatic rhetoric

Grasss poem may serve, also,

to introduce a third orm o what I

am calling alibi antisemitism. For

the poem contains a reerence tothe loudmouth president o Iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at once

Holocaust-denier and lead spokesman

or removing Israel rom the page

o history. Like others or whom

this is a central goal, the loudmouth

president sometimes has benet o the

consideration that such talk is mere

rhetoric, and so not to be treated as

in earnest.

And you do not have to go ar to

nd either journalists or activists o the

le similarly playing down anti-Semitic

elements within the programmatic

objectives o Hamas and Hezbollah:

not just their commitment to getting

rid o Israel; also openly Jew-hating

statements, as or example in the

Hamas Charter. Tis latter document

cites Te Protocols o the Elders o

Zion as authoritative and as establishing

a Zionist ambition to dominate theworld. It has Jews hiding behind rocks

and trees against the threat (which it

celebrates) that Jews will in due course

be killed.

Leists and liberals o a would-be

pragmatist turn o mind can appear

remarkably untroubled by this sort o

thing. Either the oending contents

o the Hamas Charter are consigned

by them to a receding past, or they are

said not to represent the thinking o

a moderate section o Hamas willing

to contemplate a long-term (though

not unlimited) truce with Israel. It is

never explained by such pragmatists

why, i the anti-Jewish components o

the document are a thing o the past,

no longer relevant, o merely rhetorical

status, they have not been, or cannot

now be, amended away.

I shall leave aside here the question

o whether or not there are soundtactical reasons or Israel to consider

negotiating with Hamas; it is not

germane to my present concern.

However, and as beore, one should

try to imagine a person o the le

able to adopt so casual and indulgent

an attitude to otheropenly racist

discourses, able to treat them as merely

rhetorical racism while continuing

to be held in respect within the le or

liberal political milieu to which he or

she belongs. It doesnt happen. OnlyIsrael provides a pretext in that milieu

or the mere-rhetoric plea. By some

convenient metonymy, people saying

Jews may be taken really to mean

Israel. And Israel today is air game

or being hated.

You donot have to goar to nd eitherjournalists oractivists o the lesimilarly playingdown anti-Semiticelements withinthe programmaticobjectives o

Hamas andHezbollah.

gt gassChristoph ller-Girod /Flickr


19/28

19


A climate of complicity

Te ourth and nal alibi

phenomenon I shall deal with is more

oblique. It consists neither o the direct

expression o anti-Semitic themes

nor o attempts to explain these away,

but rather o turning a blind eye. It is

relevant to the case here, all the same,

since prejudice makes its way more

successully when there is a certain

tolerance o it by others, not actively

hostile themselves but indulgent towards

those who are.

I will take as my example o this

Te Guardian newspaper today. Tis

once great paper o British liberalism

now provides space on its opinion

pages or the spokesmen o Hamas, the

contents o its programmatic charter

notwithstanding; provides space on its

letters page or philosophers justiying

the murder o Jews; and provides space

on its website or people who deploy

well-known anti-Semitic themes even

while proessing that they have nothing

whatever against Jews. Te Guardianis, as you would expect, on record as

being vigorously opposed to racism:

as, or example, when it reerred in a

leader o November 2011 to a message

that is not heard oen enough... that

racism is never acceptable, wherever it

takes place.

Instructive, in the light o that,

is to examine how the paper reacted

editorially to the oulouse killings.

On March 20 o this year, beore theidentity o the killer was known and

when it was assumed he was rom the

French ar right, Te Guardian echoed

the sentiment I have just quoted rom

its November leader, saying that the

[French] republic will come together

in the ace o such an assault on its

minorities. While cautioning against

speculation about the killers motives,

it nonetheless allowed itsel to allude to

Sarkozys lurch to the right, his claimso there being too many immigrants

p t ma ma,Ts, ma 22, 2012

Bernard-ousse/BC/Press ssociation mages


20/28

20


in France, and other such expressions

o xenophobia. Tis may be seen

as an instance o treating racism as

unacceptable wherever it takes place.

wo days later, once it was known that

the killer was Mohammed Merah, an

Islamist jihadi who had said he wanted

to avenge the deaths o Palestinian

children, a second Guardian editorial

endorsed Sarkozy in condemn[ing]

any attempt to denigrate the French

Muslim community by associating it

with the mad crimes o a terrorist;

and then added precisely nothing about

the kind o ideas which might have

been infuential in Merahs willingness

not as a Muslim but as an Islamist

and jihadi to slaughter three Jewish

children. Mad crimes o a terrorist was

all, and not so much as a breath about

antisemitism. But the killing o Jewish

children, even i to avenge the deaths

o Palestinian children, is antisemitism

o the most unadulterated kind. Tose

children were guilty o nothing and

were killed by Merah because theywere Jewish.

A liberal newspaper, committed

to racisms never being acceptable

anywhere, can nd the words to

name the poison that is rightwing

anti-immigrant xenophobia, but

not the word or hatred o Jews.

Incomprehensible but or that

amiliar alibi, Israel as cause.

Conclusion

It is a moral scandal that some

ew decades aer the unmeasurable

catastrophe that overtook the Jewish

people in Europe, these anti-Semiticthemes and ruses are once again

respectable; respectable not just down

there with the thugs but pervasively also

within polite society, and within the

perimeters o a sel-fattering liberal and

le opinion. It is a bleak lesson to all

but those unwilling to see. Te message

o never again has already proved to

have been too sanguine. Genocides

still occur. We now know, as well, that

should a new calamity ever beall theJewish people, there will be, again, not

only the direct architects and executants

but also those who collaborate, who

collude, who look away and nd the

words to go with doing so. Some o

these, dismayingly, shameully, will be

o the le.

Tis is not a hopeul conclusion,

but it is a necessary one. Te best o

hope in politics must always be allied

to a truthul realism. We need to knowwhat we are up against.

Tis is the text o a presentation by

Norman Geras to the YIVO Conerence

on Jews and the Le held in May 2012

in New York City.

Norman Geras is Proessor

Emeritus in Politics at the University

o Manchester. His books include:

Crimes against Humanity: Birth o a

Concept (2011), Te Contract o MutualIndiference (1998), Solidarity in the

Conversation o Humankind (1995),

and Marx and Human Nature (1983).

He now lives in Cambridge. His blog,

normblog, is at http://normblog.typepad.

com/normblog/

A liberal newspaper can ndthe words to name the poison that isrightwing anti-immigrant xenophobia,but not the word or hatred o Jews.Incomprehensible but or that amiliaralibi, Israel as cause.


21/28

21


Antisemitism is un, theres no

doubt about it. Like other

orms o racism, antisemitism

provides a variety o satisactions or

those who endorse it, and it is worth

trying to analyse these pleasures, so that

we may better understand the whole

phenomenon. For there is something

strangely ineective about many o our

attempts to combat antisemitism. We

treat it as involving various cognitive

errors alse belies about Jews or

about Israel, the application o double

standards to the assessment o Jewish

activities, the one-sided ocus on things

which can be criticised and the neglect

o things which might be praiseworthy.

We try to combat these cognitive

ailures (o which there certainly are

plenty) by pointing out the errors

involved, listing the relevant acts which

correct those errors, and revealing the

logical inconsistencies involved in, or

example, the use o double standards.

ee grrrd

tst afft laaharry-m/Flickr

Antisemitism is much

more than a cognitive error.

It attracts by providing

the deep emotional

satisactions o hatred,

tradition, and moral purity.

pleasuresthe ofantisemitism


22/28

22


And when these attempts prove totally

ruitless, as they so oen do, we are

puzzled and dismayed. Dont people

wanttruths which would enable them

to abandon their hostilities to various

aspects o Jewish existence?

Te answer, o course, is very

oen that no, they really dont want

these truths. We have to look outside

the cognitive domain to the realm o

the emotions and ask: what are the

pleasures, what are the emotional

rewards which antisemitism has to

oer to its adherents?

The pleasures of hatredand tradition

Tere are at least three principal

sources o pleasure which antisemitism

provides: rst, the pleasure o hatred;

second, the pleasure o tradition; and

third, the pleasure o displaying moral

purity. Each o these is an independent

source o satisaction, but the three

interact in various ways, which

oen strengthens their eects. Te

satisactions which hatred has to oer us

are regrettably amiliar to most people.

Most o us know only too well the

surge o sel-righteousness, the thrill o

condemning others, the intense bonding

with a like-minded hater, which we eel

when a good jolt o vicious hostility has

risen within us. As or the pleasures o

tradition, there is a Jew-shaped space in

Western culture, and the shape is not a

pleasant one. Long centuries o tradition

have constructed the Jew as a being who

is both contemptible and dangerous,the purveyor and transmitter o evil.

Various tropes have been deployed to

fesh out this picture in particular the

blood libel, according to which Jews use

the blood o Christian children or their

terrible ceremonies o machination and

control, but also tropes about uncanny

power, in which Jews are depicted as

the puppet-masters o the rest o the

helpless non-Jewish world.

Te tradition o antisemitism is veryfexible, and it generally gets expressed

in terms o the preoccupations o

the period. Medieval Jew-hatred was

religiously based; 19th and early 20th

century hostility was given a scientic

top-dressing in terms o now discredited

theories o race science; and late 20th

Dont people want truths which wouldenable them to abandon their hostilities tovarious aspects o Jewish existence? Very oenthey do not.

la ha 25 j

1982 tays isap mst mab as a naz


23/28

23


century and early 21st century prejudice

is generally cast in terms o human

rights violations. Here there has been a

special ocus on the Jewish state. Israel

can be cast, though only at the expense

o an enormous distortion o historical

acts, into the role o imperial coloniser,

and hence hostility towards Israel and

the Jews who support her existence

can be legitimised as part, sometimes

a leading part, o the global ght

against imperialism.

The pleasures of moralpurity

However, in this shortened version

o my argument I will ocus on the

third main source o pleasure which

antisemitism aords: the pleasures o

moral purity. (Te ull-length article

is available on the Fathom website).

Te desire or moral purity, especially

a purity which is readily visible to

others and can count as a ticket o entry

to socially and politically desirable

circles, seems to be the motive du jour

o antisemitism in sections o the Le,

which might have been expected to be

hostile to all orms o racism but sadly

is not.

Moral goodness and purity is

o course genuinely desirable and

admirable. It is good i people have

deep moral insight; and the ability to

judge correctly whats the right thing

to do in complicated circumstances;

and the strength o character and will

to carry out their decisions; and the

understanding, actual knowledge,

courage, kindness and sympathy to

judge others airly, and to ght or

justice where need be. But one look at

that list is enough to remind us o how

hard it is to be good, and how much

easier it is to pursue the appearance

rather than the reality.

Israel as the Jewish state is a real

opportunity or people who want to

display their supposed moral purity, and

harvest a suitable quantity o admiration

rom like-minded others, without

having to deliver on the exacting

demands o genuine moral probity. So

we nd people declaring that Israel is an

apartheid state, thus allying themselves

to the righteous ght against apartheid

hal a century ago, but ailing to notice

the huge moral, social and political

dierences between Israel and apartheid

South Arica. Tey declare that Israel is

a colonial settler state, thus displaying

their hostility to colonialism without

having to ask who the colonising poweris, and where else the survivors o

the mid-century horrors should have

gone, and why the UN decided that

the Jews o the world should have the

opportunity or sel-determination,

and why they were so clearly in need

o it. We have people publishing in

the broadsheet press complaints

about how their hostile views about

Israel have been silenced by powerul

unnamed orces, without noticing the

perormative contradiction in what they

say. We have people explaining that

they do o course completely condemn

the Holocaust, and this shows that they

cant be antisemitic, but, they go on

to declare, it is appalling to nd Jews

behaving in the same way against the

Palestinians that the Nazis did in the

Warsaw ghetto. And so on, and on.

However, my concern here is not with

the actual and logical errors in thesevarious charges; I want rather to point

out the emotional dividend they provide

to those who deploy them. Such people

can present themselves as the champions

o the weak against the strong, o

the colonised against the supposedly

imperialist colonisers, o wholly innocent

Palestinian victims against bloody and

heartless Jewish oppressors. Tey can also

present themselves as being victimised,

both by the way in which powerul

orces have imposed silence on them


24/28

24


ptst ts t isa assy, 19 st 2011Pete iches/Demotix/Demotix/Press ssociation mages


25/28

25


(albeit one o the noisiest silences

ever heard), and also by the charge,

deeply oensive to their moral purity,that their extremely selective hostility

towards Israel and its supporters might

constitute discrimination against Jews.

Indeed so oensive is this charge that

it amounts, so it is claimed, to a urther

victimisation, o a kind which can

only be explained by the deceitul

and manipulative nature o those

who raise the concerns about

alleged antisemitism.

So people who deploy these tacticsagainst Jews can see themselves, and

can hope to be seen by others, as being

not only on the side o morally pure

victims against morally vicious villains,

but also as having the coveted status

o victims themselves, slandered by

people who are determined to exploit

their own past suerings in order to

oppress others. Furthermore, since

in this narrative Jews are cast as the

powerul oppressors, those who single

them out or hostile attention can see

themselves as speaking truth to power.

And paradoxically, ocussing on Jews or

singular criticism can be presented also

as subversive and transgressive, fouting

the conventions o polite discourse, and

thus conerring on the hostile critic

the accolade o being untrammelled by

convention, excitingly edgy, possibly

even outrageous. All in all, that is

an awul lot o moral bang or your

antisemitic buck.

Te reason that it is plausible to

construe these claims and attitudes as

driven by a concern to display moral

purity, rather than simply as showing

honest moral commitments, is that the

hostile attitudes displayed towards Israel

and Zionists are rarely directed against

other maleactors, including those who

have committed ar more, and ar more

serious, violations o human rights than

Israel has managed. Furthermore, the

charges made against Israel are oen

simply alse, and demonstrably so. Tese

two considerations together suggest

that what is in play is not serious moral

concern, but rather an easy simulacrum

o it, along with a conviction o moralrectitude which, though misplaced,

oers distinctive pleasures o its own.

Having your moral cakeand eating it

Te various sources o pleasure

which antisemitism provides hatred,

tradition and moral purity interact in

diverse ways. Sometimes the eect o

this interaction is simply to reinorce

the rewards on oer: tradition plus

hatred is a natural pairing, as is tradition

plus the desire or moral purity these

relations are simply multipliers. But

other relations look at rst sight as i

they might involve a certain tension:

tradition plus transgressiveness, or

hatred and condemnation plus the

desire or moral purity. However these

tensions can be, and oen are,

resolved in antisemitic discourse inways which leave the discriminatory

drive undisturbed.

For example, it is possible to claim

one is being transgressive in relation

to the post-war convention o being

polite about Jews, by suggesting it is

now exploited by Jews to cover up their

wrongdoings. And in the description o

such alleged wrongdoings, the rich seam

o traditional Jew-hatred can be drawn

on without embarrassment, indeed

Focussing on Jews or singular criticismcan be also be presented as subversive andtransgressive, thus conerring on the critic

the accolade o being untrammelled byconvention, excitingly edgy, possibly evenoutrageous. Tat is an awul lot o moralbang or your antisemitic buck.


26/28

26


with a delicious risson, because the

transgressiveness deuses in advance any

objections based on more conventional

concerns about racism. Te deusing

o such concerns is urther expedited

where the transgressor uses the device

o claiming that he himsel is not

antisemitic, but he can understand those

who are, since the Jews bring hostility

on themselves by their behaviour.

Te tension between the pleasures

o hatred and those o moral purity

can also be reconciled, allowing them

to co-exist and even reinorce each

other. Hatred, it can be suggested, is an

excusable and perhaps even appropriate

response to the bloodthirsty acts oIsrael. Te hatred supposedly arises

out o an overwhelming sensitivity to

injustice, and is a sign o the extreme

moral purity o the hater, who selfessly

struggles or justice or the innocent

victims o a tyrannical state and

its supporters. It is easy to see the

attractions o this sel-serving sel-

image to one who wishes to claim moral

rectitude, and also to enjoy the pleasures

o hatred. It is a terric opportunity

both to have your moral cake, and to eat

it up in huge and satisying gulps.

What can be done about this state

o aairs is not immediately obvious.

Te act that some pleasures are vile

doesnt stop them being pleasurable, orprevent some people wanting to taste

them again and again. In order to do

so these people must bolster up their

image o the Jewish state as oppressive

and illegitimate, and the Zionists who

support her as lying, manipulative, and

hostile to human solidarity and justice.

Here the devil requently does have the

best tunes, and the thin and reedy voice

o rational argument is oen drowned

out by their brassy insistence. But we

will do better in the combat, however weconduct it, i we realise that the views

which we are struggling against provide

deep emotional satisactions to those

who hold them, satisactions not easy to

overcome or to replace.

Eve Garrardis Honorary Research

Fellow in the Department o Philosophy

at the University o Manchester.

Te devil requently does have thebest tunes, and the thin and reedy voice o

rational argument is oen drowned out bytheir brassy insistence.

ptsts at Stys ltst aast t 2013 u 21as ay isaPeter arshall/Demotix/P mages


27/28

27


W HP v NJD DNGTH PCL F FTH.

L T F FTH 4CNG TH TN.


28/28


Fathom is published quarterly by the Britain srael Communications and esearch Centre(BC) To contact the ditor email t@fata or call 020 7636 5500

www.fathomjournal.org facebook.com/fathomjournal @fathomjournal

F TH FLL FTH PNC, NCLDNG

vD ND D, DWNLD TH F iPD

ND iPHN PP F TH iTN PP T.

Fathom.antisemitismSpecial

Documents

Transcript of Fathom.antisemitismSpecial