Log In | Register
(Part I of ??) I've been intending to do a series of articles on just what is antisemitism and how critics of Israel can avoid it. There are two reasons I'd like to start this now. One, there is clearly a problem on Newsvine with discussion becoming polarized and people feeling deeply offended. Two, I just last night attended a panel discussion on combatting antisemitism on the left. Of the three panelists, one dealt primarily with the ecology of fascism. The other two came to see antisemitism as a problem only after working for other leftist causes including Palestinian rights. Two of the three panelists would probably describe themselves anti-Zionists, for different reasons. All were willing to and did criticize Israeli policy harshly.
This first article will be about why everyone should be opposed to antisemitism. Later articles will focus on what antisemitism actually is, including historical and "modern" antisemitism, and where to draw the line. I may do one about the prevalence of contemporary (as opposed to modern) antisemitism, however, it will more likely find expression in each of the articles.
Clearly, the most fundamental reason should be simply that antisemitism is morally wrong. Historically, Jews have only found allies in the struggle against antisemitism when it was convenient for other groups. For example, during the Dreyfus Affair, many critics were only motivated by the opportunity to oppose the French military. One problem with this sort of article is that it may seem to propose a desire to use antisemitism (and effectively to use Jews) as a means to an end. Please do not make that mistake.
On her website, one of the panelists, April Rosenblum, notes that:
A friend of mine gave a talk on her experience working with the International Solidarity Movement in Palestine, to a progressive religious congregation in the Philadelphia area. In the Q&A, she was asked about antisemitism in the Palestinian population and responds that she didn't observe it. Afterwards, she told me privately that she saw tons of antisemitism on Palestinian TV, and around her, but that she would never say that to an audience. Hushing news of antisemitism is seen as a responsible way to protect oppressed groups.
The phenomenon she refers to, of hushing antisemitism, is not merely of disregarding antsemitism from Palestinian groups or the Iranian regime. It includes being quiet about antisemitism in places like New York City, as well. There is a long history on the left of ignoring the problem for what seem to be two primary reasons:
- It is not seen as a serious problem
- It is seen as a solution
I.
One of the stereotypes of Jews is that they are a superpriveleged group, rich and powerful. As such, they are not seen as vulnerable. People on the left often wonder why they should waste resources combatting prejudice against elites. However, Jews are not so elite even in areas where they are most secure. The stereotype ignores the experiences of Jews in large parts of the world -- ranging from Russia, where 20 Ministers of Parliament backed by 500 prominent members of society called for a ban on all Jewish organizations, to France, where Ilan Halimi was slowly tortured to death by a gang that told the family to get the ransom money from their Rabbi if they didn't have it themselves, to the Bible Belt of the US. The stereotype ignores Sephardic and other Jews (including blacks who might be more vulnerable to the blatant antisemitism of many black nationalist groups), focusing on Ashkenazic Jews only. Even among American, Ashkenazic Jews in places like New York City, 1 in 3 are recent immigrants and 1 in 5 live at or below the national poverty line (about the same level as other groups), and these Jews are ignored in the construction of the stereotype.
Among that subset of Jews who do not directly experience antisemitism of these sorts described above, there is a dilemma of whether we should consider or describe ourselves as oppressed in any real and meaningful way. Last night, one audience participant suggested that we should describe ourselves as a "vulnerable minority," suggesting that anti-Semitism could potentially result in a future of very real oppression. Panelist April Rosenblum disagreed for the reason that she thinks it is true that Jews are oppressed. Even in a place like New York, People have on a personal level felt the sting of exclusion and hatred. Jewish activists are "litmus tested" and hear things like "there are too many Jews at this party." There are copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on sale all over the city (mostly in "black radical" – though more accurately "black reactionary" – bookstores).
And that is how antisemitism has always worked. There have always been cycles where some Jewish communities have it pretty good for a while. There have been Jewish golden ages where people must have thought they'd seen the end of antisemitism. But as Jews attain some degree of power then the conspiracy theories become marketable. In this way, antisemitism has always had a cyclical nature. Jews do have reasons to be afraid even at times when antisemitism seems confined to low levels. I'd argue that that fear is oppression itself, but even if you disagree on that point, the historical reality is that we can't argue that antisemitism is behind us just because violence directed at Jews is currently at low levels.
II.
The first speaker of the night Peter Staudenmeier began with a story about a document he read in Italy. He noted that, as an anarchist, he was impressed with the anticapitalist stance and anti-Stalinist stance. In fact, he noted, it seemed like a really wonderful group to him in so many ways. The text was a little antisemitic toward the end, but not so much. However, this was actually a fascist group arguing that Italian fascism wasn't fascist enough. The title of the work was "Why We are Antisemites." Even among the most blatant antisemites, antisemitism does not appear blatantly in many of their statements. Even among the Nazis, there was a strong relationship between many of their goals and antisemitism that cannot be easily explained, yet united their ideology. Moishe Postone argues that:
[T]he Left has tended to concentrate on the function of National Socialism for capitalism, emphasizing the destruction of working class organizations, Nazi social and economic policies, rearmament, expansionism, and the bureaucratic mechanisms of party and state domination. Elements of continuity between the Third Reich and the Federal Republic have been stressed. The extermination of the Jews has not, of course, been ignored. Yet, it has quickly been subsumed under the general categories of prejudice, discrimination, and persecution. [1] In comprehending anti Semitism as a peripheral, rather than as a central, moment of National Socialism, the Left has also obscured the intrinsic relationship between the two.
But, as he notes, most analyses cannot account for why the Nazis didn't shift resources away from the genocide and toward the war effort.
In fact, antisemitism and leftism have a long history together. Antisemites have never been found exclusively among the right. It has been said that antisemitism is a socialism of fools. More generally, it has been an antiauthoritarianism of fools, and today it has become an anti-imperialism of fools. Instead of attacking capitalist/authoritarian/imperialist structures, the fool settles for attacking the Jews who are presumed to control those structure. This isn't necessarily a conscious antisemitism, though it can become so.
Sometimes, it is because antisemitic themes resonate well with an audience (which can be especially obvious when David Duke shows up to events in the pro-Palestinian movement). The speaker is given positive feedback and begins to rely more on such themes. I would posit that more often, the speaker falls victim to the same heuristic strategies that lead to the creation of stereotypes in the first place. Our brains are wired to look for totalizing theories explaining everything. It isn't enough that the US can have an awful foreign policy and go to war in Iraq without a good reason, there has to be a deeper reason. Because Jews are a recognizable minority with certain historical associations, they become the natural targets for these totalizing theories.
In any case, the result is that leftisms of fools divert resources away from their real targets. Naturally, of course, Jews become worried. A great many of Jews then become much more strongly identified with Israel and a great many others refute such attacks. Jews who would have been supportive of the Palestinian struggle turn away from it. So, resources are lost, and diverted, and then further diverted when social justice movements get dragged into bitter feuds about their motives. And, of course, if the argument for something is perceived as attacking Jews then it may be hard to get anyone but the right wing crazies to pay attention (unless you are fortunate enough to get a real strong, Jew-hating uprising going).
The reality of antisemitism ought to be enough that all antiracists would be concerned with it, but if that isn't enough, then fighting antisemitism can only strengthen your cause.
