In an excellent post which we have already linked to here, Eve Garrard looks at the rise of the new, cool, politically-correct antisemitism and some possible ways of dealing with it.
Before she gets to examining possible responses to this new phenomenon she says,
…the current methods of combating anti-Semitism by presenting arguments and critiques and evidence don’t seem to have worked very well.
I think she’s right about this and I’d like to suggest two ways of improving the way we engage with antisemites and their arguments.
1.
There ought to be an end to talk of antisemitism without antisemites, antisemitism that is not aware of itself and the like. Though probably motivated by a laudable desire to give the most charitable reading to the words of others, such formulations tend to sanitize the debate and fail to treat our interlocutors as equal to ourselves, that is, as being capable of understanding the meaning of what they say and propose and the likely consequences of their words and actions.
Looking inside people’s hearts is impossible, we can’t judge what people “really” are, all we can do is make up our minds on the basis of their words and actions. So, if a person or an organization persistently uses arguments or advocates measures that are uniquely prejudicial to Jewish people then that person or organization, and not just the things they say, is antisemitic and should be described as such.
There should also be no hesitation in applying to the designation “antisemite” to those Jewish people whose words or actions merit it. Let’s also not get into any sort of debate about whether these people are self-hating, self-loving, anxious for the approval of non-Jews or whatever. That’s something for them to worry about, if they want to.
2.
If you are Jewish, whether you like Bibi, think Lieberman is a fascist, are sorry the IDF wasn’t allowed to topple Hamas in Gaza or are convinced that it committed crimes and its General Staff should be in jail, isn’t at all relevant as to what rights you have or whether or not you can criticize antisemitism. I mention this because one sometimes gets the impression that having a certain set of opinions about how the Israel-Palestine conflict ought to be solved is a sine qua non for attacking antisemitism. “I’m against the occupation and in favor of a Palestinian state so it’s okay for me to be attacking antisemitism.” might be one way of offering a synthesis of this discourse. This is no good. By presenting themselves in the public square in this way, those who oppose antisemitism run the risk of making an important concession to their opponents before the debate even starts by predicating their right to speak on their adherence to one view of how to resolve one particular political conflict.
Just to be absolutely clear; I’m not saying that one can’t campaign for Palestinian rights as well as Jewish ones, of course one can and, indeed, one should. I am saying that one ought to be careful about offering the former as a kind of merit badge that allows one to talk about the latter.
3.
Heeding the suggestions I make above probably wouldn’t make much difference to the fight against antisemitism, a fight that has to be continued with arguments and ideas in spite of the paltry results that are often produced. However, heeding them might have a certain clarifying effect and at least partly relieve us of the burden of debating on terms set by our opponents.
The post is excellent and exactly what I think.
Why aren’t you posting this to La Fusión in Spanish?
Come on! We need this!
Thanks for this Fabián. To answer your question….
1.
I haven’t written much in any language recently.
2.
It takes me twice as long to write in Spanish as in English.
3.
I’m lazy.
Eamonn, as far as I know, the concept of antisemitism without antisemites was made popular by the rather controversial German polemicist Henryk Broder, in a testimony he gave to a German parliamentary committee; this speech was then translated to English. At least as far as Germany was concerned, Broder of course didn’t mean it seriously, i.e. what he was trying to describe with this term was exactly the phenomenon of antisemitic themes and speech becoming entirely acceptable and even politically correct among the chattering classes.
The point is not so much that if you talk about antisemitism without antisemites you assume that the people you have in mind actually don’t know what they are doing; it’s rather that by substituting Israel for the Jews in classical antisemitism, they have managed to create a discourse where enough people insist that it’s just legitimate political criticism, and has nothing to do with antisemitism.
It seems to me that this debate then inevitably becomes a debate about double standards; i.e. the discussion then is always about whether what is criticized about Israel is actually any worse than what is NOT criticized about other countries. This is in my view for many reasons an uphill battle; but I believe one of the major reasons is that much of the liberal media frames the reporting and opining on everything to do with the I/P conflict within a certain narrative that has gradually developed since 1967 and spins whatever facts come its way into a victim/perpetrator story.
Well, it’s a big topic; I hope I will be able to develop the related ideas a bit more in the coming few months and produce some writing; right now it’s perhaps best to remind you of your recent piece on Max Hasting…
Very persuasive analysis, Eamonn, thankyou for writing it. Section 3 where you point out that though argument etc hasn’t been noticeably effective, we have to continue with it, is especially important for us all to remember. You never know who’s listening.
Others have already pointed this out here and elsewhere but perhaps the most insidious discursive practice taken up by the new anti-semitism is the casual portrayal of anti-semitism as a completely Jewish concern, e.g. when discussing anti-semitic vandalism committed against Synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, etc. the attacks are framed as a matter of concern only for the Jewish community, but not for the broader community or as an intrinsically wrong.
This strategy is hard to combat precisely because it is so subtle.
“So, if a person or an organization persistently uses arguments or advocates measures that are uniquely prejudicial to Jewish people then that person or organization, and not just the things they say, is antisemitic and should be described as such.”
Those who proposed a boycott of South African businesses, sports teams, etc., advocated a measure that was uniquely prejudicial to Afrikaner people. Were they anti-Afrikaner racists?
American legislators who passed the Cuban Democracy Act advocated measures that are uniquely prejudicial to Cuban people. Are they anti-Cuban racists?
Neither are advocates of a boycott of Israel antisemites. They may be right –like those who boycotted South Africa– or wrong –like those who support the embargo of Cuba–. But antisemitic they’re not.
I completely agree with point no.2. However, I don’t think I agree with point no.1.
Late last year, I was very struck by two points that Flesh is Grass made:
# It is probably the case that when you do something racially discriminatory you are being racist but are not a racist. I.e. it’s not running in your veins nor part of your constitution – it’s just something you did. But that’s neither here nor there because the identity of the person spreading the racism doesn’t make much difference to the people on the receiving end. It might be relevant but it’s impossible to ascertain. What is important to them is that the acts stop. So repeat after me: “It’s the impact, not the intention, that matters. It’s the impact, not the intention, that matters. It’s the impact, not the intention, that matters”.
# So you’ve failed as an anti-racist? Get a grip, racism is an easy trap to fall into, it’s not the end of the world. Do some damage limitation and make it a brief lapse. All you have to do is know yourself, apologise, work on it, most importantly, stop, and nobody will hold it against you. Just don’t be one of those cliche racists who are so unable to handle their own guilt that they have to go full throttle with the demonisation to turn it into a just cause and square it with their conscience. http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/online-discussion-on-antisemitism/
I think her point is absolutely right. Arguing over whether someone is or isn’t an antisemite is a fruitless task. It’s much easier to show that they (deliberately or inadvertently) said or did something antisemitic, and encourage them to understand it and take responsibility for it.
I think that this strategy avoids the problem that Petra rightly points out, the way that “Zionism”/”Israel” have allowed antisemitism into mainstream discourse because it is more easily disowned. By showing how this things are felt as racist by the victims of racism, we can address this.
Hi Bob,
Tx for the comment . With regard to your point about my first point… If we follow that logic then there are either
a) no antisemites at all, only antisemitic acts
or
b)
there may be antisemites but no form of words or course of action allows us to recognize someone as such.
neither a not b seems very credible to me
also
” Arguing over whether someone is or isn’t an antisemite is a fruitless task.”
Yes, if one insists in tying oneself in metaphysical knots about it. I just propose the following formula: absent evidence to the contrary, antisemitic acts or words indentify an antisemitic person or organisation. I can’t see what might be problematic about that.
Also, your comments and your quote from FIG seem to be predicated on the idea that there is lots of inadvertent antisemitism about and if we avoid upsetting those people - basically good people with the best of intentions - responsible and point out to them what they are doing then they might stop doing it.
If we go down this road aren’t we in danger of fooling ourselves and/or patronising our interlocutors?
Hmm. Good points Eamonn. I know that there are antisemites; some of my best friends, as they say, are antisemitic. Some of them are inadvertently so, but not all. Many of them think they are not antisemitic. It’s not that we should avoid upsetting them, but simply calling them antisemites will not miraculously cure them.
What is problematic about your formula (”absent evidence to the contrary, antisemitic acts or words identify an antisemitic person or organisation”) is that it would be easy to provide evidence to the contrary in most cases, or, rather, it is impossible to say what evidence to the contrary would be. For example, I’m sure someone like John Wight could provide loads of Jewish character witnesses, and “prove” that he hands out with Jews, listens to klezmer, whatever. How useful would it be for us to have to listen to this, or try to refute it? Surely, better to simply say that talking about Israel is “a hydra-headed monster” is racist talk.
So, to reformulate what I am trying to say: it is politically more productive to identify and combat antisemitic acts, and show how and why they are antisemitic acts, than it is to label people as antisemitic people.
(A caveat: I am talking here about antisemitic acts by individuals. It is probably politically productive and important to identify antisemitic organisations.)
“It’s not that we should avoid upsetting them, but simply calling them antisemites will not miraculously cure them.”
Indeed not, but at least we wouldn’t be extending an unjustified courtesy to them by not doing doing so.
“it is impossible to say what evidence to the contrary would be”
I disagree. It could include showing that their words or actions were not uniquely or specially prejudicial to Jews. A proponent of the academic boycott, for example, could do so by being in favor of similar boycotts against against a range of countries with human rights issues and not just the Jews’ state. No quantity of klezmer CDs, Jewish mates or whatever can trump words or behavior uniquely or particularly prejudicial to Jews.
“it is politically more productive to identify and combat antisemitic acts, and show how and why they are antisemitic acts, than it is to label people as antisemitic people.”
This may sometimes be so. I think it should be argued for on a case by case basis rather than be the default position.
two further points…
1.
I still think there is a risk of treating antisemites unfairly if we fail to designate them as such when they deserve it. We seem to be saying, “Poor thing, he can’t possibly mean that, if I sit him down and explain things to him properly he’ll soon see the error in what he is doing.” Notwithstanding the point about political productivity above, this doesn’t seem right to me, it feels like a position of condescension, of superiority.
2.
It’s a little odd that we only seem to have this discussion when it’s racism against Jews. We have no qualms about calling people ho behave prejudicially to other ethnic groups by the appropriate name and we don’t usually think that they might be doing so without realizing it.
I broadly agree that a case by case approach is right, and I am semi-persuaded on the evidence to the contrary issue, altho in reality it may not always be clear-cut. However, I still think our default should be focus on antisemitic actions and words, whoever perpetrates them, and not on hunting out the “real” antisemites.
I understand the risk of condescencion that you point out. But I think that this is avoided by leaving aside the question of motivation, always focusing on the effect.
This is in fact the line I take with other forms of racism. One of the problems I have with liberal forms of anti-racism and anti-fascism is precisely the assumption of incorrigably racist people (often, oddly enough, working class people), who need to be hectored. In fact, racism is dispersed, often unconscious, takes a myriad of forms. Analysing and combating these forms is the right anti-racist strategy. Demonising racist people a priori is the wrong anti-racist strategy, as it feeds into right-wing “backlash” politics of resentment.
A-Z, I only twigged your email - Abraham ben Yosef - after I approved your comment. You are in fact Ibrahim ibn Yousuf, aka Hasbara Buster. And you’re outta here. Bye bye.
Bob: I see your points throughout.
The root motivation of my original post was a rejection of a certain tendency to exculpate people in advance and acroos the board of being one particular type of racist when evidence exists that they are indeed that type of racist and when similar slack would never be cut for them in the case other kinds of racism.
I have removed the banned A-Z’s comment and a comment from Ganselmi referring to it.
Eamonn, worth noting that other types of anti-racists do deal with similar problems. Below is a link to a video by Jay Smooth, which is great and widely admired.
A big part of the problem is that when you’re more focused on antisemites rather than antisemitism, then you take attention away from *the impact* of what was said, which is the most important thing.
It’s useful to talk about someone as an antisemite when they should be completely and utterly marginalized. But that’s not when they’ve said something racist — it’s when they have a pattern and some dishonesty about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fignoblus%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2008%2F09%2Fhow%2Dto%2Dtell%2Dpeople%2Dthey%2Dsound%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded