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

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 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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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.