Semantics matter, but they require clear historical analysis. Anti-Semitism is an ideological product of geo-political and economic dynamics affecting Europe in the 19th Century. As I have argued in previous posts, it is an essential part of the consolidation of European ethno-nationalism. Having said that, it can also be clearly argued that it is NOT an essential part of Christianity and Islam. The conception of anti-Semitism requires a race-ideology that argues that culture is a product of an interaction between genetics and mimetics, and not something pragmatic. Anti—Semitism is predicated on identity thinking. Identity-thinking is an intricate part of bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideology is derived from a set of pragmatic solutions to ensure that the masses are willing to sacrifice their health and their lives for the interests of the wealthy few.
However, the most important part of understanding anti-Semitism is that is contains a dual structure. Just as the logic of anti-Semitism presupposes identity-thinking, so does the logic of identifying anti-Semitism easily succumb to identity thinking. For example, by asserting that a person makes anti—Semitic statements because he or she is anti-Semitic. This logic presupposes that anti-Semitic is an identity that is anchored as a disposition through an interplay between genetics and mimetics. The idea is that an anti-Semitic identity is ethnically and culturally forged as a psycho-social disposition. I do not think that Wilhöem Marr or Adolf Hitler would disagree with this. They used this logic to argue that the Germanic and Jewish nations are antithetical and cannot coexist, because of what Germans and Jews inherently are.
One of the consequences of Holocaust Remembrance work has been that we have become more sensitive to biological explanations of culture and ethnicity. However, the psychosocial manifestations of culture and ethnicity were not included in most Holocaust Remembrance practices. The only thing that has been changed are the values attached to them. Whereas before the Holocaust, anti-Semitism was considered existentially necessary for the German culture and ethnicity, this was radically pathologized afterwards.
By turning anti-Semitism into a pathological socio-cultural disposition, it became the subject of pedagogical and educational interventions. Children need to be taught about the Holocaust in order to prevent anti-Semitism to affect the psycho-social roots of future generations. The Holocaust Remembrance Industry was created as a result, even though there were still doubts that this would be enough, Therefore, anti-Semitism was also classified as a hate crime. Those that cannot be persuaded by being handled by a velvet glove should feel the force of the iron fist.
Whereas it makes perfect sense to classify anti-Semitism as a hate crime, this is only legally tenable if it is attached to actions, i.e. to things said and done. The problem with identifying anti-Semitism in relation to spoken and written words, however, is the role of semantics. When does an expression qualify as anti-Semitic? The slippage into psycho-social theories of anti-Semitic dispositions also relates to this issue of semantics. By assuming the existence of the latter as providing an unquestionable horizon of interpretation, the hermeneutic base of semantic politics becomes extremely flexible. All of a sudden “From the river to the see, Palestine shall be free” becomes an anti-Semitic expression because Hamas have used it to justify its violence against the Israeli state.
Leaving aside the question whether Hamas is actually derived from a collective psycho-social disposition that one can identity as anti-Semitic, this does not extend to other users of the same phrase. Just because Benjamin Netanyahu also used the phrase “from the river to the see” does not mean that he is a member or supporter of Hamas. This shows that accusations of anti-Semitism that focus on the psycho-social disposition of speakers/writers often also engage in anti-Semantics by replacing three elements – situatedness (context), relationality and performativity – with just one: identity. Semantics are always situated, relational and performative. They have a history and if any attempt at interpreting semantics overlooks that history to speculate about the psychosocial disposition of the interlocutor, turns it into an argument in bad faith.
It is for this reason that most defences of Zionism are derived not from an engagement with semantics but from ad-hominem attacks. If person X has expressed words that are identified as anti-Semitic it must mean that he or she is an anti-Semite. That enables one to dismiss any further hermeneutic engagement with semantics. Indeed, the strategy of the ad-hominem deployment of anti-Semitic is anti-Semantic.
The expression by Hamas is contextualized with its 1998 charter, in which it describes its aims as follows: “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.” (Article 11). First, it is important to note that whereas the article speaks of the land of Palestine, it does not refer to its inhabitants as an ethnic group. Muslim refers to a religion.
A more violent rhetoric can be found in Article 7: “The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’…” Here, we can see a clear reference to genocidal intent against Jewish people, which in the modern semantic context is defined as anti-Semitic.
Article 22, however, makes the most explicit reference to what is commonly defined as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of a global-Jewish cabal controlling the world: “With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press… They stood behind World Wars… they stood behind the French Revolution… They created secret societies… the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs… They stood behind colonialism… They stood behind World War I… and World War II… and so on.” Again, it is clear that Hamas justifies its violence against the Israeli state with references to alleged globalist-Jewish forces.
This combination of references provides a fairly convincing argument that Hamas actively deploys anti-Semitic ideological strategies to justify its violence. However, never explicitly calls for the removal of Jews from the land defines as “from the river to the sea”. In fact, the revised declaration of 2017, where the phrase “From the Rover to the Sea” had been coined, this is what was stated: ““Hamas rejects any alternative to the complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea… and the establishment of a Palestinian independent state with its sovereignty… on the borders of the 4th of June 1967…” This explicitly states, that Hamas no longer strives towards a single Islamic state, but only towards independent statehood for the occupied territories. Thus, those protesting in the West using the phrase “from the river to the sea” are very unlikely using this as a claim towards ethnic cleansing, but more as an appeal to international law as had been expressed in countless UN resolutions related to Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East-Jerusalem.
These semantic and hermeneutic excursions make clear that whereas it is not illogical to associate the ideological focus of Hamas with anti-Semitism, and it is also possible to interpret the invocation of anti-Semitism as a continuity with the original European anti-Semitism, it still remains too much of a stretch to legally prove that the usage of the phrase “From the river to the sea” is anti-Semitic (let alone to legally prove that those who use the phrase do so because they are anti-Semitic).
Thus, even in what might be one of the most extreme cases of contemporary anti-Semitism – where the racial-biological component has been removed but the psycho-social anchoring of anti-Semitism as a disposition remains – it is not a done and dusted case of simply invoking a phrase. Semantics do not work that way. You cannot oppose anti-Semitic practices with anti-Semantic explanations. The semantic politics of many but not all anti-Semitism accusations are anti-Semantic because they are unwilling to engage hermeneutically with history, interests and tradition.
The Holocaust Remembrance Industry has a significant political representation in the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA), which is an intergovernmental body consisting of 35 countries, 30 of which are from Europe and only one country (Argentina) is from the “global south”. To a significant extent, this also reflects the geo-political anchoring of anti-Semitism as a European phenomenon. What is remarkable, however, is that the Holocaust Remembrance Industry also consists of activities institutionalized mnemonics that seek to deny the ethno-nationalist legacy of anti-Semitism. This has become very controversial in countries such as Poland, where any expression of the possible involvement of Polish officials in the Holocaust is illegal.
The instrumentalization of Holocaust Remembrance finds its most vivid expression in the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The main reason why this definition is so easily instrumentalized is its extreme vagueness: (a) how does one factually establish a “perception of Jews” especially when it “may be” expressed as hatred towards Jews (but not necessarily so?)? (b) If expressions and actions are manifestations of antisemitism, and not anti-Semitism themselves, then one does not need to engage with semantics at all, but simply with the speculative assumption of the presence of “a perception of hatred towards Jews”; i.e., every expression or action can be constituted as anti-Semitic of it can be linked to this speculative assumption. (c) Expressions and actions directed against non-Jewish individuals can also be interpreted as anti-Semitic. And (d) Anti-Semitism can also include expressions and actions against institutions and religious facilities.
It is the latter element that has enabled the IHRA to include in their eleven examples. OPf these I have selected a few of the controversial ones
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
At first sight, this is an obvious example of anti-Semitism. It would be completely wrong to hold all Jewish people responsible for the assassination of Folke Bernodotte by the terrorist group Lehi, of which Yitzak Shamir was a leading member, even if many Israelis later elected Shamir’s Likud Party and allowed him to become prime minister of Israel. The question, however, is, whether this principle is any different from any other practice of collective punishment, such as the genocide of the people of Gaza as retribution for the actions of Hamas? Moreover, Theodor Herzl himself blamed European anti-Semitism on the backwardness of the Jewish diaspora; this would thus also qualify as anti-Semitism; that is: the roots of Zionism are indeed to be found not in the rejection but in the metabolization of anti-Semitism
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
The historical roots are clear. In European ethno-nationalism, anti-Semitism often took the form of accusing Jewish people as being the enemy-within. This was magnified by associations between Jews and international Communism as well as between Jews and global Capitalism. It should be clear that there are Jews, such as Karl Marx, who were strong critics of nationalism and there are Jews, such as the Rothschild family, who have vested interests in global capitalism. In the context of the current “presidency” of Donald Trump, questions are being asked about whether his regime is “America First” or “Israel First”. His recent tantrum over Canada’s statement that they are considering recognizing the State of Palestine by imposing higher tariffs on imports from Canada, which directly hurt the USA’s economy have legitimately raised this question again. Also, the role of AIPAC in influencing US politics often at the expense of actual democratic processes, is often criticized. The statement seems to imply that Jewish citizens may be more loyal to Israel, but that accusing them of this is anti-Semitic. By looking more closely at political debates in western nations, it seems obvious that “loyalty to Israel” is a very specific and often inexplicable factor, especially if performed in defence of politics (such as supporting a genocide in Gaza) that the vast majority of the electorate disagree with.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
This example is the one most used to silence criticisms of Israel, when these call into question the justification of acts of violence in the occupied territories. By constantly reciting “Israel has a right to defend itself”, it is suggested that any critique of Israel questions the legitimacy of the very idea of a Jewish state. Apart from the fact that not all ethnic and religious groups in the world – such as the Palestinians – currently have a right to self-determination and that attempts to establish this right are explicitly criminalized and violently repressed by force, the existence of the State of Israel under the aegis of Zionism is factually speaking an endeavour that is fuelled by notions of race-ideology. The very idea of establishing a Jewish-majority state as had been laid out in the writings of both Herzl and Jabotinsky makes that very clear. De facto, Israel is an apartheid state, as is laid down it the 2018 Nation State Law, where Israel is defined as a Jewish State, with Article 1 stating that “the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people”. This can easily be explained as a racist endeavour because it is, as no other national groups (mostly Palestinians) have the same rights as Jews.
- Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
This is probably the most bewildering example of the eleven. Jewish exceptionalism is a specific feature of both anti-Semitism and Zionism that has led to the idea that there is something so unique about Jewish people that they cannot be compared to any other people. This lies at the heart of those who argue that comparing the Holocaust to any other genocide is offensive as it downplays the horrors of the Shoah and relativizes the suffering of the Jewish people. Indeed, this is the literal invocation of double standards: the suffering of Jews is without comparison. The same Jewish exceptionalism also insists that anti-Semitism is not merely another form of racism, that Zionism is not merely another form of ethno-nationalism and that the ethnic cleansing (the Nakba) that was required for the establishment of the Zionist Jewish State is not like any other ethnic cleansing performed by settler colonialism. Jewish exceptionalism is also invoked to explain why Israel is never held accountable for the violations of international law as stipulated by the countless UN resolutions against illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as well as the forced removal of Palestinians from their properties in East Jerusalem. How many democratic nations illegally occupy other territories at the moment?
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The idea that comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is another very peculiar example of alleged anti-Semitism. Comparing is a very useful scientific method to identify differences and similarities. The idea is that what is being compared is rooted in actuality – in the sayings and doings associated with particular governments. For example, in the Nazi’s extermination camps, Jews were being starved. Currently, Israel is starving the people of Gaza. This is a similarity. Inversely, there were gas chambers in Nazi extermination camps, there are currently no known gas chambers in Gaza. This is a difference. If people representing the state of Israel (such as those who support this IHRA definition) do not want to be compared to Nazis, then perhaps they should stop behaving like Nazis. The idea that drawing a comparison between Israel and the Third Reich is intrinsically anti-Semitic is absolutely antithetical to both facts and logic; it is also a complete violation of the semantic and hermeneutic integrity of the notion of anti-Semitism. It is obviously a deliberate political ploy, weaponizing the definition of anti-Semitism to inoculate Israel against any justified critique of the atrocities it has committed.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
This one is essential and a very good definition of anti-Semitism, even if it also applies to every other form of racism. The idea of holding people collectively responsible for the actions of a state – even if the government of this state had been democratically elected – is always wrong .Even if over 80% of Israeli people who identify as Jewish agree with the genocide in Gaza (it is very likely that they do not define this as a genocide but more as retribution and self-defence), they cannot be held collectively accountable for it. First of all, because they have all been “educated” in a society that has embraced a culture of militarism steeped in ethnocentric self-valorization, often paired with the inculcation of hatred towards Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general. Many of them may have voted for a party that was rooted in racism (Herut) and terrorism (Lehi) and for a party leader whose corruption scandals would have led to his imprisonment, had he not been elected, but again, that is their right in a democratic society. Not all Israeli Jews are blocking aid going into Gaza. Those who do, however, should be punished for their involvement in genocide.
I often ask myself what is going to happen to those ca. 4.5 Million Israeli Jews who support the genocide in Gaza and who cheer for a Greater Israel. Three generations of racist, Zionist inculcation are not so easily integrated into a multi-ethnic, democratic society in which they may not be the majority. Perhaps they should look at both the Jewish diaspora as well as many orthodox Jewish communities who do not think that an ethno-nationalist apartheid state is essential for sustaining Jewish life.
Disaffected Sociology 
Leave a comment