The frequency of verbal and sometimes physical attacks against Jews
in Europe (particularly in France) - mostly in some way connected
to developments in the Middle East - has led observers and
interested commentators to declare the phenomenon of a "New
Anti-Semitism." The Merriam-Webster International Dictionary (2004)
even redefined the term "Anti-Semitism" in the following
manner:
1) Hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group,
often accompanied by social, political or economic
discrimination
2) Opposition to Zionism
3) Sympathy with opponents of Israel
The perception of (2) and (3) as anti-Semitic was promoted by the
Israeli establishment, official Jewish communities and American
Jewish Organizations.1 The latter might have been additionally
motivated (after 9/11) by a desire to present Israel and the Jews
as victims of "international-Islamic terrorism." In
contradistinction, one should remember that any meaningful
definition of anti-Semitism follows number (1) mentioned above,
i.e. hostility towards Jews as Jews, "because" they are Jews,
irrespective of what they do or think. This would lead us to the
conclusions that expressions of (2) and (3) could possibly only be
constructed as anti-Semitic if and when they are directed against
Israel because of the ascribed and stereotyped "Jewish"
characteristics of this state.2
But what if hostility (at least in the Orient) is due to the
perception of Israel as European, Western, alien, non-Arab,
non-Islamic and particularly as repressive vis-à-vis the
Palestinians? Don't we hear constantly that even attacks by
Palestinians against Israelis are directed against them "only
because they are Jewish"? Are there no other reasons for such acts,
even if we condemn them? Is it so difficult, painful and dangerous
to look into these causes?
These difficulties result from the conflict itself.3 We don't deal
only with a confrontation between two peoples in one land but also
with a process whereby one collective is brought in via migration
and settlement while the other (native) collective is being
replaced and repressed. Such a colonial process is in need of
ideological justification. Therefore we find the interpretation of
Arab resistance as groundless violence from the beginning of the
Zionist enterprise, while one's own behavior is always constructed
as counter-violence.
Islam and Anti-Semitism
So we have a conflict that is, structurally speaking, antagonistic
"enough" - but due to its long duration and the needs of
auto-justification, has become ideologized beyond recognition. In
the Arab-Muslim world, hostility towards Israel, which defines
itself as the state of the Jews, is amalgamated with Judaeo-phobic
images from Koranic sources and anti-Semitic stereotypes of
Euro-Christian origin. Add to this a tendency to think in terms of
conspiracy theories and a demonization of the West (beyond the real
grievances) and you have a dangerous mix that has become part of
the problem.
Looking into contemporary forms of Arab or Muslim hostility towards
Israel and Jews, we have to state from the outset that they are to
a large extent responses to a real conflict - and that they are and
could be influenced in the future by its development. As in a
mirror image,4 hostility to Islam or Arabs in Israeli discourse
does not stem from pre-existing trends in Jewish thought but from
the conflict itself. "In principle" neither do Palestinians fight
Israelis because they are Jews nor do Israelis fight Palestinians
because they are Arabs.
But enemy images often have a life of their own; especially in
conflicts of long duration combined with a continuous pressure for
auto-justification and delegitimization of the "other." Often this
is achieved by projecting the conflict deep into the past. Think of
the grotesque exaggeration of the conflicts between the Prophet
Mohammed and Jewish tribes in the 7th century by Islamist
zealots.5
The Examples of Hizbullah and Hamas
Taking the examples of Hizbullah and Hamas, Esther Webman
contextualizes the origins of Judaeo-phobic amalgams.6 With
Hizbullah she sees the negation of Israel as influenced by a
combination of Khomeini's anti-Western orientation and negative
images of Jews and Judaism in Islamic traditions. Other attitudes
are derived from Christian-European sources: Jews/Zionists rule the
world, the Torah commands Jews to kill; Jews control the media and
- together with the Freemasons - strive for world domination etc.
On the other hand Israel is seen as a puppet of the U.S., perhaps a
concession to the traditional Muslim imagination of Jews as weak
and coward - in contradistinction to their image as powerful in the
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (an anti-Semitic pamphlet
originating in czarist Russia, still widely circulating in the Arab
and Muslim worlds).
Obviously Hamas is more focused on Palestine, but in its
ideological expressions the conflict is not seen as national or
territorial, but as an opposition between Jews and Muslims, Judaism
and Islam, falsehood and truth, infidels and believers. In
addition, one can find references to European anti-Semitic
fantasies: Jews were behind both world wars, they invented
Communism, control the drug trade, manipulate the world economy
etc. As if in a mirror image Jewish settlement movement Gush
Emunim's ideology of Greater Israel, the whole of Palestine is
described as a waqf (Muslim endowment) which cannot be conceded in
any form to infidels.
It would be wrong however to assume that Judaeo-phobic stereotypes
dominate the discourse of Hizbullah or Hamas. Politico-tactical
necessities or experiences with reality, pragmatic steps like
prisoner exchanges, ceasefires (hudna) or the goal to participate
in Palestinian Authority institutions, can modify "anti-Semitic"
certainties.7 And let's not forget that the image of the Jew in
Palestinian society differs sharply from the European-Christian as
well as from the traditional Islamic one because it is constantly
amalgamated with the concept of "soldier," "settler," "Zionist" or
"Israeli."
Arabs and the Holocaust
Traditionally, the Arabs saw the Holocaust as a European event.
Europeans were responsible, and the Arabs should not "pay the
price." The "price" usually was defined as the establishment and
existence of the State of Israel at the expense of the
Palestinians. This attitude cannot be attributed to anti-Semitism;
its primary objective was to delegitimize the Zionist adversary.
Arab attitudes should be seen within this perspective. There was no
genuine treatment or research of this subject. Out of available
positions - from denial via trivialization to justification - those
fitting "best" to the respective needs and contexts were
chosen.
The peace process of the 1990s and the mutual recognition between
Israel and the Palestine liberation Organization (PLO) offered an
opportunity for parts of the Arab intelligentsia to deal with
narratives of the "other" side. In this context, the centrality of
the Holocaust for Israeli-Jewish self-understanding had to be
recognized by Palestinian and Arab intellectuals. The Holocaust
entered Arab discourse and disputes not to legitimize the opposing
collective but to better understand its complex motivations and
their effects.8
Let's not forget that in spite of its drawbacks, Oslo had some
positive impact on the awareness of at least elements of the
Palestinian narrative in the Israeli public. It is not only due to
the "New Historians" that concepts such as the "nakbah" (the Arabic
word for catastrophe and the designation for "1948") became part of
Israeli discourse. The trauma of the "other" became less
taboo.
Arab "recognition" of the Holocaust was often undermined by putting
this genocide and the nakbah on the same level - or by linking
recognition of the European Jewish tragedy with demands for
recognition of the nakbah. At the same time the unwholesome role of
the Mufti of Jerusalem (who did collaborate with Hitler) is
frequently trivialized. On the other hand, the same issue is still
used by Israeli propaganda to discredit the Palestinian National
Movement altogether. Only recently a balanced analysis has emerged
from Israeli and Palestinian scholars such as Zvi Elpeleg, Israel
Gershoni, Philip Mattar and Azmi Bishara.9 Honest attempts to cope
with this past still face an uphill struggle in the Arab and Muslim
worlds. Just take the enthusiastic reception of Roger Garaudy and
his Holocaust denial in Beirut, Cairo and Damascus 10 in the late
1990s and the spread of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories after
9/11.11
All the more important are the voices of those Palestinian, Arab
and Muslim thinkers who challenge their societies on the issues of
anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Let's start with Azmi Bishara who
argued in a study published in 1994 that it is necessary for Arabs
to deal with the Holocaust since Palestinians were directly or
indirectly affected by this tragedy - and coexistence can only be
reached by coping with the collective memories of both peoples.
Arab anti-Jewish attitudes are not the reason but a result of the
conflict.12 But that does not make them less harmful. Hazem
Saghiyeh deplores a mutual insistence on victimhood which does not
contribute to understanding the sufferings of the other. The
Holocaust has universal significance, dealing with it seriously
does not constitute a "Zionist conspiracy" but a historical
necessity.13 And the late Edward Said asked how it was possible to
demand the recognition of one's own trauma when refusing to
recognize the trauma of the other, warning Arab intellectuals "who
refuse to see the relationship between the Holocaust and
Israel… I cannot accept the idea that the Holocaust excuses
Zionism for what it has done to the Palestinians: far from it. I
say exactly the opposite, that by recognizing the Holocaust for the
genocidal madness it was, we can then demand from Israelis and Jews
the right to link the Holocaust to Zionist injustices towards the
Palestinians."14
Zionism and Anti-Semitism
So where does this all leave us with the fighters against the "New"
and "Islamic" anti-Semitism?
First of all they underestimate the grave effects of a lasting
conflict on the consciousness and sub-consciousness of the parties
concerned. Had the Zionists decided - let's assume - to colonize
Argentina, would an "Islamic anti-Semitism" flourish as well? Would
Palestine have been colonized by - say - French Roman Catholics,
could we not expect resistance to bear anti-Christian features?
Would it not use memories of the Crusades?
Second, there is an underestimation of the effects of the U.S.-led
war against international and Islamist terror. Can anybody talk
about moods in the Arab-Islamic world without considering U.S.
policies after 9/11 as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Were not Jewish, pro-Israeli, pro-Likud politicians in the U.S.
evidently involved in the elaboration of the "war on terror"
against the "axis of evil"? Does any allusion to this state of
affairs automatically constitute a reference to the "Protocols of
the Elders of Zion"? 15
Third, there is an underestimation of both the meaning of Israeli
policies and the relationship between Israel and the official
Jewish communities in the Diaspora. Does Sharon lead a colonial war
against the Palestinians or not? Has he declared that he considers
every Jew an "ambassador of Israel" or not? 16 Have official Jewish
communities in Paris, London and elsewhere not organized mass
demonstrations under the slogan "solidarity with Israel" while
Sharon's tanks and bulldozers devastated Jenin? 17 It is not only
an "anti-Semitic" but also a Zionist paradox that links "every Jew,
even if he does not want it with Israel - and Israel, even if it
does not want, with every Jew."18 Does not Brian Klug have a point
in asking whether it is anti-Semitism pure and simple "when
alienated Moroccan and Algerian youth in the poor outskirts of
Paris, outraged by conditions in the occupied territories, attack
Jewish individuals and institutions"? and then answering:
"Fundamentally, it is an ethno-religious conflict between two
communities with opposed identifications: roughly, French Muslims
with Palestinian Arabs versus French Jews with Israeli Jews."19
This is no consolation for the victims, but an adequate analysis is
a precondition for adequate practical measures. A semantic question
has been politicized. This is why definition matters. It is time to
reclaim the word "anti-Semitism" from the political misuses to
which it is being put."20
And last not least, what would follow from a definition of the new
forms of hostility as anti-Semitism? A war à la "war on
terror"? After some reflection, we would have to realize that we
are not dealing just with projections of a Hitlerite kind but have
to face the maligned "root causes" after all? I am afraid much of
the excitement about the "New anti-Semitism" is just meant to avoid
these conclusions.
