Trending Topics:

Klug on Kristallnacht: Opponents in Israel/Palestine debate are locked in an ‘acrimonious circle’

Israel/Palestine
on 44 Comments

On November 9, Brian Klug, the philosophy scholar at Oxford, gave a talk on anti-Semitism at the Jewish Museum in Berlin to mark the anniversary of Kristallnacht. The assignment had become politicized because of Klug’s noble positions on behalf of Palestinians; haters created a “dossier” against him, saying that he was an “immoral anti-Zionist,” and a rabbi wrote to Angela Merkel defaming Klug as a purveyor of “anti-Semitism… and memoricide—the murder of the memory of those murdered [in the Holocaust].”

Klug wrote then: “One of the worst things about this hate campaign is that it detracts so much from the solemnity of the occasion — Kristallnacht — and the seriousness of the subject: antisemitism.”

Well, a few days ago the Jewish Museum posted Klug’s lecture, above, and I got a copy of his remarks. The lecture is brilliant, thoughtful, subtle and gracious, and further exposes the dossier against him as a disgusting smear.

Beginning by referring to Kristallnacht as “pogromnacht,” Klug’s lecture offers a helpful definition of anti-Semitism: it involves a false conception of what is a Jew, in which that image of the “Jew” infuses a speaker’s description of a Jew. I excerpt that section below. I also excerpt bits about anti-semitism targeting the Miliband family in England, and about a postwar Jewish slumlord whose reputation was built of anti-Semitic materials.

Klug did not use the lecture as an opportunity to go into Israel’s human rights abuses. He said the Israel issue was the “elephant in the room,” and then discussed the matter in a balanced manner, addressing the degree to which anti-Zionism can be a mask for anti-semitism, and the ways that anti-semitism can also dwell in pro-Zionist positions. I excerpt that bit as well, which includes the plea against an acrimonious and circular debate.

Finally, I excerpt the conclusion of the speech, which is very moving, because it extends the lessons of the Holocaust to the contemporary persecution of Roma and Muslims, and ventures that Klug’s own defamation was a form of bigotry.

First excerpt, about the creation of the anti-Semitic image in England:

Consider the case of Peter Rachman, whose name in England is synonymous with ‘slum landlord’. In the 1950s, Rachman ruled over a property empire based in the Notting Hill area of west London, charging his low-income tenants high rents that they could barely afford. Rachman was Jewish. He was also, apparently, money-grubbing, unscrupulous, shady, exploitative, all of which are stock themes in the figure of the ‘Jew’.
Thus, he was also ‘Jewish’. Antisemitism consists in collapsing this distinction, so that to be Jewish is to be ‘Jewish’. The image, so to speak, fastens on to the reality: it uses the reality to proclaim itself falsely as real. ‘The rats are underneath the piles. / The Jew is underneath the lot’, is how T S Eliot puts it in two odious lines of poetry. But ‘underneath the lot’ is not the real Jew, the flesh-and-blood Jew; it is Eliot’s Jew, the figure of the ‘Jew’, a kind of cud, chewed over and spat out by the poet. For Eliot, this distinction between real Jews and his Jews is a distinction without a difference. And there’s the rub: thinking that Jews are really ‘Jews’ is precisely the core of antisemitism.

Antisemitism is best defined not by an attitude but by a conception: an answer to the question ‘What is a Jew?’ Defining the word in terms of the attitude – hostility – rather than the object – Jew – puts the cart before the horse. Indeed, hostility is not the only cart that the horse can pull behind it. Envy and admiration are also possible attitudes towards the ‘Jew’; which alerts us to the fact that philosemitism and antisemitism can be very close and can easily turn into each other. What do they have in common? They agree that I, a Jewish person, am larger than life. They share the assumption that I exist for them –
to play a role in their Weltanschauung – and not for myself. They look at me and what do they see? Not an individual but a token of a type, a representative of a group. They agree
that I am not me. With Wilhelm Marr, the man who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in Germany in 1879, we see how close philosemitism and antisemitism can come to each other. Marr wrote “I bow my head in admiration and amazement before this Semitic people …” But he went on to say “… which has us under heel”. Similarly, he described Jews as “flexible, tenacious, intelligent”. These are not in themselves terms of contempt.
Their antisemitic bent is evident, however, when they are read in context: “We have among us a flexible, tenacious, intelligent, foreign tribe that knows how to bring abstract reality into play in many different ways. Not individual Jews, but the Jewish spirit and Jewish consciousness have overpowered the world.” This ‘Jewish spirit’ and ‘Jewish consciousness’ is what Marr meant by Semitism. It is the main element in the word he
helped popularise: antisemitism. It is the horse that pulls the cart.

Now here is the Miliband bit:

Even as I was writing this lecture, a fierce controversy broke out in Britain over a scurrilous article in one of the tabloids: the Daily Mail. Under the spurious headline ‘The Man Who Hated Britain’, the article attacked the late Ralph Miliband.17 Miliband, who was Jewish, came to Britain in 1940 as a refugee when the Nazis invaded Belgium, and settled in London. Not only was he a prominent Marxist, but his son Ed is the current leader of the Labour Party. So, there was a clear political motive for a right-wing newspaper like the Daily Mail to attack him. And yet, as the writer and journalist Jonathan Freedland put it, there was a “whiff” of something else. Three days later that whiff turned into a nasty smell when, defending the original article, the paper published an editorial with the headline ‘An evil legacy and why we won’t apologise’.
Freedland drew attention to one passage in particular where, unexpectedly, the editorial brought in the Hebrew scriptures. Here is the passage in full: “We do not maintain, like the jealous God of Deuteronomy, that the iniquity of the fathers should be visited on the sons. But when a son with prime ministerial ambitions swallows his father’s teachings, as the younger Miliband appears to have done, the case is different.” Two points here. First, the editorial, quite gratuitously, brings in ‘the jealous God of Deuteronomy’. This is one of the oldest antisemitic tropes: the vindictive, unforgiving ‘God of the Old Testament’.
The logic of bigotry at work here is based on the principle ‘like attracts like’: if the ‘God of the Old Testament’ is vindictive, unforgiving, and so on, and if the Jews are drawn to this God and vice versa, it follows that the Jews themselves are vindictive, unforgiving, and so on. Second, note the emphasis on Ed Miliband’s political ambition. Warning that he might “crush the freedom of the Press”, the editorial closes with this remark: if he does, “he will have driven a hammer and sickle through the heart of the nation so many of us genuinely love”. Us, note, as opposed to the Jewish subversive who inherits from his refugee father a hate-filled “evil legacy” and is liable to use his political power to stab the nation ‘we’ love in the heart. This is not to say that the Daily Mail was consciously pursuing an antisemitic agenda. But the figure of the ‘Jew’ haunts its editorial like a ghost  that cannot be laid to rest.

Now here’s the passage about anti-Zionism.

Let us turn now to the other kind of case: antisemitism in disguise. In raising this issue, the voice in the room mentions the elephant in the room: anti-Zionism. I have no wish to dwell on this subject. But in Europe today, it is impossible to avoid altogether, and at least one panel tomorrow is devoted to it. The difficulty with this subject is that it is so politicized. In the public debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is a familiar, depressing pattern in which opponents appear to be locked in an embrace from which they cannot escape. Critics of Israel, crossing a line in the sand, find themselves accused of antisemitism. They react by accusing their accusers, alleging that the charge against them is nothing more than the machinations of ‘the Israel lobby’. At once, this is seized upon as an antisemitic slur, which in turn is denounced as a Zionist smear. Round and round they go, down and down they go, in an acrimonious circle that gets ever more vicious. Now, the political argument is going to run and run, and all of us have a view about it. These views divide us. But when we come together on a night like this, we must endeavour to put them to one side. If we take the question of antisemitism seriously, as everyone here does, then we must try to extricate it from the political arena….

[In 1968 I took part] in a conference of the National Union of Students, where, representing my college union, I proposed a resolution condemning the so-called anti-Zionist purges carried out at the time by the government of Poland. The resolution
(which was passed) said that these purges should be condemned for what they really were: antisemitism in disguise. So, I know full well that antisemitism can be hidden behind the mask of anti-Zionism, as the voice in the room puts it. But think what, as a matter of logic, this means. If it can function as a mask, this implies that anti-Zionism, as such, is not antisemitic: a mask that is identical with what it masks is no mask. (That would be like a wolf in wolf’s clothing.) And if it does function as a mask, then once we strip the mask away the thing behind it is laid bare – as if the mask had never been there.
In other words, antisemitism is antisemitism, whether disguised as anti-Zionism – or as anything else – or not.

Then what is it? What do we mean when we say, in a particular case, that anti-Zionism is antisemitic? … the figure of the
‘Jew’ is projected onto Israel because Israel is a Jewish state (or onto Zionism because Zionism is a Jewish movement). Sometimes this is obvious to the naked eye. But what if we think it is hidden behind a mask? Then we must look between the lines; and if we are right we will uncover the same figure implicit in the text. Text or sub-text, the figure is still the figure of the ‘Jew’: that is the point. And there are ways of bringing
subtexts to light. Suppose there is a group that presents itself as pro-Palestinian, but… we suspect that there is an antisemitic motive. We could look at the literature they produce, their history, their membership, their political connections, and so on. Then we are in a position to form a judgment, a judgment based on evidence.
There is no algorithm for doing this. The evidence might be insufficient. Moreover, we can be wrong. There might be room for argument by people of goodwill who weigh the
evidence differently, some believing that antisemitism does lie between the lines, others not. But this would be a rational process of argument, rather than the vicious circle of
acrimony that I described earlier. The decisive issue would be this: Does the group in question project the figure of the ‘Jew’ (directly or indirectly, openly or otherwise) onto Israel? Do they, so to speak, pin a yellow star on the place, like the badge that was pinned to [Andre] Kertész’s breast? Do they, in short, turn the Jewish state into the ‘Jewish’ state?

Masks come in all shapes and sizes, but the same logic and the same procedure applies to them all. In Europe today, especially on the far right, antisemitism is at least as likely to lurk behind a mask that is pro-Zionist as anti-Zionist.  Take the British National Party (BNP). Here is an observation made a few years ago by Ruth Smeeth, who was the anti- racism coordinator for the Board of Deputies of British Jews: “The BNP website is now
one of the most Zionist on the web – it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel …” That is not the end of the sentence. But let me pause to tell you that the BNP is an offshoot of the National Front and is widely regarded as neo-fascist. It is led by Nick Griffin. Griffin is notorious for his denial of the Holocaust in the past. In the 1990s he edited a BNP magazine called The Rune, whose antisemitic content led to
his criminal conviction. So, what has happened? The remainder of Smeeth’s sentence explains it: the BNP website “at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world”.
Jews, at least for the time being, are not in the gunsights of the BNP, whose viewfinder has swivelled and now seeks out Muslims. Support for Israel has become a stick with which to beat Muslims and to try to attract Jewish support. But it is a change of tune and not a change of mind or change of heart. To quote Henry Grunwald, who at the time was president of the Board of Deputies: “Despite all its attempts to portray itself differently  we know it is still the same antisemitic, racist party it always was.” How do we know? By applying Wittgenstein’s dictum: “look and see”.  We know by looking behind the scenes – behind the mask – and taking stock of what we see. We know because of what we know about the BNP’s past and the track record of its leader, Nick Griffin. We survey the evidence and the evidence leaves no doubt: behind the pro-Zionist mask there lurks an antisemitic face.

Finally, here is Klug’s conclusion, which takes off from anti-Roma persecution.

Exactly two weeks ago, when I sat down to collect my thoughts for this concluding section, my eye was caught by a banner headline in the Guardian newspaper: ‘Fear and distrust of Roma threaten to erupt into a European witch-hunt’. The article reviewed the moral panic that swept though parts of Europe when a so-called ‘blonde angel’, a little girl with fair skin and blue eyes, was taken by police from a couple in Greece. Because
the couple were Roma or Gypsy, the automatic assumption was that they had abducted the child from ‘white’ parents, an assumption that appears to be false on both counts: they did not abduct the child and the birth mother was herself Roma. Then something similar occurred in Ireland. The London newspaper Metro reported it in a story that filled their front page under the blazing headline ‘Anger as girl No.2 taken in gipsy raid’. The
seven-year-old child, described as having “blonde hair and blue eyes” was taken into care. Subsequently, DNA tests showed that she was indeed her parents’ daughter and she was returned to her family. Meanwhile, the words in the media do their destructive work, reinforcing the negative stereotype of the ‘gypsy’.

The second example is the case of a 25-year-old graduate student, Pavlo Lapshyn, who came to England in April from Ukraine. Within days, he tried to trigger a “race war”,
stabbing Mohammed Saleem, an 82-year-old Muslim grandfather, to death and exploding bombs near a number of mosques in the West Midlands with intent to maim and kill. At
his trial last month he pleaded guilty, saying that “he hated anyone who was not white”.

It is not difficult to join the dots; if anything, it is difficult not to join them. True, the Roma or gypsies were not targeted on Pogromnacht. But the Nuremberg race laws of September 1935 were amended two months later to include them – and also black people – in the prohibition of marriage and sexual relations with “those of German or related blood”. Their link to the fate of Jews under the Nazis is captured in a telegram that
Adolf Eichmann sent from Vienna to the Gestapo in 1939. He explained how they would be deported: by attaching “carloads of Gypsies to each transport” of deported Jews.
Like Jews, the Roma were sent to Auschwitz and other concentration camps, where most of them perished. As for Pavlo Lapshyn, his attacks were aimed at Muslims, not Jews.
But his social media pages contained “material relating to Hitler” as well as “rabidly antisemitic material”.
There are numerous dots with different names: racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, and so on. There is also the dot that consists in demonising
an individual for political purposes: distorting their work, misrepresenting their views, maligning their character: constructing them as someone they are not. (I don’t know what
name to give this dot but I am quite sure it exists.) Each dot is its own dot, unique in its own way. Each word that names each dot matters in its own right. But it also matters as part of a lexicon of bigotry. We need to single out each dot and bring it into focus. But we also need to see the complete picture that emerges when the dots are joined. In other words (and this is my parting shot), antisemitism points beyond itself: it points to the myriad forms that bigotry can take. If, when we say ‘antisemitism’, we do not join the dots, then do we really know what the word means? And are our ears sufficiently attuned to the echoes of shattering glass?

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

44 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    November 26, 2013, 12:36 pm

    Thanks for this, Phil. Makes it pretty clear that anybody who seeks to characterize “Jews” is confusing Jews with “Jews” (the ones of the characterization). And that is proposed as a definition of antisemitism. Confusion and group characterization.

    That, to me, extends to the idea that you cannot without antisemitism characterize anything “Jewish”. Is a bagel “Jewish”? Is hummus “Jewish”?

    Is Israel “Jewish”? (And this is not the same as the similar question, “Is the Pope Catholic”?)

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      November 27, 2013, 9:48 am

      Wanna try this same logic on the characterization “”WASP”?
      Also, re anti v. pro Jews/Jewish Israeli, on Hagee’s view of the Jewish people and their role in the world on a cosmos level? How about employing same logic on the term “goy” in context of usual Zionist rational for supporting Israel as an insurance policy?

  2. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    November 26, 2013, 12:38 pm

    RE: “Envy and admiration are also possible attitudes towards the ‘Jew’; which alerts us to the fact that philosemitism and antisemitism can be very close and can easily turn into each other. What do they have in common? They agree that I, a Jewish person, am larger than life. They share the assumption that I exist for them – to play a role in their Weltanschauung . . .” ~ Klug

    FOR INSTANCE: “Gunter the Terrible”, By Uri Avnery, The CounterPunch, 4/13/12

    [EXCERPT] Stop me if I have told you this joke before:
    Somewhere in the US, a demonstration takes place. The police arrive and beat the protesters mercilessly.
    “Don’t hit me,” someone shouts, “I am an anti-communist!”
    “I couldn’t give a damn what kind of a communist you are!” a policeman answers as he raises his baton.
    The first time I told this joke was when a German group visited the Knesset and met with German-born members, including me.
    They went out of their way to praise Israel, lauding everything we had been doing, condemning every bit of criticism, however harmless it might be. It became downright embarrassing
    , since some of us in the Knesset were very critical of our government’s policy in the occupied territories.
    For me, this extreme kind of pro-Semitism is just disguised anti-Semitism. Both have a basic belief in common: that Jews – and therefore Israel – are something apart, not to be measured by the standards applied to everybody else. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/13/gunter-the-terrible/

  3. LeaNder
    LeaNder
    November 26, 2013, 12:53 pm

    This is absolutely great. I have to take a look at his writing. That’s even better then reading his speech. Great man, which begs the question why is he attacked. Thanks Phil.

  4. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    November 26, 2013, 1:23 pm

    RE: “I also excerpt bits about anti-semitism targeting the Miliband family in England . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: The Daily Mail really got down in the gutter with their attack on the Milibands. What a nasty case of red-baiting! Joseph McCarthy couldn’t have done any better.

    SEE: “L’Affair Miliband”*, by Tariq Ali, CounterPunch, 10/11/13

    [EXCERPT] The only function of the assault on the reputation of Ralph Miliband was to punish and discredit his son. This operation, masterminded the Daily Mail and its editor—a reptile courted assiduously in the past by Blair and Brown—has backfired sensationally. It was designed to discredit the son by hurling the ‘sins of the father’ on the head of his younger son. Instead, Edward Miliband’s spirited response united a majority of the country behind him and against the tabloid. Ralph, had he been alive, would have found the ensuing consensus extremely diverting.

    The Tories and Lib-Dems made their distaste for the Mail clear, Jeremy Paxman on BBC’s Newsnight held up old copies of the Mail with its pro-fascist headlines (‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ the best remembered) . . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/11/laffair-milliband/

    * alluding to “L’Affair Dreyfuss”

  5. marc b.
    marc b.
    November 26, 2013, 1:38 pm

    They share the assumption that I exist for them –
    to play a role in their Weltanschauung – and not for myself. They look at me and what do they see? Not an individual but a token of a type, a representative of a group. They agree that I am not me.

    that is a fair, if incomplete, definition or description of anti-Semitism. But doesn’t it also work as a description of ardent Zionists, Jewish and Gentile alike?

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      November 27, 2013, 9:58 am

      @ marc b.
      Good point. How macro do you wanna go in answering your own question? Buber tried to end this mentality; he failed.

      And on a really crass level, Buber spoke of “I-Thou,” Bibi Netanyahu spoke (directly to the American people, 98% non-jewish) that American and Israel was the same.

  6. Erasmus
    Erasmus
    November 26, 2013, 1:40 pm

    Re Pabelmont : … That, to me, extends to the idea that you cannot without antisemitism characterize anything “Jewish”.

    As far as i understood his lecture, Brian Klug made it very clear that using the term Antisemite (antisemitic) to rightfully characterize a person or an action or event, it needs a wide range of subjective, objective and circumstantial and individual-motivational parameters to be taken into account. Iow, a comprehensive and judicious assessment of the entire scenario.

    It has been imho indeed a creative, sensitive and smart reply to the ugly ad-hominem slurs thrown at Mr. Brian Klug by a group of “expert-Jewish experts”, lead by the Director of the Berlin Internat. Center for the Study of AS, Dr. Clemens Heni. See their joint smear-dossier :

    http://bicsa.org/wp-content/uploads/BICSA-International-Scholars-criticize-Brian-Klug-ZfA-EVZ-Jewish-museum-Berlin-Nov-20133.pdf,

  7. Walker
    Walker
    November 26, 2013, 1:57 pm

    This commentary is full of insight. Unfortunately, it stops short.

    Klug is deliberately evenhanded between the “antisemitism” and “anti-antisemitism” crowd, implying that the blame is equal on both sides. My own experience is that a very small proportion – I’m tempted to say zero percent, but I know that’s an emotional overstatement – of the critics of Israel and its lobby are antisemitic by Klug’s excellent definition. However, if they are effective critics they are almost invariably accused of antisemitism. The real-life consequences of being accused of antisemitism can be very heavy, while the penalties for false accusations are very weak. It is not a level playing field by a very long shot.

    • marc b.
      marc b.
      November 26, 2013, 4:20 pm

      astute comment. racism, sexism, etc-ism, are always built on imbalanced power relations. I have heard some arguments that African Americans can’t be guilty of racism in relationship to ‘whites’ because of the power imbalance between ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’, for example. I don’t completely agree with that analysis, which seemingly obliterates personal relationships as opposed to social relations, but you certainly can’t ignore the relative power of the parties involved.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 27, 2013, 10:05 am

        @ marc b
        Think of all the “hillbillies” in KY, for example. What power do they have, compared to the major donors of the Democratic Party, or even the GOP with Adelson types involved?

  8. American
    American
    November 26, 2013, 2:03 pm

    Thats a lot of words just to say that anti semitism is sometimes masked as anti zionism.

    “And are our ears sufficiently attuned to the echoes of shattering glass?”>>>>

    Is the question that sums up the real message in all Klug’s rumaging around about anti semitism in this speech.
    Totally wasted effort imo, if you’re a Jew concerned about anti semitism.
    Better they should spend their time ‘ seperating’ the Jews- Jewish state- zionist connection.
    Tunnel vision.

  9. Pamela Olson
    Pamela Olson
    November 26, 2013, 2:49 pm

    Muslims have to deal with this kind of bigotry all the time. Right now some pastor from Georgia keeps spamming my Facebook inbox with horrible anti-Muslim bigotry, as if he’s trying to “fix” my “brainwashing.” Another rando saw that I was married to a Muslim and emailed me, “Be careful, you don’t want to end up like that Tsarnaev woman.” I wrote that he was a bigot and extremely offensive, and he wrote back that he didn’t understand why I was getting so defensive.

    It’s just never-ending. It drips through endless threads and feeds and comment sections. And most people don’t even recognize it as bigotry and essentializing and horribly insulting; they just think this is how Muslims are.

    The parallels with anti-Semitism are so obvious and sad.

    • Peter in SF
      Peter in SF
      November 27, 2013, 4:20 am

      This reminds me of how, soon after the Breivik massacre, Pam Geller posted a photo of members of the Norwegian Labor Party Youth Movement, with the caption
      “Note the faces which are more Middle Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian”
      http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gellerscreenshot.png
      Change “Norwegian” to “German”, and the exact same thing was said by the Nazis about members of the German Communist Party. It’s really interesting how anti-Semitic themes are taken up today even by Zionists who strongly identify as Jews.

      Oh, and looking at the screenshot of Geller’s page that I just linked to, I love the irony of a Zionist condemning Norway’s Labor Party for “flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives, including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole… all done without the consent of the Norwegians.”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 27, 2013, 10:20 am

        @ Peter in SF
        Yes, no doubt some Jews are very cavalier about using the same mind tactics that the Nazis used. I see it all the time. I guess, the test of virtue is power, or as frustrated Truman noted in his diary, the underdog Jewish Zionists take no time at all to abuse the new underdogs, the native Arabs of Palestine.

  10. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    November 26, 2013, 5:35 pm

    The Milibands, father and son, are quite different people:

    Ralph Miliband was an important left-wing British intellectual who had some influence in the growth of the New Left in Britain. Monthly Review Press has published a biography of Ralph Miliband by Michael Newman.

    Ed Miliband is just a run-of-the-mill Labor politician. No worse, and no better, than a typical Laborite.

    The father is like Noam Chomsky (but not as famous). The son is more like Bill Clinton, with no real principles that anyone can determine.

  11. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    November 26, 2013, 5:50 pm

    Klug does not seem to offer a definition of anti-Semitism and his remarks are for that reason quite confusing.

  12. Keith
    Keith
    November 26, 2013, 6:36 pm

    Just because Brian Klug has been vilified as an anti-Zionist purveyor of anti-Semitism doesn’t make him necessarily worthy of praise. While he appears not to be part of Norman Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry, he strikes me as someone with an overly developed interest in anti-Semitism. He is Judeo-centric to the core, with his emphasis on the Kristallnacht, an event of dubious current relevance in view of current pressing problems. He talks about anti-Zionism sometimes a mask hiding anti-Semitism, yet, has he even considered that charges of anti-Semitism are a mask to hide anti-Gentile chauvinism? There is also a question of power here. As Voltaire wrote, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Reckless charges of anti-Semitism by the gatekeepers of public discourse are a manifestation of Jewish power, not weakness.

    This emphasis on sniffing out “whiffs” of anti-Semitism is a distraction from other infinitely more important issues. The planet seems to be on a downward spiral that may well threaten the survival of the species. The problems are numerous and very serious, each potentially catastrophic, together apocalyptic. Just today, Ellen Brown has an article over at Counterpunch discussing the TPP, GMOs and the use of food as a geostrategic weapon (link below). To me, anti-Semitism is a relatively minor problem that is receiving way too much emphasis.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/26/monsanto-the-tpp-and-global-food-dominance/

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      November 27, 2013, 2:29 am

      Keith,

      Klug didn’t go to the UN and say ‘Stop everything. Kristallnacht is the most important event of all time, and the greatest challenge facing the world today is anti-Semitism.’ He spoke on the subject of anti-Semitism at an event organised by the Jewish Museum of Berlin to mark the anniversary of Kristallnacht. I can’t think of a more relevant time or venue for such a talk. Unless you are suggesting that nothing should ever be addressed anywhere, as long as there are more important things on the world agenda (as you see it), I don’t see your point.

      • Keith
        Keith
        November 27, 2013, 11:29 am

        SHMUEL- “He spoke on the subject of anti-Semitism at an event organised by the Jewish Museum of Berlin to mark the anniversary of Kristallnacht.”

        Yes, he along with the Jewish Museum of Berlin are part of the “Jewish victim-hood” industry which continues to promote the Judeo-centric over-emphasis on various aspects of historic anti-Semitism taken out of context to emphasize Jewish (Ashkenazi) uniqueness. It is an unwholesome, exclusivist attempt (apparently successful) to stoke and maintain tribal solidarity. It is also a huge distraction from current reality, some aspects of which are leading to increased racism and sectarian conflict, of which anti-Semitism is but a small part.

        “I can’t think of a more relevant time or venue for such a talk.”

        I think Jews should have stopped even thinking about the Kristallnacht before now. Time to move on and deal with the here and now. Of all of the problems confronting us now, anti-Semitism is way down on my list of concerns, yet, Mondoweiss and some commenters continue to obsess on the topic.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 27, 2013, 1:18 pm

        Keith,

        I think Klug shares at least some of your concerns, which is precisely why he thinks the subject is worth talking about (and why he finds the symbol of Pogromnacht useful):

        The word matters because the thing matters. It matters because unless we use the same word in the same way we will be talking at cross purposes. It matters because we want to develop social policies that reduce hostility to minorities, and so we need to try to pick apart different kinds of hostility: xenophobia, nationalism, anti-immigration sentiment, antisemitism and other forms of racism. It matters because social statistics matter and we cannot have valid or reliable data about antisemitic incidents or antisemitic attitudes if we do not know what ‘antisemitic’ means. Finally, the word matters because it is heavy with history, echoing with the sound of shattering glass. As a result, it is not only a difficult word but a dangerous one, for it is a word that can do harm if it is misused. Yes, it is a label that we need, a name for something that needs naming and denouncing. But a label can turn into a libel when it is pinned on the wrong lapel. Antisemitism has rightly been called a ‘monster’. But false accusations of antisemitism are monstrous too. For all these reasons and more, the word matters a great deal….

        There are numerous dots with different names: racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, and so on. There is also the dot that consists in demonising an individual for political purposes: distorting their work, misrepresenting their views, maligning their character: constructing them as someone they are not. (I don’t know what name to give this dot but I am quite sure it exists.) Each dot is its own dot, unique in its own way. Each word that names each dot matters in its own right. But it also matters as part of a lexicon of bigotry. We need to single out each dot and bring it into focus. But we also need to see the complete picture that emerges when the dots are joined. In other words (and this is my parting shot), antisemitism points beyond itself: it points to the myriad forms that bigotry can take. If, when we say ‘antisemitism’, we do not join the dots, then do we really know what the word means? And are our ears sufficiently attuned to the echoes of shattering glass?

        http://www.stiftung-evz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EVZ_Uploads/Service/Termine/Klug_-_what_do_we_mean_-_Jewish_Museum_Berlin_-_nov_8_2013_-_final.pdf

      • American
        American
        November 27, 2013, 11:51 am

        ”Unless you are suggesting that nothing should ever be addressed anywhere, as long as there are more important things on the world agenda (as you see it), I don’t see your point”…Shmuel

        I think Keith is saying it’s been ‘addressed enough. ‘ It’s been beat to death.
        And isnt it amazing how those concerned about anti semitism keep on and on ‘reinforcing’ the specter of it to Jews . Just like Klug did in this speech to a Jewish audience.

        Want the dog whistle?..here’s the dog whistle….”are our ears sufficiently attuned to the echoes of shattering glass?”
        If he had left that off he might have gotten away with throwing a few paragraphs to what is and isnt anti semitism.

        But most of all……what does he say about the ‘masks’ some Jews and Zionist wear and how that fits into anti semitism?
        Nothing.
        Anti semitism encapsulated is ‘an error’ on the part of non Jews who don’t know the difference between a Jew and a Jew.
        I wont argue with that, true enough.
        However.
        Physician heal thyself.
        You are rife with errors and masks yourselves.
        That is what is always missing in the anti semitism question.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 27, 2013, 1:26 pm

        I think Keith is saying it’s been ‘addressed enough. ‘ It’s been beat to death.

        It’s certainly been abused and instrumentalised more than enough, but even confronting such abuse requires talking about it, what it is, what it isn’t and what is its importance (or lack of importance). I think inviting Klug was a step in that direction.

      • Keith
        Keith
        November 27, 2013, 6:23 pm

        SHMUEL- “I think inviting Klug was a step in that direction.”

        I am not particularly concerned about Klug being invited or that he attended and spoke. I am more concerned about Mondoweiss’s apparent obsession with anti-Semitism. Had Phil not made this post, I would have known nothing about Klug’s speech. Phil’s pretext for this post is that Klug was accused of anti-Semitism by Israeli Zionists. Seems to me that aspect of this could have been dealt with briefly and succinctly, no need for yet another long dissertation on anti-Semitism. Better to review the results of the Libyan “humanitarian intervention” which, as I recall, Phil supported. Better to accept responsibility for current and ongoing imperial crimes than claiming never-ending victim-hood status. I provide a link to a recent update on the results of empire’s Libyan Kristallnacht analog:

        “Who will protect Libyans now? One of the darkest and most shameful chapters in Western military intervention continues to play out in spades in Libya. Recent news from Benghazi revealed that one of the (literally hundreds) of murderous militias opened fire on peaceful, white-flag-bearing protesters (protesting militias), killing at least 20 and wounding over 130. And they didn’t use just small arms — it was rocket propelled grenades, machine guns and even an anti-aircraft gun. It was, even for a horribly violent context, a disgusting slaughter of innocents.” (Murray Dobbin)
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/27/libyas-hell-enabled-by-canadian-humanitarians/

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 28, 2013, 3:07 am

        I am more concerned about Mondoweiss’s apparent obsession with anti-Semitism.

        Fair enough, but I’m not sure how one can address Israeli and Zionist abuses without dealing with what is, arguably, the most powerful weapon in their propaganda arsenal — used to great effect both as a justification and a way of silencing critics.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 28, 2013, 4:10 am

        Shulamit Aloni said it .

        “Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust are used as tools to silence those who dare speak out against Zionism and Israel.”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 28, 2013, 4:36 am

        @ Shmuel
        Yes. Note the reference in this review of Goldhagen’s new book (on what he calls “global-antisemitism”) to Goldhagen’s use of polls of Germans and Italians. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324463604579042904257147952

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 28, 2013, 10:05 am

        I think Keith is saying it’s been ‘addressed enough. ‘ It’s been beat to death. And isnt it amazing how those concerned about antisemitism keep on and on ‘reinforcing’ the specter of it to Jews . Just like Klug did in this speech to a Jewish audience.

        American, would you also consider erasing scholarship on all the other “dots” Klug mentions? What about Islamophobia, treating all Muslims as a collective threat? Not necessary to talk about and study prejudice against individuals as members of a group?

        The passage that Shmuel chose, the diverse dots or prejudices is the center of the strife, it’s all about if antisemitism can be integrated in a long list of prejudices against groups of people or if it cannot be since it specific unique. And apparently Brian Krug is on the wrong side of the politicization of the study of antisemtism, or it’s use as an instrument in politics.

        Which makes it interesting that Keith attacks Brian Klug of all people. Remember the larger SPEM (Scholars for Peace in the Middle East)network tried to get him disinvited, would they have, if he was the person Keith seems to perceive? The sterotypical ethnocentric Jew? How comes?

        In a Europe with quite a few diverse groups this is also a highly political issue. Remember the EU’s working definition of Antisemitism, it’s inclusion of anti-Zionism into it?

        Politics ultimately always relies on academia or specialists, and that is why we see this huge fight to silence academic dissenters against the “uniqueness” theory, from their perspective Brian Klug is on list of political enemies. He surfaces on SMPE (Scholars for Peace in the Middle East)scholars that have to be be silenced, or are completely misguided in their studies. It is no accident that “scholar” and SPME member Clemens Heni, from the pro-Israel and US imperialism support camp, the AntiGermans put him on his special ist. See the earlier article by Phil on the dis-invitation attempt coordinated by Heni.

        That is why Keith comment is not only absolutely misguided for me, no matter if he has a problem to grasp Brian Klug’s definitively abstact and philosophical speech, and did not understand, but that he somehow adopted some type of antisemitic working theory on Jewish people by now. There may be an exception but generally they are ethnocentric.

        Klug did definitively not address a Jewish audience only. Hardly only Jewish Germans visit the Jewish Museum in Berlin. It is a public place one of the many museums in Berlin. Besides, as far as I remember, the event was co-sponsored by the Berlin Center for the Study of Antisemitism, which by the way has been under assault by the enforcers of the correct perspective for quite a long time now since it shares Klug’s take on matters. There was not too long ago an attack by Benjamin Weinthal in the Jerusalem Post that the scholars that hold office there do not even include „one Jew“.

        Obviously Berlin should have such a museum too, in case it makes you wonder, but that is a different matter … Besides I cannot remember a single event over here commemorating the Kristallnacht not even even the usual ones in a synagogue ever is or was a purely Jewish event. …

        Why would SPME and friends silence someone who considers himself “Judeo-centric to the core” I ask you? … So what caused Keith attack, which you support here. That it wasn’t a activist speech, that it was maybe slightly too philosophical in it’s love of knowledge?

        Back to my first question would you also challenge all speeches or scholarship on racism, homeophobia, Islamophobia, which yes, Klug decided to leave out for whatever reason. … which may have to do with the fact that the cosponsor the Berlin Center for the Study of Antisemtism a couple of years ago juxtaposed Antisemitim with Judeophobia in an event, which resulted in a huge wave of ugly polemics against the institution, so maybe they may even have asked him as co-sponsors to keep it out, or since he was aware of it he decided to do so on his own. Its incidentally the topic that offers the Europistan camp just too much food for polemics which in turn may confuse other ill-informed people that are used as sheeple in the process.

        Concerning academia: Something like an ideological split in the study of Antisemitism seems to become more visible lately.

        For one side antisemitism is the stereotypical, I dare to say, “longest hatred in the world”. This is firmly rooted in the perception and support for Israel as a save haven for “the Jews” who are and will be eternally threated by non-Jews. “The Arabs” being simply another embodiment of Amalek or put more modern by a series of Arab/Person Hitlers.

        The other side, my camp, considers Judeophobia, antisemitism and its history as a rich and long history that can be studied and is due to it’s long history not only interesting on it’s own terms but also an important paradigm in the study of prejudices against groups generally. And this side must not necessarily take the simplified road of some type of unified theories like a Kevin MacDonald, , although it definitively means trying to look below fast shortcuts and easy stereotypes or simplifications to make us see more complex patterns.

        In 2014 we will witness two publications concerning the definition of antisemitism one belonging into one camp one in the other.

        First, one by Kenneth Marcus, once on the board of SPME, and maybe still the head of it’s legal task force, fighting “campus antisemitism” or support of Palestinian rights on campus. Richard Silverstein wrote some articles on him and the a search on Mondoweiss alone concerning him is endless. I picked Hostage since it was the first article I found in the search.

        The other book will be by someone who is also on the SPME Jewish and/or scholars of antisemtism enemy list fromt he above perspective.Mark Ellis would probably include him into his category of “Jews of conscience” Jonathan Judaken has been put on his special enemy list by the same German or AntiGerman, apparently non-Jewish, who also tried to force the Jewish Museum and/or the Center for the Study of Antisemitism to disinvite Klug. He also founded an institution to challenge the German center via his networks, BICSA The Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, where he also publishes Daniel Pipes. …

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 28, 2013, 10:09 am

        this was far too long to proofread. I won’t read the rest but here the emphasis is important for me:

        The passage that Shmuel chose, the diverse dots or prejudices is the center of the strife, it’s all about if antisemitism can be integrated in a long list of prejudices against groups of people, or if it cannot be, since it [is] specific unique.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 28, 2013, 10:26 am

        In a Europe with quite a few diverse groups this is also a highly political issue. Remember the EU’s working definition of Antisemitism, it’s inclusion of anti-Zionism into it?

        Klug himself was, apparently, instrumental in preventing the official adoption of the “working guidelines” by the EU.

        The other side, my camp, considers Judeophobia, antisemitism and its history as a rich and long history that can be studied and is due to it’s long history not only interesting on it’s own terms but also an important paradigm in the study of prejudices against groups generally.

        I’m pretty active in a couple of anti-racist groups, which hardly deal with anti-Semitism at all, but for whom the paradigm of anti-Semitism is central to understanding and combating all forms of prejudice and discrimination. Most recently, an article by Taher Ben Jelloun used the history of anti-Semitism in precisely this way, because its something most reasonable Europeans today seem to get — while continuing to harbour prejudice against Roma, immigrants or Muslims.

      • American
        American
        November 28, 2013, 12:00 pm

        LeaNader

        American, would you also consider erasing scholarship on all the other “dots” Klug mentions? What about Islamophobia, treating all Muslims as a collective threat? Not necessary to talk about and study prejudice against individuals as members of a group?

        That is why Keith comment is not only absolutely misguided for me, no matter if he has a problem to grasp Brian Klug’s definitively abstact and philosophical speech, and did not understand>>>>>>

        Short answer.

        I do not know how to impress upon you how absolutely sick the realist of the world are with the never ending self indulgent, mental and verbal masturbating, philosophizing and pilpul type intellectualizing on anti semitism that pass for ‘scholarship.” It has become a “incesteous cottage industry’ and playground for anti semitism and bigotry ‘professionals.”

        It is not unique, bigotry in all it’s forms and ‘dots’ is the same flaw as it has been since the human race organized itself into groups in primitive times.

        It is not a mystery.

        Cutting to the chase…..I did not like or approve of Klug’s ‘dog whistle’ in his speech……’are our ears sufficiently attuned to the sound of shattering glass’. This reinforcing the ‘eternalness’ and constant threat of anti semitism to his audience.

        Those who want to ‘study’ and philosophize on the ancient-ness and dots of bigtory should try philosophizing on whether this ‘reinforcing’ of anti semitism or any bigotry becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when the majority of a group adopts a belief in the ‘eternalness of it’ and acts accordingly.

        Case study—MLK Did Not accept the eternalness of white bigtory toward blacks, he preached the opposite. And things changed.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 28, 2013, 2:14 pm

        Klug himself was, apparently, instrumental in preventing the official adoption of the “working guidelines” by the EU.

        Shmuel, I didn’t know Klug was involved in the debate or instrumental in the attempts to make it law. I hear you, but do you have evidence for it? In any case he is under attack now from the usual suspects.

        Besides: Fact is, if I look into the larger history of produced scandals over here and not only on the H-antisemitism list, Heni has either been hired to do exactly that or is a hardcore ideologue who freely offers himself*, apparently some of the scholars occasionally hardly grasped the context correctly or informed. They occasionally only realize when they find themselves on Heni’s hitlist, although he invited them to join BICSA before. So I don’t know what evidence you rely on. Even if we had more information about him, e.g. knew he was invited into the group pushing for the definition, we would need to know what his special position was, or if he approved the final definition, and one step further if he would simplify it to the extend some would like to.

        * a little anecdote: He wrote somewhere that he his very concerned that American Jewish foundations sponsor the wrong people over here. He also wrote a report on this event in his typical style. Style: Horrible in German just as his English, Content: sycophantic in glowing laudations for the politically “correct people” or their respective speeches. ;) Strictly that is all I need to know about his “scholarship”.

        Electronic Intifada, Sept. 2012:

        Brian Klug, a senior research fellow at Oxford University who has followed the surrounding debate closely, concurs.

        “First, the document was never endorsed by the EUMC [European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia] nor by its successor, the FRA [Fundamental Rights Agency],” he said. “Second, it is more a discussion paper than a definition. Third, as far as I know it is not ‘working’ — either in the sense of there being plans on the part of the FRA to revise it or in the sense of law enforcement agencies in Europe putting it to work.”

        He has been following closely? What exactly does that mean. Was he misunderstood or do you feel he tries to hide his involvement? That would need solid evidence.

        I am basically with your position, not completely but basically yes.

        Forgive whatever spelling and grammar blunders there still may be.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 28, 2013, 2:21 pm

        I didn’t know Klug was involved in the debate or instrumental in the attempts to make it law

        No, Klug was instrumental, I believe, in preventing its official adoption by the EU. I’m afraid I don’t remember where I read it, and my current source is my own memory (which is why I used the qualifiers “apparently” and “I believe”).

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 28, 2013, 2:29 pm

        Besides, I would warn people to access the SPME web site, I had a firefox warning that the site is not kosher and installed a feature to allow it anyway, what the hell I thought. Due to that I decided to not link to it, but after that my first attempt to publish my last comment to Shmuel above was diverted to something presenting itself as a Mondoweiss security interface where I had to undergo the typical routine to type in whatever code to prove I am human. In other words it looked as if publishing my response resulted in some type of browser hijack. And if I trust my little IT-knowledge my system has been slightly compromised and somewhat accessed via an exploitable bug in my Adobe Flash software, which I fixed by an updated version by now.

        If someone knows about such a Mondoweiss feature, I would be happy to know about it.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        November 28, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Sorry Shmuel, now I misunderstood, the event with SPME troubled and confused me, see below. Obviously I was distracted. When I read your it was on my mind, I was monitoring it again and again lately but never noticed this before. Now I see I misread you. Will you forgive?

        OK, that is important. Objecting to the definition obviously makes him an enemy of “the lobby”. It also fits into my grasp of matters that they wanted a category on their own and not be put into the larger bias pot, so to speak.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      November 27, 2013, 6:00 am

      Given that false charges of anti-Semitism are so widely used to discredit criticism of Israel (or of other Jewish institutions, beliefs or practices, e.g. circumcision), we have to address the question of what real anti-Semitism is and how to distinguish it from phenomena falsely described as anti-Semitism. Simply from this point of view any sensible treatment of anti-Semitism is to be welcomed, even if it is a relatively minor problem (I am not sure that it is so minor in all countries).

      • Keith
        Keith
        November 27, 2013, 11:44 am

        STEPHEN SHENFIELD- “Given that false charges of anti-Semitism are so widely used to discredit criticism of Israel (or of other Jewish institutions, beliefs or practices, e.g. circumcision), we have to address the question of what real anti-Semitism is and how to distinguish it from phenomena falsely described as anti-Semitism.”

        Anti-Semitism is such a minor phenomenon in the US that we should not be spending a lot of time discussing it or focusing on the Kristallnacht or the mythical 2000 years of irrational anti-Semitism. This obsessive Jewish navel gazing is a waste of time and a distraction from more important things which should concern Americans such as the actions of empire. For example, imperial complicity and responsibility for the genocide in the Congo.

        “The United States has financed and given overall direction to the worst genocide since World War Two, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, Washington has drenched Congo’s eastern provinces in the blood of over six million people. The governments of Rwanda and Uganda, the direct perpetrators of this holocaust, are in every sense of the word agents of U.S. foreign policy, who operate with impunity under the imperial umbrella.” (Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report)
        http://www.zcommunications.org/16-years-of-u-s-genocide-in-congo-by-glen-ford.html

      • yrn
        yrn
        November 27, 2013, 2:11 pm

        “or the mythical 2000 years of irrational anti-Semitism”
        Shmuel are those 2000 years a myth

      • yrn
        yrn
        November 27, 2013, 2:41 pm

        Keith
        Kristallnacht happened just 75 years ago.
        Jesus was crucified thousands of years ago.
        Google Jesus crucified Jews, millions of pages dealing with this issue.
        Haven’t seen a tendency to degrade this issue as you do.
        Stephen dose it answer you question.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 28, 2013, 10:39 am

        are those 2000 years a myth

        As a continuum, entirely detached from any reality? Yes, that part is a myth. Other than that, unfortunately, history is full of examples of anti-Jewish prejudice and oppression (as well as many other forms of interaction between Jews and non-Jews), in a wide variety of contexts (without attempting to rationalise persecution or blame the victims).

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 28, 2013, 10:51 am

        @ Shumel
        RE: “As a continuum, entirely detached from any reality? Yes, that part is a myth. Other than that, unfortunately, history is full of examples of anti-Jewish prejudice and oppression.”

        I agree. I can only suggest that yrn read world history, not only Jewish history. Perhaps that’s asking too much? I recommend yrn read the history of peasant revolts, not just Jewish history. It puts the latter in context, something, it seems to me, always left out of Jewish Holiday celebrations. It does not help that, e.g., 200 Years Together has yet to be published in English, despite the stature of its author.

      • yrn
        yrn
        November 29, 2013, 5:18 pm

        Shmuel
        “As a continuum, entirely detached from any reality? Yes,”
        Your confident answer is based on History knowledge ?

        “The history of antisemitism can be traced from ancient times to the present day.”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism

        Can you challenge this continuum of anti-Semitism and oppression.
        There are 38 resource you have to deal with.

      • American
        American
        November 29, 2013, 6:22 pm

        yrn says:
        November 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm

        “The history of antisemitism can be traced from ancient times to the present day.”
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Can you challenge this continuum of anti-Semitism and oppression.
        There are 38 resource you have to deal with.>>>>>>

        Yea …..oh poor,little, itty bitty,oppresed, persecuted ones, the only people in the world ever persecuted.
        LOL…look how often christians were persecuted..and also by Jews of all people, shame,shame,shame whiny baby.
        Take a number and get in line….everyone’s been persecuted.

        Persecution of Christians
        Persecution of Christians can be traced historically from the time of Jesus in the first century to the present time.[1] Early Christians were persecuted for their faith at the hands of both Jews from whose religion Christianity arose and the Roman Empire which controlled much of the land across which early Christianity was distributed.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 30, 2013, 2:30 pm

        yrn,

        Please reread my comment carefully. A long history does not necessarily a continuum make — especially one “entirely detached from any reality”. הלכה: עשו שונא ליעקב and בכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלתינו and Zionism’s “eternal anti-Semitism” are metaphysical/ideological, rather than historical positions – although anti-Semitism itself has been all too real.

        If you’d like to read something a little less ideological on anti-Semitism (in the context of Jewish and general history), a few books that come to mind are:
        – David Biale, ed., Cultures of the Jews: A New History, esp. Biale’s introduction to the first volume.
        – David Nirenberg, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages
        – Hannah Arendt, in Jerome Kohn and Ron H. Feldman, eds., The Jewish Writings, esp. the chapter entitled “Antisemitism”, but also The Origins of Totalitarianism
        – Edgar Morin, Le monde moderne et la question juive

Leave a Reply