European anti-Semitism

I don’t mean to make excuses for the likes of Thomas Friedman – he can make his own – but this reveals a sloppy tendency to generalize. Thus, a rise in anti-semitic events in France is categorized as a growing “European” problem.

You would think someone like Thomas Friedman would understand that Europe and its member countries is no more monolithic than the U.S. and its States.

France and to a lesser extent England have formed the core of my own perceptions where there has been significant increases in anti-semitism, perceptions formed via news and opinion pieces. This piece seemingly confirms the French aspect of that core, together with its Muslim influence. To the extent it has been indicated more widely, throughout Europe, I have not seen supporting evidence and have refrained from forming much of an opinion or set of assumptions about its wider occurance.

Vastly more significant than anti-semitism per se are the anti-Israel biases and perspectives in Europe, largely informed and largely misinformed imo by sundry Leftist leanings, presumptions and calculations. That these two sentiments are sometimes conflated may be understandable, even though statistical or other academic/abstract forms of analysis might regard such a conflation as undesirable. E.g., people who might be embarrassed to admit of an unvarnished anti-semitism (in the wake of WWII) may feel no qualms whatsoever talking of anti-Israel sentiments, however poorly founded or unreasoned those sentiments are. In fact they might feel entirely supported in voicing such a view.

Too, that 86% of Europeans see no justification for suicide bombers may reflect something substantive, though not at all necessarily so. (For one, does this mean 14% positively do favor this tactic? Perhaps a portion even actively so?) In the immediate aftermath of WWII, late ’45 and ’46, it was difficult to find any surviving German national who admitted to having been a member of the Nazi party or who admitted to any anti-Jewish sentiments or activities. Do we simply take people at their word? Still further, how many of those 86% are, as activists, working against the practice that they see “no justification” for? Close to zero? Perhaps it is in fact 0%? That is my own impression, though it is an intuition and impression only, formed without any statistical support and without the support of any other abstract analysis.

A passively held opinion, one might even use the phrase “apathetically held opinion,” hardly represents much that could be called very substantive. An ethonographic survey further encompassing social, political, moral and historical views, biases, etc. would be far more informative and telling. Far more difficult to conduct as well, and there’s the rub.

I can’t echo your own dismissiveness. Trite as it might sound, it’s far more complex than this single set of abstracted statistics would indicate. And anti-semitic vs. anti-Israel sentiments (and activities) may very well not be such discreet phenomenon as some analysts would like to believe, especially so when investments in various Leftist ideological beliefs are so numerous or widespread and form so much of the a priori framework within which more abstracted analyses take place.

I believe that the undue emphasis on European anti-Semitism serves two purposes:

1. It is a transparent attempt to discredit European critics of the state of Israel.

2. It serves to remind Jews of the importance of the state of Israel, by allegedly demonstrating that they can never be safe from anti-Semitism when they exist as a minority.

bp,

As accused, did not do so. Was speaking in rather general and also qualified and tentative terms, with phrasings such as “seemingly” and “may be understandable,” etc. Hence I was probing other possibilities, not declaiming about sum certain truth with finality (which, ironically, is precisely what your own sweeping dismissiveness does represent, as does robert’s for that matter).

Further, I opened by essentially agreeing with the idea that was introduced (assuming one keeps to the conception of anti-semitism as a discreetly different phenomenon reflected in such statistical evidence – which I don’t dismiss though I do very much qualify what it might reflect). I did so by acknowledging my own views or impressions did NOT encompass Europe as a whole, but France and to a lesser extent England only.

Finally, to delimit the term Leftist to reflect upon the means of production only is strikingly odd. We’re not living in the latter part of the 19th century or very early 20th century but rather are dealing with varied and sundry forms of derivative Leftisms and amalgams with other investments and interests, for example pomo and multi-culti strategies, themes and initiatives.

And again, was using it as a general assignation, which seems to me entirely fitting even though I don’t expend ten or twenty thousand words to more fully detail all that might indicate. E.g., the mass protests prior to the initiation of armed conflict in Afghanistan and then moreso in Iraq was hardly simply informed by a concern about the means of production. Almost to the contrary, it’s interests encompassed a broadly based zeitgeist that I chose to abbreviate with the term “Leftist.” That could be refined, certainly, but I don’t regret the use of the term as an admittedly general assignation or label.

Hence in terms of revealing ones biases, my own (admitted) generalizations and tentative, if also penetrating probings are fairly tame compared to your rather unqualified, sweeping dismissiveness and set of assumptions.

michael b:
Your posts decry the lack of nuance and subtlety in the survey Chris cited. Astounding, therefore, that without a trace of irony you proceed to tar the whole of Europe with the broadest of brushes. (I quote: “Vastly more significant than anti-semitism per se are the anti-Israel biases and perspectives in Europe, largely informed and largely misinformed imo by sundry Leftist leanings, presumptions and calculations.” – you wisely do not limit yourself merely to England and France in this brilliant piece of analysis. )

Astounding, too, that you choose to use the term “Leftist” to describe the nascent emergence of European anti-Semitism; despite your belated disclaimer. I will remind you that anti-Semitism has historically been the provenance of the European Right – stalwarts such as Haider, Le Pen, and Flip DeWinter come to mind. I will further remind you that, whatever you may think of conservative Muslim fundamentalists, when they become an active force in French politics -as they will, it is merely a matter of time – I think you will concede that they will not be Liberals, Leftists, or Humanists in outlook.

I charge that you are playing that silly game beloved of the blogosphere, in which all political opinions are divided into pro- or con- Operation Iraqi Freedom, the con side being the “leftists”. People who think exclusively in such terms are people also inclined to breathlessly assert that “after 9-11, everything changed”. I am not impressed by such analytical prowess. History does not suddenly start when newspapers decide to pay attention, nor does it exist merely where CNN focuses its cameras.

Come back with a little more nuance in your analysis, you might find that your opinions on anti-Semitism in Europe (a non-phantom phenomenon) will be taken more seriously.

Actually, my posts did not decry the lack of subtlety or nuance in the study per se, it did decry the summary and facile (brilliant?) interpretation that Chris reaches, with entirely dismissive terms such as “garbage” and “seething cauldron.” The remainder of your post reflects similarly exaggerated misinterpretations, assumptions and misconstruals. For example I don’t claim an assertion is equivolent to an analysis, much less a “brilliant analysis,” as your sneer pronounces. Nor am I “playing the game” you indicate – the reference to the Iraq initiative was a secondary example, not the central point.

Clearly my own views are not worthy of a more sober or temperate interpretation – hence you ease into exaggeration and presumption like one eases into an old, comfortable shoe. After all, you’re clearly right, I’m clearly wrong; clearly, at least, that’s the comforting position you maintain. That’s nothing new though, much to the contrary.

The purpose of the ‘campaign’ by the Sharon government and its friends – so obviously beneficial to the cause as to need no conspiracy to organise it, thus obviating the production of a paper trail – is not, I think, to influence governments or public opinion in Europe: I don’t believe that the survival or national life of Israel depends to any material extent on the goodwill of European governments; nor that European public opinion is greatly susceptible to the sort of moral blackmail implicit in such a ‘campaign’.

(The Swedish experience shows that European governments may buckle under direct attack for actions allegedly in support of anti-semitism – such as the art exhibit in that case. But Israel obtains no lasting benefit from such petty victories.)

The purpose of the ‘campaign’ is, I believe, to maintain, at all costs, the unwavering support, military and (most vitally) political, of the US for Israel. Without this support, Israel will perish; so what is being waged here is a (propaganda) war of national survival.

There is no doubting the continuation of that support for the moment, whoever is US President this time next year; but the ‘campaign’ is intended to nip in the bud the slightest wavering of mainstream American opinion on the matter.

Europe is therefore a counter-example for American opinion-formers: where weak support for, or neutrality towards, Israel amongst governments is reflected in, and bolstered by, the growing anti-semitism of their peoples. The link between the two is vital (as reflected in Ariel Sharon’s contribution to the the ‘campaign’ last November).

The ‘campaign’ is aided by the extreme opprobrium in which are held those American opinion-formers ‘convicted’ of anti-semitism, in however mild or tangential a form. (The Gregg Easterbrook saga is only one, infamous, example of that.) Mere allegations of anti-semitism may have severe repercussions on the accused person’s career.

An American journalist looking at an accusation of antisemitism against the BBC, say, or the Guardian, naturally imagines himself as the object of such an accusation; thinks of the consequences of such an eventuality; shudders; and vows never to go within a country mile of providing fuel for such an accusation,

It’s meant as a an educational experience. And it seems to work.

Chris is clearly right. He was *not* saying that anti-Semitism does not exist in Europe, or that it is not at least slightly worse in Europe than in the USA, or that it is not a thoroughly pernicious evil wherever it exists (although I very much doubt that anti-Semitism is the worst form of prejudice or ethnic hatred in Europe today).

Chris’s point was simply that many Americans have quite seriously exaggerated views of the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Europe today. George Will’s claim that (in effect) Europe is on the brink of a second Holocaust is surely quite simply absurd — there’s no other word for it.

I agree with Robert that the Israeli government and their sympathizers in the USA have been harping on about European anti-Semitism in order to delegitimize European criticisms of the Israeli government’s policies.

Unfortunately, these comments have by now been so endlessly repeated that they seem to many Jews in the USA and Israel as simple common knowledge. This even includes many who are not supporters of the Israeli government (including some American and Israeli friends of mine). It is all too intelligible, after all, that many Jews who do not currently live in Europe associate Europe primarily with the Holocaust and the appalling history of pogroms and the like which preceded it.

Eszter,

The ADL has also helped expose self-hating Jews such as Chomsky and Finkelstein for what they are, when more innocent sorts thought they were mere critics of various Israeli policies.

Clearly, the cultivated art of studied avoidance is alive and well. For one, the George Will opinion piece, in its entirety, may be found here. He is locating the root of the current complex of anti-semitism in the Arab/Muslim world, while indicating Europe is serving as an echo chamber for that anti-semitic content. The final two paragraphs, containing the referenced quote, follow. He is asking probative questions and the context within which the quote is formed is all important.

“Today many people say that the Arabs and their European echoes would be mollified if Israel would change its behavior. People who say that do not understand the centrality of anti-Semitism in the current crisis. This crisis has become the second — and final? — phase of the struggle for a “final solution to the Jewish question.” As Wisse said 11 years ago, and as cannot be said too often, anti-Semitism is not directed against the behavior of the Jews but against the existence of the Jews.

“If the percentage of the world’s population that was Jewish in the era of the Roman Empire were Jewish today, there would be 200 million Jews. There are 13 million. Five million are clustered in an embattled salient on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, facing hundreds of millions of enemies. Ron Rosenbaum writes, ‘The concentration of so many Jews in one place — and I use the word ‘concentration’ advisedly — gives the world a chance to kill the Jews en masse again.'”

Hence many on the Left evidence a hand-wringing concern with an Israeli campaign, such as the Wall, to defend against homicide/suicide tactics and other terrorist tactics (which are never mentioned by Leftists as a “campaign”), even to the point of bringing Israel before the ICC for this wall under the imprimature of formal charges that the wall is simply an anti-apartheid styled device. These types of procedural formalities, legalisms, etc., would no doubt be of little concern to Leftists as instances of anti-semitism, even though they serve to aggravate and forward the terrorist threat in Israel and to some degree serve to forward the question of Israel’s very existence as well, as has recently been commented upon from various quarters.

So when a homicide/suicide bomber engages in the maiming, mayhem and murder that they most recently engaged in just two days ago, the attitude is ho hum, time to look in the other direction. Not, of course, that such ho hum apathy has the least bit to do with anti-semitism from a highly selective statistical point of view; thank goodness for that.

Chris,

Of course anti-semitism is disgusting, and every incident of anti-semitism is to be deplored, and there have been some alarming incidents of anti-Jewish violence in France in recent years.

I think the problem is more located around the fact of what the state and public institutions do to combat this; I am afraid to say much of the reactions in this line tend to be somewhat weak and opportunistic when they do happen. There doesn’t seem to be enough attention directed at the fact that since the Al-Aqsa Intifada, incidents of violence against Jews in some EU states has risen rather markedly; by attention I mean not media focus but steps to deal with these incidents effectively and put in place mechanisms to defuse inter-communal tensions.

But the view of Europe as some kind of cesspool of anti-semitism teetering on the brink of a second Holocaust is absurd. That isn’t the current condition of Europe or anything like it, but the view that it is is part of a fevered fantasty on the part of some right-wing commentators in the US. Maybe they believe it, maybe it is simply a matter of them getting carried away with their own rhetoric. But that view is false .

I would agree with this but this is not to say that there is no widespread institutionalised racism present within Europe some of which has uncomfortable connotations to the Nazi genocides. The abysmal treatment and occasional attacks on the Roma populations in the Continent serve as an indication here. It is remarkable given the history how blatant some of this is, as in discriminatory education systems, housing patterns and employment prospects; as well as the lack of follow-up to violence. While the relative lack of outrage has various reasons here, it is an important reminder about how one can’t rely on a complacent history to expect that certain kinds of racism will simply fade away.

It seemed (and seems) germane to the matter of pointing out the falsity of that view, to mention that anti-Jewish sentiments in the general public are about the same in Europe in general (and less in countries such as the Netherlands) as they are in the United States.

Well, one would perhaps need to be more careful in distinguishing what exactly is meant by “Europe” here. My impression is that in the Western EU states, outside the segments of the Muslim community radicalised by religious fundamentalists and the organised Far Right this would be true. However, I think things maybe somewhat different in Eastern Europe, where one can still come across fairly strong anti-Semitic discourse, even in everyday encounters and the older peasant anti-Semitic tropes. In certain regions and settings, it might well be a much more serious problem than in metropolitan Western Europe. One of the problems about the EU project is that given internal differences, a large part of the impetus comes from Europe is deemed not to be, rather than what it is. The ease and rapidity with which immigration systems and restrictions have been harmonised and used as a base for drawing EU members closer to together, combined with the recurring crypto-racist rhetoric of many mainstream politicians towards ‘asylum-seekers’, ‘refugees’ etc. is troubling racism thrives in this kind of atmosphere and makes it harder to build cross-cutting constituencies against it. Some residual unease is also to be expected, given the historic failure of European states to embark on their Nation-State building-projects without recourse to anti-Semitism and exclusionary racism of de-territorialised minorities as an integral part of this process. Which is not to say that the EU project will replicate this, but that unpleasant ways to think and deal with more unpalatable aspects of nationalism have not exactly been the forte and recent/current policy does not fill one with immediate confidence.

After all, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman et al aren’t warning that the USA is like Germany in 1934, even though opinion in the US is similar to opinion in the place (Europe) that they are asserting is like that.

Well, their analysis is somewhat mis-directed. Anti-Semitism in and of itself is not the problem here, given its presence in the US as well; what is the really serious concern and (potential) problem is the attitude and willingness of the rest of society and the state to deal with it. The fears being expressed here, I see are sublated ones that are concerned not so much with the absolute level of racism present but the greater ability to close one’s eyes to it or to not take it as seriously as it merits. The problem is that this kind of sentiment and phenomenon is very hard to measure in any quantitative sense (except for perhaps state policy) one attempt to do so can be found for the UK at least in Barry Kosmin and Paul Iganski’s “A New Anti-Semitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain” which has quite a comprehensive collection of statistics wrt Britain. It also contains some illuminating essays on the links between anti-Semitism and other types of racism and very interestingly makes some cogent interlinkages between the racism towards minorities as a whole which in turn plays a role in generation racism by them in turn. However, while rightwing and aggressively partisan ones seek to distort the problem by looking for something that doesn’t exist; it doesn’t mean that there are not serious problems of a different kind that exist. Of course balanced analysis is not generally the rule when this is considered.

Is it fair to name Thomas Friedman as calling Europe a “seething cauldron of ancient Jew-hatred”? In the comments section Christ quotes others and not Friedman. Perhaps he could quote Friedman so that others could decide whether his description is accurate or excessive?

Also to remark 25% (“roughly a quarter”) is almost 50% more than 17%. “Not a great difference” seems to be a little too minimalizing.

Chris, I understand that you deplore, and are disgusted by, every manifestation of anti-semitism. But your original charge was that the views of Krauthammer et al are ‘absurd’, they’re ‘garbage’. ‘Absurd’ and ‘garbage’ are not the same as ‘false’; they express a much deeper charge of irrationality, perhaps of a morally objectionable kind. It’s that view which I’m questioning. Maybe you think that if the Krauthammer view is false (which I hope it is) then it *has* to be garbage, since it’s so strong, and for you so counter-intuitive. I can understand a person feeling like that – looking round Europe today, especially the part closest to home, such an apocalyptic future doesn’t seem very likely. But then, if we’d looked around in 1928, descriptions of the Holocaust would have seemed ludicrous, obscene, the stuff only of antisemitic fantasies of unimportant social forces. Fifteen years later it was reality. There’s quite a lot of anti-semitic fantasising going on in Europe (and beyond it) today, and some of it is more than fantasising. Whether the Krauthammer view turns out to be false will depend in part on whether we think such things are insignificant with respect to the shape of our future, or whether we’re prepared to treat with some seriousness the darker possibilities available to those who hate Jews (and also to those who, while not themselves hating Jews, don’t really mind or even notice others doing so). Such seriousness is not, I think, compatible with regarding the worst-case fears as ‘garbage’.

I mentioned the worries of my Jewish friends, not to show that I’m upset, but more to suggest that there are reasonable people who feel that matters are becoming alarmingly like a re-run of the 1930s, and to whom the Krauthammer view isn’t garbage or even absurd, but a prediction which has to be taken seriously since their children’s future is at stake. Their intuitions in the matter should carry some weight, for the kind of reasons Eszter has given.

I don’t often agree with George Will but, following the link to his opinion piece provided above by Michael B., I came upon this comment in it that accurately reflects the heaviness my heart has acquired over the current campaign to delegitimize Israel as a nation state:

“Israel holds just one one-thousandth of the world’s population, but holds all the hopes for
the continuation of the Jewish experience as a portion of the human narrative. Will Israel be more durable than anti-Semitism? Few things have been.”

Annti Kauppinen comments: “Ten years from now it will be ancient history and remembered, if at all, only for the opportunistic finger-waving from the other side of the Atlantic.”

That is a risk I am increasingly willing to accept.

“…you proceed to tar the whole of Europe with the broadest of brushes.”

It’s a patently absurd charge, but to be clear as regards this type of construal, I did not do so nor was it my intent to “lump the entire gamut of European public opinion…” in the manner indicated.

Nonetheless. It has largely been European institutional frameworks that have funded (for one strikingly telling example) Arafat and have helped to advance the perduring pretense, the risible charade, that Arafat has been and continues to be a representative who sincerely seeks peaceful solutions.

Similarly it is a European institution, the ICC, that has continued to forward the blatant casuistry and farcical initiative that the security fence, the wall currently being built in Israel to protect against homicide/suicide terrorists and similar initiatives, should be formally prosecuted at the ICC as an anti-apartheid initiative.

The topic was widened to include anti-Israel biases and interests, and to question to what degree anti-semitism might find at least some cover within or collusion with anti-Israel initiatives. Thus it was entirely condign to use the term “European” within that broader, though still qualified context. To raise that question is not the same thing as to answer it, though it certainly does suggest it is a perfectly valid question within the overall European framework of anti-semitism.

“Europe” is a richly textured, highly variegated, even fathomless (and on-going) enterprise, a dynamic. For example, having recently read Remi Brague’s “Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization” (2002, tr. from the french title), and for other reasons as well, I would never presume such a simplistic, categorical reduction and wanted to make that much clear, at a minimum, given the tactics evidenced herein to evade, deny, categorically dismiss, use ad hominem inferences, etc.

Brague’s work represents the most thoughtfully astute and comprehensive attempt I’ve read to somehow come to terms, in all its depth and breadth, with what the term might indicate. For example, noting the first instance of the term appears in Herodotus, he also traces etymological origins (likely Semitic/Arabic) and a host of other influences. Though that example only serves to indicate his mode of questioning and initiating his thesis. It is largely Socratic with its suggestive tone, though he advances his own, more positive, thesis as well, certainly.

Oops, rather than “anti-apartheid” it should have read “apartheid” (in terms of the casuistry being advanced).

I support the UN.
I support the goals of the EU and thus the policies of the EU commission.
I oppose ideologies influenced by religion including zionism.
I don’t call occupied territory ‘disputed territory’.
So I’m supposed to be a anti semite according
to you lot here, the WJC and the EJC, the government of Israel, ML King, and many others.

That’s fine by me, but it doesn’t mean much to me anymore. If the UN and the EU are antisemitic, if opposing an ideology is anti-semitism, yes anti-semitism is rising, fast.

“Also interesting would be how we should adjust the data for the fact that anti-semitic incidents in the EU seem to be the work of recent Muslim immigrants while in the US they are from people whose families have been here for generations.”

Good heavens, GT do you read the actual sources I provide or do you scan for a minor ‘inconsistency’ and then shut your brain off? The US poll specifically shows a prevalance of anti-Semetic views among “…Hispanic-Americans who were born outside of the US.” Which would be pretty much an exact match for the recent Muslim immigrants problem which you misrepresent since many Muslim ‘immigrants’ are third generation in places like Germany, or so unassimilated as to not even speak French in places like France.

You might also note that the ‘too much power in our country’ question level in the US is fully half of the European answer to ‘too much power in international finance’. The fact that people in Europe tend to ascribe distant power as opposed to ‘in-country’ power helps conspiracy theories but not your case.

“My impression is that in the Western EU states, outside the segments of the Muslim community radicalised by religious fundamentalists and the organised Far Right this would be true.”

This is said while implying that the US and Europe have similar levels of anti-semetism. First of all I provided the source documents which Chris merely alluded to in the discussion, and they suggest that the US and Europe DO NOT have basically the same levels. Second, if you take out the Muslim immigrant population in Europe you get about the same level of anti-Semetism as the US ONLY by not excluding similarly anti-Semetic population of recent Hispanic immigrants.

I also repeat that the ‘European’ study excluded France. Which is silly considering the hugely anti-Semetic population of French Muslims, and which is silly considering France’s tepid response to acts of violence against Jews. “Don’t wear identifiable signs of your Jewishness”, indeed.

Sheesh, I’m getting worked up about this and I’m not even Jewish.

I must disagree with the comments by “silly me.”

Again, my little full disclosure: I am Jewish and I support Zionism.

But I’m also an atheist. How can I be Jewish, Zionist, and atheist? Because Zionism wasn’t a religious movement. It was a socialist movement founded primarily by Jews who rejected the clericalism of their parents.

When the Jewish nation existed, it, like all ancient nations, had a national religion with its own god (like other nations had their own gods). When the Romans conquered this nation and scattered it into exile, the only way for the Jewish nation to retain its identity was to focus on the only thing still shared in common by Jews across the globe – the religion. The religion was only *one aspect* of the Jewish national identity, but it was the only element still shared in common.

But Zionism wanted to restore the Jews to their land, so that Jews could be like any other nation, rather than being the only nation that existed only on a spiritual plane.

That is why someone like Shimon Peres, who grew up a passionate Marxist, or someone like Ariel Sharon, who is totally secular, nevertheless feel a strong connection to the places the Jews lived in during Biblical times – not because they are religious, but because the Bible is a connection to the way the last Jewish nation.

And that is how I can be Jewish, Zionist, and atheist – because being Jewish is being part of a nation, and Zionism is the movement to restore this nation.

But as part of Jewish nationhood, yes, religious parties and religious people exist – just like they exist in Europe, America, China, etc. Nationality is not a simple concept, it is defined somewhat differently in different countries (for example, look at how France is trying to ban all religious symbols from the schools in order to encourage assimilation, while America endorses individual freedom as a way to encourage assimilation).

So, clearly, I disagree with you because I think your definition of Zionism as a religious movement is flawed.

But I disagree with you even more vehemently because the reason Israel comes up for condemnation by the EU and UN is *not* because it’s a religious movement. If that were the case, then why is Israel up for more condemnation than theocratic government? Why is Israel – where there are 1.5 million practicing Muslims and many thousands of Christians – up for more condemnation than Saudi Arabia, where you are not allowed to practice any religion but Islam, even in private?

If the EU and UN are condemning religion, then why is the Organization of Islamic Countries allowed to participate in international forums? Why is there still debate within Europe about whether the EU constitution should refer to Europe’s Christian roots?

Hell, what is Hindu nationalism in India, or the Orthodox iconography rising around fallen Russian soldiers in Chechnya, or Islamic parties in Pakistan?

I have no problem condemning fundamentalist Israelis. But it is functionally anti-Semitic if you condemn only Jewish religiosity, and not the far worse examples of religiosity elsewhere (hello Hamas! Hello Islamic Jihad! Hello Hizbullah!).

Bob’s comment suggesting rising European anti-semitism arises from the behavior of the government of Israel is revealing. European jews are not Israelis; why should the former suffer for the supposed acts of the latter? Unless, of course, the real vice of Israelis is that they are jews.

A study that looks at Western Europe, but not France, and not Eastern Europe either… okay.

Well: I live in Eastern Europe, and anti-Semitism is alive and well here. And I mean old-fashioned, unreconstructed mouth-breathing Elders of Zion stuff.

Not really what y’all are talking about, but still.

Doug M.

Ezter wrote: Any chance that one may view the threat differently as a Jew? If one is a member of the group targeted with comments and violent crimes one may notice such instances more often than others.

But then again, one may not. This Jew thinks that implying that what’s going on in Europe today is at all comparable to “the final solution” – as George Will did – is absurd. Worse, it trivializes the Holocaust.

J-M quoted: “Israel holds just one one-thousandth of the world?s population, but holds all the hopes for the continuation of the Jewish experience as a portion of the human narrative.”

Notice how some pro-Israel Jews marginalize and dismiss the existence of non-Israeli Jews. We’re the majority of Jews, but since we don’t live in Israel, so we don’t count; certainly, there is no hope that our lives and our Judaism might comprise part of “the Jewish experience.”

I’m never sure what to respond when my (and my entire family’s) existence as Jews is so easily dismissed. This doesn’t seem like an appropriate forum for rage and obscenities, but anything less seems rather an understatement.

Anthony wrote: I have noticed that whenever I discuss Israel these days, that rather than justifiable concerns about Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, those I am discussing the issue with quickly move onto statements like ?Israeli should never have existed? or that ?of all the nations in the world Israel has the least justification for it continued existence?. The worst is ?Israel has lost the right to exist, since they are doing to the Palestinians exactly what happened to the Jews in Europe?. It is usually accompanied by some reference to the Neocons influence over George Bush. These are not stupid people, most of them I would class as part of the progressive left.

I haven’t noticed this. For instance, the current discussion on this thread hasn’t contained any such statements – is this discussion you’re currently participating in such an extraordinary exception?

I would point out, however, that there’s a big difference between saying that “Israel shouldn’t have been created” and “Israel currently has no right to exist.”

I don’t think the United States should have been created – this land should have remained the property of what are now called American Indians. It does not follow that I believe the US currently has no right to exist. It’s a logical error to assume that anyone who thinks the US – or Israel, or any other country – was created in an illegitimate fashion, must believe it has no right to exist in the present day.

If I must answer with a simple yes or now, I say “yes.” Yes, Israel clearly has a right to exist. Beyond any doubt.

If I’m permitted to suggest a more nuanced answer:

I think any nation has a moral right to exist only insofar as it serves the best interests of the people it rules, and the people it affects.

I therefore think Israel has far, far more right to exist than a country like Saudi Arabia, which goes very far against the interests of most of the people it rules. (Unlike the Saudis, I count women as people.) I can think of many countries that have less right to exist than Israel. Just by being a democracy, Israel has put itself firmly in the “has more of a right to exist than most” category.

On the other hand, I believe that Israel is not serving well the interests of the Palestinians under its rule in the occupied territories. (I don’t believe the claim that the PLO rules these areas; the PLO is a joke). Therefore, if the current dispute could be amicably resolved – either by a just two-state solution, or by a one-state solution in which Israel extends citizenship to all residents of the occupied territories – then Israel would have even more of a right to exist than it does today. In my opinion.

amp,

I appreciate the direct answer. I won’t broach the even wider topic herein (I don’t happen to believe a two-state solution is presently viable) since there is even reluctance to broach the topic of anti-Israel incitements or sentiments and the extent to which they overlap or at least work in tandem with anti-semitic incitements and prejudices.

But appreciate the direct answer anyway.

Joshua wrote of criticism of Israel: “It is functionally anti-Semitic because there is no justification for Israel being singled out for more criticism and more condemnation than any other nation on earth. There is no reason European protestors should remain silent when Russia kills 200,000 Muslims in Chechnya in 13 years”. Here, again, I think we should be more precise. Justification comes in many varieties. I can hardly speak for the entire European left, but I think few of Israel’s critics would disagree that the Russian repression of Chechens is, objectively speaking, a degree or two worse than what Israelis are doing to Palestinians. In that sense of justification, there is indeed no reason at all to single out Israel.

If that were the end of it, Joshua’s conclusion would follow: the most plausible explanation would be covert anti-Semitism. But, crucially, there are also _pragmatic_ issues and pragmatic justification. Are there any pragmatic reasons why criticism of Israel should be vocal than criticism of Russia, as it in fact is? If we look at that as dispassionately as possible, the answer seems to be affirmative. First of all, unlike Russia or any other regime subjecting another ethnic group to brutal military rule, Israel has many _defenders_ within the partially overlapping Western European and American public spheres – politicians, pundits, bloggers, and so on. It is _they_ who “single out” Israel, who seek to make an exception of it. Demonstrations and other forms of criticism are essentially a response to this attempt. Since there’s already a broad agreement on Chechnya, Tibet, and others, there’s not as much reason to convince others in the target audience, our own public and politicians.

A second pragmatic reason is that Israel couldn’t keep up its occupation without aid and support from the West, the US in particular. We are responsible for it in a more direct manner. Also, as a democracy and a small country, Israel is (in principle) more vulnerable to external pressure than, say, China. This is a kind of ‘can implies ought’ argument that no doubt appears unfair, but surely we should do good where we can, even if we can’t do it everywhere.

I think these two reasons, responding to those who would exonerate Israel and Israel’s dependence on the West, pragmatically justify and explain why Israel is criticized more than other countries that do even worse things. The third reason doesn’t amount to much of a justification but it is probably the best explanation for why popular feeling about Israel is negative: it is always in the news, and the news is never good. Normal, decent people can hardly watch pictures of the security wall dividing Palestinian farmlands or yet another column of tanks driving through already desolate shacks without feeling pity and sympathy for the average Palestinian. True, pictures of suicide bombings give rise to a similar instinctive reaction, and people do in fact sympathize with Israelis as well. But at the end of the day, it is Israelis who occupy Palestinian areas, not vice versa. They’ve got the guns and they call the shots. People root for David, not for Goliath. Indeed, when the image of small but defiant Israel surrounded by powerful enemies was current, the public opinion went the other way – another indication that it’s not driven by anti-Semitism.

Finally, insofar as Joshua meant that the European public should be more vocal about Chechnya, I very much agree. Russia has few defenders in the West, but unless pushed, governments will continue to make half-hearted efforts at best. The Russia of today is much more dependent on trade and aid than Soviet Union was.

The Palestinians are also oppressed as underclass Arabs within the wider Arab/Muslim world as well, broadly regarded as second class citizens therein. The Left NEVER protests this aspect of the situation or other similar aspects.

You also elide the now plain fact that the Arab refugees in Palestine have been a cultivated set of pawns and cannon fodder used by wider Arab/Muslim interests and states in their strategies against Israel’s very existence. This too is an aspect that is never, seemingly, noted by the Left. If there is an exception to that I’d be interested in knowing about it.

Your arguments are so highly selective and exclusionary along so many aspects or lines of what you advance that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But those two notes are a beginning.

Antti, your ‘can-implies-ought’ explanation might account for the disproportionate criticism (though I’m puzzled at its implication that effective criticism of Middle Eastern countries other than Israel isn’t possible – why would we think that?). But how could it account for the double standards with respect to Israel’s right to exist? We can hardly believe that telling Israelis their country doesn’t have a right to exist is going to be effective in altering their behaviour.

Eve, I don’t think _all_ criticism of Israel is justified in any sense. I was talking about mainstream European criticism that firmly (if not always explicitly – what is obvious need not be stated) distinguishes criticizing extremist Israeli policies from denying its right to exist. The latter would be a form of anti-Semitism, and I do not see any kind of justification for any kind of anti-Semitism. The former is the kind of criticism that was significantly reduced in volume when there was a credible peace process going on – in other words, criticism that depends on what Israelis do, not on what they are. Part of the problem with the new anti-Semitism brouhaha is that it assimilates the two, insinuating that Europeans will criticize Israel no matter what. As far as the mainstream (or the Left) goes, that is simply false.

Title this post antti’s and the broader Left’s studied avoidance, myopia, willful blindness, evasiveness, casuistries, rationalizations, elisions, occlusions and self-referential forms of argumentation.

Or still again, why aspects of Israel are ever and always questioned, but Arab/Muslim motifs and ideologies including dhimmitude or dar al Islam vs. dar al harb ideologies and motifs are never protested as well by the Left as a part of the overall and highly consequential power dynamic?

“Eve, I don’t think all criticism of Israel is justified in any sense. I was talking about mainstream European criticism that firmly (if not always explicitly – what is obvious need not be stated) distinguishes criticizing extremist Israeli policies from denying its right to exist.”

Can we please distinguish between mere words and real actions? Stating that you support Israel’s right to exist while actively propping up the PLO while they engage in suicide bombing is saying that you support Israel’s right to exist while acting to the contrary. I suspect that even in Europe you can still understand the saying ‘actions speak louder than words’.

But then again this is the continent where the French can take action against anti-Semetism by telling Jewish people not to wear clothing which makes them identifiably Jewish.

One of the key problems with this post is that it repeatedly treats European anti-Semetic violence as equivalent to US anti-Semetic sentiment. This is what so many people interpret as ‘dismissive’ of Jewish concerns or ‘excusing’ anti-Semetism. I’m sure that wasn’t the intention. But that is the effect.

And I note again that in a survey excluding France there was still 50% more serious anti-Semetism than is found in the US.

I came here via Brian Leiter’s blog, expecting if not a philosophical, then at least a civil and calm discussion. I’m not so sure that’s what’s going on. In line with what Ralph Wedgwood (I think) pointed out, the allegation that anti-Semitism once again reigns in Europe has become such an article of faith for some that alternative explanations for European attitudes toward Israel are flatly ignored, if not straightforwardly accused of the same sin. Thus, Gary and michael b give little consideration to my modest explanatory sketch and move on to talk about something else, like Zimbabwe or Arafat. I’d just like to emphasize that explanation is by nature contrastive. I was concerned with the question “Why Israel and not Russia?”. The answer to “Why Israel and not Zimbabwe?” or “Why Israel and not Arab propaganda?” need not be the same, though of course they should be consistent. I have no interest in answering all such questions – for one thing, I can’t pretend to have all the answers. I’d guess that many would fall under the following (very broad) categories: a) not a similar situation, b) not a similar history, c) you’re already doing it, so why should we? (ie. why doesn’t the left protest so loudly against the popularity of the Protocols in the Arab world – well, they’re already trashed by the pro-Israelis and there’s no reason to disagree with them, nor is there anyone here who would need to be convinced that this is a problem).

Keep up the good work, Chris.

It seems to me that many of the commenters here would benefit by reading the suppressed EU report on anti-Semitism, which can be viewed in its entirety here.

Here’s an excerpt:

In the public domain in Spain, France, Italy and Sweden, sections of the political left and Arab-Muslim groups unified to stage pro-Palestinian demonstrations. While the right to demonstrate is of course a civil right, and these demonstrations are not intrinsically anti-Semitic, at some of these anti-Semitic slogans could be heard and placards seen; and some demonstrations resulted in attacks upon Jews or Jewish institutions. In the Netherlands pro-Palestine demonstrators of Moroccan origin used anti-Semitic symbols and slogans. In Finland however, pro-Palestinian demonstrations passed without any anti-Semitic incidents. In Germany, and less so in Austria, public political discourse was dominated by a debate on the link between Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and anti-Semitism, a debate in which the cultural and political elite were involved. In Germany and the United Kingdom the critical reporting of the media was also a topic for controversy. In other countries such as Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Finland there was no such heated public discussion on the theme of criticism of Israel/anti-Semitism (see country reports).

[…] The following forms of anti-Semitic activities have been experienced:
– Desecration of synagogues, cemeteries, swastika graffiti, threatening and insulting mail as well as the denial of the Holocaust as a theme, particularly on the Internet. These are the forms of action to be primarily assigned to the far-right.
– Physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts often committed by young Muslim perpetrators in the monitoring period. Many of these attacks occurred either during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hurling verbal abuse. In addition, radical Islamist circles were responsible for placing anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and in Arab-language media.
– Anti-Semitism on the streets also appears to be expressed by young people without any specific anti-Semitic prejudices, so that “many incidents are committed just for fun”. Other cases where young people were the perpetrators could be classified as “thrill hate crimes”, a well-known type of xenophobic attack.
– In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the “Zionist lobby”, and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalisation from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries.
– More difficult to record and to evaluate in its scale than the “street-level violence” against Jews is “salon anti-Semitism” as it is manifested “in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes”.
– In the heated public debate on Israeli politics and the boundary between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, individuals who are not politically active and do not belong to one of the ideological camps mentioned above become motivated to voice their latent anti-Semitic attitudes (mostly in the form of telephone calls and insulting letters). Opinion polls prove that in some European countries a large percentage of the population harbours anti-Semitic attitudes and views, but that these usually remain latent.

Nice try, Antti, but…

1. It’s American money that supports Israel and we’re talking about European anti-semitism.

2. People root for “David”, you say? Ok, why not the Chechnyans?

3. European antagonism to Israel is a response to its “many defenders” among (American? certainly not European) “politicians, pundits, bloggers”? Gimme a break!

4. Israel is “always in the news, and the news is never good”. But don’t its, ahem, “defenders” control the media?

I remain an anti-semite

Ok, Silly Me, you’ve convinced us.

It occurs to me that when Chris says “But since my post plainly referred not to the legitimate anxieties of those people but to the fantasies of some American commentators, your comment is beside the point,” that he’s not aware that they are simply replicating a mass anxiety of ordinary people. Rest assured they are.

“I also note, since I’ve noticed, that you are not happy (in comments on Matt Yglesias’s blog) about my description of Thomas Friedman as a right-wing commentator. I have to tell you that in just about every country in Western Europe, Friedman would indeed be situated on the right and the fact that there is a question about this re the United States is testimony only to the fact that there is no left of any electoral significance in the US.”

I’m certainly aware that the US is what we mightly loosely call more “rightist” than Britain and Europe, but I’d still like to know what, other than generally favoring free trade as leading to a rising tide of wealth for all societies and people around the world, and favoring the Iraq war (as done what he construes the right way, which means a great many disagreements with how the Bush administration has and is doing it), makes Thomas Friedman “right-wing”? Exactly? What policies? (In general, he otherwise opposes and castigates most other Bush/Republican policies.)