The new antisemitism
Iwant to start with a question: Do you know another name for the current pandemic other than coronavirus? No, I don't mean COVID-19.
I believe that many people will be surprised to learn that the coronavirus is being referred to as the “Judeovirus.” Jews were so accredited because of accusations that the virus had been developed and was being spread by Jews and Israelis. After all, they were supposedly the ones who would find a vaccine for the disease, selling it to the ailing world and making a fortune.
Is this new antisemitism? Not really. This episode echoes an ancient form of antisemitism that blamed Jews for spreading illnesses and other tragedies.
Here is a contemporary report that followed the arrival of the Black Death to Europe in the spring of 1348: “On the day that any plague or famine occurs, the people cry ‘All this happens because of the sins of Jacob! Destroy this nation, kill them!' And during the disaster [...] they undertake in a violently thoughtless way to destroy the unfortunate Jews.”
How old is old antisemitism? Haman, the prime minister of Persia during the 4th century BCE, persuaded King Achashverosh to issue an edict of extermination of all the Jews within the empire. The excuse was, “There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of all other peoples, and they do not keep the king's laws. Therefore, it is not fitting for the king to let them remain .... Let a decree be written to eliminate them.” We were saved, however, thanks to Queen Esther's beauty and wisdom.
But wait. Haman was not the first antisemite. According to the Talmud, Haman was a descendant of Agag, king of Amalek, who attacked the Israelites on their way to the Promised Land for no obvious reason, killing those who lagged behind.
Yet this too was not the beginning of antisemitism. Even before the Israelites became a nation, Pharaoh ordered the Hebrew midwives to kill all male newborns.
Haman's plan to exterminate the Jewish people was almost achieved during the last century when the Nazis managed to destroy a third of all Jews.
If there was hope that the Holocaust would put an end to antisemitism, we were totally wrong. Antisemitism grew stronger and spread around the world. What is it that fuels antisemitism from the 15th century BCE to the present day?
I will not pretend to have the ultimate answer and instead will move to our theme: new antisemitism.
Before doing so, let's not overlook the fact that classic antisemitism is still thriving as demonstrated by attacks on Jews and synagogues all over the world.
But let's turn to what is known as “new antisemitism.” There is a positive and a negative aspect behind this phenomenon. On the positive side it demonstrates that people are somewhat uneasy about antisemitism. The negative aspect is that the same people found a way to stick to antisemitism without admitting to it. Antisemitism is thus clothed by anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish statehood.
THE BEST manifestation of new antisemitism seems to be United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975, by a sweeping majority of 72 to 35, stating that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. It is remarkable that Zionism was singled out from all national liberation movements to bear the mark of Cain. And who was blaming Zionism? Gaddafi's Libya, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Idi Amin's Uganda and the like.
Yet the UN resolution was not the first libel against Jews blaming them for conspiring to rule the world. As early as 1903, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published in Russia and distributed all over the United States thanks to the generosity of Henry Ford. These fabricated protocols purported to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. Though proved to be false, the Protocols continues to be influential and fuel what is known as new antisemitism. So what is new antisemitism?
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the following working definition that enjoys popular consent: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities .... Manifestations might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
This definition is wide enough to embrace both old and new antisemitism.
In the words of Abba Eban, the late foreign minister of Israel, “The distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new antisemitism. The old classic antisemitism declared that equal rights belong to all individuals within society, except the Jews. The new antisemitism says that the right to establish and maintain an independent national sovereign state is the prerogative of all nations, so long as they happen not to be Jewish.”
But why quote an Israeli minister? This is what Britain's Lord Chancellor Michael Gove said in 2016: “Back in the Middle Ages, antisemitism was religious, ending in the closure of Jews in ghettos and forceful conversion. At the beginning of the 20th century, antisemitism led to the worst atrocity that humanity ever witnessed under horrifying scientific pretense. Antisemitism changed phases and today it finds its expression in opposition to national collective Jewish identity and to the existence of the State of Israel.”
Under new antisemitism we may include denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor and applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Allegations were made that the novel definition of antisemitism curtails the right to free speech. This allegation is totally false.
In the words of the IHRA, “Manifestations might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
There are endless examples of targeting the State of Israel using a double standard.
SUFFICE IT to mention a recent case. On May 27, the UN Human Rights Council passed an unprecedented resolution to create a permanent “Commission of Inquiry” to investigate in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory,” including east Jerusalem, and in Israel, all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law. This would be the first such commission ever with an “ongoing” mandate.
Austrian Ambassador Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger said it “continues the regrettable practice of singling out Israel for criticism in the Human Rights Council.”
One should note that the draft resolution was proposed by Pakistan, which no doubt is a human rights-loving state.
And let's not overlook the World Conference on Racism held in Durban in 2001, which turned into one of the ugliest antisemitic events in history. The draft resolution of that event was composed in Tehran, of all places. Those who unfortunately missed the conference may get the chance to attend the UN's Durban Conference anniversary event later this year.
One shouldn't be surprised to learn that 36% of the Council's resolutions during the years 2003-2017 condemned Israel, the remaining 64% were distributed among such righteous states as Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Afghanistan, whereas similar states such as Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and Lebanon have not been condemned even once.
It is worth mentioning in this regard that the 2013 Freedom in the World annual survey and report, which attempts to measure the degree of democracy and political freedom in every nation, ranked Israel as the Middle East's only free country.
This is an appropriate place to discuss the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. Those who lead the campaign argue that it is a result of Israeli occupation following the 1967 Six Day War. This is not true. Boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses were organized by Arab leaders starting in 1922, 26 years before the establishment of the State of Israel, and 45 years before the 1967 war. As of 1945, the Arab League led the boycott, in which members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation joined.
Of interest is that the boycott damages Palestinians no less than Israelis. Following the 1967 war, several Israeli enterprises established projects at the border of the West Bank, hiring Palestinian workers. Following the development of BDS, many of them moved back to Israel proper leaving behind thousands of jobless people.
Obviously, occupation is not the cause of the BDS campaign but rather its excuse. Even if Israel withdraws from all territories, the boycott won't end as long as the State of Israel exists.
To use Gove's words, “The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel is antisemitic. They hate Israel, and they wish to wipe out the Jewish people's home, not because of what Israel does but because of what Israel is – free, democratic, liberal and Western. We need to remind ourselves that defending Israel's right to exist is defending our common humanity. Now more than ever.”
To sum up, classical or modern, old or new, antisemitism is antisemitism and one of the ugliest manifestations of racism.