Brian Klug
University of Oxford, Philosophy, Faculty Member
Abstract Since the breakdown of the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David in 2000 and the start of the second Palestinian Intifada there has been a voluminous literature that asserts that hostility to Israel and Zionism is a new form of... more
Abstract Since the breakdown of the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David in 2000 and the start of the second Palestinian Intifada there has been a voluminous literature that asserts that hostility to Israel and Zionism is a new form of anti-Semitism. This essay critiques the ‘new anti-Semitism’ view. Reversing the method that Plato uses in the Republic, the analysis moves from microcosm (an imaginary ride on a London bus) to macrocosm (the Middle East). In the process, the author argues that anti-Semitism is best defined not by an attitude to Jews but by the figure of ‘the Jew’. In the light of the analysis, and bearing in mind the variety of possible reasons for hostility to Israel or Zionism, it is difficult to see how the ‘new anti-Semitism’ view can be sustained.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper is about a speech that David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, gave at the 47th Munich Security Conference in Germany in February 2011. The Munich Conference is an annual event... more
This paper is about a speech that David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, gave at the 47th Munich Security Conference in Germany in February 2011. The Munich Conference is an annual event at which political leaders from around the globe gather to discuss policy on security. Cameron began by saying, ‘Today I want to focus my remarks on terrorism’ and ended (more or less) with these words: ‘At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life.’ In between, he launched an attack on ‘the doctrine of state multiculturalism’. As befits a head of government, this was a serious speech about weighty matters of state, however Klug argues that Cameron\u27s attack on multiculturalism expressed a deep sense of insecurity. Dr Brian Klug is a Senior Research Fellow and Tutor in philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, Oxford. He is also an honorary fellow at the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/Non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton and Associ...
Research Interests:
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s “dramatic poem” Nathan the Wise (1779) stood out at the time because it showed a Jew, Nathan, in a good light—a better light than the average Christian. Nathan is presented as a figure of wisdom largely on... more
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s “dramatic poem” Nathan the Wise (1779) stood out at the time because it showed a Jew, Nathan, in a good light—a better light than the average Christian. Nathan is presented as a figure of wisdom largely on account of his approach to religious difference, especially among the religions represented by the three main protagonists: the Sultan Saladin (Islam), the Knight Templar (Christianity) and Nathan himself (Judaism). In the context of the conflicts of early modern Europe, his message—on the nature of religious difference and the need for toleration—might well seem to earn him the epithet “wise.” This message, which is also the message of the play as a whole, is reinforced by the fact that it is a Jew who delivers it. But, on closer examination, is he the person that at first sight he appears to be? Furthermore, if he were teleported to the here and now, would his take on difference and toleration have enough heft? The essay interrogates the figure of Nath...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright... more
General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article is about the relationship between Judaism and Catholicism. Rather than proceeding on the plane of theology – comparing Catholicism and Judaism in terms of their conceptions of the divine – the author approaches the subject... more
This article is about the relationship between Judaism and Catholicism. Rather than proceeding on the plane of theology – comparing Catholicism and Judaism in terms of their conceptions of the divine – the author approaches the subject ‘from the ground up’, considering their convergence at the level of social action. Taking his cue from Margaret Archer, who has spoken about ‘the Church as a social movement’, he presents Judaism in a similar light, drawing on resources within Judaism that conduce towards promoting human rights and social justice. Moreover, writing as a Jewish Fellow at a Catholic Oxford college (St Benet’s Hall), he recounts certain experiences that illustrate how Jews and Catholics can come together on common ground.
In the immediate aftermath of the murderous attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, millions of people rallied round the slogan ‘Je suis Charlie’. The slogan conveyed a simple message: either you are in favour of free speech and the right... more
In the immediate aftermath of the murderous attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, millions of people rallied round the slogan ‘Je suis Charlie’. The slogan conveyed a simple message: either you are in favour of free speech and the right to offend or you are against. This essay offers a critique of the slogan and its message. The first part raises and discusses the problem of framing: what, fundamentally, was the Paris attack about? The middle section discusses a blog that I posted at the time, also written in the heat of the moment. This segues into the third and final part, which examines the language of rights, freedom of expression and the meaning of the word ‘offend’. The conclusion drawn is that the slogan ‘Je suis Charlie’ is an obstacle to thinking through the issues raised by the Paris attack.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article examines the two deadly attacks in Paris on 7 and 9 January 2015 from an angle of interest in which they impinge upon Jews as Jews. Specifically, it homes in on a question that was triggered by the attacks: Is it time for the... more
This article examines the two deadly attacks in Paris on 7 and 9 January 2015 from an angle of interest in which they impinge upon Jews as Jews. Specifically, it homes in on a question that was triggered by the attacks: Is it time for the Jews of Europe to depart en masse? The facts alone cannot explain why the Paris attacks triggered this question. There is, in the first place, a larger empirical context. More fundamentally, there is a powerful narrative context that places the present and the future by reference to the Nazi Holocaust and ultimately the biblical story of the exodus. This stock narrative not only gives rise to the wrong question—to flee or not to flee—but makes it impossible to engage in ‘thinking in the world’: the kind of thinking that generates the right questions regarding the Jewish future.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
EJ214514 - On Doing, Teaching and Studying Philosophy.
Research Interests:
EJ146854 - To Grade, or Not to Grade. A Dramatic Discussion in Eleven Parts.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In anticipation of its upcoming “Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in the EU”, the European Commission has launched a public consultation, inviting feedback and input from citizens and stakeholders. In this... more
In anticipation of its upcoming “Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in the EU”, the European Commission has launched a public consultation, inviting feedback and input from citizens and stakeholders.
In this context, the Commission has published a “Roadmap”, which specifies the three important and urgent objectives guiding the development of this strategy: “1) preventing and combating all forms of contemporary antisemitism; 2) protecting and fostering Jewish life in Europe and 3) ensuring remembrance of the victims of the Shoah, and education about antisemitism and Jewish life as well as the Holocaust as a defining moment of post-WWII Europe and the founding of the European Union.”
The Roadmap contains two minor references to a policy instrument relevant to the first objective of combating antisemitism: the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) – referred to throughout this submission as the “IHRA WDA”.
The Roadmap says: “The Commission uses the non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as a practical guidance tool to define antisemitism so that it can effectively combat it.”
“Defining antisemitism” is thus identified as a necessary precondition for “effectively combating” it.
This, of course, raises the question whether the IHRA WDA satisfies the requirements of a good definition, also in view of its potential instrumentalization for political reasons. Raising and answering this question is of particular importance, considering the status the European Commission has granted the IHRA WDA at political level and its high ambitions for operationalizing and promoting the IHRA WDA across many policy areas.
As argued in the three expert contributions in this submission, the IHRA WDA does not satisfy the requirements of a good definition. The two-sentence core definition of the IHRA WDA has several epistemological flaws, while the “contemporary examples of antisemitism” attached to it are highly susceptible to the danger of political misuse.
These shortcomings and weaknesses of the IHRA WDA pose a serious risk to the integrity, credibility and effectivity of the Commission’s upcoming “Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in the EU” – a risk the Commission will have to address in this strategy and throughout its implementation.
The three chapters in this submission have been contributed by senior experts on antisemitism and the fight against it: Dr. phil. Dr. rer. Med. Peter Ullrich (Technische Universität Berlin), Dr. Brian Klug (University of Oxford) and Prof. Amos Goldberg (Hebrew University of Jerusalem). All three are signatories to the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), which was launched in March 2021 and is introduced in chapter 3. For more information, see the section “Authors” on p. 11.
An annex has been added with examples illustrating the political instrumentalization of the IHRA WDA (see p. 12-16).
The JDA is informed by years of reflection on and critical assessment of the IHRA WDA. It was crafted by leading scholars and has been endorsed by more than 300 academics with relevant expertise. The JDA represents an opportunity to mitigate the risks that the IHRA WDA and its political instrumentalization pose to the EU’s upcoming strategy on combating antisemitism.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13068-Strategy-on-combating-antisemitism-and-fostering-Jewish-life-in-the-EU/F2661357_en
In this context, the Commission has published a “Roadmap”, which specifies the three important and urgent objectives guiding the development of this strategy: “1) preventing and combating all forms of contemporary antisemitism; 2) protecting and fostering Jewish life in Europe and 3) ensuring remembrance of the victims of the Shoah, and education about antisemitism and Jewish life as well as the Holocaust as a defining moment of post-WWII Europe and the founding of the European Union.”
The Roadmap contains two minor references to a policy instrument relevant to the first objective of combating antisemitism: the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) – referred to throughout this submission as the “IHRA WDA”.
The Roadmap says: “The Commission uses the non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as a practical guidance tool to define antisemitism so that it can effectively combat it.”
“Defining antisemitism” is thus identified as a necessary precondition for “effectively combating” it.
This, of course, raises the question whether the IHRA WDA satisfies the requirements of a good definition, also in view of its potential instrumentalization for political reasons. Raising and answering this question is of particular importance, considering the status the European Commission has granted the IHRA WDA at political level and its high ambitions for operationalizing and promoting the IHRA WDA across many policy areas.
As argued in the three expert contributions in this submission, the IHRA WDA does not satisfy the requirements of a good definition. The two-sentence core definition of the IHRA WDA has several epistemological flaws, while the “contemporary examples of antisemitism” attached to it are highly susceptible to the danger of political misuse.
These shortcomings and weaknesses of the IHRA WDA pose a serious risk to the integrity, credibility and effectivity of the Commission’s upcoming “Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in the EU” – a risk the Commission will have to address in this strategy and throughout its implementation.
The three chapters in this submission have been contributed by senior experts on antisemitism and the fight against it: Dr. phil. Dr. rer. Med. Peter Ullrich (Technische Universität Berlin), Dr. Brian Klug (University of Oxford) and Prof. Amos Goldberg (Hebrew University of Jerusalem). All three are signatories to the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), which was launched in March 2021 and is introduced in chapter 3. For more information, see the section “Authors” on p. 11.
An annex has been added with examples illustrating the political instrumentalization of the IHRA WDA (see p. 12-16).
The JDA is informed by years of reflection on and critical assessment of the IHRA WDA. It was crafted by leading scholars and has been endorsed by more than 300 academics with relevant expertise. The JDA represents an opportunity to mitigate the risks that the IHRA WDA and its political instrumentalization pose to the EU’s upcoming strategy on combating antisemitism.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13068-Strategy-on-combating-antisemitism-and-fostering-Jewish-life-in-the-EU/F2661357_en
Research Interests:
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as it manifests in countries around the world today. It includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines that... more
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as it manifests in countries around the world today. It includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines that provide detailed guidance for those seeking to recognize antisemitism in order to craft responses. It was developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression. It has over 200 signatories.
https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In a high-profile speech at the 47th Munich Security Conference in February 2011, David Cameron indicted " the doctrine of state multiculturalism, " advocating instead a policy of " muscular liberalism. " The Munich Security Conference is... more
In a high-profile speech at the 47th Munich Security Conference in February 2011, David Cameron indicted " the doctrine of state multiculturalism, " advocating instead a policy of " muscular liberalism. " The Munich Security Conference is an annual event at which heads of state, military and security experts, diplomats, and senior politicians from over seventy countries gather to discuss international policy on security. On the face of it, this is an unlikely venue for a UK prime minister to set out his stall on cultural diversity at home. But there is a thread running through his speech that ties together security policy and social policy. This article outlines the speech, analysing and discussing its logic and rhetoric. It seeks to unpack the subtext regarding Islam and Muslims in Britain today and to characterize Cameron's " voice. " Ultimately, the article argues that the speech evinces an almost unbearable sense of insecurity in a changing world, a world that is spinning out of control of the West, leaving the West unsure of itself and Britain unsure of its place.
Research Interests:
EJ146854 - To Grade, or Not to Grade. A Dramatic Discussion in Eleven Parts.