Antisemitism: Here and Now

THE PERPLEXED

Dear Professor Lipstadt:

I write to you because I am worried and confused. I hope you don’t mind this intrusion, but after studying with you these past few years, I feel that you are the person to whom I should turn.

Over the last few months I’ve had a number of extended conversations about anti-Semitism with classmates, most of whom are not Jews. I have asked them to speak freely. And they have. One, somewhat hesitatingly, posited that given that anti-semitism has lasted so long, the Jews must, at least on some level, be responsible for it. Another picked up on this theme and, with great hesitancy, wondered if a people who has been so hated for so long might have done something to cause it. They both kept repeating that they consider me a good friend and meant nothing personal. And I don’t think they did. But I felt uncomfortable. The most distressing part of this entire encounter was that I didn’t know what to say to them without sounding defensive. I guess I am asking for your help in both understanding what is happening and figuring out how to respond.

They did listen soberly as I told them that Jews must take precautions in Brussels, Paris, and a myriad of other cities. I explained how on a trip to Europe some years ago, I visited Jewish sites without a second thought. In contrast, this summer I shall join a small group of Jewish students for a tour of major European sites. One member of our group wears a kippah and, without our even asking, he assured us that he would wear a baseball cap during the trip. The other guys, in a show of solidarity, agreed to wear caps as well. I promised not to take along my backpack that has the name of my Jewish youth group emblazoned on it. The fact that outward manifestations of Jewishness have become something one has to keep under wraps in many places in the Western world is both troubling and puzzling to me.

I have no reason to fear for my physical safety here on campus. I feel comfortable as a Jew, except maybe when Israel is the topic of discussion. But this encounter with my friends has left me feeling confused and, I admit, a bit insecure. I’m not sure exactly what I’m asking you to tell me, but I thought that after three years of classes and conversations with you, I would ask for your help in making sense of all this.

Yours,

Abigail

Dear Deborah:

It was good to see you, however briefly, on campus. You were correct in your observation that I didn’t seem to be quite my usual self. Though my semester has been productive, I’ve been in a funk as I’ve continued to ponder the ever-increasing divisiveness in the United States and throughout so much of the world. While I’ve long been aware of inequities in our country, I believe that the level of contempt that various groups have for one another has become far more open and mainstream over the past few years. I trace much of it to the 2016 presidential campaign. The campaign and subsequent events didn’t create this animosity, but they certainly encouraged it. Expressions of racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and, of course, Antisemitism seems to be escalating on a daily basis.

I have a strange request. Antisemitism is something I’ve long abhorred, but also something that I fear I do not fully understand. I know there is much on your plate, but if you would be willing to help me try to comprehend it, I would be very grateful.

Yours,

Joe

Dear Joe and Abigail:

Joe, meet Abigail Ross, a rising senior who has been one of my students for the past few years. She has taken a number of courses relating to different aspects of the Holocaust. Abigail, meet Joe Wilson, a professor at the law school who teaches about law and religion. Joe and I have been in frequent conversation about prejudice and hatred.

Both of you have written to me with questions about the seeming rise in antisemitism in the United States and beyond and have asked if we might engage in an exchange on the topic. I’m happy to do so, not just because two people about whom I care deeply are perplexed about it but also because I believe such an exchange will help all of us get a handle on this vexing situation. Since our schedules are so varied, let’s do it in writing. And, if you are both willing, let’s share all of our letters with one another. That way, we can all be part of this ongoing conversation.

And because I believe things should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, let’s set a time frame of a year for this exchange.

Yours,

DEL

A DELUSION

Dear Abigail and Joe:

Both of you are looking for a way to explain why antisemitism? and to figure out what we can do about it. At the risk of disappointing you, let me start by saying caveat emptor, by which I mean that I don’t think I can satisfactorily answer either of these questions. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain something that is essentially irrational, delusional, and absurd. That is the nature of all conspiracy theories, of which antisemitism is just one. Think about it. Why do some people insist that the moon landings took place on a stage set someplace in the American West? Despite the existence of reams of scientific and personal evidence to the contrary, they believe this because they subscribe to the notion that the government and other powerful entities are engaged in vast conspiracies to fool the public.¹ Governmental chicanery is the prism through which their view of the world is refracted. However irrational their ideas may seem to us, they make sense to them. Conspiracy theories give events that may seem inexplicable to some people an intentional explanation. If we were to provide these conspiracy theorists with evidence that proves the landing was indeed on the moon, they will a priori dismiss what we say and assume we are part of the conspiracy. To try to defeat an irrational supposition—especially when it is firmly held by its proponents—with a rational explanation is virtually impossible. Any information that does not correspond with the conspiracy theorists’ preferred social, political, or ethnic narrative is ipso facto false. Social scientists have described such theories as having a self-sealing quality that makes them particularly immune to challenge.² Conspiracy theories reduce complex issues to the simplest denominator and infuse them with heated exaggerations, suspicions, and fantasies that have no connection to facts. Some people are inclined to dismiss conspiracy theories as relatively benign. They consider people who promulgate them to be mentally unbalanced, right up there with folks who wear tinfoil hats to protect themselves from pernicious radio signals emitted by the government. While one can indeed question how rational these people are, they can still cause real damage.

The delusional aspect of antisemitism became strikingly clear to me in 1972, during my first trip to the Soviet Union. Refuseniks, those Soviet Jews who were openly fighting the government for the freedom to emigrate, marveled at how the Communist regime managed to blame so many of its problems on Jews. At the same time that the government was persecuting Jews and spreading antisemitism, many Soviet citizens who hated the Communist regime believed it was a conspiracy of Jews. In a not atypical Jewish reaction to persecution, Refuseniks created a genre of jokes to ease their pain and illustrate the delusions of their oppressors. One has stayed with me. I share it with you in the hope of getting what will inevitably be a sobering exchange off to a humorous—or, more properly put, ironic—start.

The USSR suffered chronic shortages of consumer goods. Early one morning a rumor circulated in Moscow that a store was to receive a shipment of shoes. A queue formed immediately outside the store and continued to grow exponentially. After people had been waiting for an hour or so, the manager emerged and announced, We will not receive enough shoes to accommodate everyone. Jews, leave the queue and go home. And they did. A few hours later he emerged again and said, We will not receive enough shoes to accommodate everyone. All non-veterans, go home. And they did. A few hours later he emerged yet again and said, We will not receive enough shoes to accommodate everyone. All those who are not members of the Communist Party, go home. And they did. As dusk was falling, he emerged for a final time and said, We will not receive any shoes today. Everyone go home. Deeply disappointed, two exhausted and shivering loyal Communist Party members, both of whom were World War II veterans, walked away from the store. As they did, one turned to the other and bitterly proclaimed, Those Jews, they have all the luck!

Delusional? Irrational? Antisemitic? All of the above? Let’s try to figure it out.

Yours,

DEL

P.S. Abigail, I smiled when I read about the suggestion that the guys on your European jaunt wear baseball caps instead of kippot. During a recent trip to Berlin, a friend gave me directions to an out-of-the-way synagogue. After some intricate explanations, he added, When you get to the street that it’s on, look out for the police with submachine guns; they’re standing in front of the synagogue. But if you have trouble finding the street, just watch for men in baseball caps and follow them. They will lead you to the synagogue. I smiled. Sometime later, my friend and I passed a group of tourists. The men were all in baseball caps. He leaned over to me and whispered, Jews. I smiled at his certitude. The next day I saw the same group in a synagogue. The caps had been replaced with kippot. As you may well know, in recent years many local Jews have encouraged their coreligionists not to wear kippot in Berlin and other major German cities. Lest you think this is only a German phenomenon, let me disabuse you of that notion. During a recent trip to Italy I was looking for a highly recommended kosher restaurant. I got tangled up in a maze of old circuitous streets and alleyways. Then I saw some guys in baseball caps. On a whim, I followed them and, sure enough, they led me right to the restaurant.

So, baseball caps might not do the trick. But maybe a fruitful exchange of ideas will.

Yours,

DEL

A DEFINITION

Dear Professor Lipstadt:

Thanks for the response. Your focus on the delusional, irrational, and conspiratorial aspects of antisemitism was very helpful. What you seem to be saying is that antisemitism is illogical and, therefore, cannot be explained. I accept that. But if we can’t explain it, can we at least define it? Is every negative thing that is written or uttered about Jews an expression of antisemitism? I know that not everything negative written or said about Israel is necessarily antisemitic, but where does one draw the line? Is antisemitism always intentional? Can someone be an unintentional antisemite? I am a bit embarrassed to ask this. My roommate, who is reading this over my shoulder, insists that, given that I have taken your courses and am Jewish, I should know the answers to these questions. She’s right. I feel as though I should know. But I don’t.

I do remember your recounting in class that old joke that an antisemite is someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary. But now I’m looking for a more substantive answer.

Yours,

Abigail

Dear Deborah:

As you had predicted, I’m already learning from Abigail, who may be surprised to know that, despite all of my writings about prejudice, I’ve never systematically thought about how to best define antisemitism. It would seem that I should be able to define something about which I am so perturbed. Is it simply hatred of Jews? I believe it’s more complex than that. Someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary is certainly an intriguing place to start the conversation.

Yours,

Joe

Dear Abigail and Joe:

Let me reassure both of you that you need not be the least bit uncomfortable or frustrated by the fact that you can’t quite define antisemitism. You are hardly alone. Much of the general public can’t define it. Even scholars in the field can’t agree on a precise definition. In fact, there are people, particularly Jews, who eschew definitions and argue that Jews can feel antisemitism in their bones, the same way that African Americans recognize racism and gays recognize homophobia. Their position is best articulated by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous comment about hard-core pornography as set forth in the Court’s 1964 decision on whether Louis Malle’s film The Lovers fit that category and, according to the law at the time, could therefore be banned because it was not considered protected speech. In his opinion that the film should be considered protected speech, Stewart set down one of the most quoted phrases in Supreme Court history:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.¹ [Emphasis added.]

We should be grateful to Justice Stewart not only for expanding the boundaries of artistic expression but also for giving us this highly utilitarian concept. We may at times find it hard to precisely define antisemitism, but we certainly know it when we see or hear it.

Equally useful, though slightly less elegant than Justice Stewart’s formulation, is the term Click! which was introduced by Jane O’Reilly in an article in the inaugural issue of Ms. magazine, in December 1971. In her groundbreaking essay, O’Reilly described those moments in the workplace when a woman realizes that her opinion is being ignored, a man is being credited for her ideas, or she is expected to do something—serve refreshments or watch the boss’s child—that no man is ever asked to do. If she complained to her male colleagues, they would be completely befuddled. Oblivious to the obvious gender discrimination, they might declare her oversensitive, if not a bit paranoid. O’Reilly dubbed that moment of her recognition Click!²

Abigail, I am glad you remember my aside that an antisemite is someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary. It makes us laugh, but it should also make us think. This pithy observation, which is often attributed to the late philosopher and intellectual giant Isaiah Berlin, provides a simple and useful tool for identifying prejudice.³ Imagine that someone has done something you find objectionable. You may legitimately resent the person because of his or her actions or attitudes. But if you resent him even an iota more because this person is Jewish, that is antisemitism. Let’s concretize this by considering a hypothetical example. Imagine a driver who has been deliberately forced off the road by an erratic driver who happens to be black. The person who has almost been hit can legitimately complain to the other people in the car about the dangerous driver. But if he decries that black guy who has done this, he has crossed the line into racism. The driver’s race is unrelated to his driving skills. Mentioning it can be considered a racist dog whistle that subliminally telegraphs the speaker’s contempt for black people in general. (However, including the driver’s race in your description of him to a police officer is of course not racist; it is simply one of the ways the driver can be physically identified by the cops who are trying to apprehend him.)

Now imagine someone telling his friend about a person whom he feels has cheated him in a business transaction. Complaining about that crooked real-estate developer is one thing. Complaining about that crooked Jewish real-estate developer is—Click!—antisemitism. But this example of the need to distinguish between a justifiable private grievance and a group-defaming prejudice may not take us far enough. I think it’s important to recognize it as a Jewish joke complete with its implicit derogation of Jews in the midst of its defense of them. Absolutely necessary in Jewish hands means Of course we are annoying but don’t get carried away and try to kill us.

But knowing it when you see it and Click work only if we can identify antisemitism’s essential elements, its building blocks. We need to unpack the contents of this hatred. Once it’s identifiable, we can allow our instincts to check in. If you cannot define something, you cannot address it or fight it. So let’s move on to more formal definitions. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s descriptor, which has now been adopted by the European Parliament, identifies it as:

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.⁴ [Emphasis added.]

Non-Jews, too? Yes, indeed. In Arthur Miller’s 1945 novel Focus, a man, who himself is passively antisemitic, develops blurred vision and must start wearing glasses. His boss and his neighbors decide that, based on his new look, he must be Jewish, and they subject him to prejudice and, eventually, physical violence.⁵ Though not a Jew, he is, ironically, the object of antisemitism.

The historical sociologist Helen Fein includes in her definition some additional important elements:

A persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collectivity manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore, and imagery, and in actions—social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against Jews, and collective or state violence—which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews.⁶ [Emphasis in original.]

Note the operative word here: persisting. It doesn’t go away; it’s not a onetime event. Though its outer form may evolve over time, its essence remains the same. It is not unlike a stubborn infection. Medication may alleviate the symptoms, but the infection itself lies dormant and may reemerge at an opportune moment in a new incarnation, a different outer shell. While the shape of the hatred may be adapted and massaged, the basic ideas or illusions that are at its core remain constant. In ancient and medieval times antisemitism was religious in nature. Jews were hated because they refused to accept Christianity and, later, Islam. In the eighteenth century, racial and political rationales were added to the religious one. Voltaire was contemptuous of the Church’s hierarchical structure, but he was equally contemptuous of Jews. (You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.⁷)

By the nineteenth century, those on the political right were accusing all Jews of being Socialists, Communists, and revolutionaries. Those on the political left were accusing all Jews of being wealth-obsessed capitalists who were opposed to the social and economic betterment of the poor and working classes. Further complicating the matter, the pseudoscience of the eugenics movement posited that Jews were inferior in their genetic makeup. Some of those who subscribed to this pseudoscientific claim simultaneously argued that Jews possessed not just these inferior traits but superior ones as well. Jews were maliciously intelligent, and because they were able to easily mix with non-Jews, they used those traits to wreak havoc with non-Jews’ lives. That this was a contradiction in terms—simultaneously superior and inferior—presented no problem for the antisemite. This toxic brew of race, religion, politics, and pseudoscience became the cornerstone of Nazi antisemitism and is today a cornerstone of the white power movement and white supremacist antisemitism.*,⁸

The structure of antisemitism means that it’s not just a bunch of haphazard ideas, but it can result in, as Fein notes, actions—social or legal discrimination, political mobilization…and collective or state violence. It also has an internal coherence. This coherence might be delusional and absurd—just like the Communist who was sure Jews had all the luck because they were kicked off the line first and did not have to wait hours in the freezing cold—but it makes perfect sense to the antisemite. Irrespective of whether the antisemitic manifestations were religious, political, social, racial, or some amalgam of them all, the same themes or tropes remain embedded in them. We know them well: Jews may be small in number, but they have the ability to compel far more powerful entities to do their bidding. That bidding invariably involves aiding Jews at the expense of non-Jews. Jews, over the course of millennia, irrespective of whether they lived in close proximity to one another or were separated by continents, have honed a cosmopolitan alliance that facilitates their evil deeds. The historical template for these charges is to be found in the New Testament’s depictions of the death