Antisemitism: definition, history, manifestations, and contemporary issues

The French Revolution of 1789 had promoted the implementation of universal human rights and the formation of nation states throughout Europe. With this, other states also began to put their citizens on an equal legal footing and initiated Jewish emancipation. Nationalist unification movements fought against this and sought reasons adapted to the changed historical situation for the traditional hatred of Jews of the Middle Ages, which had been shaped by Christianity.

The term "anti-Semitism" is a new creation of German anti-Semites around the journalist Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904). Its aim was "to justify hostility towards the Jews on the basis of their belonging to the Semitic race and family of peoples and to give it the character of a scientific doctrine based on ultimate causes" (Edmond Jacob: Artikel Antisemitismus, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1928, p. 957). Historically, however, the new term was never directed against the Semites, i.e. the whole Semitic language family comprising many ethnic groups, but always only against Jews, who were thus represented as an ethnic collective. The term is therefore an etymological misnomer and, from its origins, racist and pseudo-scientific.

Since 1771, a family of languages and peoples has been referred to as "Semites" in order to distinguish them from the language family of the "Aryans". The Indologist Christian Lassen and the Orientalist and religious scholar Ernest Renan used both terms as ideological collective nouns for opposing national characters and cultural types. By referring to Jews as "Semites," they were portrayed as an ethnic descent community with inferior characteristics. In 1860, bibliographer Moritz Steinschneider dismissed as "anti-Semitic prejudice" Renan's theses that Judaism impeded the political progress of mankind through its dispersion and religious sense of election. By 1865, "Semitism" or "Semitentum" was lexically established as a catchword. It was therefore natural to use the antonym "anti-Semitism" for the ideology and goals of anti-Jewish organizations.

The noun is first documented in December 1879 in a newspaper report on the Anti-Semitic League, which Marr had founded in September 1879. It denoted their political program of combating "Semitism". The term served anti-Semites to distinguish themselves from the affect-laden Jew-hatred of the Middle Ages and to give their aims a rational, enlightened veneer. From 1880 onwards, "anti-Semitism" also referred to the aims of the "Berlin Movement" around Adolf Stoecker and Heinrich von Treitschke and the signatories of the "Anti-Semitic Petition".

Since the Jewish minority did not represent a unified ideology and party that the anti-Semites could have fought, they constructed a völkisch-racial opposition and made the traditional swearword "the Jew" the epitome of all negatively experienced and interpreted contemporary phenomena since the Enlightenment. He owned and directed the critical press, infiltrated the nation with egoistic striving for profit, cold rationality of purpose, alien ideas and tendencies: rationalism, materialism, internationalism, individualism, pluralism, capitalism (Manchester liberalism), democracy, socialism and communism. It was to blame for the disintegration ("decomposition") of traditional social structures, exploitation, economic crises, capital concentration and inflation, disunity and weakness of the nation. As a summary of such anti-Jewish and racist stereotypes, the term "anti-Semitism" quickly became commonplace in the Empire as well as in Tsarist Russia, Imperial Austria, and post-revolutionary France. For about 75 years, it remained the proper name of "principled" enemies of the Jews, who, in combating "Semitism," sought the isolation, expulsion, and eventual extermination of the Jews.

In order to distinguish European, assimilated Jews in particular as a separate "race" from other "Semitic peoples", the anti-Semite Eugen Dühring already rejected the term "anti-Semitism". In order to ensure the Nazi regime's cooperation with the Arabs in terms of power tactics, in August 1935 the Reich Ministry of Propaganda called on the German press "to avoid the word: anti-Semitic or anti-Semitism, because German policy is directed only against the Jews, not against the Semites per se. The word: anti-Jewish should be used instead." In 1943, Alfred Rosenberg demanded that the German press refrain from using the term anti-Semitism in deference to the Arab world. For by using the term, the hostile foreign countries were saying that the Germans were "lumping Arabs and Jews together".

Since 1945, "anti-Semitism" has referred to all aspects of anti-Jewish ideology that enabled, prepared, accompanied and justified the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism researchers in Israel, Great Britain and the USA use the word as an umbrella term for sweeping, also non-racist hostility towards Jews with "eliminatory" features. Reinhard Rürup and Thomas Nipperdey (1972), on the other hand, wanted to limit it to that racist hostility towards Jews since 1880 in which the term had arisen. This was a "fundamentally new movement hostile to Jews", so that its term could not be applied to older, non-racist hostility to Jews. Alex Bein, Jacob Katz, Helmut Berding, and Hermann Greive also emphasized the difference between "modern" anti-Semitism and earlier Jew-hatred, despite all the continuity, and therefore rejected the term as an umbrella term for "hostility toward Jews." According to Georg Christoph Berger Waldenegg, the continued use of the term suggests that there have been and still are "specifically Jewish-Semitic characteristics".

Ernst Simmel, on the other hand, judged that "anti-Semitism has remained essentially the same over the centuries, even if its forms of expression have changed since the Enlightenment, as have the ethical standards and social structures of every epoch." According to Shulamit Volkov, "the novelty of modern anti-Semitism is not far off either." Rita Botwinick sees "anti-Semitism" as a "modern word for a time-honored malignancy." Eberhard Jäckel calls the term a "linguistically inaccurate designation for hatred of Jews." Léon Poliakov therefore pleaded for "anti-Judaism" as an umbrella term for religious and racist hatred of Jews, Steven T. Katz used "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism" interchangeably.

The classification of the no longer religious, not yet explicitly racist hostility towards Jews between 1750 and 1880 also remained controversial. Alphons Silbermann distinguishes between "classical" and "modern", Winfried Frey between "early" or "pre-modern" and "modern" anti-Semitism. Wolfgang Altgeld speaks of "enlightened hostility towards Jews" for the period up to 1800, and of "early nationalist anti-Judaism" up to 1848. Paul L. Rose calls hostility towards Jews from 1800 onwards "anti-Semitism".

In colloquial language, the term "anti-Semitism" has become synonymous with "hatred of Jews" or "hostility towards Jews" since 1945. In research today, "anti-Semitism" is a "collective term for negative stereotypes about Jews, for resentments and actions directed against individual Jews as Jews or against Judaism as a whole, as well as against phenomena because they are Jewish".

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) recorded an increase in anti-Semitic tendencies as a result of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. In order to facilitate and harmonise the criminal treatment of such tendencies in the EU states, the EUMC published a working definition in 2005:

Anti-Semitism is "Jew-hatred" directed against Jewish or non-Jewish individuals, their property, their institutions, or the state of Israel. It "frequently accuses Jews of conspiring to harm humanity and is often used to blame Jews 'when things go wrong.'" It expresses itself in words, texts, images and actions, using "sinister stereotypes and negative character traits," such as:

• Calls to kill or harm Jews in the name of a radical ideology or extremist religious view,
• mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotyping claims about Jews or the collective power of Jews, such as a world Jewry or Jewish control of media, governments, etc,
• Blaming Jews collectively for real or perceived offenses committed by individual or multiple Jews or gentiles,
• Holocaust denial,
• Accusing Jews as a collective or Israel of inventing or dramatizing the Holocaust,
• accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel or supposed Jewish priorities worldwide than to their own states,
• to reject the right of Jews to self-determination, such as claiming that Israel is a racist project,
• to apply double standards, that is, to demand behavior from Israel that is not expected of any other democratic nation,
• apply classical anti-Semitic symbols and images such as the God-killing accusation or the ritual murder legend to Israel or Israelis,
• To compare Israel's current policy with the extermination policy of National Socialism,
• To claim collective Jewish responsibility for Israel's policies.

Criticism of Israel, which is similarly voiced against other countries, cannot, however, be classified as anti-Semitic.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) decided to adopt the EUMC definition on 15 May 2016 after consultations among its 31 member states:

The working definition of "anti-Semitism" of the European Forum on Anti-Semitism (EFA) is also based on the EUMC definition of 2005.

The Council of Ministers of Austria adopted the IHRA definition of work on 21 April 2017, and the German Federal Government also agreed to this definition through a Cabinet decision on 20 September 2017.

Even advocates of the IHRA's definition of work, however, criticized it as having been "not intended for transposition into European or national law."

The IHRC lists the following recent examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace and the religious sphere, which may include, but are not limited to, the following behaviour, taking into account the overall context.

The political scientist and sociologist Armin Pfahl-Traughber criticizes the lack of clarity, selectivity and completeness of the working definition and pleads for its fundamental revision. It is not clear what exactly the "particular perception" consists of. Anti-Semitism is not criticism, but hostility "against Jews as Jews". While it is to be welcomed that the definition articulates that contemporary hostility towards Jews is often enough expressed via the detour of hostility towards Israel, this is overemphasized, and the other ideological variants of anti-Semitism are only mentioned in passing.

The American Civil Liberties Union in the US criticized the definition, saying it was far too broad and could be used to suppress free speech - especially criticism of Israel.

The Israeli historian Moshe Zimmermann also criticizes the "vagueness" of the IHRA definition. It allows any kind of criticism of Israel to be described as anti-Semitic. This leads to an inflationary use of the term and to the fact that "where anti-Semitism is really to be found [...] it may not be recognized".

In an expert opinion commissioned by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, the philosopher and sociologist Peter Ullrich describes the IHRA definition's claim to want to solve all the problems associated with the clarification of the term and at the same time to be generally applicable as a "failure". It is not very precise and contradictory in itself and also leaves blatant gaps. It makes it possible to stigmatize and publicly discriminate against unpopular positions on the Middle East conflict, which Ullrich assesses "in view of their quasi-legal status as a threat to freedom of opinion". Moreover, it obscures the fact that the greatest danger comes from the right.

In December 2019, Kenneth S. Stern stated that as an anti-Semitism expert for the American Jewish Committee, he was the primary author of the working definition. However, politically right-wing Jewish groups had used the definition as a weapon against freedom of expression from 2010 onwards.

In December 2019, a group of 127 Jewish and Israeli intellectuals - including Andrew Stuart Bergerson, Daniel Boyarin, José Brunner, Judith Butler, Tommy Dreyfus, Katharina Galor, Steve Golin, Neve Gordon, David Harel, Eva Jablonka, Brian Klug, Joseph Levine, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, David Ranan, Steven Rose, Graeme Segal, Alice Shalvi, Avi Shlaim, Zeev Sternhell, Rolf Verleger, Joan Wallach Scott, Moshe Zimmermann and Moshe Zuckermann - sent an open letter to the French parliament warning against adopting the "unclear and inaccurate" IHRA definition. They criticized that the IHRA definition "deliberately associates criticism and opposition to the policies of the State of Israel with anti-Semitism" and "introduces an unjustified double standard in favor of Israel and against the Palestinians."

David Feldman wrote in December 2020 that the IHRA definition is flawed, woolly, confusing, and inadequate to protect Jewish students and faculty in British universities. It also did not offer a clear answer as to whether, for example, calls for boycotts of Israel were inherently anti-Semitic. Joe Mann, the British government's "anti-Semitism guru," wrote, for example, that boycotts are not covered by the IHRA definition.

In early January 2021, the EU Commission and IHRA published a handbook on the practical application of IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism.

On 11 January 2021, more than seventy British academics who are also Israeli citizens (including Ilan Pappe) addressed an open letter to UK universities and students condemning the government's introduction of the IHRA definition of work there and calling on university senates to reject or withdraw the widely criticised and "inherently wrong", "vague" and "lacking in content" definition. The open letter was supported by more than a hundred other Israeli academics worldwide (including Roy Wagner, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, José Brunner, and Oded Goldreich).

In February 2020, more than 600 Canadian academics signed a petition opposing the IHRA definition.

In January 2021, a number of left-wing Jewish organizations in the U.S. - Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror North America, Hashomer Hatzair World Movement, Jewish Labor Committee, J Street, New Israel Fund, Partners for Progressive Israel, Reconstructing Judaism, and T'ruah - issued a statement rejecting the adoption of the IHRA definition.

In March 2021, more than 150 Jewish college professors in Canada spoke out against the adoption of the IHRA definition in an open letter.

In March 2021, Neve Gordon (Queen Mary University of London) and Mark LeVine (University of California, Irvine) argued that under the IHRA definition, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Tony Judt, and Yeshayahu Leibowitz could also be labeled "anti-Semites" for their criticism of Israeli policies. The "confusing and misleading" working definition is "the tool of choice for so-called pro-Israel organizations."

Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism

In March 2021, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism was published. It was drafted by twenty primarily Jewish or Israeli scholars and Israeli scholars and signed by some two hundred international scholars, most of whom work in anti-Semitism research and related fields, including Omer Bartov, Wolfgang Benz, Werner Bergmann, Daniel Blatman, Debórah Dwork, Helga Embacher, Sander Gilman, Wolf Gruner, Deborah Hertz, Uffa Jensen, Jonathan Judaken, Brian Klug, Dominick LaCapra, Hanno Loewy, Brendan McGeever, Samuel Moyn, Mark Roseman, Dirk Rupnow, Gisèle Sapiro, Peter Schäfer, Stefanie Schüler-Springorum, Michael Wildt, Moshe Zimmermann, and Moshe Zuckermann. It is intended to improve, supplement or correct the IHRA's much-criticized definition of anti-Semitism and to offer a coherent and politically neutral definition.

The Jerusalem Declaration defines anti-Semitism as "discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)" and provides 15 guidelines to clarify the definition, making a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. In this sense, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) initiative, among others, as a "common, non-violent form of protest ... is not anti-Semitic per se".

Another important difference between the Jerusalem Declaration and the IHRA's working definition is that it sees the struggle against anti-Semitism as inseparable from the larger struggle against other forms of racism and discrimination.

Uwe Becker, the president of the German-Israeli Society, called the declaration a "license for almost boundless 'criticism of Israel'" and a "certificate for hatred of Israel".

The Jerusalem Declaration received a controversial reception in the media: Some authors supported the Jerusalem Declaration, others criticized it.