Why Do Jews have such a hard time talking about Antisemitism?

Part I

Why Do Jews have such a hard time talking about Antisemitism?

Part I

In this moment, at least for many Jews, antisemitism has again become a significant topic of conversation and concern. But not like the proximate past. Not like late 19th and early 20th century Europe. Rather, today we engage antisemitism from a place of relative safety (the Diaspora) and sovereignty (Israel), even as the rise in antisemitism has produced palpable insecurity.

Antisemitism is the topic again not because it fell from the sky but because circumstances have created (new) conditions for it. I am not concerned here with the roots of antisemitism, or the role of Israel in the mix (“is anti-Zionism antisemitism?”). I want to explore a different question: why Jews today can’t seem to talk about antisemitism without the conversation quickly breaking down. It is not that we differ on the reality of antisemitism; rather, I think, we differ on how we understand the Jew qua Jew, now, and historically. And if we can’t agree on the subject (the Jew/s), we will never agree on the definition of what has victimized it.

A Thought Experiment: The Triad of a Maximalist Notion of Antisemitism

I think many who hold what I am calling a “maximalist” view of antisemitism (in some way, perhaps, we can view the ADL as one example among many), are deeply invested in the following three precepts: (1) The eternality of antisemitism, (2) the uniqueness of the Holocaust; and (3) state exceptionalism regarding Israel. These three claims are related even as some they can also contradict one another. For example, the eternality of antisemitism and the uniqueness of the Holocaust are potentially in tension. If antisemitism is “eternal” than in what way is the Holocaust unique (outside of its scale, but would that constitute uniqueness)?

In any case, while each of these claims requires nuance, I think this triad has some merit as a thought experiment of why it appears so difficult for Jews today to have a constructive conversation about antisemitism and what to do about it. Each one of these precepts is an entire subject in itself (which I will treat in kind) but I will offer brief excurses on each and then try to suggest why they help produce as certain maximalist antisemitism.

And what then would be produced by one who doesn’t hold to this triad. That is, if one holds that that antisemitism is not “eternal,” that the Holocaust is a horrific unspeakable atrocity but the term “uniqueness” does not apply (this by the way is the general haredi understanding which I will elaborate below), and the state is not an exceptional entity but a state among others that has certain requirements and responsibilities in terms of politics and actions.

Obviously, there are many other factors to consider, but this exercise may help us understand why this Jewish moment is even more consequential that we see on the surface and why so many of us seem to be talking past one another.

I want to treat each one of these claims separately in subsequent posts. Here I want to simply introduce the triad as one possible way of understanding this internal Jewish dilemma. Antisemitism, the Holocaust, and the state of Israel (or Zionism more generally) have often been viewed in relation to one another. Herzl’s The Jewish State was predicated on viewing sovereignty as a response to antisemitism (his reaction to the Dreyfuss Affair is a matter of scholarly debate), which I do not think he thought was “eternal.” (his 1896 essay “On the Jewish Question” makes that pretty clear). And while Zionism predated the Holocaust, its beginnings, at least in a secular register, was predicted on the failure of emancipation to create a context whereby Jews in Europe could find both physical safety and religious freedom. And while Zionism was not very popular in its early decades of the 20th century, by the rise of Hitler in 1933 coupled with immigration laws in America that curtailed immigration to the US (the Johnson-Reed Act of 1923), Zionism and immigration to Mandate Palestine moved from being an ideological commitment to a dire emergency. And after the war, in 1948, the international sympathy that helped drive the UN decision for the establishment of Israel (included in that is the massive postwar refugee problem that few countries wanted to resolve through immigration to other countries) was in part a response to the reality of the Final Solution as it became known.

In this sense, antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Zionism are inextricably intertwined, and yet how we understand the first two (neither of which is self-evident) will invariably impact how we understand the third. And by extension, how we react to the realities of a post 10/7 Israel, its electoral choices, its decision (and it was a decision) to eviscerate Gaza, and to justify its enormous power (with US arms and support) by linking 10/7 to the Holocaust, and in some cases, even Hamas to the Nazis, begs a more careful treatment.

What does it mean to liken an atrocity on the territory of a sovereign state to the victimization of a disempowered people living under the sovereignty of others? And what does it mean to compare the hatred of the Jew qua Jew (one definition of antisemitism) with the hatred of the Jew as hegemon who is persecuting a minority who claims (rightly or wrongly) that Israel/the Jews stole its land? And what does it mean to compare Nazis, a national state power with an army, navy, and air force, with a terrorist movement that arose in and because of occupation (however one understands that)? These questions are rarely explored, they are often either proclaimed or denied. But these questions are crucial in order to better understand where we are in this moment.

This is what I would like to explore with you in this series of posts. I am not a political scientist and thus I offer no solutions. And I am not a military expert and thus I offer no policies. I am a scholar of Judaism, and here I include Zionism, who is interested in “understanding” the development of Judaism through history. This does not mean I don’t have a point of view. I certainly do. We all do. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a serious conversation about a reality we all agree is significant.

It is true that in some cases, we may not be able to agree on sufficient premises to have that debate. In fact, that is precisely what I am trying to explore in this series of posts. Anyway, I hope you will join me with your comments.

Peace-

Shaul

Upcoming posts include “What is ‘eternal antisemitism’ ‘Holocaust uniqueness’ and “Israeli exceptionalism’ – first gleanings