On the Wordplay Approach to Antisemitism
The wordplay approach to antisemitism argues that Arabs are ‘also semites’ and therefore the term ‘antisemitism’ should include them as well. This argument is often made with the intention of undermining serious discussion about antisemitism, but other times it is taken up by sincere people seeking to address antisemitism and anti-Arab racism simultaneously.
The following is a collection of comments I made on the topic. I was replying to the article “Anti-Semitism and the Assault on Gaza” on the website, The Commune. (The article and the discussion are available there in their entirety.)
‘The Communard’ wrote:
“[1] Technically, Palestinians are ‘Semitic’ too: but ‘anti-Semitism’ is commonly understood to mean hatred of Jewish people, and I use that conventional understanding here.”
This is strange. Technically, no one is ‘semitic.’ It is a social construct invented in the era of biological race theory in which the concept of ‘race’ was bound to the idea of natural language communities. Palestinians are not ‘semitic too,’ because there are no ‘semitic peoples,’ not jews either.
Antisemitism is not ‘being against semitic peoples’ nor ‘against semitism.’ It is a worldview about historical development and power relations and Jews’ role therein. It is a modernization of anti-judaism, but also transcends it in many important ways.
Why is this important?
Because your focus on the ‘conventional understanding of antisemitism’ lends itself to the idea that jews monopolize the concept for themselves, and therefore a critique of jews in their relation to their oppression. Whereas, the real focus should be on the social-historical reality of antisemitism, which, founded in Germany to modernize anti-jew hatred, and to ‘explain’ historical developments, power relations and contemporary capitalism.
Palestinians face very different situation than jews did in late 19th century european countries. Just as they do today. So, a correction would be that: “We use the term antisemitism in its correct form, that is, modern jew-hatred. And we seek to analyze the situation of Palestinians through a variety of analysis, including anti-Muslim racism, colonialism, and occupation.”
I didn’t say it, but if there is a mis-ascription of ‘anti-semitism’, it’s the fault of Europeans to whom the Jews were the only significant domestic population from anything that could be described as a ‘semitic background’.
You’re arguing about words in such a way that doesn’t help you get at the phenomenon. It didn’t matter to Wilhelm Marr and his League of Anti-Semites, as they called themselves, when they coined the term ‘anti-semitism’ and brought it to popular use in their attacks on jews, whether it was a ‘mis-ascription’ or not. It wasn’t a scholarly endeavor. It was a racist project against jews, and the word was coined in order to legitimize that racism.
The use of the term was an attempt to modernize jew-hatred. That’s why I find the discussion about whether Palestinians are ‘semitic’ or not totally off the point, but the attempt to consider the null point reveals a strange political sentiment, as if jews invented the term ‘anti-semitism’ to describe those who attack them, and as if they try to monopolize the term for themselves.
Your decision to “use that conventional understanding” means you think there is some legitimate challenge to the term, as if Arabs are ‘being excluded,’ or something of that kind. But anyone who is not included should be happy. It is only jews who are so often attacked in public with calls for their annihilation. That is not something to play down the differences of (between antisemitism and anti-Muslim racism), nor something to want to be included in. That’s why the playing with such inclusiveness is strange, and dishonest. (The whole, “muslims are the new Jews” argument that many on the left actually believe.)
It’s a strange ground of trying to change a historical phenomenon through wordplay, psuedo-social science and political correctness that the left should have no part in.
“Why, although we oppose antisemitism in its own terms, cannot we not also recognise the manifest fact that it also draws sectarian ethno-religious boundaries, which tend to break class unity?”
First, are you saying that antisemitism draws sectarian lines that break class unity — or that, opposing it does?
Second, do you think every “problem” can be resolved by lumping them altogether as the same? That sexism = racism = homophobia = etc. ? Or do you just think it’s a better strategy?
I think the limitations of lumping ‘it’ all together are shown when one really tries to address the particular form. Especially, when one looks contextually. For example, in Germany, Muslims face job and housing discrimination in ways that many jews don’t face, but then again Muslims don’t face the same kind of violent hostility that Jews face on the street by simply showing their religious symbol. That’s just one very simple example of differences between the way these forms play out. I’m of the belief that we have to dig much deeper into these phenomenon to be able to be effective in combating them. So, yeah, they might “break class unity,” but how do we fight them? By telling protesters “please don’t holler ‘shit jews!’ on the demonstration” (like that which took place before an ‘anti-war’ demo last week)? That’s just a matter of playing with words, not really seeking to change anything, in my opinion.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 at 10:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on April 29, 2009 iWT wrote:
Comrade Neckbeard is a sad case.
I read something that says that Arabs and Jews are ‘Semites’.
Pseudoscientific tracts citing a specific ‘Semitic’ type are not difficult to find. Whether or not young and silly supposed Marxists should be citing them is another question.
Antizionism is not Judenhass, but Jews ‘created’ Zionism — and therefore must wear the yellow star and grovel constantly if they are not to be taken for ‘Zionists’. Jews ‘created’ Zionism and Zionism ‘created’ the Shoah — my local ‘independent’ bookshop is filled with books which prove this.
[Reply]
on April 29, 2009 contestedterrain wrote:
iWT wrote:
That’s a joke, right?
[Reply]
on April 29, 2009 iWT wrote:
Not a joke — it’s not funny. Sarcasm certainly.
The mantra is ‘antizionism is not antisemitism’. However, in this milieu, everything Jews do is scrutinised against the requirement to constantly repudiate zionism. As Steve Cohen write:
Wanna support the miners—what’s your position on Zionism? Against the bomb—what’s your position on Zionism? And want to join our march against the eradication of Baghdad, in particular the eradication of Baghdad—what’s your position on Zionism?
How many times a week is an Australian or Singaporean child of Methodist parents expected to repudiate George W Bush?
And yes, the local bookshop stocks books which claim to prove that ‘zionists’ are equally as, if not more perfidious than, the nazis. Then there are the myriad post hoc revisions which purport to know the ‘antizionist’ minds of the murdered. It’s deranged and perverted — if not the ‘socialism of fools’, plainly the anti-imperialism of idiots.
[Reply]
on May 1, 2009 contestedterrain wrote:
Yes, antizionism is a kind of left McCarthyism. You oppose Ahmadinejad's war mongering? Sit under the lamp and tell me, "Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist?!"
[Reply]
on May 2, 2009 c0mmunard wrote:
I feel that my final reply is relevant to the exchange.
==
Hiya, on those questions:
1 – definitely I’m saying that racism (etc.) breaks class unity, not that anti-racism does.
2 – I definitely do not think that “sexism = racism = homophobia = etc.” I guess I didn’t think I was primarily making a strategic point, but a political one, of principle. But perhaps I don’t understand your question; what you mean by ‘lumping it all together’.
I wouldn’t disagree that the above article doesn’t provide a sufficient strategy for combatting anti-semitism… though I think it is a necessary minimum to challenge any public manifestations of it. Partly because of the views of the people themselves, but more because of the tone of acceptability which not challenging it gives to anti-semitism in the movement as a whole. For similar reasons, we’re publishing this article in our paper, and other groups publish similar articles, to raise it as an issue, say it’s important, cement the view that it’s both present and unnaceptable. I would be open to suggestions for other ways of going about it. I mean, it’s difficult isn’t it, unless you can identify the anti-semites in question, to do much apart from general propaganda?
About the phrase anti-semitism, and the meaning thereof. As I said above, I’m not precious about the footnote. I don’t have a strong position on the issue that I want to defend against all comers, and I’m prepared to accept that perhaps I used it wrongly. Before using such a formulation again, I will definitely do proper research. However, I certainly was not ‘trying to change a historical phenomenon’, and I don’t think that’s a reasonable intepretation of my words. (And even if the term was indisputedly subject to multiple interpretations – which I understand you’re saying it isn’t – that wouldn’t alter the historical phenomenon, which is not dependent on which word is used to describe it, but on the facts it involves.) I agree that that hatred of Jews and Muslim are historically very different phenomena and I don’t think that even those who would want to say that Arabs (etc.) are semites would want to deny that.
So I don’t think the point would in any case, wrong as it may have been, to try to say otherwise. To be honest, my motivation was that I have been challenged on using the term in discussions with Arabic people. (I think you can see why Arabic people who feel oppressed by Israeli state apologists’ scattergun accusations of anti-semitism, an accusation that has been directed at me several times, would find the point initially attractive. I think that’s why it comes up alot.) Therefore, and for the same reason that the first sentence of the article is as it is, I added the footnote – i.e. to make sure that people involved in the movement wouldn’t be turned off by the article, so the important points it raises could come across. Perhaps I was wrong. Like I say, I’ll make sure I look into it before using the phrase again!
[Reply]
on May 8, 2009 In defence of Comrade Neckbeard… « David Broder’s blog wrote:
[...] months later, someone who had commented on the article at the time wrote a reasonably dry and sane response questioning the author’s terminology, which was then picked up on by a certain [...]
on May 25, 2009 darren redstar wrote:
I have found it difficult to take anything that Dave Broder has done seriously, since he flounced out of the Red party years ago declaring himself the only Leninist in the group (true) and went off in search of an audience that would give him the adulation he deserved. Having found the AWL less than awe inspired by his pronouncements ( his attempt to marry animal rights with workers self liberation led to the classic statements that we should “Arm The Cows!”). he discovered he was in fact an “Anti Leninist” and started his new micro sect armed only with his copy of Maurice BRinton’s ‘workers power’ and a spouting hirsutness.
Davids public school confidence is no substitute for any real knowledge of the myriad subjects he pontificates on but that never stops him.
[Reply]
on May 25, 2009 contestedterrain wrote:
hi darren,
Do you want to comment on any of the content of his and my exchange?
[Reply]
on May 25, 2009 darren redstar wrote:
He is wrong and you are right
[Reply]