mindhenge

Home - politics - language - article
Home - world - middle east - article

Dangerous language

10 November 2003

The term "anti-Semitism" has a uniquely powerful association that is both useful and dangerous for those who support the policy of the Israeli government.

The news last week that an E.U. survey found that a majority of respondents in Europe thought that Israel was a greater threat to world peace than, for example, North Korea or Iran, sparked a strong response from Jewish groups, who claimed the survey result as evidence of renascent anti-Semitism in Europe.

The term "anti-Semitic" is a difficult one to apply with accuracy. The Semites are speakers of the Semitic languages, which include Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic and Maltese. The word became associated particularly with Jews presumably through usage since the nineteenth century. According to Bloomsbury's World English Dictionary the term "Semite" remains an offensive term for a Jewish person, which makes it all the more surprising that Jewish groups are ready to use the term "anti-Semitism" so freely.

Most "anti-something" words derive their meaning from context. This is particularly so when they are applied to a broad group such as a nation or religion. The term anti-American has seen much use recently, both in Europe and around the world. Commentators have been careful to point out the limits of the term where it applies specifically to the policies of the U.S. government or to the strategic position that the U.S, adopts in the world. It is rarely applied to the U.S. population; still less to individual Americans unless they are directly implicated in their government's policy. What is more, surveys consistently show that even on the Arab "street" where U.S. policy is most vilified, the American culture and way of life remain much in vogue.

What about anti-Catholic, or anti-Christian, or anti-Muslim? The nuance of each term changes with its context. Anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland is inimical to a section of the population whereas in another country at another time the term would reflect the undue influence of that particular church. Anti-Christian sounds like an attack upon a system of beliefs, rather than anyone in particular, but it might not seem that way to the members of a minority church in an Islamic state. These Christians might take it personally just as Muslims in the U.S. were obliged to take personally the anti-Muslim sentiment that swept the U.S. in the wake of the September 11 attacks. People become victimised on account of the label that is attached to them precisely because they have committed no individual offence.

The context for anti-Semitism is the persecution of Jews through European history and in particular the holocaust of the twentieth century. Most genocides have their origins is a political or territorial dispute. The holocaust, however, had no such basis, but was predicated on a racial principle that sought to kill Jews because they were Jews. They were not killed because they represented something inimical to the people who killed them. It was not the label attached to them that was the issue but who they actually were.

Because of this, the holocaust has ensured that the term "anti-Semitic" has no limited meaning. It attacks Jewish people for being who they are rather than for the label that they carry. And since it is not possible to use "anti-Semitic" in the limited sense that being anti-American may reflect no more than opposition to the policies of George Bush, the term needs to be used with extreme care.

Such care is rarely forthcoming. Jewish representative groups, including the Israel government, have taken advantage of the strength of the term to attempt to close down external criticism of the activities of the state of Israel. According to this approach, any criticism of Israeli security policy is anti-Semitic and is therefore by definition beyond the pale. It is an approach that has made greater headway in the U.S. than in Europe, which is one reason for the sensitivity to the E.U.'s poll data.

This approach, however, is inherently dangerous. Most Jewish people do not live in Israel, and by attempting to close down criticism of its activities the Israeli government risks deflecting that criticism back upon the wider Jewish community. By vilifying criticism of its policy as anti-Semitic, it is effectively saying that the policy is representative of the rights and interests of Jewish people generally. Those opposed to the policy are therefore pitted against Jewish people even if this is not what they intend. For, whereas anti-Semitism is indefensible, to object to the policies of the state of Israel, even to question its right to continue to exist in its present form, is a legitimate position in a situation where another displaced people is denied its own rights on account of the form that the Israeli state has adopted.

To say that this position is legitimate is not to say that it is either right or wrong. Merely that it ought to be possible to argue for it without the risk of being called anti-Semitic. Having that argument in an open and uninhibited fashion is a good way of discovering that opinion among Jewish people themselves is far from uniform on the question of Israeli policy. The Israeli government needs to open itself up to criticism and debate if it wishes to avoid the risk of anti-Israeli sentiment diffusing into generalised anti-Jewish attitudes that are not anti-Semitic as such but anti- what is being done in the name of the Jewish people.

It is true that European opinion is much more critical of the policies of Israel that is opinion in America. The historical reasons for this are not difficult to trace. Europe is in a post-colonial, post-militaristic phase in which the pursuit of self-interest by overt force or repression is strongly deplored. Of colonial origin itself, in its modern manifestation, Israel represents a vestige of a discredited model that neither recognises nor accommodates the legitimate rights of a displaced population. European objections to Israeli policy, therefore, have nothing to do with Israel's religious identity as such, but with the way in which it has used that identity to create a distinction that has usurped the rights and freedoms of non-Jews. Although what underlies it is different, there is a clear practical parallel with apartheid South Africa, and European opinion opposes Israeli policy on the same terms.

America is different because America sees itself differently. Self-interest is not a dubious concept; not even, necessarily, when somebody else is the victim of it. The U.S. was built on the foundations of a partial genocide that was conceptualised largely as a defence of what the settlers had created. Because Americans were "pilgrims" and refugees who created a life for themselves out of adversity and "made the desert flourish", they sympathise instinctively with the achievement of Israel and its desire to keep everything that it has made for itself out of its toil.

This, also, has nothing to do with Israel's religious identity as such, although the fact that Israel has used that identity to differentiate itself does strike a chord in the U.S. where religious observance is an important part of the cultural "glue". But that which Americans may celebrate is the very thing that gives the Europeans cause for fear. For, it can well be argued that the refusal of Israel to compromise on its identity has contributed significantly to conditions of instability in the Middle East that could justifiably be described as a "threat to world peace".