A new phenomenon In 2003,
Irwin Cotler, professor of law at
McGill University and a scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism": • Genocidal antisemitism:
calling for the destruction of Israel and/or the Jewish people. • Political antisemitism: denial of the Jewish people's right to
self-determination,
de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils. • Ideological antisemitism: "
Nazifying" Israel by comparing
Zionism and racism. • Theological antisemitism: convergence of
Islamic antisemitism and Christian
"replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews. • Cultural antisemitism: the emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals. • Economic antisemitism:
BDS movements and the
extraterritorial application of
restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel. •
Holocaust denial. • Anti-Jewish racist terrorism. • International legal discrimination—"denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena". Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations—the denial of and assault upon the Jewish people's right even to live—with Israel as the 'collective Jew among the nations. Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He reiterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating ... and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism,
per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that
labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an
apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled—then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."
Jack Fischel, former chair of history at
Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe ... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.
Mark Strauss of
Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to
anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the '
Christ-killing' Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers". Rajesh Krishnamachari, researcher with the South Asia Analysis Group, analyzed
antisemitism in Iran,
Turkey, Palestine,
Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh and
Saudi Arabia and posited that the recent surge in antisemitism across the Muslim world should be attributed to the political expediency of the local elite in these countries rather than to any theological imperative. The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that antisemitism based on racism and
nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on
anti-racism and
anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the identification of Zionism with racism; the use of material related to
Holocaust denial (such as doubts about the number of victims and allegations that there is a "
Holocaust industry"); a discourse borrowed from
third worldism,
anti-imperialism,
anti-colonialism,
anti-Americanism and
anti-globalization; and the dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian—the innocent victim
par excellence". In early 2009, 125 parliamentarians from various countries gathered in
London for the founding conference of the
Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism. They suggest that while classical antisemitism "overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews.
Brian Klug, then a senior research fellow in philosophy at
St Benet's Hall, Oxford—who provided expert testimony in February 2006 to a British parliamentary inquiry into
antisemitism in the UK, and in a November 2004 hearing on antisemitism at the German
Bundestag—argues against the idea that there is a "single, unified phenomenon" that could be called "new" antisemitism. He acknowledges that there is reason for the Jewish community to be concerned, but he contends that any rise in antisemitic incidents is attributable to classical antisemitism. Proponents of the new antisemitism concept, he writes, see an organizing principle that allows them to formulate it, but it is only through this concept that many of the examples used as evidence of it count as examples in the first place. That is, the creation of the concept may be based on a circular argument or
tautology. He argues that it is an unhelpful concept because it devalues the term "antisemitism", leading to widespread cynicism about its use. People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of antisemitism. He argues that although the new antisemitism indeed incorporates the idea that antisemitism is hostility to Jews as Jews, the source of the hostility has changed; therefore, to continue using the same expression for it—antisemitism—causes confusion. Today's hostility to Jews as Jews is based on the
Arab–Israeli conflict, not on ancient European fantasies. Israel proclaims itself as the state of the Jewish people, and many Jews align themselves with Israel for that very reason. It is out of this alignment that the hostility to Jews as Jews arises, rather than hostility to Israelis or to Zionists. Klug agrees that it is a prejudice, because it is a generalization about individuals; nevertheless, he argues, it is "not rooted in the ideology of 'the Jew, and is therefore a different phenomenon from antisemitism. The test is intended to draw the line between legitimate criticism towards the
State of Israel, its actions and policies, and non-legitimate criticism that becomes antisemitic.
Earl Raab writes that "[t]here is a new surge of antisemitism in the world, and much prejudice against Israel is driven by such antisemitism," but argues that charges of antisemitism based on anti-Israel opinions generally lack credibility. He writes that "a grave educational misdirection is in formulations suggesting that if we somehow get rid of antisemitism, we will get rid of anti-Israelism. This reduces the problems of prejudice against Israel to cartoon proportions." Raab describes prejudice against Israel as a "serious breach of morality and good sense," and argues that it is often a bridge to antisemitism, but distinguishes it from antisemitism as such.
Steven J. Zipperstein, a professor of
Jewish culture and
Jewish history at
Stanford University, argues that a belief in the State of Israel's responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict is considered "part of what a reasonably informed, progressive, decent person thinks." He argues that Jews have a tendency to see the State of Israel as a victim because they were very recently themselves "the quintessential victims".
Accusations of misuse of the term to stifle criticism of Israel Norman Finkelstein argues that organizations such as the
Anti-Defamation League have brought forward charges of new antisemitism at various intervals since the 1970s, "not to fight antisemitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism". He writes that most evidence purporting to show a new antisemitism has been taken from organizations that are linked in some way to Israel, or that have "a material stake in inflating the findings of anti-Semitism," and that some antisemitic incidents reported in recent years either did not occur or were misidentified. As an example of the misuse of the term "antisemitism," he cites the
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's 2003 report, which he says included displays of the
Palestinian flag, support for the
PLO, and the
comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa in its list of antisemitic activities and beliefs. writes that anger at what he calls "Israel's brutal occupation has undoubtedly slipped over to an animus against Jews generally", which he describes as "lamentable" but "hardly cause for wonder". He writes that what is called the new antisemitism consists of three components: • "exaggeration and fabrication"; • "mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy"; and • "the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally." He argues that Israel's apologists have denied a causal relationship between Israeli policies and hostility toward Jews, since "if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing so because Israel and its Jewish supporters are
in the wrong".
Tariq Ali, a British-Pakistani historian and political activist, argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians.... Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism." He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the
Six-Day War were careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
A third wave argues that the new antisemitism—what he calls "ideological antisemitism"—has mutated out of religious and racial antisemitism. Historian
Bernard Lewis argues that the new antisemitism represents the third, or ideological, wave of antisemitism, the first two waves being
religious and racial antisemitism. Lewis defines antisemitism as a special case of prejudice, hatred, or persecution directed against people who are in some way different from the rest. According to Lewis, antisemitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of cosmic evil. He writes that what he calls the first wave of antisemitism arose with the advent of
Christianity because the Jews rejected
Jesus as
Messiah. The second wave, racial antisemitism, emerged in Spain when large numbers of Jews were forcibly
converted, and doubts about the sincerity of the converts led to ideas about the importance of "
la limpieza de sangre", purity of blood. Dina Porat, professor at
Tel Aviv University, says that, while in principle there is no new antisemitism, we can speak of antisemitism in a new envelope. Otherwise, Porat speaks of a new and violent form of antisemitism in Western Europe starting after the
Second Intifada.
An inappropriate redefinition Antony Lerman, writing in the Israeli newspaper ''
Ha'aretz'' in September 2008, argues that the concept of a "new antisemitism" has brought about "a revolutionary change in the discourse about anti-Semitism". He writes that most contemporary discussions concerning antisemitism have become focused on issues concerning Israel and Zionism, and that the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism has become for many a "new orthodoxy". He adds that this redefinition has often resulted in "Jews attacking other Jews for their alleged anti-Semitic anti-Zionism". While Lerman accepts that exposing alleged Jewish antisemitism is "legitimate in principle", he adds that the growing literature in this field "exceeds all reason"; the attacks are often vitriolic and encompass views that are not inherently anti-Zionist. Lerman argues that this redefinition has had unfortunate repercussions. He writes that serious scholarly research into contemporary antisemitism has become "virtually non-existent", and that the subject is now most frequently studied and analyzed by "people lacking any serious expertise in the subject, whose principal aim is to excoriate Jewish critics of Israel and to promote the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation. Lerman concludes that this redefinition has ultimately served to stifle legitimate discussion, and that it cannot create a basis on which to fight antisemitism. Peter Beaumont, writing in
The Observer, agrees that proponents of the concept of "new antisemitism" have attempted to co-opt anti-Jewish sentiment and attacks by some European Muslims as a way to silence opposition to the policies of the Israeli government. "[C]riticise Israel," he writes, "and you are an anti-Semite just as surely as if you were throwing paint at a
synagogue in
Paris."
Antisemitic anti-Zionism Scholars including
Werner Bergmann,
Simon Schama,
Alan Johnson,
David Hirsh and
Anthony Julius have described a distinctively 21st century form of antisemitic anti-Zionism characterized by left-wing hostility to Jews. According to historian
Geoffrey Alderman, opposition to Zionism (being against a Jewish state) can be legitimately described as racist in essence. Some proponents of the new antisemitism thesis see the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as an exemplar of the phenomenon. For example, Norman H. Finkelstein describes the BDS movement as failing all of
Natan Sharansky's 3D's, since the movement delegitimizes Israel, demonizes Israel, and applies double standards for criticizing Israel out of proportion to other nations, ignoring other countries' misdeeds. == International perspectives ==