Takeaways from an online discussion of Combatting antisemitism as a global threat

This morning, the Wilson Center organized an excellent panel discussion on Combatting antisemitism as a global threat. It included Aaron Keyak, the deputy of Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and panelists from Australia, Germany, France, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Organization of American States. It was very thought-provoking and I’d like to share my reflections here.

While Mr. Keyak (representing Ambassador Lipstadt, who was unavailable due to a sudden personal issue) argued persuasively that to cast antisemitism as a partisan issue, Left or Right, is inappropriate because the extremes at both ends of the "horseshoe" spectrum tend to converge, the speakers from other countries (Australia, Germany, France) made it clear that antisemitism in their countries definitely is a partisan issue, including (and unprecedentedly) in current elections, with the political impetus coming from the extreme Right side of the spectrum. This seems to make a certain amount of sense historically (interestingly, the surname of the French speaker was "Dreyfuss").

Have y'all ever read The Prague Cemetery by Umberto Eco? It is a historical fiction about the origins of the document that ultimately became "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Even though it was a New York Times Bestseller in 2010, and even though one would think its subject and even title would be of interest to Jews, whenever I ask this question of my Jewish friends, the answer is "no." First, about the author. the great Umberto Eco, a linguist (semanticist), who was intensely interested in the role of falsehood in history. It's the theme of many of his most haunting books. These tend to focus on falsehoods at the center of grand conspiracy theories, for instance against the Freemasons, Church heretics, and the Jews. And they're all of a piece, as Eco traces through this remarkable book, showing that even the rhetoric against each was borrowed and built upon by their successive persecutors. I do not doubt that while the story is seemingly fanciful, but is based on careful historical research and evidence, because that is what Eco did as a great scholar. It's an "easy read." But also a very difficult and painful one.

At the risk of setting off a new firestorm, and of possibly violating the injunction against partisanship regarding antisemitism, I would venture a few modest hypotheses.

First, antisemitism is not a partisan issue; it is a deep cultural issue.

Second, the most durable and virulent form of antisemitism has always thrived in those parts of society rooted in institutional power and privilege, be it the Catholic Church, the monarchy, or authoritarian governments of various stripes and degrees and, let's face it, modern American White Supremacy. These groups are the ones who feel the most threatened by social and economic change, because they are organically attached to perpetuating their own power. They are the forces of Reaction. And they always need to have an enemy, a scapegoat, a politically weak and vulnerable group. In Europe (and America), that has always been the Jews. The symbols of deep cultural, historical, reactionary antisemitism are all too recognizable: the swastika, the iron cross, the blood libel. They come from the Extreme Right of the vintage of at least a millennium or more. And they will always be with us. It was this form of antisemitism that gave us the 14th-century pogroms in Germany blaming Jews for the Black Death and forcing them to flee to the East, the 19th and 20th century pogroms of the Russian Tsarist horde, the Dreyfus Affair, Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, and the Holocaust.

So far, so good, as it were. But the third hypothesis comes from a term I first heard in today's discussion: "anti-Israel antisemitism." I did not hear the term "anti-Zionism" very much, but the idea of "anti-Israel antisemitism" seems more appropriate. It is less cultural and historical, less calling into question the idea of a Jewish homeland as in the vision of Zion, and more politically focused. But in addition to the vision and reality of Zion, there is another Israel, the polity called Israel, and more relevant, the political governing powers in Israel, who make political (and military) decisions, and who hypocritically cater to the Far Religious Right, which in many cases rejects the very idea of Zion. I think that many of us would agree that this is a real distinction. I do.

So, my third hypothesis is that today's antisemitism on the far Left, which is quite real, is predominantly "anti-Israel antisemitism" in the sense of rejection of and disgust with the actions of the current Israeli government. And there is empirical evidence to bear this out. The speaker from Australia noted that while there has always been an undercurrent of antisemitism in Australia, since 10/7/2023, physical incidents of antisemitism, not to include online expressions, jumped seven hundred percent over the next twelve months and forecast to stabilize at a level of 400% for the foreseeable future. Similar patterns have been observed in Europe, for example Germany and France. I would argue that this eruption of antisemitism, as we can see in our own country, has been a direct response to the bloody aftermath of October 7. No matter how we feel about Israel's right to use any and all means to defend itself, including ethnic cleansing and possibly even more, this is hard to deny.

This does not mean, however, that if Israel were to suddenly cease and desist from its assault on Gaza and its population, if the hostages were all released and peace reigned throughout the Middle East, that anti-Israel antisemitism would immediately come to an end. No, it is here for at least a generation or maybe more. Our higher educational institutions, will continue to struggle with this virulent and evil form on racial and religious hatred.

May all forms of antisemitism, like the name Amalek, be blotted out from history and consciousness. But that will never be the case. May we hope, however, that the political, anti-Israel form in its most direct, contemporary sense, may eventually recede as the leaders and villains of the Middle East come to their senses, are replaced, or simply die of old age or otherwise? Ken y'hi ratzon.

Gerson