New antisemitism is the concept that a new
form of antisemitism has developed in the
late 20th and early 21st centuries, tending
to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism
and criticism of the Israeli government.
The concept is included in some definitions
of antisemitism, such as the Working Definition
of Antisemitism and the 3D test of antisemitism.
The concept generally posits that in the late
20th and early 21st centuries much of what
is purported to be criticism of Israel by
various individuals and world bodies is in
fact tantamount to demonization, and that
together with an alleged international resurgence
of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, and
an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs
in public discourse, such demonization represents
an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic
beliefs.Proponents of the concept argue that
anti-Zionism and demonization of Israel, or
double standards applied to its conduct (some
proponents also include anti-Americanism,
anti-globalization and Third-Worldism) may
be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised
antisemitism, particularly when emanating
simultaneously from the far-left, Islamism,
and the far-right.Critics of the concept argue
that it conflates political anti-Zionism and
criticism of the Israeli government with racism,
Jew-hatred and the Holocaust, defines legitimate
criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization
too broadly, and trivializes the meaning of
antisemitism, and that the concept is used
in practice to silence political debate and
freedom of speech regarding the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian
conflict.
== History of the concept ==
=== 1960s: origins ===
French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff
has argued that the first wave of what he
describes as "la nouvelle judéophobie" emerged
in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet sphere
following the 1967 Six-Day War, citing papers
by Jacques Givet (1968) and historian Léon
Poliakov (1969) in which the idea of a new
antisemitism rooted in anti-Zionism was discussed.
He argues that anti-Jewish themes centered
on the demonical figures of Israel and what
he calls "fantasy-world Zionism": that Jews
plot together, seek to conquer the world,
and are imperialistic and bloodthirsty, which
gave rise to the reactivation of stories about
ritual murder and the poisoning of food and
water supplies.
=== 1970s: early debates ===
Writing in the American Jewish Congress' Congress
Bi-Weekly in 1973, the Foreign Minister of
Israel, Abba Eban, identified anti-Zionism
as ‘the new anti-Semitism’, saying:[R]ecently
we have witnessed the rise of the new left
which identifies Israel with the establishment,
with acquisition, with smug satisfaction,
with, in fact, all the basic enemies [...] Let
there be no mistake: the new left is the author
and the progenitor of the new anti-Semitism.
One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with
the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction
between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is
not a distinction at all.
Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism.
The old classic anti-Semitism declared that
equal rights belong to all individuals within
the society, except the Jews.
The new anti-Semitism says that the right
to establish and maintain an independent national
sovereign state is the prerogative of all
nations, so long as they happen not to be
Jewish.
And when this right is exercised not by the
Maldive Islands, not by the state of Gabon,
not by Barbados… but by the oldest and most
authentic of all nationhoods, then this is
said to be exclusivism, particularism, and
a flight of the Jewish people from its universal
mission.
In 1974, Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein
of the Anti-Defamation League published a
book entitled The New anti-Semitism, expressing
additional concern about what they described
as new manifestations of antisemitism coming
from radical left, radical right, and "pro-Arab"
figures in the U.S. Forster and Epstein argued
that it took the form of indifference to the
fears of the Jewish people, apathy in dealing
with anti-Jewish bias, and an inability to
understand the importance of Israel to Jewish
survival.
Reviewing Forster and Epstein's work in Commentary,
Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan
Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at
Brandeis University, argued that a "new anti-Semitism"
was indeed emerging in America, in the form
of opposition to the collective rights of
the Jewish people, but he criticized Forster
and Epstein for conflating it with anti-Israel
bias.
Allan Brownfeld writes that Forster and Epstein's
new definition of antisemitism trivialized
the concept by turning it into "a form of
political blackmail" and "a weapon with which
to silence any criticism of either Israel
or U.S. policy in the Middle East," while
Edward S. Shapiro, in A Time for Healing:
American Jewry Since World War II, has written
that "Forster and Epstein implied that the
new anti-Semitism was the inability of Gentiles
to love Jews and Israel enough."
=== 1980s–present day: continued debate
===
Historian Robert Wistrich addressed the issue
in a 1984 lecture delivered in the home of
Israeli President Chaim Herzog, in which he
argued that a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism"
was emerging, distinguishing features of which
were the equation of Zionism with Nazism and
the belief that Zionists had actively collaborated
with Nazis during World War II.
He argued that such claims were prevalent
in the Soviet Union, but added that similar
rhetoric had been taken up by a part of the
radical Left, particularly Trotskyist groups
in Western Europe and America.When asked in
2014 if "anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism",
Noam Chomsky stated:
Actually, the locus classicus, the best formulation
of this, was by an ambassador to the United
Nations, Abba Eban, [...] He advised the American
Jewish community that they had two tasks to
perform.
One task was to show that criticism of the
policy, what he called anti-Zionism — that
means actually criticisms of the policy of
the state of Israel — were anti-Semitism.
That’s the first task.
Second task, if the criticism was made by
Jews, their task was to show that it’s neurotic
self-hatred, needs psychiatric treatment.
Then he gave two examples of the latter category.
One was I.F.
Stone.
The other was me.
So, we have to be treated for our psychiatric
disorders, and non-Jews have to be condemned
for anti-Semitism, if they’re critical of
the state of Israel.
That’s understandable why Israeli propaganda
would take this position.
I don’t particularly blame Abba Eban for
doing what ambassadors are sometimes supposed
to do.
But we ought to understand that there is no
sensible charge.
No sensible charge.
There’s nothing to respond to.
It’s not a form of anti-Semitism.
It’s simply criticism of the criminal actions
of a state, period.
== Definitions and arguments for and against
the concept ==
=== A new phenomenon ===
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 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 argues that classical
antisemitism is discrimination against Jews
as individuals whereas the new antisemitism,
in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination
against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment
of that expression in Israel.
In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism
is the same – an assault upon whatever is
the core of Jewish self-definition at any
moment in time."
This discrimination is hard to measure, because
the indices governments tend to use to detect
discrimination – such as standard of living,
housing, health and employment – are useful
only in measuring discrimination against individuals.
Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show
that the concept is a valid one.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 re-iterated 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 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 a group called the "Interparliamentary
Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism" (ICCA).
They suggest that while classical antisemitism
"overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different
phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews.
=== A new phenomenon, but not antisemitism
===
Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy
at St Benet's Hall, Oxford — who gave expert
testimony in February 2006 to a British parliamentary
inquiry into antisemitism in the UK, and in
November 2004 to the Hearing on Anti-Semitism
at the German Bundestag — argues against
the idea that there is a "single, unified
phenomenon" that could be called "new" antisemitism.
He accepts that there is reason for the Jewish
community to be concerned, but argues that
any increase 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 a new concept, but
it is only in terms of this concept that many
of the examples cited in 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 the use
of it.
People of goodwill who support the Palestinians
resent being falsely accused of antisemitism.Klug
defines classical antisemitism as "an ingrained
European fantasy about Jews as Jews," arguing
that whether Jews are seen as a race, religion,
or ethnicity, and whether antisemitism comes
from the right or the left, the antisemite's
image of the Jew is always as "a people set
apart, not merely by their customs but by
their collective character.
They are arrogant, secretive, cunning, always
looking to turn a profit.
Loyal only to their own, wherever they go
they form a state within a state, preying
upon the societies in whose midst they dwell.
Mysteriously powerful, their hidden hand controls
the banks and the media.
They will even drag governments into war if
this suits their purposes.
Such is the figure of 'the Jew,' transmitted
from generation to generation."
He argues that although it is true that the
new antisemitism 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.Norman
Finkelstein argues that there has been no
significant rise in antisemitism: "What does
the evidence show?
There has been good investigation done, serious
investigation.
All the evidence shows there's no evidence
at all for a rise of a new anti-Semitism,
whether in Europe or in North America.
The evidence is zero.
And, in fact, there's a new book put out by
an Israel stalwart.
His name is Walter Laqueur, a very prominent
scholar.
It's called The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism.
It just came out, 2006, from Oxford University
Press.
He looks at the evidence, and he says no.
There's some in Europe among the Muslim community,
there's some anti-Semitism, but the notion
that in the heart of European society or North
American society there's anti-Semitism is
preposterous.
And in fact — or no, a significant rise
in anti-Semitism is preposterous."
=== 
Criticism of Israel is not always antisemitism
===
The 3D Test of Antisemitism is a set of criteria
put forth by Natan Sharansky to distinguish
legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism.
The three Ds stand for Delegitimization of
Israel, Demonization of Israel, and subjecting
Israel to Double standards, each of which,
according to the test, indicates 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 imbedded 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 Zipperstein, professor of Jewish
Culture and 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
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.
He writes that what is called the new antisemitism
consists of three components: (i) "exaggeration
and fabrication"; (ii) "mislabeling legitimate
criticism of Israeli policy"; and (iii) "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 ===
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 of the Jews' rejection of 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.He
associates the third wave with the Arabs and
writes that it arose only in part because
of the establishment of the State of Israel.
Until the 19th century, Muslims had regarded
Jews with what Lewis calls "amused, tolerant
superiority"—they were seen as physically
weak, cowardly and unmilitary—and although
Jews living in Muslim countries were not treated
as equals, they were shown a certain amount
of respect.
The Western form of antisemitism—what Lewis
calls "the cosmic, satanic version of Jew
hatred"—arrived in the Middle East in several
stages, beginning with Christian missionaries
in the 19th century and continued to grow
slowly into the 20th century up to the establishment
of the Third Reich.
He writes that it increased because of the
humiliation of the Israeli military victories
of 1948 and 1967.Into this mix entered the
United Nations.
Lewis argues that the international public
response and the United Nations' handling
of the 1948 refugee situation convinced the
Arab world that discrimination against Jews
was acceptable.
When the ancient Jewish community in East
Jerusalem was evicted and its monuments desecrated
or destroyed, they were offered no help.
Similarly, when Jewish refugees fled or were
driven out of Arab countries, no help was
offered, but elaborate arrangements were made
for Arabs who fled or were driven out of the
area that became Israel.
All the Arab governments involved in the conflict
announced that they would not admit Israelis
of any religion into their territories, and
that they would not give visas to Jews, no
matter which country they were citizens of.
Lewis argues that the failure of the United
Nations to protest sent a clear message to
the Arab world.He writes that this third wave
of antisemitism has in common with the first
wave that Jews are able to be part of it.
With religious antisemitism, Jews were able
to distance themselves from Judaism, and Lewis
writes that some even reached high rank within
the church and the Inquisition.
With racial antisemitism, this was not possible,
but with the new, ideological, antisemitism,
Jews are once again able to join the critics.
The new antisemitism also allows non-Jews,
he argues, to criticize or attack Jews without
feeling overshadowed by the crimes of the
Nazis.
=== Antisemitism, but not a new phenomenon
===
Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, considers
the concept "new antisemitism" to be false,
since it is in fact old antisemitism that
remains latent and recurs whenever it is triggered.
In his view, the current trigger is the Israeli
situation, and if a compromise were achieved
there antisemitism would decline but not disappear.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
from after the Second Intifada.Howard Jacobson,
a British novelist and journalist, calls this
phenomenon "Jew-hating pure and simple, the
Jew-hating which many of us have always suspected
was the only explanation for the disgust that
contorts and disfigures faces when the mere
word Israel crops up in conversation."
=== 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.
== International perspectives ==
=== Europe ===
The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia (EUMC) (superseded in 2007 by the
Fundamental Rights Agency) noted an upswing
in antisemitic incidents in France, Germany,
Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Belgium,
and The Netherlands between July 2003 and
December 2004.
In September 2004, the European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance, a part of
the Council of Europe, called on its member
nations to ensure that anti-racist criminal
law covers antisemitism, and in 2005, the
EUMC offered a discussion paper on a working
definition of antisemitism in an attempt to
enable a standard definition to be used for
data collection: It defined antisemitism as
"a certain perception of Jews, which may be
expressed as hatred towards Jews.
Rhetorical and physical manifestations of
antisemitism are directed towards Jews and
non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
towards Jewish community institutions and
religious facilities."
The paper included “Examples of the ways
in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with
regard to the state of Israel taking into
account the overall context could include"
Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination,
e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state
of Israel is a racist endeavor;
Applying double standards by requiring of
Israel a behavior not expected or demanded
of any other democratic nation;
Using the symbols and images associated with
classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews
killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize
Israel or Israelis;
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli
policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for
actions of the State of Israel.The EUMC added
that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded
as antisemitism so long as it is "similar
to that leveled against any other country."The
discussion paper was never adopted by the
EU as a working definition, although it was
posted on the EUMC website until 2013 when
it was removed during a clear-out of non-official
documents.
==== France ====
In France, Interior Minister Dominique de
Villepin commissioned a report on racism and
antisemitism from Jean-Christophe Rufin, president
of Action Against Hunger and former vice-president
of Médecins Sans Frontières, in which Rufin
challenges the perception that the new antisemitism
in France comes exclusively from North African
immigrant communities and the far right.Reporting
in October 2004, Rufin writes that "[t]he
new anti-Semitism appears more heterogeneous,"
and identifies what he calls a new and "subtle"
form of antisemitism in "radical anti-Zionism"
as expressed by far-left and anti-globalization
groups, in which criticism of Jews and Israel
is used as a pretext to "legitimize the armed
Palestinian conflict."
==== 
United Kingdom ====
In June 2011, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom,
Jonathan Sacks (Lord Sacks), said that the
basis for the new antisemitism was the 2001
Durban Conference.
Rabbi Sacks also said that the new antisemitism
"unites radical Islamists with human-rights
NGOs—the right wing and the left wing—against
a common enemy, the State of Israel."In September
2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against
Anti-Semitism of the British Parliament published
the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary
Inquiry into Antisemitism, the result of an
investigation into whether the belief that
the "prevailing opinion both within the Jewish
community and beyond" that antisemitism had
"receded to the point that it existed only
on the margins of society."
was correct.
It concluded that "the evidence we received
indicates that there has been a reversal of
this progress since the year 2000".
In defining antisemitism, the Group wrote
that it took into account the view of racism
expressed by the MacPherson report, which
was published after the murder of Stephen
Lawrence, that, for the purpose of investigating
and recording complaints of crime by the police,
an act must be recorded by the police as racist
if it is defined as such by its victim.
It formed the view that, broadly, "any remark,
insult or act the purpose or effect of which
is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity
or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading,
humiliating or offensive environment for him
is antisemitic" and concluded that, given
that, "it is the Jewish community itself that
is best qualified to determine what does and
does not constitute antisemitism."The report
stated that, while some witnesses pointed
out that the level of antisemitism experienced
by Jews in Britain is lower than that faced
by Jewish communities in some other parts
of Europe and that the Jewish community is
not the only minority community in Britain
to experience prejudice and discrimination,
these arguments provided no comfort to victims
of hate and violence, nor should they be used
as an excuse to ignore the problem.
The report states that some left-wing activists
and Muslim extremists are using criticism
of Israel as a "pretext" for antisemitism,
and that the "most worrying discovery" is
that antisemitism appears to be entering the
mainstream.
It argues that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic
when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global
force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout
history," a definition that "bears no relation
to the understanding that most Jews have of
the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish
national liberation ..." Having re-defined
Zionism, the report states, traditional antisemitic
motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation
and subversion" are often transferred from
Jews onto Zionism.
The report notes that this is "at the core
of the 'New Antisemitism', on which so much
has been written," adding that many of those
who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the
lingua franca of antisemitic movements."
=== 
Israel ===
In November 2001, in response to an Abu-Dhabi
television broadcast depicting Ariel Sharon
drinking the blood of Palestinian children,
the Israeli government set up the "Coordinating
Forum for Countering Antisemitism," headed
by Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior.
According to Melchior, "in each and every
generation antisemitism tries to hide its
ugly face behind various disguises — and
hatred of the State of Israel is its current
disguise."
He added that, "hate against Israel has crossed
the red line, having gone from criticism to
unbridled antisemitic venom, which is a precise
translation of classical antisemitism whose
past results are all too familiar to the entire
world."
=== 
United Nations ===
A number of commentators argue that the United
Nations has condoned antisemitism.
Lawrence Summers, then-president of Harvard
University, wrote that the UN's World Conference
on Racism failed to condemn human rights abuses
in China, Rwanda, or anywhere in the Arab
world, while raising Israel's alleged ethnic
cleansing and crimes against humanity.David
Matas, senior counsel to B'nai B'rith Canada,
has written that the UN is a forum for antisemitism,
citing the example of the Palestinian representative
to the UN Human Rights Commission who claimed
in 1997 that Israeli doctors had injected
Palestinian children with the AIDS virus.
Congressman Steve Chabot told the U.S. House
of Representatives in 2005 that the commission
took "several months to correct in its record
a statement by the Syrian ambassador that
Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children
to make unleavened bread for Passover.Anne
Bayefsky, a Canadian legal scholar who addressed
the UN about its treatment of Israel, argues
that the UN hijacks the language of human
rights to discriminate and demonize Jews.
She writes that over one quarter of the resolutions
condemning a state's human rights violations
have been directed at Israel.
"But there has never been a single resolution
about the decades-long repression of the civil
and political rights of 1.3 billion people
in China, or the million female migrant workers
in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or
the virulent racism which has brought 600,000
people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe."In
a 2008 report on antisemitism from the United
States Department of State to the US Congress,
Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may
stem from legitimate concerns over policy
or from illegitimate prejudices.
[...] However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate
criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled,
and corresponding discriminatory measures
adopted in the UN against Israel, have the
effect of causing audiences to associate negative
attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling
anti-Semitism.
=== United States ===
The U.S. State Department's 2004 Report on
Global Anti-Semitism identified four sources
of rising antisemitism, particularly in Europe:
"Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice...
This includes ultra-nationalists and others
who assert that the Jewish community controls
governments, the media, international business,
and the financial world."
"Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses
the line between objective criticism of Israeli
policies and anti-Semitism."
"Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in
Europe's growing Muslim population, based
on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel
and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to
developments in Israel and the occupied territories,
and more recently in Iraq."
"Criticism of both the United States and globalization
that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in
general who are identified with both."
In July 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights issued a Campus Antisemitism report
that declared that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is
no less morally deplorable when camouflaged
as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism."
At the time, the Commission also announced
that antisemitism is a "serious problem" on
many campuses throughout the United States.In
September 2006, Yale University announced
that it had established the Yale Initiative
for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism,
the first university-based institute in North
America dedicated to the study of antisemitism.
Charles Small, head of the institute, said
in a press release that antisemitism has "reemerged
internationally in a manner that many leading
scholars and policy makers take seriously
... Increasingly, Jewish communities around
the world feel under threat.
It's almost like going back into the lab.
I think we need to understand the current
manifestation of this disease."
YIISA has presented several seminars and working
papers on the topic, for instance "The Academic
and Public Debate Over the Meaning of the
'New Antisemitism'".
== Anti-globalization movement ==
The anti-globalization movement of the late
1990s and early 2000s was accused of displaying
elements of New Antisemitism by writers and
researchers such as Walter Laqueur, Paul Berman,
and Mark Strauss.
Critics of this view argue that the allegation
is either unfounded or exaggerated, and is
intended to discredit legitimate criticism
of globalization and free trade economic policies.
=== Mark Strauss's allegations ===
Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy argues that
globalization has stirred anxieties about
"outside forces," and that with "familiar
anxieties come familiar scapegoats."
He writes that what he calls the "backlash
against globalization" has united a variety
of political elements, from the left to the
far-right, via a common cause, and that in
so doing, it has "foster[ed] a common enemy."
He quotes the French Jewish leader Roger Cukierman
who identifies the anti-globalization movement
as "an anti-Semitic brown-green-red alliance,"
which includes ultra-nationalists, the green
movement, and communists.Strauss cites Jörg
Haider of Austria's far-right Freedom Party
and Jean-Marie Le Pen of France's Front national
as examples of the far right exploiting their
electorate's concerns about globalization.
The Movimento Fascismo e Liberta in Italy
identifies globalization as an "instrument
in the hands of international Zionism," according
to Strauss, while in Eastern Europe, ultranationalists
and communists have united against foreign
investors and multinationals, identifying
Jews as a common enemy.American white nationalist
Matthew F. Hale of the World Church of the
Creator stated of the 1999 protests against
the World Trade Organization in Seattle that
they were "incredibly successful from the
point of view of the rioters as well as our
Church.
They helped shut down talks of the Jew World
Order WTO and helped make a mockery of the
Jewish Occupational Government around the
world.
Bravo."
Strauss also cites the neo-Nazi National Alliance,
which set up a website called the Anti-Globalism
Action Network in order to "broaden [...] the
anti-globalism movement to include divergent
and marginalized voices."Strauss writes that,
as a result of far-right involvement, a "bizarre
ideological turf war has broken out," whereby
anti-globalization activists are fighting
a "two-front battle," one against the World
Trade Organization, International Monetary
Fund (IMF), and World Bank, the other against
the extremists who turn up at their rallies.
He points to an anti-globalization march in
Porto Alegre, Brazil at which he says some
marchers displayed Swastikas and that Jewish
peace activists were assaulted.
Held two months prior to the U.S.-led attack
on Iraq, this year's conference — an annual
grassroots riposte to the well-heeled World
Economic Forum in Davos — had the theme,
"Another World is Possible."
But the more appropriate theme might have
been "Yesterday's World is Back."
Marchers among the 20,000 activists from 120
countries carried signs reading "Nazis, Yankees,
and Jews: No More Chosen Peoples!"
Some wore T-shirts with the Star of David
twisted into Nazi swastikas.
Members of a Palestinian organization pilloried
Jews as the "true fundamentalists who control
United States capitalism."
Jewish delegates carrying banners declaring
"Two peoples - Two states: Peace in the Middle
East" were assaulted.
Strauss argues that the anti-globalization
movement isn't itself antisemitic, but that
it "helps enable anti-Semitism by peddling
conspiracy theories."Strauss's arguments have
been met with strong criticism from many in
the anti-globalization movement.
Oded Grajew, one of the founders of the World
Social Forum, has written that the WSF "is
not anti-Semitic, anti-American, or even anti-socially-responsible
capitalism".
He claims that some fringe parties have attempted
to infiltrate the WSF's demonstrations and
promote demonstrations of their own, but adds
that "[t]he success of the WSF [...] is a
threat to political extremist groups that
resort to violence and hatred".
Grajew has also written that, to his knowledge,
Strauss's claim of Nazi symbols being displayed
at an anti-globalization demonstration in
Porto Alegre, Brazil is false.
=== Response to Strauss ===
Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the
Council of Canadians, argues that Strauss
has "inflamed, not enlightened" the debate
over globalization by making "no distinction
between the far right's critique of globalization
and that of the global social justice movement",
which is premised on "respect for human rights
and cultural diversity".
She notes that the Council of Canadians has
condemned antisemitism, and that it expelled
some individuals who tried to organize a David
Icke tour under its auspices.
John Cavanagh of the International Policy
Centre has also criticized Strauss for using
unproven allegations of antisemitism to criticize
the entire anti-globalization movement, and
for failing to research the movement's core
beliefs.In response to these criticisms, Strauss
has written that antisemitic views "might
not reflect the core values of the Global
Justice Movement or its leading figures, yet
they are facts of life in an amorphous, grassroots
movement where any number of individuals or
organizations express their opinions or seek
to set the agenda".
He has also reiterated his concern that "anti-capitalist
rhetoric provides intellectual fodder for
far right groups".
=== Other views ===
Walter Laqueur describes this phenomenon:
Although traditional Trotskyite ideology is
in no way close to radical Islamic teachings
and the shariah, since the radical Islamists
also subscribed to anticapitalism, antiglobalism,
and anti-Americanism, there seemed to be sufficient
common ground for an alliance.
Thus, the militants of the far left began
to march side by side with the radical Islamists
in demonstrations, denouncing American aggression
and Israeli crimes.
... And it was only natural that in protest
demonstrations militants from the far right
would join in, antisemitic banners would be
displayed, anti-Jewish literature such as
the Protocols would be sold.
Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard
University, also stated that "[s]erious and
thoughtful people are advocating and taking
actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect
if not their intent.
For example ... [a]t the same rallies where
protesters, many of them university students,
condemn the IMF and global capitalism and
raise questions about globalization, it is
becoming increasingly common to also lash
out at Israel.
Indeed, at the anti-IMF rallies last spring,
chants were heard equating Hitler and Sharon."Similar
allegations have been made by Sol Stern, a
senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute and
a contributing editor to City Journal.
Stern identifies what he sees as antisemitism
within the movement as a function of Jews
no longer being portrayed as the victims of
capitalism, but rather as its masters.A March
2003 report on antisemitism in the European
Union by Werner Bergmann and Juliane Wetzel
of the Berlin Research Centre on Anti-Semitism
identifies anti-globalization rallies as one
of the sources of antisemitism on the left.
In the extreme left-wing scene, anti-Semitic
remarks were to be found mainly in the context
of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation
rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic
stereotypes in their criticism of Israel.
Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist
and anti-American views that formed an important
element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic
mood in Europe.
Michael Kozak, then U.S. Acting Assistant
Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor, told reporters in 2005 that people
within the anti-globalization movement have
conflated their legitimate concerns "with
this idea that Jews run the world and globalization
is the fault of Jews."
He said:
I think one of the disturbing things is that
you're starting to see this in some — you
know, it's not just sort of right-wing ultranationalist
skinhead types.
It's now you're getting some fairly otherwise
respectable intellectuals that are left of
center who are anti-globalization who are
starting to let this stuff creep into their
rhetoric.
And that's disturbing because it starts to
— it starts to take what is a legitimate
issue for debate, anti-globalization or the
war in Iraq or any other issue, and when you
start turning that into an excuse for saying
therefore we should hate Jews, that's where
you cross the line, in my view.
It's not that you're not entitled to question
all those other issues.
Of course, those are fair game.
But it's the same as saying, you know, you
start hating all Muslims because of some policy
you don't like by one Muslim country or something.
=== Conflation of globalization, Jews and
Israel ===
Robert Wistrich, Professor of European and
Jewish History at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, told Manfred Gerstenfeld that globalization
has given rise to an anti-globalist left that
is "viscerally anti-American, anti-capitalist,
and hostile to world Jewry."
He argues that the decade that preceded the
current increase in antisemitism was one that
saw accelerated globalization of the world
economy, a process in which the losers included
the Arab and Muslim worlds, and who are now
the "major consumers of anti-Jewish poison
and conspiracy theories that blame everyone
except themselves.
Israel is only one piece on this chessboard,
but it has assumed such inflated importance
because it serves a classic anti-Semitic function
of being an 'opium for the masses'."
As an example of the alleged conflation of
globalization, the U.S. and Israel, Josef
Joffe, editor and publisher of Die Zeit and
adjunct professor at Stanford University,
cited José Bové, a French anti-globalization
activist and leader of the Confédération
Paysanne.
Bové led what Joffe calls a "deconstructionist
mob" against McDonald's to protest against
its effects on French cuisine, later turning
up in Ramallah to denounce Israel and announce
his support for Yasser Arafat.
"Arafat's cause was Bové's cause ... here
was a spokesman for the anti-globalization
movement who was conflating globalization
with Americanization and extending his loathing
of both to Israel."
Joffe argues that Kapitalismuskritik is a
"mainstay of the antisemitic faith, a charge
that has passed smoothly from Jews to America.
Like Jews, Americans are money-grubbers who
know only the value of money, and the worth
of nothing.
Like Jews, they seek to reduce all relationships
to exchange and money.
Like them, Americans are motivated only by
profit, and so they respect no tradition."David
Clark, writing in The Guardian, argues against
this that "instances of anti-capitalism spilling
into 'rich Jew' bigotry are ... well documented"
but "stand out precisely because they conflict
so sharply with the Left’s universalism
and its opposition to ethnic discrimination".In
early 2004, Kalle Lasn, author of "Culture
Jam" and founder of Adbusters, two influential
and widely read anti-globalization texts,
generated controversy when he wrote an editorial
entitled "Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?".
In it he stated "Drawing attention to the
Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game.
Anyone who does so can count on automatically
being smeared as an anti-Semite.
But the point is not that Jews (who make up
less than 2 percent of the American population)
have a monolithic perspective.
Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote
Democrat and many of them disagree strongly
with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s
aggression in Iraq.
The point is simply that the neocons seem
to have a special affinity for Israel that
influences their political thinking and consequently
American foreign policy in the Middle East."
The editorial suggested that Jews represent
a disproportionately high percentage of the
neo-conservatives who control American foreign
policy, and that this may affect policy with
respect to Israel.
Lasn included a list of influential neo-conservatives,
with dots next to the names of those who were
Jewish.Lasn was criticized by a number of
anti-globalization activists.
Klaus Jahn, professor of the philosophy of
history at the University of Toronto condemned
Lasn's article stating "Whether listing physicians
who perform abortions in pro-life tracts,
gays and lesbians in office memos, Communists
in government and the entertainment industry
under McCarthy, Jews in Central Europe under
Nazism and so on, such list-making has always
produced pernicious consequences."Meredith
Warren, a Montreal anti-globalization activist
responded to the article by saying "The U.S.
government has only an economic interest in
having control over that region.
It wants oil and stability – it has nothing
to do with Jews or Judaism.
Pointing out the various religious stances
of those in power totally misses the point
of the U.S. government's interest in Israel."
=== 
Controversy over alleged antisemitism within
the French movement ===
According to a report by the Stephen Roth
Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, a
major event for the anti-globalization movement
in France was the European Social Forum (ESF)
in Paris in November 2003.
The organizers allegedly included a number
of Islamic groups, such as Présence Musulmane,
Secours Islamique, and Collectif des Musulmans
de France.
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna,
the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood,
also attended meetings.
A few weeks earlier, Ramadan had published
a controversial article on a website — after
Le Monde and Le Figaro refused to publish
it — criticizing several French intellectuals,
who according to the Institute, were either
Jewish or "others he mistakenly thought were
Jewish," for having "supposedly betrayed their
universalist beliefs in favor of unconditional
support for Zionism and Israel."Bernard-Henri
Lévy, one of the intellectuals who was criticized,
called on the French anti-globalization movement
to distance itself from Ramadan.
In an interview with Le Monde, Lévy said:
"Mr. Ramadan, dear anti-globalizationist friends,
is not and cannot be one of yours.
... I call you on you quickly to distance
yourselves from this character who, in crediting
the idea of an elitist conspiracy under the
control of Zionism, is only inflaming people’s
thoughts and opening the way to the worst."Le
Monde reported that many members of the anti-globalization
movement in France agreed that Ramadan's article
"has no place on a European Social Forum mailing
list."Other activists defended Ramadan.
One activist told the newspaper that "[o]ne
of the characteristics of the European Social
Forum is the stark rise in immigrant and Muslim
organizations.
It is an important phenomenon and a positive
one in many ways."
Another activist, Peter Khalfa, said: "Ramadan’s
essay is not anti-Semitic.
It is dangerous to wave the red flag of anti-Semitism
at any moment.
However, it is a text marked partly by Ramadan’s
communitarian thought and which communicates
his view of the world to others."
One of the leaders of the anti-globalization
movement in France, José Bové of the Confédération
Paysanne, told Le Monde: "The anti-globalization
movement defends universalist points of view
which are therefore necessarily secular in
their political expression.
That there should be people of different cultures
and religions is only natural.
The whole effort is to escape such determinisms."
=== 
Concern within the political left ===
One of the protagonists of the anti-globalization
movement, the Canadian writer and activist
Naomi Klein, has written of her concern at
finding antisemitic rhetoric on some activist
websites that she had visited: "I couldn’t
help thinking about all the recent events
I’ve been to where anti-Muslim violence
was rightly condemned, but no mention was
made of attacks on Jewish synagogues, cemeteries,
and community centers."
Klein urged activists to confront antisemitism
as part of their work for social justice.
She also suggested that allegations of antisemitism
can be often politically motivated, and that
activists should avoid political simplifications
that could be perceived as antisemitic:
The [anti-]globalization movement isn't anti-Semitic,
it just hasn't fully confronted the implications
of diving into the Middle East conflict.
Most people on the left are simply choosing
sides.
In the Middle East, where one side is under
occupation and the other has the U.S. military
behind it, the choice seems clear.
But it is possible to criticize Israel while
forcefully condemning the rise of anti-Semitism.
And it is equally possible to be pro-Palestinian
independence without adopting a simplistic
pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel dichotomy, a mirror
image of the good versus evil equations so
beloved by President George W. Bush.
In October 2004, the New Internationalist
magazine published a special issue covering
the insertion of antisemitic rhetoric into
some progressive debates.
Adam Ma’anit wrote:
Take Adbusters magazine’s founder Kalle
Lasn’s recent editorial rant against Jewish
neoconservatives....The article includes a
self-selected ‘well-researched list’ of
50 of the supposedly most influential ‘neocons’
with little black dots next to all those who
are Jewish....If it’s not the neocons then
it’s the all-powerful ‘Jewish lobby’
which holds governments to ransom all over
the world (because Jews control the global
economy of course) to do their bidding.
Meanwhile rightwing Judeophobes often talk
of a leftist Jewish conspiracy to promote
equality and human rights through a new internationalism
embodied in the UN in order to control governments
and suppress national sovereignty.
They call it the ‘New World Order’ or
the ‘Jew World Order’.
They make similar lists to Lasn’s of prominent
Jews in the global justice movement (Noam
Chomsky, Naomi Klein, etc) to argue their
case."
The issue observes, however, that "While antisemitism
is rife in the Arab World, the Israeli Government
often uses it as moral justification for its
policies."
== Notes
