A note on vocabulary

Some of the vocabulary related to this discussion isn’t completely satisfactory, but it’s not necessary to get bogged down in endless Socratic debate over dictionary definitions when it should be quite clear what I’m talking about.

The definition of “anti-Semitism” in the dictionary on my Mac — based on the Oxford Concise — is unambiguous: “noun; hostility to or prejudice against Jews.” That is the definition in its entirety; it’s also what I mean by it.

It is argued sometimes that the word is unsatisfactory because Arabic is also a Semitic language and Arabs are therefore also Semites. This is simply another way of saying that the anti-Semitic pamphleteer Wilhelm Marr, who gave the world the term in his popular anti-Jewish (but not anti-Arab) screed “Antisemitizmus” in 1877, made a stupid category error when casting about for a scientific-sounding euphemism for “Damn I hate the Jews.” I am unpersuaded that there is any serious contention about what the word “anti-Semitism” means in this regard, and note in particular that the same dictionary I mentioned above does not even have an entry for what we’re sometimes told should be the preferred circumlocution, “Judeophobia.” By excluding Arabs from the definition of “anti-Semitism” I don’t mean to imply that they too are not victims of prejudice, just that there’s another perfectly acceptable and widely accepted word for it: “Islamophobia.”

When I call anti-Semitism “racism,” I don’t mean to say that I consider the Jews a race per se, but that I consider prejudice against Jews to be so analogous to racism that the term is, if not a perfect fit, certainly not a very wrong one. One sometimes hears “Anti-Semitism isn’t really racism because the Jews are not a race” — and it has the distinct timbre of at worst a straw man and at best a largely irrelevant one.

Neither, however, is it absolutely wrong to consider the Jews *not* a race. The peculiar nature of Jewish history — survival in exile through most of recorded history — makes the usual markers of identity problematic. Jews are and are not a race; they are and are not a religion; they are and are not a cultural tradition; and so on. One can become a Jew by converting to Judaism, for example (Marilyn Monroe did), but there are also genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs highly correlated with Jews. I don’t think it’s a useful exercise to demand that anyone come down on one side of the line or the other on any of these terms, since on whichever side you choose, there are substantial reasons to chose the other side as well.

I think we all know what these terms mean with sufficient clarity to proceed without substantial confusion, and I especially don’t see absolute, chapter-and-verse agreement on these terms as a necessary precursor to discussion anti-Semitism.

What motivates the defenders of Atzmon? Pt II

Here is the US’s leading racist embracing Atzmon:

Atzmon’s incredibly insightful article shows us that extremist Jews seek to use the Holocaust as a narcissistic death and redemption theme that essentially denies an external God (he failed to rescue them) and replaces Him with the Jewish people themselves. The one thing I would add is that the Holocaust religion not only makes Jews a God to themselves, it also seeks to make themselves the new God of the Gentiles. It is an all-powerful God that Gentiles are obliged to worship at the altar of the Holocaust. Gentiles must pronounce their belief in his holy writ (The Holocaust). No one may question or challenge this new God, for whom we must kill, torture and oppress other peoples, and ultimately — even sacrifice ourselves.”

“I urge all readers of www.Davidduke.com to use the following link and read the article in its entirety.”

Now, if one thing is certain, it’s that David Duke is a racist lunatic. His embrace of Atzmon could be nothing more than another bizarre bit of insanity on his part. Taken in isolation, it proves nothing and could be dismissed as a curiosity.

But taken in concert with the rest of the examples of Atzmon’s anti-Semitism detailed on this blog, it seems just as likely that David Duke praises Gilad Atzmon because Duke’s anti-Semitism is of a kind with Atzmon’s anti-Semitism, and Duke is simply embracing a fellow racist.

In the recent Indymedia interview, Atzmon says that he does not exercise control over where his stories appear, and that he specifically refuses to ask Duke to take his essays down. What Atzmon does not address, and what his interviewer unsurprisingly fails to challenge him on, is this question: “What is it that David Duke, America’s leading anti-Semite, finds so attractive about your writing?”

To be clear: one doesn’t have to be a racist to defend Gilad Atzmon’s right to speak, just as one doesn’t have to be a Holocaust denier to defend David Irving’s right to speak at Oxford. I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe that any genuine anti-Semites are in the Indymedia UK editorial collective. But David Duke doesn’t just defend Atzmon’s right to speak; he praises highly Atzmon’s take on Jewish issues, and that’s another reason true anti-racists should take pause when it comes to Gilad Atzmon.

What motivates the critics of Atzmon? Pt IV

Sue Blackwell led the 2005 campaign in the Association of University Teachers to boycott two Israeli universities, saw it overturned, and then worked to try a similar boycott in the new UCU. Visiting Blackwell’s site should leave no doubt about her anti-Zionist credentials.

Yet Sue Blackwell also considers Gilad Atzmon someone who “compromises the Palestinian movement.” She puts Atzmon on the same “nasties” page as the Holocaust deniers David Irving and Paul Eisen, and the anti-Semite “Israel Shamir” (who may or may not be a Holocaust denier too; I haven’t looked).

The page comes with a disclaimer necessitated by a legal threat from Gilad Atzmon: “I believe that some of the individuals and currents within the Palestinian movement compromise it in one way or another. Surprisingly, some of the unsavoury characters named on this page have got upset at being placed in one another’s company here and have sent me litigiously-worded letters. Consequently, they all now have their own pages and it should not be assumed that any of the names below is associated with any of the others unless this is explicitly stated.”

Blackwell has also removed any links to Atzmon’s site.

Here is an excerpt from a Blackwell comment published in Al-Ahram, hardly a Zionist hotbed:

“Hitler was a great fan of the Protocols, and so are those today who think he got a bad press, such as Ernst Zündel who is currently facing trial in Germany for Holocaust denial. Worryingly, some of my correspondents don’t see anything wrong with promoting the writings and websites of people like Zündel or fellow Holocaust deniers David Irving or Paul Eisen. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” seems to be the reasoning: and so these Asian and Arab activists, with no apparent sense of irony let alone shame, send me links to sites with names like “Stormfront” which preach “White Power”. And because the Holocaust is used as justification for Jewish emigration to Israel, those who detest what Israel represents feel that justification cannot be allowed to stand.”

As noted here, Atzmon is among those promoting the Holocaust-denying writings of Paul Eisen.

Atzmon claims that those anti-Zionists who oppose him are secretly in thrall to their own inner demon, “Jewishness.” That argument is silly when applied to Jewish anti-Zionists, but when applied to non-Jewish anti-Zionists like Sue Blackwell, it’s simply ridiculous.

Blackwell recognizes the damage anti-Semitism can do to the Palestinian solidarity movement, and has decided that Atzmon should have no platform on her site. Indymedia UK should decide the same.