The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    Anti-Semitism - It's a Small World After All

    By Michael Wolraich on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 3:53pm | Social Justice

     

    Question: What do privileged psychopaths from Connecticut have in common with Pakistani propagandists?

    Answer: They hate the Jews.

    Before murdering 21-year-old Johanna Justin-Jinich, Stephen Morgan, the son of venture capitalist and graduate of an elite Catholic prep school, wrote in his journal, "I think it okay to kill Jews, and go on a killing spree at this school." His victim was only half-Jewish, but that was apparently Jewish enough for Mr. Morgan's disturbed mind to rationalize her murder. This crime was probably not motivated by anti-semitism--Morgan knew Justin-Jinich and had previously harassed her--but Morgan was no doubt an anti-semite, and his father had known him to make "anti-Jewish comments."

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, Pakistani soldiers handed out pamphlets accusing the Taliban of being manipulated by "anti-Pakistan" elements. Who are these mysterious elements? The Jews. (I'm imagining a re-make of the old "Da Bears" SNL skit.) The pamphlet explains, "They are the same as Jewish forces who are against existence and security of the country and wanted to create disturbance in the region." Now rural Pakistan is not known as a center of Jewish population, and I doubt whether the any of the peasants who received the pamphlets have ever met any Jews, but someone in the Pakistani army evidently concluded the playing to Jewish conspiracy phobias would make for an effect propaganda campaign. Nor is this the first example of Pakistan's campaign to blame the Jews. When a video of the Taliban flogging a 17-year-old girl in Swat received international publicity last month, Federal Minister Senator Azam Khan Swati, a man with a long title, stated that the flogging was in fact a Jewish conspiracy aimed at destroying the peace in Swat and smearing the good name of Islamists. That's right. The Jews are behind repression by Islamic fundamentalists.

    Anti-semitism is a difficult subject discuss in the 21st century. The Holocaust is beginning to fade into memory as the survivors die off. Aggressive Israeli supporters have undermined reasonable discussion of the topic by conflating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, and the Anti-Defamation League cries "wolf" at the slightest provocation. Meanwhile, anti-semites like President Ahmadinejad of Iran varnish their hatred with the pretense of criticizing Israeli policy, declaring themselves friends of the Jewish people as they assail the "Zionist regime" and spin venomous conspiracy theories.

    As the two disparate examples from today's news show, the potent allure of anti-semitism has not loosed its grip on the world's imagination, even in contexts that have nothing to do with Israel. Human beings carry a deep, dark predisposition to imagine that powerful conspirators from an enemy tribe seek to destroy them. Because Jews are minorities in so many countries around the world and because they tend to be slightly better off than the average citizens of these countries, they are natural candidates for those who indulge in conspiratorial fabrications. It is because of this predisposition that psychopaths and demagogues seize so often on anti-semitism as a conducive channel through which to pour their hatred. It explains why an obvious forgery such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zions, which was produced to influence a Russian Tsar in the late 1800's, gained worldwide popularity, has been cited as a source of fact in documents from Mein Kampf to the Hamas Charter, and has even been the basis for an Egyptian television show. And it is because of this predisposition that I fear that as long as Jews remain a presence in the world, or even a memory of a presence, anti-semitism will continue to join people from around the world in a solidarity of hate.

     

    Topics: 
    Social Justice

    Comments

    Genghis, your point about none of the Swat Valley peasants ever meeting a Jew sent me googling. It's even starker than that. The last figures for Pakistan's Jewish community date from four decades ago, when it numbered 250 -- out of a current population of 175 million. My guess is that emigration and age have taken a further toll. Mind-bogglingly, it is just possible that no Pakistani -- unless he or she has traveled abroad -- has ever met a Jew.

    The Taliban who no doubt told the peasants about "the Jews" probably themselves picked up their knowledge from al-Qa'ida types -- Saudi Arabian Salafis -- who themselves would have never met a Jew. Same for the army propagandist. It's contemptible that such disembodied hatred is being exploited (especially by people supposedly on our side) but I question how deep its roots really go. All evidence seemingly to the contrary, I firmly believe that current Jewish-Muslim animosity is transient. There are 1,000 years of coexistence, and a shared religious background, to back that belief. We may not see that animosity entirely dissipate in our lifetimes, but it will.

    One minor point: the Pakistani military pamphlet didn't say "the same Jews," it said, "the same as Jews ..." Comparing the Taliban's actions to those of the mythical enemy, and trying -- in crude fashion -- to turn its propaganda back on itself. It's typical of the ham-fisted way the army is carrying out its Swat offensive.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 10:43pm

    Thanks for the correction. I have modified the quote.

    It's a good point about Muslim-Jewish relations, which was far better historically than Christian-Jewish relations. Though modern Arab anti-semitism preceded the founding of Israel, it seems to have been introduced by Europe and first appeared among Christian Arabs. The conflict with Israel of course exacerbated it, and if Israel some day makes peace with the Palestinians, the anti-semitism will certainly diminish. But I worry that anti-semitism is the kind of thing that grips the imagination and comes roaring back in times of trouble. And if old Jerusalem does not return to Arab control, I expect that the issue will serve as a constant reminder which keeps the flames of hate alive.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 05/10/2009 - 11:27pm

    I know that anti-Semitism seems somehow more durable than other ethnic or religious hatreds. But logically, there's no reason for it to be inevitable. At some point, European-Russian Christianity simply decided "the Jews" had killed Jesus -- overlooking the actual religion of the victim. (Maybe because once it was the official faith of the empire, it was no longer politic to say, "The Romans did it.")Anyway, that notion gained a foothold wherever the official state religion did, and having a universally accepted scapegoat proved convenient to rulers in times of crisis.

    Much different story in the Mideast, where the Jews of Jerusalem raised a batallion (maybe it was a regiment) to fight alongside Saladin's troops and defend their city against the Crusaders. When the Christians initially won, of course, they put everyone indiscriminately to the sword. Ah, the joyous cameraderie of those good old days!


    by acanuck on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 12:22am

    Assessing the durability of anti-semitism depends on understanding its cause. I don't believe that the liturgical blame for "killing" Jesus had much to with the popularity of anti-semitism in Europe. "Christ killing" was simply the rationalization. And not the only rationalization. There was also blood libel, usury, economic conspiracy, racial impurity, and plain old heresy, to name a few. A different rationalization for every age. Thus, anti-semitism outlives "Christ killing" and thrives even in nations which do not worship Christ.

    So what is the cause? I have posited the "well-off minority" hypothesis. This hypothesis need not apply only to Jews. It could be Pharisees, Coptic Christians, Sikhs, Chinese and Indian communities in Africa, etc. And sure enough, these minorities have often been discriminated against in the various regions. The Jews stand out largely because they are so widespread and because Europeans have been so brutal. If this hypothesis is correct, it will be very hard to stamp out anti-semitism so long as Jews remain a distinctive minority.

    (Of course, "impoverished minorities," those that are on average worse off than the majority population, also suffer discrimination, e.g. Native Americans, African Americans, the Roma, Australian aboriginals, the Sami, the Ainu, etc. I make no claims about which form of discrimination is worse, but there are differences in how the persecution plays out. For example, the conspiracy theories are generally reserved for the well-off minorities. In Europe, Jews were feared in a way that the Roma never were. That didn't stop Hitler from slaughtering both.)


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 1:30am

    No, I doubt that avenging Jesus really figured in the thinking of some Cossack setting out on a pogrom. That idea just served as a common baseline for why it was OK to hate Jews. The real reason was the official and unofficial sanction anti-Semitism got from the secular leaders of Christendom. It was just too convenient to have a universally recognized, ready-made scapegoat to distract from, say, the rising price of bread. Clerical silence (or worse) gave common people the signal that this had the approval of both church and state.

    Your minority hypothesis makes perfect sense; solid examples too. Think also of Rwanda, where the visibly distinct (mostly taller) Tutsis dominated business and government. The genocide targeted not only them, but also many educated, well-off Hutu (presumably as "collaborators"). That's one of the problems: prosperous and well-educated minorities always tend to associate and identify with the rulers, who in turn exploit their skills. When the rulers are themselves outsiders (and especially when their rule is seen as biased against the locals) that is a powderkeg.

    So people don't like to be ruled by others they see as different, and (as you note) they also like to have people they can continue to look down on. In both cases, it's really useful if the minority is visibly different. African-Americans were obviously easiest to single out for discrimination; Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants to North America, less so. (It's fascinating to see how racist cartoons from the 19th century defict the Irish; grotesque and literally apelike; they didn't really look like that, but they were penniless, illiterate, and often spoke no English, so that was how they were expected to look. After clawing their way up the social ladder, Irish-Americans are publicly represented by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. So it's sorta full circle.)

    Anyway, I'm not sure I have a specific point, except to get in a cheap shot at O'Reilly.


    by acanuck on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 4:08pm