How does anti-Semitism differ from racism?

31

5

If 'anti-Semitism' is no different to 'racism', then why is it necessary to have a separate "...ism" that relates specifically to only one religious/racial group?

8What makes you say the two are no different? Clearly, the two cannot always be used synonymously. – JJJ – 2018-09-02T13:26:56.123

7Voted to re-open: while I can see how this is not strictly about politics, at the same time political discussions, laws, and poitical conflicts regarding racism and/or anti-Semitism are common enough. I think a question to define the terminology regarding these terms is useful and on-topic. – None – 2018-09-02T18:30:19.973

4To clarify, do you mean anti-"Jews as a race" or anti-"Judaism as a religion" ? There's a heap of crossover there which muddies things unfortunately. As a test, can you swap in "anticatholic" or "negrophobic" into the sentence ? – Criggie – 2018-09-03T08:27:25.107

2This question is the perfect opportunity to post rants instead of answers... sadly many of the answers don't even attempt to analyze or explain anything, it's just a perfect opportunity for tribal signaling. We could replace most of them with "I hate racists and antisemites too, they are evil and diabolical", and have the exact same information content. – vsz – 2018-09-03T22:08:06.023

1Please don’t edit questions to significantly change their meaning, or to add in commentary and opinion. If you have another question, or if you wanted to ask something different in the first place, ask another question. And if you have an opinion on this yourself, you are encouraged to answer your own question. But don’t put that as part of the question itself. – divibisan – 2019-11-28T17:55:03.227

@divibisan When I clicked on "answer your question", I got a pop up that asked me if I really wanted to do that. It then suggested I "edit my question if I wanted to supply more detail" and to comment "if I was trying to respond to an answer". As I was not responding to any particular answer, but was adding my own view of the matter, you may forgive me for being slightly confused as to where I was meant to post it. – WS2 – 2019-11-28T22:39:50.813

@divibisan Perhaps before adopting a nihilist approach to someone's carefully considered view, it might have been more productive of useful dialogue, had you simply asked me to repost the remarks elsewhere. – WS2 – 2019-11-28T22:48:34.977

I’m sorry if my rolling back your edits felt too aggressive - that was not at all my intent. That’s why I left a comment: to explain my actions and suggest you repost that elsewhere. I certainly don’t think you did anything wrong or hold it against you. – divibisan – 2019-11-29T05:42:05.947

@divibisan And should my comments have appeared too opinionated, you must understand that we, in Britain, are going through the most bitter and rancorous election that I can ever remember. (And I go back a very long way). And the issues of anti-Semitism, wielded against the Labour Party, and Islamophobia of which the Tories are accused, are central to the daily mud-slinging. – WS2 – 2019-11-29T08:54:42.050

71

The easy answer is the same reason that any language has a word: it serves a useful function. English had a lot of words for rain because it rains a lot in England, and the words used differentiate between various types of rain because there is a useful distinction to make.

Antisemitism gets it own word because, for historical and cultural reasons, there is value in differentiating it from racism in general (and also why racism is a specific word identifying a particular subset of bigotry).

The historical context of WWII and the holocaust is one obvious reason: the Nazi's systematic murder of Jews on an industrial scale is important in recent history. And antisemitism in the 20th century is specifically tied to Nazi ideology (and consequential fascism) in a way that other forms of racism aren't.

Pre WWII antisemitism was also different to racism in general. Limiting this to the UK and America (since we are taking about the English language) a lot of racism was about viewing dark skinned people as fundamentally inferior, which shows up in colonialism and slavery to say the least. Antisemitism of the period didn't view the Jews in the same semi-evolved subhuman terms that characterized more general racism. It had more in common with conspiracy theories, about Jews controlling all the money and being cunning, devious sneaks secretly running things. And not being trustworthy.

Basically there is almost no overlap between the phenomenon of 19th century antisemitism (Jews are sneaky, rich and run the world to exploit everyone else) and 19th century attitudes towards black slaves (essentially dumb animals to be exploited and used). They have different immediate motivations and consequences, so of course they have different words.

5"...which shows up in colonialism and slavery to say the least." Are you certain that the causation is not the other way around? Slavery and invasion/subjugation were large scale enterprises long before they became associated with race. This suggests the possibility that the view of inferiority came about as a result of the globalization of these practices, rather than the globalization of these practices coming from the view. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying? – jpmc26 – 2018-09-03T19:30:37.797

3I wasn't trying to imply that racism caused colonialism or slavery. Just that the mindsets frequently expressed in the colonial era, and (for example) by people involved in the slave trade in the 18th and 19th centuries quite clearly show the idea of white people being fundamentally superior to the dark skinned people they are subjugating. Colonialism and slavery are where racist ideas can be seen clearly, rather than racism being the direct cause – PhillS – 2018-09-04T07:01:01.710

2That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for the misunderstanding. – jpmc26 – 2018-09-04T07:07:44.763

1While interesting, that historical approach barely scrape the surface of it... and in particular ignore older history. – clem steredenn – 2018-09-04T08:09:08.987

@PhilS Since WW2, the British Jewish community has become almost exclusively part of a well-to-do gentrified class, large numbers of whom vote Conservative. Do Britain's white middle-classes therefore register, through the Tory party, particular dislike of any expression against people they regard as much the same as themselves - by using a word that is resonant of the holocaust? At the same time do those same people simply fail to notice discrimination against blacks, Asians, Muslims etc since those are "different" - dark, and in some senses untouchable? Hence "racism" is a far lesser crime. – WS2 – 2019-11-28T17:14:01.877

13

Beyond the fact that it's useful to have more specific terms, and the fact that the term 'antisemite' predates the term 'racist' (although not the actual practical behaviour), the fact is that Anti-Semitism historically was not purely racism in terms of the conventional understanding of "these races are inferior" There is a strong history of hatred of Jews for religious reasons, which can be seen in the conflict with Hellenism. Christianity also led to hatred due to the rejection of their new version of Judaism, and this is true to a lesser extent of Islam. This type of anti-Semitism does not fit nicely into the "racist" bucket, even if it leads to it

3

Care to expand on "the conflict with Hellenism"? First hit in google on that is something about religious music. Is that what you meant?

– Fizz – 2018-09-02T22:54:02.343

@Fizz the material centred near-mandatory polytheism of Hellenic culture vs the monotheism of Judaism led to many conflicts between the groups, noticeably playing a key part in the revolt of the Maccabees. – None – 2018-09-03T08:09:36.570

2What lead you to say that antisemitism predate racism, as words? – clem steredenn – 2018-09-04T08:16:29.547

@bilbo_pingouin "From the German Antisemitismus, which was coined in 1879 " https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-Semitism#Etymology "An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) simply defines racialism as "An earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it," and cites it in a 1902 quote.[12] The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term "racism" in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Etymology,_definition_and_usage Of course with such a short timeframe ~ 20 years its possible that there were earlier usages.

– None – 2018-09-04T08:19:38.763

1

@Orangesandlemons well using google ngram, I find occurences of racisme and antisémitisme as early as 1623 in the French corpus. Due to their similarities, I would consider a common ancestor to both English and French words. Please note that in English, google already find occurences for racism in 1724, and antisemitism in 1855. Both pre-date your chronology. But apart from occurences of words, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom.

– clem steredenn – 2018-09-04T08:42:26.613

@bilbo_pingouin " But apart from occurences of words," yes, hence I wrote "although not the actual practical behaviour" And re the ngram, have a look at this result for 'racism' for instance: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=paZVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22racism%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3qubo-6DdAhWEZd8KHeTODa04FBC7BQhFMAc#v=onepage&q=%22racism%22&f=false

– None – 2018-09-04T08:46:12.533

I forget where I read it, so cannot provide a reference at this time, but I recall the French racisme was more related to racialist or racialism, which then eventually evolved into "racism." – RIanGillis – 2018-09-04T14:09:22.970

9

Many ethnic and religious groups have a unique term used to describe prejudice, discrimination and hatred toward them. These have developed over time because they are more descriptive than simply using the blanket term "racist".

Here are some examples:

• Hatred/fear of Irish people: Hibernophobia
• Hatred/fear of adherents of Islam: Islamophobia
• Hatred/fear of Roma: Anti-Zaganism/Anti-Romanyism
• Hateed/fear of gay people: Homophobia
• Hatred/fear of Arabs: Anti-Arabism
• Hatred/fear of Mormons: Anti-Mormonism
• Hatred/fear of Germans: Germanophobia
• etc etc

The list is long. Anti-Semitism is simply one among many. It is not different than racism. It is in fact a subset of racism and special in its own unique way, as all (or at least most) forms of racism are.

While there does exist some racists who hate everyone not like themselves, most racists are selective in their dislike of certain groups. For example, a person might not mind Irish or Slavic people, but hates all Black people. So it is natural that language has evolved to quickly describe the specific forms of racism so it can be conveyed efficiently.

Regarding the term anti-semitism itself; it is indeed an outdated term, coined in Europe at a time when the only significant population of semites around we Jews. See this note from the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism:

Antisemitism as a word quickly won acceptance in wider circles, even among those said to oppose anti-Jewish propaganda. The term is still used today, both in research and in everyday speech, as the designation of hostility against Jews. Attempts to use alternative designations have not met with success. When one uses the word antisemitism, it is important to be aware that it is misleading: antisemitism is a nonsense term in the sense that there is not and never has been any ”semitism” with respect to which one can be ”anti”. Antisemitism means and has only ever meant prejudice and hostility against Jews. It does not have and has never had anything to do with hostility against individuals and groups who speak Semitic languages. Thus it is also quite feasible for individuals who speak Semitic languages ​​to harbour antisemitic views.

1Do you think people who are victims of Hibernophobia (first time I have ever heard of the term) might define it in such a way that excessive criticism of the Irish government is included? – WS2 – 2018-09-04T06:20:40.180

5@WS2 that was not what the question was about – Communisty – 2018-09-04T10:27:22.137

1@WS2 that’s a good separate question, although possibly not on topic. But the word “excessive” - I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Proportional criticism is very different from excessive criticism. – Tim – 2018-09-04T14:59:20.623

@WS2 probably not, because it generally manifests as disliking migrant workers. And predates Irish independence. – Caleth – 2019-11-28T11:04:21.463

6

Anti-Semitism is the subset of racism that attacks Jewish people. I believe there are two main reasons why it continues to be a distinct sub-topic:

First, anti-Semitism came to particular prominence during WWII with the attempted genocide by Hitler. The enormity of this crime has made it a sore point ever since.

Second, anti-Semitic propaganda has always had a different character than other forms of racism.

Most racist propaganda claims that its targets are intellectually and morally inferior, and hence present a danger due to their stupidity and propensity to sexual and violent crime. Donald Trump's tweets about Mexicans are typical of this genre.

However anti-Semitic propaganda has instead emphasised the alleged intelligence and self-control of Jews in their supposed goal of taking over society and subjugating everyone else; the fabricated Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are filled with clever and diabolical schemes to disrupt society and gain power. This distinct character of anti-Semitism means that it has to be considered separately.

Does that make anti-Semitism more offensive than e.g.Islamophobia, or racism against blacks? Because that is the sense one picks up from the right-wing media in Britain – WS2 – 2019-12-06T08:25:47.927

I think thats another question; maybe you should ask it. Here I will merely comment that the right-wing media in Britain will use any available stick to beat the Labour Party. – Paul Johnson – 2019-12-06T11:43:02.647

6

The distinction is well explained by the former Chief Rabbi of Britain, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. See the full post here. Essentially he says while regular racism/xenophobia is a fear dislike of the other simply for being different and/or seemingly inferior, anti-semitism is a unique kind of hatred that mutates to satisfy the standards of the day. To illustrate, he points out the array of simultaneous contradictory attacks on Jews (they are too rich/too poor, too capitalist/too communist, too Islamophobic/promoting Islam, etc). These types of attacks are truly unique to Jews as a group.

Excerpt:

But what is antisemitism and why should its return be cause for grave concern, not only for Jews but for all of us?

Historically, antisemitism has been hard to define, because it expresses itself in such contradictory ways. Before the Holocaust, Jews were hated because they were poor and because they were rich; because they were communists and because they were capitalists; because they kept to themselves and because they infiltrated everywhere; because they clung to ancient religious beliefs and because they were rootless cosmopolitans who believed nothing.

So what is antisemitism? Let’s be clear – not liking people because they’re different isn’t antisemitism. It’s xenophobia. Criticizing Israel isn’t antisemitism: it’s part of the democratic process, and Israel is a democracy.

Antisemitism is something much more dangerous – it means persecuting Jews and denying them the right to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as everyone else.

It’s a prejudice that like a virus, has survived over time by mutating.

So in the Middle Ages, Jews were persecuted because of their religion.

In the 19th and 20th centuries they were reviled because of their race.

Today, Jews are attacked because of the existence of their nation state, Israel. Denying Israel’s right to exist is the new antisemitism.

And just as antisemitism has mutated, so has its legitimization. Each time, as the persecution descended into barbarity, the persecutors reached for the highest form of justification available.

In the Middle Ages, it was religion.

In post-Enlightenment Europe it was science: the so called scientific study of race.

Today it is human rights.

Whenever you hear human rights invoked to deny Israel’s right to exist, you are hearing the new antisemitism.

4I disagree entirely with Sacks. If anyone acts in a "racist" manner against Jews, I will be first to defend the Jews concerned. But introducing the question of Israel and its politics, in my view, conflates the question of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. – WS2 – 2018-09-03T14:37:51.977

4@WS2 that is part of his point. Fanatical anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-Semitism. The same people who told Jews to " go to Palestine" pre-1948 are now telling them to "get out of Palestine". It's similar to the other examples of contradictory attacks made toward Jews that Sacks notes – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-03T14:43:12.733

What is a Semite? The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as A person belonging to the race of mankind which includes most of the peoples mentioned in Gen. x. as descended from Shem son of Noah, as the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Aramæans. Also: a person speaking a Semitic language as his native tongue. The IHRA's definition of "anti-Semitism" refers only to "Jews". What about the anti-Semitism suffered by Palestinian Arabs? Is that within Lord Sachs' compass of concern? – WS2 – 2018-09-03T19:02:32.703

2

@WS2 you're nitpicking on terminology. All agree that the term "anti-semitism" to denote hatred of Jews is an outdated term. It was coined in Europe at a time when the only significant semitic population around were Jews. However until another term becomes generally accepted/used, the term anti-semitism remains. Regarding the discrimination toward Palestinian Arabs, that seems to have no connection to the (classical) "anti-semitism" experienced by Jews. Incidentally, the most discrimination they experience are in other Arab countries (e.g https://goo.gl/9TSMMJ) In Israel they are full citizens

– CodyBugstein – 2018-09-03T19:12:10.340

4Sacks is incorrect, because it is common for bigotry to set up double-binds/catch-22s and this is by no means unique to anti-Semitism. Nor is the shifting justifications of it. The anti-suffragists and MRAs make different arguments for the same prejudice; same for modern racists and racists from the c19th. – Guy F-W – 2018-09-03T19:32:54.057

3@CodyBugstein : "the same people"?? Aren't they already dead? – vsz – 2018-09-03T22:13:29.890

I've added a new answer that I believe is more clear https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/33374/18356

– CodyBugstein – 2018-09-04T02:38:48.883

1@CodyBugstein In Israel they are full citizens Another "missrepresentation", specially when you were asked about "Palestinian Arabs". There are some Arabs that are citizens of Israel, ok. And Palestinians can suffer discrimination in other Muslim countries, unrelated but true. But it still lies about the situation in Palestine. You cannot have it both ways. Either Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are citizens of their own country (and in this case Israel is invading a foreign country) or they are not and then they are second-rate subjects of Israel with no political rights. – SJuan76 – 2018-09-04T07:32:22.740

2

And the big one, the "go to Palestine" movement was what is called "Zionism" (although some variants proposed the creation of a Jewish state elsewhere). While some people used (or tried to use) it to foster its own antisemitic goals (see for example the Haavara Agreement), the main drive of Jewish emigration to Palestine was from the Jewish people. In fact, as controlling power the UK tried to prevent the emigration. So much for The same people who told Jews to " go to Palestine" pre-1948 are now telling them to "get out of Palestine".

– SJuan76 – 2018-09-04T07:40:40.650

4Conflating antizionism and antisemitism is dangerous, since it tends to have a follow on effect of associating being critical of the Israeli government with antisemitism. I understand that the two occur more frequently together than separately. I also understand being skeptical of people who are critical of everything the Israelis do. I still think it is valuable to make the distinction, since it promotes compromise and cooperation. – Tim Seguine – 2018-09-04T08:29:47.853

@SJuan76 Yes, Israel's government is zealously attached almost entirely to one religion - an unhealthy situation in today's world. But then there is the "settler" issue. Settlers, in any place where they can gain a political or economic hegemony (or both) invariably end up oppressing the indigenous people. It is on both these grounds - the religious and the settler issues - that one can justifiably criticise Israel - but that is not the same thing as discriminating against Jews living in countries like UK, USA etc, where they are not in a politically or economically dominant position. – WS2 – 2018-09-04T10:25:32.837

2@WS2 It starts to smell like anti-semitism when you call Arabs (who hail from Arabia) the "indigenous" people of Judea, and call Jews (who share the same etymology as the name "Judea") the settlers. Criticism of settlement policy is perfectly legitimate but when you deny that Jews even have a right to the land they originally came from (undisputed by any culture or historical record) it really starts to sound like you have a particular distaste for Jews – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-04T11:38:31.447

1@CodyBugstein After over two millennia since Jews left (or were driven out of) the land they originally came from, then yes, it's fair to question it, otherwise we start talking about Germany making reparations to Italy for the acts of the Visigoths in sacking Rome. if the land was unoccupied, then sure, no worries. But when newcomers dispossess Palestinians whose families have farmed the same site for hundreds of years, at the point of a gun, where does the right to do that come from? I guess you own a house. Would the previous owner have right to come back with a gun and kick you out? – Graham – 2018-09-04T12:02:31.097

1@Graham Even after the Romans conquered Judea there remained a significant Jewish population in the land for years, even through Arab and Ottoman rule. The Jews who immigrated as part of the large scale immigration in the 1800s-1900s did not take anyone's farmland at gun point. Those are common libels. In fact they invested massively into turning infertile land into farmland and built cities from scratch. The Arabs launched the current conflict when Israel declared independence. Ask yourself; if Israel is so keen on kicking out Arabs at gunpoint, why are there 2 million Arab Israelis? – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-04T13:12:00.150

2Also I suggest you submit a new question on the topic we are discussing in the comments. The OP asked if racism and anti-semitism are different. This doesn't really relate to a discussion of Israeli history. I suggest you ask a question along the lines of "What legal and moral arguments do the Jews have to a state in Palestine? " – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-04T13:13:37.897

1

– CodyBugstein – 2018-09-04T19:39:52.307

4

The answer is somewhat complicated, partly because there are often more similarities than differences, and partly because there are two competing ideologies that have extremely different views of what constitutes both anti-Semitism and what constitutes racism.

In short, there is a progressive view, which views everything through group identity, power, social outcomes, and feelings. There is also a - let's call it classical liberal for lack of a better term - view, which views everything through individual identity and actions.

I may cover the differences later on, but the bulk of this answer comes from the latter ideological view - mostly because I'm sure there are people who will extensively cover the former view anyway, framing it as the only correct view. I will post a "[P]" progressive reference on statements that I know for sure contradict progressive ideology.

From a classical liberal view, the main differences are as follows:

1. Anti-Semitism is about negativity towards the Jews, in general. This is different in that "Jewishness" is a very vague quality societally; and may refer to one - or a combination of any of - ethnic origins, nationality, religion, or culture, and in latter part of 20th century, also mixed in with Israel/Zionism; as well as perceived position and influence in society.

Racism is often - though not always - is purely about ethnic origins, sometimes about culture but only as entwined with said ethnic origins.

2. Almost universally, Anti-Semitism is invariably mixed with Jews' perceived (and, some individual Jews actual) high position in society.

General racism and xenophobia is almost always uni-directional power-wise. You either dislike another race because they are universally weaker, or universally stronger [P] (that is not always the case in general world, but enough of a dominant trend as to be worth noting).

While there exists some basic garden variety xenophobia against Jews as "others" that is 100% same as any other "others" (e.g. in early US history, Jews and Irish suffered from same kinds of prejudices - differently-religioned poor immigrants that both were); Anti-Semitism is unique in that that it co-exists with dislike of Jews as "powerful", usually explained via a certain small minority of "Jews" who are actually in some positions of power and thus an easy target.

This usually takes the form of "Jews control the media/ finance / governments". Ironically, it split into contradictory strains of "Jews control capitalism due to finance" and "Jews control socialism"; applicable depending on whether one's general ideological flag flies.

3. Anti-Semitism is very often cultural in its transmission.

As a great example, look at the following scenarios:

• Axis powers. Nazis were heavily anti-Semitic (duh), in very large part owing to Martin Luther's influence and earlier general European Christianity-influenced attitudes towards Jews; as well as later streams of anti-capitalist Anti-Semitism layer. At the same time, Imperial Japan - which was extremely xenophobic and racist in general - had virtually no Anti-Semitism, due to never having acquired that cultural trait historically.

• Islamic countries generally tended to be less hostile towards the Jews in the Middle ages, especially as contrasted with Europe (or contrasted with their attitude towards Christians).

This changed once Arab world got ideologically and culturally changed by introduction of socialism and Arab nationalism at the turn of 20th century and on; and especially once Israel was established. As an interesting illustration, formally, Iran is - at least on paper - friendly towards their own, Iranian, Jews, while being extremely Anti-Semitic towards Jews worldwide, especially in Israel, since 1980s.

4. There is very little, or no, racist equivalent to hatred of Israel.

Typically, racism is about xenophobia towards "others" in your midst. Most racists don't much care about people in other countries inasmuch as they don't travel to or live in their country (one historical caveat to this is imperialist type expansion, for example Japanese racism towards Koreans and Chinese informing their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere plans; or European colonial past. But, presumably, the question and thus the answer are more geared towards 21st century).

In contrast, Anti-Semitic attitudes extend towards dislike of Jews even when they are elsewhere, not affecting the disliker - namely in the state of Israel.

In large part, this has to do with the "new Anti-Semitism" of the Left [P], where Jews are explicitly disliked for their "power"/"oppressor" position; or anti-Semitic attitudes are just casually/culturally picked up from the ideological allies who are often originating in Arab/Moslem communities, but not exclusively so (and here).

5Good answer, until the last two points. There is a problem with the state of Israel in the way it treats Palestinian Arabs. In many respects, how they are treated is how Jews were treated in 1930s Nazi-run Europe. Arbitrary killings, dispossession, the creation of ghettos, a supposed divine right to territory - all present and correct. This is clearly a human rights catastrophe. However these are the actions of the Israeli state, and not the actions of the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, so it is erroneous to describe the Left as "anti-Semitic" when they criticise this. – Graham – 2018-09-03T12:16:23.123

1... Of course there are complications. People who are genuinely anti-Semitic can use this as an excuse to attack Jews, and much of the current situation is the outcome of Israel's self-defence in winning wars started by the Arab countries. After that though, we also need to remember though that under Yitzhak Rabin this was resolved; and it was the governments of Sharon and Netanyahu which restarted the conflict. It is not necessary to be an ideological ally of Arab countries, simply to believe in human rights. (Which for sure aren't great in Arab countries either, in various other ways.) – Graham – 2018-09-03T12:24:03.770

5The problem with equating the concerns about Israeli policy by 'the left' with antisemitism, and then equating antisemitism with racism should be obvious. This site is supposed to be about neutral, fact based q&a. Yet every time the subject of antisemitism is raised, this 'talking point' is hammered down relentlessly. There is a lot to be said about the history and policies of 'the left', but calling mainstream modern day 'leftists' like the UK's labour party racists or anti-semitic only erodes the meaning of both terms. – Douwe – 2018-09-03T13:32:40.523

4@Graham To criticize the policies of the Israeli government with respect to the occupation is perfectly legitimate. To compare it to 1930s Nazi Germany is borderline antisemitic if not anti-semitic outright. The occupation of the West Bank (Samaria and Judea) has absolutely nothing to do with racism. It is about politics and security. It started during the Six Day War in 1967, in which Israel was nearly completely destroyed. In the aftermath, Israel could not simply give back these strategic highlands to people still sworn to its destruction. This is an issue yet to be resolved – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-04T15:24:35.217

1@CodyBugstein And yet that issue was resolved under Rabin, and "de-resolved" by Sharon. If you want to make comparisons, consider that Palestinian farmers are, today, forced off their land at gunpoint into a few square miles of land designated for them, which an occupying force claims authority to enter or bomb at any time, with an absolute blockade on all supplies including humanitarian aid. What would you call it except a ghetto? I don't dispute security issues, but you also can't dispute Israel's role in creating those security issues, in the same way as Britain in Ireland, for example. – Graham – 2018-09-04T19:27:10.080

3@Graham the claims made in your comment are completely false. There is no evidence of farmers being forced off their land at gun point. In a country where there are more photo-journalists than soldiers (if you've ever seen footage of the Israeli military in action you will see dozens of photographers trailing them) it would be easy to verify that your claims are true. They are not though. These are the types of claims spread by anti-semites, i.e. people who actually hate Jews, not people simply criticizing a government policy – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-05T15:13:49.507

@CodyBugstein Would you accept a UN report as evidence? https://www.ochaopt.org/content/restricted-access-farming-land-taken-over-settlers-despite-legal-rulings-israeli-courts Quote: "Immediately after, the Israeli military issued a “demarcation order” forbidding entry to the area by any person". Quote: "In other cases, Palestinian farmers have been discouraged or prevented from accessing their land in evacuated areas due to systematic violence and intimidation by Israeli settlers who are often armed." Quote: "...often with the acquiescence and active support of the Israeli authorities."

– Graham – 2018-09-05T17:47:31.973

1@Graham Before addressing the credibility of such an agency, I just want to point out that you deliberately omitted the sentence immediately before the one you quoted. I'll paste it here: Amona settlement outpost was established in an area belonging to Palestinians from Ein Yabroud village (Ramallah). In February 2017, following a protracted legal battle that ended with an Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) ruling in favour of the Palestinian landowners, the settlement was evacuated. In what kind of Nazi country does the high court rule in favor of the inferior/subhuman class? – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-05T17:51:54.287

@CodyBugstein What kind of "Nazi country"? One where the court accepts that you're legally in the right but throws you off your land anyway. Did you miss that the Palestinian landowner wasn't allowed back? (Yes, it's limited to two years. Great. What would you do if you lost your house and livelihood for two years?) – Graham – 2018-09-05T17:58:26.890

2@Graham, apparently the court found the Palestinian Arab plaintiffs to be the owners but due to the security situation in the area, granted the military a 2 year ban on anyone using it. Obviously that could be devastating or at least hugely inconvenient for the owners. It hardly makes Israel a Nazi country though. The Palestinian Authority/people bear at least half of the responsibility for the delicate security situation so the owners should apply just as much blame on their own leaders/people as they do on the IDF – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-05T18:05:50.603

2Reading further, even according OCHAOPT, a highly biased organization within an equally biased organization (the UN, which passes more resolutions targeting Israel than they do for all other nations combined), the problem in these areas in general are handfuls of hooligans disrupting life and ineffective policing. While this is certainly a major issue, it is hardly worthy of international uproar and fixation. Meanwhile Palestinians in Syria are literally getting killed daily, and Lebanese Palestinians are in walled-in camps, but they don't even get a fraction of the press coverage. – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-05T18:06:29.487

@CodyBugstein The words "Nazi country" were yours. When the "handfuls of hooligans" have, again to quote the report, "the acquiescence and active support of the Israeli authorities", that's where it gets troublesome. Kristallnacht was carried out by civilian hooligans too; I assume you wouldn't excuse that in the same way? – Graham – 2018-09-05T18:18:50.470

2

@Graham are you out of your mind? Kristalnacht was encouraged by every level of German government. The situation we're discussing is the exact opposite. Every level of Israeli government is opposed to the hooliganism. There is a valid argument to be made that policing is not strong enough. By the way this works against the Israelis too. Israeli children have been stabbed to death in their beds by Palestinian Arabs because of bad policing. By your logic, Britain, with their football hooligans is also basically a Nazi country

– CodyBugstein – 2018-09-05T18:34:47.433

Opposed how? A fortnight ago, there were 1000 new settler homes announced formally. 600,000 Israelis live in illegal settlements on land owned by Palestinians. A few years back, Israel even explicitly built settler houses as a reprisal for the Palestinians getting UN representation - and I'm not reading between the lines here, that's the direct policy statement. That's a strange way to oppose Palestinians being driven from their homes. So yes, Kristallnacht right down the line. That you don't like it is a good sign the truth makes you uncomfortable. – Graham – 2018-09-05T19:31:46.140

2@Graham - fancy how you call things "illegal settlements" where Jews lived for 2000+ years. Shows precisely why you can't claim to be objective on the topic. Oh, let's ignore the fact that it is punishable by death to sell a house or land to a Jew. – user4012 – 2018-09-05T20:24:35.243

@user4012 Not just me - the entire rest of the world does too. (Is every country run by a secret cabal of anti-Semites, to get this result? A kind of Protocol of the Elders of Anti-Zion, if you like? Or might there be some truth there?) On land where Jews hadn't lived for 2000 years, incidentally. And even after the establishment of Israel (which I am in favour of, incidentally, just not the godawful stupid way it was done), on land which the Israeli state didn't claim for any reasons of security or anything else. Merely that settlers could steal it by force, so they did. Power corrupts. – Graham – 2018-09-06T01:19:10.700

3@Graham You should read some history about how the Israelis came in control of Judea of Samaria and what the legal claims are on both sides. The fact that most of the world calls it "illegal" when Jews live in these areas (not Muslims, Druze, or Christians, only Jews) has nothing to do with the actually legal arguments but everything to do with relations to the Arab/Muslim world and their massive oil reserves. – CodyBugstein – 2018-09-06T13:09:28.933

3

They are not the same!

I see that in some regions the terms are used as synonyms. That is not the case where I live. In Germany.

Antisemitism and racism have some overlap in the ideology of the nazis. They were against a "Jewish race". That makes some sense as not all, but a large proportion of Jews are of a common - not exactly race I think; but near enough.

Racism is often the rejection of most other races, in particular those who can be identified by a different skin color.

Antisemitism is the rejection of Jews. They are a group that follows a particular religion, the Judaism. Jews are of any race whatsoever. Because people are not asked about the race when they want to convert to Judaism. They are thoroughly tested if the indeed changed their faith. That can happen if a couple marries, where only one partner is Jewish.

So a Jew who you meet may be of very light skin and born in Norway, or of very dark skin and born in Nigeria.

For a racist, they are very different. He may admire one Jew, and disdain the other Jew.

An anti-Semitic person may disdain, both Jews just the same.

4Jews are an ethno-religious group, so antisemitism is by no means restricted to religious objections. The most prominent example would be the nazis, who wanted to exterminate all those they saw as racially Jewish (including eg Jews who converted to Christianity). It can also be seen with modern-day antisemites (see eg any random list of "Jews who control the media", which always contain non-religious Jews (and gentiles, because these lists are never accurate)). I agree though that Jews can be of any race, and that racism and antisemitism are not synonyms. – tim – 2018-09-04T09:35:49.987

@tim I think that point of "racially Jewish" would rather be "racially Semitic". I think Semites are not clearly a race, but at least "something similar". – Volker Siegel – 2018-09-04T09:44:56.390

2@VolkerSiegel Pretty much all definitions of a particular race are motivated by the desire to divide "us" and "them", and spending any time thinking about the "correct" definition is just lending validity to those ideas. The only relevant question should be whether Nazi ideology claimed there was a "Jewish race"; it probably goes without saying that others don't agree with their definition. – IMSoP – 2018-09-04T10:05:30.403

@tim Thanks for your interesting comment. In German schooI I learned a lot about Hitlers and the nazis anti-Semitism. It was by far the biggest topic in history class. But this question never came up. So I'm pretty sure the nazis basically used Judaism as a proxy for Semitism - and later did not care about that anyway. – Volker Siegel – 2018-09-04T10:08:26.183

2@tim Turns out the nazis explicitly used the term "Jewish race", and directly cared about grades of kinship. – Volker Siegel – 2018-09-04T10:17:57.127

In the context of Jews living in western countries such as Germany, Britain, USA etc - no just or decent person can possible be excused for "anti-Semitism". The state of Israel is an altogether different matter for the reasons I have explained in my comment on @CodyBugstein's answer. It may be in the interests of the Israeli government to conflate the two - but quite deceitful, in my view. – WS2 – 2018-09-04T10:38:13.673

Oh, to prevent misunderstandings: I feel racism is bad, harmful to mankind. As a German, i Anti-Semitism is far worse. Not just extremely bad, but taking mankind many steps back. Sociologically - and physical. Re: "can possible be excused for "anti-Semitism"": I think people who understood holocaust can not be antisemitic here - like a real taboo actually in your head. Even neo-nazis - I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about. You can not blame them - it's hard. It is physically unbelievable. Actually it is not possible for a brain to understand it for a while. – Volker Siegel – 2018-09-04T12:47:21.257

Did blacks, Muslims, and other Asians (except of course Japanese) fare any better under the nazis than Jews? Gypsies certainly didn't. – WS2 – 2020-10-04T13:52:31.110

There were no blacks, Muslims, and other Asians, at least not enough to make them politically relevant. But the question is quite interesting! – Volker Siegel – 2020-10-04T20:00:27.980

2

Anti-Semitism has diverged from its original meaning and developed its own.

Semites or semitic people, are defined by language, culture and region. They encompass Israelites, Mandeans, Samaritans, Assyrians, and others. Or, in modern terms: Both Jews and Arabs as well as several minorities are Semites.

Anti-Semitism has evolved to mean hatred of Jews, specifically. This way, you can have something like anti-semitism among arabs (who are themselves semitic people).

In this context, anti-semitism has nothing to do with race, as the differentiating criterium is not race, but religion. There is a connection between the two as you are a Jew by birth if your mother is jewish, but we live in an age where people can change their religion, so religious and racial membership are no longer identical.

2"Anti-Semitism has evolved to mean hatred of Jews" technically it was coined to mean that specifically. Why that was is much a product of the time and place of the person who coined it – None – 2018-09-04T15:52:13.750

2

Antisemitism is distinct from racism, there are traits of antisemitism that don't show up in other racisms. I think the IHRA working definition of antisemitism is helpful. I'll go through the bullet points of the definition one by one, trying to point out if they are an elemnt also present in racism

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

This is not specific to antismitism

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

The imagined "power of Jews as a whole" is one thing that strongly sets antisemitism apart from racism. While you will find comparable conspiracy theories in some racism (e.g. creeping sharia), never with such a reach as in antisemitism

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

If people are perceived as a group, any wrongdoing by one member will be perceived as a wrongdoing by that whole group - unless the group is white people in a western country. So far this does not set antisemitism apart from racism. But it is mostly unique to antisemitism that Jews are blamed for attacks commited by others (9.11 (scroll down for examples of conspiracy theories blaming the Mossad), "Judeo-bolshevism" in the anguage of the Nazis)

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Denialism of mass violence is, sadly, not unique.

• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

I honestly dont know if this is unique. One could look at Turkeys denial of the Genocide of the Armenians and see if the accuse anyone of making it p or exxegarting claims.

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

You could probably find that in many racisms against immigrants and in antimuslim racism*.

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

There's a bookshelves of discussion in that sentence. I believe that most critics of the state of Israel are not principled anarchists that want to abolish all states and also assume that a people, however defined, should govern itself. So it seems strange to single out Israel.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

I wouldnt even know how an equivalent in another racism would look like.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

An equivalent would be using colonial images to characterize modern, post-colonial state. Which probably does happen.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Again, there's no equivalent in other racisms.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

I think similar things go on in antimuslim racism, though no direct equivalent.

So we can show that antisemitism, has a distinct history and shows traits distinct of other racism. This justifies the separate terminology.

'* "But islam is no race!" well, race doesnt work the way racists think it does anyway.

1

I know there are already quite a few answers, but I simply can't fully agree with any so far.

Your question can quite simply be answered by the etymology of both words.

Racism comes from race, a pseudo-scientific view that Humans could be split into separate groups with common genetic inheritance. It often leads to the belief that some races are better or superior than others. Like a doberman would be stronger in a fight than a chihuahua. It has lead to the use of wrong-scientific approaches to explain the perceived dominance of Europe/European over the rest of the worlds (perceived lower races).

Antisemitism is an opposition (anti) to the Jews (semitic religion). Antisemtists discriminate against Jews due to a perceived usage of religion, or attributes given to the Jews as a population.

The racism discriminates against the genetic inheritance, whereas anti-semistists discriminate against a religious group.

Your confusion may come from a general incorrect usage of words (see Nazi to equates dictatorship/tyranny), where racism is often used as an umbrella word for discrimination against any group of people. Or due to the fact that the mechanisms are quite similar, in the same way that cynophobia (fear of dogs) and ailurophobia (fear of cats) are similar yet different. But also maybe an often perceived idea that Jews tend to stay in an homogeneous group, without mixing with other people. Which would lead to a common genetic inheritance, and thus making a "Jew race". But one should remember, you can convert to Judaism, but can't convert from an European-ethny to Chinese one.

1Jews are an ethno-religious group, and antisemitism is not restricted to religious objections (see eg the nazis, who wanted to exterminate all Jews based on a racial definition of who a Jew is (eg including non-religious Jews and converts to Christianity)). Many antisemitic attacks are not religious in nature (eg Jews control the media, banks, etc), though some others are (eg blood libel). – tim – 2018-09-04T09:41:41.733

@tim you probably did not read my message until the end, did you? – clem steredenn – 2018-09-04T09:43:06.863

@tim, I actually overlooked that part in your email: Jews are NOT an ethno-religious group. Not as far as scientific definition of ethnicity is concerned. See the Beta Israel... and the fact that I could convert. – clem steredenn – 2018-09-04T19:57:47.453

-1

The difference is simply that "racism" refers to a general phenomenon without reference to any one particular group, whereas the common usage of "anti-Semitism" refers to one specific group.

So it is possible for a white group to be "racist" to a black group, and also for the black group to be "racist" to the white group. But while another group can be "anti-Semitic" to a Jewish group, the Jewish group cannot be "anti-Semitic" back. (although this hasn't stopped some people from trying to invent terms like "self-hating Jew" to get around this).

Linguistically, this is convenient for people who use the word "anti-Semitism" because it lets them make other derivative words, such as "anti-Semite" which can be used to label people. Labels carry psychological power.

In contrast, there are no similar labels that one can use to label people who are anti-black ("anti-blackist"?), anti-Hispanic, anti-Arab, etc. The generic label "racist" doesn't help much here because it is not specific enough to get at what someone may want to convey.