“The vile, hate-filled poison of antisemitism must be condemned and confronted everywhere and anywhere it appears.”
“We must be prepared to confront and expose the vile tide of antisemitism that is fueling hate and violence all across the world. And we must stand together.”
“Antisemitism is a daily event in America and is something that should concern us all.”
The first quote is from Donald J. Trump, in his Executive Order to “Combat the rise of antisemitism.” The second quote was shared by Mike Pence in his statement at the Fifth World Holocaust Forum. The third quote comes from Pastor John Hagee during a “Night to Honor Israel” at his church in Texas. These three men are all white Christian Zionists who take every opportunity to condemn antisemitism and demand that we fight it. What would it mean for us to agree with those statements?
As a young Jew, much of my Jewish religious education, both formal and informal, was focused as much on antisemitism as it was on Judaism. While this might be hyperbolic, it really felt like antisemitism was one of the fundamental components of Judaism. Many of the ways antisemitism was being discussed, studied, and even fought, felt so weird to me and the people who most ardently claimed to “fight antisemitism” made my skin crawl. It felt like much of the fight against antisemitism was not really about antisemitism at all. At the time, I didn’t have a vocabulary to effectively articulate these feelings, so I just felt lost.
During the summer of 2018, the IDF was violently suppressing protests in Gaza. In our small college town, my friends and I organized a vigil. On the corner of the street, we were mourning the dozens of Palestinians who had been killed. We had some signs and banners and were standing in a circle facing candles that were lit up for each Palestinian life which was ended. We read their names aloud and stood together in silence. Three Zionists walked over to us and, eating ice-cream, demanded we explain why we hate Israel and asked why we don’t “want peace.” These zionists claimed we were antisemitic for some of our signs that demanded a Free Palestine and an end to the settler-colonial violence that Israel enacts against the Palestinians. I remember hearing their allegations and feeling both baffled and furious.
I recall being just as perplexed after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting occurred when Mike Pence honored the victims’ memory with a sermon from a Christian “rabbi” who invoked the name of ‘Jesus the messiah’. Is this antisemitism or is this fighting it? And were the Zionists who approached us, ice cream in hand, drips of chocolate on their chin, fighting antisemitism? Were we, the mourners, Jews, non-Jews, antisemites? These questions never left me. What does it mean to “fight antisemitism” in the current world?
But Philo Means Love?
I titled this essay On the Dangers of Fighting Antisemitism because at this point, antisemitism, as it is commonly used and understood, has become a philosemitic zionist dog-whistle. Thus, “fighting antisemitism” is not the act of protecting Jews or working towards a world that is safe for Jewish people but that of pushing forward zionist philosemitism.
Philosemitism is commonly defined as being the opposite of antisemitism. Philo means the loving or liking of something. So, while antisemitism is the hatred of Jews, philosemitism is the loving of Jews. However, it’s not nearly that simple. Many people correctly view philosemitism as dangerous to the Jewish people, however, their analysis often fails to recognize philosemitism as a distinct phenomenon and threat. Instead, they assert that philosemitism is dangerous because it is merely a covert form of antisemitism or that philosemitism is dangerous because it can quickly “transform” into antisemitism. I’m reminded of an old Jewish joke, that goes, “what’s the difference between an antisemite and a philosemite? The antisemite is being honest.” In some ways, the belief that philosemites are simply antisemites who are lying is quite dangerous. This idea pushes us away from a structural analysis of both what philosemitism is and how philosemitism impacts us and instead refocuses us back onto antisemitism. Thus, instead of critically engaging with philosemitism and its implications, we spend our time asking if someone or something philosemitic is ‘just’ antisemitic. This question presupposes that our goal is still only to stop antisemitism. It positions antisemitism as the threat facing Jews and turns us away from exploring how philosemitism itself is a distinct threat to the Jewish people. This error, for reasons I will explain, actually protects and enables the philosemites.
In Antisemite and Jew, Jean-Paul Sartre explains that the antisemite creates for themself a Jew that is representative of all that they loathe. In essence, they craft in their mind the Jew that they then hate. Onto this Jew, they project their passion. This is not a relationship to Jewish people, but the hatred of the idea of Jewish people, of what Jewish people come to represent. Jewish people themselves come to exist, in the mind of the antisemite, as a living breathing model of what is dangerous and disgusting. This is why many common antisemitic tropes revolve around Jews spreading disease, being unclean, and against the society they are living in, but different from. These are not real engagements with the behaviors, goals, or beliefs of Jewish people but are projections of the fear and anxiety that the non-Jewish dominant class is experiencing onto the Jewish people. Antisemitism always requires Jews to be an “other”, and in the course of making this Jewish “other,” the antisemite defines and makes themself.
The philosemite then, is not someone who simply loves Jewish people but is someone who creates for themself a Jew that is representative of all that they love and want. A philosemite is someone who projects their goals and aspirations onto the idea of “Jews.” Jews are always still a Jewish “other” against which the society measures and crafts its own identity. While the antisemite creates a Jew which is dangerous and threatening, the philosemite creates a Jew which is to be wielded as a marker of that society’s progression vis a vis racism and civilization. This can be seen in the way many European countries discussed their Jewish residents in the wake of the Holocaust and discuss Jewish assimilation today. Their ‘support’ for Jews was and is presented as a marker of their success at ‘defeating racism’ and as evidence that their society has advanced past what they consider to be racism’s most pernicious form- antisemitism. As noted in The ‘Post-Holocaust Jew’ and the Instrumentalization of Philosemitism about post-Holocaust non-Jewish Germans, “by no longer being an antisemite, one belonged to the new, other Germany… By demonstratively siding with the former victim, one hoped to reap the same benefits. By emphasizing that Jews are also people, one considered oneself to be turning into a humanist.” As described above, when making “the Jew,” the society builds itself. Through philosemitism, the ‘civilization’, humanism, and ‘superior values’ of the white Euro-American world are justified, defended, and entrenched. Jewish assimilation and success in Euro-America is not motivated by a want to keep Jews safe, it is motivated by Euro-America’s need to consider itself the best, most advanced society. In Whites, Jews, and Us, Houria Bouteldja writes, “is philosemitism not the last refuge of white humanism?”
According to Houria Bouteldja, philosemitism came about for three cardinal missions: “to solve the white world’s moral legitimacy crisis, which resulted from the Nazi genocide, to outsource republican racism, and finally to be the weaponized wing of Western imperialism in the Arab world.” White Euro-America recognized that using the Jews in this self-absolving and identity forming way was necessary. This was quite possibly the only way white Euro-America could form itself anew after the Holocaust, without giving up — or even recognizing — the immense wealth it had amassed through the centuries of violent colonialism it had no intention of stopping. By defining antisemitism as the “worst” form of racism, white America gets to obscure the contradictions inherent in fighting the nazis with a segregated army. By defining the Holocaust as the worst genocide in history, white Euro-America gets to ignore the colonial genocides it had conducted for centuries, for which there were no reparations, apology, or accountability. By vowing to fight antisemitism and to ‘repair the harm’ caused by the Holocaust, white Euro-America gets to forgive itself and “move on.”
However, philosemitic remembrance of the Holocaust fundamentally redefines what the Holocaust actually was. That six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust is made into a slogan, which people exclaim when they seek to treat the Holocaust as something which has never before been seen and cannot be understood. Many of these exclamations casually gloss over the fact that the total number of Holocaust victims is over double six million, and includes Roma people, LGBTQ+ people, African people, Catholics, communists, socialists, anarchists, disabled people, Soviet civilians and soldiers, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc. The Holocaust is strikingly similar to the numerous other genocides carried out by white Euro-American colonial powers. It is a horrible genocide and should be understood, as Aimé Césaire illustrates in Discourse on Colonialism, as a continuation of global ideological and mechanical systems of colonialism. However, philosemitic white Euro-America recognizes that discussing the similarities the Holocaust shares with other colonial genocides exposes the contradictions in its white humanist philosemitic positions. Because of this, discussions about the Holocaust that deviate from the philosemitic white Euro-American narrative become severely policed.
A recent example of this is when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to the mass detention centers at America’s border with Mexico as concentration camps. Immediately, she was met with calls that she should resign and was slammed as antisemitic. Major Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, RJC, and Coalition for Jewish Values condemned her comparison. Josh Holmes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s former chief of staff, called Ocasio-Cortez’s comments “an alarming and dangerous false equivalence that suggests a breathtaking lack of appreciation for the unparalleled evil of the Holocaust.” These public performances of recognizing how extraordinarily and uniquely terrible the Holocaust is are intended to silence recognition of America’s racist and violent practices at the border. Alana Lentin, in her book Why Race Still Matters, writes “expression of opposition to antisemitism functions as a ballast against denouncements of racism. In the present moment, publicly performing opposition to antisemitism and support for Israel — the two having been made equivalent — has also become a proxy for politicians and public figures’ commitment to antiracism.”
Philosemitism is not just white Euro-America forgiving itself for the Holocaust and giving itself the license to “move on.” When presenting ‘support for’ the Jews as a way to measure its own progress, white Euro-America is simultaneously crafting and then condemning the identities of other societies who, according to white Euro-America, have failed to make this same progress. These societies are described as posing a danger to the Jews, who of course are to be defended and protected by philosemitic white Euro-America. Refer back to the three quotes shared at the beginning of this piece for examples of this self-appointment. “Protecting the Jews” becomes a trojan horse for white Euro-America’s various colonial and imperialist ventures. Further, white Euro-America discovered that by assigning itself the task of ‘protecting the Jew’, it could grant itself the power to determine both who is a Jew and who is an antisemite.
A cry I hear frequently is that only Jews should be allowed to define antisemitism. Anyone who has engaged in anti-zionist organizing has met this response when they push back against philosemitic antisemitism allegations. But as shown above, in assigning itself the role of “protector of Jews” white Euro-America becomes responsible for defining who is a Jew and who is a threat to the Jews. When philosemitic white Euro-America is defining the Jew, that they will then “protect,” they find that the real Jewish community doesn’t so neatly fit into the box they have crafted for us. Because of the contradictions created by the philosemitic definition of Jew, in the public conscience, Jew necessarily becomes a term removed from the Jewish people and antisemite becomes a fluid category which serves as a rhetorical tool to push philosemitism. Jews become ideas, as opposed to real people. This is why Mike Pence can host a Christian “rabbi” in the wake of an antisemitic massacre. He’s not interested in defending Jewish people but in occupying the role of “protector of Jews.” Particularly disruptive to the philosemitic framework are anti-zionist Jews, who refuse to accept their position in white Euro-American society. Anti-zionist Jews (whether anti-zionist for religious, political, or cultural reasons) are frequently met with so much animosity, including hatred which traffics in antisemitic tropes. Anti-zionist Jews are told they are self-hating, that they’re not even real Jews, that they are simply tokens for antisemites, that they’re godless communists, that they seek to destroy the Jewish community, and that they don’t represent the opinions of the ‘mainstream Jewish community.’
The Jewish people who agree with philosemites about the definition of antisemitism are publicly ‘respected’ while the Jewish people who disagree with the philosemitic definition of antisemitism are discredited and delegitimized. The Jewish people who agree with this definition are bestowed with the ability to be spokespeople about what antisemitism is and how it must be fought. Philosemitism places Jews in a position and the Jews who play that position, knowingly or not, are allowed to be Jewish and “define antisemitism.” They are elevated into positions of relative power and held to be examples of the success of so-called “Judeo-Christian civilization.” The Jews who employ the philosemitic definition of antisemitism are wielded by the philosemites as a marker for the success of Jewish assimilation into white Euro-American society. The people who refuse to accept that philosemitic redefinition of antisemitism, including Jewish people, are conversely held to be a threat to the Jews.
Under the philosemitic redefinition and wielding of antisemitism, Jews don’t exist as real people who are harmed but as abstractions with which state policy decisions can be justified or rejected. A state may increase its police presence in a certain area to “protect Jews” or it can reject policies, such as bail reform, claiming they “endanger the Jews.” Philosemitism transforms “the Jews” into abstractions and the harm alleged by the philosemites is that which threatens the white Euro-American colonial goals they have projected onto the Jews. Antisemitism is being defined by philosemites who view antisemitism not as a real phenomenon that must be opposed but as a weapon with which they can bludgeon people. This must be understood as a threat to the Jewish people, because it obscures actual antisemitism. But philosemitism must foremost be understood as a threat to the non-Jewish colonized people of the world because its purpose is to use the idea of Jews to justify colonialism and imperialism. “Antisemitism is what the uncivilized believe” the philosemites say, as they seek to put the “uncivilized” in their ‘rightful’ place through colonialism.
Understanding that Jews are not defining antisemitism, philosemites are, it is easy to see why “left antisemitism” and “Black Antisemitism” have become philosemitic rallying cries in the past few years and why Black people, Brown people, and Arabs are often portrayed as antisemitic until they prove otherwise (by accepting the philosemitic definition of antisemitism). The targets of these capitalist colonial missions are cast as antisemites, or what in the white Euro-American world is considered unforgivable.
“Left antisemitism” is a dog-whistle used by philosemites to claim that the so-called “left” is fundamentally antisemitic, and therefore illegitimate. Being antisemitic, the left can justifiably be dismantled. These claims assert that the left has an antisemitism problem that is somehow unique to or distinctly a part of the left. Recently, this became a major point of tension within British electoral politics when frequent allegations of antisemitism within the Labour party were wielded to demand that people not vote for so-called antisemite, Jeremy Corbyn. These allegations were extremely effective. The Head of Political Investigations for the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which had been smearing Corbyn as an antisemite for years, rejoiced after Corbyn was defeated. In the wake of Corbyn’s loss, there has been a philosemitic “reckoning” in the Labour party, as they seek to distance themselves from the philosemitic antisemitism allegations. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, a Zionist organization, released a set of 10 demands to the Labour Party to “end the antisemitism crisis,” which many in the Labour party accepted. These demands include the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, engaging with the Jewish community through “its main representative groups, and not through fringe organizations and individuals,” and that the Labour Party “deliver an anti-racism education programme that has the buy-in of the Jewish community.” The IHRA definition that their demands reference include “claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor” as one of its examples of antisemitism. This labor party dive into philosemitism is not making Jews any safer. In fact, by not fighting the erroneous and contrived philosemitic antisemitism allegations against Jeremy Corbyn and the labour party, Britain elected his opposition- a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, colonial, capitalist, antisemite. The philosemites get to be happy that they were able to “protect the Jews” by voting for Boris Johnson. Philosemitism is effective indeed.
The phenomenon of “left antisemitism” is a demand that the left filter its beliefs through a philosemitic lens that still allows for the colonization of the “uncivilized antisemite.” When so-called leftists adhere to this demand, they are in some ways accepted as a “legitimate” political being, while refusal to adhere to this demand results in swift condemnation. I think of the way Marc Lamont Hill was smeared as an antisemite and fired from his position at CNN when he dared utter the phrase “from the river to the sea.” When others came to Hill’s defense by pointing out that it is not possible to even talk about the realities of Israel and zionism openly without being shut out from public discourse, the claims of antisemitism doubled. People asserted that this is actually a continuation of the antisemitic trope that “Jews control the media.” Here, the philosemitic definition of antisemitism is used as a weapon with which to silence Marc Lamont Hill and then another weapon with which to stifle any discussion that is critical of the firing.
Over the past few years, there has been a massive spike in google searches for “Black antisemitism.” This spike in searches is greatest in New York, where there have been some attacks against Jewish people, some of which have been by non-Jewish Black people. Politicians, leaders in major Jewish organizations, and zionist activist groups began to demand major changes to protect the Jewish community against the threat that Black people allegedly pose. In the Tablet, one article by Liel Leibovitz claimed that a recent bail reform poses a threat to the Jews. Leibovitz writes “letting violent, hate-filled bigots walk free to commit more violent hate crimes as a matter of public policy is the definition of insanity. It’s evil. In practice, it seems, criminal justice reform and condemning police occupation are euphemisms for sacrificing the safety of real, live Jews on the altar of progressive claptrap.”
Over a dozen zionist organizations held a rally at the NYC City Hall which they called “Name it to Fight It! It’s Antisemitism! At this rally, Dov Hikind exclaimed that the work of fighting antisemitism “is on all of us — the Jewish community, as well as the non-Jewish minority communities where these attackers are coming from.” Mort Klein, the founder of the Zionist Organization of America, took his moment at the podium to assert “now is the time for African-American and Hispanic leaders to speak out against the brutal and regular and mindless attacks on innocent Jews” in New York. Most succinctly, Mort Klein demanded that the mayor not criticize the police and said that “compassion should be reserved for the innocent law-abiding victims, not the violent criminals.” Philosemitism asserts that Black people, who are antisemites until they prove otherwise, do not deserve compassion but instead must be policed. One potential solution, according to Mort Klein, was that the NYPD dress up as Orthodox Jews and patrol communities where Jews live to catch the Black people who allegedly endanger them. Whether or not Mort Klein sincerely believes this would be a good idea, I could think of no better way to increase actual hatred of Jews. Deneed Borelli said “most of the violent incidents against Jews in New York City are by Black men,” however this is literally a lie. In fact, white people commit antisemitic hate crimes in NYC at twice the rate Black people commit them. You might think that this can be explained by the fact that white people are a larger proportion of the NYC population. However, the number of hate crimes committed by white people in NYC is almost 25% higher than the proportion of white people in NYC’s population. Yet, there are no calls against “white antisemitism.” This is the philosemites justifying their colonial goals of increased policing of Black people in NYC ostensibly to “protect the Jews.” This is philosemitism.
Additionally, what is defined as a hate crime becomes dictated by the norms and definitions of our philosemitic society. Here, philosemitism meshes perfectly with anti-Black notions of who and what is “criminal.” How we understand not just a hate crime but an attack on Jews becomes dictated by the rhetoric which is being used to justify the colonial mission of “protecting the Jews.” Spray painting a synagogue is considered a hate crime, but the mass detention and surveillance of Muslim people by the NYPD and federal law enforcement agencies post 9/11 is not a “hate crime.” The incarceration of Black people is not considered a “hate crime.” Stop and frisk is not a “hate crime.” The goals of a colonial state are not counted as hate crimes. These state policies which enact great violence against people based on their position within systems of race, ethnicity, and religion are not considered hate crimes because hate crime is a legalistic principle. The state defines as legal its colonial goals. Illegal, however, is that which threatens or undermines these colonial goals. Acts of philosemitic antisemitism are defined as “hate crimes” but state policies which disempower, dispossess, murder, displace, incarcerate, and colonize people, are exempted from criminal status.
Further, understanding how antisemitism is being defined, redefined, and wielded, by philosemites, it becomes painfully clear why there has been a push to “educate” people on the ways it is acceptable to criticize Israel without being antisemitic. These attempts hope to alleviate the budding tension where people see what zionism is doing to the Palestinians and know it is wrong but are unsure how to discuss it due to the philosemitic attempts to obscure what antisemitism is. These “educational materials” are being created by leftists, liberals, and conservatives alike. In an article published in the Independent, the first tip for how people can criticize Israel without being antisemitic, is to “avoid saying “Zionist” or “Zionism” when discussing contemporary Israel/Palestine.” According to this article, “the terms are too loaded now, too coarse and broad in their application, and too often used by hardcore antisemites to mean simply Jews.” According to the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati, criticism of Israel “crosses the line” into antisemitism if “it is said that the Jewish State has no right to exist.” They tell us it’s acceptable to criticize the policies but not the existence of the state itself. To do that is antisemitic. In The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere, activist and writer April Rosenbaum provides a chart that educates you on how to avoid ‘slipping into antisemitism’ when you critique Israel. According to her, you must “describe accurately and specifically what you oppose, and critique actions and policy as unjust — not people or nations as evil.” So, instead of saying “zionism is racism” according to her, you should say “the Zionist movement has included elements of racism from its early days, such as the claim that Palestine was “a land without a people or a people without a land.” Major Zionist factions have implemented conscious, intentional racist policy. Regardless of individual Zionists’ intentions, Zionism as a whole has had racist & oppressive results for the Palestinian people.” My skin is crawling.
These efforts, which claim to help us “critique Israeli policy without being antisemitic” show their cards with the way they phrase this effort. They presuppose that our goal is to critique Israeli policy. That our venture should be to work towards a better Israel. They build this upon the fabricated democratic vision Israel claims to be built on, where our critiques of their policy might make some kind of difference. If this were not true, wouldn’t they instead focus their educational efforts at the people who are supporting a colonial venture in Palestine? Would they not make resources on “how to support Jewish self-determination without doing colonialism?” I assure you that these guides are not intended to do anything but ensure that people are framing discussions of zionism (if they’re even willing to openly speak the name of this political movement after reading articles claiming “zionist” is an antisemitic slur) around anything but anti-colonialism. They are an attempt to coax us into abandoning an anti-colonial politic and instead levy a proper and acceptable critique in the marketplace of ideals. They are imploring us to accept the white Euro-American humanist lies that they have baked into their philosemitic definition of antisemitism. Let me be perfectly clear, I do not think we need to critique Israeli policy. I think we need to end colonialism. Where are their guides for how to do this without “being antisemitic?”
A Way Out
A dynamic I have seen play out in some parents is, when they are mad at one of their children, they will ignore that child and will give presents and praise to their other children. This is an act that both mentally indebts the children to their parent and more sinisterly, is a form of psychological manipulation and dominance where the parent can punish and target one child by being facially nice to the others. Doing this, the parent doesn’t need to ever ‘get their hands dirty’. We can look at this dynamic and recognize it to not be truly nice but to be an act of deceit and manipulation by the parent. Additionally, we can recognize that while one child may, in some ways, benefit from this situation, in the times it is not targeting them, it is a dangerous dynamic. Finally, in the child who is receiving these presents, they are forced to understand that these presents come at a price, that price being subservience to remain in the good favor of their parent. Of course, it is easy for this child who is now receiving gifts to simply keep their mouth shut and reap their reward. But what if the children recognized this dynamic for what it is- abusive manipulation? What if instead of accepting their positions, they refused? What if the children declined to take part in or temporarily benefit from these manipulative and abusive tactics? What if the children recognized that this system pushes them to resent and fight one another, lest they be the target of their abusive parent, and fought back? What if the children rebelled?
For the Jews, self-determination will never be granted to us by white Euro-America. The Jews will never find safety while the world is dictated by colonial paradigms. We will never be given anything by a philosemitic America or Europe, which views us as pawns with which to justify their violent ventures abroad. Jewish liberation and self-determination are something we must build for ourselves in the ashes of a philosemitic white Euro-America. Jewish liberation requires us to rebel against the system which wields us.
