|

Ljiljana Radonić: New Antisemitism and New Media – Leftist Derealization of Islamist “Emancipation”

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Jean Améry referred to leftist anti-Zionists as “ehrbare Antisemiten” – virtuous antisemites.[1] While far-right antisemitism had been delegitimized after the defeat of the Nazis and its proponents now communicate in codes, directing their resentment, for instance, at “the East coast”, leftist antisemites present themselves as antifascists.[2] This paper – presented as part of the “Internet and Antisemitism” panel – argues that this distinction also influences the logic of how leftist antisemites use the new media. Before I elaborate on this theory-driven hypothesis with regard to “Antisemitism 2.0” it must be clarified that leftist antisemitism is best understood as one variant of modern antisemitism in its post-Holocaust transformation.[3] I will then introduce the term “new antisemitism” to describe a far-reaching ideological convergence of antisemitism since 9/11 and the “Second Intifada” across a range of ideologies and milieus that traditionally had precious little in common.[4] At its heart lies a form of antisemitic anti-Zionism that unites Islamists with many on the Far Right and the Left.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 The second, empirical part of my contribution analyzes the impact of this new antisemitism on discussions in leftist new media. I will focus specifically on the reactions to the Hamas policy paper of 2017, which some erroneously understood as a new Hamas Charta. The portrayal, by parts of the Left, of Hamas as the moderate variant of political Islam willing to integrate, as an emancipatory movement struggling for political freedom is almost as old as the original Hamas Charta. When in 2017 various leftists suddenly acknowledged Hamas’s antisemitism of the past, they did so only in order to assure us that, with this new policy paper, the Islamist terror organization really had now repudiated the antisemitic parts of the 1988 Charta. This speaks to a high level of “derealization”, whitewashing Hamas’s Islamist antisemitism in the wake of its ostensible change of heart, which, as I will show, can be witnessed in various new media.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Given that antisemitism has increased considerably over the last ten years not only in the social media,[5] but also in the online comment sections of quality media,[6] in the final part of the chapter, I present relevant posts to the discussion forum of the Austrian center-left daily Der Standard in the wake of the publication of the Hamas policy paper, demonstrating, not least, that the denial of Islamist antisemitism can go hand in hand with the portrayal of Muslims as the new Jews.[7]

From Modern to New Antisemitism

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 That antisemitism is not some marginal phenomenon found only among far-right activists or Neonazis should go without saying by now. If one wants to explain its various guises in general, and leftist and “new” antisemitism in particular, one needs to understand what antisemitism is and why antisemitic explanations play to people’s needs. Some authors stress the continuities between religious anti-Judaism before the Spanish inquisition and Martin Luther’s late conviction that Jews cannot become true Christians through baptism, on the one hand, and modern antisemitism, on the other. By contrast, I stress both the continuities and the rupture, which went hand in hand with the transformation from pre-modern to modern, capitalist society. I will first address the conditions under which modern antisemitism developed, surveying how it can be explained in social, economic and psychological terms. I will then discuss the transformation of antisemitism after the Holocaust, the emergence of so-called secondary, post-Holocaust antisemitism, and its expression on the political Left. Finally, I will touch on the so-called “new antisemitism”, the convergence, since 9/11, of far right, Muslim and left-wing antisemitism on the basis of their shared anti-Zionism.

Modern antisemitism

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 The Frankfurt School in general and Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer in particular did not want to acquire expert knowledge on political extremism but analyze society as a whole through the prism of the most terrible consequence generated by the principles of its formation. Antisemitism takes centre stage in the development of this critique because it facilitated the relapse into barbarism and unites all the destructive traits generated by the unfree society. The relapse into barbarism is analyzed as a potentiality of the modern world that culminated in Auschwitz and the other sites of annihilation, yet whose prerequisites persist.

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 The point of departure is the assumption that modern antisemitism developed in tandem with bourgeois-capitalist society. It followed on from pre-modern forms of anti-Jewish sentiment and took over the object of their hatred. In Europe, the tradition of Christian Anti-Judaism was of particular significance in this context. Modern antisemitism was originally a response to the emergence of capitalism and the dramatic social changes it brought with it. The direct relations of dependence in feudal society ceded to indirect and abstract forms of rule, characterized by Marx as the silent compulsion of economic relations.[8] The new societies nailed the values of freedom and equality to their mast. These were concepts which, though diametrically opposed to domination and exploitation in formal terms, were in fact their indispensible complement and ideological representation.

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Emancipation from the barriers of feudalism in general encompassed the emancipation of the Jews after centuries of exclusion and discrimination. Jews gained access to social spheres from which they had long been excluded and were able to gain a footing in new professions, especially in the cities. The Christian majority populations who were traditionally ill-disposed towards the Jews encountered them as “colonizers of modernity”.[9] The connection between the emancipation of the Jews and the apparent threat of modernization seemed self-evident. It was in particular all those changes that contradicted the traditional feudal way of life with all its rigid rules that were experienced as threatening. Large parts of the population rightly assumed that they would lose out when confronted with the dynamics of modern society that had been unleashed by the dictates of the accumulation of capital. Henceforth, not the coherent set of traditional rules would determine one’s life but one’s success or lack thereof on the market. Discontent with the uncomprehended mechanisms of a commodified society was targeted at the Jews. Modern antisemitism essentially results from the personalization of social relations under the rule of capital and the state. In ideological disputes the “Jewish Question” was stylized as the core of all social antagonisms. In the imagination of the antisemites, all the contradictions within their distorted image of “the Jews” were resolved through the myth of an alleged Jewish world conspiracy. Thus, it was possible to associate everything negative with one superior enemy.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Modern antisemitism is a particularly perfidious fetish. The supposedly “abstract” aspects of capitalism (value, capital, interest etc.) are juxtaposed to its supposedly “concrete” dimensions (the use value of the commodity, labour, production etc.) The antisemite distinguishes between good, “productive” and bad, “exploitative” capital. Antisemitism thus emerges as a form of reductionist “anti-capitalism”. Because it targets only the abstract side of capitalism, antisemitism is highly compatible with continued domination. Far from formulating a radical critique of the existing order, it perpetuates and consolidates the submission of the individual to the laws of modern society enforced by state and capital. The antisemites are only too familiar with the characteristics they project on to the Jews, since they in fact reflect their own repressed wishes and desires. Whatever contradicts the necessary self-denial of the subjects, whatever they cannot or may not admit to themselves, is ascribed to the Jews, in order then to affirm one’s self-denial by persecuting it in them.

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Antisemitism is therefore an authoritarian rebellion. An impulse that potentially points towards a radical critique of society, both in theoretical and practical terms, is neutralized, mutilated and transformed into its opposite. In a society of domination and unfreedom the sense that things might be different has to be persecuted. The Jews thus fall prey to a ritual that one could describe as a modern form of exorcism. By attacking the Jews the antisemites reassure themselves of their belonging to an ostensibly natural national collective that is meant to protect its members from the sometimes catastrophic consequences of life in capitalist society. As the subjects realize how little substance underpins their subjectivity they flee into the imagined protective community of the nation. „National mobilizations”, in Horkheimer’s words, “are the permitted alternative to revolution”.[10]

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 For the overwhelming majority the successful constitution of the subject is possible only if they manage to realize the sole commodity, which they still have at their disposal once they have been freed from the previous social relations and face each other as atomized individuals: their labour. Yet their success or lack of success in realizing this commodity lies beyond the individual subject’s sphere of influence. Consequently, subjectivity is an ideological construct in bourgeois society. Horkheimer and Adorno are referring to this thwarted liberation when they write that the antisemitic reaction is triggered in situations in which “deceived human beings who have been robbed of their subjectivity are set loose as subjects”[11]

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 We are dealing, then, with a damaged subject. It is damaged because, in the interest of self-preservation, it has to place demands on itself, which it cannot actually meet by itself. In psychoanalytic terms: the subject is forced to hypostatize itself in a narcissistic fashion, which, in turn, inevitably sets it up for narcissistic injury. The “specific motives” underlying antisemitism Freud identified as those that spring “from secret Sources”.[12] Yet, it should not be forgotten that the psychology of the individual is socially grounded. While the laws of society cannot be derived from the psychological profiles of individuals, the individual is “not merely an individual and the substratum of psychology but always also … a carrier of the social regulations that shape it. … Even the vulgar materialism that explains individual responses with tangible profit interests is right when compared to the psychologist who derives the economic behavior of adults that conforms to objective economic laws from their childhood”[13].

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 The studies on the authoritarian personality[14] revealed that antisemitism is complemented by various other character traits, all of which together constitute the authoritarian personality. It is interpreted as the outcome of an upbringing in a patriarchal family with a dominant father figure that is characterized by a lack of affection, strict discipline, the trivialization of inward processes and a rigid orientation towards external conventions. This sort of upbringing obstructs a successful integration of the super ego. Children are unable to develop a stable ego capable of creating an equilibrium between the urges of the id and the social norms and constraints established in the super ego. The resulting weakness of the ego creates a predisposition in the individual to follow external authorities and conventions in their thoughts and actions rather than their own judgments and to avoid making judgments of their own in the first place. Typical traits of this authoritarian syndrome are “rigid conventionality as well as unreflective adherence to social norms and regulations”[15] and a conformism that “expresses alarm whenever social deviation occurs.”[16]

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Since the experience of impotence cannot be admitted, it is psychologized into the “feeling of impotence”. Individuals “are incapable of experiencing their impotence and looking it into the eye”. Hence, “they have to process their impotence into a ‘feeling’ and turn it into a psychological sediment”[17]. This sense of impotence contradicts the narcissistic hypostatization of the self and as long as the actual causes of this constellation remain opaque for the individual it is likely to look for somebody to blame. The only thing it knows for sure is that it is definitely not to blame.

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 A rigid, moralizing upbringing leads to the repression of illicit feelings and the need constantly to prevent them from becoming conscious again. Since this absorbs a considerable amount of energy it represents a great relief if one can project the illicit feelings on to “alien” others. In other words, one of the means of resistance against the efforts of unconscious wishes and desires to resurface consists in seeing those wishes and desires in others while refusing to acknowledge them in oneself. Arbitrary projections are facilitated by an insufficient ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Somebody who can only see in the victims of his delusion those traits that he has repressed or cannot admit to himself, is essentially impervious to experience. Borrowing from Kant, one could say that for an antisemite, antisemitism forms the a priori of all possible experience. All objects of experience are always already shaped in a particular way, as a result of which contradictory perceptions are rendered entirely impossible.

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 The authoritarian personality “feels challenged and threatened by those people who deviate from the irrational and authoritarian structure of repression.”[18] Qualities such as freedom, equality and emancipation, which bourgeois society has been unable to realize, are attributed to “the Jews”. Individuals find their narcissism constantly injured as they are forced to sell themselves day for day on the labor market, painfully aware of their replaceability. They have hundreds of wishes and understand the system well enough to know they will never be fulfilled. Yet buried deep down within them, they suspect that there might be more, they sense the possibility of “happiness without power, reward without work, a homeland without frontiers.”[19]

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 The timeless antisemitic notion that Jews are greedy and exploitative shrouds the unconscious envy of those who supposedly do not need to work and receive everything for free and without having to make an effort. Above and beyond the racist projection that hates and envies black people because of their imagined hyper-sexuality, and foreigners because they supposedly do not have to work, antisemitism also encompasses the alleged omnipotence of the Jews. While racists may envy individual foreigners because of their apparent “right to laziness”, the latter nevertheless remains as powerless vis-à-vis the system as the former. The ostensibly powerful “Jew”, by contrast, is also hated and envied because of his omnipotence. Against this backdrop, “the quotidian religion of antisemitism offers guilty victims suited as objects of the conformist rebellion.”[20] In contrast to the victim of racism who is supposedly inferior, “the Jew” makes for an apt personification of negative authority because of his alleged intention to dominate the planet and his omnipotence. This is the crucial distinction between racism and (modern) antisemitism. Above and beyond all the benefits of racist projection, antisemitism offers the opportunity to act out not against the actual authorities but against others who are supposedly in a position of authority, and thus to rebel without harming one’s own collective.

Secondary, Post-Holocaust Antisemitism – Rightwing and Leftwing

17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Secondary antisemitism is a particular form of modern antisemitism that has been shaped by the Holocaust. It seems inevitable that the attempt to annihilate European Jewry, which nearly succeeded, has had an effect on the concept and manifestation of antisemitism. In Germany and Austria, it is certainly impossible to analyze antisemitism, be it as a social or individual phenomenon, without considering the transformed circumstances following the genocide. The situation has changed insofar as an unreserved affirmation of the nation was no longer possible once the crimes had become public knowledge. In Germany and Austria, Auschwitz has become synonymous with an injury to the collective narcissism. Its recollection is affectively charged in a strong way and triggers public responses that clearly reveal the desire to deny, forget, keep secret and relativize. Leaving to one sense a core of inveterate Jew haters, antisemitism after Auschwitz is antisemitism because of Auschwitz. Against this backdrop the contentions of modern antisemitism are recycled and modified.

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Adorno already analyzed numerous evasion strategies of this kind in the 1950s.[21] Take the example of the call that a line should finally be drawn beneath the past that is constantly raised in public debate as though it broke a major taboo for the first time. In fact, this has been a constant feature of “coming to terms with the past” in Germany and Austria since the late 1940s.

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Austria has made its own original contribution in this context by styling herself as the first victim of National Socialism. To be sure, self-victimization is not unknown in the Berlin Republic either. The annual commemoration of the Allied bombing of Dresden is an obvious case in point. Even so, the current German state, as the successor state to Nazi Germany, has not been able to evade the past in quite the same way as Austria.

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 Secondary antisemitism is particularly dangerous insofar as it allows it proponents to see themselves as the innocent victim acting in self-defense. Modern antisemitism’s paranoid conspiracy theories are rarely still propagated openly. The notion that an international Jewish community is working in a clandestine manner to destroy and subjugate the non-Jewish peoples may still enthuse a surprisingly large audience but, currently at least, it does not resonate with the broad masses. The contention that Jews are globally instrumentalizing the Holocaust for their ends, on the other hand, seems very popular. By thinking of oneself as an individual who merely wants to be left in peace to lead a decent life but is prevented from doing so by “certain circles” who are, in fact, seeking revenge, anti-Jewish aggression appears simply as a form of self-defense.

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 While secondary antisemitism draws its momentum from the confrontation with the past it is not merely backward-directed. It does not differ in principle from modern antisemitism but adapts it to the circumstances of post-Holocaust society.[22] Secondary antisemitism thrives not despite but because of Auschwitz. At its heart is the desire to forget the National Socialist crimes and rid oneself of related negative feelings. This paradoxical constellation has aptly been summarized in the contention that the Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 In contrast to that, antisemitism on the Left springs not so much from the desire to engage in unreserved affirmation of one’s own nation but has more to do with prevalent left-wing concepts of capitalism and imperialism, state and nation, fascism and National Socialism. Many on the Left have reduced National Socialism to a particular heinous form of class domination by the most aggressive parts of the bourgeoisie.[23] For the longest time the annihilatory antisemitism of the Nazis was largely ignored or understood functionally as a means of domination and distraction deployed in the interest of goals other than the annihilation of European Jewry.

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 The traditional Left conceptualizes capitalism not as fetishized social totality that should be criticized for its reification of social relations, but rather as the sum total of all capitalists with whom the working class finds itself in constant irreconcilable conflict. This inevitably generates a binary, reifying, personalizing and moralizing imaginary, which hinges on the notion of a clique of evil rulers who rely on direct repression and blunt propaganda and who corrupt the working class with social policy, in order to dominate the ruled.

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 Critique and activism are thus directed not against a particular set of social relations but against the people who actually or allegedly represent one side of these social relations, and herein lies the structural analogy to antisemitism. Consequently, many on the Left also subscribe to a reductionist concept of imperialism that identifies it with foreign rule and exploitation by foreign capital. The uncritical identification with movements of national liberation in the developing world has led to the affirmation of categories such as state, nation, and people. This kind of anti-imperialism, which cannot distinguish between the critique of imperialism and unreserved partisanship for the victims of imperialism almost inevitably leads to collaboration with dictators, völkisch nationalists and antisemites.[24]

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 After the Six-Days-War in 1967 leftist antisemites have come to depict Israel as an imperialist Goliath who should know better – given his experience of the Shoa – than to behave like the new Nazis and make Arabs in their country the new Jews of today. In contrast to the right-wing antisemites, who try to cover their antisemitism through the use of codes as “the East coast”, leftist, “reputable antisemites” (Améry) are proud of their alleged anti-fascist engagement against Israel.

New Antisemitism

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 Especially since 9/11, a far-reaching ideological convergence of antisemitism has taken place across a range of ideologies and milieux that traditionally have precious little in common. At its heart lies a form of antisemitic anti-Zionism on which Islamists and many on the Far Right and the Left can agree. All of them see themselves and the world as the victims of some kind of Jewish-Zionist-capitalist conspiracy that is being played out in politics, the economy and the media.[25] This notion tends to merge closely with anti-Americanism, the critique of globalization and anti-modernism.

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 In addition to Natan Sharansky’s 3 Ds which help us pinpoint when the so called “Israel critique” is antisemitic – demonization, double standards and delegitimization[26] – Monika Schwarz-Friesel and Jehuda Reinharz have introduced an overarching category: derealization. Derealizing linguistic utterances do not portray reality as it in fact is, but language is rather instrumentalized by the language-generators to verbalize aspects of the world as they view them.[27] This leads to the derealization of current antisemitism, of the existing threats and attacks against Israel. This way “state terrorism” of the evil Goliath always appears disproportional.

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 As the global anti-Zionist struggle that is being conducted on a daily basis by right-wing extremists, left-wing opponents of globalization, Arab fighters and those motived by radical Islam unfolds, the book market is being flooded with publications whose authors tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves but also seek to distance themselves from the card-carrying antisemites. It is no longer a secret that left-wing anti-imperialism and the anti-globalization movement have a problem with antisemitism. On the one hand, there is the rampant anti-Zionism that turns various European and Social Justice forums into festivals of multi-cultural hatred against Israel. On the other hand, there is a form of critique of the global economic order, which has repeatedly been accused of arguing in a manner that is “structurally antisemitic”. The ensuing controversy tends to hinge not on matters of substance but on the issue of correct terminology. Given that very few proponents of this agenda want to be classified as antisemites, the more sophisticated among them appropriate theories of antisemitism in order to develop modes of expression that have not been delegitimized by Adorno’s critique. Some of them have understood that it is not opportune to display images that show the world in the arms of a repulsive octopus (though this imagery remains exceptionally popular among anti-globalization activists). Yet their underlying assumptions about the state and the economy remain the same and they fail to critique the social phenomena which crystallize into antisemitism.

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 Even worse are the debates regarding Arab/Muslim antisemitism which, for the most part, simply fail to address the issue and principally focus on questions of terminology. Usually the first question raised is that of whether an antisemitic tradition existed in the Arab world or antisemitism was in fact imported from the West. The disparagement and contempt that the Islamic tradition displayed towards Jews doubtless influenced the ideologue of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb.[28] Horkheimer, Adorno and their colleagues insisted that modern antisemitism, while not divorced from its religiously motivated precursors, was nevertheless distinct from them due to the emergence of abstract forms of domination as capitalism transformed the world in its image. This same process has also taken place in the Arab world, though with a certain delay and under economically and politically less advanced circumstances. Traditional Catholic anti-Judaism may have influenced Hitler but it is not central to an understanding of his antisemitism.

30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 In this process anti-Jewish hatred there has been transformed into murderous modern antisemitism as well. Whether, in the past, Jews were persecuted in the same way in the Arab realm as they were in Europe is therefore not all too important. More important are the ideological processes that accompanied the capitalist transformation and it is clear that in this context modern antisemitism has proven to be as successful in the Middle East as it was in Central and Eastern Europe.

31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 The focus on pre-modern traditions thus signifies a fundamental lack of interest in the phenomenon of modern antisemitism from the outset and prevents a critique of the social conditions that allow antisemitism to enthuse the masses in Cairo as much as it inspires the Iranian regime. Even people who know about secondary antisemitism and may well have heard of “antisemitism without Jews” can suddenly account for antisemitism in the Middle East in no other way than by blaming the Jews.[29]

32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 Insofar as social causes come into play at all, they are conceptualized as the ostensible consequences of European colonialism, once again turning the problem into one ultimately created by Europe. Those unwilling to tackle rigid sexual morals, genital mutilation and the aggressively repressed homoeroticism of the Muslim ummah can obviously muster little more than a shrug of the shoulders when confronted with the suggestions that antisemitism has something to do with the repression of wishes and desires in an oppressive society.

33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 As Omer Bartov has shown, a central element of “new antisemitism” is the belittlement of Islamist antisemitism in the western Left. The example he discusses is the speech of the Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir 2003 at the Islamic Conference – in front of 57 heads of states and 2000 journalists:

34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 “Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They, this tiny community, have become a world power. … We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also. … 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategise and then to counter attack. As Muslims we must seek guidance from the Al-Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet.”[30]

35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 In reaction to that Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times that the “remarks were inexcusable. But they were also calculated – for Mr. Mahathir is a cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor foolish. … Mahathir is … about as forward-looking a Muslim leader as we’re likely to find. … So what’s with the anti-Semitism? Almost surely it’s part of Mr. Mahathir’s domestic balancing act … Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform.” Krugman belittles Mahatir’s antisemitism as a domestic strategy of a forward-looking statesman and blames the US for antisemitism in the Muslim world. This derealization of Islamist antisemitism and anti-Zionism in the western Left has become a dominant part of a new, global antisemitism.[31]

New Antisemitism and New Media

36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 Against this theoretical background I would suggest that there is one significant distinction between the function of the new media for right-wing as opposed to left-wing users: the frequently discussed anonymity of the internet allows right-wing users to express antisemitic opinions more openly than they otherwise might.[32] Left-wing users, by contrast, feel no urge to hide behind pseudonyms in the first place, since they are, after all, “virtuous antisemites”. Many of them see themselves as antifascist activists, so why the need for anonymity? In this case, the problem lies elsewhere: Left-wing and center-left new media platforms and forums claim that they ban not only racist and sexist but antisemitic content too. Yet anti-Zionism and the derealization of Islamist antisemitism turn out to be a blind spot – and thus the codes of conduct turn out to be a toothless tiger when it comes to leftist antisemitism.

37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 In the following I will analyze reactions to Hamas’s new policy paper from May 2017 on leftist internet platforms and in the forum of the Austrian daily Der Standard. In scholarly literature that does not turn a blind eye towards Islamist antisemitism, the Hamas Charta of 1988 is often presented as an example of blatant antisemitism.[33] It claims:

38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. … The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realised. … The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. … The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems kill the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”[34]

39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 In 2017 Hamas sought to widen its international appeal at a time when the group faced “multiple challenges, including a dismal economic situation in Gaza – most recently underscored by the energy crisis in Gaza – and strained relations with Egypt, which is at war with Hamas’s parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.”[35] The relationship with the Iranian regime too had become tenuous.[36] Its new policy paper of 1 May 2017 demonstrated the group’s desire to appear more moderate and gain broader support: Hamas’s
“goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. … Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. … Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity. … The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine. … Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. … There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.”[37]

40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 Hamas claims, then, that its conflict is with the Zionist project and “not with the Jews”, yet it still demands that the Zionist project should “disappear from Palestine”, which should be liberated “from the river to the sea”. It refers to a “national consensus” calling for a return to the status quo ante, i.e., the status prior to the Six Day War of 1967, yet at the same time demands a Palestinian state “on the entire Palestinian soil”.

41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 Rather than discuss Hamas’s claim that its conflict is not with the Jews, but only with Zionism, I want to analyze reactions to the policy paper on the German-speaking Left. Needless to say, “the Left” in the post-Nazi German and Austrian context encompasses a broad range of positions.

42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 Representative for the lunatic fringe of the discourse on Hamas, Israel and the Middle East is “The Palestine Portal. Never again – Noone – Nowhere”. Its section on antisemitism bears the heading “No to antisemitism – no to its instrumentalization”, which already indicates that the portal focuses on the denunciation of the critique of anti-Zionism. Before Hamas published its policy paper in 2017, the portal provided a link to a site, which presented Hamas as “not radical in its entirety” and “not the Taliban”. Hamas was a group comparable to the PLO in the 1980s with which the Israelis and the US should negotiate. To exclude it from talks just because “the military arm of Hamas has carried out assassinations” would be “unfair”.[38] In 2009, the portal claimed that continued reference to the 1988 Charta “completely ignores Hamas’ development in the last ten years”[39] from a resistance and activist group to a political party that relies on democratic means. “The use of excerpts from the Charta as proof of Hamas’s anti-Zionist militancy turns out to be rather embarrassing for those who quote them as soon as one makes the effort of putting those quotations back into the context from which they were torn.”[40]

43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 So even before the policy paper was published in 2017, the Palestine portal denied Hamas’s antisemitism – only to clarify after its publication that while the Charta may have been radical, “the new [Hamas] document merely lends expression to forms of politics that have been undergoing a process of ‘moderation’ for the past decade anyway. But because Hamas does now agree to a Palestinian state within the borders of 1967 (the two-state solution), Netanyahu needed to denounce Hamas as ‘rejectionist’ on the grounds that it does not recognize Israel.“[41] No mention was made of the continued call to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli reaction was immediately identified as the real problem: Netanyahu had argued that Hamas “brainwashes kids inside suicide camps”, hence, the text’s author suggested, “it would be interesting to look at some examples of the violent brainwashing of children by Israel” instead. It is worth mentioning that the equation of Israeli policies with those of the Nazis is standard fare for the portal’s founder Erhard Arendt: “It was shocking for me to realize that those who used to be the victims have now become the perpetrators”, he wrote on one occasion.[42]

44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0 More mainstream center-Left media do not imply that the Israelis are the new Nazis, but they too, pursue, I would argue, a similar derealization strategy, readily misinterpret the Hamas paper of 2017. In the German taz, Susanne Knaul claimed that “for the first time in its history Hamas has officially accepted the foundation of a Palestinian state only in the territories occupied by Israel. This paper no longer includes the explicit demand for the annihilation of Israel found in the Hamas Charta of 1988. The military wing has had to agree to turn its back on its founding fathers.”[43] Leaving to one side that the areas still under Israeli occupation would make for a rather limited Palestinian state, as we saw, Hamas’s continued demand for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the see explicitly calls for Israel’s annihilation. Moreover, Hamas officials have made very clear that the paper does not in fact replace the Charta.[44] In contrast to Leftist newspapers, the liberal German newspapers Die Zeit and Süddeutsche Zeitung do mention both of these points.[45] In the liberal-conservative monthly Cicero, Michael Wolffsohn explicitly called the Hamas paper a new façade for an old building designed to hide Hamas’ antisemitism. All too many, he lamented, were falling for this ruse.[46]

45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 The Austrian center-left quality newspaper Der Standard reported on the Hamas policy paper on May 1, 2017 and on Netanyahu’s response the following day. I will briefly mention the points raised in these two reports and then analyze the reactions to them in the Standard Online forum. Typically for center-left media, Standard Online wrongly referred to the Hamas paper as “a document in which Hamas accepts the establishment of a Palestinian state in the borders of 1967.”[47] A small minority of those posting responses to this article (four out of 56) resorted to derealizing arguments. “Maynard52”, for example, claimed that “Hamas never wanted to kill Jews because they are Jews, but to resist the Zionist occupiers. Have you actually realized that there is a brutal occupation regime in place?” Here, Hamas’s crude antisemitism was simply denied altogether.

46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 Another user posted under the name “Shitty little country”, thus alluding to the infamous utterance of the then French ambassador in London, Daniel Bernard, three months after the attacks on 9/11. At a dinner party at the house of the then proprietor of The Telegraph, Conrad Black, and his wife, Barbara Amiel, Bernard had referred to Israel a “shitty little county”. On Amiel’s account he had gone on to ask why the world should be “in danger of World War Three because of those people?”[48] “I am only allowed to criticize Israel if the situation has changed???” the user who had chosen to post under this name asked indignantly and went on: “But the current system in which everyone who criticizes Israel is an antisemite actually works quite well.” The claim that one is not allowed to criticize Israel and that any and every critique of Israel is automatically considered antisemitic is, of course, a central plank of the anti-Zionist “critique of Israel”, even though there is a clear and obvious distinction between criticisms of specific policies or actions of the Israeli government or military and the comprehensive delegitimization of Israel.[49] Another user, “Jtiberius”, wrote: “Don’t worry, Israel will continue to receive more money for its illegal policy than Hamas.” “Which one?”, another user asked. “The illegal settlement policy. The illegal policy of defense. The illegal human rights policy”, “Jtiberius” responded. In the world of conspiracy theories, it seems self-evident that Israel is receiving money from non-specified outside forces. The policy of defense is tied together with the debatable settlement policy so that both can be portrayed as illegal in the same way.

47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 A second report published by the Standard Online dealt with the reaction of the Israeli government to the Hamas paper and wrongly claimed, yet again, that “Hamas has dropped the call for the destruction of Israel.”[50] Since the main topic of this second article was Israel, the tone of the responses became much harsher. “Hellene Kurz” resorted to one of the most common demonization strategies when she asked: “what do you expect from the war mongers netanjahu & co”. “Der_wiedergänger” meanwhile was sure that “the Palestinians can try whatever they want – it will never be enough for Israel. Q.E.D. – it becomes clear once again who is standing in the way of peace.” “Callimachus”, who regularly takes issue with this narrative in the Standard forum, summed up the anti-Zionist derealization in the following way: “Self defense is war. Terror is resistance. Peace is the destruction of Israel”. Taken out of context, his remark might even be mistaken for a particularly drastic antisemitic comment.

48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 Alongside the identification of Israeli war-mongering as the sole source of conflict, equating Israel with Apartheid South Africa is another popular delegitimization strategy. The user “Minced Meat” wrote: “I call Israel’s policy Apartheid, and I am absolutely right.” Note the absence of an actual argument and the self-assuredness. That a coalition of four Arab-dominated parties, the “Joint list”, is currently the third largest party in the Israeli parliament or that Salim Joubran served as the country’s first Arab Supreme Court justice from 2003 to 2017, facts like these are simply ignored.[51] “My soul slides away” was sure that that “over 95% of schools are segregated. In my eyes this is racial segregation!” On similar grounds “*Tiefgang*” claimed that Israel was not a democratic state: “today’s Greater Israel is a product of robbery and will never be accepted in this form. But Israel does not care about this either. Israel prefers to stay an exclusively Jewish state, a theocracy, instead of constituting itself as a democratic state.”

49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 A user calling himself “Staatsvertrag”[52], finally, implied that Israel was doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis had done to the Jews. Responding to a user who had pointed out that Israel had withdrawn from the Gaza Strip in order to obtain peace for land and that Hamas was entirely to blame for the comprehensive Egyptian and partial Israeli blockades, “Staatsvertrag” asked: “Which ‘land’ was given [back]? Definitely not Gaza: Gaza is still under siege and an open-air prison. A ghetto.” The depiction of the Israelis as the new Nazis who keep the Palestinians in a ghetto is a well-established trope in “antifascist antisemitism”.

50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 It is important to note that Standard online is the moderated forum of arguably the most respectable quality newspaper in Austria. According to its code of conduct, “no racist, sexist, misogynic, homophobic, antisemitic or other misanthropic posts”[53] are allowed. Yet anti-Zionism and denial of Israel’s right to exist is evidently not considered problematic. Not even the equation implied by referring to Gaza as a ghetto is identified and censored as antisemitic.

51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 As opposed to right-wing antisemitism, left-wing antisemitism does not blossom under the protection of anonymity. It is self-assured and forthright. It is high time that new media platforms and forums firmly incorporate anti-Zionism into their definitions of antisemitism. They need to ban postings, which claim that Israel is an Apartheid state, imply or openly demand that it must be destroyed or dismantled, or suggest that Gaza is a ghetto and thus imply that the Israelis are the new Nazis. None of this has anything to do with censoring criticism of Israeli policies or actions. Nor does the critique of leftist anti-Zionism and the leftist tendency to whitewash Islamist antisemitism amount to the claim that “the Left” is antisemitic. Yet neither, given its prevalence in centrist and center-Left media, can one dismiss the problem of secondary, post-Holocaust antisemitism simply as a problem of the extreme right and a few activists on the loony left.

Bibliography

52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 Adorno, Theodor W. “Was bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit.” In Gesammelte Schriften 10.2. Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft II: Eingriffe. Stichworte, 555–572. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, 1977.

53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 Adorno, Theodor W. “Zum Verhältnis von Soziologie und Psychologie.” [1955] In Soziologische Schriften 1, 42–85. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999.

54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson and Nevitt Sanford. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row 1950.

55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0 Améry, Jean. “Der ehrbare Antisemitismus. Rede zur Woche der Brüderlichkeit.” In Weiterleben – aber wie? Essays 1968–1978, 151–175. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1982.

56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 Bartov, Omer. “Der alte und der neue Antisemitismus.” In Neuer Antisemitismus? Ein globale Debatte, edited by Doron Rabinovici, Ulrich Speck and Natan Sznaider, 26–43. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2004.

57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0 Benz, Wolfgang. “Holocaust Denial: Anti-Semitism as a Refusal to Accept Reality.” Historein 11 (2011): 69–79.

58 Leave a comment on paragraph 58 0 Bob, Jonah Jeremy. “The legacy of Israel’s first Arab Supreme Court judge.” The Jerusalem Post, August 4, 2017, https://www.jpost.com/International/The-legacy-of-Israels-first-Arab-Supreme-Court-judge-501567.

59 Leave a comment on paragraph 59 0 Bohleber, Werner and John S. Kafka, eds. Antisemitismus. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 1992.

60 Leave a comment on paragraph 60 0 Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. “Countering Hate on the Internet.” Annual Review of Law and Ethics 22 (2014): 431–443

61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 0 Freud, Sigmund. “Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion.” [1939] In Studienausgabe IX. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 2000.

62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0 Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. “The Globalization of Antisemitism.” Forward, May 2, 2003, https://forward.com/opinion/8736/the-globalization-of-antisemitism/.

63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 0 Grigat, Stephan. “Antisemitismus und Antizionismus in der Linken.” Hagalil.com, April 18, 2002, http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/europa/linker-antisemitismus.htm.

64 Leave a comment on paragraph 64 0 Haury, Thomas. Antisemitismus von links. Kommunistische Ideologie, Nationalismus und Antizionismus in der frühen DDR. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2002.

65 Leave a comment on paragraph 65 0 Haury, Thomas. “Die Ideologie, die nicht vergehen will. 35 Jahre antisemitischer Antizionismus in der Neuen deutschen Linken,” in Trotz und wegen Auschwitz, edited by AG Antifa/Antira im StuRa der Uni Halle, 92–114. Münster: Unrast, 2004.

66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0 Hirsch, David. Contemporary Left Antisemitism. London: Routledge, 2018.

67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0 Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997.

68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0 Horkheimer, Max. “Die Juden und Europa.” In Wirtschaft, Recht und Staat im Nationalsozialismus. Analysen des Instituts für Sozialforschung 1939-1942 von Max Horkheimer u.a., edited by Helmut Dubiel and Alfons Söllner. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984.

69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0 Knaul, Susanne. “Die Hamas gibt sich versöhnlicher.” taz, May 2, 2017, https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5405601&s=hamas/.

70 Leave a comment on paragraph 70 0 Kohn-Ley, Charlotte. “Antisemitische Mütter – antizionistische Töchter?” In Der feministische „Sündenfall“? Antisemitische Vorurteile in der Frauenbewegung, edited by Charlotte Kohn-Ley and Ilse Korotin, 209–230. Wien: Picus, 1994.

71 Leave a comment on paragraph 71 0 Küntzel, Matthias. “National socialism and anti-semitism in the Arab world.” Jewish Political Studies Review 17, no. 1–2 (Spring 2005): 99–118.

72 Leave a comment on paragraph 72 0 Levitt, Matthew and Maxine Rich. “Hamas’s Moderate Rhetoric Belies Militant Activities.” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 1, 2017, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/hamass-moderate-rhetoric-belies-militant-activities.

73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0 Litvak, Meir. “The Anti-Semitism of Hamas,” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture 12, no. 2–3 (Dec 2005): 41–46.

74 Leave a comment on paragraph 74 0 Markl, Florian. “Beschädigtes Leben und Judenhaß. Kritik des Antisemitismus als Gesellschaftskritik.” In Feindaufklärung und Reeducation. Kritische Theorie gegen Postnazismus und Islamismus, edited by Stephan Grigat, 131–153. Freiburg: Ça ira, 2006.

75 Leave a comment on paragraph 75 0 Markl, Florian. “Hamas-Angebot: Ergebnis der internationalen Isolation.” Mena-watch, September 18, 2017, https://www.mena-watch.com/mena-analysen-beitraege/hamas-angebot-ergebnis-der-internationalen-isolierung/.

76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0 Marx, Karl. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Berlin: Dietz, 1993.

77 Leave a comment on paragraph 77 0 Ofir, Jonathan. “Warum werden israelische Kinder einer Gehirnwäsche unterzogen, damit sie hassen?.” Das Palästina Portal, May 10, 2017, http://palaestina-portal.eu/texte/texte-7.htm.

78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0 Pfahl-Traughber, Armin. “Antisemitismus und Antizionismus in der Charta der Hamas. Eine Fallstudie zur Judenfeindschaft im islamistischen Diskurs.” In Dossier: Antisemitismus, edited by Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 113–116. Bonn: bpb, 2011.

79 Leave a comment on paragraph 79 0 Rabinovici, Doron, Ulrich Speck and Natan Sznaider, eds. Neuer Antisemitismus? Ein globale Debatte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2004.

80 Leave a comment on paragraph 80 0 Rennsmann, Lars. Kritische Theorie über den Antisemitismus. Studien zu Struktur, Erklärungspotential und Aktualität. Berlin/Hamburg: Argument, 1998.

81 Leave a comment on paragraph 81 0 Rensmann, Lars. “Guilt, Resentment, and Post-Holocaust Democracy: The Frankfurt School’s Analysis of ‘Secondary Antisemitism’ in the Group Experiment and Beyond.” Antisemitism Studies 1, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 4–37.

82 Leave a comment on paragraph 82 0 Rohlfink, Sarah. “Hate on the Internet.” in The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime, edited by Nathan Hall, Abbee Corb, Paul Giannasi and John G. D. Grieve, 293–304. London: Routledge, 2015.

83 Leave a comment on paragraph 83 0 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika and Evyatar Friesel. “‘Gestern die Juden, heute die Muslime…’? Von den Gefahren falscher Analogien.” in Islamophobie und Antisemitismus – ein umstrittener Vergleich, edited by Gideon Botsch, Olaf Glöckner, Christoph Kopke and Michael Spieker, 29–50. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter, 2012.

84 Leave a comment on paragraph 84 0 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika and Jehuda Reinharz. Die Sprache der Judenfeindschaft im 21. Jahrhundert. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.

85 Leave a comment on paragraph 85 0 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika and Jehuda Reinharz. Inside the Antisemitic Mind. The Language of Jew-Hatred in Contemporary Germany. Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2017.

86 Leave a comment on paragraph 86 0 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika. Antisemitism 2.0 and the Cyberculture of Hate. Hostility towards Jews as a cultural constant and collective emotional value in the digital age (short version). Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin, 2018, https://www.linguistik.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg72/Antisemitism_2.0_short_version_final2.pdf.

87 Leave a comment on paragraph 87 0 Sharansky, Natan. “3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization.” Jewish Political Studies Review 16, no. 3–4 (Fall 2004), http://jcpa.org/article/3d-test-of-anti-semitism-demonization-double-standards-delegitimization/.

88 Leave a comment on paragraph 88 0 Silbermann, Alphons. Der ungeliebte Jude. Zur Soziologie des Antisemitismus. Zürich: Interfrom, 1981.

89 Leave a comment on paragraph 89 0 The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas”. “A Document of General Principles and Policies.” May 2017, http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies.

90 Leave a comment on paragraph 90 0 Tibi, Bassam. “From Sayyid Qutb to Hamas: The Middle East Conflict and the Islamization of Antisemitism.” In The Yale Papers. Antisemitism in Comparative Perspective, edited by Charles Asher Small, 457–483. New York: Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, 2015.

91 Leave a comment on paragraph 91 0 Wolffsohn, Michael. “Neue Fassade, altes Haus.” Cicero. Magazin für politische Kultur, May 8, 2017, https://www.cicero.de/aussenpolitik/hamas-paper-neue-fassade-altes-haus.

92 Leave a comment on paragraph 92 0 World Jewish Congress and Vigo Social Intelligence. The Rise of Antisemitism on Social Media. Summary of 2016. New York: World Jewish Congress, 2016.


Notes

93 Leave a comment on paragraph 93 0 [1] Jean Améry, “Der ehrbare Antisemitismus. Rede zur Woche der Brüderlichkeit,” in: Jean Améry, Weiterleben – aber wie? Essays 1968–1978, 151–175 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1982).

94 Leave a comment on paragraph 94 0 [2] Charlotte Kohn-Ley, “Antisemitische Mütter – antizionistische Töchter?,” in Der feministische „Sündenfall“? Antisemitische Vorurteile in der Frauenbewegung, edited by Charlotte Kohn-Ley and Ilse Korotin, 209–230 (Wien: Picus, 1994); David Hirsch, Contemporary Left Antisemitism (London: Routledge, 2018), 1.

95 Leave a comment on paragraph 95 0 [3] Thomas Haury, Antisemitismus von links. Kommunistische Ideologie, Nationalismus und Antizionismus in der frühen DDR (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2002). Of course the “left” is a very unspecific term; here it applies to a broad spectrum from center-left positions to the lunatic fringe in post-national socialist Germany and Austria.

96 Leave a comment on paragraph 96 0 [4] Doron Rabinovici, Ulrich Speck and Natan Sznaider, eds., Neuer Antisemitismus? Ein globale Debatte (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2004).

97 Leave a comment on paragraph 97 0 [5] World Jewish Congress and Vigo Social Intelligence, The Rise of Antisemitism on Social Media. Summary of 2016 (New York: World Jewish Congress, 2016), 8.

98 Leave a comment on paragraph 98 0 [6] Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Antisemitism 2.0 and the Cyberculture of Hate. Hostility towards Jews as a cultural constant and collective emotional value in the digital age (short version) (Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin, 2018), 7, https://www.linguistik.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg72/Antisemitism_2.0_short_version_final2.pdf.

99 Leave a comment on paragraph 99 0 [7] Monika Schwarz-Friesel and Evyatar Friesel, “‘Gestern die Juden, heute die Muslime…’? Von den Gefahren falscher Analogien,” in Islamophobie und Antisemitismus – ein umstrittener Vergleich, edited by Gideon Botsch, Olaf Glöckner, Christoph Kopke and Michael Spieker, 29–50 (Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter, 2012).

100 Leave a comment on paragraph 100 0 [8] Karl Marx, Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band (Berlin: Dietz, 1993), 765.

101 Leave a comment on paragraph 101 0 [9] Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997), 184.

102 Leave a comment on paragraph 102 0 [10] Max Horkheimer, “Die Juden und Europa,” in Wirtschaft, Recht und Staat im Nationalsozialismus. Analysen des Instituts für Sozialforschung 1939-1942 von Max Horkheimer u.a., edited by Helmut Dubiel and Alfons Söllner (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984), 44. This and all the following quotes from German texts were translated by the author.

103 Leave a comment on paragraph 103 0 [11] Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung, 180.

104 Leave a comment on paragraph 104 0 [12] Sigmund Freud, “Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion,” [1939] in Studienausgabe IX (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 2000), 139.

105 Leave a comment on paragraph 105 0 [13] Theodor W. Adorno, “Zum Verhältnis von Soziologie und Psychologie,” [1955] in Soziologische Schriften 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999), 49–50.

106 Leave a comment on paragraph 106 0 [14] Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson and Nevitt Sanford, The authoritarian personality (New York: Harper and Row 1950).

107 Leave a comment on paragraph 107 0 [15] Lars Rennsmann, Kritische Theorie über den Antisemitismus. Studien zu Struktur, Erklärungspotential und Aktualität (Berlin/Hamburg: Argument, 1998), 39.

108 Leave a comment on paragraph 108 0 [16] Alphons Silbermann, Der ungeliebte Jude. Zur Soziologie des Antisemitismus (Zürich: Interfrom, 1981), 40.

109 Leave a comment on paragraph 109 0 [17] Adorno, “Zum Verhältnis,” 74.

110 Leave a comment on paragraph 110 0 [18] Rensmann, Kritische Theorie, 74.

111 Leave a comment on paragraph 111 0 [19] Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung, 225.

112 Leave a comment on paragraph 112 0 [20] Werner Bohleber and John S. Kafka, eds., Antisemitismus (Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 1992), 168.

113 Leave a comment on paragraph 113 0 [21] Theodor W. Adorno, “Was bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit,” in Gesammelte Schriften 10.2. Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft II: Eingriffe. Stichworte, 555–572 (Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, 1977).

114 Leave a comment on paragraph 114 0 [22] Lars Rensmann, “Guilt, Resentment, and Post-Holocaust Democracy: The Frankfurt School’s Analysis of ‘Secondary Antisemitism’ in the Group Experiment and Beyond,” Antisemitism Studies 1, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 4–37.

115 Leave a comment on paragraph 115 0 [23] Thomas Haury, “Die Ideologie, die nicht vergehen will. 35 Jahre antisemitischer Antizionismus in der Neuen deutschen Linken,” in Trotz und wegen Auschwitz, edited by AG Antifa/Antira im StuRa der Uni Halle (Münster: Unrast, 2004), 111.

116 Leave a comment on paragraph 116 0 [24] Stephan Grigat, “Antisemitismus und Antizionismus in der Linken,” Hagalil.com, April 18, 2002, http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/europa/linker-antisemitismus.htm.

117 Leave a comment on paragraph 117 0 [25] Omer Bartov, “Der alte und der neue Antisemitismus,” in Neuer Antisemitismus? Ein globale Debatte, edited by Doron Rabinovici, Ulrich Speck and Natan Sznaider, 26–43 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2004).

118 Leave a comment on paragraph 118 0 [26] Natan Sharansky, “3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization,” Jewish Political Studies Review 16, no. 3–4 (Fall 2004), http://jcpa.org/article/3d-test-of-anti-semitism-demonization-double-standards-delegitimization/.

119 Leave a comment on paragraph 119 0 [27] Monika Schwarz-Friesel and Jehuda Reinharz, Inside the Antisemitic Mind. The Language of Jew-Hatred in Contemporary Germany (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2017), 157.

120 Leave a comment on paragraph 120 0 [28] Matthias Küntzel, “National socialism and anti-semitism in the Arab world,” Jewish Political Studies Review 17, no. 1–2 (Spring 2005): 99–118.

121 Leave a comment on paragraph 121 0 [29] Florian Markl, “Beschädigtes Leben und Judenhaß. Kritik des Antisemitismus als Gesellschaftskritik,” in Feindaufklärung und Reeducation. Kritische Theorie gegen Postnazismus und Islamismus, edited by Stephan Grigat (Freiburg: Ça ira, 2006), 147.

122 Leave a comment on paragraph 122 0 [30] “Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad at the opening of the tenth session of the Islamic Summit conference at Putrajaya Convention Centre,” October 16, 2003, https://www.smh.com.au/world/mahathirs-full-speech-20031022-gdhmg3.html.

123 Leave a comment on paragraph 123 0 [31] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, “The Globalization of Antisemitism,” Forward, May 2, 2003, https://forward.com/opinion/8736/the-globalization-of-antisemitism/.

124 Leave a comment on paragraph 124 0 [32] Raphael Cohen-Almagor, “Countering Hate on the Internet,” Annual Review of Law and Ethics 22 (2014): 431–443; Sarah Rohlfink, “Hate on the Internet,” in The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime, edited by Nathan Hall, Abbee Corb, Paul Giannasi and John G. D. Grieve, 293–304 (London: Routledge, 2015), 296; for anonymity as a “new and effective” opportunity for relativising the Holocaust see Wolfgang Benz, “Holocaust Denial: Anti-Semitism as a Refusal to Accept Reality,” Historein 11 (2011): 78.

125 Leave a comment on paragraph 125 0 [33] Bassam Tibi, “From Sayyid Qutb to Hamas: The Middle East Conflict and the Islamization of Antisemitism,” in The Yale Papers. Antisemitism in Comparative Perspective, edited by Charles Asher Small, 457–483 (New York: Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, 2015); Meir Litvak, “The Anti-Semitism of Hamas,” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture 12, no. 2–3 (Dec 2005): 41–46; Armin Pfahl-Traughber, “Antisemitismus und Antizionismus in der Charta der Hamas. Eine Fallstudie zur Judenfeindschaft im islamistischen Diskurs,” in Dossier: Antisemitismus, edited by Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 113–116 (Bonn: bpb, 2011).

126 Leave a comment on paragraph 126 0 [34] Translation from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp.

127 Leave a comment on paragraph 127 0 [35] Matthew Levitt and Maxine Rich, “Hamas’s Moderate Rhetoric Belies Militant Activities,” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 1, 2017, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/hamass-moderate-rhetoric-belies-militant-activities.

128 Leave a comment on paragraph 128 0 [36] Florian Markl, “Hamas-Angebot: Ergebnis der internationalen Isolation,” Mena-watch, September 18, 2017, https://www.mena-watch.com/mena-analysen-beitraege/hamas-angebot-ergebnis-der-internationalen-isolierung/.

129 Leave a comment on paragraph 129 0 [37] The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas”, “A Document of General Principles and Policies,” May 2017, http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies.

130 Leave a comment on paragraph 130 0 [38] “Allgemein zum Sieg der Hamas,” Frieden für Palästina 2006, http://members.aon.at/friedenfuerpalaestina/aktuell/wahlen2006.htm.

131 Leave a comment on paragraph 131 0 [39] Palästina heute, “Hamas,” Das Palästina Portal, January 26, 2009, http://www.palaestina-portal.eu/Stimmen_deutsch/palaestina_heute_hamas.htm.

132 Leave a comment on paragraph 132 0 [40] Ibid.

133 Leave a comment on paragraph 133 0 [41] Jonathan Ofir, “Warum werden israelische Kinder einer Gehirnwäsche unterzogen, damit sie hassen?,” Das Palästina Portal, May 10, 2017, http://palaestina-portal.eu/texte/texte-7.htm.

134 Leave a comment on paragraph 134 0 [42] “ProMosaik e.V. interviewt Herrn Erhard Arendt vom Palästinaportal,” ProMosaik e.V., March 16, 2015, https://promosaik.blogspot.com/2015/03/promosaik-ev-interviewt-herrn-erhard.html.

135 Leave a comment on paragraph 135 0 [43] Susanne Knaul. “Die Hamas gibt sich versöhnlicher,” taz, May 2, 2017, https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5405601&s=hamas/.

136 Leave a comment on paragraph 136 0 [44] “New Hamas policy document ‘aims to soften image’,” BBC News, May 1, 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39744551.

137 Leave a comment on paragraph 137 0 [45] “Hamas ändert ihre politischen Positionen,” Zeit online, May 1, 2017, https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-05/nahostkonflikt-hamas-aenderung-politisches-programm-israel; “Hamas ändert erstmals seit Gründung vor 30 Jahren ihr politisches Programm,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, May 2, 2017, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/palaestinenserorganisation-hamas-aendert-erstmals-seit-gruendung-ihr-politisches-programm-1.3486326.

138 Leave a comment on paragraph 138 0 [46] Michael Wolffsohn, “Neue Fassade, altes Haus,” Cicero. Magazin für politische Kultur, May 8, 2017, https://www.cicero.de/aussenpolitik/hamas-paper-neue-fassade-altes-haus.

139 Leave a comment on paragraph 139 0 [47] “Hamas will womöglich Grenzen von 1967 akzeptieren,” Standard Online, May 1, 2017, https://derstandard.at/2000056825376/Hamas-will-womoeglich-Grenzen-von-1967-akzeptieren.

140 Leave a comment on paragraph 140 0 [48] “Daniel Bernard (obituary),” The Telegraph, May 3, 2004, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1460855/Daniel-Bernard.html.

141 Leave a comment on paragraph 141 0 [49] For examples of obviously not antisemitic criticism of Israeli policies see Monika Schwarz-Friesel and Jehuda Reinharz, Die Sprache der Judenfeindschaft im 21. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 200–202.

142 Leave a comment on paragraph 142 0 [50] “Israel nennt neue Hamas-Richtlinien ‘Täuschungsmanöver’,” Standard online, May 2, 2017, https://derstandard.at/2000056844305/Israel-nennt-neue-Hamas-Richtlinien-Taeuschungsmanoever.

143 Leave a comment on paragraph 143 0 [51] Jonah Jeremy Bob, “The legacy of Israel’s first Arab Supreme Court judge,” The Jerusalem Post, August 4, 2017, https://www.jpost.com/International/The-legacy-of-Israels-first-Arab-Supreme-Court-judge-501567.

144 Leave a comment on paragraph 144 0 [52] In the Austrian context, the name “Staatsvertrag” alludes to the Treaty for the Re-Establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria”. Signed by the Allied occupying powers and the Austrian government in Vienna in 1955, it re-established Austria as a sovereign state in 1955, ending ten years of Allied occupation.

145 Leave a comment on paragraph 145 0 [53] “Community-Richtlinien,” Standard Online, https://derstandard.at/2934632/Forenregeln-Community-Richtlinien.

Source: https://opr.degruyter.com/confronting-antisemitism-in-modern-media-the-legal-and-political-worlds/ljiljana-radonic-new-antisemitism-and-new-media-leftist-derealization-of-islamist-emancipation/