Antisemitism and racism are rightly considered shameful. So those accused of these things usually deny the charges vehemently. But such is the heat provoked by the accusation that people often shrink from reflecting on the issues that provoked the accusation. So it is worth reflecting on just why the recent graffiti on synagogues and abusive remarks about Jews in Australia are wrong, and under what conditions accusations of antisemitism or racism are justifiable or unjustifiable.
Many groups suffer from offensive words and actions on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, religion or political convictions. The behaviour is offensive because the perpetrators attribute to persons negative qualities that they associate with the group to which these persons belong, and abuse them for the negative qualities. They wrongly assume that attitudes and behaviour of individuals can be predicted from their membership of a group. Ultimately they deny personal freedom and value. Those treated in this way may feel afraid, disrespected and alienated. The perpetrators are legion: antisemitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Communist, anti-American and anticlerical, to name just a few.
These attitudes are more vicious when they focus on more than one distinctive quality of the group under attack. Antisemitic behaviour, for example, is often fuelled by hostility both for the ethnic origins and for the religion of the people attacked. The combination of qualities intensifies hatred and contempt. This is also true of anti-Muslim prejudice, which feeds on negative beliefs about both Islam and about ethnic origin, and so about persons. This double prejudice makes antisemitism especially damaging and deplorable.
Historical and cultural factors can make prejudicial behaviour even more offensive and destructive. The history of the Jewish people in the West has been one of discrimination, occasional persecution, expulsion and, in our time, of attempted genocide. Persons were regularly targeted for their ethnic origins and religious beliefs. The history of murderous cultural prejudice means that survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants will legitimately fear for their security when they see anti-Jewish slogans painted on walls or hear the reality of the Holocaust denied. These historical and cultural factors explain why in some nations Holocaust denial has been criminalised as a symbol of the dangers and viciousness of anti-Semitism.
To say that antisemitism is uniquely vicious, however, is not to say that the targeting other groups, whose members have also suffered a long history of repression, discrimination and contempt, is any less shameful. Abusive words and actions directed against Indigenous people in Australia, against blacks in the United States, and the Romani throughout Europe, for example, are also uniquely vicious because they reflect a history and culture in which people have been discriminated against and treated with contempt by dominant groups in their nations.
Because antisemitic and racist language and actions are so divisive and damaging, accusations should not be lightly made. Nor should they be given automatic credence. In particular the common practice of declaring critics of the actions or policies of, say, the Zimbabwe or the Israeli government, to be racist or antisemitic should be called for the bullying it is. Certainly such criticism may be motivated by antisemitic or racist prejudice. But that prejudice needs to be demonstrated, not asserted.
To criticise the Russian government, for example, for its actions in the Ukraine would be anti-Russian only if we attributed its actions to the supposed bad qualities of Russians as a whole. It is perfectly legitimate to claim that its actions are ethically unjustifiable and should be subject to sanctions, provided we have subjected the behaviour of the Ukrainian government and others involved in the conflict to the same ethical scrutiny. Our claim may be right or wrong, our call for sanctions may be justifiable or not, but if it is carefully considered it is a proper expression of ethical responsibility. Governments represent their people, and should be held accountable for doing so ethically. Their critics should not be deterred by being smeared as racist or antisemitic.
Judged by these criteria, the defacing of Jewish synagogues is a deplorable example of antisemitism. It identifies Australian Jews and their religious institutions, not to mention Jews in Israel and their faith, with negative qualities assigned to all Jews because of their race and ethnicity.
It is, however, legitimate to criticise the Israeli government for its actions in Gaza on the grounds that they are a disproportionate response that cannot achieve its ends, and to call for sanctions that will discourage further violent action, just as it was legitimate to criticise the Assad regime on the grounds that the harm done to civilians was disproportionate, and to call for sanctions.
The fact that criticism is legitimate, of course, does not mean that it is correct. Nor that the actions of the Hamas leaders are ethically justifiable. Indeed the Syrian example should give us pause before taking sides. If we criticise policies and advocate sanctions on ethical grounds we should expect robust rebuttal of our critique.
Both the viciousness of antisemitism and the need to hold the Israeli government accountable for its actions spring from the same respect for the preciousness of each human person. No people may be defined and treated as if their value was determined by their ethnicity.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.
Signpost image by shutterstock.