Search

This article attempts to contextualize the situation of the Jewish community recognized as a minority group in the Treaty of Lausanne within a wider framework of Turkish nationalism during the first decade of the Republic. It will claim that the ruling elite of the Republic concurrently defined 'Turkishness' on inclusive and exclusive terms. While in theory, Turkish nationalism was a 'civic' nationalism defining 'Turkishness' based on citizenship, when it came to practice, all citizens of the Republic were not privy to this identity; some of them, especially Jews, were expected to prove their loyalty in order to become equal members of the nation. This article claims that the contradictory attitude of the ruling elite – keeping the definition of 'Turkishness' ambiguous – had the purpose of constructing a cohesive and homogenous national community. In line with this ambiguous definition of 'Turkishness', the ruling elite developed an ambivalent attitude towards non-Muslim minorities and their place in the nation and the Jews of Turkey were affected the most by this precarious attitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shaul Magid's Meir Kahane: The Public Life and Political Thought of an American Jewish Radical (2021) has the potential to urge American and Israeli Jews to "own" Meir Kahane and hold him up as a mirror reflecting the toxic and tragic dimensions of modern Jewish history. Such a look in the mirror can only happen once Jews see Palestinian suffering as central to the building of the state of Israel and also how they are complicit and implicated in such suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the concept of Zionism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Topics covered include the reasons why Palestinians have always referred to Israel as the Zionist entity or enemy, the use of Zionism as an excuse for anti-Semitism to flourish in places that profess to abhor prejudice, and how Zionism has inserted an element of Chosen-ness into the alchemy of Jewish democracy.

Based on Zygmunt Bauman's understanding of Allosemitism, this article introduces the concept of Allozionism, a form of exceptionalism which assumes that Zionism and the State of Israel are fundamentally different from all other nationalist movements and nation-states. Instead of tracing exceptionalist claims about the Zionist project back to its attributes or the politics of affinity and resentment, this approach investigates the epistemic function of Allozionism, understood here as Allosemitism in postcolonial times: While European Allosemitism projected its anxieties about the problematic distinction between believer/non-believer and nation/non-nation on the Jewish people, global Allozionism projects its ambivalences about the indigenous/colonial distinction on the Zionist project as a puzzling case of colonization in the name of indigeneity. In order to overcome Allozionist exceptionalism, de-exceptionalizing the Zionist project implies the recognition of its cultural and political ambivalence, including colonial, anti-colonial, and post-colonial elements-both before and after 1967. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marxists have had a complex and contentious relationship to the question of both cosmopolitanism and antisemitism. The difficulties and problems they have encountered with each may, however, be related. They can be traced back to a repeated failure to take seriously Marx’s initial critique of contemporary antisemites and his simultaneous adoption of a cosmopolitan approach to politics which set him apart from many of his peers. Rather than confronting antisemitism, many Marxists adopted the view that it contained some kind of rational kernel, whilst drifting towards an accommodation with forms of nationalism. Having ignored and largely failed to respond to the mortal threat that a radicalized antisemitism posed for Jews, the self-proclaimed Marxists ruling the Soviet Union then accused Jews of being both nationalists (of the wrong, Zionist sort) and cosmopolitans (now a term of abuse). There is, however, an alternative tradition that may be recovered, albeit on the margins of the Marxist movement, in the later work especially of Horkheimer and Adorno, and in some parallel way also of Hannah Arendt, that sees antisemitism from a cosmopolitan perspective as an inherently reactionary political force which (as it became genocidal) came to threaten both Jews and humanity at large. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An essay is presented which discusses the anti-Semitic nature of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. Topics discussed include the history of the BDS Movement, the ideology of the movement which is hostile to Jewish nationalism and Judaism, and case studies which illustrate the anti-Semitic ideology of BDS which include the boycott of American Jewish rapper Matisyahu in Spain and commercial companies Caterpillar and SodaStream.

An interview with British sociologist Anthony D. Smith is presented. Particular focus is given to Smith's family background, as well as his growing up years in London, England. Smith also mentioned his experience of anti-Semitism in school, cultural loyalty of his mother, educational background, and Jewish nationalism.

The article presents information on the Jewish Nation-State Bill. Topics discussed include Zionist movement, sovereign Jewish state, and the program of state-sponsored antisemitism by Czarist government. Also being discussed are European Jewry, and Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

The article evaluates the perceptions of Jewish power among the Czechoslovak exiles in Britain during the Second World War. The analysis documents the apparent persistence of prejudices against the Jewish minority among the Czechoslovak non-Jewish authorities that eventually formed the government-in-exile (1940-5), under the presidency of Edvard Beneš (1884-1948). The Czechoslovak exiles believed that the Jewish minority, in particular the Jewish nationalists (Zionists), had vehement supporters within Jewish circles in Western countries. Furthermore, they believed that the Jewish press played a significant role in the formation of public opinion in Britain and especially in the United States. In the early 1940s, the govemment-in-exile embarked on a policy of national homogenisation of post-war Czechoslovakia and was anxious to give concessions to the political representatives of the ethnic minority groups in exile, in particular the Germans, Hungarians and Jews. Yet the concerns about Jewish influence in liberal democracies granted several political concessions to the Jewish minority, in particular the appointment of a Zionist representative, Arnošt Frischer (1887-1954), to the exile parliament. This notwithstanding, by analysing the internal situation among the Czechoslovak Jewish groups in London, the article documents the internal weakness and disputes among the Jewish groups which gradually revealed the utter powerlessness of the Jewish exiles during their negotiations with the Czechoslovak authorities. The Jewish groups (the assimilationists. Orthodox and secular nationalists) were divided by mutual as well as internal disputes which were not concealed from outside observers and were utilised by the exile govemment. What emerges from the analysis is an impression of quarrelling groups that could not agree on any of the fundamental issues and whose only power was the ability to court the support of Western Jewish groups, which were perceived by the non-Jewish exiles as influential actors in US and British society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the Zionism was inspired by European conditions, proposing a positive alternative to a history of anti-Semitism and pogroms that was specifically and entirely European. It mentions the key characteristic of settler colonialism is not Europeanness but the dual outcome of destruction and replacement; and also mentions the inner contradiction in Zionism derived from the assumption that all the Jews in the world constitute a single entity.

The purpose on this study is to make experience for determination of the F. M. Dostoevsky's anti-Semitism. Dostoevsky tried presenting all Jewish nation and in particular Jews in Russian as exploiters of \"indigenous\" people including poor Jews. The reason is that according to Dostoevsky all they join in \"Jew's idea\" for robbery of world throughout \"trade mediation\". The study reached a conclusion that anti-Semitism of Dostoevsky can be considered as pro-Jewish because he stand up to idea of universal human fraternity borrowing from Hebrews itself but transferred the role of Nation-Saver to Russian Orthodox People, i.e. the intention of Dostoevsky is to protecting the idea of Hebrew against idea of Jews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conflict between Herzl and Ahad Ha'am encapsulated the cultural divide that separated the two, as well as it reflected the political and ideological rift separating East from West. The Eastern block wished Zionism to maintain strong ties to a sense of Jewish continuity (if not necessarily to traditional Jewish practice). The Western one was more cosmopolitan and assimilationist in its bent. From the first Zionist Congress onward, Ahad Ha'am assumed the role of Herzl's chief opponent. At first, he was a voice crying in the wilderness, but within seven years, he headed a united front whose members sought to remove Herzl or at least force him into a minority. The point of no return was reached in a clash known as the 'Alteneuland Affair,' whose personal side was as strong as its other aspects, if not more so. For after this episode concluded with this defeat and Herzl's victory, Ahad Ha'am bowed out of all active Zionist political life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of ÖZP - Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Oesterreichische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the relationship between Christians and Jews from the late Middle Ages to the beginning of the 21st century. Examples of the persecution inflicted on Jews are provided, including their 15th century expulsion from Spain by the Catholic Monarchs, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile, the Holocaust of the mid-1900s led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, and multiple invasions and instances of violence in Israel beginning in 2000. The relationship between the Jewish faith and nationality is analyzed in addition to discussion regarding the history of antisemitism.

The author's aim is to offer a fresh genealogy of that enduringly controversial term, "Jewish self-hatred." In the first part of the article, the author seeks to show how a general rhetoric of Jewish self-hatred developed not so much as a means of diagnosing a psychological condition but more as in the context of new political needs or, more precisely, in the context of debates about Zionism in turn-of-the-century Germany and Austria. In the second part of the article, the author proceeds in a more microhistorical way, tracing the route the cultural Zionist Theodor Lessing took to popularizing the specific phrase "Jewish self-hatred." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author explores Zweig's drama Die Sendung Semaels: Jüdische Tragödie in fünf Aufzügen and his essay Caliban oder Politik und Leidenschaft. He also focuses on Zweig's understanding of tragedy and the elements used to create a "Jewish tragedy." Linking it with the aspects of the Diasporic condition that Zweig defines as "tragic," the article shows how Zweig attempts to portray Zionism as the result of the Jewish tragedy and the way out of the tragic structure. Zweig realizes in Caliban, however, that Zionism replicates the instrumentalization of some of the dangerous group affects that he identified as the psychological underpinnings of aggressive nationalism and antisemitism. The author points to the inconsistencies and contradictions in Zweig's analysis and explains them in a reading that diagnoses the necessity of both Zweig's theoretical failure and artistic success in his reliance on an allegorical use of tragedy and the formal properties of the essay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author discusses aspects of anti-Semitism that originate in some parts of the left side of the political spectrum. He declares that this anti-Semitism has its roots in leftist views of the state of Israel and the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. He defines anti-Zionism and points to the connection between it and anti-Semitism. It is noted that many leftist intellectuals are critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians but are not overly concerned by other populations who have been victims of state-sponsored violence.

Beller's review article takes as its starting point the essays published in a recent collection exploring the question of a 'new antisemitism'. He claims that this debate has generated more heat than light. Warnings about the rise of a new antisemitism in Europe, especially on the left, are greatly exaggerated, largely unjustified and approach a form of psychological 'projection'. Anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitism. Zionism is an ethnonationalist ideology and, as such, contradicts the universalist logic of the socialist and liberal left; the enthusiastic support for Israel by European socialist parties from 1948 until the 1970s was anomalous. Nevertheless, the recent critical approach taken by the liberal European media to Israeli policy is not usually anti-Zionist, but rather holding Israel to its own high moral standards. If there is conflation between anti-Zionist and antisemitic attitudes this reflects the similarly conflating Zionist belief that Israel is the expression of the Jewish people's right to national self-determination. Some manifestations of Arab/Muslim anti-Zionism do indeed exhibit the worst forms of antisemitism. However, there are reasons for this hostility. Heated assertions decrying the denial of the right of Israel to exist are distractions from the very problematic issues raised by Arab grievances. A deeper question here involves the conflict between the Muslim world and two forms of western modernity: neo-conservative, uniform, nationally based rationalism; and the more 'postmodern', critical and pluralist tradition of European (and American) left/liberal intellectuals. Ironically, current American and Israeli policy now represents the former 'modernity', while the latter, critical tradition derives to a great extent from the experience of the Jewish diaspora. The diasporic Jewish tradition is the model to which Israel and its supporters should look to secure Israel's peaceful, sustainable future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the book "La chasse aux évidences. Sur quelques formes de racisme entre mythe et histoire," by Maurice Olender. The book is a homage to historian Leon Poliakov who wrote extensively on anti-semitism and the Holocaust. Poliakov's influence is visible in Olender's book, especially while mentioning Jewish priest Pierre Charles who in the period between the two World Wars brought in evidence, the proofs of fabrication by the police of the Protocol of Elders of Zion.

Since 1902 Britain has been engaged with Zionism. This prolonged involvement offers a case study of diachronically shifting patterns of anti-Zionism and their relationship with patterns of anti-Jewish discourse in a specific national context. This article begins with an account of political anti-Zionism in the 1920s, a model for all subsequent anti-Zionism and a benchmark of virulence. It surveys political discourse concerning Zionism during the conflict between Britain and the Zionist movement in 1930–31 and 1945–48, while Britain held the Mandate for Palestine. It then examines left-wing anti-Zionism in Britain in the 1960s and 1980s. It concludes with an analysis of rhetorical attacks on Israel, mainly from the left, since the second Intifada, and in the wake of 9/11. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over several decades, the East German stance towards Israel was marked by condemnation of Zionism, a unilateral position on the Arab-Israeli conflict and denial of reparations and restitution claims. This position had its ideological background in the communist approach to the “Jewish question,” anti-Semitism and nationalism, while the most important criterion in shaping attitudes towards Israel was the incorporation of the German Democratic Republic's Middle East policy into the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. In addition, the East German political elite followed its own political interests when it tried to break through the West German Hallstein doctrine with the help of some Arab countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares European and Middle Eastern anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From the 1870s through the 1930s, in parallel fashion anti-Semitism became a mobilizing, all-embracing ideology in Europe, while the Arab world witnessed an eruption of anticolonial and nationalist sentiment, often directed against the Zionist project. Arab anti-Semitism featured the irrational and fantastic qualities of its European counterpart, but it took form against the reality of the Zionist project. The article draws a distinction between the realms of systemic intolerance, aggravated by socio-economic crisis, and political strife, driven by discrete events and policies. Its main sources are fin-de-siècle European anti-Semites' writings on Zionism, which are shown to be fundamentally different from the anti-Zionist rhetoric emanating from the Middle East at that time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent discourse on 'new antisemitism' and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sometime gives the impression that Europe is fundamentally and irredeemably antisemitic. Klug maintains that, while there is a persistent vein of antisemitism in the culture, and while there is evidence of an increase in anti-Jewish attacks since 2000, this perception of Europe is exaggerated. He argues that it is part of a mindset that tends to overstate hostility towards Israel and Jews, or to assume that this hostility is antisemitic, or both. Often this goes along with a tendency to connect antisemitism, via anti-Zionism, with anti-Americanism. Klug believes that notion of a mindset, Klug turns to the question of definition, examining the view that antisemitism is indefinitely mutable. Invoking recent work on the subject, he suggests that at the core of antisemitism is the stock figure of the 'Jew'. This gives us a criterion with which to judge whether or not a given text--including an attack on Israel or Zionism--is antisemitic. On the basis of the analysis so far, Klug critiques the view that hostility to Israel in general is a new twist on an old antisemitic theme. In this connection, he discussed a 2003 Eurobarometer opinion poll in which 59 per cent of respondents said that Israel is a 'threat to peace in the world'. Some see this as proof that Europe is antisemitic; Klug rejects this interpretation and traces it back to the mindset he has describing. He argues that people in the grip of this mindset tend to take a one-sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This can lead to 'antisemitism in reverse': projecting the figure of the antisemite on to someone who does not fit the bill. Klug concludes that the prospects for the European debate on antisemitism are poor unless it can be disentangled from partisan Middle East politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author presents his views on T.S. Eliot's notion of Jewish identity and cultural pluralism. Though long suspecting that Eliot was something more than an unrepentant fascist and anti-Semite, I had always found the evidence of this debate a bit thin. Imagine my surprise when just a few weeks after laying Anthony Julius's book "T S. Eliot, Anti- Semitism and Literary Form," aside, while conducting research on American Zionism at the American Jewish Archives in Cincinnati, I discovered the yellowed but well-preserved sheets of correspondence between T.S. Eliot and Horace M. Kallen, a Jewish American philosopher, sociologist, and Zionist polemicist who was a prolific and widely read author; these pages quite literally spilled onto my lap. Perhaps I should begin with the implications of the most charged phrase of what was often a lively debate, when Eliot candidly concluded after many years of engaging with Kallen's thought that: "It is I who have been defending a religion called Judaism.

The article discusses about the Jews' responses to German antisemitism. Focus has been given on the Jewish responses to the movement launched by Otto Böckel, Germany's first antisemitic Reichstag deputy. The Böckel movement was part of the imperial German politics' racist ideology that culminated in National Socialism. Jewish responses as a whole characteristically focus on ideological responses, like Zionism. Also, with their small number, more Jews have taken the matter with legal defense.

The article discusses the present condition on the literature of modern Jewish identity. It offers a comparison on the different types of literature of modern identity from impressionists who focused on the psychological and social dynamics of an individual as well as the community's understanding of themselves. It also points out different approaches on the study of Jewish identity bearing in mind the history of modern antisemitism and the Holocaust and Zionism. The article also analyzes the reasons of the current state of affairs that is being done on Jewish identity.

The article discusses the social condition of the Jewish communities in India. The Jews have limited acquaintance with their Indian brethren. India is one of the countries in the world where Jews have never been exposed to antisemitism or religious persecution at the hands of their hosts while continuously maintaining their identity. This rare experience can be attributed on the one hand, to the relative tolerance of Hindu society which has a tendency to consider various minority groups almost as sub-castes and to the constraints against intermarriage present in most Indian religious communities which have prevented total assimilation.