AN INTERVIEW WITH WALTER LAQUEUR: This interview appears in Covenant, a new quarterly journal edited and published by Professor Barry Rubin, and Judith Roumani. It is available free via email and online.

An Interview with Walter Laqueur
By Alexander H. Joffe

You have commented on antisemitism and anti-Zionism in a recent book (The Changing Face of Antisemtism, Oxford University Press, 2006, and a long article in The Times Literary Supplement. But let us begin on a personal note: You grew up in Nazi Germany; antisemitism has not been a purely academic issue in your life. Did you expect a resurgence of antisemitism after Hitler and the holocaust?

Hitler gave antisemitism a bad name, but there had been antisemitism before and there was no reason to believe that it had come to an end in 1945. Prior to Hitler antisemites did not mind to be called antisemites, (there were some exception--the Nazis did not like the term and virtually banned it during the war because it was offensive to some of their allies such as Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Jerusalem mufti). To day this term has gone out of fashion and there is great indignation in some circles to if they are charged with antisemitism. In some countries, it can lead to criminal prosecution. A spade is no longer called a spade but an agricultural implement. In any case the impact of the Nazi deterrent was limited to Europe and North America. There was closed season as far as the Jews were concerned; this lasted for several decades but was bound to come to an end. The surviving Jewish communities had been doing too well, moved into prominent positions in many fields and many people got impatient to be reminded constantly of the mass murder which had taken place. After all, they argued, there had been massacres on a massive scale in other places even in our time, how could one possibly maintain that the holocaust was somehow unique?

But some critics such as Chomsky maintain that antisemitism has virtually disappeared...

I wish he were right, but it is a ludicrous statement. Do we really have to discuss this? I don't think that upon further reflection even Chomsky will stick to this thesis. It is true that antisemitism is changing its manifestation and motivation, not for the first time in its long history. Racialist antisemitism has gone out of fashion after the Nazis, at least in Europe and America. But racialist antisemitism is a relatively recent (19th century) phenomenon, even though some antecedents can be found in 15th century Spain (the purity of the blood concept). Medieval antisemitism was largely religious-theological in inspiration. The Jews rejected the founders of two of the world's major religions and this was bound to lead to great hostility. Some historians believe there was antisemitism in the ancient world prior to the rise of Christianity. Others think this was no more than part of general, free floating xenophobia. This is a highly specialized field, I am not an expert but I tend to think the latter are right.

How then would you define the new antisemitism?

It is post racialist and in many respect similar to the earlier religious antisemitism, except of course that certain ideologies have replaced religion. "Usury" has become "Wall Street". The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are no longer in fashion in the West, they have been replaced by the neo-Conservatives as the nefarious plotters and wire pullers and the all powerful Jewish lobby in Washington. In the 1920s and 30s, one of the main accusations in the antisemitic arsenal concerned "Jewish Communism"; today it is Jewish globalism and capitalism. In Lessing's "Nathan"--the classic 18th century play--there is a famous repetitive scene: "Tut nichts, der Jude wird verbrannt," ("Never mind, the Jew is for burning"). Well, for the time being the Jew is not for burning, only for boycott.

Read the entire article.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Walter Laqueur and Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism.