On May 14, the European Jewish Association (EJA) held its annual conference in Porto, Portugal, where it adopted a resolution calling for anti-Semitism to be “treated separately from other forms of hate and discrimination.” The association is urging “other Jewish organizations to reject ‘intersectionality,’” a conceptual framework that tends to categorize groups as being either “privileged” or “oppressed.” The EJA says that “anti-Semitism is unique and must be treated as such,” on the grounds that it is “state-sanctioned in many countries,” “given cover by the United Nations,” and not always regarded as a form of racism by other groups affected by hate.
Why are intersectionality and the demarcation between the privileged and the oppressed problematic from a Jewish standpoint? Generally speaking, intersectionality is a useful concept in social theory and practical analysis. When we consider particular individuals or groups, we discover that their experiences of oppression or privilege reflect a wide array of diverse factors.
Let us shamelessly quote Wikipedia’s definition:
“Intersectionality is an analytical framework for understanding how a person’s various social and political identities combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege. Intersectionality identifies multiple factors of advantage and disadvantage. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, religion, education, wealth, disability, weight, age and physical appearance. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empowering and oppressing.”
The point, Anne Sisson Runyan of the University of Cincinnati says, is “that forms of oppression are not just additive, as if they were wholly separate layers of domination. Rather, women of color actually experience a different form of racism from men of color, just as they experience a different form of sexism from white women.”
By the same token, the anti-Semitic idea of the “Jew” combines features of religion, ethnicity, sexuality, education, wealth and physical appearance. To be stigmatized as a Jew entails the ascription of various other features, such as uncleanliness, dogmatic adherence to religious rules, nefarious financial speculation and hidden global influence — all of which featured prominently in Nazi propaganda. The upshot of intersectional analysis is that all individuals experience unique forms of oppression or privilege by dint of the makeup of their identities. Consider a low-income black lesbian: She is at a quadruple disadvantage almost anywhere in the world.
Why, then, do those who insist on the uniqueness of anti-Semitism reject intersectionality? The oppression faced by Jews in developed Western countries nowadays is somewhat more ambiguous, because Jews also tend to occupy positions of privilege (economically, culturally and so forth), and the association of the Jews with wealth and culture (“Hollywood” as Jewish) in the public imagination is itself a source of classic anti-Semitic tropes.
The EJA says that this combination of oppression and privileges makes anti-Semitism just another form of racial hatred, not only comparable to others, but even milder when set alongside other modes of oppression. When we apply an intersectional lens, hatred for “the Jew,” the EJA says, becomes a minor case in the broader taxonomy of hatreds.
The EJA is right to insist that there is something exceptional about anti-Semitism. It is not like other racisms: Its aim is not to subordinate Jews, but to exterminate them. The anti-Semite perceives them not as lower foreigners, but as secret masters. The Holocaust is not the same as the destruction of civilizations in the history of colonialism. It is a unique phenomenon of industrially organized annihilation.
It is the coupling of “oppressed” and “privileged” that provides the key to understanding anti-Semitism, at least in its modern form. Under fascism, “the Jew” served as the external intruder who could be blamed for corruption, disorder and exploitation. Projecting the conflict between the “oppressed” and the “privileged” onto a scapegoat can distract people’s attention from how such struggles are intrinsic to their own political and economic order. That many Jews are “privileged” (in the sense of their wealth, education and political influence) is thus the very resource of anti-Semitism: Being perceived as privileged makes Jews a target of social hatred.
Problems arise when one tries to use the exceptional status of anti-Semitism to support a double standard, or to prohibit any critical analysis of the privileges that Jews, on average, enjoy.
A 2020 Der Spiegel dialogue on anti-Semitism and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, includes the dictum: “The Jew, and not the potential anti-Semite, determines who is an anti-Semite” (“Wer Antisemit ist, bestimmt der Jude und nicht der potenzielle Antisemit”).
If that is the case, should we not apply the same principle to Palestinians in the West Bank? Solely by dint of being Palestinian, they are being deprived of their land and basic rights.
More than that, the EJA’s stance relies on its own intersectional framework. Any analysis of the privileged positions held by some Jews is immediately denounced as anti-Semitic, and even critiques of capitalism are rejected on the same grounds, owing to the association between “Jewishness” and “rich capitalists.” The Marxist thesis that anti-Semitism is a primitive, distorted version of anti-capitalism is thus inverted: Anti-capitalism is a mask of anti-Semitism.
If the implication is that Jewishness is both exceptional and inextricably bound with capitalism, are we not left with an age-old anti-Semitic trope? Do we not directly provoke the poor and oppressed to blame the Jews for their misfortunes? Other Jewish organizations should reject the EJA stance, not because of some obscene need for “balance” between different forms of racism, but to advance the struggle against anti-Semitism.
Slavoj Zizek is a professor of philosophy at the European Graduate School, international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and author, most recently, of Heaven in Disorder.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS