New Jewish immigrants from North America arrive at Ben Gurion Airport (Shutterstock)
“Anti-Semitism” or “anti-Semitism” or “anti-Semitism” is one of the most sensitive and embarrassing terms, and it is also one of the most frequently mentioned terms, especially in the context of criticizing Israel or dealing with the history of the Jews. However, most of its use in the two camps is not without delusion and leniency. An error and a fallacy.
The word "anti-Semitism" - which became widespread among the Arabs - is an inaccurate translation of the European word that literally means "anti-Semitic doctrine."
As for its actual meaning, it is “anti-Jewish,” “rejecting Jews from society,” or “anti-Jewish,” because they are the only representatives of the Semitic race in Europe, according to the “racist” claim they spread about themselves.
As for the error and exaggeration in its use, they often come from Israel’s defenders, as they live in a complex of feeling persecuted because of their racism, and imagine that all the problems it faces in its relations with other nations are due to its Jewish origin.
"Semitic" controversy
The term "Semitic" includes a concept, popularized in 19th-century Europe, that humanity is divided into fully distinct "races" to which individuals belong by birth, and that these races belong in large part to linguistic families.
“Hatred of the Jews” was considered a result of their allegedly inherited racial characteristics, characteristics that were considered either actually abhorrent, or by their very nature incited others to feel hatred towards them.
Basically, all members of the so-called Semitic race are supposed to carry these specifications, that is, practically all peoples who speak or used to speak Semitic languages.
Therefore, this was supposed to include the Arabs as well, and Christianity itself, as an offshoot of the Jewish religion and brought by Jews, bore the stigma of this “Semitic” origin.
From the womb of the “Tanakh/Old Testament,” a term called “Semitic” was born in modern history.
It dominated - and still dominates - the thoughts of generations of scholars and researchers.
The term "Semitic" was soon accepted by specialists in Orientalism, and its use became widespread, and it remains in circulation to this day among those concerned with the history of languages and civilization.
The first person to use this term in print was the German historian August Ludwig Schloester in his article about the “Chaldeans” in 1781, which says: “From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and from Mesopotamia to Arabia in the south, one language prevailed, as is known, and for this reason The Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people, and the Phoenicians (Hamiites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic language.”
The Austrian psychoanalyst Eichhorn later took up this term and defended it, even though he claimed it for himself.
Researchers have said that the peoples speaking these languages all descended from one ancestor, Shem, son of Noah (peace be upon him), based on the list of genealogies mentioned in the “Tanakh/Old Testament” in the tenth chapter of the Book of Genesis, and they called this origin or unity “the Semitic race.” Or "Semitic race" or "Semitic origin" or "Semitic" and on the languages they spoke "Semitic languages".
It is clear that Schlotzer adopted race [i.e. unity of origin] as a basis for establishing the linguistic similarity between the peoples called “Semites,” forgetting that this Semitic had two brothers, “Japheth” and “Ham.” So how is it correct to extract “Shem” from his father’s house and from among His brothers ethnically and linguistically!?
In this regard, Leotaxel says in his book “The Torah: A Holy Book or a Collection of Myths?”: Despite this, theologians agree that Noah gave Asia to “Shem,” Europe to “Japheth,” and Africa to “Ham.”
Canaan and Ham gave birth to the Negroes and colored people.
Therefore their descendants should be slaves to the Europeans.
But the question is: How did Noah’s three sons become founders of three different races, when they were born from one father and one mother?
He also says, “However, we must bow before the will of Jehovah and His Holy Book, and acknowledge that the yellow Asian race emerged from the loins of “Shem,” the white Europeans from the loins of “Japheth,” and the black Africans from the loins of “Ham” and Canaan. However, a question comes to mind: Who? Where did the red-skinned Americans come from? Most likely, the Holy Spirit neglected to tell the author of the Book of Genesis about that! And we must acknowledge that these people have no father!
One of the nobles of conscience in the West, the well-known French thinker Pierre Rossi, surprised us when he decided to criticize and censure those who wrote lies in European universities and those who believed that in our universities, saying, “Is there a need to add that the expression “Semitic” is not mentioned in the vocabulary? The Greek language, or the Latin language? And what is said in this area is a long one. We will not find this expression before the end of the 18th century, because it was the scholar Schlozer who coined this epithet “Semitic” in a book he published in 1781, and gave it the following title: “Index of Biblical Literature.” And the Eastern” as if “biblical” literature was not Eastern. This division that he defined should call us to caution.
Division of peoples
It is certain and decisive that recognizing the division of peoples into Eastern and Western is the key to our history, and that with this geographical division coincide two racial double borders: “Indo-Europeans” [or those sometimes called Aryans] and “Semites.”
All good minds bowed down to this invention born of the imagination of German linguists.
Historians will be amazed at the victory that contradicts what is known, this rapid approval, and this conformity in an era, which is our era, which confirms that it is suspicious, rational, and rejecting.
In fact, based on the documents, sources, and materials that were at the world’s disposal, it seems impossible to prove the existence of “Semitic” and “Aryan” peoples, or rather to give specific boundaries and differences between them. It also appears to be wrong in its premises, just as it is wrong in its presentation and facts. The doctrine according to which the East and West find a definition for each of them and differentiate one from the other according to this division into “Indo-European” and “Semitic” languages.
We have no right, according to the current state of our knowledge, to present such concepts.
The expressions “Semitic” and “Aryan” are nothing and do not mean anything.
In order to acquire some truth, or to establish two historical starting points, these two peoples must have previously possessed the characteristics of “Aryan” and “Semitic.”
And that no human being, no culture, no society has demanded this connection with a “Semitic” or “Aryan” destiny.
And this must be said.
But our world was so theoretical that it found its happiness in the imaginative forms in which thinkers placed it.
The global dimension of the theories they circulate, the solidarity (lest we say collusion) that connects them to each other, and the sectarian machine that surrounds them.
All of this gives their opinions and sayings a control that imposes itself on opinion and exposes it. It seems that, as Erasmus wrote, “It is true that man is a creature influenced by imagination more than he is influenced by the truth.”
However, nothing in the field of truth imposes a healthy or questionable distinction between “Aryans” and “Semites.”
“In order to respect the biblical heritage, we should say “Japhethians” and not “Aryans,” because “Japheth” is one of Noah’s three sons who is the descendant of the Greeks, Anatolians, and our European relatives.”
It is not easy to reach a definitive opinion regarding the division of the human race as stated in the “Tanakh/Old Testament” and its application to modern research, but I stress that it does not require serious study.
On the other hand, the ethnic rooting presented by Schlozer collides with two main obstacles that were previously diagnosed by Dr. Lutfi Abdel Wahhab, in his talk about the “Semitic” or “Semitic” peoples in his book “The Arabs in Antiquity,” and he says: Talking about the (Semitic) peoples as a group. A human being belonging to a single race or race that has its own distinctive features and physical characteristics is a talk that is not based on a scientific basis for two reasons: one is related to the issue of racial purity and the other is related to the relationship between race and language.
Regarding the first reason, the identical physical features and characteristics between the “Semitic” peoples does not exist. We find a clear discrepancy in this area between these peoples on the one hand and then within each of them on the other hand.. In fact, anthropologists have finished since the middle of In the current century, talk about the purity of the human race has in fact become a “scientific myth,” as one contemporary anthropologist put it.
As for taking language as a basis for the unity of gender or race, Lutfi Abdel Wahab says: What is established from historical observation is that language is not suitable as a basis for any racial identification for the simple reason that human groups have a strange tendency to pick up languages if that serves interest or urban goals.
From "anti-Semitism" to "anti-Israel"
Modern "anti-Semitism" appeared first in France and Germany and then in Russia, after 1870.
Modern "anti-Semitism" (1880-1890) was a reaction of confused men who deeply hated modern society in all its good and evil aspects, and were ardent believers in the conspiracy theory of history.
The Jews are placed in the role of scapegoat for the collapse of ancient society (which “anti-Semitic” nostalgia imagines was more closed and organized than it actually was) and the presence of all that is disturbing in modern times.
But from the beginning, the “anti-Semites” faced what appeared before them as a difficult problem: How do they know this scapegoat?
With what popular expressions?
What is the common factor between the musical Jew, the artisan, the banker, and the beggar, especially after the dissolution of the common general religious characteristics, at least externally?
The "theory" of the Jewish race was the modern "anti-Semitic" answer to this problem.
And those who teach and spread “anti-Semitism” are generally ignorant of the real reasons for their feelings, so they explain their state of mind with ethnic, religious, political, and economic appeals. “All of these trappings of (anti-Semitism) have no basis. Some of them, like the ethnic appeals, come from a false concept of races, and others Like religious attacks and political attacks, they arose from an incomplete and narrow idea of historical development, and the latter, like economic attacks, were the result of the need to cover up one of the struggles of capital. Neither one nor the other can be justified. It is not accurate for the Jew to be a pure Semite, nor are the European peoples to be pure Aryans. Even The idea of the Semitic and the Aryan cannot be legitimized.”
In the last three decades, in particular, talk about anti-Semitism and its definition has increased in multiple contexts, starting with its classic definition, i.e. “aggression towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group,” leading to the development of the definition to a new formula that is expanded and included by other clauses that can Using it in political, propaganda, or judicial contexts, to enable defenders of “Israel” - even in the context of its practices as an occupying power - to use the new definition to suppress its critics, under two pretexts: protecting the Jews, and preventing a repeat of the Holocaust.
The term "anti-Semitism" in its European form is new, and the Zionist Jew Leon Poliakoff says in his book "A Brief History of Semitism" that it was used for the first time by the German writer Wilhelm Marr around the year 1880. It seems that it caught a fancy in the hearts of the Jews, and opened the door to them. New horizons for attack and defense, as they made it an “accusation” for everyone who does not see their opinion, and does not help them implement their goals and accomplish their plans, no matter how destructive and destructive they may be.
Their thinkers devoted studies and writings to it, including Bernard Lazare’s book, which appeared in French in two volumes in 1894 under the title “Anti-Semitism, Its History and Causes.” It was then republished again in 1934, and translated into Arabic by Marie Shahrestan in 2004.
The definition of "anti-Semitism" has not changed since then, and has remained in use since 1882 as stated in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
In 2005, the European Center for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia, in cooperation with the Office of Democratic Organizations and Human Rights in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, international experts and civil society organizations, developed a definition of “anti-Semitism” that read as follows: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of the Jews. Expressed by hatred toward Jews, verbal or physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, institutions of the Jewish community and its religious facilities.”
The US State Department adopted the working European definition of “anti-Semitism.”
But the Ministry points out that this definition is broad, so it justifies the interpretive addition made by the European Center for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia in its definition of “anti-Semitism.”
This addition says, “Some manifestations [of anti-Semitism] could target the State of Israel as a comprehensive entity for Jews.”
What is most important for the researcher in this study is to point out the observation of the European Center for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia at the end of the document, which says, “However, criticizing (Israel) in a manner similar to criticism of any other country cannot be considered anti-Semitism.” ".
As for the provisions contained in the practical European definition of anti-Semitism, which deal with considering criticism of “Israel” in a certain context an anti-Semitic act, they stipulate the following:
Denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, for example by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor that has adopted a double standard by requiring Israel to engage in behavior that is not expected or required of any other democratic nation.
and the use of symbols and images associated with classic “anti-Semitism” (such as the claim that Jews killed Christ, or the blood libel) to describe “Israel” or “Israelis.”
And make a comparison between Israel's current policy and that of Nazism.
The Jews are collectively held responsible for the practices of the State of Israel.
Although these provisions attempt to detail what can be considered “anti-Semitic” and what can be considered permissible criticism against “Israel,” the various and loose interpretations of criticism directed at “Israel,” especially with regard to its practices against the Palestinians, give scope to “Israel” as a state and to the pro-Zionist organizations. It has accused critics of its policies of “anti-Semitism” to silence them.
We are then faced with a common mistake, which is the use of the term “Semitic” and what is derived from it, such as “Semites,” “anti-Semitism,” and “anti-Semitism,” where the position that is hostile to the Zionist dream and illusion, or the practices against the Arabs, has become described as “anti-Semitism” until it has become a sword. Praying over the necks of writers, newspapers, and governments, and subjecting them to what Zionism wants.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
Source: Al Jazeera