1
“Foreword”
Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: Representation, Cognition and Everyday Talk
By
Rusi Jaspal,
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2014), pp. xiii-xvii.
Anti-Semitism is a powerful sentiment. It has been a fashionable and successful phenomenon in
many parts of the world for generations. Despite many attempts to expose its hideous roots, the
underlying ignorance and the brute lies that are spread about Jews, anti-Semitism has survived all
attempts to curb it. It is a resilient and ugly form of racism that has direct implications on Jews
throughout the world.
One of the images that are closely associated with Jews is of a person who packs his bag, takes his
stick and moves from one place to another. This is the image of the Wandering Jew. Indeed, Jews
have been wandering the world, often as they fled from persecution, pogroms and harassment.
In the 19th Century, a national movement called Zionism emerged. Its goal was to establish a home
for the Jewish people, a place where Jews could live free of anti-Semitism and violence. After some
debate as to where this home should be, the Zionists set their eyes on Palestine as the place that
could unite Jews. Understandably, Jews wished to return to the birthplace of their forefathers, to
Eretz (Land of) Israel. This was the only place on earth to which Jews from different corners of the
world feel affinity and connection. The early Zionists recognized that the journey won’t be easy,
that it will be rife with challenges and obstacles, but they wanted to stop the constant wandering.
They wanted to lead their lives as free people, sovereign and independent.
The Zionist idea was to inhabit the land of the Jewish ancestors and to create there a new Jew
(Sabra), who is able to lead his life freely, practice his religion and culture with no bigotry and
without apology; able to defend himself against anti-Semitic violence; cultivate his own land, and be
productive and social. Zionism demanded a significant personal sacrifice and a radical change in
one’s life: Leaving one’s home, one’s country; travelling afar to a distant land; often changing one’s
profession; getting accustomed to a new, rough environment; adopting for many a new language,
Hebrew, that at that point of time was confined only to religious studies, not practiced in one’s daily
life. Zionism attempted to establish Jewish communal life at the expense of personal bourgeois
comfort and the good life of the individual. Collective goals were held superior to individual
ambitions. Indeed, Zionism as a revolutionary movement was about individual and social
redemption and emancipation, the gathering of exiles, and the creation of a new person, of a new
society, in the old land of the Bible. David Ben-Gurion wrote:
The meaning of the Jewish revolution is contained in one word-independence! Independence for the Jewish people in its homeland!
Dependence is not merely political or economic; it is also moral, cultural, and
intellectual, and it affects every limb and nerve of the body every conscious
and subconscious act. Independence, too, means more than political and
economic freedom. It involves also the spiritual, moral, and intellectual realms
and, in essence, it is independence in the heart, in sentiment, and in will. From
this inner sense of freedom outer forms of independence will develop in our
2
way of life, social organization, relations with other people, and economic
structure.1
Ben-Gurion further explained that Jewish independence will be shaped further by the conquest of
labour and the land, by broadening the range of the Hebrew language and its culture, by perfecting
the methods of self-government and self-defence, by creating the framework and conditions for
national and political independence and creativity. This is the essence of the Jewish revolution.
Ben-Gurion thought that the exile is an insult, that exile ruins Jewish character and life. Exile
negates Jewish historical past and Jewish moral mission. Thus Jews must return to their homeland
and revive the Hebrew language. Ben-Gurion continued the missionary vision of Theodor Herzl, the
father of modern political Zionism. Both men understood that Jews will be able to transform into
people of character only if they leave Europe and migrate to a new land. In The Jewish State Herzl
wrote: “The Jews have dreamt this kingly dream all through the long nights of their history. ‘Next
year in Jerusalem’ is our old phrase. It is now a question of showing that the dream can be
converted into a living reality”.2 The Zionist movement was fortunate to have two giant leaders who
had the vision and the courage to pave the way for the significant revolution against immense odds.
In this well-written and well-researched book, Rusi Jaspal rightly asserts that for Theodor Herzl
Zionism offered the only plausible solution to the ominous, lingering problem of anti-Semitism.
Herzl recognised that in exile Jews would continue to face enmity and persecution. Herzl wrote:
Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is
bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be
removed. Its remote cause is our loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle
Ages; its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who
cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards—that is to say, no wholesome outlet in
either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate
officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also
our terrible power of the purse.3
The Zionist movement has been a successful national, revolutionary movement. In 1948, the goal
was achieved when the State of Israel was established. However, the goal of achieving security was
not achieved. Anti-Semitism has not been relaxed. A new racist phenomenon has emerged, antiZionism, that has supplemented and bolstered anti-Semitism. The birth-pangs of the Jewish state
were exceptionally painful as the less-than-one-day country was immediately attacked by its
neighbours that did not wish to come to terms with its sovereign existence. The Arabs in Palestine
did not wish Zionism to materialize. They did not accept any attempts at compromise over the land
as offered by the UN and other intermediaries. The 1947 Partition Plan was rejected tout court.
Israel’s War of Independence is termed Nakba by the Palestinians. The Jewish desire for salvation
from violence and constant persecution meant a catastrophe for the Arabs of Palestine.
David Ben-Gurion, “The Imperatives of the Jewish Revolution”, http://zionism-israel.com/hdoc/BenGurion_Jewish_revolution.htm
1
Theodor
Herzl,
The
Jewish
State
(New
York:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25282/25282-h/25282-h.htm
2
3
Ibid., 41.
Dover
Publications,
1988):
40,
3
Since then, Israel’s existence has been contested time and again. More wars ensued. Anti-Zionist
sentiments intensified. Zionism has been tagged a form of racism. While two of Israel’s neighbours
conceded to come to terms with the Zionist-Jewish state and signed peace treaties with Israel – first
Egypt in 1978 and later Jordan in 1994 – the two other neighbours, Syria and Lebanon, have yet to
come to terms with Israel. Peace with the Palestinians remains a desire. More than 60 years after
the establishment of Israel, its geographic boundaries are still contested. Israel does not appear on
the maps of some of its rivals. Israel is yet to be accepted as a legitimate entity, part and parcel of
the Middle East, by many countries, near and far.
Rusi Jaspal’s thoughtful and thought-provoking book is intended to provide an understanding of the
social and psychological motivations and processes underlying anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It
examines these forms of prejudice in two specific case studies, Iranian Muslims and British
Pakistani Muslims and the responses to these forms of prejudice among Israelis and British Jews. It
also investigates the inter-relations between historical events and their social psychological
meanings for groups and individuals. The psychological framework consists of Social
Representations Theory, Identity Process Theory and Intergroup Threat Theory.
Combining theory with painstaking empirical analysis, Jaspal shows that the Iranian resort in their
publications to a delegitimization campaign which consists of three inter-dependent components:
contesting the legitimacy of the Israel; describing the malevolent processes whereby the Jewish
State was established and is currently maintained; “problem-solving” by demanding the destruction
of Israel. By analysing the 2006 International Holocaust Cartoon Contest, designed to deny the
Holocaust, Jaspal explains the methods by which Zionism has been transformed into a new form of
Nazism. In the crude political cynicism and irony, masterminded by Tehran, the Jews who survived
the most comprehensive and vicious campaign to annihilate a people the world has ever known, “in
fact” invented the Holocaust and adopted the ideology of their arch nemesis. By endorsing this
contest, Jaspal rightly notes, the Islamic Republic of Iran sought to “normalise” Holocaust denial
(that is, anti-Semitism) as a legitimate means of criticizing Israel and Zionism. Japsal argues that
Iranians tend to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. He found similarly strong negative
sentiments among British Pakistani Muslims who also mix Holocaust denial, old-fashion bigoted
depictions of Jews and unequivocal resentment of the State of Israel.
At the end of his empirical study, Jaspal highlights the general importance of both Jewish ethnoreligious and Israeli national identities among the Israeli Jews who were interviewed. Most of them
regarded their Jewish and Israeli identities as inextricably entwined, and perceived anti-Zionism as
a form of anti-Semitism. Both of them threaten their Jewish and Israeli identities. Jaspal also
interviewed British Jews and found that Israeli and British Jews construed anti-Zionism and antiSemitism as a fundamentally Muslim, rather than European, phenomenon. Psychologically it is
more comfortable, or less disturbing, for people who choose to lead their lives in Europe to
associate these forms of prejudice with a religion rather than a continent that has been rife with
Christian stern hatred for the Jews for many generations.
Theodor Herzl, who was aware of the malicious continental anti-Semitism, was a man of vision, a
dreamer and a doer. In The Jewish State, Herzl wrote:4
But the Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies. As
for those who remain behind, since prosperity enfeebles and causes them to diminish,
4
Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25282/25282-h/25282-h.htm
4
they would soon disappear altogether. I think the Jews will always have sufficient
enemies, such as every nation has. But once fixed in their own land, it will no longer be
possible for them to scatter all over the world. The diaspora cannot be reborn, unless
the civilization of the whole earth should collapse; and such a consummation could be
feared by none but foolish men. Our present civilization possesses weapons powerful
enough for its self-defence.
For the time being, the vision was more optimistic than real. Israel still has enemies, and Jews are
scattered all over the world. Jews continue to wander, looking for happiness and security. Zionism
must find a way to integrate into the Middle East and to garner acceptance especially among the
nations surrounding Israel. Then Israel will be more attractive to Jews who may consider making
aliya (immigrate) to Zion but are cautious not to substitute one form of insecure living with
another.
Herzl concluded The Jewish State by the following statements:5
We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and die peacefully in our own
homes.
The world will be freed by our liberty, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our
greatness.
And whatever we attempt there to accomplish for our own welfare, will react
powerfully and beneficially for the good of humanity.
Amen!
5
Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25282/25282-h/25282-h.htm