Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Robert Wistrich and University of Maryland, College Park professor Jeffrey Herf trace the history of anti-Semitism from its earliest recorded roots through the present.
Furthermore, they discuss the potential impacts of its modern-day resurgence.
Bio
Jeffrey Herf
Jeffrey Herf is professor of modern European history at the University of Maryland, College Park. His most recent book, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World examines the Nazi regime's efforts to spread its ideas to North Africa and the Middle East during World War II and the Holocaust.
Herf has lectured widely at major universities and research centers in the United States, Europe and Israel, and has also brought a historian's perspective to bear on issues of contemporary policy and politics in his contributions to The New Republic online and in essays in The American Interest, The International Herald Tribune, The National Interest, Partisan Review, The Washington Post and major German newspapers including the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, and Die Zeit.
Christian Friedrich Ostermann
Christian Friedrich Ostermann is the director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), an international clearinghouse for cold war research, and editor of the CWIHP Bulletin.
Before joining CWIHP in January 1997 as associate director, he worked as a research fellow at the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research institute and repository based at George Washington University. He is a co-editor, Cold War History (London) and a Senior Research Fellow, National Security Archive (George Washington University). He also served as a Lecturer in History and International Affairs at George Washington University and Professorial Lecturer at Georgetown University. He has been a consultant on several historical documentaries, including CNN/Jeremi Isaacs Productions' "COLD WAR" (1998).
Prior to coming to Washington, he studied in Bonn, Cologne and Hamburg and was a research fellow at the Commission for the History of Parliament and Political Parties, Bonn (Germany).
Robert Wistrich
Robert Wistrich is director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism and Neuburger professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A prolific author, Wistrich has written extensively on the history of anti-Semitism, Jews and socialism, Nazi Germany, and related topics. Between 1999 and 2001 Wistrich was one of six scholars appointed to an international Catholic-Jewish historical commission to examine the wartime record of Pope Pius the XII.
More recently, in June 2003, he initiated and acted as chief historical advisor for a BBC film documentary on contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism, entitled "Blaming the Jews." Since 2003, he has edited the research journal Anti-Semitism International and the Posen Papers in Contemporary Anti-Semitism. Most recently, Wistrich is the author of A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad.
Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious group or “race.” Although the term anti-Semitism has wide currency, it is regarded by some as a misnomer, implying discrimination against all Semites, including Arabs and other peoples who are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. In antiquity, hostility to the Jews emerged because of religious differences, a situation worsened as a result of the competition with Christianity. By the 4th century, Christians tended to see Jews as an alien people whose repudiation of Christ had condemned them to perpetual migration. Jews were denied citizenship and its rights in much of Europe in the Middle Ages (though some societies were more tolerant) or were forced to wear distinctive clothing, and there were forced expulsions of Jews from several regions in that period. Developed during the Middle Ages were many of the stereotypes of Jews (e.g., the blood libel, alleged greed, conspiracy against humankind) that have persisted into the modern era. The Enlightenment and the French Revolution brought a new religious freedom to Europe in the 18th century but did not reduce anti-Semitism, because Jews continued to be regarded as outsiders. In the 19th century violent discrimination intensified (seepogrom), and so-called “scientific racism” emerged, which based hostility to the Jews on their supposed biological characteristics and replaced religion as the primary basis for anti-Semitism. In the 20th century the economic and political dislocations caused by World War I intensified anti-Semitism, and racist anti-Semitism flourished in Nazi Germany. Nazi persecution of the Jews led to the Holocaust, in which an estimated six million Jews were exterminated. Despite the defeat of the Nazis in World War II, anti-Semitism remained a problem in many parts of the world into the 21st century.
People are probably going to disagree with me but I though this was very near sighted, specially with respect to the "anti-semitism card" question and some other points, it is very common for a person to be branded anti-semitic just for being critical of the israeli government, regardless of you being a Jewish person yourself.
Anti-semitism is the card they use.
Quote:
It generally follows that people that oppose the occupation end up being accused of anti-semitism. The whole fact that we need to discuss whether it is valid to consider the accusation of "anti-semitism" is due to the fact that it has been overused in completely trivial situations.
The term "anti-semitism" is so abused that the real meaning of it has become obsucred.
Quote:
I reckon that anti-semitism, racism and even sexism are outdated terms since we live in a egalitarian society where everyone is deemed to be equal, the -isms can be dropped and replaced by the despicable action of someone being prejudice towards a fellow human being.
so overall I do reckon that the content of the talk was rather poor.
I culodn't agree more.
BTW, I am an ex-religion but back home, my label is "Muslim" (with innuendo of foreigner) and so i choose that user name
Poor guy never bothered with an education in history or he would have known that people have hated Jews since they first concocted their religion. Saying that you are God's favorite was bound to piss off all the pagans who lived at that time. Going around spouting that you are superior to all your neighbors is only done to antagonize your neighbors and make them hate you.
Why are people in gaza living under such aweful circumstances? Isn't Hamas the governing authority there? Aren't their righteously outraged, wealthy Arab brothers contributing to show in deeds what their firey words regarding the dignity of the Palestinian people show?
Why are Palestinian homes being bulldozed? Jews simply bulldoze homes for no reason whatsoever? That certain things take place is meaningless. The reasons why things take place needs to be honestly and rationally discussed.
Palestinian terrorists fire rockets into Israel from civilian infrastructure. Israel has an obligation to defend its people from this war crime. Israel drops thousand of leaflets warning innocent civilians that a military action is coming and to leave. They also call Palestinians in their homes and on their cell phones to warn them of impending military action. Your cynical ignoring of the fact that Palestinian terrorists use civilians as human shields, or the cover of a hospital or school or residential building from which to fire rockets shows your moral confusion. Hamas uses their civilians as props. They fire rockets from apartment buildings - Israel warns innocent civilians to leave - Hamas encourages their people to defy the "pig and monkey" Jews - the Israelis attack - the European and Arab news agencies condemn Israel and place stuffed animals or toys in the rubble for front page photos and the UN and the United States urge Israeli restraint. This has been the pattern for my entire life as a witness of this farce. many Palestinian people, particularly the women, beg terrorists not to fire rockets from their buidling, their children's schools or the hospitals where their family members may be, because they know that Israel will respond - that it is logical for Israel to respond. Those "down with the struggle" win the day as they are the ones with the guns.
Again, if no further rockets were ever fired into Israel from Gaza, would Israel ever go into Gaza again and bulldoze terrorist infrastructure? You and I know they would not.
Yes, and Richard Goldstein, whose report was very critical of Israel (as well as Hamas, actually) even though he has always been a zionist.
And Naomi Wolf, who is Jewish. She has visited Gaza and seen under what terrible conditions people are living there. She is condemning Israel, too.
Antisemitism?
Jews are living all around the world - are they being widely discriminated based on their nationality?
We critisize Israel, its government for its policies.
And again and again some people try to change the subject from why palestinians homes are continuously being demolished to antisemitism. Thats an old cheap trick that less and less people are buying.
And when some say that Hamas is no better - well they may be right, so what? Hamas was not always at power, only now, and the conflict has been going on since the creation of Israel and still continuing.
The presupposition underpinning the whole talk seems to be that the "Jewish people" are innocently at the mercy of much greater historical forces which are turning against them.
Unfortunately, I don't see the faintest evidence for this somewhat self-indulgent worldview.
You say Zionism means killing "innocent" "Palestinians"? I think there is not enough "Zionism" (as you understand it to be). Please shut up. Because we are getting sick of people trying to kill us and accusing of being killers. Maybe someone gives you the grand tour of an industrial series oven?
I would like to point out that the Jewish people are not synonymous with the people of Israel.
Aside from the fact that Israel is a majority Arabic country, or is expected to be in the near future, as far as I've heard, there are obviously Jewish people all over the world.
The conflation of Jewish ethnicity with Israeli citizenship is one of the most annoying and frankly outrageous fallacies that the political right, and many so-called scholars of anti-Semitism, dabble in, because it has a few clear implications:
Firstly, that distrust, dislike, or simply disagreement with Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism. This, apart from being an underhanded way of delegitimizing anyone and everyone who, like the United States president and a majority of people in the civilized world, is in favour of a two-state solution and a cease fire, is a most disgusting way of abusing the term anti-Semitism for political purposes, which exists almost solely among right-wing politicians in Europe, America, and Israel.
Secondly, that left-wing proponents of peace who happen to be Jewish, like Jon Stuart, Anthony Weiner (I think), Bill Maher, and many others worldwide, particularly in Israel, are betraying their people, ethnicity, religion, etc. The right-wing government of Israel, who this very week made sent a national insult to the United States, are not the final arbiters of who gets to be Jewish. Being Jewish is a cultural, ethnic, and religious thing; It should *never* be politicized as the right-wing does on nearly every occasion Israeli foreign policy is mentioned. Otherwise, if the government of Israel chose to side with the political left and the proponents of peace tomorrow, wouldn't all the right-wing Jews suddenly become the betrayers of Jewishness?
That is why I find it disgusting and insulting when so-called scholars and politicians politicize Semitism, and anti-Semitism; It is an insult to large swathes of people who have one political opinion or another without harbouring any ill will towards the Jewish people, and it is especially an insult to the Jewish people themselves.
And besides it being incredibly insulting to the Jewish people, the politicization of Semitism, and anti-Semitism, is a significant contributor to anti-Semitism itself. People pretending to be unbiased historians who use claims of anti-Semitism to get their political agenda across portray Jewish people as either weak, eternally innocent victims, or political conspirators trying to twist historical facts for their own personal benefit. Depending on whether you believe their politically motivated diatribes or not.
The scientific community is only united and agreed on the scientific approach. It is always skeptical by definition. Real scientists are on the edge of the unknown. They expect change. School teachers are in class rooms reinforcing current dogma: they expect obedience.
“…there are members of the scientific community who have proposed evidence to show the so called myths and legends may have a scientific basis for their existence.” — so you are saying that science is working on it. Good. Then things can only improve if applied correctly and honestly. Until then we should just keep smashing heads?
I do not say anything about the scientific community. This is a similar issue as making broad statements on the Jewish community, or Indian community. What does this really mean?
Recent climate change and IPCC has shown how this group can be as affected as any other with ‘group think’. I am not welded to science. It has its place. If I want to know what we are and what is going on around here then I will first seek the answers in the fields of science. If I want to know why we are here, then I would not even start with science – a “BIG BANG!” is as meaningless as any other attempt to describe the indescribable: may as well use the Buddhist response to what is holding the world up: “Turtles all the way down….
Here is one example of what I mean by science having a role to demystify and debunk: to the best of my knowledge, archaeology has come to the view that the original Jewish peoples of the area now called Palestine (and in some parts called Israel) were in fact Canaanites just like the rest. Based on pottery I think, if my memory serves me correctly, as one of the key facts. So, taking something like Joshua chapter 6, we can only conclude that this is a description of a civil war, justified by the winners, as per normal, and is partly responsible sustaining the current bout of misery in the region.
Of course, they may have found different evidence since I last collected that tit-bit, and it may happen they find some tomorrow. No issue for me: I’ll change my views on that point.
Do I think this “Chapter 6” should be recognized by the UN as justification for a separate racist State to compensate the guilt of recent European barbarism? No. If the State of Israel was ‘enlightened’ and had set up a ‘paradise on earth’ for all the people there – not just the ‘chosen ones’ – then perhaps it would not matter.
While Chapter 6 exists, it empowers people to do crimes to others, and it offers cheap rationalization by way of it being some god “who told us to do it” – sorry, does not cut much credit in my bank. Chapter 6, and others like it, should be ripped out and composted imo. Weapons of mass deception! Any Nazi in Germany caught writing or following similar material where the victims were Jews or Roma, or any other persecuted subgroup, then they’d hag in the Gallows!
“Therefore, using the logic of science has clearly dismissed any truth regarding the Jewish and biblical stories in your response has elevated science's role in deciding something that is it is not in agreement within its own community.” -– be careful here. You run the risk of reading not what I wrote (or at least meant). I do not say “logic of science”. I say scientific technique and evidence.
I’ll rephrase your words to what I believe I’m saying: “Therefore, where the evidence and logic resulting from scientific technique has clearly dismissed the previously self-claimed and assumed ‘truth’ regarding the Jewish and biblical stories (or any other such material) then it is safer to base public policy on this situation until disagreement within its own community [science I assume] forces a review.”
“. . . you mention no source that speaks for all the scientific community to give your statement any credence.” – again, I am not speaking of, or for, a ‘scientific community’, and especially not for “all of it”. Science Studies is a developing discipline to review science as a cultural phenomena, but you are seeking to take the focus away from what I am pointing at.
It really is not that complex: If you think your illness is from witchcraft then you will burn witches (usually little old ladies who are beyond economic utility). If you know it is from a virus etc then you will take medications and improve hygiene etc. The effort is to move from A-type reactions to B-type reactions.
“It does clearly reflect your belief in the parts of the scientific community you strongly agree with and I have no problem with that if you are expressing your support for the theory/hypothesis and not elevating a vague statement with no documented record from a united scientific community.” – What are you struggling with? Obviously I am talking about parts (as stated above) and I relate to the data and explanations in the same way as any other information. I give it a credibility factor based on a number of criteria. Evidence, good argument, logic, plausibility, testability, repeatability, etc all the way down to “my ancestors told us”. It is a scale of value. My values rate it one way. You may rate it the reverse way, and in some circumstances this may be appropriate.
I have given you an archaeological example that I am aware of. The actual example is not important. What is important is the weight given to such data. Biology might be another place to show the differences between these perspectives and values systems. The human brain & mind today are seen vastly differently than 30 years ago by scientists working in related fields. No one is concerned with this change in our growing knowledge. The faith in the methodology is maintained.
“Many religions state the biblical and Islamic records are the perfect word of God and it is impossible to be wrong.”— ok, what “many religions” apart from themselves?
“Many things can be written in text and have some scientific evidence but that alone does make the case stronger or weaker. It maybe cause to strengthen ones belief of the text but you cannot disproof or dismiss the text completely without some basis on the original source of the text being available. And since no one has the original source material and only copies no one can prove or disprove by science anything.”— I think you are just arguing my case. Science disproves. It falsifies hypothesis. These beliefs are hypotheses. If the hypothesis is disproved then it is thrown out. If no evidence can be found in archaeology for a different culture in ancient Canaanites’ times, then ergo all those there were of the same culture. Therefore, any claims otherwise must be questioned and their basis for public policy (in this case) adjusted.
“This is both true of both communities of the so-called modern age of global reasoning and religious fanatics...they both want power and gain at the expense of the other because they cannot tolerate the possibility they both can be right and both can be wrong...namely PRIDE!!!”—I agree.
“So I still see contention and hatred not so much at a person or group but as passions that run deep of individual feelings blaming one another's beliefs for the causes of such misery…” – I tend to agree, but wonder why you suggested my statements were from hatred? I do not believe they are, but people who are angry may project onto words meanings and tones that were not intended. I get angry when I see innocent men, women and children get slaughtered by criminals in suits and uniforms. I don’t care whether they are Nazis killing Jews or Jews killing Palestinians – fascism is at work.
I am under no illusion that humans are nice creatures. Nor do I think we need ancient justifying tribal myths egging them on towards barbaric behaviour in the real world today.
Again I say, it is about foundation for good state policy -- not a debate about science vs. religion.
member. 
