Antisemitism’s political aim was liquidating the nation-state, not just the Jews

Evidence

Our previous analysis has brought us, however, to the conclusion that the true role of the sophisticated, theoretical forms of antisemitism lay not so much in its capacity to foment the antagonist practices of the masses, as in its unique link with the social-engineering designs and ambitions of the modern state (or, more precisely, the extreme and radical variants of such ambitions). — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 230 (#expands, via linked claim)

The fact that similar formations without active antisemitism—which avoided the charlatan aspect of the antisemitic parties and therefore seemed at first to have far better chances for final victory—were finally submerged or liquidated by the antisemitic movement is a good index to the importance of the issue. The antisemites’ belief that their claim to exclusive rule was no more than what the Jews had in fact achieved, gave them the advantage of a domestic program, and conditions were such that one had to enter the arena of social struggle in order to win political power. They could pretend to fight the Jews exactly as the workers were fighting the bourgeoisie. Their advantage was that by attacking the Jews, who were believed to be the secret power behind governments, they could openly attack the state itself, whereas the imperialist groups, with their mild and secondary antipathy against Jews, never found the connection with the important social struggles of the times. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 152 (#expands, via linked claim)

Through much of the 20th century the meanings attached to antisemitism rested on universal ideals as well as Jewish interests – upon the ideas of equality vested in Jewish emancipation and minority rights. This concept of antisemitism has not disappeared but it has been supplemented and sometimes overshadowed by a concept of antisemitism that is attached to the defence of Israel, its right to exist and its policies. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 marked a radical break in Jewish history. When Israel is the subject of debate the charge of antisemitism may still invoke the rights of a historically persecuted minority, such as whenever Jews are libelled as a uniquely self-interested and darkly conspiratorial force. However, the charge of antisemitism often arises in contexts in which Jews defend the policies of a state which defines itself as Jewish and in which Jews compose the majority of the population, in which the non-Jewish minorities suffer some systematic disadvantage and which since 1967 has exercised dominion beyond its internationally recognized borders (Peleg and Waxman 2011). When the charge of antisemitism arises in the context of debate on the politics of Israel/Palestine it is wielded, in part at least, as an adjunct to state power and not as an auxiliary to the claims of a vulnerable minority. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 714 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The decline of the nation-state eroded the Jews’ traditional political function; Antisemitic parties uniquely aimed at the state itself, not at any social class; Antisemitism won over rival movements by letting parties attack the state through the Jews — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 152 (+5 more)

Related

• Antisemitic parties uniquely aimed at the state itself, not at any social class (similarity 0.91)
• Antisemitism won over rival movements by letting parties attack the state through the Jews (similarity 0.85)
• Theoretical antisemitism matters through its link to state social-engineering ambitions. (similarity 0.85)
• Antisemitism served as an instrument to dissolve the nation-state itself (similarity 0.83)
• Charges of antisemitism can serve state power rather than minority rights (similarity 0.82)
• Antisemitism’s source lies in the nation-state’s development and Jews’ state functions. (similarity 0.81)
• The Semitic myth gains force when allied with state institutions (similarity 0.79)
• Aristocratic antisemitism targeted Jews as symbols of the state, not as economic rivals (similarity 0.79)
• Antisemitism peaked after Jews had already lost economic influence (similarity 0.79)
• Antisemitism functioned as a targeted political instrument to destabilize the Hapsburg state. (similarity 0.78)
• Antisemitism only conserved Jewish identity after emancipation and assimilation. (similarity 0.78)
• Antisemitism has been framed as a rights violation across successive eras. (similarity 0.78)
• The Holocaust fused antisemitism with social and political mechanisms of an entirely different character. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Antisemitism won over rival movements by letting parties attack the state through the Jews #expands (0.85) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 152
• Theoretical antisemitism matters through its link to state social-engineering ambitions. #expands (0.85) — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 230
• Charges of antisemitism can serve state power rather than minority rights #complicates (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 714
• Antisemitic parties organized supranationally while posing as reactionary nationalists #expands (0.80)
• Antisemitism is a young term originally naming a political attack on Jewish rights. #qualifies (0.75) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 712
• Antisemitism survives and re-targets other populations after Jews disappear #qualifies (0.70) — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 226