Charges of antisemitism can serve state power rather than minority rights

Evidence

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

Categorization

• XREF: This is the book’s most pointed analytic claim — that a prejudice-charge’s meaning shifts by who wields it. Relevant to the reader’s mapping of how definition is a political act. — connects to: The Semitic myth gains force when allied with state institutions; Nation-state distinguished useful from useless Jews rather than admitting equality; Antisemitism’s political aim was liquidating the nation-state, not just the Jews (+8 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The insight that a charge of bigotry flips from protecting a vulnerable minority to serving state power depending on context is dense and paradigm-shifting about how prejudice-claims function.

Related

• A charge of bigotry can shift from minority-rights claim to adjunct of state power. (similarity 0.87)
• The Semitic myth gains force when allied with state institutions (similarity 0.83)
• Charging antisemitism always carried a claim for Jewish rights (similarity 0.83)
• Antisemitism’s political aim was liquidating the nation-state, not just the Jews (similarity 0.82)
• Antisemitism has been framed as a rights violation across successive eras. (similarity 0.81)
• Antisemitism is a young term originally naming a political attack on Jewish rights. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Charging antisemitism always carried a claim for Jewish rights #contradicts (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 708
• Zionism conflates Palestinian rights advocacy with antisemitism through racialized stereotypes #complicates (0.75) — Evelyn Alsultany, Antisemitism and Islamophobia The…, 22
• Civil-liberties-versus-security framing normalizes sacrificing minority rights. #complicates (0.72)