The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy

by Gil Anidjar

Is there a concept of the enemy? To what discursive sphere would it belong? Or, if there is no concept of the enemy, what are the factors that could have prevented its articulation? Following the reflections of Carl Schmitt and Jacques Derrida on the theologico-political, and reading canonical texts from the Western philosophical, political, and religious traditions, the author seeks to account for the absence of a history of the enemy. The question of the enemy emerges in this book as contingent on the way Europe has related to both Jew and Arab as concrete enemies. Moreover, the author provocatively argues that the Jew and the Arab constitute the condition of religion and politics. Among the many strengths of the book is the timeliness of its profound study of contemporary the volume provides a basis for a philosophical understanding of the forces at work that produced and kindled current conflicts in Europe, the U.S., and the Middle East.

Genres: History, Politics

296 pages, Paperback

First published June 3, 2003

About the author

Gil Anidjar is a professor in the Departments of Religion and Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS)at Columbia University in the City of New York

Reviews

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

A history that is not a history of the enemy, a concept whose history can never be written. If this sounds interesting to you, you might love this book; if this sounds bogus, steer clear. The impulse is cool: he essentially wants to argue that the idea of "Europe" is bound up with a contrasting definition of the "Semitic" (Jew/Arab), and that the theological-political dimension of European politics is sublimated into the Jews (theological difference) and the Arabs (political difference). Europe, he says at one point, is the comma in the phrase, "The Jew, the Arab."
This all stems from his bete noir, Christianity, whose propensity to deny difference is already bound up in the command to "love your enemies" (because then what distinguishes neighbor and enemy? Does everyone become a neighbor or does everyone become an enemy?). The problem, at least for me, is that his rejection of normal scholarly methodology is so radical that these things are asserted rather than argued (although there are some brilliant passages, it is obscure how they fit into a rational argument). This might make me an imperialist.