Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #172

by Steven Beller

Antisemitism, as hatred of Jews and Judaism, has been a central problem of Western civilization for millennia, and its history continues to invite debate.This Very Short Introduction untangles the history of the phenomenon, from ancient religious conflict to 'new' antisemitism in the 21st century. Steven Beller reveals how Antisemitism grew as a political and ideological movement in the 19th century, how it reached its dark apogee in the worst genocide in modern history - the Holocaust - and how Antisemitism still persists around the world today.In the new edition of this thought-provoking Very Short Introduction, Beller brings his examination of this complex and still controversial issue up to date with a discussion of Antisemitism in light of the 2008 financial crash, the Arab Spring, and the on-going crisis between Israel and Palestine.ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Religion, Politics, Sociology, Philosophy, Antisemitism

160 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Steven Beller is a Visiting Scholar at George Washington University, Washington DC, and a former Research Fellow in History at Peterhouse College, Cambridge.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 3 out of 5]

در قرون وسطی حکومت‌ها خود را با «گروه‌ها» روبه‌رو می‌دیدند، نه با اشخاص. به این معنی که هر شخص جایگاه سیاسی و حقوقی نداشت، بلکه جایگاه او وابسته بود به عضویتش در یک گروه یا طبقه یا جامعه (دهقان، صنعتگر، روحانی، اشراف، یا جوامع نیمه‌مستقل یهودی، مسیحی و مسلمان). در این فضا، هر گروه یا طبقه ممکن بود قوانینی داخلی برای اداره‌ی اشخاص داشته باشد که منافاتی با حکومت کلی نداشت. به این ترتیب به تعداد جوامع و گروه‌ها و طبقات درون یک پادشاهی، قوانین مختلف برقرار بود. برای مثال جوامع یهودی توسط قوانین و دادگاه‌های دینی اداره می‌شدند.

این گروه‌ها گاه به شکل فیزیکی جدا از هم زندگی می‌کردند. به طور خاص، یهودیان در محله‌هایی جداگانه زندگی می‌کردند که «گِتو» نامیده می‌شد. این وضعیت در روسیه و کشورهای اروپای شرقی، تا مدت‌ها در دوران مدرن ادامه پیدا کرد. این کشورها همچنان رعایای خود را نه «اشخاص» بلکه «گروه‌ها» می‌دیدند. همین باعث شد یهودیان این کشورها به عنوان گروهی جدا (و دشمن مسیحیت) آماج تبعیض و کشتارهای مختلف شوند.

اما در کشورهای اروپای غربی با انقلاب فرانسه (۱۷۸۹) شکل حکومت تغییری بنیادین کرد. دیگر رعایای حکومت «گروه‌ها» نبودند، بلکه «اشخاص» بودند که حقوقی برابر در مقابل حکومت و قانون داشتند. این اشخاص «شهروند» نامیده می‌شدند. در راستای انحلال گروه‌ها و امتیازات گروهی، گتوها نیز به مرور باز شدند و یهودیان اجازه یافتند همچون شهروندانی عادی آزادانه زندگی کنند. رهبران انقلاب فرانسه بر مبنای حقوق بشر اعلام کردند: «یهودیان به عنوان یک ملت از هر حقی محرومند، اما به عنوان یک شخص از هر حقی برخوردارند.» به این معنی که یهودیان دیگر حق ندارند امور خود را به شکلی مستقل و با دادگاه‌های دینی درونی اداره کنند، اما از سوی دیگر حقوقی برابر با غیر یهودیان در برابر حکومت غیر یهودی دارند. مبنای این حقوق برابر، حقوق بنیادین بشر در تفکر روشنگری بود.

کشورهای اروپای مرکزی (آلمان، اتریش، مجارستان) در وضعیتی بینابین قرار داشتند. با فتوحات ناپلئون، گتوهای این کشورها برچیده شدند. اما پس از اخراج فرانسوی‌ها، تفکر فرانسوی را نیز کنار گذاشته شد. یهودیان می‌توانستند آزاد باشند، اما نه به خاطر حقوق بشر؛ بلکه باید نشان می‌دادند که «لیاقت» آزادی را دارند: یعنی اولاً به طور کامل در جامعه‌ی اروپایی ادغام و با فرهنگ اروپایی «همسان» (آسیمیله) می‌شدند و خصوصیات «منفی» یهودی خود را کنار می‌گذاشتند، و ثانیاً می‌بایست برای کشور «مفید» می‌بودند، با خدمت سربازی و خدمات اجتماعی و اقتصادی دیگر. این انتخابی در برابر یهودیان این کشورها می‌گذاشت: می‌توانستند ادغام و همسان شوند و «لیاقت» شهروندی پیدا کنند، و می‌توانستند هویت یهودی خود را حفظ کنند و از شهروندی و حقوق برابر محروم شوند.

بسیاری از یهودیان ادغام و همسان شدن را انتخاب کردند و چنان در این زمینه مصمم بودند که تا اواخر قرن ۱۹ یهودیان آلمانی جزء اقشار تحصیلکرده و ثروتمند آلمان بودند. اما زمانی که یهودیان پس از یک قرن موفق شدند به آرمان روشنگری برسند، آلمانی‌ها از روشنگری عبور کرده بودند و وارد دوران رمانتیک شده بودند. رمانتیسیسم بر خلاف فردگرایی روشنگری، به «ملی‌گرایی» معتقد بود. تا زمانی که ملیت با زبان و فرهنگ تعریف می‌شد، همچنان امیدی بود که یهودیان بتوانند به ملیت آلمانی و اتریشی و مجارستانی درآیند، اما با ظهور داورینیسم، ملیت با نژاد پیوند خورد و دیگر راه هر گونه ادغام و همسانی بر یهودیان بسته شد. جالب است که با رمانتیسیسم نگاه جمع‌محور قرون وسطی، دوباره احیا شد. دوباره هویت هر کس را نه فردانیت خودش، بلکه عضویتش در یک گروه (نژادی) تعریف می‌کرد.

باور به بیگانگی نژادی یهودیان باعث شد موفقیت ایشان در عرصهٔ اقتصاد و فرهنگ، که تا پیش از آن مثبت ارزیابی می‌شد، اینک عامل نفرت از ایشان شود: ایشان دیگر «اشخاصی» نبودند که خود را با جامعهٔ مدرن همسان کرده بودند، بلکه «بیگانگانی» بودند که همچون انگل از کشور تغذیه می‌کردند و پروار می‌شدند. هر گاه بحرانی پیش می‌آمد، همچون رکود اقتصادی اواخر قرن ۱۹، ترور تزار الکساندر دوم در ۱۸۸۲، نخستین انقلاب ناموفق روسیه در ۱۹۰۵، و جنگ جهانی اول و پیامدهای آن، این نفرت هر چه بیشتر شدت می‌گرفت و منجر به یهودی‌کشی می‌شد. اوج این جریان، به قدرت رسیدن نازیسم بر اثر شرایط سخت اقتصادی آلمان پس از جنگ جهانی اول بود که به هولوکاست و کشتار یهودیان آلمان، اتریش، لهستان و مجارستان منجر شد.


یهودیان در مقابل این جریان جدید، سه رویکرد اتخاذ کردند: اکثریت، همچنان امیدوار به وعده‌های روشنگری، به همسان شدن ادامه دادند و معتقد بودند که یهودی‌ستیزی به مرور از بین خواهد رفت. گروهی دیگر با مشاهدهٔ ضعف و تسلیم لیبرالیسم در برابر یهودی‌ستیزی، به سوسیالیسم روی آوردند، به این امید که آرمان برابری روشنگری را از این طریق تحقق ببخشند. در نهایت گروهی با پذیرش ملی‌گرایی نژادی، پذیرفتند که یهودیان به واقع «بیگانه» هستند و به جای همسانی و برابری با غیریهودیان، باید ملیت جداگانهٔ خود را بپذیرند و کشور خود را تشکیل دهند. این گروه سوم «صهیونیسم» را بنیاد نهادند.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly, this book was a big disappointment.

I'm a very, very secular Jew. Heck, I'm half-Jewish. Orthodox don't even consider me Jewish. But I've lived outside the States/Canada/Australia for long periods of time, and as just about any Jew will tell you who has done what I've done there is LOT of people who will show prejudice and discrimination to you because you are Jewish. They come in every color and from every religious group. You don't have to believe me, just go here to get some hard numbers: http://global100.adl.org/

This book essentially dismisses all the "low-level" antisemitism as not really antisemitism or not really important: read anything that does not involve actual mass murder. But when someone discriminates against you because you are Jewish, how is that not antisemitism?

As well, the author totally dismisses the discursive approach for evaluation of the evolution of antisemitism. This seems to be a strange choice for a "A Very Short Introduction" book since discursive analysis is the basis for most literature about all studies of oppression--racism, sexism, what have you.

In all my years abroad I have to say that the people who said the most batshit crazy JEWS CONTROL THE WORLD ITSACONSPIRACY stuff were majority English people. Since "A Very Short Introduction" is British, I suspect that their choice of author and thus that author's choice of content is strongly influenced by their long history of antisemitism on the British Isles.

[Aron · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Very Short Introduction series is hit or miss. The African History book is more about histiography than history. The Advertising book is surprisingly interesting. This one is a terrible miss. Sure this is a huge topic, but the author defines the term “anti-semitism” so narrowly, he brings it to the point of absurdity. There is an obvious agenda behind this definition which he gets to at the end-he believes that nationalism is the source of all evil in the world and post-modern multiculturalism will allow all humanity to live in harmony. To justify this belief, he tries to show that the Holocaust is a specific outgrowth of a very specific form of 19th c. German nationalism & that “political” anti-semitism no longer exists except among some Muslims, & in that case it’s justified because of evil Israel & it’s backwards nationalism (which obviously has the same roots as that evil German nationalism). The conflict is the fault of the Je—Zionists, & it’s only a few nasty people who conflate good Jews (like him?) with those very bad Zios. Isn’t it ironic that the Zionists attempt to redefine Jews as a nation, not a religion, is the flame that keeps antisemitism alive?

Disclaimer: I’m one of those “evil Zios” who live in Israel, so yes I have my own biases. But here are just a few of my critiques of this book.

First, his view of the world is so naive & so contradicts reality that one has to wonder what are they teaching people in universities these days: certainly not skepticism & critical thinking. A few kilometers from where I live, half a million Syrian people have been slaughtered, millions more exiled, not in the name of nationalism, but in the pursuit of raw power & hegemony. The Jews in Arab states who were kicked out in 1948 are actually quite lucky, because otherwise their fate would have resembled those of the poor Yazidis, or other minorities, or just any other Arab in the turmoil of the last decade since the “Arab spring.” Human beings are evil, not nationalism (which, by the way is the basis of the modern liberal order).

As for European Jewry, it's not all the German's fault. As a son of refugees from the Holocaust, I mourn my relatives who were slaughtered in the war because the Brits (who, according to the author, are only mild Jew haters & really are good people) closed the gates of their own country & “Palestine” to Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis. If it weren’t for those awful Zionists, the Brits, as he himself notes, would have sent the survivors (whom the Brits kept in horrible “displaced persons” camps) back to Poland, where the locals would have finished Hitler's job. Why would any rational Jew trust the good will of any European? These awful things happened within living memory. Post-modernists are the last people I would trust not to throw me into the oven.

There are lot's of minor & major factual errors & omissions. One small example: The first massacre of Jews in Spain is in 1066 in Granada, not 1096 as he claims on p.13. But the biggest such example is that to validate his thesis, he downplays anti-semitism in all its various forms throughout the modern period & throughout Europe, West and East, but particularly in Britain: the Jewish question “not important in British political culture” p.25 “genteel anti-Jewish snobbery” only in certain circles, “Jewish integration was relatively easy” p.24. “Daniel Deronda”, the proto-Zionist novel in 1876 tells a different story.

He himself questions his assertion that “the Jewish question in France was relatively tame” given the Dreyfus affair. His answer, viz. that the Jewish aspect was marginal & only a reflection of the fight between Republicans & reactionary monarchists, is not convincing at all. He should spend some time reading Proust.

His argument seems to be that since the political classes in Europe didn't egg on pogroms, Jews weren't being slaughtered en masse. Hence the non-“political” forms of anti-semitism—discrimination, property theft, oppression and mini-massacres—just didn't make life for the Jews all that bad. On the flip side, since he has no coherent explanation for “political” anti-semitism, he has to invoke all its other forms to explain why Jews, among all other groups, were the victims.

Well not quite. He does indulge in quite a bit of victim blaming, while constantly denying that’s what he is doing. His most egregious assertion is regarding Israel, as noted above. But he constantly makes comments along these lines: even though the treatment of Jews is despicable, given how successful Jews were post-emancipation, jealousy & Jew hatred are understandable reactions. His trying to prove that anti-semitism isn't irrational leads him to make the jaw-dropping assertion that removing Jews & appropriating their homes in Vienna to solve the housing crisis, while despicable, was quite “rational”. Among other things, the author should take a class in economics 101.

Finally, I will just briefly mention that his thesis that being Jew is not primarily a national identify, flies in the face of how the vast majority of Jews identify themselves. Not all do, and there is no obligation for any individual to so identify themself. But as an historian, he needs to acknowledge that reality and not impose his own views on millions of people (not to mention rewrite Jewish history).

I don’t read books to agree with them & it’s perfectly legitimate for an historian to put forth a thesis, even a provocative one. But at the very least, one expects a research historian to provide a coherent argument based on facts and logical and consistent arguments. If this was a high school paper I would give it an F. For a distinguished publishing house like Oxford Press, on such an important topic, this book is an embarrassment.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 1: What is antisemitism?
Chapter 2: The burden of the past
Chapter 3: The Chosen People
Chapter 4: The culture of irrationalism
Chapter 5: The perils of modernity
Chapter 6: Concatenations
Chapter 7: Consequences
Chapter 8: After Auschwitz

[Jonah Blander · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm not interested in finishing this book. Despite the extensive research Mr. Beller has put into this work, his tone and conclusions often pit Jewish people as the reason for hatred towards them, which in it of itself is closeted hatred. Coming to conlusions like that, especially on a grand scale, have no business in a book on teaching antisemitism. I'll be teaching my children with much better books. There are much better books.

For one:
-Viktor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning
-Deborah Lipstadt - Antisemitism: Here and Now
-Books by Elie Wiesel, & talks by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

All well renowned Jewish scholars who know this topic much better than Mr. Beller IMO.

[Donna · Rating 2 out of 5]

Did not really enjoy this book. Thankfully I was reading this on my Kindle and could easily look up definitions as I thought the author was overly academic.

I can’t speak to the author’s bias, as I really was looking for a good introduction. After reading other reviews, I’m not sure I got one.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beller is a genius. So rich/deep, yet so accessible.

[Corey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction by Steven Beller

Summary

The book briefly goes over the religious roots of antisemitism and then spends the majority of its page count tracing the development of antisemitism during and following the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews, a period in which it grew beyond its Christian roots. It covers how emancipation played out in different parts of Europe and how it affected how antisemitism developed in those regions. For example, in Central Europe, emancipation came with a quid pro quo—an expectation of assimilation and abandoning in essence their distinct Jewish identity, basically that they would stop being Jews in exchange for rights. However, that did not happen; they remained culturally distinct, which led to emancipation being viewed as a failure in these states despite very successful Jewish integration. However, in other states, such as Britain, integration wasn't done on the basis of such an expectation, but on the basis of individual rights, and there was not the same backlash as a result.

It then goes into and explains the development of the "irrationalist” revolt against rational modernity and how it led to an "irrationalist antisemitism.” Basically, Jews were made to embrace rationalist modernity as part of the bargain for emancipation. When the backlash came, Jews became prime targets, being seen at the forefront of rationalist modernity and later even came to be seen as its instigators. This led to the undermining of emancipation as community membership was redefined away from Enlightenment ideals, towards blood-and-soil and ethnic nationalism. It goes on to explain the development of “scientific” racism and racialized antisemitism, and how that further undermined the possibility of assimilation, making it all but impossible once the differences became racially defined. From there, he lays out the history up to World War I, the stab-in-the-back myth, and the development of “Judaeo-Bolshevism," culminating in the Final Solution (as well as some other things). He then goes on to explain how antisemitism has changed in the post-war years, and makes an argument against ethnic nationalism and for liberal pluralism as the antidote. He also strikes a pretty anti-Zionist tone for this segment.

My Thoughts on the Book

What I liked

Overall, I really enjoyed the book, as it definitely deepened my understanding of the currents that led to the development of modern antisemitism. I've read a lot before about antisemitism, so much of it was already familiar to me, so I'm not that sure how approachable overall it would really be as an introduction. However, there was still a lot new for me to learn as well. The irrationalist and rationalist varieties of antisemitism was not something I was really clued into before reading this. It also did a good job of explaining how someone can hold a belief such as blaming Jews for both capitalism and socialism at the same time; he explains that in the mind of an antisemite, associating Jews with both capitalism and socialism is not as crazy as it seems on first appearance, as both are rationalist and modern in nature, as such despite being very much opposed ideologies they are the not so different to the antisemite. It was a lens I really had not explored before investigating the ideological buildup of modern political antisemitism in depth.

What I did not like

I have three main thrusts of criticism.

First, the book spends a lot of time arguing against viewing antisemites as irrational (which can get confusing because it also spends a great deal of time talking about irrationalism in the sense of the philosophical movement). It talks about that from a certain point of view that there was a rationality to their actions. For example, that in many cases there was pragmatic, short-term gain to be made from antisemitism; non-Jewish workers, for instance, could gain from banning Jewish competition. Non-Jewish applicants could be advantaged from the barring of Jewish admission to universities, etc. He states that antisemitism can “be seen as an extreme attempt at wealth redistribution, on ethnic rather than class lines.” They were basically improving their station at the expense of their Jewish countrymen. Beyond that, he also speaks on the utility of antisemitism in the political sphere; he speaks on how antisemitism could be used to aid political consolidation, identifying Jews as an enemy to rally the non-Jewish population. He does not endorse this sort of rationale, and basically says as such at the start of the book and several other places besides, but seeing as this is an intro book, I don't think he did it clearly enough. He should have much more clearly laid out the difference of it being rational in a utilitarian sense and rational in a moral sense. Because yes if you adopt the viewpoint of exclusionary ethnic nationalism there may be a logic to these actions but that does not make the underlying ethnic nationalism rational. He should have more explicitly pointed out that the lens itself (ethnic nationalism) was an immoral and illogical starting point when explaining the twisted logic behind it and its utility. He’s doing this all because he believes treating antisemitism as coming completely from irrationality removes the agency and culpability antisemites had for their actions (he explains this at the start but not that well, in my opinion), but to those not reading it carefully, it can come across as justification rather than explanation. Still, I must say there is utility in adopting the lens he does for the book. I certainly learned a lot, but maybe it's not the best fit for an introduction.

All this exploration of the reasons of the antisemites is also not helped by the detached, academic manner in which he writes. In examining the history of antisemitism solely from a macro, high-level view, he fails to impart to the reader the profound human suffering that antisemitism causes; the moral reality of what is being discussed is stripped away. The text would be improved by a first-hand account of those on the receiving end of antisemitism, a human element to all of this, something tangible and relatable for the reader to latch onto to feel how unconscionable it all is. I know it is an introductory book, but he could have squeezed a couple in. It’s just crying out for an anecdote or two.

Secondly, I take issue with how he comes across as dismissive of systemic antisemitism in places such as the UK and France, and the US. I’ve read about the history of antisemitism in the UK, France, and the US, and through his comparative focus of these countries to Central Europe and Russia it can give the false impression on the severity of antisemitism in these countries. He in essence states that it was relatively benign, and let me tell you, “relatively” is doing some heavy lifting there. When you are using pogroms as your baseline, pretty much everything else is going to look mild in comparison. It would not be so bad if he then went into some depth on the sorts of “tame” antisemitism in these Western countries, but he glosses over it. It’s fundamentally a problem of the length of the book. In order to condense the history of antisemitism to fit into the length of the "Very Short Introduction" format, he builds a narrative funnel that explains the ideological buildup to the Holocaust in Germany and Austria, at the expense of going in depth into antisemitism in other Western countries.

Thirdly, I object to his claims that Arab and Muslim antisemitism is an entirely new phenomenon born out of opposition to Zionism. Islam had its own history of antisemitism even prior to the introduction of the modern European variety (which is my most charitable assumption of what he is trying to say). There is a long history of discrimination, pogroms, etc., in the Muslim world, just as in Christian Europe. I will grant that on the whole they were relatively far more tolerant when compared to medieval Europe, but again, “relatively” is doing a lot of work. When times were good they often prospered; however, when things took a turn for the worse they were often persecuted and scapegoated. But what is just sort of galling to me is that while he is correct in stating that Zionism is responsible for the explosion of Arab antisemitism, the way he speaks about this seemingly lays the moral blame for the antisemitism on the Jewish Zionists themselves, sort of implying it was self-inflicted. He goes on to say that it is ironic that as Zionism did not end up eliminating antisemitism (as if that were its only objective) (also overly focusing on Herzl, in my opinion) and created more antisemitism in the version of a new Arab antisemitism, and as such that it is a bankrupt ideology which failed in its goal. The whole thing kind of implies that sans Zionism, Jews and Arabs would have gotten along fine and dandy in the Middle East, which if you look at the fates of countless other minority groups under Pan-Arab nationalism I believe that view becomes untenable. Pan-Arab nationalism has been fundamentally hostile to pluralism, it has suppressed and persecuted minority groups across the Middle East regardless of whether they harbored nationalist ambitions of their own. Look at the fate of the Kurds, Assyrians, Berbers, Copts, Greeks in Egypt, etc. I don’t believe that sans Zionism Jews would have escaped the same treatment, especially taking into account they were all expelled after the formation of Israel in our timeline.

Rating: 3/5 Stars

[Toni Olivenbaum · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book denies the antisemitic character of modern expressions of antisemitism, blaming Zionism instead.
A Oxford University Press publica um livro, na sua colecção Very Short Introductions, sobre anti-semitismo, que tem uma perspectiva muito particular (pouco indicada para uma colecção deste tipo) e que culmina na deslegitimação do estado de Israel. Impressionante, escrever um livro introdutório sobre anti-semitismo que parece feito à medida para desembocar nessa conclusão. Note-se, não é uma simples tomada de posição, entre outras, que decorreriam da análise, mas o coroamento da exposição da mesma. Isto para não falar do ataque pós-modernista à modernidade (diluindo a responsabilidade especificamente nazi do Holocausto como uma forma irracionalista e paranóica de contestação dessa mesma modernidade), da negação do carácter anti-semita das formas de ataques actuais mais frequentes e mortíferas aos judeus, etc.

[Brooklyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh this book ... so not okay

[Peter Spering · Rating 3 out of 5]

Boy... I've never read a book where my estimation of it has rapidly plummeted at the very end.

This book gets three stars for everything but the last chapter. In essence, three stars for its detailed historical research.

The aforementioned last chapter focuses on the present and future, veering into speculation that skates towards insensitivity and questionable conclusions.

"To equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, however, far too simplistic, theoretically crass, and demeans the memory of those who suffered the horrendous consequences of real antisemitism"

This line stuck out like a sore thumb because it followed the mention of brutal physical violence towards modern Jews in France, namely by those associated with the Middle East. It colours that quote with a shade of "Put up, shut up!". As if, when a Jew gets battered, it's not real antisemitism. Apparently, a Jew must be lying dead in the gutter before we can call it antisemitism.

Given that he struck me as reasonable for most of the book though, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, at the very least, there's a suggestion of the old idea — 'the severity of an injustice is determined by its scale'.

Well, I say no!

One is always too many. The importance of a victim is not determined by the size of the group to which they belong.

To wrap up my review, I'll quickly cover my other three contentions. Firstly, Beller proposes that objections to a Jewish state are rooted in ideals of integration. Based on what I've seen, especially over the last few years, the prime argument is very different. Think "Go back to where you came from!".

The second is his assertion that Israel is an ethno-nationalist state. It isn't. 20% of its population is Arab Muslim, and there's also Christian and Druze populations.

Thirdly, he lays the foot of blame for a lack of two-state solution at Israel's door, even though they've been willing to accept previous proposals. It's Palestine that refuses to give Israel even an inch. They won't do it. Like Hamas' 1989 charter made clear, Jews are the enemy. They are the target of slaughter. Beller even mentions the Nazification of Palestine attitude towards Jews, as well as a propagandistic TV adaptation of the fraudulent, antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion that was produced in the Middle East.

OK, to play devil's advocate and give Beller some rope, you can posit that times have simply changed. The book was published in 2007. I'm writing this in 2024. It's not unfeasible that attitudes have simply changed. Also, back then, Hamas had only been in power for a year. It had been a democratic election and perhaps Beller was being optimistic. Perhaps it wasn't clear in 2007 that Hamas would remove democracy, remove elections, and become an authoritarian regime that would keep an iron grip on Palestine for 20 years.

[David Baird · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best in the series that I've had the chance to read. It develops a very clear and concise argument by sidestepping the dramatic cultural cache that comes with most literature concerning the Holocaust.

Its history of antisemetism is frank and unsentimental. It explores the behaviours, culture, and socio-economic situation of European Jews that led to European states pursuing a policy of discrimination against them. Antisemitism is not painted as irrational and paranoid racism, but a rational, although deeply immoral, campaign that served the national interests of European states at the expense of the Jewish minority.

It denies the post-modernist notion (influenced by liberal popular culture that simplifies racism and removes it from any poltical context) that all ethnicities are really the same, that difference is illusory, and therefore prejudice is always irrational and psychologically base.

Instead Beller accepts the existence of racial and cultural difference in regards to Jews and all other ethnicities, and encourages the reader to do the same.

Blind adherence to the notion of cultural egality only serves to encourage prejudice, as difference between ethnicities will always be apparent. Some pre-war Western European states believed that a perfect society would be one where there were no Jews, no Christians, no whites, no blacks, only equal citizens under one flag.

This, of course, was perverse, and when ethnic and cultural differences never faded, and individuals clung onto their identities, resentment increased, leading to such tragedies as the Holocaust.

After the war, pluralism and globalism proliferated and those with different identies, religions, and races became accepted within previously ethnically-based states without being charged with the impossible task of total assimiliation. Thus antisemitism abatted as Jews reaffirmed their identity within the safety of nation states that no longer demanded ethnic and cultural unity.

This, of course, leads to discussion of the state of Israel, itself a state that demands ethnic and cultural unity as the project of Zionism. Beller quickly denies the notion that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are linked. Instead it implies that the conflict in Palestine is yet another example of an ethno-state insisting on uniformity within its population, with predictably horrific results.

2/8/25

[Galatea · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had a distinctly personal reason for choosing to read this.

The rest of this post will be more of a diary than a review, so if you wanna know my opinion on the book, just know that it's good, if very hard to get through thanks to the subject matter. Took me two weeks to get through it when I've finished other VSIs at half the time.

That being said, I read this because of a strange set of circumstances. I'm Filipino, never left the country. In our little set of Southeast Asian islands, the vast majority of us are Catholic, with a significant Muslim minority.

I've never met a Jew in real life. Out of the 106,000,000 people here, there are at most 18,000 Jews in our country, most of them in the capital province, where I am, most of them being the descendants of the refugees we took in during WW2. Point is, Judaism is entirely invisible in my country's collective consciousness.

And yet.

I've seen people, men, women, and others that I wish to consider my friends, fall for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Their sense of humor being receptive to jokes that are apparently "funny" thanks to the stereotypes we all know.

They have never met a Jew in real life, yet they think it's just "rational" to be "open-minded", asking vapid questions about hegemonic conspiracies about people and groups who do not exist.

How can you hate someone you've never even seen or met? How can they be so anti-Semitic, when in our own country there are actual vigilante death squads and political prisoners as my acquaintances share, type, and laugh?

This book did not answer these questions, but it did help give me the background I need to answer it on my own.

Two years after raising them, I think I'll have to find the answer myself, outside of the page.

[Lucy · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are just about 1,000 issues with this introductory book, but I’ll spare whoever’s reading this and skip over most of them.
Though dated and very biassed, Baller’s writing presents a rather concise and comprehensive history of an “ism” whose pre-World War Two history sometimes goes overlooked. Because the “rational” argument of Antisemitism is so popular today, (I myself have trouble drifting from it) the history of the “irrational” argument, although grisly and discomforting, is so often lost. It’s incredibly important to understand every single facet of the history of this terrible “ism”; only with a more complete comprehension will the world have a better understanding of how — and why — antisemitism remains so prevalent. Even further, the world (especially global leaders!) will have a better grasp on how to abolish it.
So many believe they understand the ideology (and sometimes, the history) of Antisemitism, and consequently fail to see the entire picture. To defeat the beast that is antisemitism, the world must bare its history, no matter how disturbing and upsetting it may be at times. Beller’s words do well to explain this.
Lastly, I’ll mention that I radically disagree with the authors explanation of the establishment of a/the Judenstaat and the birth of Israel.
The book is a good starting point, but can absolutely NOT stand alone. I cringe at the damage that would do.

[Sbrdsbks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Het boek bood wat ik erin zocht: een overzicht van de geschiedenis van antisemitisme door de eeuwen heen, de verklaring van oorzaken voor zover die te vinden zijn en regionale verschillen in ontwikkelingen. Het kleurt een aantal onderwerpen in die ik kende als begrip zonder de betekenis ervan te kennen. Gezien de omvang van het boek is het niet vreemd dat het aan een aantal kwesties en onderwerpen dunnetjes raakt waar je voor een goed begrip meer over zou moeten lezen.

Het laatste hoofdstuk waarin de schrijver zijn mening geeft over de gewenste positie van het jodendom in de wereld vond ik niet zo sterk: Beller vindt de staat Israel in zekere zin niet de juiste oplossing, tolerantie van verschillen tussen allerlei groepen is beter en dat is wat hij bijvoorbeeld in Europa ziet. De staat Israel voert immers een politiek die sommige mensen in de wereld tegenstaat, zonder dat zij iets tegen Joden hebben. Tegelijkertijd ziet hij de positie van individuele joden in bijvoorbeeld Europa mogelijk wat te zonnig/veilig in.

[Jason Ray Carney · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting historical survey of the origins of antisemitism that also includes an extended account of how anti-Zionism and antisemitism aren’t the same thing. The sections that survey the medieval development of antisemitism read more like outlines; accordingly, there doesn’t seem to be a cohesive and speculative framework of antisemitism in medieval central Europe. Something like a thesis emerges when the survey reaches the 19th century: tensions emerged as a result of a European insistence on Jewish assimilation to newly proscribed nationalistic cultures. The chapter on the Holocaust was interesting and surprising in its claims that the political ideology of antisemitism in Europe was marginal and that wider trends associated with the “30 year war of the twentieth century” (compelling term), allowed it to grip, to metastisize. Worth the read to begin to wrap the mind around the endurance of this toxic prejudice.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelling introduction to the phenomenon of antisemitism, covering the ideological underpinnings and complexities of this tragedy. The author, Steven Beller, delves into philosophical foundations for anti-Semitic thought and action, various forms and manifestations of antisemitism - from the discriminatory laws of exclusion, to pogroms and the Holocaust to Holocaust denial. He posits that a universal system of liberal pluralism, human rights, and enlightenment values are the way forward for not only diminishing old prejudices against Jews, but also African Americans and other minority groups who face unfair treatment.

[Kurtzprzezce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wprowadzenie jest momentami dość kontrowersyjne, mam wrażenie że momentami zanadto uproszczone. Zgadzam się w dużej mierze z krytycznym esejem/recenzją zamieszczoną na końcu książki. Sam dorzuciłbym jeszcze uwagi dotyczące rozpatrywania antysemickich działań jako przejawu "nowoczesności" (jakiejś jej formy) na tej tylko podstawie, że pewnej grupie etnicznej z ekonomicznego punktu widzenia opłacało się dyskryminowanie Żydów. Tok rozumowania był mniej więcej taki: dyskryminacja mogła przynieść korzyści ekonomiczne (lub inne), była zatem w pewnym sensie "racjonalna", a skoro była "racjonalna" to była "nowoczesna". Bardzo to moim zdaniem naciągane.

[Alex Falconer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to learn why the state of Israel was created so read this book for some enlightenment. Despite being a pocket-sized book it reads like a scholarly work and its density requires some concentration. Beller argues that Zionism is a modern concept in the sense that it promotes the creation of an ethno-state. He points out the irony of this: the modern concept of the state as home for a homogenous people helped antisemites to exclude and isolate Jews in Europe.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

The last chapter of this book is breathtakingly well written and pays incredible care and attention to unpicking the complexities and conflicts it addresses. It will stay with me for a long time.

It’s also worth saying the entire book is fantastic and makes me lament not reading it sooner or that it wasn’t a part of my school’s history syllabus.

[Omnya Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favorite quote from the book
"The question is how can this ‘eternal’ form of antisemitism be kept within minimal and ‘harmless’ dimensions. In those terms, the answer to antisemitism is ultimately not a Jewish state, but the establishment of a truly global system of liberal pluralism."

[Ahmet]

Beller says that "understanding the rational aspects of the choices made only makes the immorality of those choices clearer" and the book provides a substantially inclusive look at antisemitism. The text could use more elaboration on the issue of Palestine though.

[Donald Schopflocher · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this introduction as part of my exploration of the Holocaust and its historical context. It is terse and dense, academic and convoluted, but it does address the main threads and origins of 19th and 20th century antisemitism.

[Your favorite troll · Rating 4 out of 5]

Skimmed a few chapters in the beginning (gotta keep it kosher). The middle was eerie. The end was helpful: “We need to prevent the mindset that breeds antisemitism at its source, which is the exclusivist ‘either/or’, ‘us versus them’ thinking common to nationalism and fundamentalism.”

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought VSI's would be helpful, but I find them too dense to read, like homework that I'm not interested in. I'm sure they're great for some people, but I think I need more context to really take in the subject.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear, concise, very good!

[Sir Raymond of Ivanhoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned so much from this book. And I believe it. I did forget that these "Very Short Introduction" books are not easy reads, but they are packed with great information.

[Jamie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good on the different historical varieties of antisemitism. A bit outdated and complacent on leftwing and Muslim antisemitism which seem to have grown considerably since the book was written.

[Lesya]

Assigned reading

[Louis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This really wasn’t bad at all, just rather short and shallow when also having studied Bauman, Friedländer, Lemkin, Mazower, Harendt, Timerman…