43 Winter 2015-2016 forms but goes beyond both. Framing antisemitism as a subcategory of racism may be useful in some legal frameworks, but it is analytically wrong and addresses only a small part of the problem. Pierre-André Taguieff observed that post-Nazi Jew-hatred is rarely grounded in late 19th century racist theories of an alleged war between “Semites” and “Aryans.” However, even Nazi antisemitism that led to its most destructive forms cannot be reduced to a form of racism only. Antisemitism under the Nazis still made use of negative images of Jews that had religious or cultural roots. The continuity of Jewhatred among those who used the term antisemitism affirmatively in the late 19th century to distinguish themselves from religiously motivated “Jew-haters” is remarkable and provides another argument why it does make sense to use one term (“antisemitism” or “Jewhatred”) for a phenomenon that has spanned across many centuries. This leads to Marcus' third main theme and chapter of “time and eternity,” in which he opposes eternalism and historicism. Seeing the flaws of both, he comes up with an interesting “theory of repetition” of antisemitic aggression at different times in history. Marcus uses observations of socio-psychologists that the mechanism (and not its sources as Marcus seems at times to assume) of antisemitism are projections (Horkheimer and Adorno). However, further research is needed to examine how this phenomenon has played out at different times in history. Other important debates regarding “The Definition of Anti-Semitism” involve the universality of antisemitism versus its particularity and the tensions between Jewish identities and the figural Jew. Marcus also provides a good overview of the debates on the relations between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. He shows that the alleged equation that every criticism of Israel is antisemitic is a straw man argument. It often implies that all criticism of Israel was silenced by the accusation of antisemitism. This charge has been voiced by representatives of the University and College Union (UCU) in the UK against its Jewish members. However, in a court case, when the union's president, Alan Whitaker, was cross-examined and asked: “Do you know any member of the union who actually takes this view – that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic?” he acknowledged that this was not the case. The overwhelming majority of commentators from all spectra “agree that there are some forms of anti-Zionism, and certainly many criticisms of Israel, which are not anti-Semitic” (p.147). However, there are some commentators who want to exonerate all forms of criticism and anti-Zionism in general of antisemitism. Marcus rightly points out that this categorical denial is as implausible as the equation of every criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Many examples in fact show that some antisemites voice their hatred of Jews in hateful generalizations and demonizations of Israel – often with the same images and tropes we know from age-old hatred of Jews. But when exactly does anti-Zionism become antisemitic? This question should be examined case by case, and examples can be used as indications to decide whether a certain verbal or physical action should be considered antisemitic or not. Marcus discusses a large number of criteria that help to recognize antisemitism. The most widely used hands-on definitions for practitioners, the “International Working Definition of Antisemitism,” also known as the “EUMC Working Definition”, and the U.S. State Department Definition, are very similar and provide many examples. Marcus suggests a slightly different, more academic definition, influenced by Helen Fein's and others' definitions, but he provides convincing arguments why both hands-on definitions and their respective contemporary examples of antisemitism can help practitioners to identify antisemitism and should be used more widely. While most but not all forms of anti-Zionism today reveal prejudices against a Jewish collective and Jews, contemporary political anti-Zionism strikes me as a dangerous and potentially genocidal ideology, whether it is antisemitic or not. The dissolution of the State of Israel in the near future, given the militantly outspoken nature of its enemies in the region, would seriously endanger not only the living standards and democratic rights of all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, but also their very existence. Kenneth L. Marcus has written a compelling book that will be of substantial interest to scholars, practitioners, and all who are interested in trying to understand what antisemitism actually is today. n Günther Jikeli, historian and sociologist of modern Europe, is Visiting Assistant Professor at the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and the Justin M. Druck Family Scholar in the Borns Jewish Studies Program, Indiana University. He is also a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy. In 2013, he was awarded the Raoul Wallenberg Prize in Human Rights and Holocaust Studies by the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation and Tel Aviv University. His latest book "European Muslim Antisemitism. Why Young Urban Males Say They Don't Like Jews" was published by Indiana University Press (2015).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=