Last Wednesday I was fortunate enough to hear about an event happening near me that was most worth my while to attend. The eminent historian, "Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University," Bernard Lewis was giving a talk at Brandeis University as part of an international symposium on the "New Antisemitism." Bernard Lewis is like a rock star of Middle East Studies. Although some of his colleagues (to their shame), might disagree, if there's a historian of his field who ever deserved to be referred to as "eminent," the 87 year old (I believe) Lewis is it. And let's face it, 87 years is a pretty good run in anybody's book, so it may be wise to take any opportunity to see him. Off I went.

The speech was held in a relatively large hall. It was clearly a special event, with extra police directing traffic outside. By the time things got started it was standing room only - about 350+ people. The speech was also taped. I got there plenty early and would have been in the first couple of rows, but those were reserved (elitists!). Nevertheless...following the introductory remarks by University President Jehuda Reinharz, and a couple of extremely boring speeches by folks who I'm sure were very, very nice people, it was Professor Lewis's turn.

Lewis's years of lecturing show in his speaking ability. He did speak deliberately, in his light British accent, glancing down at his notes from time to time, but the wit and ability to engage were still there in full form. I get right to my notes (which I almost did not bother taking)... Standard disclaimers apply. I didn't write everything down - these are impressions, not a transcript - and any errors or misunderstandings should be considered as mine and not those of Professor Lewis.

On Recognizing Antisemitism

He began by discussing possible signs of antisemitism. One potential sign being when one finds a different standard of judgment at play. Now, not all double-standards need be the product of antisemitism. As an example, there was an execution scheduled for five men in Spain in the mid-1970's. This, happening during the era of Fascist Franco years earned a din of world-wide condemnation over the barbarity of a death sentence - this in spite of thousands of executions ongoing all over the world in various Communist Dictatorships over which there was a deafening silence. This was more a product of Left/Right prejudice, rather than antisemitism. So yes, one must be careful when seeing double-standards that, even if Jews are involved, there may not also be some other factors at play.

He noted as a potentially valid sign of an antisemitic double-standard the hue and cry so often directed against the power and positions of Jewish or pro-Israel lobby here in the United States. Here is a lobby that directs its actions lobbying in favor of an ally of ours. Compare that to two other domestic lobbies, the Greek/Armenian lobby speaks against Turkey, and the Irish lobby which often works against Great Britain. In those cases, you have lobbies who are working against allies of the United States, but instead, it's the Jewish lobby that's criticized.

Lewis prefers the term "Judeophobic," or "Judenhasse" as more accurate than the expression, "antisemitism," but we seem to be stuck with the latter, so there it is.

On the Beginnings of "True" Antisemitism

For Lewis, the real rise of antisemitism goes hand in hand with the rise of Christianity - as a sort of intra-family Jewish fight, "and we know how those can be." Attacks against the Jews in the ancient world simply don't count. For one thing, everyone attacked each other then, and in fact, the attacks against the Jews weren't even as bad as some others. For instance, one Roman historian said regarding the Arabs, "They are desirable neither as enemies, nor as friends."

(As an aside, Lewis mentioned that he is worried about the impact of "The Passion," as Passion Plays have a long history of being used to stir up antisemitism. He's not so worried about here in the United States, but in Eastern Europe and elsewhere he's not so sure.)

What was really needed was a new reason for hating. It started in Spain where forced conversions could not be trusted (as we now know is true), so they began to promulgate the idea that conversion was not enough. What was needed (to be considered truly Christian and hold certain positions, etc...) was "Purity of Blood." Thus began true racial antisemitism.

The term "semitic" was originally a linguistic, not an ethnic term. In fact, the idea that it may become so was something of a concern to the originators of the concept, and so we see that their concern was well placed as it did in fact wind up morphing so. In fact, it was recommended to Hitler at one time that he not use the term, so as not to risk angering the Arabs.

After World War 2, racist ideas became discredited, however. What has happened since is that political/ideological antisemitism has taken its place to give it an acceptable veneer. So we see so often today the label "anti-Zionist" as a cover for what is, after all, merely the same old thing.

On the Treatment of Jews in the Middle East

Moving to the Middle East: There are two common myths regarding the Arab World: One, the idea of a "Golden Age," the second, the idea of "Dhimmitude." Both are myths, while both do contain some truth. (For some discussion of "Dhimmitude," see my notes on the talk by Bat Ye'or.)

Complete equality between Muslims and non is complete nonsense, although there was certainly a higher degree of tolerance than in the Christian World. But it was "tolerance," no more than that. Now, tolerance is inherently offensive, of course, but it is certainly better than intolerance! Things were, in fact, vastly better than in the Christian World, and one should make note of the fact that the general direction of motion on the part of refugees was from West to East.

This was not a particularly ideologically based antisemitism, even though in the Koran the Jews come off badly (The Prophet had no contact with the Christians in his conquests.), in the end The Prophet always won, so Jews were not seen as a threat. Christians were.

Further, from the Ottoman archives, we have found that the Jews were often seen as valuable revenue producers due to their enterprising abilities. The spoils of war often included "Jews" and they were often brought back from successful conquests. For instance, when the Turks conquered Cypress, Jews were sent for to help increase the production value of the island. There is, in fact, a letter from the Governor of Cypress complaining that he was not getting his Jews. This can't really be seen as antisemitism.

The prevailing stereotype of Jews at the time was that they were cowardly and weak. There was an Ottoman joke at the time of the Jews asking for and being granted permission to form their own unit for the Army. When it came time to march to the front, the asked for police escort to the border as they had heard there were bandits on the road. (That Sultan, he very funny man...very funny. We make a special matzo ball soup for him...)

The Arrival of "True" Antisemitism

Now fast-forward to 1948, when the combined forces of five Arab armies couldn't defeat a rag-tag group of half a million Jews. The Pasha said it would be easy. It was bad enough to be conquered - easily - by Western armies, imagine the shock and humiliation of this one.

Fortunately, true antisemitism arrived as an import from Europe to help sooth hurt feelings.

It came in stages.

First it came from Christian Missionaries and Diplomats. In the case of the Blood Libel, for instance, this problem came up in areas where there was a significant Christian presence - in Damascus as one example. It happened in multiple areas, yes, but still at the time of the Dreyfus Affair, for instance, Muslim opinion was with Dreyfus.

Then came the Third Reich. Within weeks of Hitler coming to power, Haj Amin al-Husseini was approaching Hitler. Yes, it was the Arabs who approached Hitler, not the other way around. The Nazis were not interested at first, because Hitler still hoped for a deal with the British (who he considered Aryan) and did not wish to antagonize them by interfering in their colonies, but that, of course, changed.

In 1940, the French Governor of Syria/Lebanon made his decision to go with the Vichy - the pro-Nazi side. A revolt and new regime was establish in Iraq under Rashid Ali becoming the only pro-Nazi Arab state. It only lasted a year, but the damage was done. The ideological seeds were sown.

The Ba'ath Party was formed during this time under the Vichy French in Damascus and carried the Nazi seed. An important note: The name "party" is something of a misnomer. This was not a party in the Western democratic sense of being formed to get votes. This was a party formed for indoctrination and oppression.

Antisemitism's Rise and Encouragement

The absolutely ultimate defeat came in 1967 and with it even worse humiliation than in 1948 and with that humiliation, antisemitism's further rise, and also a dramatic need to change the traditional Muslim view of the Jews as weaklings and cowards.

The United Nations and Liberal World opinion has been instrumental in encouraging this increase, particularly through simple acquiescence to it.

For example, in 1947 the United Nations resolved to establish Israel but provided absolutely no enforcement of its resolution. Simultaneously, the Arab League resolved not to accept the partition and to attack. There was absolutely no UN response.

Another example. Jews were driven out of Jerusalem, their objects and Temples destroyed, their cemeteries desecrated. No UN response.

It's simply been taken as axiomatic since that there should of course be no Jews in Arab areas. Contrast this view and behavior with the UN response when the positions are reversed. Again, witness the deafening silence toward the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab territories and nations.

The partition of Israel and the resulting movement of Arab refugees was a trivial matter compared to the partition of India and Pakistan, where thousands of Hindus were moved, likewise with ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe after World War Two. Yet witness the silence of the world in regard to those two events, and contrast it with its screaming about the partition of Israel.

More examples of the double-standard at play: There was no admission to Jerusalem for Jews from 1948-1967 while the Jordanians were in control, in spite of agreements to the contrary. Even Arab citizens of Israel were not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia for their haj - an obligation in Islam, while Jewish visitation to Jerusalem, it should be noted, is not. There was no world protest.

Arab countries announced that there would be no visas issued to Jews of any nationality. There was no protest.

The Jordanian citizenship law of 1954 offered citizenship to anyone except Jews (this holds to this day). There was no protest.

After the 1967 War, Israel came into possession of schools run by the United Nations which used textbooks supplied by Arab governments. Israel saw what was being taught in these texts - the Jew-hatred - and wanted to change them. They went to UNESCO who appointed an independent panel of Arabic experts to examine the books and make a recommendation. In 1969 the panel issued their report - discard some things, change others, keep some stuff the same. Pretty even-handed.

The report was buried and ignored.

This all characterizes the atmosphere in which Arab antisemitism flourished. Is it any wonder that the Arabs feel they have been granted a license by the world to continue with what they do?

There is an element here that cannot be ascribed to antisemitism alone, however. To a great extent, the explanation is also in anti-Arab sentiment. Look at the silence which has prevailed so often over what has been going on in Sudan, where there are no Jews involved. In this case, the explanation may lie in the fact that the Western World simply doesn't expect any better from the Arabs themselves.

Talk's Conclusion

In the first stage of antisemitism, Jews could change sides. They could convert. Racial antisemitism removed that option. The current ideological antisemitism has, to a great extent, restored it.

In the demonization of Israel, we see the return of Jews as a Satanic force, much like in earlier Christian antisemitism.

In conclusion, let us take a look a the events in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield. Originally claimed to be a massacre, this later turned out to be nonsense. Yet still, we often heard, and still hear by the Palestinian propagandists, "Jenin was worse than Auschwitz." So by saying this, was Auschwitz no worse than what happened at Jenin? Even if the absolutely worst lies of the propagandists are taken at face value as true this is an absurd statement. It borders on Holocaust Denial - and that is the very definition of antisemitism at its worst.

Question Session

On the question of French and also European behavior toward Israel: France and Europe were left in a very uncomfortable position following World War 2. It wasn't just the Germans who had behaved infamously, many others did so, too. Many French were collaborators. Finding fault with Israel and the Jews is too tempting an opportunity to pass up - a chance to regain a sense of lost moral superiority.

On the question of Why the Jews?: The origins of the idea of the Jews as possessed of a particular cosmic Satanic quality is unquestionably an idea of Christian origin.

On Arafat and why he wouldn't accept peace (The Melian Dialogue was brought up in this context.): He's a terrorist. He's always been a terrorist. He's a success as a terrorist. He's wealthy. He's famous. World leaders literally beat a path to his door. But if he accepts peace he'd just be another tin-pot dictator...answerable for the misery and poverty of his people. If you were he, what would you do? It's like asking Tiger Woods to give up golf.

On the USA as the new "World Jew": Easy. It's simply not possible to be rich, strong, successful...and loved.

On the new philosemitism coming from some sectors: He basically refused to answer saying he had no particular expertise, but he did have a couple of amusing quips. On the spectacle of some sort of Czek festivals where Jewish ritual is celebrated, although there are no Jews involved: "Yes, they like it that way." On the question of the Pat Robertson types and their support for Israel: "Look, I'm an expert on the Middle East, not the Middle West."

He believes MEMRI is having a real impact through its work in translating Arab sources and bringing them into the light. He felt this is having a real impact and offered as an example their exposure of the display of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion along with the Torah as Jewish Holy Books at the Alexandria Library and the resulting backtracking the staff had to do on the issue.

Final Conclusion

In the 18th Century the Muslim World had a huge shock that exposed just how far they had fallen from their former power. A European named Napoleon conquered Egypt. He did it easily, and he didn't do it at the fringe of Dar al Islam, where previous battles had occurred, he did it right in the heart of the Middle East. Now, not only did it show that only a European Power could conquer a Muslim nation easily, successfully and completely, but it took Horatio Nelson to kick him out. That is, only another Western Power could remove them.

The Arabs learned from this, and as a result, they became and have remained very good at playing the Western Powers off against each other as a crutch for their own weakness. During World War 2 they reached out and allied with Germany. The Soviets took on the German role following The War. Now that the Soviet Union has fallen, they'd like the EU to take their place. (Again, see my report on the talk by Bat Ye'or for more on this issue.)

The new force in the mix is al Qaeda which again sees the conflict as one between believers and non-believers. They actually believe they were responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union with their successes in Afghanistan. They believed the USSR was a much tougher nut to crack than the United States, which they view as weak and decadent. Yes, they thought the USA would fall easily, but events have caused them to revise this thinking and they have shifted their focus.

Professor Lewis hopes they don't change their minds again.

As before, I will update this post on Monday with a scan of my notes. Congratulations if you made it this far, I hope you have gotten something out of reading this.

Update: Here are the scans of my notes: Page1 Page2 Page3