The Frankurter Israelitisches Familienblatt in a recent article on “the lessons of the Cracow pogroms,” has the following instructive remarks on the most recent developments of anti-semitism in Eastern Europe: “Apart from their individual significance,” it says, “the incidents in Galicia have a more general bearing which should not be overlooked. They are a symptom of the new anti-semitism, which is springing up nearly everywhere in the course of the war. The war has in all countries strengthened and inflamed national feeling to an extraordinary degree, and throughout the world has unchained a spirit of ruthless and overbearing chauvinism. This chauvinism finds expression in an increased antipathy towards all other nations; and in regard to the Jews, it takes the form of the new anti-semitism.”
— Canadian Jewish Chronicle, 1918
Professor Horace M. Kallen, chairman of the World Jewish Congress commission to combat anti-semitism, said…there was a great difference between the old anti-semitism of the pre-war kind and the new anti-semitism. He said the attack on the Jew now is based “upon the notion that the world is divided into two races, the Aryan and the human race, and that the former is destined to be master of all mankind.”
—The New York Times, 1936
Even if the theory of blood and race, which is invoked in support of the new anti-Semitism were better based scientifically than it is (whereas in the eyes of most dispassionate critics it is no less a quackery in science than it is for Christians a heresy in theology), it would still imply a relapse on the part of its upholders into a conception of the physical basis of the unity of society as of more importance than the common reason or the interest in a common redemption on which the philosophy and the religion of Europe have respectively laid the principle stress in what we call the humanism common to both alike.
—Journal of Philosophy, 1940
The virus of Hitlerism still infects public opinion in Austria, Hungary, and Rumania, but one should not forget that Hitler was not the initiator of this movement, but rather a pupil who extended and intensified it. The new anti-Semitism has partly an economic motive and partly a demographic one. The economic motive moves the new owners of stolen or robbed Jewish property who are afraid that it will be restored to the rightful legal owners, though the process is lamentably slow. What I called the demographic motive is….the destruction of the means of production, through mass killing and the expulsion of large masses of population….There is lack in necessary foodstuffs and essential commodities. This causes greater friction between individuals, classes, and races. Every mouth to be fed is a mortal enemy.
—Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1949
The Anti-Defamation League said a new anti-semitism has developed across the world, but it is less deliberate and less violent than that which marked the era of Nazi Germany. An analysis of a comprehensive study over three and a half years reveals that the major difference between the new anti-semitism and “the traditional kind is that…the new form is more often expressed by respected individuals and institutions here and abroad—people who would be shocked to think themselves, or have others think them, anti-semites.” The study revealed the new anti-semitism is “compounded by anti-Jewish hostility from pro-Arab elements, the radical Left, the radical Right, black extremists, the Soviet Union, Arab nations, and movements in Europe and Latin America—all in addition to the remnants of a hatemongering apparatus which has plagued the United States since the early 1920s.”
— UPI, 1974
Anti-Semitism has to be resisted in whatever form it displays itself. Controversy continues over how much the recent terrorist attacks against Jews in Paris reflected anti-Semitism or the war in Lebanon. But a lack of deep concern about these tragedies, whatever their motivation, could betray an underlying anti-Semitism. And the subtler forms of anti-Semitism have to be increasingly resisted in the light of a changed international situation. Many Europeans, for example, have long since stiffened their attitudes toward an Israel whose policies appear to threaten Mideast sources of oil vital to Europe…..These must not be allowed to feed a new anti-Semitism or excuse remnants of the old pre-Israel variety. Those appalled by these acts have to prevent reaction to a government from slipping into bias against a people.
—Christian Science Monitor, 1982
Another brave new German, Bundestag deputy Herrmann Fellner, 35, resorted to the oldest of anti-Semitic clichés: the Jew as money-grubbing Shylock. Dismissing compensation claims by Jews who had done forced labor in Adolf Hitler’s factories, he noted: “Whenever there is money to be had from German coffers, the Jews are there to grab it.”
Anti-Semitism, then, seems to be an anthropological given—an indispensable projection mechanism that can only be suppressed but never exorcised. It is impervious to historical experience like Auschwitz; indeed, anti-Semitism thrives in total isolation from experience. It is doubtful whether Fellner, who hails from rural Bavaria, has ever met a Jew. Yet he “knows” exactly what Jews are like, and he resents them for what they “are.”
Why is the taboo beginning to crack now? Fellner provides us with one answer when he reports that his generation is “sick and tired of having to remember,” and wants more “sensitivity” from the survivor….Theirs is a truly new anti-Semitism: It thrives not in spite of but because of Auschwitz. It is based on a total role reversal between culprits and victims. According to this not-so-original defense mechanism, the survivors are the aggressors, since they won’t let the Germans forget. Their very presence makes for a permanent provocation, and one that the new generation, saddled with inherited guilt, is no longer willing to suffer. Hence the Jews must show more “sensitivity”— otherwise they will bring down on themselves just retribution in the form of a “counter-reaction.”
—Los Angeles Times, 1986
What is most distinctive about the new anti-Semitism is its character and its different set of rules. In the past, Canadian anti-Semitism, like its American counterpart, was essentially a social disease, a prejudice that found its expression in predictable forms: not wanting to work for a Jew, live near one, hire one or golf with one.
But now, according to all the studies, the number of people with these feelings is relatively small. Anti-Jewish attitudes have instead become more insidious. The charges are that Jews now have too much power and that they are more loyal to Israel than to their own countries. There seems to be a growing sense in Canada and the U.S. that Jews are getting more than their fair share, that though they make up less than 2 per cent of the total North American population, they are far too influential for their small numbers. Many— too many —voices are being raised that Jews are too visible, they are too wealthy, too educated, too integrated. There are too many of them in high political, judicial, cultural, medical and educational positions. They control too many industries, are too prominentin the media, and dominate the entertainment and other businesses. In essence, according to the anti-Semite, they are far too important in both Canadian and American society, given their insignificant numbers.
—Globe and Mail 1995
The anti-Semitism now abroad is qualitatively different from the prejudice against the Jewish people which the Roman Catholic Church harbored in the 19th century and fascist parties promulgated in the 20th. The new anti-Semitism of the 21st century is advanced not through Rome and the far Right but fundamentalist Islam and the radical Left. Which is why contemporary condemnation has been so muted…..In the Middle East the terrorists who challenge Israel’s right to exist are invested with radical chic and suicide bombers are depicted as romantic martyrs rather than mass-murderers.
The New Left’s insistence on dissolving sovereignty works against the survival of Israel as a Jewish State because it rejects the “exclusivist” principles of self-determination and secure borders. This animus against the nation state is given expression by bodies such as the EU, which consistently favors Palestinian claims over Israel. It finds an outlet among international lawyers such as those in Brussels demanding to try Ariel Sharon for “war crimes.” And it is amplified in the UN through events such as the Durban “anti-racism” conference where Zionism was equated with racism.
—The Times of London, 2002