Communications

DEAR EDITOR:

In "Antisemitism and the Muslim and Arab World (JUDAISM 2003 51:225-245), Neil J. Kressel offers a number of astute observations regarding the apparent degree of antisemitic vitriol in certain parts of the world. He also is right to state that the phenomena are poorly studied, and that one major obstacle to field research is the authoritarian nature of many countries where such research would need to be conducted.

Yet Dr. Kressel's paper accomplishes less than it promises. Even though collective and secondary data bases have to substitute for primary demographic studies, a bit more differentiation should be feasible than the lumping together of the entire "Arab and Muslim world." First of all, a descriptive definition of Arabs would have been helpful. As the author undoubtedly knows, the common definition encompasses everyone whose primary language is Arabic--wherever they live, and whether they identify themselves as Muslims, Christians, or adherents of other religions. It may or may not be possible to differentiate whether, say, Egypt's Coptic Christians are as antisemitically inclined as their Muslim compatriots--but it seems worthwhile at least commenting on the possibility. Similarly, all Arabs (if we accept the common definition) who reside in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula live in autocratic political systems. But the degree of autocracy varies between, for instance, Jordan or Morocco, and Syria or Saudi Arabia. Also, the extent to which the prevailing form of Islam is entwined with governmental authority varies. These are independent variables along which the phenomena could be studied. Finally, the actual distance from Israel might be of interest as well. To the non-expert observer, it appears that secular, highly autocratic, albeit culturally somewhat diverse, societies like Egypt and Syria (which also both border Israel) are the source of disproportionate amounts of antisemitic hate.

The failure to differentiate is even more disturbing when reference is made to "the Muslim world." This term refers to societies as diverse as Indonesia, India (after Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country), Pakistan, Bosnia, Iran, Turkey, Bangladesh, and the Central Asian republics, as well as most of the Arab nations and, presumably, America's Nation of Islam and the Muslim diasporas in Europe and Africa. While the Iranian theocracy is arguably the mots ferocious purveyor of antisemitism today, Turkey is counted among Israel's more solid allies in the region, more solid, some would argue, than France or Sweden.

Then there is the question of Islamism, represented by movements like the Muslim Brotherhood or by Al Qaida: Where do such transnational movements fit in? Is the differentiation between radical Islamists and moderate Muslims specious or is there substance to it when antisemitism is the focus?

The topic might also have benefited from some further theoretical considerations. In the studies of Christian antisemitism, religious rivalry related to supersessionism, socio-economic discrimination, and racist ideologies have played varying roles in producing hatred of Jews. But what are the underpinnings of antisemitism among Arabs and in so many Muslim countries? Do the copy-cat symptoms, like the veneration of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the blood libel, the character stereotyping, reflect a root cause shared with the old European hatred, or does the new wave (is it really new?) spring from other motivations?

Dr. Kressel is careful in discussing the terms antisemitism and antizionism and linking the underlying ideology to anti-Americanism (whatever happened to anti-Hinduism which comes up early in the paper but never shows up again?). A similar level of care ought to have been bestowed on the source societies that he targets in his timely essay on a despicable and dangerous epidemic of antisemitic propaganda.

OLE J. THIENHAUS

Las Vegas, Nevada

DR. KRESSEL REPLIES:

I am not unsympathetic to Dr. Thienhaus' emphasis on the importance of understanding differences within the Muslim and Arab worlds. Indeed, I took more steps in this direction in the original, lengthier version of the Judaism article, which was substantially edited to fit available space, as well as in my other recent work on related topics. Dr. Thienhaus is, however, correct that a highly differentiated view of the Muslim and Arab worlds is vitally important. Right now, because we lack good empirical research, we must rely mainly on speculation.

Still, I might point out that there have been few audible, clear, straightforward, and unqualified denunciations of hostility toward Jews coming from influential spokesmen anywhere in the Muslim world. As former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's antisemitic speech to the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference and its enthusiastic reception by Muslim world leaders demonstrate, the problem is widespread and distance from Israel is at best a weak predictor of antisemitic vehemence. Thus, for example, we find widespread acceptance of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in Pakistan, a country far from Israel's borders. This might, of course, be expected in view of the fact that antisemites typically react to both Jews and Israel not on the basis of their behavior but rather as symbolic entities.