When I first heard the term 'anti-antisemitism' I thought it was a mistake. What could it possibly mean? It turns out the concept is a way of discrediting the mainstream approach to tackling anti-Semitism.
I first heard the term at the launch of a report by the Runnymede Trust, a “racial justice think tank”, on tackling anti-Semitism. The venue was Birkbeck, University of London, where the report’s three authors are based at its institute for the study of anti-Semitism (BISA): David Feldman, Ben Gidley and Brendan McGeever.
I wrote a critique of the report in February 2025 shortly after it was launched. Back then I identified several weaknesses. I started by arguing:
“The most fundamental is that it is built on a straw man argument. It is perfectly possible to emphasise the unique features of anti-Semitism while acknowledging that racial thinking is a broader phenomenon. It is not helpful to pose the debate as between those narrowly preoccupied with individual prejudice and those who recognise a broader structural context.”
I also took it to task for, among other things, ignoring the left’s historic failure to take anti-Semitism seriously. “Even before the second world war it tended to see opposing anti-Semitism as relatively unimportant. The left generally failed to recognise the centrality of anti-Semitism to mainstream elite thinking. And that is leaving aside the leftists who themselves succumbed to the 'socialism of fools' – seeing Jews as personifying the evils of speculative capitalism.”
Now, having attended another public lecture at Birkbeck I want to look more closely at the notion of anti-antisemitism. The authors are clearly working hard for it to gain traction as a concept.
The point of this article is not to uphold the mainstream approach to opposing anti-Semitism. On the contrary, the rationale for the Radicalism of fools it that the orthodoxy is based on an inadequate understanding of the subject. But what the Birkbeck authors propose is even worse than the conventional outlook.
To understand the authors’ approach it is necessary to recognise that they see themselves as left wing and hostile to Israel. It is this social justice perspective– informed by identity politics – which informs their concept of anti-antisemitism. Their characterisation comes under three main headings:
· Jewish approaches to combatting anti-Semitism.
The report unfavourably contrasts the orthodoxy, which involves relying on the state for protection, with a leftist approach. It leans towards the latter on the grounds that the state can be unreliable. While this point is fair in principle it overlooks the left’s appalling historical record in defending Jews.
Instead of what it refers to as “vertical alliances” with official institutions it gives two historical instances of grassroots action against the British state. The first involved Jewish radicals campaigning against the 1905 Aliens Act, the first modern immigration act, which restricted entry my Jews. It fails to note that the act passed anyway.
The next is the classic example of Jewish radicals uniting with others against a fascist march through the Jewish east end of London in 1936. However, as I noted in my previous article on the Runnymede report, although this was an important event the standard account is romanticised. The Communist party, then an influential force, was more equivocal about defending Jews than is generally recognised.
However, when it comes to the present day the report’s proposals are risible. It points to left wing Jewish organisations such as Na’amod and Diaspora Alliance (in America) as seeking to build multi-racial horizonal alliances.
This proposal is so ludicrous it is difficult to know where to start. Even on a practical level such organisations have nothing like the capacity to protect synagogues or other Jewish institutions from violent attack. In any event it is hard to imagine them defending pro-Israel synagogues even if they had the means or courage to do so. On the contrary, such organisations spend most of their time mobilising Jews against Zionism – that is Israel’s existence – and so end up inflaming anti-Semitism.
Nor is it possible to imagine academic leftists organising a multi-racial alliance to protect Jews. That is despite the report’s emphasis on developing political links with Muslims. This is something which would be welcome in principle but would be an uphill battle in practice. There is certainly an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic element within the Muslim community that would strongly resist any such initiative. That emphatically does not mean most let alone all Muslims are anti-Semitic. But it would be necessary to recognise that any attempt to develop such an alliance would face staunch resistance from sections of the Muslim community. Organisations such as Na’amod have neither the capacity nor stomach for such a battle. Indeed they do not even recognise Islamism – a far right political movement if ever there was one - as a reactionary political force.
If anything anti-Zionist Jewish groups have formed alliances with the most backward sections of Muslim communities. Na’amod has consistently marched in the Jewish bloc on anti-Israel marches. Yet I have never seen anyone from the bloc challenge the rampant anti-Semitism – both in its traditional form or its anti-Zionist form – on such protests.
Simply by virtue of standing in pro-Israel counter-protests I have received numerous death threats from anti-Israel protestors and been screamed at as a “child killer”. I have never seen anyone from the Jewish bloc challenging such death threats or the frequent use of this classic anti-Semitic trope. On the contrary, they play a key role in legitimising protests which include a significant anti-Semitic element.
The report also mischaracterises Na’amod as an organisation critical of Israel. Demonisation is not criticism. Although it defines itself as non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist, it is apparently more than happy to participate in events calling for Israel’s destruction. It also adapts to calls that cast Israel as the embodiment of evil in the world. These include its characterisation of Israel as an apartheid state and the false accusation of genocide. This is not reasoned criticism but, contrary to what the report argues, a form of anti-Semitism.
The role of the state
The report flatters itself by arguing that: “for the state and mainstream Jewish organisations, antisemitism is underpinned by personal prejudice and bad ideas. This leads to a fixation on individual antisemites and an underestimation of the reservoir of antisemitism.” Readers can judge for themselves by watching Sunday’s Robert Fine memorial lecture by Dave Rich, the head of policy at the Community Security Trust (CST), which was far more sophisticated than that (the recording also includes a critical question by me). He argued convincingly, for example, that anti-Semitism perceives Jews as a malevolent force. He also draws on the idea of a reservoir of anti-Semitic ideas even if he does not use the term. The report’s authors may not agree with Rich’s presentation but it is far from the crude take in its caricature. It is also particularly ironic given that Rich got his doctorate from Birkbeck.
A related criticism is that the mainstream approach does not take Islamophobia into account. But as I have argued several times it is a junk concept. It lumps together three fundamentally different things: animosity to individual Muslims, hostility to Islam as a religion and opposition to Islamism as a political movement. It is quite possible, for instance, to oppose the politics of Islamism while rejecting anti-Muslim bigotry. Indeed it is the purveyors of the concept of Islamophobia whose views towards Muslims are problematic. They seem to assume that Islamism is integral to Islam.
The report also distorts the Holocaust by insisting it must be viewed alongside colonial violence. Yet colonialism emerged in a completely different context to the Holocaust. Insisting on some kind of parallel between the two only misrepresents the history of both.
Anti-Semitism and the left
This section of the report starts with criticisms of sections of the left. It acknowledges that leftists have sometimes adapted to anti-Semitic stereotypes by adopting such ideas as Jews as exploiter. It also criticises anti-Zionism but only so far as it adopts old-style anti-Semitic tropes. As mentioned above, it fails to see that demonising Israel is itself a form of anti-Semitism.
Even worse it fails to recognise that the type of leftism the authors themselves adopt, identity politics, is itself conducive to anti-Semitism. It casts the Jews as hyper-privileged in the contemporary world. In contrast, it deems Muslims as at the bottom of the hierarchy of oppression in the West. This is a view which is disparaging to both Jews and Muslims. Yet it is an assumption that runs through the report.
Finally, there is a striking omission in the report, given that the authors identity as leftists. There is no discussion of how what remains the bulk of Britain’s population can be turned against anti-Semitism: the white working class. This topic is apparently deemed unworthy of discussion. In January I asked one of the report’s authors if he could explain this blind spot but he has yet to reply.
Conclusion
Anti-antisemitism is as flawed a concept as Islamophobia. It criticises Jews for forming vertical alliances with the state but offers no realistic alternative to physically defending Jewish institutions. On the contrary, it looks to the left which has a long and sordid history of failure in relation to tackling anti-Semitism. If anything it is contemporary leftists, grounded in identity politics, who play a key role in propagating anti-Semitism today. That is both in portraying Israel as embodying evil and even failing to challenge old-style anti-Semitic tropes.
None of this is to suggest that the orthodox approach to anti-Semitism is flawless. On the contrary, this website is devoted to developing a deeper understanding of anti-Semitism. That means highlighting the limitations of both the mainstream and identitarian conceptions of anti-Semitism.
In terms of practicalities the focus should be on persuading the general public of the need to challenge anti-Semitism – this is why I support the Our Fight campaign. That naturally includes welcoming Muslims who want to oppose anti-Semitism but that will inevitably mean opposing the reactionary Islamist elements within Muslim communities.
Neither the mainstream approach nor academic leftists show an interest in persuading the public to oppose anti-Semitism. That is one thing they have in common.