Who is an antisemite: Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice vs Marx's Jewish Question

One of the curious things about both The Merchant of Venice (1597) and On the Jewish Question (1843), both of them seminal texts of Western civilization, is the number of people who insist that they aren't antisemitic. 

The introductions to their Wikipedia articles end with a reference to debates but imply that this is of marginal significance: 

• "Debate exists on whether the play is anti-Semitic..." (Merchant of Venice) 
• "A number of scholars and commentators regard On the Jewish Question... ...as antisemitic, although others do not [I cut the long prevarication in middle]. 

In both cases, the arguments are the same: That the antisemitism is debatable or is a claim made by [some] oversensitive Jews. 

Shakespeare, it is said, was keen to portray Jews as fellow humans, but then Shakespeare always provided deep insights into his characters' psychology: However bad they are, they always have human motivations. The fact is though, that Shylock is an unpleasant, antisemitic, vengeful caricature and the "pound of flesh" metaphor has often been used against Jews, both as individuals and as a group. Just because Shakespeare also shows Shylock's motivations, doesn't stop it being a caricature. I am not suggesting that the play should be banned, but pretending it has no antisemitic characteristics is ridiculous.

As for Karl Marx, the point made by his defenders is that the article seeks to argue that Jews should be given equal rights. Yet the article is just as bad as the Merchant of Venice: "Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money[...] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible" [quote copied from Wikipedia, this is not the only quoted text].

There are a couple of points to be made about the Wikipedia articles that reflect British attitudes to these texts: 

• The complete denial of obvious antisemitism by claiming positive intention.
• The insistence that the antisemitism claims are debatable and therefore suspect.
• The assumption that evidence of antisemitism invalidates the text.

In contrast, the article on Geofrey Chaucer's "The Prioress's Tale" is very explicit about its antisemitism, but that story has no redeeming features. The article about Chaucer makes no mention of this tale or the antisemitism.

I think it is a feature of what is currently being called "Woke culture" that if a text contains racism, then the author is completely invalid. So if we describe Marx or Shakespeare as antisemites, the implication is that all their texts are antisemitism. 

I found a Universities UK document "Tackling racial harassment in November 2020" (written by Professor David Richardson,  Chair, UUK Advisory Group on tackling racial harassment in  higher education). The text is very persuasive and aggressive in its nature: 

"In a university, institutional racism is not just the problem of those suffering from the injustices that result from it. It is a problem of the whole university community, and so the whole community must own the challenge together, led by the vicechancellor or principal. University leaders and governing bodies must recognise addressing racism as a strategic priority. This will benefit students and staff, but also society as a whole as we shape the minds and attitudes of the next generation. Some have argued that we need patience, and that cultural change takes time. However, it is clear that people have run out of patience – and rightly so. The sector demonstrated how quickly change is possible when it adapted its entire delivery model within a few days in March and April this year in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. My challenge will be to see similar fast progress in turning words into action on tackling racial harassment in our institutions. We cannot afford not to."

He never uses the word "Jew" (I searched for it), just "students and staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds". 

Antisemitism in the UK is deeply embedded in the fabric of society and, as Chaucer shows, goes back to the very origins of the English language. In effect, it cannot really be removed from British culture. It can, however, be acknowledged. 

Netanyahu: The loser who always wins.

Netanyahu has led the Likud in 12 Knesset elections, over 33 years: More elections than any other Israeli politician, although Begin was leader of the Likud or Herut for just as long. Under Netanyahu's leadership, the Likud did not always emerge as the largest party and he did not always become prime minister. 

Ben Gurion particpated in 5 elections over 15 years, winning them all. Begin led the Likud (or its earlier version called Herut) in all 10 elections from 1948 to 1981. Over 30 years (since 1951), Begin's share of the vote either increased or remained static in every election: He never won less seats than in a previous election.

Elections	Likud seats under Begin	Labor Leader	Labor Seats
1949	14	Ben Gurion	46
1951	8	Ben Gurion	45
1955	15	Ben Gurion	40
1959	17	Ben Gurion	47
1961	17	Ben Gurion	42
1965	26	Eshkol	45
1969	26	Golda	56
1973	39	Golda	51
1977	43	Peres	32
1981	48	Peres	47

In 1982 Begin resigned and Shamir took over, leading the Likud in 3 elections (winning one). Since winning leadership of the Likud in 1992, 33 years ago, Netanyahu has contested 12 Knesset elections as head of the Likud. In 7 of those elections, Netanyahu became Prime Minister . Curiously he has won the most Knesset seats only 5 times in 12 elections, but still managed to become (or remain) Prime Minster 8 times.

Netanyahu has never lost a contest for leadership of the Likud. Sharon became leader because Netanyahu resigned in 1999, after he lost a general election to Ehud Barak.
Ariel Sharon left the Likud in 2005, creating a new party called Kadima, and Netanyahu has led the Likud ever since.

Since 1992 there have been three direct election contests for the role of Prime Minister. Netanyahu contested those twice, winning once and losing once.

In only one election in the last 28 years, was the Likud not led by Netanyahu: Ariel Sharon won the 2003 Knesset elections and accompanying direct election of the Prime Minister.

When has Netanyahu lost?

The first election Netanyahu lost was in 1999. At the time, the Prime Minister was elected directly (a bit like US presidential elections) and one voted for the parties separately. Netanyahu faced two rival candidates, both highly decorated former Generals: Yitshak Mordechai (representing a new center party) and Ehud Barak (leading the Labor party). Netanyahu lost.

The second election Netanyahu lost was in 2006.  Sharon had taken most of the Likud into a new party and then had a stroke. Ehud Olmert led Kadima (Sharon's new party) and the Likud led by Netanyahu came third, with a mere 12 seats.  Technically, Netanyahu also lost to Tzippi Livni in 2009, by a single seat: But she was unable to form a coalition and he became Prime-Minister. 

 
Why did Netanyahu not win?

Well, Netanyahu has only once won an election in which his chief rival was a former Army Chief of Staff: He lost to Barak and he has only beaten Gantz once.  He lost two elections to the leaders of Kadima before that party disintegrated and vanished from the scene: Maybe the auora of the comatose Sharon was enough to keep him down. 
Most importantly, Netanyahu's record in Knesset elections was not stellar until 2013: He was, however, very effective at forming coalitions. Until 2013, Netanyahu never led the largest party or won over 30 seats, since 2013 he has consistently won at least 30 seats and, except for once, always led the largest party.

Data sourced from Wikipedia.  From 1996 to 2003, the Prime Minister was directly elected, a system which disastrously fractured Israeli politics. The system was abandoned after that. 
 

Elections	Leader of  Likud	Knesset  Seats	Became   PM?	Largest party?	Winner or opposition
1996	Netanyahu	32	Yes	No	Peres (Labor) 34
1999	Netanyahu	19	No	No	Barak (Labor) 26
2003	Sharon	38	-	-	Mitzna (Labor) 19
2006	Netanyahu	12	No	No	Olmert (Kadima) 29
2009	Netanyahu	27	Yes	No	Livni (Kadima) 28
2013	Netanyahu	31	Yes	Yes	Lapid (Yesh Atid) 19
2015	Netanyahu	30	Yes	Yes	Herzog (Labor) 24
2019(1)	Netanyahu	35	Yes*	Tied	Gantz (Blue & White) 35
2019(2)	Netanyahu	32	A new election was called	No	Gantz (Blue & White) 33
2020	Netanyahu	36	Yes*	Yes	Gantz (Blue & White) 33
2021	Netanyahu	30	No	Yes	Lapid (Yesh Atid) 17
2022	Netanyahu	32	Yes	Yes	Lapid (Yesh Atid) 24

A Manifesto for the Advancement of Peace in Eretz Israel - Palestine

 Jews and Moslems worship the same God.  Most Jews have no problems with Moslems praying in their Synagogue and most Moslems have no problems with Jews praying in their Mosque. This I believe provides a framework for co-existence:

1. Any Jew or Moslem who kills a member of the other religion with the intention of driving them out of Palestine - Eretz Israel or eradicating their religion will be punished and then exiled from the land.

2. An annual day of mutual prayer will be agreed between leaders of the two religions, in which both religions will pray together for peace.

3.  Jews will accept the right of all Moslems who are born in Palestine, and their children, to live in Palestine and to own whatever property is rightfully theirs.

4. Moslems will accept the right of all Jews who are born in Eretz Israel, and their children, to live in Eretz Israel and to own whatever property is rightfully theirs.

5. One day in the week and a space will be allocated for Jews who wish to peacefully pray alongside Moslems, on the Temple Mount.

6. One day in the week and a space will be allocated for Moslems who wish to peacefully pray alongside Jews, at the Kotel.

7. Moslems will accept that parts of Palestine are for all time a sanctuary for Jews who feel persecuted. 

8. Certain agreed areas will be open to residence of any Palestinian Moslem or Israeli Jew.

9. A joint parliament will be created with the elected representatives of all the residents of Palestine -Eretz Israel. No party or candidate will be permitted to join this parliament unless they agree to accept the principles of this manifesto.

Why racism and anti-Semitism are not the same

Skin color is only meaningful at the extremes of human settlement: Northern Europeans are easily described as white (mainly because they see little sun) as are sub-Saharan Africans who have a very different skin color. On the other hand, people who live close to the Mediterranean are hard to categorize: Southern Italians, Spaniards, Syrians or Algerians are likely to look the same and because the area is a  mixing pot of peoples from Africa, Europe and Asia you can usually find many different colors in a single country.  

People who live at the far East end of Asia look very different from Europeans but when you get into Iran or India the differences start to fray. Many Palestinian Arabs are descended from Crusaders - red heads are not that rare, while Jews belong to a hodgepodge of different "races".

I have always taken the view that race is not a meaningful way of categorizing people and has no scientific validity: You cannot judge "the strength of someone's character" (to paraphrase Martin Luther King) by the color of their skin. In my view, ethnicity is a far more flexible and useful definition.

 Of course many people in the West have experiences which are influenced by their skin color, including the experience of prejudice, but does that make it a valid way to judge people? Jews face prejudice based on a mixture of religion and the assumption of race, outsiders impose on us an assumption of racial categorization which, in my experience, is only very rarely shared by the Jews themselves. 

As Jews we regard ourselves as having a common ancestry - it is, in a sense, a requirement of the religion but any system which categorizes people on the basis of skin type is clearly irrelevant to Jews - as it is to almost anybody who lives in the Middle East.

When you fill out forms related to "ethnicity" or "race" in British job applications, "Jew" is not a recognized category and you are left to choose from a number of skin-color based categories, which may work for many Britons but just leaves Jews feeling that the form does not define them. There is often an "Other" field, but then to say you are Other - Jewish is to imply that you accept physical categories, and especially skin color, as a valid category to define yourself and also that you accept that Jews are a race.

Yes, the religion suggests a common ancestry - something which is common among ethnic groups - but it is just as much about a common culture, a common religion, a common history and a lack of a recent location-based origin. You will find few Jews where both parents are descended from people who have lived in the same region for more than 3 generations.

I don't think anti-Semitism should be defined as a form of racism. Firstly Jews are not a race and "racism" implies prejudice based on race. Secondly, the whole experience of prejudice is different: Jews can "hide", we/they are not physically visible to everyone in the same way as black people in Europe, unless the Jews are very Orthodox and wear distinctive clothes. 

By the way, a lot of what is defined as racism is really about clothing. Most people can avoid standing out by dressing the same as everyone else. Also there is an issue of names. When filling out forms, in some countries it is easier to identify who is Jewish then who is black. 

Did the Nazis kill Jews because they were "racist"? Its not that clear. In truth Nazi race theory was a bit muddled, the whole Aryan thing implied that Germans originated in Central Asia and in reality only black Africans, Jews and Gypsies were definitively defined as problematic, with Slavs added later. Arabs, despite being Semitic, the Nazis defined as acceptable people. Of course the Nazis always put the "native" Germans at the top of their imaginary (and inconsistent) tree. In the end, Jews were killed as much for their religion, as for their race and converts usually got killed too. So while racism played a role, I think anti-Semitism - hatred of Jews - was more important to Nazi policies then "race". While being blonde haired and blue-eyed might have helped one hide, it would not have protected you from the gas chambers.

Many countries collaborated with the Nazis in their policies: Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Italy, Vichy France all at some point rounded up their Jews and delivered them to the Nazis for extermination. In many of these countries, what the English always refer to as a "Swastika" was widely called the "Hooked Cross". According to Google: "the actual Nazi and Neo-Nazi symbol is correctly labeled as a 'hakenkreuz', the German word for 'hooked cross".

Locals in Austria, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine and Holland helped with the round-ups of Jews. Did they do so because of racism?   I think anti-Semitism was the driving force, and also in many cases anti-Communism: In some countries Jews were associated with communism and that played a role in the willingness to assist the Nazis. 

It took the Germans and their European allies about 4 years to wipe out a third of the world's Jews. Given another ten years and occupation of the USA and the Mediterranean basin, it could have been well over 90%. But at that rate, wiping out the entire population of Africa would have taken over a Century: They would still be at it, there simply are too many Africans.  That is a crucial difference. Exterminating the Jews was and still is an extremely unlikely and yet viable option. Especially if you could rope in the UN to assist you. The UN would not assist against Africans (too many nations) but against Jews it's not inconceivable.

In recent "Holocaust Day" memorials in the UK and Ireland, the Jewish Chronical has reported local Jewish communities complaining that they have been sidelined or pushed to side venues while the main event was managed by non-Jews and sometimes the word "Jew" wasn't even mentioned: 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/jewish-community-excluded-lowestoft-hmd-event-pkr72zbj

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14337643/Good-Morning-Britain-viewers-complain-Ofcom-failure-mention-Jews-Holocaust-coverage.html

https://www.thejc.com/opinion/this-was-the-year-the-jews-were-told-the-holocaust-is-not-about-you-fjtnb1q0

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/protestors-dragged-out-during-irish-presidents-politicised-holocaust-speech-l5jk413v

Of course, that is not the only story, the liberation of Auschwitz was widely celebrated: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14331601/london-eye-parliament-lit-purple-holocaust-memorial-day.html

The gas chambers were erected because of a range of ideas in which anti-Semitism clearly played an important role. The Hutu massacre of the Tutsi was clearly not about racism.