Not a day goes by without someone being accused of being an ‘anti-Semite’.
The consequence of such an accusation is often to derail free speech and squelch open debate.
Typically, the subject of this complaint feels obliged to explain that they are not, in fact, an ‘anti-Semite’ (perish the thought!)
Israeli soldier confronts an anti-Semite
A conversation, which might start out about Gaza, Israeli settlements on occupied territory, mistreatment of Palestinians, Israeli spy-rings, World War Two, 9-11 or the attack on the USS Liberty, quickly degenerates into a slanging match about whether or not one or more of the participants is an ‘anti-Semite’.
Suspicious folk have concluded that levying this dreaded accusation is merely a trick to divert attention away from the substantive underlying issues. I must say I’ve thought that myself.
Accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are somewhat special. It’s one thing to be accused of being a rapist, child molester, mass murderer or something else that’s really tangible. We all know what a mass murderer is. He/she turns people into dead bodies before their time. If accused of this, without basis, it may be able to sue for damages.
But what’s an ‘anti-Semite’?
Intelligent discussions on this interesting subject are already available – along with vast amounts of dross. On this occasion, I won’t try to compete with the former – and I don’t want to add to the latter. Today I’ll try a different tack.
The definition of 'anti-Semitism'
I am one of those who believes the term ‘anti-Semitism’, a rather recent invention dating only from the late 19th century, has no substantive meaning whatsoever. It’s an exercise in ‘branding’ (in the advertising sense of the term), nothing more.
It creates a false category (people who don’t like ‘Semites’).
The definition of 'Semite'
Unless referring to antiquity, the word ‘Semite’ has only a linguistic meaning and refers to someone who speaks a Semitic language.
No-one I have ever met or heard of dislikes people simply because they speak a Semitic language (a major linguistic family that includes Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew and numerous other languages, both extant and no longer spoken).
This does not stop those who use the term ‘anti-Semite’ from loading it up with whatever they want. Since the branding exercise began in the late 19th Century, the term ‘anti-Semite’ has mainly been used to level accusations of irrational anti-Jewish attitudes. Contemporary dictionaries define the term along these lines – but this is on the basis of common usage, not etymology. I think it’s time to get back to roots.
I don’t believe the term ‘anti-Semite’ is either meaningful or useful. It only adds to confusion and clarifies nothing. Consequently, I don’t use the term myself except within inverted commas. Like ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ and ‘Hate Speech’, it’s a term I use only to critique. It’s not part of my everyday language. It’s part of everyday discourse that I despise – discussion that’s imprecise, inaccurate and biased.
One might therefore quite reasonably say that I am an ‘anti-anti-Semite’. That’s a label I’ll wear proudly.
A logician might object that one does not usually include the double negative in a term. For instance, an ‘anti-anti-Republican’ is not usually described as such. He/she is simply called a ‘Republican’.
I therefore conclude that I am, at root, a ‘Semite’.
It’s true I don’t speak Arabic, Hebrew or any other Semitic tongue. In that regard, I’m more of an Indo-European. But in my staunch and radical opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’, I’ve spawned a new identity.
I had no idea it was so easy to become a ‘Semite’.
I’m sure it takes longer to learn English.
