Structures That Must Be Separated

The concept of “carceral anti-antisemitism” appears to be largely based on an instrumentalization of the term antisemitism. We, too, want to advocate for a non-carceral anti-antisemitism and, in this context, plead for a separation of carceral anti-antisemitism and the carceral measures behind the instrumentalization of accusations of antisemitism.

The following critique is based on a collective exchange, discussing the text Towards a Non-Carceral Anti-Antisemitism.

Our group consisted of nine people who are active in different, mostly abolitionist grassroots groups in Cologne, and included Jewish, Palestinian, as well as other POC perspectives. The article is based on the knowledge that emerged from the discussion — but does not represent a group position.

The state framing of antisemitism must be challenged

We also see the need to combat antisemitism both in society at large and within the movements for social justice in Cologne.

From our perspective, the concept of carceral anti-antisemitism can contribute to blurring the line between accusations of antisemitism and actual antisemitism. Even though underlying problems such as criticism of the IHRA definition and the separation between alleged and actual antisemitism are addressed in the text, in our view, it fails to differentiate this in its further analysis.

According to the authors, “the main problem lies within the nature of the measures that are being prescribed to counter incidents of real or perceived antisemitism.”

By “perceived antisemitism,” we understand the discourses that define systematic criticism of the state of Israel as antisemitic per se, even if it refers to numerous reports by international human rights organizations. We consider this to be just as central and inseparable from the introduction of the measures. This general categorization of systematic criticism as antisemitism and thus “combating” it (carceral or otherwise) already poses a problem through labeling, which simultaneously enables carceral mobilization while depriving Palestinians of the right to speak out against their displacement and oppression.

In this we also see an important difference to the proposed analogy of carceral feminism:

As we understand carceral feminism, the carceral practice represents a false reaction to patriarchal violence and at the same time reproduces it. With carceral anti-antisemitism, on the other hand, it seems crucial to point out that it is partly a reaction to real antisemitic violence and partly a framing of circumstances that are falsely classified as antisemitic violence.

The article describes cases in which the carceral state is mobilized against accusations of antisemitism as “collateral damage” of carceral anti-antisemitism. In our view, this does not quite emphasize enough the intentional aspects of these practices.

We see the carceral turn described above as being co-founded precisely in the emptying and shifting of the concept of antisemitism and refer to the application of the concept of philosemitism by Ma’ayan Ashah and Danna Marshall. The instrumentalization of accused antisemitism as a border mechanism, as traced by the authors, has enabled a carceral turn since October 7, 2023 precisely because of these mechanisms. Like Yossi Bartal in his article The Return of the Protectionist Jew, they see this as a continuity of philosemitism, which is a tool for creating the hegemonic consensus in the current authoritarian turn.

According to Michel Wieviroka, philosemitism refers to “the love of non-Jews for a Judaism that is somewhat imaginary.”  While antisemitism has historically been used to enable oppression through portraying the Jew as enemy, philosemitism uses the alleged protection of Jewish life to enforce oppression. In its current mode of operation, this mechanism — abstracted from actual antisemitism — takes place via a deceptive image of Judaism that seeks to equate it with the state of Israel.

Antisemitism is thus projected onto Palestinians and people perceived as Muslims, and antisemitism is outsourced while the white German population is “exonerated.”  If Jews contradict this narrative when they criticize Israel, these breaks in the narrative must be prevented and they too are accused of antisemitism.

The interweaving of racist images with this narrative of anti-antisemitism, in combination with decades of selective politics of remembrance, enables the implementation of authoritarian measures that find social approval beyond state actors and involve universities, the media, and culture. In our movements, we experience former “leftists” who, in the name of the fight against antisemitism, publicly portray people with precarious residency status as antisemitic due to Palestinian solidarity and pass on photos to investigative and immigration authorities.

If we adopt the narrative of the state’s carceral measures in our analysis that these cases are in fact anti-antisemitism, we are failing to recognize an essential component of the current philosemitic mode of operation.

Perspective

We recognize actual antisemitism in society and our movements as a serious problem that we need to work on. To address “antisemitism in the movement,” we also consider it necessary to dismantle the thesis of “antisemitism of the movement.”

A central challenge for us in the fight against antisemitism within anti-racist movements is currently that we have to explain antisemitism in two ways due to its instrumentalization:

On the one hand, antisemitism must be addressed as a problem, and on the other hand, it requires an additional explanation as to why the problem addressed is not merely an instrumentalization of the concept of antisemitism against Palestinians. We believe it is essential to make this distinction clearer to combat antisemitism effectively.

We discussed in the group that, in our view, an adaptation of the concept of carceral anti-antisemitism would be necessary to avoid locating antisemitism in the wrong places in practices of struggle.

We therefore consider it useful to view carceral anti-antisemitism and the carceral instrumentalization of the concept of antisemitism as two different structures between which there are connections, but which nevertheless cannot be subsumed under a single term.

We find calling-ins and other feminist, abolitionist practices in the fight against antisemitism just as important as the authors, but we do not see this as a solution to instrumentalized and false accusations of antisemitism.