Howard Guttman

There has been a recent bruhaha about the statements of Howard Gutman about anti-Semitism. Obama reacted by conemning anti-Semitism in all its forms; some Jews felt the condemnation was not strong enough, and some Republicn presidential nominee hopefuls gote some RJC members all riled up about it at a recent RJC event.

I want to dissect the issue: First of all, giving a public speech on anything as potentially controversial as anti-Semitism, without clearing it with the State Dept., when you're an ambassador, is not ok, and it is not clear whether or not Gutman did so.

Second of all, the big "thing" is that Gutman distinguished between "classic" Western anti-Semitism, and current Muslim anti-Semitism. I do not think such a distinction is unwarranted, provided one is engaging in an intellectual history of the "reasons" for anti-Semitism - as Arendt did in her work "On the Origins of Totalitarianism". There is a big difference however, between a reason and a justification: If an African-American cut in front of me at the airport, causing me to miss my plane that I was catching in order to propose to my lover before he left for Australia, that might be my "reason" for being racist against African-Americans, but it would not be a justification. I beleive on of the tenents of modern liberal theory is that when it comes to discrimination and racism, a reason is never a good justification. Thus, terror attacks by Muslims might be a reason for Islamophobia, but they are not a justification for it. I also think that generally with racism, there is always a meta-reason comprised of the interations of various reasons, some of which play a greater role than others.

So the real questtion is not whether or not Gutman drew a distinction between classic and modern anti-Semitism, but whether he did so in the context of providing reasons for each, or whether he did in fact provide justifications for the latter. Unfortunately, it is hard to get hold of an exact quote. I found this one; ""A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians". The addition of the words "which should be condemned", make it seem as if Gutman is indeed justifying current anti-Semitism, since the distinction between it and previous anti-Semitism is that unlike classic anti-Semitism, it should not be condemend.* This is the version of the quote that was circulating online and causing the scandal.

It seems however, that this was a misquote. In the online version of the remarks, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhEkrhoiH9o

Gutman draws a distinction between the reasons for classic anti-Semitism and reasons for modern anti-Semitism among some Muslim or Arab emigrant communities in Europe, but he certainly does not justify or condone any type of anti-Semitism. Without the larger context of the speech, it is impossible to judge whether in tone it might have indeed been implicitly justifying it. But in any case, the truth does not matter - the misquote is the one stuck in people's minds, and the damage is hard to undo. It is much easier to dispel a positive reputation then a negative one - facts are not needed for the former, yet often prove insufficient for the latter.

A final note: Gutman is Jewish, and his father is a Polish Holocaust survivor. He has used his personal history to ward off accusations of anti-Semitism, but I do beleive one can be Jewish and anti-Semitic, or African-American and racist, and that sometimes remarks must be judged on their merits, regardless of the speaker's biography. On the other hand, sometimes that biography is relevant, and it can be hard to know where to draw the line.


* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/quote-on-anti-semitism-misattributed-to-us-ambassador-doesnt-ease-criticism/