The Modern Anti-Semitism Israel Model: An empirical relationship between modern anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel

The current paper reviews our program of research that has examined some of the causes and consequences of anti-Semitism in which a new theoretical model of anti-Semitism is presented and tested in six experiments. The model proposes that mortality salience increases anti-Semitism and that anti-Semitism often manifests as hostility towards Israel. In accord with predictions, results show that existential fears lead to higher anti-Semitism and reduced support for Israel. Collectively, these results may serve as a preliminary contribution to explaining the continuation of anti-Semitism. “The Jews . invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries . ” Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (ADL, 2003) Much of the world – laypeople, politicians, and scholars alike – seems unaware or unconcerned about modern anti-Semitism. Major scholarly publications on stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination have generally paid little attention to antiSemitism (e.g., Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2010; Fiske, 1998; Jost & Banaji, 1994) and, except for occasional discussions about whether criticism of Israel is or is not anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism rarely receives much coverage in American media outlets (Sheppard, April 12, 2010). This paper is an effort to begin to redress that gap. The present paper reviews some real world evidence of modern anti-Semitism in addition to our program of research that has experimentally examined some of the causes and consequences of anti-Semitism. Why study anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitism is an age old prejudice that continues to exist making it worthy of social scientific attention. Why then has it been virtually ignored? Many factors combine to create a sort of social camouflage covering what is referred to as modern anti-Semitism. First, anti-Semitism is a form of prejudice, and much scholarship seeks to understand prejudice as one source of unfair disadvantage inflicted on particular demographic groups (e.g., Greenwald & Krieger, 2005). Jews, however, are not (in general) socioeconomically disadvantaged. Quite the contrary: At least in the democratic west (Europe and North America) Jews have been very socio-economically successful over the last 60 years (e.g., Burstein, 2007). Second, Israel, the Jewish state, has been highly successful, both economically and militarily. Therefore, to the extent that scholarship on prejudice starts with the implicit question “Who is disadvantaged? ” the answer “Jews” is not likely to readily emerge. Third, the U.S. and Canada in particular are among the least anti-Semitic countries in the world. They have no history of government policies oppressing or harassing Jews, no history of expulsions or state-sponsored violence against Jews, and, in general, have provided a relatively safe and welcoming environment for Jews. Studying anti-Semitism in an environment so favorable towards Jews would appear to be a real nonstarter. Fourth, nearly all discussions of anti-Semitism include the Holocaust. The attention paid to the Holocaust, both documenting it and understanding it, is clearly a good thing. Nonetheless, we suspect that there has been an unintentional side effect to the relentless emphasis on the Holocaust. First, recent research (Imhoff & Banse, 2010) has shown that acknowledgement of ongoing Jewish suffering resulting from the Holocaust increased German participants’ prejudice against Jews. Second, we would speculate that all this attention has unintentionally provided political cover for modern anti-Semites.  2011 by verlag irena regener berlin 1 Florette Cohen et alm conflict & communication online, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2011 The Modern Anti-Semitism Israel Model To the extent that Nazism is implicitly equated with anti-Semitism, the bar for identifying anti-Semitism has been significantly raised. We are concerned about the possibility that, for many people, advocating exterminating Jews equals antiSemitism. If so, then, even when a person endorses and promotes all sorts of other beliefs and actions hostile to Jews, as long as they stop short of advocating extermination or blatant exclamations of hatred (e.g., “I hate Jews,” vandalizing synagogues, etc.), that person may frequently fail to be recognized as an anti-Semite. These general factors – Jewish success, the relative friendliness of North America toward Jews, and the implicit equating of Nazism with anti-Semitism – have, we speculate, combined to lead many in the West (including social scientists) to completely miss the fact that modern antiSemitism continues to exist. Although anti-Semitism may have gone unnoticed for many people, there continue to be some very real modern manifestations. Ongoing evidence of modern anti-Semitism Hate crimes. Even in the U.S., which has a long history as one of the least anti-Semitic countries in the world, Jews are proportionately subject to more hate crimes than are other ethnic and religious minorities, including African-Americans, Latinos, and Muslims. According to data collected by the FBI, the U.S. Census, and a variety of private polling agencies (FBI, 2004; U.S. Census, 2006) Jews are the only U.S. group that is victimized more than once for every ten thousand members of the population. African-Americans are proportionately the next most frequent target of hate crimes (subject to hate crimes at about half the rate of Jews in the United States). This remains true even in areas like New York where Jews have been known to thrive (Levin, December 31, 2010). Special reports. Despite generally flying under the radar, there have been a handful of special reports over the last several years that have documented modern anti-Semitism. In 2005, the U.S. State Department released a report titled, “Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress. ” It found that: “Anti-Semitism has proven to be an adaptive phenomenon. New forms of anti-Semitism have evolved. They often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism. However, the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that— whether intentionally or unintentionally—has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character” (p. 4). Recently, Human Rights First (a U.S. nonprofit that does not accept government funding) released its own report that both concurred with and expanded on some of the findings of the State Dept. report (Human Rights First, 2007). The mere section headings offer a chilling wake-up call to anyone who has interpreted Jewish success as a reason for unconcern: Extreme Violence (in Russia, France, and the U.S.), “Attacks on Jewish Institutions and Property (in Canada, the Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Austria), Proliferating Anti-Semitic Discourse (“Anti-Semitism promoted throughout much of Europe through Internet and other media connected to Middle Eastern . intended to delegitimize Israel” pp. 11-12), Anti-Semitism as Public Policy (e.g., Iran’s Holocaust denial conference), and Anti-Semitism in Central and Eastern Europe. International political statements and events. The most controversial statements recently made by a major political leader is, of course, Iranian President Ahmedinajad’s statements echoing those of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region” (Teitelbaum, 2008). Far less well-known are a variety of other events, statements, declarations, etc. that reflect a similar virulent and irrational hostility to things Jewish (including, but not restricted to, the state of Israel). For example, a major Egyptian newspaper, Al-Usbu, speculated that Israeli nuclear testing may have caused the 2004 tsunami that led to massive death and destruction in Indonesia (Wall Street Journal, 2005) , and conspiracy theories suggest that Israel was responsible for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks (Public Broadcasting System (PBS), 2007). Except among extreme hate groups of the ilk that have been around seemingly forever, one rarely sees this type of blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric in the democratic west. Instead, one finds something far more subtle: Attempts to stigmatize, censure, and sanction Israel for acts and policies that cause far less harm than those of other countries. For example, British academic unions have periodically voted to boycott Israeli products; and both British and American churches have voted or considered votes to divest from Israel. Given the at least comparable, and often far greater suffering and oppression perpetrated by regimes such as China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Burma, given the occupations occurring in places such as Tibet, and given the vastly greater death perpetrated in conflicts occurring in Chechnya, the Congo, Sri Lanka, and Sudan than in the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the failure of these same unions and churches to advocate for similar sanctions against other, non-Jewish countries, at least raises the specter that the desire to punish Israel might spring from something other than deep and sincere concern for human rights. To gain more insights into the causal mechanisms underlying some of these phenomena, we have performed a series of experiments, which are discussed next.  2011 by verlag irena regener berlin 2 Florette Cohen et alm conflict & communication online, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2011 The Modern Anti-Semitism Israel Model The psychology of anti-Semitism Over the last several years, we have been engaged in a program of research based on the Modern Anti-Semitism-Israel Model (MASIM (formerly the New Anti-Semitism-Israel Model); Cohen, 2009; see Figure 1). The MASIM combines elements of terror management theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynsk