Gerard Leval
It has become common practice to distort language, twisting it to fit agendas and priorities. Such a misuse of words can readily mislead us into the trap of false equivalencies.
No such trap has been as frequently set as the effort to create an equivalency between antisemitism and Islamophobia. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are apples and oranges, as indicated by the very forms of the words themselves.
Antisemitism is a perception based upon a belief, or, more precisely, based upon a prejudice or preexisting dislike or hatred. The suffix “ism” denotes an ideology, a prejudice or a discrimination. In the case of antisemitism, the “ism” refers to a prejudice based upon a particularly negative perception of Jews (“anti,” meaning being against; “Semite,” referring to the 19th-century racialist perception of Jews as a race descended from Shem, the second son of Noah, the biblical figure). Thus, when we refer to antisemitism, we are focusing on an animus against Jews arising from a negative perception of Jews. It is a voluntary expression of pure prejudice.
Islamophobia is a very different matter. The use of the suffix “phobia,” which is the Greek term for fear, is a clear indication that we are not in the sphere of prejudice, but rather in a situation of fright. As distinguished from prejudice or ideology, which can be adopted or rejected at will, fear is usually an involuntary reaction grounded in our personal defense mechanisms. Whether warranted or not, fear tends to be preselected by our very nature. It is usually the product of our experience or of information supplied to us that tends to trigger an involuntary reaction within us.
Associating fear with “Islam” does not denote inherent prejudice. Instead, it implies a response in relation to experience, whether through direct encounters or vicariously inspired. The only relevant question is whether the fear is warranted or not, and, if the fear is unwarranted or unsubstantiated and therefore irrational, whether it is the product of prejudice.
To suggest that an equivalency exists between a belief, regardless of its foundation or origin, and a fear, also without regard to its foundation or origin, is, in fact, to distort reality. A belief can or should be discarded upon establishing that it is false, distorted or developed from inaccurate or prejudicial information. Fear is a form of instinct, a basic reaction, motivated by an internal desire for survival which can only be discarded when the cause of the fear ceases or is determined not to be justified.
Removing the fear of radical Islamists, which is the origin of fear of Muslims, will hardly be easy. We live in a world that for decades has been buffeted by displays of Islamist terrorism. Individuals and states closely linked to Islam have advocated and carried out acts of violence and destruction for much of the last hundred years. In the United States, the attacks of Sept. 11, the worst ever perpetrated against the U.S. mainland, were carried out in the name of Islam. The various attacks against Jews in the last year, culminating in the recent horrific attack in Sydney, Australia, all appear to have been motivated by radical Islam. Suicide bombers have inflicted countless attacks against civilians in many nations all while declaring allegiance to Islam. The barbaric massacres in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, were also perpetrated by people shouting the credo of Islam as they carried out their barbaric violence.
This must inevitably lead to the question of whether the fear of Islam is irrational and unjustified or whether it is warranted or at least reasonable. If it is irrational and without basis, then it is merely a prejudice meriting firm rejection. If, on the other hand, this fear is founded on a justifiable basis, then it can hardly be deemed a prejudice which needs to be condemned. Rather, it is on the source of this fear that a focus must be placed, and it is that source which must be addressed.
Can there be any doubt that fear arising from the threats that have emerged in a tsunami of hatred against the West from some Muslims constitutes a reasonable reaction?
Assuredly, only a very small minority of those who espouse Islam pose any threat whatsoever. However, it is also true that the threats exist, and that they have been widely publicized. Consequently, fear of being victimized as a result of those threats cannot be deemed irrational.
Antisemitism is a very different matter. Over the course of millennia, Jews have been among the most persecuted of minorities in the world on the basis of an assortment of patently false accusations. From false claims that Jews use Christian blood in the baking of Passover matzah to the defamatory forgery of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” all the hateful accusations against Jews have been proven to be totally unfounded. Today, antisemitism is predominantly, but not exclusively, anchored by the baseless hatred of the Jewish state of Israel (besieged since its very inception by Islamists), perpetuating this oldest of prejudices on yet another false premise.
Islamophobia might perhaps better be labeled “Islamistphobia.” However, acknowledging that there is genuine fear arising from the many attacks and threats against our society from Muslim sources is hardly irrational. This fear is, tragically, based, to a substantial degree, in fact and its source, rather than the fear itself, needs to be confronted and stopped.
However, it is the attempt to equate or even link antisemitism with Islamophobia that is especially pernicious. That false equation creates an inappropriate comparison between unfounded prejudice and arguably rational fear. It also prevents properly confronting a threat that must be addressed. The time has come for our moral leaders to stop advancing this false equivalency and to focus instead, fairly and reasonably, but also urgently, on two serious, but profoundly different notions, which must not be conflated.
Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of a national law firm.
