Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Anti-Zionism: Discrimination and Political Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article asserts that Islamophobia has taken the place of antisemitism. It attempts to trace the integration of Jewish people into democratic nation-states since the nineteenth century and claims that no such integration can take place with Muslims. It also addresses the phenomenon of anti-Zionism as a challenge to liberals who criticize Israeli policies toward and treatment of Palestinians. 

It uses some examples from France, and others from Britain, but mostly discusses these imagined trends in general terms. It demonstrates a strong grasp of the relevant scholarship on antisemitism, Islamophobia, and contemporary anti-Zionism among liberals, though it excessively quotes from these sources. Ultimately, the central premise that Islamophobia is the new antisemitism remains unconvincing, however. 

The article does not give deep enough attention to the history of antisemitism, wholly ignoring its medieval roots in Europe. Jewish emancipation and eventual “assimilation” did not cause antisemitism, though it could have given it some additional fuel in the age of mass politics and mass media newspaper circulation during the late nineteenth century. The birth of modern Zionism resulted in part from the failure of emancipation and assimilation. 

There is also no discussion of the history of Islamophobia or the relation of Christian states and Islamic states in modern Europe. Islamic kingdoms in Spain and the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe had at least some impact on European thinking about Muslims. 

While there are certain similarities between antisemitism and Islamophobia as discriminatory ideologies, the historical contexts are radically different. Also, by writing generally about Western democratic nation-states rather than species ones, the argument is also rendered less credible. 

The final section of the article dealing with anti-Zionism is not consistent with the remainder of the analysis. There are other parts of the article that are unclear too. 

Despite the article noting that antisemitism is on the rise again on p. 1, it claims that “in current times Jews are not anymore an endangered minority.” 

The author gets the spelling of the original German title, as well as its English translation, of Wilhelm Marr’s 1879 tract Der Sieg des Judenthums ueber das Germanenthum wrong. 

It might be strengthened if there was a greater examination of primary sources of antisemitism and comparing them to Islamophobia. 

There were also numerous problems with the English language.

Beginning with the title itself, there are a host of problems with the English language in the ms.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am not clear as to the overall argument of this paper. It appears to be arguing both that antisemitism has been replaced by Islamophobia, whilst also noting these are two very different forms of prejudice. A clear argument setting out the thesis the author wishes to defend explicitly and then defending it, while debunking counterarguments would greatly strengthen the quality of this paper.

The referencing while comprehensive is a little dated, and the argument does not address the structural differences between antisemitism and its roots in European Christianity, in contrast with European attitudes to Islam both recent and historical.

Although the paper addresses the UK context, it makes no reference to the Equality Act, which makes illegal discrimination based on both race and religion, as well as other protected characteristics. This somewhat undermines the argument the paper wishes to make. The different legal and social contexts of countries within Europe should also be explored in greater detail, not to mention greater consideration given to the legal context in both Israel and Palestine.

Overall, whilst there is merit in the argument of the paper, in my judgement it requires thoroughly rewriting, with a much sharper focus, before it is suitable for publication.

The English grammar and syntax is poor in places, and requires proof reading by a native speaker of English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revisions to the ms. are commendable and it makes much more sense than the first version.

Yet, its thesis still lacks some coherence and clarity.

The English language needs extensive editing.

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a much improved paper - after a final proof read and grammatical check it will be suitable for publication.

A thorough proof read is required, as you note.

Author Response

Please check the revised version.