When I was ten my teacher banned our class from using the word "nice". Never again we were told, were we to reach for an adjective and end up grasping the "n" word. This teacher was idiosyncratic to say the least - she used to interrupt lessons to play us Handel’s Messiah on the old piano in the corner of the room - so I took her "no nice" edict as another sign of her contrariness.
But later in life I have come to see that she was right. We were banned from using the word because it forced us to engage our imaginations. The term "nice" is so removed from its original definition of "pleasant" that it has become a fallback for the verbally lazy. Hence, I had a nice day today, the weather was nice, my lunch was nice, I met a nice person and then went for a nice walk. Everything was nice, so nothing was nice. When the pure juice of definition has become so diluted, it is time to pour it down the sink.
What then is to be done with the word "anti-Semite"? In the past this was a functional term, referring to hatred of Jews or Judaism. In the post-Holocaust west, it was widely understood that anti-Semites were loathsome individuals. They attacked synagogues, indulged in conspiratorial fantasies and denied the existence of the Holocaust (about as rational as denying the existence of the Pacific Ocean).
I have had the misfortune of meeting a few people who fall into this category and, even disregarding their prejudice, they were wankers. Their hatred seemed to spring from some lack of happiness or fulfilment in their lives. The Jews - and indeed other groups - were the scapegoats for their disappointment. In short, they were not nice people.
But now things have changed. For to be accused of anti-Semitism today, you need not display any prejudice against Jews or Judaism. Criticism of the Israeli government is enough. When Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki described Israel’s recent action in Lebanon as "criminal", he was accused by Howard Dean of anti-Semitism.
Much of the discussion about the latest Middle East war here on Joeuser has been premised, it seems to me, on the idea that only Jew-haters could possibly have a problem with what Olmert’s government is doing to Lebanon. For those of us who do criticise the Israeli government, the burden of proof is foisted onto us. We must prove we are not anti-Semites but, since anti-Semitism is a belief which can be kept private, this is impossible. I could go blue in the face denying I am an anti-Semite, but no-one but me would know the truth.
I believe there are two reasons why the term "anti-Semitism" is being used to describe anyone who criticises Israel’s government; one understandable, the other sinister.
Given their appalling suffering over thousands of years, it is not surprising if some Jewish people have a defensive psyche, a mentality that any criticism of the Jewish state is fascism in disguise. While unfortunate, this motivation to expand the definition of anti-Semitism is not malicious.
But the other explanation is more sinister. I believe that the term is being abused as a deliberate tactic. The charge of anti-Semitism is being used by the Israeli government and its friends to end debate, to fend off any criticism. It is the ultimate trump card (or so they think). They can cry "anti-Semitism" and all the dead Lebanese children matter nought, for the discussion is over. For a government so wedded to militarism, this is a powerful weapon in the propaganda war. But its power diminishes by the day.
For like the word "nice", the term "anti-Semitism" is diluted when its definition is widened. If anti-Semitism includes criticising the Israeli government and hating Jews, then it is a big tent indeed. Inside are not just David Irving and his ilk, but also very many humane, tolerant people, including Israeli leftists. Indeed, even Israeli hard rightists are anti-Semites, for they criticise their government for not bombing enough. There are 189 countries calling for Israel to stop bombing Lebanon. They, and all the people who support this stance, are anti-Semitic.
The word is losing all meaning. Its residual power to hurt and silence is based on the sting of its older, purer meaning of racism, not its new, flabby definition.
A fellow blogger called me an anti-Semite a few days ago. Ten years ago, I would have been offended, I would have denied it vehemently. Afterwards, I would have pondered why he had used the term. But when it happened, I felt nothing. If you dare to breathe a word against the Israeli government, someone is going to call you an anti-Semite.
So what? He might as well have said I was nice.