What do the American Council of Learned Societies, the Ford Foundation, the Mellon Foundation’s Award for Distinguished Scholarship in the Humanities, the Jewish Museum Berlin, the City of Frankfurt, its former mayor Petra Roth from the Conservative Party (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) and the committee for the prestigious Adorno-Prize in that very city, leftist Professor Micha Brumlik, and the antisemitic Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) Movement have in common? They all endorse, support or give awards to ‘philosopher’ Judith Butler. Judith Butler is probably the best-known female anti-Israel activist worldwide, following the big footsteps of Hannah Arendt.

 Judith Butler agitates against Israel and says that anti-Zionism is an essential part of Judaism. She bases her view often on Martin Buber and Hannah Arendt. Others argue in the same direction, like Brian Klug from the UK or other “Tikkunistas.” This was the reason why on October 1, 2012, political scientist and Professor at Bar Ilan University, Gerald Steinberg wrote:

Tikkun olam, Hebrew for making the world a better place, is an important component of Jewish religion and culture. But when removed from the wider Jewish context and artificially transformed into a radical ‘social justice’ campaign, it can become a destructive cult. In its most immoral manifestation, this ‘tikkunism’ is used by marginal individuals whose tenuous links to the Jewish people are appropriated in the war against Zionism and Israel.

The example of Judith Butler is a case in point.[1]

However, this piece is not about Butler herself. It is about just one more scholar who published her:: Jonathan Judaken, a young Professor in the Humanities from Memphis in the United States. Judaken is a member of the “Advisory Board” of an internet list, h-net-antisemitism.[2] Someone on such a board should be against antisemitism in all its forms, no?

The big tent is H-net (or H-Soz-u-Kult in Germany). H-net is a page mostly for historians but also for scholars in the social sciences, cultural studies and related fields. Antisemitism is of course just a minor field of their activities, but it is one. And Judaken is part of the game. Not long ago I found that in February 2013 Jonathan Judaken wrote about me and insulted me.

This blog post was written as a response to a despicable diatribe written by Clemens Heni and posted on the blog of the so-called Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.[3]

I do not know if this kind of unscholarly attack is usual on that list.

What I’d like to say is a “thank you” to Dr. Guenther Jikeli, who responded to Judaken’s insult in the Huffington Post (where Judaken wrote first, before sending a link to his piece from the Huffington Post to H-net-antisemitism, including additional remarks) and on h-net-antisemitism and wrote:

However, to begin his promotion of the new ‘International Consortium for Research on Antisemitism and Racism’ (ICRAR) with an insult instead of arguments is not very promising. We should wait and see how other members of this consortium reply to Heni’s accusations in ‘Kosher stamps for post & anti-Zionism at ‘Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism’ in London.’ The call for their upcoming conference on “Boycotts, Past and Present” looks like an attempt to whitewash the current biased, and yes, antisemitic, boycott movements against Israel.[4]

Following Jikeli and contrary to those who prefer insult over scholarship I would like to provide the interested reader some scholarly material from an article of mine from November 9, 2012, which was later published as part of the Postscript to my book Antisemitism: A Specific Phenomenon, which appeared in January 2013 (648 pages), providing the footnotes that were missing in the CiF-article from November 2012.[5] The article (without footnotes) was reposted[6] at the homepage of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME).[7]

In my Postscript I also deal with the London-based Pears Foundation and its Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, which “was launched in November 2010.”[8] Historian David Feldman is the director of the institute. He deals with Jewish history and the history of immigration and multiculturalism in Britain, but antisemitism as such is not part of his scholarship.[9]  In November 2011 Feldman launched a so-called International Consortium for Research on Antisemitism and Racism,[10]including the following members: David Feldman,[11] Director, Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck, University of London; Scott Ury,[12] Head, Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Tel Aviv University; François Guesnet,[13] Sidney and Elizabeth Corob Reader in Modern Jewish History, University College London; Jonathan Judaken,[14]Spence L. Wilson Chair in Humanities, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee; Veronika Lipphardt,[15] Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Friedrich Meinecke Institute, Free University, Berlin; Michael Miller,[16] Central European University, Budapest; Amos Morris-Reich,[17] University of Haifa, Director, Bucerius Institute for Research of Contemporary German History and Society, Haifa; Maurice Samuels,[18]Director, Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism, New Haven, Connecticut; Stefanie Schüler-Springorum,[19] Director, Center for Research on Antisemitism, Technical University, Berlin.

I hope you find the following analysis useful for a better understanding of some trends in contemporary scholarship on antisemitism.

Clemens Heni:[20] Antisemitism – A Specific Phenomenon. Holocaust Trivialization – Islamism – Post-colonial and Cosmopolitan anti-Zionism,[21] Berlin: Edition Critic (648 pp.), ISBN 978-3-9814548-5-7

Documentation – From the Postscript:

(…)

Let us just focus on one consortium member, Jonathan Judaken from Memphis in the United States.[22] Most other members of the new consortium have not dealt with antisemitism in their work so far, or have done so only in passing. Judaken, though, representing (like others of that group) the younger generation of scholars (born in the 1960s or later) has published a few articles about antisemitism and dealt with French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and his anti-antisemitism and anti-racism.

In 2006, Judaken mentioned in his first book that he was a fellow in Israel;[23] that he played tennis with historian Robert Wistrich[24] and is familiar with research on antisemitism from his experience at the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA) at Hebrew University.[25] As Wistrich is a prolific critic of new antisemitism and anti-Zionist antisemitism, left-wing antisemitism, Muslim antisemitism, as well as Jewish antisemitism, this is interesting. What did Judaken learn from Wistrich and other scholars at SICSA?

In an article in 2008 for the journal Patterns of Prejudice,[26]Judaken denies that there is a “new antisemitism.” Calls from Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map” (he quotes Ahmadinejad, saying “’the Zionist regime will be wiped out soon’”[27]) don’t shock Judaken, as if calls by one country for the destruction of another UN member state were nothing unusual. He is equally blasé about the rise in antisemitism; while he acknowledges it, he finds that it too is unworthy of scholarly attention. Judaken questions the very term antisemitism, saying:

The new Judaeophobia, unlike antisemitism, is not premised on the Aryan myth or biological racism, white supremacy or ultra-populist ethnonationalism.[28]

That’s very odd; one has only to visit Eastern Europe countries like Ukraine, Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria or Lithuania or online pages, publications, gatherings and events of German and Austrian neo-Nazis to find that kind of antisemitism – and  plenty of it.

Next, Judaken is obviously unfamiliar with Theodor Adorno’s and Peter Schönbach’s term “secondary antisemitism,” already created around 1960 and still used by scholars today.

Judaken follows controversial authors Brian Klug and Steven Beller in their rejection of the term “new antisemitism.”[29] Thus, he accuses Roger Cukierman from the French Conseil Représentative des Institutions juives de France (CRIF) of following a “paranoid construction” of “new antisemitism” when talking about the “new ‘red-green-brown-alliance’.”[30] He does not use the word paranoid for people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi,[31] the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but for a concerned and frightened Jew. Judaken finds “little evidence”[32] of that new alliance of different kinds of antisemitism, perhaps because he lives in Memphis and does not have much insight view in today’s France, Germany, Sweden, or the Netherlands. Funnily, Judaken translates the “red-green-brown-alliance” into leftist, green and jihadist[33] (where is the “brown” here?), while that term aims at leftists (red), jihadists (green) and neo-Nazis (brown). Maybe he misses the point that the greens of today are the Islamists and Jihadists, because their color is – green. In theory, he knows about attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions in Europe, but when it comes to Muslim antisemitism, he makes the typical excuse used by most scholars:

These young men, who often suffer from institutionalized discrimination, identify with the struggles of Palestinians or other insurgent Muslims around the world.[34]

A core aspect of Jonathan Judaken’s article, which stands pars pro toto for many scholars in the field today, is his analysis of anti- and post-Zionism:

It is therefore clear that not every critique of Israel is antisemitic and that not all forms of anti-Zionism are animated by Jew-hatred whether advanced by non-Jews or Jews. In fact, numerous Jewish traditions have insisted that preservation of what is most precious about Judaism and Jewishness demands a principled anti-Zionism or post-Zionism.[35]

So, if someone is obsessed, after Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Babi Yar, the woods of Lithuania, Belarus, Latvia, Poland, and the unspeakable horror of the concentration camps, with opposing a Jewish nation-state, a real homeland and state, armed to protect its citizens, this is no problem for today’s (and particularly the young) scholarship on antisemitism. Instead, they embrace pre-Shoah ideas of a lovely co-habitation of Jews and Arabs. But Hitler is a hero in many Muslim countries, his Mein Kampf a bestseller, as are The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Finally, that kind of anti- or post-Zionism casts a blind eye on Jewish history in Palestine, which goes back thousands of years. Jerusalem is very relevant to Jewish history but has little relevance for Islam as a faith (the Quran did not mention Jerusalem once). Nevertheless, Jerusalem has been used by Muslims for political reasons in recent decades, as Islamic Studies scholar Daniel Pipes has shown in 2001[36] and emphasized in a speech in 2012:

Daniel Pipes, the founder and director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, opened the panel by outlining Jerusalem’s centrality to Judaism – it is mentioned in the Bible more than 800 times as well as in prayer services, daily blessings and wedding services. Since the Temple’s destruction in 70 CE and the subsequent exile of Jews from the Land of Israel, Jerusalem has been the focus of Jewish spiritual longing. In Islam, Jerusalem plays a far more subordinate role, Pipes said.[37]

In addition, anti-Zionists do not deal with often almost homogenous Muslim states. It is an irrational obsession to deal with the tiny Jewish state, although Israel today is home to some 20% Muslims and Arabs, while many Arab and Muslim countries have over 90% or even over 99% Muslim inhabitants. And then look at the political culture in the Arab and Muslim worlds, compared with a vibrant democracy like Israel.

It comes as no surprise that Jonathan Judaken supports BDS-activist Judith Butler wholeheartedly. He even published the anti-Israel activist from California in a book he edited in 2008.[38] Then, in his article inPatterns of Prejudice, he introduced the Frankfurt School (read: Critical Theory) and their critic of the “ticket- thinking.”[39] Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer indeed wrote in their Dialectic of Enlightenment in 1947 that there is the “same form of abstract form of labor from the battlefield to the studio.” Whether one is on the left or the right, or in the middle, there are just different kinds of “tickets,” in their view. The “ticket thinking” is based on the requirements of the “big industry,” as they claim. There is much reason to criticize, for example, the loss of language and culture, as the two leading critical theorists did in that work.

But there is close to no connection between the loss of words and cultural expression (they mention that in 1947 people just used 300 hundred basic words) and the gassing of Jews. They confuse eliminationist antisemitism of the Shoah with ticket thinking and lack of thinking. Hollywood was not Ponár (a site of the Holocaust in Lithuania).

This was already discussed, for example, in the late 1990s, in a vibrant German debate about the shortcomings of Horkheimer, Adorno and Critical Theory, compared with the groundbreaking study of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen about Hitler’s Willing Executioners, published in 1996.[40] Critics argued that despite the importance of Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s analysis, they had turned a blind eye towards German specificity and antisemitism, which was not just an instrument of “imperialism” or the ruling class (as Arendt thought as well, by the way). Jews also were not interchangeable with other supposedly victimized groups like the working class or Christians, as critics of that aspect of the early Critical Theory argued.

Jonathan Judaken portrays himself as neutral, because he does not explicitly take sides with regard to the “Zionism is racism” formula. Rather he equates that kind of antisemitism with today’s statement that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” Many critics of antisemitism and antisemites “mirror” themselves, in his view.[41]

He talks about a “respectable tradition of anti-Zionism and post-Zionism.” He introduces Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig[42] as well as Tony Judt, Tony Kushner and Alisa Solomon as anti-Zionists,[43] and Baruch Kimmerling, Adi Ophir, Uri Ram, Ammon Raz-Krakotzkin and Ilan Pappé as post-Zionists.[44] Judaken is equally supportive of propagandists of “binationalism” like Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Hannah Arendt.[45] He goes so far as to claim that “Judaism and Jewishness demands a principled anti-Zionism or post-Zionism.”[46] He does not even mention or deal with the intellectual and scholarly analysis and criticism of these strains in Jewish thinking by Israeli philosophers Elhanan Yakira[47] and Yoram Hazony[48] or historian Yoav Gelber[49]. He also fails to mention how small the group of today’s anti- and post-Zionists is, compared with the estimated 13 million Jews worldwide, most of whom are Zionists and support the Jewish state.

Jonathan Judaken is particularly upset about those who criticize antisemitism, particularly critics of Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace not Apartheid and Stephen Walt’s and John Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Judaken accuses those who are against antisemitism of doing so because that sells; Judaken himself produces an antisemitic trope:

Since their fundraising depends on using the Internet constantly to show their supporters that they are marshalling resources in the struggle, they disseminate petitions against petitions, for example, those calling for boycotts against Israel. They ostracize books and articles that they claim cross the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism by publicizing books and articles that respond point by point to the charges, which often helps to spur sales or leads to the wider circulation of what they oppose (through alternative Internet media and the blogosphere). Two good examples here are the campaign against Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (and the London Review of Books article that preceded it). In the media-driven frenzied war of words, the medium is often the only message, since in many discussions in the public sphere the only thing that people often have read are the emails or blogs that have pre-scripted their response. The global flow thus helps to publicize political causes, draws together – albeit largely only virtually – unlikely alliances, and helps to generate funding for the next skirmish. All this leads to little more than the propagation of the ‘ticket thinking’ that is the very source of the Judaeophobic imagination.[50]

Remember: one of the first articles against Walt/Mearsheimer was a piece by historian Jeffrey Herf, written with his colleague political scientist and sociologist Andrei S. Markovits.[51] Accusing these scholars of a “Judaeophobic imagination and of applying the “ticket thinking” is nothing but resentment.

The unscholarly and biased nature of publications like Walt/Mearsheimer does not upset Judaken. Nor does he focus on similarities between the arguments of Nazi agitator Johann von Leers in his 1940 book Kräfte hinter Roosevelt and those of Walt/Mearsheimer in 2006/2007.

Jonathan Judaken, who represents the mainstream among young scholars in the field of research on antisemitism and related fields, is not at all upset, worried or scared about Islamist antisemitism, although he knows well that it exists. Instead, he fears pro-Israel and pro-Jewish critics of Islamism, left-wing anti-Zionism, and mainstream anti-Israel propaganda.

Let’s listen again to Jonathan Judaken and his use of the word “army,” while he is silent on the terror of the Revolutionary Guard of the Islamic Republic of Iran or Hizballah, for example:

Horkheimer and Adorno thus suggest how a frenetic, paranoid and delusional neo-conservative philosemitism serves as the reverse of Islamism’s Judaeophobia, each a symptom of ‘ticket thinking’ in the age of digital communication in which stereotypes stand in the place of critical thought. Their analysis also indicates the ways in which the struggle against antisemitism can paradoxically feed the symptoms it seeks to alleviate. Horkheimer and Adorno suggest that the globalized marketplace defines the production, dissemination and consumption of ideas whose logic is governed by commodification and fetishization. This ‘ticket thinking’ has also infused political struggles. This means that those who seek to gain publicity to promote their positions can do so by referencing the prepackaged reservoir of anti-Jewish images and, in so doing, provoke an immediate response from the army of NGOs who combat antisemitism.[52]

Thus, pro-Israel scholars, activists, intellectuals or NGOs need, or even invent or exaggerate antisemitism, in this completely distorted view. This is an old anti-Zionist trope: Zionism embraces antisemitism, because this fuels Zionism. Well: antisemitism first of all is a threat to Jews and the state of Israel.

Finally, Jonathan Judaken thanks Marxist and anti-Zionist French philosopher Étienne Balibar “whose very thoughtful comments helped to reshape some of my thoughts.”[53]

A year later, in winter 2009, Judaken published a review article in the journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies[54] in which he attacked political scientist and sociologist Andrei S. Markovits for

many over-generalizations for which he provides little substantive evidence. He [Markovits, CH] states, for example, that ‘criticism of Israel has attained a tone in Europe’s mainstream media which goes well beyond the country’s policies and questions the worth of its very existence’ (p. 77). This kind of assertion is so generic and unsubstantiated that it might be said to be a stereotype itself.

In 2009, a year with several of the most antisemitic rallies in European history in recent decades, Judaken accuses Markovits of being too pro-Israel. This is all the more remarkable because Markovits is a leading expert on European history, while Judaken is not. Judaken’s obsession with downplaying antisemitism is striking. Judaken also takes aim at historian Jeffrey Herf and political scientist Matthias Küntzel, among others. He offers instead the well-known anti-“alarmist” ideology:

When Cesarani, Birnbaum, and Herf cast their glance toward the contemporary situation, they sound an alarm. In his overview of anti-Zionism in Britain, Cesarani argues that with the rise of the New Left and its perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict and U.S. ‘imperial’ policy, the rhetoric and attacks on Zionism began to permeate the Left as a whole; a ‘new antisemitism’ was forged from ‘the concatenation of anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism’ (p. 132). Birnbaum, too, warns of ‘surprising conjunctions’ (p. 154), in his case ‘a selective alliance … developing between the National Front and certain minority Muslim circles’ (p. 154). Roger Cukierman has most famously encapsulated the viewpoint of these ‘new antisemitism’ theorists in arguing that Jews are threatened by a new ‘red-green-brown alliance’ of Leftists, anti-globalization activists, and Islamists – an alliance forged by shared antisemitism. Herf is clearest about what he sees as the most dangerous element of this purported new political mix in his foreword to Matthias Küntzel’s Jihad and Jew-Hatred. ‘Radical Islamists hate Jews,’ he writes on the first line. So simple, so clear. Is this indisputable?[55]

It is in fact “simple” that Islamists hate Jews. Antisemitism has been embedded in Islamist ideology from the very start. Antisemitic behavior is a real threat, judging from events in recent years and decades. Although Judaken then refers to the clear evidence of the parallel growth of Nazi, Arab and Islamist antisemitism in the 1930s and 1940s, for example, as shown by Küntzel,[56] he fails to see the importance of these findings for our understanding of today’s antisemitism, particularly Islamist antisemitism. Instead, Judaken embraces “principled” anti-Zionism, as if Islamist anti-Zionist antisemitism is somehow not principled. Judaken concludes:

One of the features constantly articulated by those arguing that a ‘new antisemitism’ is on the rise today is that it takes the form of an anti-racism in which Israel – representing the Jew in the community of nations – is bashed as a racial, apartheid, colonial state, hardly different from Nazi Germany. And the eighth paradox one might discern is that a principled Jewish anti-Zionism – one that saw Zionism as bad for the Jewish soul – has shadowed Zionism from its origins. This means that the formula ‘anti-Zionism is antisemitism’ is too simplistic. It is an analytically blunt tool that often only serves the opposite political ends – the ends of those who promote the canard that ‘Zionism is racism.’ Both claims help to fuel the rhetorical fires, rather than dampen them down.[57]

This kosher stamp for Jewish anti-Zionism is highly problematic. His accusations against the few anti-antisemitic scholars make it extremely unlikely that Judaken read or understood the books and articles of Robert Wistrich, although he quotes him several times.

In 2012, Judaken was published by political scientist Lars Rensmann in a book on Arendt and Adorno, along[58] with anti-Zionist activist Seyla Benhabib,[59] who is a friend of anti-Israel celebrity Judith Butler, a Yale professor, and was even given an award in 2012 by the University of Tübingen in South-West Germany. Benhabib accused Israel in 2010 of alleged “crimes against humanity,” compared contemporary Israel with fascism, National Socialism and the 1930s.

I have analyzed the work of Jonathan Judaken because he appears to be the lone scholar in the consortium affiliated with the Pears Institute who has written at least a few longer articles about research on antisemitism. It is also worth noting that he welcomed and embraced the killing of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA) by Yale University in June 2011 in an article for Ha’aretz:

In recent weeks [summer 2011, CH], the front lines in the battle over the ‘new anti-Semitism’ have moved to Yale University. A controversy has raged over the decision by Yale to shutter its Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism. Caroline Glick has led the charge in The Jerusalem Post, suggesting that YIISA was shut down because of its refusal to shut up about contemporary Islamic anti-Semitism. The uproar is an indicator that discussions about contemporary anti-Semitism have become a war zone. (…) YIISA clearly blurred the lines between activism and academic work. (…) The watchdogs’ activity is part of a broader assault on faculty governance that is eroding academia. This does not mean that universities are an ivory tower removed from the most important issues we face globally. On the contrary: Universities, in their training of researchers, can make a significant contribution to these debates. As such, the YIISA controversy should sound the alarm bells. It should serve as a call for the need to properly educate a new generation of scholars in the field, and for a dialogue within academic circles on how to achieve this goal.[60]

In reality, the contribution of Judaken constitutes an endorsement for anti- and post-Zionist activism. Probably he would say that support for someone like BDS- or boycott-Israel-activist Judith Butler or for Étienne Balibar is of course not advocacy, simply philosophy or intellectual reflection.

Quoted Literature:

Gelber, Yoav (2011): Nation and History. Israeli Historiography between Zionism and Post-Zionism, London/Portland (OR): Vallentine Mitchell

Hazony, Yoram (2000): The Jewish State. The Struggle for Israel’s Soul, New York: Basic Books.

Heni, Clemens (2009b): “Wie deutsch ist abendländische Vergesellschaftung? Die Analyse der ‘ordinary Germans’ von Daniel J. Goldhagen und die ‘Elemente des Antisemitismus’ von Max Horkheimer und Theodor W. Adorno im Vergleich,” in: Heni, Clemens 2009, 47–103

Judaken, Jonathan (2006): Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jewish Question. Anti-antisemitism and the Politics of the French intellectual, Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press

– (2008): “So what’s new? Rethinking the ‘new antisemitism’ in a global age,” Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 42, Nos. 4–5, 531–560

– (2009): “Homo antisemiticus: Lessons and Legacies,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, 461–477

– (2011): “An academic war zone. Rather than serving as fodder for another melee in the political war over the ‘new anti-Semitism,’ the controversy over the Yale Initiative should serve as a wake-up call,” July 1, 2011,  http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/an-academic-war-zone-1.370556 (visited November 2, 2012)

– (ed.) (2008a): Race after Sartre. Antiracism, Africana Existentialism, Postcolonialism, Albany: State University of New York Press

Küntzel, Matthias (1999): “’Keineswegs ein spezifisch deutsches Problem?’ Goldhagen und das Defizit der Kritischen Theorie, in: Jürgen Elsässer/Andrei S. Markovits (eds.), “Die Fratze der eigenen Geschichte.” Von der Goldhagen-Debatte zum Jugoslawien-Krieg, Berlin: Elefanten Press, 135–160

Küntzel, Matthias et al. (1997): Goldhagen und die deutsche Linke, Berlin: Elefantenpress

Markovits, Andrei S./Herf, Jeffrey (2006): “A reply to Mearsheimer and Walt,” http://normblog.
typepad.com/normblog/2006/03/a_reply_to_mear.html (visited August 23, 2009)

Pipes, Daniel (2001): “The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem,” Middle East Quarterly, September 2001, online at http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem (visited November 1, 2012)

Rensmann, Lars (1998): Kritische Theorie über den Antisemitismus, Berlin/Hamburg: Argument