Supporters of Israel routinely call Israel’s critics anti-Semitic, as “historian” Karl Radl reminds us (Semitic Controversies, “The Insane Philo-Semitism of the Quarterly Review”, 11th January 2012). Radl thinks that the assignation anti-Semitic should be used more sparingly. For example, specialists in Russian and Soviet studies should stop characterising Stalin as anti-Jewish since he (Stalin) was “notoriously paranoid against everybody”, not just Jewish doctors.
But if Radl, who blogs on “Jews, Judaism and their impact on today’s world” and who circumspectly conceals his real identity, has a “minimalist approach to matters of anti-Jewish sentiment assignation”, his use of the term Philo-Semite is anything but. Indeed, he considers any social scientist who accepts the veracity of the Holocaust as ipso facto Philo-Semitic, on the grounds that there are no witnesses or documentation to verify this episode, aside from the “general fantasies of ‘Jewish inmates’ who seem to have memorial faculties beyond that of mere human beings”. He cites in this context historian Frank Ellis, who (he alleges) “more or less worship[s] Israel”.
Radl, who first developed his pathological fixation with the Jews when he encountered the (unfounded) concept of ritual murder, can detect only one Jew on the staff of the Quarterly Review. But he maintains that the latter shares the Socialist History Society’s “obsession with the chosen people”. As for his comment on the composition of our staff, we will “leave that enquiry to the Gestapo”.*
*Art historian Ernst Gombrich, declining to inquire whether certain Viennese artists were Jewish
Leslie Jones, 11 March 2012