Unconscious Bias and the Secular Antisemite
Scapegoating and victim-blaming are ancient phenomena, often surfacing during uncertainty or upheaval
The Rise of Scapegoating in a Secular Age
“Antisemitism is not about Jews; it is about antisemites. It is the symptom of a disease to which societies become vulnerable at times of stress,” observed the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom. His words resonate profoundly in an era when secular, educated individuals in Western societies often adopt unfavourable views of Israel without personal experience or historical understanding.
Scapegoating and victim-blaming are ancient phenomena, often surfacing during uncertainty or upheaval. Today, critiques of Israel in Western discourse reflect these patterns, framing the Jewish state as a convenient villain in a complex geopolitical landscape. Why does Israel, often misrepresented, attract such disproportionate scrutiny?
Defining Antisemitism and Unconscious Bias
To understand this phenomenon, it is essential to define key terms. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” This definition includes applying double standards to Israel, denying its right to exist, or equating its policies with those of Nazi Germany.
Unconscious bias refers to the unintentional attitudes or stereotypes individuals carry, shaped by societal narratives or historical prejudices. When these biases manifest in criticism of Israel, they can lead to disproportionate condemnation or a failure to apply similar scrutiny to other nations.
Legitimate criticism of Israel—debating its domestic policies or military actions—can exist without crossing into antisemitism. However, critics who singularly target Israel while excusing or ignoring the transgressions of other nations reveal a troubling double standard. Ignorance is no excuse for perpetuating these biases, as I argued in my earlier article, The Unconscious Antisemite.
Antisemitism in a Post-Religious World
Antisemitism, one of the oldest forms of prejudice, has evolved from religious roots into political and social forms. While theological disputes once defined much of its expression, modern antisemitism often manifests as disproportionate criticism of Israel.
The decline of religious education in the West has left many without the tools to critically assess biases embedded in historical narratives. Ancient stereotypes—such as Jews being manipulative or conspiratorial—resurface in critiques of Israel’s existence and policies. As Camille Paglia observed, secular intellectuals can become a “mob driven by fashion rather than reason.”
The Western Secular Mind: A Fertile Ground for Misinformation
Western societies, for all their progressiveness—or perhaps because of it—are especially susceptible to simplistic narratives. When faced with complex conflicts, people often seek “simple villains.” Social media exacerbates this tendency, creating echo chambers that amplify selective outrage.
Hannah Arendt warned, “The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instil convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any.” This intellectual void is evident in discussions of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, where emotionally charged narratives overshadow historical and political nuance.
Israel is frequently held to impossible moral standards, while authoritarian regimes committing egregious abuses evade scrutiny. This double standard, grounded in unconscious bias, warrants urgent confrontation.
Case Study: The Israeli Palestinian Conflict
The Israeli Palestinian conflict starkly illustrates scapegoating. Critics often misrepresent Israel’s security measures as unprovoked aggression while ignoring the complexities of the situation.
No Palestinian political movement has consistently and unequivocally acknowledged Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally recognised Israel’s right to exist in 1993 under the Oslo Accords, yet this recognition has been undermined by contradictory statements and actions. By contrast, successive Israeli governments have pursued a two-state solution, provided it ensures peace and security.
At the 2000 Camp David Summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered significant concessions, including 91% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, land swaps to achieve parity, and shared arrangements for Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount. Yasser Arafat rejected this proposal without a counteroffer, underscoring the intransigence of Palestinian leadership.
In contrast, groups like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon reject coexistence outright. Their actions—such as the infiltration tunnels and the October 7, 2023, attacks—leave no doubt about their genocidal objectives. Hamas’ charter explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction.
Golda Meir, Israel’s fourth Prime Minister, poignantly remarked, “We can forgive them for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
The Danger of Simplistic Narratives
Victim-blaming and scapegoating extend beyond Israel, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, hindering peace efforts, and discouraging balanced dialogue. As Natan Sharansky warned, “What begins with demonising Jews ends with the demonisation of liberal democratic values.”
These narratives reflect a troubling intellectual laziness, reducing complex issues to moral binaries. This harms Israel and undermines reasoned debate and democracy.
A Call for Critical Engagement
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks aptly stated that antisemitism is “a disease to which societies become vulnerable at times of stress.” Scapegoating Israel reveals deeper societal failures, including a lack of critical engagement and historical understanding.
Ignorance is no excuse. To preserve democratic discourse, we must challenge simplistic narratives and examine historical context. As Elie Wiesel reminded us, “The opposite of love is not hate; it’s indifference.” Intellectual honesty demands nothing less.
Conclusion
The critique of Israel in Western discourse is a microcosm of broader societal failings. Unconscious bias, historical ignorance, and simplistic narratives have created fertile ground for modern antisemitism.
It is imperative to challenge these patterns and uphold principles of fairness. The stakes—for justice, democracy, and peace—are too high to allow scapegoating to persist.
Colonel Michael Scott CSC is the CEO and Founder of The 2023 Foundation, a charity dedicated to combating antisemitism and fostering peaceful coexistence.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the positions of the Australian Defence Force or the Commonwealth Government of Australia.
comments