Uncategorized
A scholar sees a common root for antisemitism and racism: ‘Christian supremacy’
(JTA) — Magda Teter’s new book, “Christian Supremacy,” begins in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 11, 2017. Hundreds of white nationalist neo-Nazis who ostensibly gathered to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee from a local park broke into a chant: “Jews will not replace us.”
Other writers and scholars would note how antisemitism shaped white nationalism. But Teter, professor of history and the Shvidler Chair of Judaic Studies at Fordham University, saw something else: how centuries of Christian thought and practice fed the twin evils of antisemitism and racism.
“The ideology espoused by white supremacists in the US and in Europe is rooted in Christian ideas of social and religious hierarchy,” she writes. “These ideas developed, gradually, first in the Mediterranean and Europe in respect to Jews and then in respect to people of color in European colonies and in the US, before returning transformed back to Europe.”
In the book, subtitled “Reckoning with the Roots of Antisemitism and Racism,” she traces this idea from the writings of the early church fathers like Paul the Apostle, though centuries of Catholic and Protestant debates over the status of Jews in Europe, to the hardening of racist attitudes with the rise of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Antisemitic laws and theology, she argues, developed within Christianity a “mental habit” of exclusion and dominance that would eventually be applied to people of color up to and including modern times.
Teter is careful to acknowledge the different forms antisemitism and racism have taken, distinguishing between the Jews’ experience of social and legal exclusion and near annihilation, and the enslavement, displacement and ongoing persecution of Black people. And yet, she writes, “that story began with Christianity’s theological relation with Jews and Judaism.”
Teter is previously the author of “Blood Libel: On The Trail of an Antisemitic Myth,” winner of the 2020 National Jewish Book Award. At Fordham, the Catholic university in the Bronx, she is helping assemble what may be the largest repository of artifacts and literature dedicated to the Jewish history of the borough.
We spoke Thursday about how groups like the Proud Boys embrace centuries-old notions of Christian superiority, how “whiteness” became a thing and how she, as a non-Jew raised in Poland, became a Jewish studies scholar.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Your book was conceived and written during the COVID lockdown. Where did the idea for the book come from?
It’s an accidental project. I’ve been teaching the history of antisemitism for years, and I live in Harlem so questions of race and racism are very stark in my daily life. And since I grew up in Poland, and American history was not something we were taught or studied, I’ve never been satisfied with the various explanations for the strength of antisemitism and history of racism. And as I mentioned in my prologue, I watched the Raoul Peck documentary, “I Am Not Your Negro,” which has a clip with James Baldwin saying that white people have to figure out why they invented the idea of the N-word and must “embrace this stranger that they have maligned so long.” You could also say that the European Christians created the idea of “the Jew” and that sort of caricature had absolutely nothing to do with flesh and blood Jews. I kept noticing these parallels, as an outsider, reading American and African-American history.
I was also thinking about this idea of servitude that was attached to Jews in Christian theology, and then in law.
You write in your book that “Over time, white European Christians branded both Jews and people of color with ‘badges of servitude’ and inferiority.” What do you mean by servitude in this context?
In Christian theology, from the earliest Christian texts, the idea of servitude and slavery is attached to the concept of Jews and Judaism. Paul does it in his Epistles. He uses this quote from the book of Genesis that “the elder shall serve the younger,” which becomes really embedded in Christian theology. It is the Jews, the elder people, who should serve the Christians, the younger people. Later on in medieval theology and canon law, Jews are in a servile position, consigned for their sin of rejecting Jesus to perpetual servitude. So even though Jews were free people and could live mostly where they wanted to live, marry whoever they wanted to marry — nobody was sold and some even had slaves — that idea of Jews as confined to perpetual servitude to Christians created a habit of thinking of Jews as having an inferior social status.
That language became secularized in modern times, and we see the development of the [antisemitic] trope of Jewish power: that they are in places where they shouldn’t be. I worked on fleshing out the parallels between the idea and then legal status of Jewish servitude and the conceptual perception of Black people in servile and inferior positions.
Magda Teter’s new book explores how “white European Christians branded both Jews and people of color with ‘badges of servitude’ and inferiority.” (Chuck Fishman)
What other kinds of parallels did you find between racism and antisemitism?
In the Christian theology, Black people, like Jews, will be seen as cursed by God. Jews were [portrayed as] lazy because they didn’t work physically — they made money and exploited Christians. Black people were [portrayed as] lazy because they were trying to avoid physical labor at the expense of white men. Both people were seen as carnal, both as sexually dangerous, and so on.
I was struck by the fact that the racist turn of Christian supremacy — justifying the enslavement of Black people on theological grounds — is a fairly late development, taking hold in the early modern period when Europeans established slaveholding empires.
That’s right. In the summer of 2020, the summer of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter, we were all thinking about these issues of race and racism and America. And as I was in the middle of writing the article that became the book, I felt that there was a deeper history that needed to be told, and that slavery is not bound by color until the enslavement of Black Africans by Europeans during the colonial expansion of Europe.
After the French Revolution, when Jews were offered “emancipation” in much of Europe, there were deep debates about whether they could be citizens and be entitled to the same rights and protections as Christian citizens of France and England and other countries. How was that debate informed by Christianity?
In pre-modern Europe, there was obviously both a religious and legal framework under which Jews existed. They had their place in a social hierarchy. After the French Revolution, people are creating a new political reality. The idea of equality obviously challenged the social hierarchies that existed, including the idea that Christians were the superior religion. And that begins to play a role on two levels. One is the level of, well, “how can you be equal and be our judges and make decisions about us?” It’s fear of power — political power and political equality. That challenges the habit of thinking that sees Jews as inferior, in servitude and otherwise insolent and arrogant.
The other level comes from Enlightenment scholars who begin to place Jews in the Middle East and in the Holy Land, in Palestine. Jews are no longer seen as European. They are seen as “Oriental,” and they are compared to the non-European religions and practices that these Enlightenment scholars have been studying. Their differences are now also racialized. “They are not like us, they can’t assimilate. They can never be Frenchmen, they can never be Germans.”
And I guess it’s a short step from that to regarding people with dark skin as inferior and subordinate.
That’s right. Enlightenment scholars are also trying to to understand why it is justified to enslave Black Africans and they do it through “scientific” and other means. They classify Africans as inferior intellectually and they create this idea of race.
I began to think about these European politicians and intellectuals in terms of creating their identities, and what I ended up arguing is what we saw in Charlottesville, what we’re seeing in Europe. It’s not necessarily just about hate, but it’s about exclusion and rejection of Jews and people of color from equality, from citizenship.
And the common thread here is that whiteness and Christianity become inseparable. You write that “freedom and liberty now came to be linked not only to Christianity, but to whiteness, and servitude and enslavement to blackness.”
That’s right. White Christian “liberty” becomes embedded and embodied in law.
Did you see any pitfalls in drawing parallels between the Black and Jewish experiences? I am thinking of those in either community who might say, “How dare you compare our suffering to theirs!”
Yes, I was tempered. I think what some call “comparative victimhood” has paralyzed conversations about this subject, and I kept it in my mind all the time. What I hope comes through is that there’s incredible value in a comparative approach. Coming from Jewish studies as my primary field, the comparison with the Black experience gave me clarity on the nature of antisemitism as well as on the nature of the Jewish experience, and vice versa: The Jewish experience can also give clarity to some of the aspects of anti-Black racism.
What’s an example?
So, for instance, questions like, “Are Jews white? Are they not white? When did they become white?” That’s a whole genre of scholarship. And when you look at it through the lens of law and ideology, you begin to see that from a legal perspective, Jews were considered white in the United States because they could immigrate and they could be naturalized according to law. They did not have to go to court to become American. Their rights to vote were not challenged. There was discrimination, they couldn’t stay in hotels and in some places they couldn’t find employment, but by law, they were considered citizens. The debate about the whiteness of Jews is creating a fog of misunderstanding.
Black Americans were targeted by specific legal statutes from the very beginning in the Constitution and then in naturalization law and so on. And then there was the backlash even after the Civil War to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments [aimed at establishing political equality for Americans of all races].
Statues at the Strasbourg Cathedral depict Ecclesia and Synagoga, representing the triumph of the church, at left, and the servitude of Judaism, which is represented by a blindfolded figure, drooping and carrying a broken lance. (Edelseider/Wikimedia Commons)
How much do modern-day white supremacists, like the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys, see themselves as Christian? Or is this a kind of white supremacy that doesn’t name itself Christian but doesn’t even realize how many of its ideas are based in theology?
I think they might not be conscious of this legacy, but neo-Nazis take from the legacy of the Nazis who themselves were not thinking of themselves as Christian necessarily. But what I argue in the book is that white Christian supremacy becomes white supremacy. It never discards the Christian sense of domination and superiority that emerges from its early relationship with Jews and Judaism.
In the United States, Black people serve as contrast figures to whiteness, in the law and in the culture. You cannot have whiteness without Blackness. For Christians, Jews serve as that contrast figure. Consciously or unconsciously, the Proud Boys are embracing that. They talk of “God-given” freedoms for white people. That is the Christian legacy.
You said that the Nazis didn’t necessarily see themselves as a Christian movement. But I must ask, even though it is not the scope of your book, was the Holocaust a culmination of white Christian supremacy? Because I think many Christian theologians would want to say that Nazism was godless, and a perversion of the true faith.
I’ll say that when exclusionary ideology is coupled with the power of the state, that’s where it can lead.
In the years since the Holocaust especially, there have been many efforts by Christian leaders to address the ideological failings of the past. You write about Nostra Aetate, the 1965 declaration by the Catholic Church absolving Jews of collective guilt in the death of Jesus and some Protestant documents of contrition. But I got the feeling you were disappointed that many denominations haven’t gone far enough in reckoning with the past.
There was a sort of a moral sense that something needs to be addressed after the Holocaust. But then it is not fully addressed. I don’t think anybody has addressed the issue of power — the roots of hate, yes, but not the dynamics of power. We’ll see where the book goes, but maybe theologians will begin to grapple with this legacy of superiority and domination, and the way hierarchical habits of thinking have been developed through theology and through religious culture.
What other impact do you hope the book may have?
White supremacy is very much in the air. We need to speak up against it, and make connections and allyships. I hope that maybe because the book deals with law and power, it may create bridges among people who care about “We the People” as a vision of people who are diverse, respectful and equal, and not the exclusionary vision offered by white and Christian supremacy.
A cross burns at a Ku Klux Klan rally on Aug. 8, 1925. (National Photo Company Collection)
I’d love to talk about your background. You’re not Jewish but you are chair of Jewish Studies at Fordham, a Catholic university. What drew you to the study of Judaism and the Jews?
I grew up in Poland with a father who from the time I was a little girl would point out to me that there had been Jews in Poland. We would drive through the countryside, and he’d say, “This used to be a Jewish town and there used to be a synagogue and there was the Jewish cemetery.” I grew up being very conscious of the past’s presence and this kind of stark absence of Jews in Poland, where in the 1970s when I grew up Jewish history was taboo.
As soon as Jewish books on Jewish subjects began to be published, including those that dealt with antisemitism, we would read it together. We would talk about it. He wouldn’t just shift the destruction and murder of Jews in Poland on to the Nazis.
There was no Jewish studies program in Poland when I was applying to universities, so I studied Hebrew in Israel, and then studied Yiddish in New York at YIVO. I came to Columbia University to get my PhD in Jewish history and my career went in the direction it did. I was a professor of history and director of the Jewish and Israel studies program at Wesleyan University. I came to Fordham eight years ago and created a program in Jewish studies.
Your previous book was about the blood libel, the historic canard that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood. This one’s about antisemitism. I don’t want to presume, but is your interest in these subjects in any way an act of contrition?
I grew up in a very secular household. I did not grow up Catholic. But I think growing up in Poland made me very, very aware of antisemitism and the history of antisemitism. I got my PhD from Columbia University in Jewish history, which did not emphasize Jewish suffering, but Jewish life, and I have studied Jewish life and teach about Jewish life — not just about Jewish suffering.
However, in the last few years, antisemitism has certainly been on the minds of many of us. I also am committed to the idea of shared history, and therefore all my scholarship, as much as it is about Jews, it is also about the church and Poland and the law. Jews are an integral part of that history and culture. And, as such, I’m committed to that, to teaching about the vibrancy of Jewish life as much as the dynamics of what made that life difficult over the centuries.
—
The post A scholar sees a common root for antisemitism and racism: ‘Christian supremacy’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Billie Eilish and the Erasure of Antisemitism After Australia’s Terror Attack
Police officers stand guard following the attack on a Jewish holiday celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, in Sydney, Australia, Dec. 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Flavio Brancaleone
On Sunday, December 14, the Australian Jewish community was shattered by a horrific terrorist attack that claimed the lives of 15 people, including a Holocaust survivor, a rabbi, and a 10-year-old girl.
This was not random violence. The attackers did not open fire indiscriminately on beachgoers or people passing by, nor was this an abstract failure of gun control or public safety.
The shooters deliberately targeted Jews gathered for a Hanukkah event, firing toward a clearly identifiable Jewish celebration. The intent was unmistakable. This was a targeted, ideologically motivated antisemitic terror attack.
They didn’t shoot the surfers or swimmers, bathers running for their lives or the brave lifeguards at Bondi.
They just shot the Jews.
Only the Jews.That’s the issue. Everything else is spin and gaslighting
— Brian Carlton (@Spoonyman) December 15, 2025
Yet some public figures rushed to reframe it as something else.
Musician Billie Eilish, for example, described the attack as “devastating” while emphasizing the need for stricter gun control in the United States and Australia — a response that sidestepped both who was targeted and why.
That framing is difficult to separate from Eilish’s own record. She has publicly accused Israel of committing “genocide” and proudly worn the Artists4Ceasefire pin featuring a red hand, an image uncomfortably reminiscent of the blood-stained hands displayed by terrorists after the lynching of Israelis in Ramallah during the Second Intifada.
Australia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world; its last mass shooting occurred in 1996.
In the wake of last week’s attack, the Australian government again pledged to enforce even tighter restrictions. Whether Eilish was aware of this context is ultimately beside the point. What matters is her refusal to acknowledge the antisemitic motivation of the attack and the Jewish community it targeted.
A similar omission appeared in Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s initial statement following the attack, which made no mention of Jews as the intended victims, despite the well-known presence of a large Hanukkah event nearby. Although Albanese later corrected course, that first statement helped set the framework through which much of the public understood the attack, blurring its antisemitic nature at the outset.
This instinct to default to safe political talking points while avoiding uncomfortable truths about antisemitic violence is increasingly common among celebrities and politicians alike. But the terror attack in Australia did not occur in a vacuum. It followed more than two years of escalating antisemitic incidents across the country, during which Jews have been physically threatened, verbally abused, and spiritually targeted.
Synagogues have been firebombed. and Jewish-owned businesses vandalized. Crowds openly chanted calls to “gas the Jews.”
Notably, some public figures did acknowledge this context. Film star Ashton Kutcher warned that antisemitic rhetoric “carries a cost.” Actor Josh Gad observed that the tragedy occurred because antisemitism has become “acceptable and cheered.” Their responses recognized a reality others chose to obscure.
Those who removed antisemitism from their condemnation of the attack did not merely omit context; they distorted it. By refusing to name the motive, they minimize the danger facing Jewish communities and help sustain a climate in which hatred can continue unchecked.
Naming the problem is not divisive. Refusing to do so is.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
‘Furious but Not Surprised’: UK Jewish Groups React After Bob Vylan Not Charged for ‘Death to the IDF’ Chant
Bob Vylan lead singer Bobby Vylan. Photo: BANG Showbiz via Reuters Connect
The Embassy of Israel in London as well as British Jewish groups have lambasted the decision by the UK’s Avon and Somerset Police on Tuesday to conclude its investigation into “death to the IDF” chants made during a Bob Vylan performance at the Glastonbury Festival and to take no further action against the British punk rap duo.
The police force decided not to bring charges against the London-based band after its lead singer Pascal Robinson-Foster, known by his stage name Bobby Vylan, led the audience in repeatedly chanting “death, death to the IDF” during their set at Glastonbury on June 28. The set was broadcast live on BBC.
“We have concluded, after reviewing all the evidence, that it does not meet the criminal threshold outlined by the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] for any person to be prosecuted,” Avon and Somerset Police said in a statement. The force added that every potential criminal offense “was thoroughly considered,” police “sought all the advice [it] could to ensure we made an informed decision,” and “no further action will be taken on the basis there is insufficient evidential for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.”
In a statement posted to X, the Embassy of Israel in London said it was “deeply disappointing that vile calls for violence, repeated openly and without remorse, continue to fall on deaf ears.”
“Especially in the wake of the terror attacks in Manchester and Bondi, when will such calls finally be recognized for what they are: a real and dangerous instigator of bloodshed?” the embassy continued. “Pascal Robinson-Foster of Bob Vylan should have been held accountable for his bigotry and racism. Failing to act only emboldens those who seek to harm Jews.”
The British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) also lamented the police’s decision in a statement, describing it as another blow to the Jewish community in the UK.
“British Jews will be furious but not in the least surprised,” a CAA spokesperson said.
“Over the last two years, trust in the authorities has collapsed,” the spokesperson added. “With most British Jews now considering whether they have a future in the UK at all, over and over again it falls to us to explore all legal avenues to take action because the authorities will not.”
The Community Security Trust (CST), which aims to provide safety for Jewish communities in the UK, said the decision is “incredibly disappointing” and “sends completely the wrong message at the worst possible time,” as reported by The Guardian.
Avon and Somerset Police said that as part of their investigation into the anti-IDF chants, they conducted “a voluntary police interview under caution” with a man in his mid-30s in November. Officers also spoke to “approximately 200” members of the public to see if they “may be a victim of a criminal offense.” In an effort to gain “an understanding of any legal precedents,” police additionally contacted other police forces in the UK who have investigated similar incidents and sought advice from the National Police Chiefs’ Council hate crime leads, the CPS, and an “independent barrister” before concluding its investigation.
“We sought specific consideration around the words stated, in terms of the intent behind them, the wider context of how people heard what was said, case law, and anything else potentially relevant, including freedom of speech,” the statement continued. “Every case must be treated on its own merits. Consistently the advice we have received has highlighted fundamental evidential difficulties that cannot be ignored,” police said.
“We believe it is right this matter was comprehensively investigated, every potential criminal offense was thoroughly considered, and we sought all the advice we could to ensure we made an informed decision,” authorities added. “We are committed to working positively with all our communities across Avon and Somerset in relation any matters that may arise in the future, because there is no place in society for hate of any kind.”
Bob Vylan commented on the police decision in a lengthy Instagram post on Tuesday. The band claimed the investigation was “never warranted in the first place” because the anti-IDF chant during their Glastonbury set was “evidently not hateful,” but rather “a display of solidarity with the Palestinian people.” They also falsely accused the IDF of wantonly murdering Palestinians.
“Over the past six months, the media and politicians have consistently attacked us for using our art and platform to take a stand against the actions of Israel and its illegal occupying military force,” they wrote. “We hope that this news inspires others in the UK and around the world to speak up, and continue speaking up, in support of the Palestinian people, without fear. We have had our shows cancelled, visas revoked, our names tarnished and our lives upended, but what we have lost in peace and security, we have gained tenfold in spirit and camaraderie. And that is unbreakable.”
The band concluded in part by declaring “Free Palestine” and saying that they hope “all oppressed people the world over, resist the boot of tyranny on the neck of freedom.”
Uncategorized
Netanyahu: Israel to Spend $110 Billion to Develop Independent Arms Industry in Next Decade
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a joint press conference with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (not pictured) after a trilateral meeting at the Citadel of David Hotel, in Jerusalem, Dec. 22, 2025. Photo: ABIR SULTAN/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that Israel would spend 350 billion shekels ($110 billion) on developing an independent arms industry to reduce dependency on other countries.
“We will continue to acquire essential supplies while independently arming ourselves,” Netanyahu said at a ceremony for new pilots.
“I don’t know if a country can be completely independent, but we will strive … to ensure our arms are produced as much as possible in Israel,” he said. “Our goal is to build an independent arms industry for the State of Israel and reduce the dependency on any party, including allies.”
Netanyahu’s comments came about a month after he denied reports that his country was seeking a new 20-year military aid deal with the US, insisting that Israel was working to wean itself off American assistance.
“I don’t know what they’re talking about. My direction is the exact opposite,” Netanyahu said on “The Erin Molan Show” last month when asked by the Australian journalist about a new Axios report saying Israel was pursuing the security agreement.
According to Axios, the deal under discussion would include “America First” provisions to win the Trump administration’s support. The current 10-year memorandum of understanding between the two countries — the third such agreement signed — expires in 2028. It includes around $3.8 billion of annual military aid to Israel, which spends nearly all the assistance in the US to purchase American-made weapons and equipment.
Netanyahu’s latest comments come amid growing criticism in the US among progressives and, increasingly, some conservatives over American military support for Israel, especially among younger Americans.
“Now, I want to make our arms industry independent, totally as independent as possible,” Netanyahu said last month. “I think that it is time to ensure that Israel is independent.”
Netanyahu added that US defense aid to Israel is a “tiny fraction” of what Washington spends in the Middle East.
“We have a very strong economy, a very strong arms industry, and even though we get what we get, which we appreciate, 80 percent of that is spent in the US and produces jobs in the US,” he continued, saying he wants to see “an even more independent Israeli defense industry.”
The Israeli premier went on to stress that his country has never asked a single American solider to fight for Israel.
“Israel does not ask others to fight for us,” he said. “Israel is the one American ally in the world that says, ‘We don’t need boots on the ground, we don’t need American servicemen fighting on the ground for Israel or around Israel. We’re fine.’ We fight our own battles, but in doing so, we serve important American interests, like preventing countries that chant ‘Death to America’ from having nuclear bombs to throw at America.”
