I’m not here going to debate the etymology of the word, only to say that I believe the term ‘Judeophobic’ to be better because capable of more accurate definition. But I have a question; was Herzl antisemitic?
I was struck reading his ‘The Jewish State’ (in translation) by his apparent belief that antisemitism was in some way a feature of Jewish presence, almost as if it was caused by them. This is what he writes:
The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution. This is the case in every country, and will remain so, even in those highly civilized--for instance, France--until the Jewish question finds a solution on a political basis. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.
For Herzl the case is hopeless; only a Jewish nation state will solve the ‘Jewish Question’. Wherever Jews are welcomed there are two dangers. One is that the culture, the sense of identity, will be lost by assimilation. The other is that, attracted by security, an influx of Jews will turn the temporary security into persecution because that is what happens to Jews. Of course, for Herzl it wasn’t essential that the Jewish state be in Palestine. He was happy with the British government’s ‘offer’ of part of Uganda; the joys of imperialism!