“It is not easy and not pleasant to see into
this deep heinousness, but I believe we must take a look at it, because
whatever could take place yesterday may happen again tomorrow, perhaps to us
or to our children.”
Primo Levi: The Drowned and the Saved.
Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó,1990 p. 63.
REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION:
ANTI-SEMITIC DISCOURSE IN HUNGARY 2002 - 2003
PUBLISHER’S FOREWORD
Dr. Tibor Szeszlér
This is the third volume of our collection
of essays entitled Anti-Semitic Discourse in Hungary.
After
the first collection of articles about the year 2000 [antisemitism-2000.pdf]
and the second one about 2001 [antisemitism-2001.pdf],
we have now compiled one volume for 2002 and 2003 [antisemitism-2002-2003.pdf].
After the reception of the first two volumes,
the organizer of the documentation efforts which begun in 1999 and the
editor of this series, the Budapest Lodge of B’nai B’rith, became convinced
that documentation and the reports made and published are necessary and
important. Many people believe that the mirror we held up to Hungarian
society provided an important portrait of an era as well as a diagnosis. It
seems we have not worked in vain and the mirror we are holding is not
distorting: one can recognize a number of phenomena in Hungary at the turn
of the millennium.
We pointed out in the first two volumes and have continued to emphasize that
the language used in anti-Semitic speech in Hungarian public writing and/or
“orations” is a peculiarly coded one. Anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism, which
can unmistakably be felt in these texts, appears in devious sentence
structures, in obliquely expressed, and sometimes references transposed
multiple times. Whenever this concealed meaning is exposed, it generally
triggers some pseudo-indignation and objection from people using this
language, saying: we are not anti-Semites! We did not say that, but you see,
Jews – and Jew-hirelings – cry anti-Semitism for anything! (See, for
instance, the article published in the August 9, 2001 issue of Magyar Fórum,
given the untranslatable title Zsidózakata [”Jewish rattling”]).
Despite the fact that anti-Judaism is veiled, these texts carry a clear
message, understandable for everyone. The repeated appearance of
century-long elements of anti-Semitism in 19th and 20th century Hungary is
much in evidence in allusions, names and references. A good example is an
event discussed in this book, namely, the Hungarian Justice and Life Party’s
(MIÉP) wreath-laying in Tiszaeszlár. Those to whom Tiszaeszlár, the village
where the 1882 blood libel case happened, means nothing (especially if they
don’t live in Hungary) will not understand MIÉP’s symbolic act. (For this
and other reasons it is difficult to translate the encoded anti-Semitism
written in Hungarian into any other language.)
We strive to include all relevant communication heard in public or broadcast
in the media into the database of documents forming the basis of B’nai
B’rith’s publications on anti-Semitic public discourse, and collect all
written material that primarily appears in the press and subsequently on the
Internet. (We do not follow Internet forums where, under the cover of
anonymity, anti-Jewish hatred sometimes breaks out with such crushing force
that it makes one wonder if anything has changed in people’s head after the
Holocaust on this matter.) The limited size of this volume, which has been
compiled from part of the documentation, will not allow for the discussion
of every single phenomenon of the period in question. Our goal is to point
out characteristic events of the period.
We aspire to avoid repeating ourselves, so we do not make comments on and
“dismiss” cases that would involve response to repeated racist
manifestations of the same persons or periodicals. However, in some other
cases – for instance, in the case of Lóránt Hegedûs Jr. – we deemed it
important to recall and continue the account of events, especially because
in this latter issue the developments also had implications on Hungarian
legislation in 2003. During the preparations of this material, covering two
years, we found that, firstly, the number of openly anti-Semitic
manifestations decreased after the 2002 parliamentary elections, and,
secondly, that it was pushed back to certain well-definable forums of public
life. We thought that if our goal was documentation – as it is –, we also
had to document reduction in anti-Semitic discourse. Unfortunately, we still
had abundant “source material” available. Recent events such as the street
demonstration turning into an open anti- Semitic demonstration in front of
Tilos Radio’s building1 in early 2004 imply that the positive change of
sentiments was temporary. It became proven again that dormant anti-Semitic
feelings might be warmed up by using any kind of excuse under the
appropriate circumstances and with the contribution of “adept” speakers, and
anti-Jewish emotions – in the strictest sense of the word – can be ignited2
(The case will be discussed in more detail in our next volume documenting
anti- Semitic discourse in 2004.)
In the Foreword to our previous volume we quoted some lines of appreciation
written by Professor Randolph L. Braham about our work. We are citing from
another work this year. A distinguished person published his essay on the
Holocaust at a distinguished place, including his opinion on our book. The
following quotation is from György Poszler’s3 writing entitled Hát értik
ezt? (Who can understand this?) (Vigilia, Budapest, 2003/7, pp. 528-530):
“Two collections of documentary essays: Anti-Semitic Discourse in Hungary in
2000 and the same in 2001. And another collection of essays: Túl a bûnön és
bûnhôdésen (Beyond crime and punishment) by Jean Améry.4
I’ve been mulling over them for half a year…
…these books evoke demons. It’s worth summing up a few elements from them.
They point out that in 2000 and 2001 the voice which used to be more
tentative and sporadic became stronger and more frequent. That is, a kind of
turn took place in public discourse. Its carriers are certain newspapers and
radio programs, almost creating a sense of specialization. There are also
selections of texts and quotations. These selections are the most
astonishing, yet most convincing parts of the two volumes. Also, there are
bibliographies of “literature” republished in recent years. The authors
range from “classical theoreticians” to “classical practitioners”, e.g. from
Henry Ford to Ferenc Szálasi. And from good-humored, “patriarchal”
anti-Semites of the day before yesterday to illhumored, anti-patriarchal
murderers of yesterday. There are references to earlier myths of blood
libels and subsequent hysteria of Freemasonry. They discuss the spectacular
scandals of recent years.. . An intensifying tendency in all this is the
contraposition of “us” and “them”, and then on to explicitly worded
exclusion. (…) The tone has progressively degraded. It would be worth – and
there’s an attempt for – comparing these texts with the phraseology and
metaphors of the extreme right-wing press of 60 years ago. The books are
becoming ever thicker. It is probably not the length of the analysis but the
size of the material to be processed that grows. What will the next volume
be like?” Here it is. This is what it’s like.
Dr Tibor Szeszlér
On Behalf of the Executive Board of the
B’nai B’rith Budapest Lodge Budapest, March 2004
- 1 This media law case was not finally
closed at the time of editing this volume.
- 2 After the speeches held at the demonstration, some participants set
Israel’s national flag on fire and burnt it, but – obviously – not as a sign
of objection to Israel’s politics.
- 3 György Poszler: member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, university
professor, aesthete and literature historian.
- 4 Budapest: Múlt és Jövô Kiadó, 2002.
Anti-Semitic Discourse in Hungary:
Five Questions - Five Answers
We have followed the developments of anti-Semitic discourse in Hungary since
2000. The time that has passed and the publication of this present volume
are bound to raise some questions...
hagalil.com
16-12-2003
|