this paper aims to know if similarities exist emong minority groups, specifically muslims and

jews. This paper also argues for the relevance of negative stereotypes of the muslims and the
jews. This paper wants to view the stereotyped representations of a minority group within the
context of identitiy politics.
debates of the 1970s and 1980s were dominated by the view of immigration as a resource and
of a plural society as something positive, but from the end of the 1990s until now, debates on
immigration are problem-oriented by a value-oriented polarisation
The debates focusing on religious identities expressed by metaphors: "muslim values" is a
threat to "democratic values"
this value based polarisation is caused by the on-going intensification of identity politics.
In identity politics, cultural or religious differences are often constituted as a threat. Therefore,
it becomes the part of security narrative
Huysmans: immigration and migration as phenomena have become security issues.
Identity is be perceived as something stable and given, but when under threat, became
vulnerable. And the others identity is always blamed for causing that vulnerability.
Identity Threatens Identity: 3 Polarising Group Mechanism
There are common traits in each identities whether its nationality, culture, religion, etc
1. Self Righteousness
One of the mechanism is self-righteousnes in which one stereotype the traits of their own
identity as positive traits, compared to the others.
Because their view to others are negative, they reference the "other" as inferior.
Such self-righteousness legitimates the exclusion of the "others". They will think that it is alright
to exclude "bad" values and what they are doing is not a discrimination, but a form of morality
and loyalty to their identitiy.

2. The Assignment of Blame

In the formation of group identitiy, the other group is to blame for the changing in society,
unemployment, and insecurity.
It is perceived that the other group poses a threat to the established order.
3. The selection of Key Identity Markers
Key identity markers is a symbolic issues that is effective to form the group's formation. Theyre
used to emphasis group's core identity

These three mechanisms will be shown for comparison between the stereotypes of the anti-
semitism in the past and in today's anti-islamic debate.

TO PREVENT IDENTITIY POLITICS POLARIZATION

1. check the factual data
2. check statistics on "do they actually take our jobs?" or "are they all islamists?" etc.
3. analyse traits of 'the others' from history. because if we increase awareness about the
others, (their basis, history, and projections) we could find some common similarity in the
portrayal of 'the other' to deconstruct their stereotypes.

nah paper ini mau nyoba yang cara ketiga dengan interpreting and using history actively with
research questions: Can today’s notions about the
existence of a collective Muslim mentality be interpreted in the light of the stereotypical
‘collective
Jew’ from the last century? Can our knowledge of anti-Semitism provide new insights into the
politicisation of group identity?

PEROBAHAN DARI ANTISEMITISM KE ISLAMOPHOBES

The term ‘Semite’ did originally refer to a language family of both Hebrew and Arabic, and from
the middle ages to the mid-twentieth century both Jews and Muslims where looked upon as
Semites. But then it is also referred as a type of human being and type of culture. Kalmar said
that the tendency was to imagine the jews on the pattern of what was becoming known of the
Muslims.
The Arabisation of the Jew supports the image of the jew as something inassimilable to
Christian Europe
After WW2, liberal Jews in the US distanced themselves from the semitic by put forward
prophetic aspect of Judaism which emphasis the relation of Jewish and Christian. This is the
beginning of the de-demonization of Jew. Which then projecting demonization to the Arab as
the other Semitic.

NGOMONGIN BUNZL
Bunzl said that anti semitism in the 19th century was a racist ideology and has specific political
purpose, to secure ethnic purity of the nation's government.
But Islamophobia, rose in the late 20th and early 21st, and has their concern more with the
civilization of Europe.
-Anti Semites questioned jews' fitness for inclusion in the national community (within each
countries).
-Islamophobes questioned whether muslims can be good Europeans.

What Bunzly said might be correct, but in Norway, Islamophobes clearly stated that Islam is a
threat to their country, and the impossibility of Muslims to ever becoming good Norwegians.

Bunzl misses the mechanism of exclusion in anti semitism and in Islamophobia which operates
on religious and cultural grounds.

ALASAN DOVING MAKE ANTISEMITISM BUAT KOMPARASI DG ISLAMOPHOBIA

Reason to compare muslim and jew has nothing to do with muslims or jews, Doving thinks that
we might understand the culture of stereotyping minorities.

Anti semitism was used to strengthen the nation state, which has similar aspects with
islamophobia which now is used for identity politics.
Doving use the anti-semitism of former times and not NAZI society/ideology as the basis for this
comparison. (Holders and disseminators of anti semitics back then also viewed Hitler's
extermination as barbaric and frightening)

Doving says that using anti semitism as a source in comparative analysis for stereotypes of
minority in Europe is not the same as analogizing historical situation of jews and the muslim
situation nowadays. But comparing the mechanism on how Anti semitism and islamophobia
works can give insight to European collective engineering.
Esther Benbessa says that anti semitism and islamophobia shares similar ways of exclusion
(even if the instigators and the causes are different)

Doving find the ground for comparison between the Jew and the Muslim's particular traits
which then become their characteristic, regardless of nationality, personality, profession, etc.

Both antisemites and islamophobes see themselves as guardian of the pure-nation state.
Historian, Emberland said that anti semitism in Norway was expressed through xenophobic
nationalism, not race idology. Similar to islamophobes in Norway, They want to strengthen the
identity of the majority population by presenting Islam and Muslim as incompatible with
Norwegian culture.

Doving believes that nationalistic based identity politics, by picturing muslim as a threat and
projecting fear in the majority population by emphasising that "they are what we are not" has
something to do with the history of anti Semitism as well.

TEXT SOURCES YG DIPAKE SAMA DOVING

1. Books which contained warning for the readers about the potential social consequences and
dangers of Islam.
2. The selected text are not representative for immigration discourses in general, but aspects of
debates which reflect established notion held by Norwegian general public.
JENIS RESEARCH DOVING
Semantic Analysis of Jewish and Muslim key identity makers. Which only analyse how
representation create notions about minority groups.

MULAI MASHOK KE INTINYA

COMPARISON NOTIONS
1. The Takeover
There is a fear of one's characteristics or distinctiveness being undermined. Saxlund wrote that
he dont want to see Norwegian national character undermined by the Semitic view of life.
Jewis conspiracy existed, saying that Jew would achieve world supremacy by introducing
liberalism and democracy that seek to replace the monarch and the church.
The Growth of Islamophobia started since the 90s but now references regarding islamophobia
usually directed to the 9/11 attack. The majority people always view immigrant as weak, the
poeple at the bottom of society's social ladder, who needed help or as people who should go
back to their own countries. But now, ethnic Moroccans or Turk have become 'The Muslim'
who is no longer weak, but strong and threatening.

There are growing notions about muslim in Europe:

- Several millions of Muslims in Europe do not share European values.
- Europe, naïve about a growing Muslim minority, is on the verge of committing suicide.
- Muslims are, first and foremost, loyal towards Islamic laws and are therefore disloyal
towards European values.
- Through high birth rates and migration, European Muslims are part of a plan to take over
Europe.
- Instead of Islam being Europeanised, it is now Europe that is being Islamised.

The takeover comparison basically shows the similarity on how the majority population feared
that Jew and Muslim will take over the power of the majority population of European through
high birth rates or by implementing their religion's system in the Europe.
Exploiting Hospitality
Anti semitic and anti islamic texts both contain descriptions how the new country's is exploited.
Bruce Bawer: Norwegian welfare state is exploited by muslim, Saxlund: the freedom of the
Jews were given to spend time practicing their religion with synagogues and their own schools,
creating state within the State. An anti islamic debate says that the freedom of practicing
religion should be restricted for muslim so that houses of worship do not become a hotbeds for
a takeover of power

Enemy Inside Europe

Anti semitism emphasis that the Jews is a threat because they are already within Europe.
Similarly, the muslims who are in Europe are most feared. Fear of nowadays Islamification is
comparable with Jewification of Europe in antisemitic papers/

Inner Solidarity Within Each Groups

Solidarity among the Jews is more powerful than among the majority population. It is similar
with muslims loyalty to the 'islamic ummah'. Which both show strong fellowship between
religion followers. Mulim are defined as anti-democrats, anti individualists, and coup planners.

Taking Over Existing Territory

The takeover myth also says that Muslims countries are seeking out new territories, and Anti
Semitic voices believe that the Jews dont really want to return home to Israel because as
Saxlund stated, they cant create their own society because they dont have farm labourers or
factory workers.

The Downfall of Authority

Both Antisemitic books and islamophobic books stated the theme of the downfall of the
authority. Both condemned the parliament and the politicians. The present government blame
socialist left party who upholds multiculturalism.

2. Institutions at Risk
According to antisemitic logic, the legitimacy of institutions like the church, the family, the
monarch, the rural community, and the estate society is threatened due to the modernity and
liberalism Jew brings. It was said that the Jews allegedly takeover central institutions to wipeout
Norwegian culture

Ironically, in the islamophobia papers, it is stated that Muslim poses a threat to modernity and
its concepts: secularisation, freedom of the individual and gender equality within the family.
Being a muslim is regarded as being an opposition for the norm of secularism which dominates
West European countires now.

3. The Naive Left

4. Hate Commanded by god
5. The sexualised man
6. Treatment of Women and Children
7. Using History
8. Lack of Will to Integrate
9. The Absence of Humanism
10. Something Must Be Done

Why Comparison
An important reason for exposing stereotypes is the importance they hold for identity politics.
The greater the prejudice against Muslims, the greater the likelihood becomes of them
withdrawing and cultivating a strong collective identity.
Stereotypes play an important role in identity politics because they are divisive or, as Hall puts
it, essentially divisive because they are always about separating the acceptable, the normal and
the preferable from the unacceptable and the abnormal. The consequence of this is that
stereotypes have an exclusive effect.
Stereotypes are almost always constructed by a dominant group in order to describe the
members of a group with lower status (Schul and Zukier 1999:36). Stereotypes originate most
markedly wherever there is inequality of access to power.
Whereas anti-Semitism has not played a role on a contemporary political level for decades, the
question of Islam and Muslim immigrants dominates the political discourses in all of Western
Europe
Bunzl also argues, a serious problem in Europe and a problem also on the political level. After
the Holocaust there is no longer any place for anti-Semitic ideology on a political level, whereas
the use of anti-Islamic opinions and negative portrayals of Muslims are not only politically
legitimate but also openly used for collecting votes during elections. To illuminate the
overlapping of clichés used in the anti-Semitism of earlier times and in today’s anti-Islamic
discourses might give Islamophobia less breeding ground
(opinion sal)
jadi tu si yg muslim ini kan terjadinya skrg nih, itu tuh bisa lebih polarized karena media gaksih?
its easier now karena adanya social dilemma lewat teknologi.

any question? as a muslim maybe i can answer questions.

As a muslim, reading this text was very insightful. I just realized how similar the mechanism of
exclusion in antisemitism and islamophobia is. In my country, muslim always view jewish as a
zionist, as a bad villain, no matter what their backgrounds are, we homogenize them as
extrimist who took over palestine and commit warcrime and genocides. (thats how the media
in my country portray the jews).

In indonesia it happens for both identity politics and nation-state based:

Political Identity is used as well in Indonesia, but in reverse, we use muslim and islam as
apolitical tool, therefore electing muslim leaders, and muslim representatives and using religion
based campaign to attract the majority votes.

Seeing how most older generation here in my country also defend Indonesia from other
immigrants (like non muslims, chinese, the western) the way anti semites and islamophobes
behave is also interesting, They always said we need to maintain the value of Indonesia. Though
there is no political motives behind it.