Marching through the Jewish Quarter

A pattern of modern political anti-Semitism in Europes cities (1936-2008) 1. Introduction A couple of weeks ago, The New York Times reported a major act of vandalism that happened in the Midwood neighbourhood of Brooklyn.1 According to the report, unknown perpetrators set cars on fire and carved swastikas on park benches. An informant of the report suggested that the attack took place there adding that it is an area that is said to inhabit the highest number of residents in the United States who survived the Shoah.2 The event can be regarded as a series of recurrent stereotypes that link anti-Jewish sentiment with urban separation. That such a thing happens in an unlikely place as multicultural New York can be surprising, nevertheless the raw script of active anti-Semitism targeting the Jewish neighbourhood of a certain area is well-known phenomenon in Europe ever since the first medieval ghettos emerged and is surviving the demolition of the last ghetto walls. Political groups who exploited anti-Jewish sentiments often found it necessary to visualise the Jew as an imminent threat that is present and can be physically pointed out in a shared space. In an urban setting therefore, anti-Semitic individuals and groups most certainly do possess images of what are the parts of a city where the Jew can be found. Political marches of several anti-Semitic groups through a certain Jewish-related part of a city appeared in various situations in the last century. Wide ranging and different events such as Oswald Mosleys Cable Street Battle as well as modern marches in Prague-Josefov, in Budapests Thirteenth District, or the Brooklyn case itself all share some similarities. Regarding the perceived distance of events, one may or may not be aware of how these things are functioning today. This study is an attempt to offer some perspective and context to this phenomenon understanding it as a cultural-political rite of identifying oneself as an anti-Semite and a desperate need to locate Jews in an era when they became less and less visible in public. My work therefore will focus on the main preferences of distinguishing a part of the city that can represent the Jewish population and/or cultural heritage: a phenomenon that
1

Cars Burned and Swastikas Scrawled in Brooklyn Jewish Area by Rob Harris The New York Times Online: City Room 11 November 2011. (accessed 13 December 2011) http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/cars-burned-and-swastikas-scrawled-in-brooklyn-jewish-area/) 2 One or more vandals on Friday set fire to several parked cars and scrawled anti-Semitic graffiti on nearby benches in Brooklyn, in what the police said was a hate crime in a heavily Jewish neighborhood. op. cit.

indeed is a coin with two very different sides. How can the rediscovering and positive image of a citys Jewish cultural heritage are linked to new political conflicts. Can these marches be regarded as anti-Semite responses to the latter? To examine these questions I will examine three cases: the first is the 1936 East End confrontation between British fascists, various anti-fascist groups and the police, while the two others are recent political attempts that bear some similarities to this: a radical rightist attempt to hold a demonstration against war on Iraq by marching through Pragues historic Jewish district in 2007, and a controversial series of demonstrations and counter demonstrations following a ticket office confrontation in Budapest, 2008. In the following chapter I will describe the cases and provide some basic context to their interpretations. As Mosleys march and the events of 4th October 1936 in England are well researched and despite of many disputes are still going on, there is significant secondary literature covering the topic.3 Therefore I will use this research literature to describe some problems of the most well-known case, and make a comparison with Budapest and Prague using primary sources published in the Czech and Hungarian media about the last two events. After careful examinations of arguments in articles describing the various events I will identify some common points of the incidents thus drawing an overall picture of a social-historical phenomenon. Including the obvious example of German Kristallnacht is not part of my intentions, as my goal is to present social events that were not initiated by the state and therefore show a more accurate picture of sentiments and intentions of both perpetrators and those who stood up against. In presenting the incident of the British Fascist party march my goal is to connect two recent cases with a better known historical example and therefore giving a full picture of arguments and opinions about the Cable Street battle is beyond the scope of this paper. 2. Bringing Politics to the Streets London 1936, Prague 2007, Budapest 2008 In this November, Britain remembered the 75th anniversary of the battle. This produced a new range of fictional and non-fictional literature about the topic as well as personal interviews and original articles. The main point was to make the presentation of the event

The most important here being: Tony Kushner Nadia Valman ed., Remembering Cable Street. Fascism and Anti-Fascism in British Society. London Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell 2000. (mutliple studies to be referred individually);

is more accessible to a historical perspective.4 For many decades the workers movement victory over active fascism was idealized stating that it contributed to the total defeat of far-right political activism in the United Kingdom. Even if later historical literature strongly challenged this view and tried to decrease the importance of the day, it is clear that it had a great and persistent impact both to Jewish community in England and to British society in general. But turmoil around East End Jews did not begin on this day and various cultural elements had played a part in the historical memory of Britain. The cultural images in play can be traced back to centuries although recurred with a couple of new elements. Territorial separation was one of the major characteristics that described Jewish-non Jewish interactions in Europe for centuries. The image of different ghettos and Jewish districts became an intact and significant part of Jewish culture and cultural memory.5 Enlightenment and the Napoleonic reforms put an end to this pre-modern separation but razing ghetto walls both physically and symbolically thus waiving the Jews of Western Europe from their original pariah-status. As emancipation carried on, Jewish intellectuals felt that they are losing much of their cultural characteristics with this process. To stop this there were more and more effort from the end of the nineteenth century to present Jewish cultural heritage (including ghettos) in a positive way.6 At the same time the vast Jewish migration reached major centres of Western Jewry in the last two decades of that century creating quite a contrast between newcomers often in traditional costumes, a distinctive Yiddish language and the majority living in extreme poverty and the already established, assimilated and prosperous communities. This opposition also manifested itself in terms of residential segregation throughout Europe.7
4

An anti-racist political organization dedicated a separate webpage to remembrance placing focusing on antiFascist activism and celebrating the battle as an example for present day activists. (http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/cable-street/index.php); A more official site of memorial march and the events: http://www.cablestreet75.org.uk) 5 The controversies of the confusion between the terms Jewish Quarter and Ghetto already received some attention from scholars. The term ghetto despite receiving quite an infamous reputation as a term in connection with forced segregation of Jewish population throughout Europe, has survived well into the nineteenth century. We can therefore separate the two terms by defining ghetto as separated by walls, fences or ditches, and being a living quarter for Jews that was forced to them by non-Jewish administrative power, whereas Jewish quarters are not necessarily separated and although Jewish population is concentrated in the area it can be there with all sorts of other cultural groups, and by its own choice. (Benjamin Ravid: All Ghettos Were Jewish Quarters but not All Jewish Quarters Were Ghettos Jewish Culture and History vol. 10 (2008) no. 2-3. 5-24.) 6 See: Nils Roemer: Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Madison Wis. London: The University of Wisconsin Press 2005. 111-142. 7 Klaus Hdl, Als Bettler in die Leopoldstadt. Galizische Juden auf dem Weg nach Wien. Wien-Kln-Weimar: Bhlau 1994; Steven E. Aschheim, Brothers and Strangers. The East European Jew in German and GermanJewish Consciousness 1800-1923. Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1982; David Feldman: Englishmen and Jews. Social Relations and Political Culture 1840-1914. New Haven and London: Yale

The reinvented and constructed, positive and negative images of the ghetto created a persistent nationalist radical political need to actually to get metropolitan territories back from strangers. These attempts are not only living today but as we will see, sometimes actively influence the public speech. Despite the temptation to see Britain as quite distant from continental anti-Semitism, the above described phenomenon was strongly present in the capital. Mass-migration of Polish and Russian Jews to the country from 1880 on found a respected and highly accepted Sephardic community as well as a totally heterogeneous mixture of other immigrant populations in the East End. Anti-immigrant sentiments elevated to the official level in the debate around 1905 Alien Act did not completely fade away from memory.8 There was a serious gap between Jewish newcomers and the Anglo-Jewish establishment as well between Jewish and English working class in the neighbourhood. As both latter sides were seeking political approval of their needs, a turn to radical ideas was the major process among them. Before the 1930s this mostly meant the rapid spread of Socialist and latter Communist organizations among workers in which Jewish working class was heavily involved but during the great recession of 1929-1933 the emergence of the British Union of Fascists under the leadership of Baron Oswald Mosley. Mosley himself came from a rightist Socialist background and founded the British Union of Fascists following the Italian examples in 1932. The party received moderate support in the first years, nevertheless possessed a considerate popularity within East End districts (mostly in Stepney) by 1936.9 In October 1936 Mosley and other participants intended to celebrate the fourth anniversary of the foundation of his movement with a march through East End stopping on multiple junctions to deliver speeches. Their itinerary included Aldgate that was regarded as a quarter and surroundings with a high Jewish immigrant population. This plan outraged local Communist, Socialist party organizations as well as Trade Unions who vowed to stop the march which they clearly identified as a violent act against their
University Press 1994; Paul Newland, The Cultural Construction of Londons East End. Urban Iconography, Identity and Spatialisation of Englishness. Amsterdam New York: Rodopi 2010. 87-91. 8 See: Todd M. Endelman: The Jews of Britain 1656-2000. London and Berkeley Calif.: The University of California Press 2002. 127-183. compare with Tony Kushner: Anglo-Jewry since 1066. Place, locality and memory. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. 2009 209-238. 9 Thomas P. Linehan, Fascist Perceptions of Cable Street. In: Tony Kushner and Nadia Valman (eds.): Remembering Cable Street. op. cit. 23. compare with: Thomas P. Linehan: East London for Mosley. The British Union of Fascism in East London and South-West Essex. 1933-40. Abingdon and New York: Frank Cass 2005. (Digital edition) 3-18.

supporters. More importantly there was great nervousness within Jewish community whose leaders understood the march as a protest against their very presence in London. This is how the participation of Jews in an otherwise socially-motivated political incident became decisive in evaluating the events of the battle. The British Union of Fascists generated a sense of insecurity in the whole of the Jewish community in the preceding years, and was associated with inciting physical threat to them. On the day of the march the first sentiment appeared in The Jewish Chronicle was to avoid confrontation and various representatives of Jewish organizations warned against Jews getting involved in any violence.10 What is more interesting is how the BUF reacted to the outcome of their enterprise and what were their main arguments explaining the failure of claiming a space what they understood to be part of the ethnic British (or more precisely English) population. While following ideas of continental fascists they also had a positive presentation of crowdpolitics, the Cable Street experience challenged this view and invoked some of the stereotypes of East End Jews as supporters and parts of the mob often in connection with a stereotypic picture of the Bolshevik going against state order: On this occasion Socialists, Communists, and Jews openly organised, not only to attack the meetings but to close the streets of London by violence to members of the public proceeding to these legitimate meetings. The Government has taken no action against the organisers of this violence and illegality. On the contrary, it has banned the march and meetings of the British Union. Under the Present Government, therefore, free speech can be prevented by anyone who cares to organise violence against it in defiance of the law but with impunity from the Government.11 This statement of the Mosleyite appeared in most of the major nationwide journals (including The Times, Daily Mail, and the Daily Worker) representing official party opinion about the battle. By emphasizing their series of legitimate meetings the BUF most probably appealed to the law abiding part of the society presenting themselves as peaceful protesters as opposed to the disorder caused by their enemies who are primarily Socialists, Communists and Jews using these terms as interrelated and overlapping expressions. Furthermore, the BFU labelled the resistance as openly organised violence that remained without any punishment from the government. The statement suggests a
10

Eleaine R. Smith, But What Did They Do? Contemporary Jewish Responses to Cable Street In: In: Tony Kushner and Nadia Valman (eds.): Remembering Cable Street. op. cit. 48-49. 11 Statement issued by the British Union of Fascists. Cited by: Berich ber die Schalcht in der Cable Street. online rescource (http://www.csb-berlin.com/berichte/battle_of-cable-street_newspaper.htm#buf accessed 16 December 2011)

clear distinction between British as a self-definition and Jews as illegally acting protesters in the East End who prevent free speech and close the streets of London. The statement shows how the Fascists generally described their enemies as aliens opposed to proper British citizens who could not exercise their basic freedoms because of the opposition of the former. The short article however can be labelled tempered compared to various articles discussing the events in the Fascist press, where open allegations between Jewish capital and Muscovites who regulate the mob with joint forces were common.12 The image of the Jew as a hostile alien therefore lived on even in the 1930s British Fascism and although became completely marginalised after 1940, remained one of the principal examples of denigrating urban Jewish population as a far right strategy. After the Holocaust, Jewish life in East-Central Europe almost completely disappeared. During Socialist era a new wave of Jewish emigration waves from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary left most of these countries almost completely deserted by any Jewish life, religious or not. During Soviet supremacy Jews were not represented by politics and the topic remained latent and unresolved. The transitions of regimes in 1989/90 while made exercise of Jewish religion completely free, and opened a wide space to cultural representation through heritage, also revealed that anti-Semitism still has a solid ground in local politics.13 These issues bear a strong connection with the process of recreating Jewish spaces both in an abstract and a literal sense. Appearance of Jewish culture and the State of Israel in public media and rapid emergence of Jewish cultural tourism in major cities like Prague, Warsaw, Vilnius, Cracow or Budapest made Jewry more visible to the public. This often meant that a high representation and a cultural industry created an image of strong Jewish presence that was in every case overestimated by non-Jews.14 While this had an overall positive or neutral effect, it also made possible for emerging far-right groups to introduce their own concepts of world Jewish conspiracy and the Jews as domestic enemies again. The outcome in the end of the 2000s was particularly surprising in the case of the Prague Neo-Nazis. The capital of the Czech Republic is one with the oldest Jewish quarter and possesses a peculiar built and museological Jewish heritage. The district of Josefov in the inner city of
12 13

Thomas P. Linehan op. cit. 24-26. Diana Pinto, A New Jewish Identity for Post-1989 Europe. (Policy Papers) London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 1996. 14 Ruth Ellen Gruber, Virtually Jewish. Reinventing Jewish Culture in Europe. Berkeley Los Angeles London: University of California Press 2002. 7, 14-15.

Prague is both a tourist attraction, and the most significant place of memory to Czech Jewry. But as the country has only an estimated 3000-6000 of Jewish population, this place today is mostly symbolic. That was however exploited by ultranationalists as much as possible when they announced in September 2007 that they will march through the citys Jewish quarter to protest against Czech participation in the Iraq war. Not being obvious to everyone, a spokesman of the group (Young National Democrats) clarified it in an English interview following a question:
Q: Why are you marching through Josefov in particular? A: This war [in Iraq] is in the interest of the United States' pro-Israel lobby and Israel; the U.S. serves only as a performer there. ... There is not a more symbolic place in Prague than Josefov. Q: Why do you think Jewish groups are angry about the march? A: The war in Iraq is their problem and so it is clear that they do mind when someone points out this issue.15

The first response already used connotations that are quite new elements in any antiSemitic verbal arsenal. While not naming Jews directly, the language suggests that there is a direct connection between pro-Israel lobby in the US16 and the symbolic place of Josefov. The group did not intend to rally in front of any government building while protesting the Iraq war instead they wanted to march to Josefov with a declared intention to address Israel stating on further enquiry that they obviously will mind. With this act, the spokesman transformed Josefov into a ground of ideological and political battle when the adresees seen clearly as Jews as separated from Czechs. But what really outraged Jewish and anti-Nazi groups was the fact that the plan coincided with the 59 th anniversary of Kristallnacht on 10th November, when Nazi raids killed hundreds of Jews throughout Austria and Germany. Despite of the leader of the Czech party denied any direct reference to this event in their march, it was regarded a provocation against Jews by the community leaders. As a result the municipality banned the march and called for the organizers to choose a different route. Nationalist party leader, Erik Sedlcek offered a reschedule of the

15

Jewish Leader Speaks Out on March by Lisa Nuch Venbrux. The Prague Post, 7 November 2007. http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/4563-jewish-leader-speaks-out-on-march.html - accessed 22. November 2011. 16 In recent years, with increasing news coverage of the Middle East conflict lead to two powerful conspiratory images, the picture of a demonic and omnipotent State of Israel and an overemphasized, often denigrated powerful Israeli lobby in the United States that makes the existence of Israel possible. These ideas are mostly but not exclusively promoted by certain leftist and extremist Muslim circles hardly touching on the real politicial situation and relying on an emotional standpoint. (See more: Efraim Sicher: The Image of Israel and Poscolonial Discourse in the Early 21st Century. A View from Britain. Israel Studies vol 16. no. 11. (Spring 2011 125.;Nahum Goldman: US-Israel Relations Jewish Quarterly Review. vol 99. no. 4. (Fall 2009) 603-608.

event while insisting on entering Josefov.17 Upon hearing the developments Jews of Prague decided to hold counter-protest by barricading themselves into Josefov and not letting the march pass through. They were supported by government politicians and protected by 2000 policemen as well as several active leftist groups. On 10th November a handful of extreme right protesters together with delegates of German and Austrian Neo-Nazi movement attempted to enter the Jewish quarter clashing with some anarchist groups and eventually both sides have been routed by the riot police. In this case the targeted Jewish quarter remained entirely safe.18 The Czech group with a clearly neo-Nazi profile temporarily retreated and although this and similar groups attempted marches in the following years, they never returned to the Jewish quarter and remain a marginal part of the society. It is clear however that their acts represent radically anti-Semitic responses that are pairing world politics with blaming the Jews, who were linked directly to the centuryold Jewish quarter for every major points of dissatisfaction. The case of the incidents in Budapest is far more complicated. Post-1989 Hungary is home to both the most significant Jewish population of Central Europe, and of its fastest growing radical right wing support. Growing political instability therefore lead to some major incidents initiated by various right wing groups. Among them there was one specific case focusing on the Jewish population of the capital city in the Spring of 2008. The sparkle here was a verbal incident happened between some people who were trying to buy tickets for a concert of a then fresh nationalist rock band, but said to have been refused to be served by owner who according to their recollection, called them Fascists asking the group to leave. The events provoked reactions from various extremist groups calling for retaliation:
A Hungarian girl has been shooed and called Fascist by the Jewish owner of a ticket office in jliptvros [name of the district]. A bit later a flaming bottle ignited the shop, but the Jew and his Gypsy lackey did not seem to understand ... so we are organising a flashmob, please dress up in black trouser and bomber jacket to signify that you are one of our kind.19

17

Praha zakzala extremistm pochod idovskou tvrt (Prague banned extremist march to Jewish District) Novinky.cz 4 October 2007. http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/123963-praha-zakazala-extremistumpochod-zidovskou-ctvrti.html - accessed 22 November 2011.;Battle over neo-Nazi march in Prague continues Digital Journal http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/244391/Battle_over_neo_Nazi_march_in_Prague_continues accessed 16 December 2011. 18 Results of Prague Neo-Nazi March. ABC News Prague 12. December 2007 http://www.abcprague.com/2007/11/12/results-of-prague-neo-nazi-march accessed 16 December 2011.

In another comment addressed directly to the Jews, political activist and organizer Tams Polgr (mostly known in Hungary by his internet nickname, Tomcat) the author of the above call also signified his view of the arson as an intended warning to those who he understood as a threat to Hungarian nation:

I will tell you for the hundredth time, that neither you nor the Gipsies are Hungarians. You are denying everything that keeps us together, emphasizing a separate identity, and living your live only within your own circles. For this your are no longer entitled to some of the general rights not by the law but by unwritten social standards. You cannot tell us how to live our lives or which concerts we can attend.20 At the first glimpse this seems like some kind of credo that is intended to justify hostilities towards minorities who broke some kind of social contract and therefore could no longer practice some of the civil rights. The original sin here being that they are (mentioning the Jews simultaneously to a lot larger minority the ethnic Roma) emphasizing their special identity and according to the perception refuse to mix with majority population in their private life. This is clearly the exploitation of a Europe-wide and wellknown liberal assimilation-theory as well as the recurrence of a special Hungarian discourse of the failed Jewish assimilation that was vivid in the 1930s. The latter claimed that Jews are unable to assimilate due to their stubborn collective characteristics.21 These elements clearly point out a special, Hungarian ultra-nationalist narrative occurring behind black boots and shaved heads. The call did not left unanswered as somebody set the ticket office on fire in the evening of 1st April by throwing a flaming bottle to it. The incident happened in the citys thirteenth district that despite it was not a historical Jewish district received reputation in the last decade as being a home to a significant Jewish population. This reputation primarily came from the Hungarian Jewish public (newspapers and internet forums) who in their search for identity started to value this part of the city as a lively and present-day Jewish Budapest particularly in contrast to the VII. district, the historic Jewish quarter that evoked bad memories as being the Nazi ghetto in 1944.22 Therefore when a small group approached the
19

Elcsptnk egy levelet. Pogrom jliptvrosban. [A captured letter: Pogrom in jliptvros.] zsidonegyed.com 3 April 2008. - http://www.zsidonegyed.com/node/5701 accessed 17 December 2011) 20 http://www.judapest.org/ego/#comment-25380 accessed: 11 January 2012.) 21 More on these discourses: Jnos Gyurgyk, A zsidkrds Magyarorszgon. Politikai eszmetrtnet. [The Jewish question in Hungary. A political-intellecutal history.] Budapest: Osiris 2001. 22 jliptvros (New Leopold City) evolved due to a Budapest city council project of Budapest started in the 1910s to house the developing social group of civil servants and private clergy in spatious and represntative multi-story houses built in Art-Noveu style. Its adjacency to the governemtnal and banking district of Budapest made it a home for upper-midde class families, many of them of Jewish origin. (Kinga Frojimovics Gza Komorczy Viktria Pusztai Andrea Strbik: Jewish Budapest. Monuments, Rites, History. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. 336-339.)

district three days after the arson to force the ticket seller to serve Hungarians23 they have been surprised by hundreds of local counter-protester crying Nazis, go home!. This protest attracted enormous media attention both nationally and internationally as it was the first major case of anti-Fascist rally in the country. The hostilities then carried on as the far-right whose different organizations gained a decisive control over the streets during the 2006 anti-government protests, could not allow a major setback from the left in this space. Therefore on the second occasion both sides appeared in a significant number following a special police attention and political calls, manifestos on both side. Far right groups called for a retaliation of what they though was a roar of anti-Hungarian sentiments by promoting a unified action of various political and loosely affiliated activist groups in a mass demonstration on the same spot. None of us can tolerate those calling us Fascists, Neo-Nazis and incite anti-Hungarian fear-mongering. None of us can tolerate that one of our fellow compatriot has been booted from shop because of his Hungarian identity 24 After confronted with a majority group of counter protesters the previous time, narrative of the far-right group shifted into defence, claiming that they are the ones who are first and foremost threatened by anti-Hungarians. With this term they not only excluded counter protesters from the virtual community of Hungarians (as for Hungarians it would be almost impossible to be anti-Hungarian). What is more interesting that the author and organizer of the protest finds labels like Neo-Nazi repelling and following a well-established victim discourse tried to turn the terms over and present themselves as first and foremost the side that was attacked in its identity by an alien group. The counter protesters also tried to gather their forces and significant domestic and foreign political figures announced their presence and support on the antifascists side that generally understood the threat as a collective danger to their life and property. 25 In addition, Jewish civil groups also called to stand up against violating their dignity and self-identity, as well as the neighbourhood

23 24

Elcsptnk egy levelet. Pogrom jliptvrosban. [A captured letter: Pogrom in jliptvros.] op. cit. Tams Polgr (Tomcat): Nem hagyjuk magunkat! [We will sight back!] bombagyar.hu 13.April 2008 (accessible from the internet archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20080413015927/http://www.bombagyar.hu/index.php?post=816 2012. 01.11. 25 Among others then Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsny and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schrder, who was visiting Hungary that time announced their participation. Schrder even improvised a short speech ont he event. Michael Kimmelman: Simmering Anti-Semitism Mars a Vibrant Hungary The New York Times 7. May 2008. - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/arts/design/07anti.html? _r=1&ei=5087%0A&em=&en=d8f48adca00b2dfc&ex=1210392000&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin accessed: 12. January 2012.)

10

taking an important place in their community life even despite the protest were to be held on a Friday night.26 The outcome was symbolic even in its appearance: the street where the arson happened was packed with considerably a thousand protesters on both side, turning against each other and separated by barriers and a line of policemen. Despite verbal hostilities and high rising tensions, no violent act happened during the night although some far right protesters managed to vandalise the Soviet military monument in the inner city later on and had to be detained. In some historical perspective, the series of events who received the name Operation Broadway from the name of the ticket office attacked, was a watershed in Budapests street politics, as being the last major violent far-right attempt, concluding a two-year period. 3. Conclusion Pointing out our group of enemies in the physical space has always been a popular political tool to enforce group identity. In the case of anti-Semitic policy long-surviving elements of the virtual ghettoisation of the Jews who were perceived as aliens and a threat to the majority became basic parts of the narrative. Early Modern practice of fencing the spiritual other in the Jew therefore carried on well after tearing down the ghetto walls of Venice in 1797 and even after the controversial demolition of Judengasse in Frankfurt in 1868.27 This can be explained in multiple ways. In the case of Londons East End Blackshirts intended to promote their picture of a great conspiracy with pointing out and physically confronting the threat in order to prove their hostility. For them, East End Jewry was not only the ideal representative of the arch-enemy Communists but also the Eastern European immigrant mob as a population dangerous enough to the traditional English society. With its act, Mosleys party not only imitated foreign examples but on the longer run also managed to establish support for itself in London. The case of Prague and Budapest are obviously closer in time and therefore their full evaluation is yet to be done. However they show quite clearly the major changes in narrative of justification. Czech ultra-nationalists were relying to a large extent to contemporary anti-globalist ideas as well as an old image of Czech Jewry (and with it
26

Jom Shishi published at judapest.org 10. April 2008. - http://www.judapest.org/jom-sisi/ - accessed: 11. January 2012. 27 Joachim Schlr: Introduction. Jewish Forms of Settlement and their Meaning, in Jurgita iauinaiteVerbieckien - Larisa Lempertien (eds.), Jewish Space in Central and Eastern Europe. Day-to-Day History. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2007, 1-6.

11

Israel and international Jewry) affiliated to the former Prague ghetto. Their choice of the place of marching however also reflects an anti-Semitic reaction to the phenomenon of Jewish cultural renaissance in the region, that turned the Prague Jewish quarter into a cultural tourist attraction. In this regard the Jewish revival unintentionally also served as a new inspiration to emerging anti-Jewish sentiments in post-Socialist countries. This is a factor that received little attention during the discussion of the topic. In the Budapest case, similarly a neighbourhood used to enforce Hungarian Jewish collective identity and openness became a target of anti-Semitism, while the narrative of the far right in this case reflected more to very special Hungarian thoughts, following a hijacked version of a hundred-year-old assimilation discussion and provoked a harsh reaction from opponents as well as quite an attention from international media. If Mosleys campaign and confrontation was the beginning of the growing support, the jliptvros march clearly was a failed attempt to promote open violence against the Jewish minority, although it did not stop increasing support of the far-rights biggest party, Jobbik, that was elected to the Hungarian parliament two years later. To conclude, we can argue that the Battle of Cable Street in London had no previous example, and therefore created a political and cultural model of anti-Semitic action to visualise and to attack their imagined enemy. Bibliography 1. Primary Sources Cars Burned and Swastikas Scrawled in Brooklyn Jewish Area by Rob Harris The New York Times Online: City Room 11 November 2011. (accessed 13 December 2011) http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/cars-burned-and-swastikas-scrawled-inbrooklyn-jewish-area/) Statement issued by the British Union of Fascists. Cited by: Berich ber die Schalcht in der Cable Street. online rescource (http://www.csb-berlin.com/berichte/battle_of-cablestreet_newspaper.htm#buf accessed 16 December 2011) Jewish Leader Speaks Out on March by Lisa Nuch Venbrux. The Prague Post, 7 November 2007. http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/4563-jewish-leader-speaksout-on-march.html - accessed 22. November 2011. Praha zakzala extremistm pochod idovskou tvrt (Prague banned extremist march to Jewish District) Novinky.cz 4 October 2007. http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/123963-prahazakazala-extremistum-pochod-zidovskou-ctvrti.html - accessed 22 November 2011
12

Battle over neo-Nazi march in Prague continues Digital Journal http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/244391/Battle_over_neo_Nazi_march_in_Prague_co ntinues - accessed 16 December 2011. Results of Prague Neo-Nazi March. ABC News Prague 12. December 2007 http://www.abcprague.com/2007/11/12/results-of-prague-neo-nazi-march accessed 16 December 2011. Elcsptnk egy levelet. Pogrom jliptvrosban. [A captured letter: Pogrom in jliptvros.] zsidonegyed.com 3 April 2008. - http://www.zsidonegyed.com/node/5701 accessed 17 December 2011) A comment by tet on the post g on 7. April http://www.judapest.org/ego/#comment-25380 accessed: 11 January 2012. 2008.

Tams Polgr (Tomcat): Nem hagyjuk magunkat! [We will fight back!] bombagyar.hu 13.April 2008 (accessible from the internet archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20080413015927/http://www.bombagyar.hu/index.php? post=816 2012. 01.11. Simmering Anti-Semitism Mars a Vibrant Hungary by Michael Kimmelmann The New York Times 7. May 2008.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/arts/design/07anti.html? _r=1&ei=5087%0A&em=&en=d8f48adca00b2dfc&ex=1210392000&pagewanted=all&or ef=slogin accessed: 12. January 2012. Jom Shishi published at judapest.org 10. April 2008. - http://www.judapest.org/jom-sisi/ - accessed: 11. January 2012. 2. Secondary Sources Aschheim, Steven, E. Brothers and Strangers. The East European Jew in German and German-Jewish Consciousness 1800-1923. Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Endelman, Todd M.: The Jews of Britain 1656-2000. London and Berkeley Calif.: The University of California Press 2002. Feldman, David: Englishmen and Jews. Social Relations and Political Culture 1840-1914. New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1994. Frojimovics, Kinga Komorczy, Gza Pusztai, Viktria Strbik, Andrea: Jewish Budapest. Monuments, Rites, History. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. Goldman, Nahum: US-Israel Relations Jewish Quarterly Review. vol. 99. no. 4. (Fall 2009) 603-608. Gruber, Ruth Ellen: Virtually Jewish. Reinventing Jewish Culture in Europe. Berkeley Los Angeles London: University of California Press 2002. 7, 14-15. Gyurgyk, Jnos: A zsidkrds Magyarorszgon. Politikai eszmetrtnet. [The Jewish question in Hungary. A political-intellecutal history.] Budapest: Osiris 2001. Hdl, Klaus: Als Bettler in die Leopoldstadt. Galizische Juden auf dem Weg nach Wien. Wien-Kln-Weimar: Bhlau 1994.
13

Kushner, Tony Valman, Nadia eds., Remembering Cable Street. Fascism and AntiFascism in British Society. London and Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell 2000. Kushner, Tony: Anglo-Jewry since 1066. Place, locality and memory. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. 2009. Linehan, Thomas P.: East London for Mosley. The British Union of Fascism in East London and South-West Essex. 1933-40. Abingdon and New York: Frank Cass 2005. (Digital edition) Newland, Paul: The Cultural Construction of Londons East End. Urban Iconography, Identity and Spatialisation of Englishness. Amsterdam New York: Rodopi 2010. Pinto, Diana: A New Jewish Identity for Post-1989 Europe. (Policy Papers) London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 1996. Ravid, Benjamin: All Ghettos Were Jewish Quarters but not All Jewish Quarters Were Ghettos Jewish Culture and History vol. 10 (2008) no. 2-3. 5-24. Roemer, Nils: Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Madison Wis. London: The University of Wisconsin Press 2005. Schlr, Joachim: Introduction. Jewish Forms of Settlement and their Meaning, in Jurgita iauinaite-Verbieckien - Larisa Lempertien (eds.), Jewish Space in Central and Eastern Europe. Day-to-Day History. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2007, 16. Sicher, Efraim: The Image of Israel and Poscolonial Discourse in the Early 21st Century. A View from Britain. Israel Studies vol 16. no. 11. (Spring 2011) 1-25.

14