Anti-Semitic writing always seems to use the noun “Jew” rather than the adjective, “Jewish.” As in, “America is controlled by Jew bankers” instead of “America is controlled by Jewish bankers.” “List of prominent Jew politicians” rather than “List of prominent Jewish politicians.” And so forth.
It’s commonly accepted that this usage is offensive. But why is this?
Because they intend to be offensive to the targets of their prejudice. Same reason Republicans make reference to the ‘Democrat’ party.
Nouns objectify. Using a noun as an adjective serves to de-personalize the target and make them into object. the reverse can be done too - using an adjective as a noun in order to reduce and dehumanize the object - i.e. “illegals.”
I always assumed it was a deliberate grammatical error, used to add an element of ignorant-backwoods-lynching-hillbilly-threat to the sentence … but the “nouns objectify” answer is probably better. 
Do you mean why does ‘Jew’ carry a larger pejorative load than “Jewish” does? That would be due to common concensus among current English speakers. My Medieval Studies professor once said in class that in Middle Ages Europe there was no word refering to Jewish that wasn’t a strong pejorative. The meaning and connotation of words is constantly negotiated during their use.
As to why one was chosen as more neutral, well, words with -ish sound less definite than words without -ish. And single-syllable words make beter epithets. Nouns make better epithets, too, with adjectives seeming weaker. Single-syllable nouns with K sounds are the best, though. So there’s one word referencing Jews/Jewishness that will probably never be rehabilitated to a neutral state.
No, he’s refering to a deliberate error on the part of the speaker.
“Jew banker” is not the correct way to describe a banker who is of the Jewish faith. The correct way is “Jewish banker”.
The question is why people would use the incorrect form - people who dislike Jews. Perhaps ‘“Jew” sounds more like a perjorative’ could be part of the explaination.
The Jew bankers don’t control all of America. Just the Democrat Party.
A lot of adjectives derived from nouns keep the same form as the orginal noun. Formexample a “German” and a “German banker”, whereas others add or change the noun e.g. a Jew" and a “Jewish banker”. So it’s quite easy for someone to take the original form of the noun as the adjective.
Often racists are ignorant of that which they hate. For example the term “Paki” is considered extremely offensive, but I’m sure the term simply arose out of an incorrect derivation of the demonym from Pakistan. Over time those who used “Paki” instead of “Pakistani” probably tended to be more on the racist side allowing the term to build up offensive connations. Now it is used delibrately by racists
So you could imagine a racists (I’m sorry I hate the word antisemite as it’s become a highly polticized term and I don’t like what it implies) usingt erms like"Jew banker" instead of “Jewish banker” out of pure ignorance which has allowed it to acquire offensive connatations. Now a racist can use “Jew” in that way t delibrately cause offence.
“Racist” isn’t really correct though, as Jews are not a race … the best general term would be “bigot”.
Myself, I like “Jew hater”. Specific and not politicized.
Got a cite for that claim? I’m not saying I no you’re wrong-- I’d just like to see some linguists expert’s opinion on this.
There is really no such thing as race at all, if you want to be pedantic about it, nevertheless, a lot of antisemites actually do believe that Jews are a discrete race, and they believe in religious, racial ideologies - i.e. they are racists.
I don’t understand the point about whether a given term is “politicized.”
A lot of the old ideas of race have been fairly well debunked anway and racism doesn’t really align with the more modern concepts of race. I’d say “Jew hating” falls fairly well into the broad catergory of (generally) ethnocentric hates for which the term racism is applied.
I agree that from a biological POV, there are no human “races”. However, from a social and anthropolgical POV, the term “race” has a meaning, even if biologically incorrect.
No doubt many Jew haters believe in there being a Jewish “race”, but this belief is not universal among them, and nor is this belief correct even in common social and anthropoloigical usage of the term.
Moreover, the person applying the term is presumably not someone who believes that Jews are a “race”, yet is dignifying that belief with his or her choice of terminology.
Moreover, to call them “racists” seems to me incorrect, and an easy out for someone so labelled (hey! I’m not a racist! I can prove it! etc.).
Thus, “bigot” is the better term.
It becomes politicized when people try to include or exclude certain behaviours and ideas to damn or not to damn by association. When the defintion of term becomes embroiled in peoples political views it’s best to avoid it.
The notion of race as a biological term is “debunked”. This doesn’t mean people do not still use the term socially to define themselves or others. Hence, someone stating that they are racially “Black” doesn’t raise eyebrows (even though of course humanity is not divided into races). I’ve never heard anyone describe themselves as “racially Jewish”.
Republicans are trying to be political, but not patently offensive. The explanation for this usage is that the Republicans do not want to have any part of furthering the impression that the Democrats are any more in favor of democracy that the Republicans. The Republican party is a democratic party too.
This is an interesting analysis and may be correct, but I’m not sure you can use it to point to a conscious an deliberate intent to offend through grammar.
A similar issue exists with terms like “woman manager”. Nobody ever uses “man” that way. That doesn’t mean they’re trying to be offensive, but it may be a bit thoughtless.
Yes, but that may be a problem with identifying the ethnicity of the person at all, no matter how it is done … presumably, few would bother to say “White Anglo Saxon Protestant Bankers”.
It’s not an error, deliberate or otherwise. They’re using “Jew” as an attributive noun, which is perfectly grammatically acceptable but offensive.
I disagree. “Jew banker” is both offensive and incorrect, because the English language has settled on the use of the other form in reference to Jews.
Or Tea Partiers “teabaggers”.