Cheapening the anti-semitism charge

The Guardian (weblog), 17 March

In today’s Guardian John Mann MP rightly urges us to “to differentiate between hostility to Israel and aggression against Jewish institutions and people”. But this is precisely what he himself fails to do. His article is yet another attempt to hang the “anti-semitism” tag on critics of Israel and thereby muddy the waters in the debate about the middle east.

He cites Tam Dalyell’s dreadful comment about a “cabal” influencing US and British middle east policy, a comment widely condemned on the left (see my own article in The Guardian). Then, without explanation or qualification, he adds as instances of left collusion with anti-semitism the cases of “Ken Livingstone” (presumably referring to his contretemps with the Evening Standard) and “the AUT academic boycott”. And here he crosses the very line he says he wants to defend.

Livingstone’s remark was certainly rude but by no stretch of logic can it be considered anti-semitic. The gist of it was to condemn Associated Newspapers (and perhaps unfairly, all its employees) for their century-long long record of bigotry, including support for Hitler in the 30s. And just to make this clear, Livingstone issued a statement shortly after the incident: “I have been deeply affected by the concern of Jewish people in particular that my comments downplayed the horror and magnitude of the holocaust. I wish to say to those Londoners that my words were not intended to cause such offence and that my view remains that the holocaust against the Jews is the greatest racial crime of the 20th century.”

For some reason, this plain spoken statement was not good enough for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the same (unaccountable, unrepresentative) body that chose to make light of Prince Harry’s appearance in Nazi regalia at a fancy dress party. They pursued Livingstone not because his remark was in any way threatening or hostile to Jews – it clearly wasn’t anything of the kind – but because of his long-standing support for the Palestinian cause. In doing so, the Board (not for the first time) betrayed the Jews of Britain by confusing our interests with those of Israeli realpolitik.

As for the proposed academic boycott, of course there is a complex and extensive debate about its appropriateness or effectiveness as a tactic, but Mann’s assumption that it is anti-semitic shows that he himself is the one who posits an automatic equation between “Israel” and “Jews” – an equation which, as a Jew, I find anti-semitic, and I am by no means alone
in this.

I know many of those in Mann’s corner criticise the boycott proposals for “singling out” Israel, but the reasoning here is tortuous. First, it’s a complaint that can be made about any single issue campaign or almost any boycott of anything. Secondly, it is Israel’s supporters who persistently “single out” the country by arguing that its “unique” situation excuses
its monumental record of violations of human rights norms, international law and UN resolutions. Third, it seems not even to occur to those who make this charge that people around the globe might “single out” Israel not because of hatred of Jews but compassion for Palestinians and plain unadulterated healthy outrage at the decades of injustice to which
they’ve been subject.

Mann notes the anti-semitic hate mail he receives and links it – without supporting argument or evidence – to what he calls “the insipid [sic] growth of anti-semitism on the left under the cloak of anti-Zionism”. As I’m sure he must know, the hate mail comes from all quarters. Every time I write about Israel I am inundated with abusive and threatening emails
from Zionists. As a Jew, it’s my experience that in London I am under threat not from Muslims or leftists but from the more fanatical wing of the Zionist movement.

Anti-Zionism may at times be a “cloak for anti-semitism” (just as support for Israel may be a cloak for anti-Arab or anti-Muslim racism) but Mann’s method is assume that it is so unless proven otherwise. This is McCarthyism: the illogic of guilt by association, with the clear aim of de-legitimising or silencing part of the political spectrum.

In the middle east and elsewhere in the third wold, anti-semitism is on the rise; it has proved a popular conspiracy theory to explain why the US behaves so intolerably and it has to be challenged and eradicated. But the situation in Europe and specifically in Britain is profoundly different. Yes, there are times when critics of Israel need to take more care in the
language and imagery they deploy. But these occasional instances are as nothing compared to the systematic, shockingly reckless efforts by supporters of Israel to conflate their cause with the Jews as a whole and their cynical cheapening of the charge of anti-semitism.