An old rule of democratic politics was well expressed by Edmund Burke when he told parliament: ‘I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people.’ That was in the 18th century. Today, many are ready to draw up an indictment against a whole people as long as they are Jews.
For decades it has been a given of the left that antisemitism was an expression of reactionary politics. It is. In his memoirs, Geoffrey Howe recalls the ‘malodorous antisemitism’ of Tory MPs at the time of the Westland affair when the Jewish Leon Brittan was in the firing line. Alan Clarke’s memoirs are riddled with antisemitic cracks and asides.
The BNP remains impregnated with antisemitic ideology. The only substantive works written by the BNP boss, Nick Griffin, are accounts of how the British media is secretly controlled by Jews who disguise their origins to control television and newspapers. When those on the extreme right refer to Zionists and Zionism this is barely-disguised code for Jews and Jewishness. To attack the latter using the word ‘Jew’ alerts people to the suspicion of antisemitism. To use the term ‘Zionist’ allows the same point to be made in code.
Yet as the BNP, in its search for electoral legitimacy, tries to bury its core antisemitism (currently by using the proportional voting system to elect members of the European parliament), it is now parts of the left and their allies which have dropped their guard and are beginning to allow antisemitism to re-enter political discourse.
The focal point is not just Israel. Criticism of the wrongdoings of the Israeli state is not antisemitic any more than criticisms of what governments of countries that privilege Catholic or Muslim beliefs and traditions is anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim.
Israeli officials and their supporters may feel frustrated at the lack of interest in the efforts by Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran to see the state of Israel removed from the map of the world, to quote the egregious Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Tel Aviv has to accept responsibility for what its soldiers do. And although there is little doubt that Hamas demonstrates its cowardice by sheltering its mobile rocket launchers in mosques and schools and uses civilian homes and locations as cover for its terror attacks, the double standard by which Israel is judged is not that of a terrorist outfit but by its own claim to be a rule-of-law, free press, electoral democracy.
So to attack what the government of Israel does is legitimate politics. But what is not legitimate is to turn criticism of Israel into a condemnation of Jews and to paint them again today, as in the past, in negative stereotypes that denies their faith, their birth, their right not to be frightened and their right to support their affiliations and causes.
Alas, parts of the British, European and world left have now thrown in their lot with the rise of a new reactionary antisemitism which, in the name of being opposed to Israel, is unleashing fears among Jews as bad as any since Hitlerism was destroyed.
It cannot be acceptable to march in protest rallies with placards stating ‘Jews to the gas chamber’. It cannot be right to allow slogans to be sprayed in north London saying ‘Kill the Jews’. It cannot be right to firebomb synagogues in London and Paris.
It cannot be right to rewrite history. In 1948, Israel was set up by the United Nations. Britain refused to recognise Israel until 1950. The 1945-1950 era saw many states come into being and massive population transfers. But in 1948, Egypt and Jordan moved to occupy Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Far from creating an independent state of Palestine with a capital in East Jerusalem, Nasser and the Kings of Jordan sought to deny the Palestinians their right to statehood.
Yet the left never shouted ‘Nasser, Nasser, Nasser. Out! Out! Out!’ (of Gaza) or told the Hashemite monarchs that they should support the free and independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and half of Jerusalem.
Instead we hear only hate against Israel, as if the country only wanted to occupy forever the lands it has invaded or occupied beyond the borders agreed between 1948 and 1967. Yet when Israel pulled out of Lebanon, or three years ago evicted its settlers in Gaza and left Gaza to the Palestinians, the Israelis’ withdrawal was met not with a turn to political negotiation but to terrorist attacks and a rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
Most in the Labour party will have attended January GC meetings at which Israel was denounced. The death of up to 1,000 Palestinians, some of them children or civilians not connected to the Hamas Jew-killing operation, was horrific. British activists who are Muslims but opposed to jihadi Islamist ideology expressed identity with Palestinians as co-religionists. This is understandable. But horrible as the death toll was in Gaza, why was there not similar outrage when 2,000 Muslims were killed in Gujarat by Indian religious-political extremists in 2002? Why, when 8,000 Muslims were killed by Serbs at Srebrenica in 1995, was there no giant mobilisation by the Stop the War organisers?
But, of course, none of these Muslim bloodbaths have been done by Israel. Serb orthodox Christians, or Indian Hindu extremists, or Sudanese and Iraqi Muslim dictators are allowed to kill Muslims by the scores of thousands and, although concern and outrage is expressed, it is as nothing compared to the full hate of the left that falls on Israel.
What distinguishes Israel from all the other Muslim-killing politics in the world? No prizes for guessing. Ed Husain, author of The Islamist and whose Quilliam Foundation seeks to build bridges between British Muslims communities and other groups, bravely condemned the open antisemitic attacks that took place by Jew-haters who used the anger over the Gaza conflict to attack Jews. His reward was to be attacked by a prominent British Muslim, Azad Ali, who described moderate British Muslims as ‘self-serving vultures feeding on the dead flesh of Palestinians’. Ali also denounced the ‘Zionist terrorist state of Israel’. Ali is not a lonely, marginalised voice. He is a civil servant employed by the Treasury and enjoyed a reputation as a man ready to promote good community relations.
But for Ali, and the many who revealed the depth of their hatred of Jews and contempt for Muslim activists who refuse to join in the rhetoric of Jew-hate, the issue is not Israel but the very existence of Jews.
From Stalin to the Trotskyist groups who denounce the death in Nazi extermination camps of LGBTs but do not mention the Jews, the left has never been able to shake itself free of antisemitism. Boris Johnson apologised for the hurt he caused black Londoners when he described African children as ‘picanninies’. Ken Livingstone could not say sorry after he insulted a Jewish journalist as a Nazi ‘concentration camp guard’. Livingstone can produce all sorts of slippery rationales for his position. But for many London Jews it was proof that the left glossed over antisemitic hurt.
There will be no peace in the Middle East unless antisemitism is removed as a component element in the ideology of those who oppose Israel. The left has to be as tough in denouncing the Hamas charter, with its litany of hate against Jews, as it is tough in demanding more jaw-jaw and less war-war from Israel. If the left is not tough on both antisemitism – and those who wittingly, or not, allow dislike of Israel to segue into a language in which Jews feel frightened as Jews – then it will not have learnt from history. Antisemitism is back as serious politics and the left should oppose it.
Thank God for Denis MacShane and those few who are like him. May I add a point about the so-called ‘occupation’ by Israel of Gaza and the West Bank. After Israel’s declaration of its statehood in 1947, Arabs fled the new state, on the promise of their leaders that Israel would be eradicated and they would swiftly be able to return. This did not happen, and many Arabs remained in ‘refugee camps’ in Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, where their brothers did not lift a finger to help, absorb or integrate them into their own societies. This was, in effect, occupation, by those nations, of Palestinian land, but is never so called for the reasons Mr MacShane so clearly identifies. Opposition to Israel has never been about land, before or after 1967. It is, tragically, solely about Israel’s right to exist. If Israel’s neighbours were to try, for once in its 60+ years of struggle, simply to leave it alone, the world would see Israel for what it essentially is: a country completely lacking territorial ambitions and wishing only to live in peace. But that is, regrettably, a suggestion too far for Israel’s enemies and detractors.
MacShane allows criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, but it is not clear whether he allows anti-Zionism. Zionism is a political ideology (a version of nationalism) and as such is a legitimate target of political criticism. There are sadly anti-Zionists who are motivated by antisemitism, but that is not an argument against anti-Zionism. Many Jews are anti-Zionists, as it happens. As an anti-Zionist it is my duty to speak out against antisemitism. Unfortunately the Israeli government’s insistence that it speaks on behalf of all Jews, whether or not they are citizens of the Israeli state, is contributing to the widespread confusion between Jews, Zionists and Israelis.
MacShane seems to believe that anti-Zionists do not criticize Arab governments. In fact, they do, as a walk through the January demonstrations in London would have demonstrated. Analysts agree that Arab populations are strongly opposed to Israel’s policies, and criticize their governments for appeasing Israel. A future gradual development of democratic institutions in Arab countries is therefore likely to increase pressure on Israel.
MacShane dislikes Hamas, and I don’t blame him for that. But he should try and understand why Palestinians living under occupation are voting for it. Perhaps because Hamas are resisting a vicious occupation that MacShane seems to be oblivious to.
MacShane raises some important points on the need to distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.
But the article is seriously weakened by the cheap personal jibes (particularly towards Ken Livingstone) and the McCarthyite smear tactics which are too often used without clerar evidence to support them.
If anyone was foolish enough to march in London carrying placards demanding the gassing of Jews, then the Met should be on their case.
But can MacShane give one incident where this has actually happened?
Anti-semitism has to be seen in context. On the one hand there is the anti-semitism od the Nazis which was based on the Protocols of the eldeers of Zion which justified the hoocaust. It is true that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported the Nazis during the second world war and was foolishly allowed by the post-war Labour government to return to Palestine where he attempted to organ ise opposition to the nascent Israeli state. There is a link between the Grand Mufti of the 1940’s and Islamists of today in various parts of the Middle East.
However, the anti-semitism that Dennis objects to is opposition to the Israeli state. This is fundamentally a reaction to the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. Israel is a jewish state. What this means is tht jews of rights in Israel which non-jews do not. The law of return allows jews from all over the world to settle in Israel whilst Israel exclude Palestinians. All of the political parties in Israel are committed to the expansion of the settler communities.
The Israeli state defendsd the rightsd of settleers over the rights of palestinians, building the seperation wall and the High Tech ethnic cleansing we saw in Gaza.
Israel is a an example of what Karl Popper called a ‘closed’ society. The secular state is drowned out by the right-wing religous parties.
The exclusive discriminatory nature of Israeli society created by the religous nature of the state creates the reaction which is called ‘anti-semitism’.
Supporters of Israel support the right of jews to have their own state, the more extreme genuinely believe the land was given to them as the chosen peiople. They cannot and do not understand the distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism. They see them as two sides of the same coin.
The problem could be solved if Israel ceased to be a religously based state.
I am an atheist. I oppose all religous states be they Islamist states, Cathoic states, or a Protestant state for the protetant people as in Ulster.
When Israel’s supporteres like Dennis ackowledge this problem then a constructive debate can start, but not before!
All calls for the ‘left’ not to be ‘anti-semitic’ fail to understand the real problem!!!
What a ridiculous comment from Stuart Madwell! Israel needs to be a Jewish state if it is to do the job it was set up for i.e. to give the Jews a sanctuary in their ancient homeland after centuries of persecution elsewhere, culminating in the Holocaust.
Of course, it’s easy for the Madwell’s of this world, who have never known such persecution, to academically pontificate on these matters from afar. But believe you me, it’s a very different matter when you and your families have been at the receiving end.
To those who refer to the persecution of the Palestinians I would reply that they have had their chances to live in peace with the Israelis but have failed to take them . Yet those living in Israel are still better off than those living in other Arab states And if Palestinians in refugee camps are living in squalor the blame lies not with Israel but with their wealthy Arab brethren who keep them that way to to whip up hatred against the Israelis.
In the same way, the blame for the occupation lies primarily with the Arab states who invaded Israel several times and with terrorists who use unoccupied territories to fire rockets and launch suicide attacks.
Stuart,
You seem to have some pretty odd ideas about Israel. Why don’t you go there sometime and actually speak to the people, Palestinians and Israelis. I have lived there and i can tell you that Israel is far less religious than the east end of London where you live.
The big difference between the east end and Israel is that the Labour party didn’t kill the Bengadeshis when they arrived. You yourself have been a part of the fight against racism and race violence. Yet from day one, the Israelis have been confronted with bullets, bombs and blades.
Throughout all this history the unforgotten victims of Palestinian violence are the palestinians who have advocated dialogue and have been murdered by their own just for suggsting talking. Yassar Arafat attempted to assasinate the King of Jordan for this reason, astonishingly this was after he had been granted them asylum in Jordan.
The Isrealis funded the embrionic Hamas because they believed that they would speak rather than kill like the PLO. Then they discovered Hamas’ charter.
There would never have been a conflict in this part of the world if the Palestinians wanted to talk, but since they can’t even talk about talking without being murdered by their own it was always inevitable that they would bring misery upon themselves.
It certainly helps if there is honesty and clarity in this debate. The responses from Stan and Dan are helpful in this regard.
Stan claims the purpose of the State of Israel is to give sanctuary from persecution that Jews have suffered elsewhere, particularly in Europe culminating in the holocaust. However, many Jews have always seen this as a false idea. That you cannot escape persecution by separating off from others and declaring for a homeland of your own.
In this country the history of the fight against anti-semitism of the 1930’s were of working class Jews in the tailoring and garment trades becoming part of the trade union movement and fighting the blackshirts alongside socialists and communists. It was through assimilation that anti-semitism was fought. Jewish trade unionists were still Jews, they did not loose their identity or their religion, but were strengthened by the comradeship of the labour movement.
It soon became apparent after the creation of the State of Israel that this Jewish state was to be built at the expense of non-Jews. Ben Gurion was the first Israeli leader to declare that the aim was to build an Israeli state on all the biblical land of Israel. Even to this day that is the aim of a majority of Israelis . Ethnic cleansing was a fundamental part of the state’s creation. That is continued today in the occupation of Palestinian land in the West Bank.
Now Stan & Dan claim that Israel is surrounded by hostile forces that want to destroy it and do not want to make peace. But Israel has taken by force 90% of Palestinian land and is reluctant to give the occupied territories.
What Stan & Dan cannot see is any hope of peace on their terms is illusionary. The Israeli Labor Party pretended to offer ‘Land for Peace’ but ended up offering less and less land for a peace deal which was more and more humiliating for the PLO to accept.
Guys you have to accept that you cannot fight ani-semitism by defending the exclusive jewish nature of the Israeli state. You end up trying to defend the indefensible.
With Netanyahu now becoming prime minister of Israel the hope for peace is bleak indeed. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.