e-Zion Commentary:
anti-Semitism? You must be joking! - David Hirsh

anti-Semitism? You must be joking! - David Hirsh

There are a number of distinct ways that the idea of anti-Semitism on the left and in the anti-Zionist movement is denied. One is straightforward. Some argue that there is no anti-Semitism, that a hostility to Jews is not the same as a hostility to "Zionists" and that the political narratives that emerge from the anti-Zionist movement are not at all problematic.

In this post, I am interested in looking at three other modes of denial:

1) anti-Semitism? Sorry I can't hear you

Some deniers of anti-Semitism put their hands over their ears. They just don't find it interesting. They are interested in racism against "the oppressed" or against "the other" but not against Jews. They think that compared to other racisms, anti-Semitism is insignificant.

2) anti-Semitism? Are you joking?

Some deniers of anti-Semitism think that it is a joke. They adopt a lighthearted tone at the very suggestion. Don't you know, they ask, that we are anti-racists? It is just funny, that we, who have been involved for our whole political lives in fighting racism are now accused of being soft on racism or unaware of racism.

3) ant-Semitism? You are a Zionist and a racist.

Some deniers of anti-Semitism adopt the first strategy but they augment it with denunciation. Their assumption is that anyone who raises the idea of contemporary anti-Semitism is doing so sneakily to divert attention from the crimes of the Israeli state. Anyone who talks about contemporary anti-Semitism is a "Zionist" and therefore an "oppressor".

Beate Zilversmidt of Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace organisation, has adopted the "hands over your ears" strategy.

Beate Zilversmidt asks: "Should one ponder about one's Jewish identity and how one now and then feels uneasy with certain expressions of the Palestinian solidarity campaign and of "treacherous" fellow Jews? Or is this perhaps the hour to put aside such finesses and strengthen the grassroots non-violent efforts of putting pressure on the Israeli government."

She adds that "I sincerely believe that these days a Jew who is against such things as cruelty against The Other - to which belong both occupation and racism - has the duty to in the first place fight against such tendencies among his own. Only after that can one do the fight against anti-Semitism from a strong moral position. This wasn't so obvious in the past when we Jews in no way were related to power. But "noblesse oblige." I know that Engage considers itself also against the occupation, but it's pathos and energy seem to be mostly absorbed by the heroic fight against every hint of left-wing ant-Semitism."

I don't think that fighting anti-Semitism is about "pondering one's identity" any more than the fight against anti-black racism is about black people pondering their identities or the fight against Islamophobia is about Muslims pondering their identities. There used to be a time when anti-racists opposed all racism - and opposition to racism wasn't thought to be conditional on identity. Also when people did not require a "strong moral position" from which to oppose racism. Why does Beate think that the fight against racism in the UK is to be laughed off as a rather self-indulgent and eccentric little foolishness?

I think that our campaign is about building a labour movement and a liberal and left discourse that is not disabled by ant-Semitism. Beate argues that the use in the Palestine Solidarity Movement of what she euphamistically refers to as "certain expressions" that make us "feel uneasy", should be ignored in these particularly terrible times for Palestine. They should be ignored, because not to ignore them would hinder the primary goal, which is to fight against the occupation.

Beate's central point seems to be that Jews are not "oppressed" and therefore we ought not to worry about ant-Semitism. Jews (noblesse oblige - ie using their position of nobility and power, are obliged) to fight for the "other" and not for themselves. Beate is not clear whether non-Jews (who may or may not be "the other") are obliged to fight against ant-Semitism.

It is in this way that Beate wants to silence talk of anti-Semitism in the Palestine Solidarity Movement. And the reason? Because she thinks that a Palestine Solidarity Movement free of such distractions will be of more use to the Palestinians. So until Palestine is free, we should shut up about ant-Semitism.

Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at Trent University in Canada, whose work I first saw because it was recommended by Gush Shalom, thinks that anti-Semitism is a bit of a laugh. He also thinks that it is insignificant, does not realy exist, and what does exist will disappear when Israel itself ceases to exist. He says the following:

Undoubtedly there is genuine anti Semitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee’s last letter.

The progress of Arab anti-Semitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine anti-Semitism; it is to trivialize it.

If Arab anti-Semitism persists after a peace agreement, we can all get together and cluck about it. But it still won’t do Jews much actual harm.

Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all?

Neumann's modes of denial are both 1) and 2) above. His lightness of tone shows that he thinks the accusation of anti-Semitism to be a bit of a joke. And his "serious point" seems to be that anti-Semitism is just not at all worth worrying about. "Don't talk to me about ant-Semitism, talk to me about ..." is the formulation.

Sue Blackwell adopts a lighthearted whistling-in-the dark tone: "OK chaps, I know you are desperate to pin the 'anti-Semitic' label on me but just how low can you sink? Just carry on, you're doing a good job of digging yourselves deeper."

The lightness of tone is a form of denial. "Its just funny that you think I'm careless about ant-Semitism" it says. I'm not going to relate to what you say: rather, I'm going to laugh (if a bit nervously).

Another example of the light-hearted tone "hands-over-my-ears" response comes today from Deborah Fink, a main organiser of the concert that is to premiere the cantata in memory of Rachel Corrie. She responds to my post about Claire Short. Claire Short was proudly quoted on the "weeping skies" website as arguing that "US backing for Israeli policies... is the major cause of division and violence in the world". Deborah's response is as follows:

Thank you for publicising this cantata on your Web site -much appreciated. As the main organiser of the Nov 1st concert in which it will be performed, I don't have time to 'engage' in a discussion, but must say, that I do find it strange, if not revealing, that David does not specify whose house Rachel was trying to protect. It was a Palestinian doctor - Dr. Samir.

Maybe you'd like to use some other quotes as well, i.e Noam Chomsky, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Miriam Margolyes, all of which are on the blog. It won't be so easy to dismiss these as anti-Semitic! Lots of Jews and Jewish organisations are supporting this, and a couple of Jews, including an Israeli, are performing in the concert.

From - http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=44

See also -

You are reading this article at E-Zion - The Zionism and Israel Viewpoints Online Magazine

External Zionism Links