The 'Intelligence squared' debate

Anti-Israel ‘events’ are as numerous as midges in Scotland.  Most are small meetings of like minded ‘anti-Zionists’ vociferously agreeing that the Jewish state is the number 1 source of global evil.  The ‘opposition’ is very rarely represented; after all, the organisers of such ‘events’ typically aren’t interested in democratic debate – and certainly not when it involves ‘Zionists’.

There are rare exceptions: on 17 June 2019, an outfit called ‘Intelligence²’ (intelligence squared) organised a debate with the participation of both sides: the ‘Zionist’ and the ‘anti-Zionist’ camps – each represented by two speakers.  The ‘motion’ proposed to the audience was ‘Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism’.

The pre-debate vote showed 15% of the audience in favour (i.e., believing that ‘Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism’), 59% against and 26% undecided – so it can be inferred that ‘anti-Zionists’ were attending in numbers.  The post-debate poll showed 19% of the audience in favour, 76% against and 5% undecided.  Basically  – a defeat for the ‘Zionist’ side.  I’m one of those who – had I attended the event – would have voted in favour to start with.  So I watched the debate with interest on YouTube – and proceeded, for my many sins, to put pen to paper and tell you what I thought about it.

Before the debate even started, the moderator produced a definition of anti-Zionism:

“[O]pposition to the existence of a Jewish state in the territory defined as the historic land of Israel or Palestine."

That, of course, should have been not the beginning, but the end of the debate.  After all, multiple opinion polls (see this for instance) have shown that, for the vast majority of Jews – to the tune of 80-95% – Israel ‘is an ‘essential’ or at least ‘important’ part of their identity.  In other words, ‘anti-Zionists’ propose to dismantle a major pillar of Jewish identity, while at the same time proclaiming that they are not antisemites.

The moderator also told the audience that

“Now, surveys suggest that Israel is one of the most disliked nations in the world along with Iran and North Korea…"

That was, of course, yet another opportunity to put the debate to bed without any further waste of everybody’s time.  Iran is a theocracy that hangs people for ‘crimes’ like ‘waging war against God’ and ‘spreading corruption on earth’.  North Korea is a Communist dictatorship that – among many other things – operates ‘labour camps’ in which tens of thousands of political prisoners are killed through starvation, exhaustion and exposure.  Israel – warts and all – is a liberal democracy ruled by laws that, by and large, are in line with those of the UK, EU, USA and Canada.  Even according to the United Nations Human Development Index, Israel ranks 22 out of 189 countries – ahead of France (24), Spain (26) and Italy (28).  So what’s the reason for so much ‘dislike’?  Is it a mere coincidence that “one of the most disliked nations” happens to be made up of Jews – the same nation that has been ‘disliked’, berated and hounded for centuries??

Oddly (some would think), at the ‘Intelligence²’ event the Zionist speakers did not use these arguments.  In fact, they treated this public debate as if it were an academic one; they engaged in cogent and sometimes convoluted arguments, with great intelligence, but little flair.  They displayed much intellect but little charisma, lots of logic but few rhetorical sparks.

Here’s a passage from those first of the ‘Zionist’ speakers, journalist Melanie Phillips:

“The Jews are the only extant indigenous people of the land.  Israel was their kingdom more than three thousand years ago, they were driven out when it was occupied, they maintained a continuous presence in the land under the waves of colonialism – Assyrian, Roman, Abbasid, Mamluk, Ottoman and British –, they fought off Arab colonialists to re-establish their state in 1948 and are still fighting off Arab colonialism.  When the Palestine Mandate of 1922 which parcelled out of the former Ottoman Empire, it enshrined their right to settle throughout that land, a right that endures unaltered in international law the law also entitles Israel to hold onto land seized from its attackers…"

This was no doubt a good history lesson; but listing all the ‘colonialists’ who ruled the Land of Israel from early antiquity to modern times was most likely wasted on a non-academic audience.  Add a rather monotonous, colourless delivery and there you have it: a collection of erudite arguments, well-anchored in distant history and complex articles of law – but utterly bereft of oratorical effect and emotional impact.

If lack of eloquence were a capital sin, the Zionists would fortunately not be lonely in hell: the first ‘anti-Zionist’ speaker – Israeli-born Communist politician-turned-historian Ilan Pappé – also produced a rather lacklustre performance:

“For those who claim that anti-Zionism is a refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist I would say that states do not exist by right, they’re found… they are founded by historical processes and they become a fait accompli.  The debate is about the nature of the state and the regime, we are all entitled to wish for and work for a better, more just and egalitarian state for everyone who lives in Israel, in Palestine and for those who were expelled from there.  In 1975 a vast majority of the United Nation member states defied Zion… defined Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination, it was passed with the same majority that passed the 1947 resolution recognizing Israel, the difference was that in 1947 the colonized world was not represented in the United Nations. In 1975 it was there, it was still trying to find its way in the post-colonial world. The third world discuss… equated Zionism with continued colonialism.  Alas neoliberalism corruption in post-colonial politically… in post-colonial political system… a corruption in the post-colonial political system, an aggressive American imperialism have cast it to the sideways of history this impulse and energy but at its height and within it anti-Zionism was part of the wish of the colonized people to build a better and more just world…”

Humour and sarcasm are great persuaders and Pappé did attempt them a couple of times.  Many in the audience would no doubt have laughed sympathetically, had they understood he was trying to be witty; but they didn’t.

Of course, even a humourless and flat-footed Ilan Pappé still has a great advantage as a speaker: a freak ‘anti-Zionist’ Israeli is by definition interesting – it’s the ‘man bites dog’ effect.

By the way, Pappé himself mixed up ‘antisemitism’ and ‘anti-Zionism’ several times during his speech – he had to stop and correct himself.  Yet neither ‘Zionist’ speaker cared to point out – for the sake of the rhetorical effect if nothing else – that this may have been a Freudian mistake…

Pappé was followed by the second ‘Zionist’ speaker – former Member of Knesset turned academic Einat Wilf.  To my surprise (I heard her speak before), the speech owed too much to her current occupation and too little to the former one: this was another presentation heavy on facts and structure and light in emotional effect.  True, her obvious passion did shine through at times; but even then, the language was unnecessarily formal, the logic somewhat convoluted and the delivery unremarkable:

“We now know that antisemitism arose from a deep crisis in the society doing the blaming.  After all, these templates and ways of thinking about my people have been around for millennia; yet they become particularly useful in times of crisis and we are indeed again a species in crisis.  Technology questions the very intelligent of humanity; extreme weather undermines our confidence in our control; inequality undermines our ideal progress, our leaders or lack thereof leave us feeling bereft of a sense there's a steady hand at the helm.  And in times of crisis we desperately crave certainty and there are few greater certainties in this world to grab on than that the Jews are to blame…"

Don’t get me wrong: to me, all this makes sense and sounds familiar; but psychoanalysing antisemitism, even in the context of a bigger point, does little to persuade people that ‘Anti-Zionism is antisemitism’.

Thus far, the debate was, politely speaking, ‘interesting’.  It was about to became ‘exciting’ once Mehdi Hassan – Al-Jazeera journalist and the second speaker for the opposition – jumped into the ring.  Hasan is a pro.  He is naturally articulate, sharp and linguistically agile.  Just as important, he is familiar with this ‘debate’ format.  He knows this is about persuading people; it’s nothing like defending an academic dissertation.  In this type of ‘debate’, sharp rhetoric wins over dull substance – hands down.  In this type of debate, being accurate is hardly a priority – one can get away with twisted facts and iffy comparisons, because there’s just not enough time and span of attention to challenge them.  It’s about stirring emotions, not conveying information.

And because of all that, Mehdi Hasan single-handedly won the ‘debate’.  He didn’t even have to break a sweat: this was an unequal match; it felt like some professional snooker champion (say Ronnie O’Sullivan) was playing amateur pool players picked up from some country pub.

But it wasn’t all style and rhetoric – it was also strategy: both Melanie Phillips and Einat Wilf (and, to a certain extent, Ilan Pappé too) played defence.  Hasan demonstrated once again that, in political ‘debates’ just like in military confrontations, one needs to attack if one wishes to win.  He started his address, therefore, by wiping the floor with the motion and its defenders:

“Ladies and gentlemen we have been witnessing tonight a deeply cynical proposition to deliver a farrago of straw men distortions, deflections, false accusations and of course straight-up pro-Israel propaganda.  Then again hearing Melanie Phillips come here and champion the rights of gays in Israel in order to defend Zionism was well worth the entry ticket in and of itself."

Audiences at political debates are not like jurors in a courtroom.  They don’t necessarily ask for evidence – their fickle opinions can often be carried by a strong, passionate, determinate statement.  Of course, Melanie Phillips had mentioned the word ‘gays’ only once in her speech, when she stated that Israel is

“the only country in the Middle East where […] women and gays can live in freedom"

Hardly ‘championing’ anyone’s rights – more like a statement of fact.

Phillips could have (should have?) responded to that ad hominem attack, for instance by pointing out that, in a sermon delivered to the Islamic Unity Society, the oh-so-liberal Mehdi Hasan referred to the “kuffar [the Quranic Arabic term for heretics], the disbelievers, the atheists” as “cattle”.

Instead, she declared:

“I am sure that Mehdi Hasan and Ilan Pappé are deeply honourable men.  I would not presume to say what is in their minds or what their motivation is…"

Courtesy is such a nice thing, ‘innit?  Unfortunately, as Mehdi Hasan proceeded to demonstrate, it is not niceties that win a political debate.

So, back to Mehdi Hasan’s speech.  His next step was to re-state the proposed motion in a way that made it look unreasonable – indeed absurd – to the audience:

“[T]he motion says ridiculously, sweepingly, offensively, ahistorically that anti-Zionism is antisemitism that merely being opposed to Zionism – a political ideology, remember – is inherently, by definition, it's ipso facto antisemitic.  Which is absurd."

Put in this way, the motion does look ridiculous: how can opposing a political ideology equate racism?  Surely people have the right to question, criticise and oppose political ideologies.

Except that Hasan did not ‘interpret’ the motion, he (radically) misinterpreted it.  In fact, he managed to sneak past the largely unsuspecting audience two fundamental untruths.

To start with, Zionism is not a “political ideology”, despite Hasan’s surreptitious characterisation.  He counted (correctly, as it turned out), on people to ‘buy’ that, because of the ‘ism’ suffix.  Of course, many things are called an ‘ism’ (baptism, barbarism, criticism, plagiarism, etc.) – this does not make them political ideologies.

Wikipedia defines the term ‘political ideology’ as

“a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class or large group that explains how society should work and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order."

But Zionism isn’t concerned with “how society should work”.  It offers no “blueprint for a certain social order” has no global ambitions or implications, it is confined to one people and one (small) piece of territory.  One can be a left wing Zionist, a right-wing Zionist, a liberal Zionist or a conservative Zionist, a profoundly religious Zionist or a militantly atheist Zionist.  The difference between Zionism and ideology becomes self-evident if one considers the Israeli political spectrum: Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, Labour leader Amir Peretz and Aryeh Deri (Chairman of the Mizrakhi Ultra-Orthodox party Shas) are all Zionists; yet they advocate radically different (if not diametrically opposed) blueprints of social order.

In fact, in its ‘modern’ version, Zionism can best be described as a national emancipation movement, not fundamentally different from similar tendencies found among other ethnic groups – from the 19^th century onwards.

Some may seek to ignore the differences between ‘national emancipation movement’ and ‘nationalism’.  The latter can be construed as an ideology – if one sees it as driving a certain world order.  Consequently, one can be an ‘anti-nationalist’ without being accused of racism.  But, even if one declares Zionism as nothing but the Jewish form of nationalism, this begs the question: why do ‘anti-Zionists’ attack with such venom just one embodiment of nationalism?  Why would one fundamentally object to a Jewish state, but not to an Indian state, a Pakistani state, a Serbian state, a Croatian state, etc.?

Which brings me to Mehdi Hasan’s second untruth: his underlying suggestion that anti-Zionism is nothing but opposition to Zionism – “a political ideology” in his words.  Sounds perfectly plausible – but it’s still utterly false.  Let us remember the definition that was issued at the beginning of the debate – a definition to which all speakers would willingly subscribe.  ‘Anti-Zionism’ is not just opposition to Zionism; it is:

“[O]pposition to the existence of a Jewish state in the territory defined as the historic land of Israel or Palestine."

Contemporary ‘anti-Zionism’ (as opposed to pre-1948 anti-Zionism) does not oppose a future political outcome; rather, it wishes to dismantle an already-constituted nation state.  Or, at the very least, to change its character beyond recognition, contrary to the freely-expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of its citizens.

And, as indicated already, ‘anti-Zionism’ does not propose to dismantle all nation states – or even a number of nation states.  It takes issue with just one nation state – the Jewish state.

Once Mehdi Hasan’s untruths are exposed, the motion ‘Anti-Zionism is antisemitism’ does not look at all ridiculous or sweeping.

We are still left with ‘ahistorical’, by which – I presume – Hasan means his contention that

“many victims of the Holocaust opposed Zionism; on the other hand many antisemites supported Zionism."

Of course, pre-1948 there were indeed many Jews who opposed Zionism.  But, does that matter?  Every national emancipation movement has its opponents.  It can hardly be claimed that, after World War I, all Arabs supported independence from the Ottoman Empire.  For many – perhaps even for the majority – that empire was the latest embodiment of the scripturally prescribed Islamic Caliphate.  But is that a valid argument for dismantling any of today’s 22 independent Arab states?  Can one seriously try to resurrect the pre-1947 Indian opponents of Gandhi to justify dismantling the state of India?  Or forcibly merging it with Pakistan?

As for “many antisemites supported Zionism”, Hasan would have great difficulty listing those “many” without resorting to ridiculous, Ken Livingston-esque statements like ‘Hitler supported Zionism’.  The best he could do during the debate was to claim – based on one random statement – that Balfour was an antisemite.  But, again: does all this matter?  Even if we accept as given that Balfour was both an antisemite and a supporter of Zionism, so what?  Saying ‘Anti-Zionism is antisemitism’ does not imply that only ‘anti-Zionists’ are antisemites, or that every supporter of Zionism must be free from antisemitic prejudice.  Human beings are complex; one can harbour racist prejudice, even while supporting anti-racist causes.  The fact that Abraham Lincoln and prominent members of the abolitionist movement harboured what would rightly be seen today as racist views cannot be used to justify slavery or to tar the cause of its eradication.

Hasan’s next argument was that denying Jews the right of self-determination isn’t antisemitism, because

“not every national, ethnic group that wants a state gets a state.  Ask the Kurds, ask the Catalans, ask the Scots – there are more than 5,000 ethnic groups in the world today but only 193 member states at the United Nations…"

He then went on to point at the Druze citizens of Israel

“do they have a right of self-determination if they create a Druze state inside of Israel?"

Moreover, Hasan argued:

“It's not racist for the Kurds to aspire to statehood […], but the flip side of that is true as well: the British government, the American government, most of the EU governments do not support Kurdish statehood; does that mean the British government, all of us, are racist towards the Kurds?"

Let’s leave aside the (juicy, but fundamentally dishonest) example of the Scottish independence; the Scots were offered a referendum and a majority of the Scots themselves chose (at least at the time) the current situation (extensive autonomy within a federative state), rather than full independence.  This is not a denial of self-determination – it’s an affirmation thereof.

Let’s also summarily dismiss the Druze case: Druze do not ask for an independent state of their own – not in Israel and not in Lebanon or Syria, in which there are even larger Druze communities.  Indeed, I have been told (by just one Druze man, so I cannot vouch for the statement) that the Druze religion expressly prohibits its adherents from seeking political (as opposed to religious and cultural) independence.

It is, nevertheless, true that many national groups are still denied a state of their own, despite aspiring to one.  It is no less true that ‘not supporting’ such national aspirations is different from actively opposing them; and ‘not supporting’ aspirations to a future nation state is very different from dismantling an existing one.  And, in any case, two wrongs don't make a right: true, the Kurds – because of unprincipled and self-serving attitudes by the 'international community' – still don't have a state of their own; but how does that justify taking from the Jews a state they have already achieved?

Says Mehdi Hasan, in an attempt to defuse some obvious objections:

“The issue is not whether Jews deserve a homeland or have a historic connection to the land of Palestine -- of course they do -- the issue is whether those historic and religious claims justify creating and expanding a Jewish majority state…"

To put it bluntly, this constitutes speaking with a forked tongue: Hasan manages to affirm in the same sentence that the Jews “of course” deserve a homeland and have a historic connection to the land of Palestine, but also that these are “historic and religious claims”.  The former part of the sentence appears to recognise certain rights; the latter relegates them to doubtful, uncertain claims.  Which is it?

As for the Jewish majority state, Mehdi Hasan is not required to help with (or even approve of) “creating and expanding” it.  It is already created.  Nor is he opposed just to “expanding” it, but – as we have seen – to its very existence, irrespective of size and borders.

Next come the usual accusations.  Mehdi Hasan claims that in Israel

“one ethnic group is privileged over another while another group is permanently disenfranchised dispossessed and subjected to endless military occupation."

Beyond the obvious disagreement on facts (e.g. to what extent any ‘privileges’ awarded to Jews in Israel are unusual, unacceptable or fundamentally different from those awarded the majority population in other countries), I take issue with Hasan choosing to cavalierly ignore the small issue of a 100-year-old conflict.  A bitter series of wars and violent acts, accompanied by political, economic and cultural warfare, as well as continuous attempts to criminalise and deny Israel’s legitimacy.  A conflict that the Jews neither wanted nor initiated, but for which consequences Mehdi Hasan appears to make the Jewish state wholly and uniquely responsible.

Is it really fair to – on one hand – affirm the right of Arabs (including Arab citizens of Israel) to express hostility and rejection to the very existence of the state of Israel and, at the same time, demand from the Jewish state to treat that Arab minority in the most egalitarian and enlightened way possible?  When, in the whole history of mankind, has a state been held to similar standards?

But even if we were to believe (ad absurdum) that Israel and only Israel is responsible for the current situation of inequality and “endless military occupation”, it does not follow that the ‘culprit state’ should be dismantled.  Which nation state has – in the whole history of mankind – been dismantled because it ‘misbehaved’?  Which nation state has been forced to become a bi-national or multi-national state?  Even the Germans did not forfeit their right to their own nation state, despite the German state perpetrating the most hideous crimes in history!

‘Anti-Zionists’ often cite the case of Apartheid South Africa.  But, even if (again ad absurdum) we ignore all the other many, huge and obvious differences, in South Africa whites have always been a minority (less than 20% in the 1960s, less than 8% nowadays); a minority, moreover, that had no “historic connection to the land”, a typical colonial settler population.

Perhaps feeling that he stepped on uncertain ground, Hasan quickly returned to ‘demonstrating’ that the motion was unreasonable.  This time, by claiming that it would force the Palestinian themselves to embrace Zionism.  Voting in favour of the motion, he said

“means to say to that oppressed group the Palestinian people to say to them that you're either a Zionist you either subscribe to the ideology of your oppressor or you're a racist.  What kind of choice is that?"

Just in case anyone missed it, Hasan drove the point home once more during the Q & A session:

“If you vote for the motion tonight you're saying […] we all have to be Zionists otherwise we're racists, we’re bigots, we’re antisemites.  Which, look, wouldn't be the end of the world for me: fine, I'll be a Zionist if you want me to be a Zionist I mean I once almost voted Lib Dem I'm okay with labels – but to ask the Palestinians to not just accept their dispossession, their ethnic cleansing, their ongoing occupation, but to also call themselves Zionists or else… is outrageous, you can't ask Palestinians to be Zionists you just can't, and by the way if they say it's racist to oppose Zionism well it's racist to ask Palestinians not to oppose their own occupiers…"

This is, of course, just another wild spin: the choice is by no means binary.  One is not required to be either a Zionist or an ‘anti-Zionist’ – in fact most people are neither; the Palestinians are not required to support or love the State of Israel – they’re not even required to stop opposing its actions or its policies.  They are required – not by the motion proposed at a random ‘debate’ in London, but by sheer intellectual honesty – to admit that the Jews possess the same right they demand for themselves: the right to an independent nation state of their own.  Such admission would not make the Palestinians Zionists and would not prevent them from protesting or opposing the Israeli actions; but it would indeed take them out of the ranks of ‘anti-Zionists’.  Demanding such admission is not outrageous – it is logical and necessary if peace is to be made.  Most conflicts in mankind’s recent history were not over the actual existence of states – they were conflicts over borders and resources.  Which made them more amenable to resolution by concession and accommodation.

One more – not very sophisticated, but highly effective – parable, oft-used by ‘anti-Zionists’ and recited at the debate by Ilan Pappé:

“The idea that the land of Palestine is the land of Israel always when you hear it think about someone coming to you in the dead of night in London and tells you I used to live in your house 2000 years ago and because of that the house belongs to me and the next day they come with the police who says ‘they have a right, you have to give them half of their house’.”

Except that Pappé’s ‘house in London’ parable strays away from the facts of the real story in too many ‘subtle’ ways and hence cannot in any way serve as a guide to the rights and wrongs of the situation.

Here’s a more honest (if longer) parable:
My maternal grandmother was born somewhere in Eastern Europe.  Her family owned a house there.  They were all killed or made refugees in the Holocaust.  I am what’s left – and I grew up listening to my grandma’s stories, longing, dreaming, praying to be able to live in my ancestral family home.  For many years, I couldn’t: the road was long and dangerous and my persecutors wouldn’t allow it.  One day, I was finally able to go there, to reclaim my inheritance.  That’s how I found out that, as soon as my family was killed and chased away, some Polish neighbours moved in.  As the borders changed, they were also thrown out and Russians moved in their stead.  Next, there were Latvians and finally Ukrainians…  By the time I got there, a few generations of Ukrainians had lived in the house.  The people I found there thought of it as their own home; I thought of it as mine.  Someone said that the only just solution would be to partition the house into two smaller apartments.  My heart ached, but I agreed – at least this way I’d have some of my family home – and a roof over my head.  But the Ukrainians wouldn’t even hear about it and they tried to kick me out…

The Q & A session consisted of just a few questions.  Some were obvious, one or two were stupid.
Somebody asked the ‘anti-Zionists’:

“Why is Israel singled out as a human rights violator – in the United Nations, by the Labour Party, by many other entities— as compared to so many egregious violators of human rights including in the Middle East why is it consistently singled out is that not a form of anti-semitism?"

Mehdi Hasan ‘responded’ to this question by promising to challenge its premise. then he pointed out that, in a previous ‘Inteligence squared’ debate, he had harshly criticised the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  So no 'singling out', he claimed.

Of course, the premise of the question was not that Israel is singled out at the ‘Intelligence²’ debates, but “in the United Nations, by the Labour Party, by many other entities”.  Hasan did not challenge that premise, because it is very difficult to challenge it: for instance, Israel is the only country in the world for which the UN Human Rights Council maintains a permanent agenda item (‘permanent’ meaning that it has to be discussed at every session).  This ensures that resolutions condemning Israel are adopted each time the Council convenes.  In contrast, Saudi Arabia is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, alongside other human rights stalwarts like China, Iraq, Egypt, Rwanda and Cuba.

At the debate, unfortunately, nobody pointed this out.  Or the obvious fact that no one (or, at least, no one of any consequence) talks about ‘anti-Saudism’ or even ‘anti-Wahabbism’.  The likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Ilan Pappé and Mehdi Hasan may well be using Saudi petrol to drive to ‘Boycott Israel’ demonstrations.

Perhaps the best question was one which was nearly laughed down by an already impatient audience:

“My question is why are we… this is almost masturbatory… you should pardon the expression… what is the solution… we're all thinking, kind people… what is the solution?"

It was asked in a soft voice, with apparent British courtesy – which is perhaps why none of the speakers realised that they have just been called ‘wankers’.  (As if to prove the point, none of them really attempted an honest answer, preferring instead to use the floor to try and score some extra points.)

Jokes aside, I can fully understand why the lady who asked that question referred to the ‘debate’ as masturbatory.  Masturbation may earn us some selfish pleasure – but it doesn’t create anything.  No baby was ever conceived by masturbating.  And that’s what the speakers did: they practised a form of intellectual wanking – Mehdi Hasan more than all the others.

 * * *

Mehdi Hasan won the debate.  But it is a Pyrrhic victory.  It doesn’t help the Palestinians; it doesn’t help anyone.  The entire debate can (and should) be filed under ‘more of the same’: more oil on the fire; more on how not to change anything.  More incrimination that attracts recrimination, that generates counter-recrimination…

82 years ago, when the conflict was still young, the Peel Commission diagnosed it as “fundamentally a conflict of right with right”.  My parable supports that view.

Ilan Pappé’s parable is just more intellectual masturbation – pleasurable for him no doubt, but utterly sterile.  My parable is an invitation to make love and create life.  Perhaps it’s naïve, perhaps clumsy – but at least I’m trying to do it with a partner…

'Anti-Zionism’ is about the Joos, stupid!

Raised and educated in the UK, Prof. Ian Almond teaches World Literature at Georgetown University in Qatar.  So, when I heard that he took to the Qatari-based Al-Jazeera to write about antisemitism, I was hopeful. I thought he was going to write about the high incidence of antisemitism (including Holocaust-denial) in the Arab world.  But no: Prof. Almond chose to warn us all of ‘The danger of conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism’.

Still, I remained hopeful while reading the first few sentences.  Says Prof. Almond:

"I still remember the shock I felt when, at the age of 12, my teacher told me the word ‘joo’ I had just spoken, which I had thought to mean to lie or cheat, was actually ‘Jew’ and was anti-Semitic.  Throughout my British childhood, I had used that word casually and frequently, without ever knowing what it really meant."

Almond goes on to analyse the reasons for his childish mistake:

"I start with this example to make a simple point: anti-Semitism is so entrenched in our society, so depressingly persistent, that to trivialise it is to trivialise the blueprint of prejudice itself. It is a barometer of moral cowardice: when someone doesn’t want to take responsibility for their own faults or problems, they blame the Jews."

Prof. Almond is right to use the present tense in the sentence above: this is not ‘historic’, but contemporaneous antisemitism; the future Professor was 12 at the time (Jeremy Corbyn, by the way,  was 32), so that’s a mere 37 years ago.  We may wish to believe that one man’s character – say Brett Kavanaugh’s! – can change in that stretch of time; but deeply entrenched prejudice does not just disappear from an entire society in less than a generation.

Of course, things did change since the 1980s.  We are much more ‘politically-correct’ these days.  School children are less likely to refer to cheating as ‘jewing someone’; if they do, they will be told that they should not use the word in that sense.  But it’s not about a childish word – it’s about the societal prejudice it reveals.  The word may rarely be used with that meaning these days; but the prejudice is still there.  If you want proof, just surf Twitter.  Or listen to the many Labour Party supporters who seem to say that, when African Caribbeans, Muslims or Asians complain about racism, they have a point; but when Jews complain about antisemitism, there must be some dishonest motive behind it.

Prof. Almond’s childhood story is revealing – and his subsequent analysis is correct.  Too bad they are employed to excuse, rather than inform, the rest of his 'learned article'.

After declaring that “anti-Semitism is so entrenched in our society, so depressingly persistent, that to trivialise it is to trivialise the blueprint of prejudice itself”, Prof. Almond proceeds to do exactly that – trivialise it:

"There are definitely some voices who claim to support the Labour Party, and who allow their anti-Zionism to spill over mindlessly into anti-Semitism."

“There are […] some voices who claim…”???  Professor, don’t “some voices” include the very Leader of the Party, who rose to the defence of blood-libellers, conspiracy theorists and ‘artists’ who depict hooked-nosed ‘oppressors’?  Don’t “some voices” include ’illustrious’ members of the Party top brass (and good friends of the Leader), who implied that Jews conspired with their own genocidal persecutors?  Don’t they include a well-attended recent meeting at the Party Conference, where people chanted ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free’ – a call to pogrom on 6.5 million Israeli Jews?  Are these really“some voices who claim to support the Labour Party”???

But that’s not the only place where Prof. Almond’s argument lacks internal logic – not to mention moral clarity.  We are all, in fact, lucky that the good Professor teaches literature, rather than medical science; because – bluntly put – his diagnosis suffers from terminal idiocy, in view of the symptoms that he himself described in the previous paragraphs.

Indeed, Prof. Almond’s judgement of “some voices” is that “their anti-Zionism […] spill[s] over mindlessly into anti-Semitism”.  So anti-Zionism comes first and “some voices” are guilty only of taking it a bit too far.  But, since (as he himself explained) “anti-Semitism is so entrenched in our society, so depressingly persistent”, isn’t it much more likely that anti-Zionism is the outcome of that deeply entrenched prejudice?  Indeed, that it is just a new symptom of that entrenched disease?  If – God forbid – I suffered from “entrenched” and “depressingly persistent” lung cancer and developed a nasty cough – chances are it’s because of the cancer, not because I sang too loudly in church!

What ‘Costa’ means, of course, is 'the Zionists jew the Palestinians’.

Isn’t that “entrenched [… and] depressingly persistent” antisemitism a much more likely explanation for the visceral animus, unique in its nature and intensity, that “some voices” exhibit towards the Jewish state – and only towards the Jewish state?  Isn’t this why the oppression of Palestinians was so often and emotionally cited at the Labour Conference, while none of the ‘progressive’ leaders cared to mention the plight of Saudi women – those 51% of the country’s population that had to wait until 2018 (2018!) to be allowed to drive (by law, though still not in practice)?

Prof. Almond views as outrageous that

"The IHRA code considers any description of the Israeli State as a ‘racist’ institution to be anti-Semitic."

But – leaving aside the fact that his interpretation of “The IHRA code” is tendentious – which other state is called “a ‘racist’ institution”?  The Labour Party claims that Hungary’s current government is antisemitic and Islamophobic – yet it does not call Hungary “a ‘racist’ institution”.  Jeremy Corbyn politely frowned at Myanmar’s ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya; yet he did not call the former British colony of Burma ‘a racist endeavour’ as a result.

But Prof. Almond appears convinced that Israel should be called a racist institution.  He explains why:

"[I]n 1948, three-quarters of a million Palestinian Arabs were forcibly evicted, with British backing, off their own land. To recognise this as racist, in the words of the IHRA code, would be ‘anti-semitic’."

That the “Palestinian Arabs were forcibly evicted, with British backing” would be shocking news to the 1948 British Mandate officials, as well as to the Jewish inhabitants of Kibbutz Ein Hamifratz, bombed by British artillery, apparently in order to ‘assist’ the Arab town of Acre.  But that’s by-the-by.

However, you know what?  Let’s be generous with Prof. Almond: let’s adopt his version of history – however specious.  Let’s assume that indeed the “Palestinian Arabs were forcibly evicted” – though the reality was considerably more complex than that; let’s ignore that that ‘eviction’ occurred in the midst of a civil war that soon morphed into a war of survival against attack by all neighbouring states; let’s even forget that the Arab side perpetrated their own ‘evictions’ – in fact more thorough ‘evictions,’ since no living Jew remained in the territory they even temporarily controlled.

But what I fail to understand, even after all those assumptions, is why and how is that ‘Jewish misbehaviour’ more terrible than dozens of other cases of ‘forced eviction’ that occurred elsewhere, both before and after the establishment of the State of Israel.  ‘Evictions’ that are very rarely – if ever – described as ‘racist’.

Immediately after the defeat of Nazi Germany, borders were re-drawn – and accounts settled.  The ethnic German population of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary (people that had lived there for centuries) was driven out.  So was the population of territories that had been part of Germany, but were now ‘given’ to the USSR and Poland.  In total, 14 million ethnic Germans were driven out of their homes and lands, with the agreement and connivance of the victorious powers.  Circa 1 million died in the process: some at the hands of local soldiers, policemen and civilian vigilantes; others, due to exposure and exhaustion; many died of starvation either before or after reaching war-ravaged Germany (or, rather, territories of the former German Reich, now occupied and governed by the Allies).  The 13 million survivors – and their descendants, accounting these days for almost a quarter of Germany’s population – were never allowed to return and were never granted any compensation.

Ethnic German refugees fleeing westwards 

Ethnic Germans were not the only population ‘evicted’ at the time: so were ethnic Poles living in Ukraine – many of whom were Soviet citizens.  Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Ukrainians and Lemkos were forcibly expelled from Poland into the Soviet Union; and when the latter closed its border, the remaining Ukrainian and Lemkos villagers were forced to ‘resettle’ in the west of the country, in the former German provinces ‘transferred’ to Poland.  Conditions were harsh and human life was cheap – so many died or were killed on the way; molested women and girls had nobody to complain to: they typically picked up the small children or younger siblings and continued their journey – that is, whenever they and their families escaped being murdered out of sheer sadism and gratuitous brutality.  Those Ukrainians and Lemkos who survived this ‘resettlement’ ordeal were forcibly dispersed, with no regard to family and community ties; the Polish authorities forbade any expression of native language and culture, in a deliberate attempt to assimilate them into the prevalent Polish ethnicity.  (To those wishing to learn more of the terrible history of Europe in the immediate aftermath of World War II, I recommend Keith Lowe’s excellent book ‘Savage Continent’.)

All of the above (and much, much more) happened in what was by then peacetime.  The allied armies ruled in Berlin and over a subdued Europe.  Those 'evicted' did not pose any security risk to the remaining population.  In Czechoslovakia and Hungary, they did not even endanger the demographic supremacy of the majority population.  It can be argued, on the other hand, that this was the making of the new Poland: historically, Poland had been a geographic and demographic patchwork whose existence as an independent nation between the German and Russian ‘spheres of influence’ had been intermittent; the post-war bout of ruthless viciousness gave birth to a completely different country — a Poland with utterly changed borders and a demographic eerily uniform from an ethnic perspective.

The making of modern Poland: new borders and homogeneous ethnicity

Europe isn’t the only ‘savage continent’.  In 1947, even while the newly-formed United Nations was debating the fate of the Mandate of Palestine, an additional former 'British' territory was being partitioned: the former Jewel of the Crown – the British Raj.  Like most colonies, this was not a country – but an artificial contraption made up of numerous faiths and ethnicities, held together (but often also set against each other) by colonial interests.  There was, however, one major fault line, between the Hindu population and the Muslim one.  Both groaned under the British colonial yoke, but also resented and feared each other.  To ‘pacify’ the place long enough to wash its hands of it, the British government implemented a territorial partition into two states.  It was hardly a fair deal: the Hindu-majority state – India – incorporated the vast majority of industrial assets and agricultural land; it also ‘inherited’ most of the former colony’s financial reserves.  The Muslim-majority state – Pakistan – initially comprised just one fifth of the former colony (the Muslim population accounted in 1947 for circa 30%).  Even that consisted of two non-contiguous pieces of territory – West Pakistan and East Pakistan (later to become Bangladesh) – separated by 1,000 miles of Indian territory.

Nations may draw borders, but borders don’t create nations.  Despite the partition, inter-communal violence continued and intensified.  When all is said and done, circa 1 million people are estimated to have lost their life.  15 million were forced to leave their ancestral homes and lands and go into exile – never to return.

A convoy of refugees fleeing West Pakistan in 1947. 

Not even that was enough to defuse the tensions: India and Pakistan have since fought several wars and continue to face each other with relentless suspicion and barely contained hostility.  Since both are armed to the teeth – including nuclear arsenals – this remains a potential source of catastrophic conflagration.

Pakistan officially calls itself an Islamic Republic (Article 1 of the Constitution) – and is recognised under that name by the United Kingdom.  Article 2 proclaims:

"Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan."

Yet I have yet to hear protests from Prof. Almond or from other Corbynites.  Why aren’t they worried about the impact of such constitutional arrangements upon the status of Pakistan’s non-Muslim minorities (Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, etc.)?  And by the way, the official languages of Pakistan are Urdu and English, despite the fact that Punjabi is the native tongue for more than 40% of the population.

As for India, the Muslim minority in the predominantly Hindu country has long complained of discrimination – and independent reports tend to support those claims.  If anything, complaints of oppression and marginalisation have intensified under Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government.

I would assume that Prof. Almond is familiar with the birth of India and Pakistan – after all he claims Post-Colonial Studies as one of his specialisms.  Unless the good Professor is one of those ‘progressives’ for whom the study of post-colonialism always boils down to one small country in the Middle East…

Despite Prof. Almond’s protestations, the Labour Party did adopt the IHRA Definition – after numerous subterfuges and under huge public pressure.  But Jeremy Corbyn attempted to ‘supplement it’ (read: subvert it) with a proviso ‘protecting’ those who regard

"the circumstances around [Israel’s] foundation as racist."

But why?  How were those “circumstances” different from those that led to the formation of Pakistan?  Or of India?  Or of modern-day Poland?  Or of Croatia – the latest addition to the European Union – the “circumstances”of whose “foundation” included the ethnic cleansing of circa 400,000 Serbs?  Why is it that Corbyn and his supporters never call those countries ‘racist endeavours’?

The list of unpleasant “circumstances”, of course, is not limited to the countries mentioned above.  In fact, such “circumstances” are the rule, rather than the exception: more often than not, countries are born in conflict and strife; frequently, that strife includes numerous deaths, injuries, displacement and suffering of innocents.  That is (to use a British understatement) very unfortunate; but unusual it ain’t.  What's unusual – unique actually! – is the attempt to deny a country its legitimacy in the present and its existence in the future, because of “circumstances” in its past.  What's uncommon – extraordinary actually! – is calling an entire country ‘a racist institution’.  Hey, what an astonishing coincidence: the state subjected to this type of unique and extraordinary assault just ‘happens’ to be the Jewish state!  Surprising, 'innit?? (Note the attempt at English irony!)

No, Prof. Almond: I am not worried about “conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism”: they are one and the same.  You must have learned the wrong lesson from your childhood experience: singling Jews out for 'special attention' is just as wrong, even when you use politically-correct words.  Dear Professor of World Literature, antisemitism is not a matter of vocabulary; it’s not the words you utter – it’s the prejudice you harbour.  You see, the “IHRA code” is more than just a definition.  It’s a test – and you failed.

Antisemitism that drives on the Left

British Jewry is in a state of shock.  And not just because they feel that the levels of antisemitism are rising – for the first time since the Holocaust; not even because antisemitism is increasingly found in the mainstream, rather than on the dark fringes of the political spectrum.  No, it’s more than that: British Jews are shocked to realise that so much of that antisemitism is found in the Labour Party.

Following the Holocaust, most Jews in the West instinctively associated antisemitism with the extreme right.  The Left, which embraced anti-racism as one of its main defining values, was seen by most Jews as their natural political home.  Hence the shock, the frustration and the bitter taste of betrayal.

But the notion of a Jew-friendly Left has been a Western illusion.  Those Jews who survived the Holocaust in Eastern Europe tell a different story.  They have lived under Stalinist regimes that, while killing individual Jews in a far less systematic manner, resembled the Nazism in their determination to destroy Jewishness.

In fact, as left-leaning authors such as Dave Rich, David Hirsch and Prof. Robert Fine have brilliantly shown – the Left has a history of ideologically-entrenched antisemitism comparable to that of the Right.

Far-left ideologues viewed Jews as part of the structure of capitalism – and hence destined to vanish together with that obsolete socio-economic system.  Karl Marx and Bruno Bauer may have disagreed on fine points of doctrine; but they both agreed about the Jews' 'ugly character'.  As Marx famously put it in ‘On the Jewish Question’:

“What is the secular basis of Judaism?  Practical need, self-interest.  What is the worldly religion of the Jew?  Huckstering.  What is his worldly God?  Money. […]
The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations.  The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. […]
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

Most Jews are shocked when reading Marx’s pamphlet for the first time; astounded, a friend once exclaimed: “It sounds like something Hitler would say!”  Well, it does indeed – and not by chance.  Antisemitism has been called “the socialism of fools” – by the German social-democrat ideologue August Bebel.  An alternative description, however, would be ‘the socialism of extremists’.

In fact, paradoxically the concepts of Left and Right become increasingly meaningless as one moves closer to the extremes.  The political spectrum is not linear at all; it is much better represented as a horseshoe – with the left and right extremes much closer together than we’ve been accustomed to believe.

What characterises extreme ideologies (and extreme ideologues, irrespective of ‘flavour’) is that they view the world as divided into two irreconcilable camps – ‘we’ and ‘they’.  Those camps are construed as locked in some sort of existential struggle; not a difference of opinion, but a primeval conflict between the angelic ‘we’ and the demonic ‘they’; a conflict that can end only with the physical or ideological disappearance of the ‘they’ camp.  Put simply, extreme-left and extreme-right ideologies share the same fundamental, fanatical bigotry.

Historically, both right-wing and left-wing ideologies began to take shape at a time when science gradually replaced religion as the main source of power and influence in the Western society.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, both ideological families claimed the authority of science in order to justify their tenets.  Far-right and far-left differed in terms of the concept they focused on in order to draw that fundamental divide between the good/worthy/superior ‘we’ and the bad/undeserving/inferior ‘they’: extreme right ideologies were primarily obsessed with ‘race’, ethnicity or ‘blood’; while the left focused more on socio-economic ‘classes’.

But it would be a mistake to conclude that right-wing ideologies dealt exclusively in ‘biology’, while their left-wing counterparts focused entirely on socio-economics.

In fact, both ‘families’ mixed biology and economics in various proportions.

Nazis, for instance, saw a world divided between the ‘Aryan race’/the Herrenvolk and ‘inferior races’/the Untermenschen.  But, while the concepts were born of (pseudo-)biological differences, they very much spilled over into socio-economics.  Nazis saw Jews not just as biologically inferior, but also as economic oppressors; they also viewed other ‘races’ (such as blacks or Slaves) as incapable of intellectual achievement – and hence not just biologically inferior but also less productive economically and, therefore, holding back the socio-economic progress of the Herrenvolk.  Nazis saw themselves as champions of an Aryan race that was both biologically superior and socio-economically oppressed.  It is not by chance that the full name of the German Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.  It saw the German nation as the vanguard of the Aryan ‘race’ – the elite of an elite; but it was also ‘Socialist’ and ‘Workers’ because it wanted to represent a class of people both oppressed and held back by the ‘inferior races’.

Similarly, while Communist ideologies viewed the world as divided into classes and more generally between ‘the workers’/the exploited and ‘the capitalists’/the exploiters, that initial socio-economic divide gradually acquired biological characteristics.  Viewed as idle parasites, ‘the capitalists’ were also portrayed as physically weak, atrophied.  Although interpreted these days as signifying only moral decay, the Leninist concept of capitalist ‘decadence’ was meant to also suggest some sort of physical frailty bordering on biological inferiority.  With the sensitive nerve tendrils of a novelist, H. G. Welles picked up on that when, in his Time Machine, described a society in which the two ‘opposed’ economic classes had evolved into two distinct species: the Morlocks and the Eloi.

The convergence between economic and biological is obvious if one compares works of art approved/encouraged/supported by the Nazis and by the Communist regimes.  They are incredibly similar: under both types of totalitarian rule, the ‘we’ camp was portrayed as not just morally superior, but physically imposing as well; conversely, ‘they’ were depicted as both morally and physically/biologically inferior.  Unsurprisingly, both the Nazi and the Communist regimes invested in physical education and assigned immense importance to success in sport competitions.

Spot the difference: Communist and Nazi art

The conceptual differences between ‘class’ and ‘race’ have been much further blurred in recent times.

The extreme right increasingly sees itself not simply as the defenders of the Aryan or white race; but of a white working class they see as economically oppressed.

Conversely, the extreme left increasingly identifies ‘the oppressed’ with the non-white ‘races’ or minorities (blacks, Muslims, Asians) and ‘the oppressors’ with ‘the white race’/the West.

Thus, it would be wrong to view extreme left and extreme right as opposite political camps; in fact, each is much better understood as just the mirror images of the other.

But the two extremes share another trait: their fundamental disdain for Jews.  For both extreme right and extreme left ideologies, Jews are not just the ultimate ‘they’ – both ‘biologically’ and ‘socio-economically’; they are in fact the most convenient ‘they’.  Jews can be seen as either non-white ‘pollutants’ or as part of the privileged white race, depending on one’s argument.  In both cases, they can be portrayed as rich – and therefore ‘oppressors’ by definition.

Mural by Mear One: 'oppressors' are white, with Jewish features;
'the oppressed' are portrayed with dark complexions.

Take for instance Mear One’s mural, which Jeremy Corbyn appeared to endorse.  Much has been written about the caricaturised Jewish features of the Monopol-playing ‘oppressors’.  Fewer people have pointed out, however, that the ‘oppressed’ (on whose backs the game of Monopol is being played) are portrayed as having dark complexions.  Jackie Walker’s contention that Jews were “chief financiers of the [black] slave trade” is a variation on the same theme.

This is significant and explains, to a large extent, the extreme-left’s knee-jerk hostility towards Israel: the Israeli-Arab/Israeli-Palestinian conflict is construed as a quintessential case of white oppressors vs. ‘brown’ oppressed.  In the extreme-leftists’ mind, hating the Jewish state and its supporters is not antisemitic; quite the opposite, it is the ultimate manifestation of anti-racism.

Pro-Israel discourse often highlights the country’s economic success, its proud status as ‘the start-up nation’.  But, far from endearing Israel to the far-left crowd, this only serves to reinforce its image as the well-to-do oppressor mistreating the pauper Palestinians.

Today’s high incidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party should come as no surprise; positioned left-of-centre in the past, the party has now been taken over by extreme-left factions.

Extreme ideologies – left or right – have an issue with Jews.  And not just because of biology and socio-economics, but because they are, in effect, religions – with adherents fuelled by messianic zeal.  ‘Believers’ cannot tolerate dissent.  But the Jews are the ultimate dissenters: whatever else they are, they insist on remaining Jews, on preserving some sort of separate identity.  For bigots, that’s heresy.

And extreme ideologies are built on bigotry – that’s why they are ‘extreme’.  For Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters, Tories are not political opponents; they do not count as people whose opinions – however wrong – are legitimate.  No, for Corbynistas Tories are demons, criminals, ‘Tory scum’.  Israel is not just another state whose actions and policies can be approved, admired or criticised – as the case may be; no, it’s the very embodiment of everything that’s evil: nationalism, colonialism, terrorism, Nazism, apartheid.

The Twitter account 'motto' of a Corbyn supporter

It is, therefore, ridiculous to hope (let alone expect) that Jeremy Corbyn would ‘clean’ the Labour Party of antisemitism.  One might just as well expect that kind of behaviour from a fascist.  Antisemitism is not some external infection; it’s not a virus that has somehow contaminated an otherwise sound body.  Rather, when it comes to extreme ideologies – left or right – antisemitism is organic; it is part and parcel of their ‘DNA’; it’s woven into their fundamental bigotry, into the very characteristic that makes them ‘extreme’.

Jeremy Corbyn’s 'Labour Party' is not the Labour Party of yesteryear.  It’s no longer a social-democratic party; it’s no longer Left, but Extreme Left.  And Extreme Left differs from Left just as much as fascism differs from conservatism.

As I write this, I know that many will protest: it’s not Jeremy Corbyn’s party; a party is more than its current leader, etc.  That’s all well and good – in theory.  In practice, Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the party – twice; and with comfortable margins.  He’s been elected not because he suddenly became attractive, after decades of wearing out the back benches; not because ‘the country has changed’; but because the Extreme Left has infiltrated the party in large numbers and has taken it over.  The ‘believers’ have now achieved power and it is naïve to hope that they will relinquish it.  They make the rules – and they’ll make them in their favour.

As for the sane Labour membership, they need to overcome their emotional attachment to a name that no longer reflects what’s in the can.  Rather than attempting to valiantly but ineffectively fight the windmills of what should now be called Far-Labour, they should leave it in disgust and recreate the party they know and love – the True Labour.  They should do so now, while they still command seats, followers, political clout.  And dignity, and self-respect.  Or, they can stay in and suffer – while hoping for some improbable change.  But hope is not a strategy!

Antisemitism in 21st century United Kingdom?

Don’t like Jews

An acquaintance once confided: “A lot of people here don’t like Jews”.  He is a born-and-bred British Jew, a successful businessman, not just well-integrated, but almost entirely assimilated into the social fabric of modern-day United Kingdom.  This man is the very image of self-confidence, yet he delivered that disconcerted statement at the dinner table in a low, almost conspiratorial voice.

His words spring to mind every time somebody mentions ‘defining’ antisemism.  And so, I remembered them recently, while reading the results of the latest survey on antisemitic attitudes in contemporary Great Britain.

Please tell us if you are an antisemite…

Undertook in 2016-2017 by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (a British-Jewish think-tank), the new poll is reputed to be the largest and most accurate survey on antisemitism ever performed in Britain.

But first, let’s talk about scope and methodology: the survey measured attitudes towards Jews and towards Israel among the British population.  It did so by approaching a representative sample of that population (more than 4,000 people in total), who were asked to provide answers to a questionnaire.

The first question asked was rather obvious:

“Please tell me if you have a very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable opinion of Jews”.

I say ‘obvious’ because this question is but a posher version of my friend’s rumination: it seeks to determine how many people “don’t like Jews”.  The immediate answer: 5.4% (that is, slightly more than 1 in 20 individuals or circa 3.6 million Britons) responded that they had either “a somewhat unfavourable” or “very unfavourable” opinion – i.e. that they “don’t like Jews”.  On the other hand, 39% said that they had a “favourable” or even “very favourable” opinion of Jews.  But the majority (56%) declared that their opinion of Jews was “neither favourable nor unfavourable”, or that they didn’t know/didn’t want to answer.

“Not very helpful, this”, must have thought the academics behind the survey, scratching their balding pates.  Hence they asked the question again, while eliminating the ‘neutral’, fence-sitting option “neither favourable nor unfavourable”.  This time, 12.6% of respondents (i.e. 1 in 8) admitted that they didn’t like Jews.  In the absence of another ‘neutral’ option, 19.4% (almost 1 in 5) chose the ‘don’t know/refuse to answer’ option.

The survey report authors analysed the difference between the two sets of results:

“Within the context of this survey, that means that the respondents may have been somewhat cautious about revealing the true nature of their feelings toward certain groups, and may have given responses that were socially acceptable instead, i.e. responses that were unlikely to result in them being negatively judged. In survey science jargon the outcome of such under-reporting is called social desirability bias.”

Great.  Now let’s dispense with the “survey science jargon” and with ridiculous euphemisms such as “somewhat cautious about revealing the true nature of their feelings”.  The survey authors seem unable to say it – so let me state it for them: at least 7% of respondents (the difference between 12.6% and 5.4%) lied.  In the first experiment, they declared themselves ‘neutral’ – even though in reality they “don’t like Jews”, as proven by the second experiment.

And that is a fundamental problem with the “survey science”: people lie.  As we’ve all seen, most recently in polls regarding the Brexit referendum and US elections.  They lie to the pollsters and – perhaps even more frequently – they lie to themselves; and the more ‘controversial’ the issue, the higher the propensity to lie.  Ask yourself, dear reader: if you harboured some deep dislike towards an entire racial, ethnic or religious community – how likely would you be to admit those attitudes in writing, even in a questionnaire purported to be anonymous?  In fact, how likely would you be to admit them even to yourself – if they were (as they often are) well-hidden or even subliminal?

In fact, what the survey academics didn’t say (or didn’t say in plain English) is that those 12.6% are not the ones who “don’t like Jews”, but just the ones less reluctant to admit it.  In fact, there is no way of knowing how many (perhaps all?) of the 19.4% that stubbornly refused to answer did so because of understandable reluctance to confess a racist attitude.  It is also impossible to say how many of those who responded that they liked Jews actually lied (to the pollsters or to themselves) and in reality harbour dislike.

Here’s another part of “survey science”: the very words used in asking the question create a strong bias, because people are always more likely to declare something positive (such as a “favourable opinion”) than they are to admit negative feelings (“unfavourable opinion”).  Even more so when it comes to issues of ‘race’.

The survey academics did not say all this in plain English – but they know it.  Which is why they continued their research beyond the obvious ‘favourable/unfavourable’ question.

I’m not antisemitic, but…

Respondents were presented with a number of statements about Jews and were asked to state if they agree with those statements or whether they disagree.  The statements themselves were based on common antisemitic preconceptions, but they also included a few positive statements about Jews.

And here are the results:

-          13% agreed/strongly agreed that “Jews think they are better than other people”;

-          12% agreed/strongly agreed that “The interests of Jews in Britain are very different from the interests of the rest”;

-          12% agreed/strongly agreed that “Jews get rich at the expense of others”;

-          10% think that “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes”;

-          8% think that “Jews have too much power in Britain”;

-          4% agree/strongly agree that “The Holocaust has been exaggerated” and 2% think it “is a myth”.

Again, the authors of the study avoid using plain language.  So let me do it in their stead: these ‘statements’ represent various embodiments of anti-Semitic prejudice.  And the percentages above are those of people who admit that they harbour those types of prejudice.

Interestingly, a full third of the people who declared unfavourable opinions in the previous round did not agree with any of the listed types of prejudice against Jews.  Maybe they base their antipathy on some other aspect; or perhaps they lied in the second round, when asked the more specific questions.  Or (more likely in my opinion), their dislike of Jews is a ‘matter of gut feeling’ and not based on any particular reason.  After all, racism isn’t rational; and, for some racists, it doesn’t even have to be post-rationalised.

True, on the other hand considerable majorities of Britons (78% and 61% respectively) agreed/strongly agreed that “A British Jew is just as British as any other British person” and that “British Jews make a positive contribution to British society”.

But, again, that’s not the end of the story.  A huge proportion of people (between 34% and 47%) reacted to the ‘negative’ questions either by choosing “neither agree nor disagree” or by refusing to answer.  On the other hand, just 16% chose that ‘neutral’ option with regard to the positive statement “A British Jew is just as British as any other British person”.  Perhaps many interpreted this as a statement of fact, rather than of opinion: after all ‘British’ (unlike ‘English’, ‘Scottish’ or ‘Jewish’) has to do with citizenship, not ethnicity; and it is a fact – not a matter of opinion – that British Jews are citizens equal under the law.

So, again, we are left mostly in the dark.  Take, for instance, “Jews get rich at the expense of others”: how many of the 39% who chose not to let us know their opinion about this statement actually agree with it (but are reluctant to confess it) and should really be added to the 12% who admitted the prejudice?  How many of the 34% who preferred to hide their feelings on the matter really believe that “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes”?

We know one thing: that, in the previous experiments, the number of people who admitted not liking Jews went up from 5.4% to 12.6% when the ‘neutral’ option was eliminated; in other words, 6 out of 10 individuals who actually don’t like Jews initially lied about it.  Assuming the same proportion for the ‘negative’ questions (an assumption that makes sense, I think, but for which I am unable to provide evidence) would mean for instance, that at least 27.5% of Britons believe that “Jews get rich at the expense of others”.

Unfortunately, the study’s authors did not overly concern themselves with the painful issue of insincere answers.  They did something else, however: they calculated the proportion of people who either admitted to disliking Jews or admitted to harbouring at least one type of anti-Jewish prejudice.  That proportion is 30%.  I.e., about 1 in 3 Britons admits to harbouring a dislike or prejudice against Jews.

Boundary of the diffusion of attitudes

British Jews have a complex relationship with antisemitism: on one hand, they are keen to expose it, so that it can be dealt with; on the other hand, they are loath to admit its true extent.  And not just because it means confronting a scary situation, but because it would force them out of that false comfort of ignorance.  It is hard for a Jew to live, work and interact with other people when he/she knows that – statistically speaking – many of them ‘don’t like Jews’.

Hence, every piece of British-Jewish research into antisemitism always seems to tread softly, to gently tiptoe around the issue and to contain ‘clarifications’ meant to take the edge off otherwise harsh findings.

This study is no exception.  Having established – even with the huge caveat of deeming every answer as sincere – that scary 30% proportion, the authors take great pains to try and humble down its significance:

“We relate to this figure not as the proportion of antisemites that exist within British society (such a claim simply does not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny), but rather as a boundary of the diffusion of antisemitic attitudes in society. The use of the new term, diffusion, is highly significant analytically. It signals a shift in emphasis – from counting antisemitic individuals to quantifying the spread of attitudes that Jews consider to be antisemitic, and that may represent a source of discomfort or offense to many Jews when exposed to them.”

Well, I agree that antisemitism is not a matter of black-and-white, but a continuum of attitudes ranging from complete lack of prejudice to violent, berserk hatred.  What I do not understand or accept is the attempt to detach the assessment of the pandemic from the number (or proportion) of infected individuals.  Let’s do away with posh academic lingo and take an example.  Say an individual agrees (or strongly agrees) with the statement “Black people are lazy” (this is a prejudice originating, I believe, with white slave owners).  Would you then say that the polled individual is a racist – or would you just say that “We relate to this […] as a boundary of the diffusion of [racist] attitudes in society”??

‘Good’ news: they don’t ‘just’ hate Jews…

Perhaps in an attempt to persuade themselves that ‘things are not so bad, after all’, the survey authors also asked respondents about any ‘unfavourable’ opinions about Christians, Hindus and Muslims.  Needless to say, the vast majority of people in the UK do not dislike Christians – those who do represent just 3.1%.  After all, the UK is still ‘a Christian country’ – nominally at least, if not in terms of church attendance.  5.5% of respondents admitted to having unfavourable opinions of Hindus and 14.4% harbour such opinions with regard to Muslims.  So hey – there you are!  Jews fare no worse than Hindus and much better than Muslims.  Yippeee!!

Except that – though the academics behind the study failed to point this out – things are not so simple.  To start with, there are (according to the 2011 census) only about 260,000 Jews in the UK, compared to circa 835,000 Hindus.  That’s not including 425,000 Sikhs – although it’s doubtful that the average Briton differentiates between those two religions; in fact, it is much more likely that the majority of respondents had taken ‘Hindus’ to mean ‘more-or-less of Indian origin’, and hence have mentally included all ‘Indian-looking’ people, whether originating from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, whether Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Muslim.  That would bring UK’s total ‘Hindu’ population in 2011 to 3 million people.

As for Muslims, the 2011 census found circa 2.8 million self-declared adherents of this religion in the UK.

So both Hindu and Muslim minorities are considerably more numerous – arguably a full order of magnitude above Jews in absolute numbers and in proportion within the general British population.  As a result, the comparison is rather meaningless.  And for several reasons:

Firstly, given the minuscule proportion of Jews in the UK (and the fact that most British Jews live concentrated in a handful of urban areas), it is obvious that the vast majority of Britons spend the vast majority of their lives without ever interacting with Jews.  This means that, if they declare an ‘unfavourable opinion’ or some prejudice about Jews, that’s mostly not the result of some personal experience, not even personal experience wrongly twisted and generalised.  It is pure, unadulterated racism.

Secondly, at under 0.4% of population and given the long and bitter history of European antisemitism – including Inquisition, pogroms and the Holocaust – Jews not just feel more vulnerable, but objectively are more vulnerable than both Hindus and Muslims.  With regard to Jews (but not Hindus or Muslims), there is a concrete, relatively recent and absolutely horrific history of specific persecution.  This is not a ‘potential’ danger; nor are we talking about the type of racism that results in ‘mild’ discrimination – but about racism that has shown centuries of genocidal intensity.

Thirdly, in terms of sheer electoral muscle (the ultimate source of power in a parliamentary democracy) Jews are a negligible factor.  Hindus and Muslims are not.

All of the above should translate – in any democratic and caring society – into an understanding that Jews are more at risk of oppression and should therefore be more entitled to protection.

Left, right and centre

One of the issues investigated by the survey was the specific prevalence of antisemitic attitudes across the political spectrum.  To that end, respondents were asked to self-describe their political inclinations on a scale ranging from ‘very left wing’ to ‘very right wing’.  These categories were then cross-related to the previously measured antisemitic attitudes.

In the authors’ opinion, the only relevant result pertains to the ‘very right wing’.  52% of those who self-described as ‘very right wing’ admitted some form of antisemitic prejudice, as compared to 30% in the general population.  All the other types of political persuasion (including ‘very left wing’) hovered around 30%.  In the authors’ words:

“The very left-wing is indistinguishable from the general population and from the political centre in this regard. In general, it should be said that, with the exception of the very right-wing, there is little differentiation across the political spectrum in relation to the prevalence of antisemitic attitudes.”

Not so in relation to anti-Israel attitudes (which was measured using a similar methodology to the one described above).  Anti-Israel attitudes are hugely prevalent among the ‘very left wing’ – affecting close to 80% of those respondents.  Even among the ‘slightly left of centre’ anti-Israel attitudes are found among two thirds of respondents.  This exceeds even the prevalence of such sentiments among the ‘very far right’.

Should we conclude, then, that antisemitism is mainly an issue on the far right and that the far left is, in that respect, no-better-no-worse the rest of the British population?  Well, such stupid conclusions might, I think, come under the title ‘Statistics triumphs upon reason’.

The ‘anti-Zionism is not antisemitism’ has long been a slogan on the far-left.  Far-leftists have heard arguments around this slogan and are as a consequence both more motivated and more able to consciously avoid statements that are overtly antisemitic; to conceal antisemitic sentiment – and to more skilfully cloak it as ‘anti-Zionism’.  That biasing factor is certain to have been amplified in the period 28 October 2016 - 24 February 2017, when the survey was conducted and when Labour and Momentum were very much ‘under fire’ on the issue of antisemitism.  (See for instance articles published even in The Guardian.)

In fact, the poll attempts to use the same tools on two completely different populations: one (the militant far-left) is ‘forewarned’, extremely aware from a political point of view – and hence ‘forearmed’; the other, the much more ‘innocent’ and much less politically active centre, which decidedly less skilled in the art of dissimulation.  This is decidedly like comparing apples with oranges.

While far rightists may be just as militant as far leftists, they are less likely to dissimulate attitudes that may be perceived as racist, because such attitudes are less strident in the general picture of their ideology.

For the left (and in particular for the hard left), opposition to racism is – at least in theory – a major ideological thrust.  According to the perception of many Jews, the hard left’s anti-racism manifests a strange blind spot when it comes to seeing and identifying as such antisemitic (as opposed to anti-black, anti-Asian or Islamophobic) attitudes.  It would have been extremely interesting to test that hypothesis: even assuming that the ‘very left wing’ segment manifests the same level of anti-Jewish ‘dislike’ as the bulk of the population, how does that segment compare in terms of anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiment?  If the level of that kind of racism is lower than average (as would be expected from a purportedly ‘anti-racist’ segment), then that would prove the ‘blind spot’ hypothesis.  Unfortunately, that data is not available in the published survey report.

But even if we were to accept that the far left is – from the point of view of antisemitism – no-better-no-worse than the bulk of British population, that should not be, from their own point of view, an acceptable situation.  This is a political segment that – to a considerable extent – defines itself in terms of opposition to racism.  Naively, we would expect them to be at the forefront of fight against antisemitism and not just ‘average’.

But you know what?  Let us now be practical.  Let us assume, despite all the above caveats, that the proportions found in the survey are largely correct.  So, we’ve got 52% of the far right harbouring antisemitic sentiment and ‘only’ 33% on the far left.  Does it follow, then, that the priority should be fighting far-right antisemitism?  Hardly!  In fact, the opposite is more logical, because in contemporary UK the far right is decidedly marginal – both in terms of numbers and of political influence.

Just 1.4% of respondents self-describe as ‘very right wing’, while 3.6% declare themselves as ‘very left wing’.  If we include ‘fairly right wing’ and ‘’fairly left wing’, the proportions are 7.8% and 15.5%, respectively.  As a result, despite the lower proportion, there are more leftists harbouring antisemitic prejudice than there are rightists.

But it’s not just about the numbers.  In terms of practical political influence, the English Defence League is a non-entity and so is the BNP; with no representatives in the Parliament, even UKIP is more and more inconsequential.  On the other hand, the hard-left faction currently leads the Labour Party – the country’s second-largest parliamentary bloc.  It is Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of that faction, that has a chance of becoming the next Prime Minister, not Nick Griffin or even Nigel Farage.

Proudly anti-Zionist, but utterly opposed to antisemitism…

Previous polls showed that, for the vast majority of British Jews, the State of Israel is central to their Jewish identity.  While British Jews accept (and often join) ‘normal’ criticism of Israeli government policies, they typically perceive anti-Israel hostility and anti-Zionism as antisemitic.  The survey attempted to discover, using statistical means, whether there is a correlation between ‘anti-Israelism’ and antisemitic prejudice.

In their academic lingo, the study authors state:

“we find that the existence of an association between the antisemitic and the anti-Israel attitudes tested, is unambiguous.”

In English: according to the survey results, the more anti-Israel a respondent’s opinions, the higher the likelihood that that individual also harbours antisemitic prejudice.  As we have seen, the prevalence of that prejudice is 30% among the general British population; it is, however, 74% among those with high levels of anti-Israel hostility.  1 in 2 respondents with strong anti-Israel opinions believes that “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes”; compared to 1 in 10 respondents in the general population.  Conversely, among those who hold no anti-Israel opinion, 86% are also free of antisemitic prejudice.  Of course, as discussed earlier, the correlation is likely to be even stronger than that, because the survey ignores the (very likely) possibility that some respondents will much more freely express anti-Israel attitudes, which they consider legitimate and even noble political views; but will tend to conceal anti-Jewish opinions, which are less ‘socially acceptable’.

In total, one third of respondents were willing to declare an ‘unfavourable’ or ‘somewhat unfavourable’ opinion about Israel.  The equivalent proportion was 23% about the USA and 48% about Iran.

Unfortunately, the survey investigated the correlation between ‘anti-state’ opinion and ‘anti-people’ prejudice only in the case of Israel and Jews.  It would have been interesting to see, for instance, if respondents who exhibited anti-USA opinions also tended to show more dislike for Americans living in Britain; but such data is not available.

As any student of statistics knows, ‘correlation’ does not necessarily imply causality – and of course does not shed any light on the direction of that causality.  True to their academic (or perhaps didactic) make-up, the study’s authors felt compelled to point that out:

“Our analysis lacks the capacity to identify causality. What remains unclear is just how the connection between the two types of attitudes arises, when it does. Do people develop anti-Israel attitudes because they are antisemitic? Does adopting an anti-Israel position become just one more channel for expressing antisemitism? Or, alternatively, do people become antisemitic as a side-effect of their anti-Israel attitudes and activities? Future research will have to tackle the question of the chain and order of the acquisition of these two types of attitudes.”

Theoretically, that is indeed so.  But, ‘between us girls’, allow me to scoff with contempt at the ludicrous suggestion that a sentiment well-documented in Europe for many centuries may actually be “a side-effect” of attitudes towards the modern State of Israel (established in 1948).  Statistics is an excellent aid for reason; it should never be employed in-lieu of reason.

So let’s summarise – in as simple a way as possible – what we learned about the anti-Zionism/antisemitism correlation:

•          If a Brit appears strongly hostile to Israel – this does not absolutely mean that s/he harbours antisemitic prejudice; but there is a 74% likelihood that s/he does.
•          If a Brit shows zero hostility towards Israel, it does not absolutely mean that s/he is free of antisemitic prejudice; but there is an 86% likelihood that s/he is.

The Muslim factor

The study also tested the prevalence of antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiment among various religious communities in the UK.  To paraphrase the study’s authors, the conclusion in this respect is also ‘unambiguous’: no significant difference was found among the various Christian denominations, or indeed between Christians and those who self-described as ‘of no religion’.  On the other hand, both anti-Jewish and anti-Israel opinions are much more prevalent among British Muslims.

Almost 40% of the British Muslims polled did not agree with the statement “A British Jew is just as British as any other British person”.  63% did not agree that “British Jews make a positive contribution to British society”.  1 in 4 British Muslims believes that “Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes”.  1 in 7 believes that the Holocaust has been exaggerated and 1 in 12 believes that it is a myth.

According to the study, the higher the level of Islamic religious observance, the higher also the level of antisemitic prejudice (and anti-Israel opinion) among British Muslims.

It’s not like there are pogroms here!

Finally, the study measured the propensity to violence against Jews.  When asked whether it is justified to use violence against Jews “in defence of one’s political or religious beliefs and values”, 4.1% of respondents opined that this is ‘often justified’ or ‘sometimes justified’; 9.8% opined that it ‘rarely justified’.  When the same question was asked about ‘Zionists’, the proportions were 4.4% and 10.1% respectively; naming Israelis as the target of violence resulted only in a minor increase: 4.8% and 10.4%, respectively.  Strangely, the study authors failed to point out this similarity – which may indicate that for extremists the terms Jews, Zionists and Israelis are quasi-interchangeable.

4.1% might sound like a small proportion.  But when applied to the entire British population, it translates into 3 million people envisaging violence against Jews, either ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’, if they perceive that their “political or religious beliefs and values” are jeopardised.

It would have been interesting to see the propensity-to-violence among Muslim respondents, but the data has not been provided in the report.  Was the result uninteresting, or did it offend the authors’ sense of ‘political correctness’?  We can only guess.

(Not) assigning blame

And perhaps it was political correctness that caused the authors to opine, in the final conclusions that, despite their focus on perceived ‘high incidence’ segments such as far right, far left and Muslims, the ‘responsibility’ for antisemitism cannot be assigned to these groups.  The authors justify that conclusion by showing that, if those three segments were eliminated from the analysis, the level of anti-Semitic prejudice would reduce only marginally.  That’s because those three segments of focus are numerically small within the general population (they account together for only circa 10%).  Well, the number crunching is correct – but the reasoning is rotten; this is yet another instance in which the authors are, in my humble opinion, ‘misinformed by data’.  Looking simplistically at the ‘numeric’ contribution of the three focus segments may be misleading.  We are clearly dealing with segments that tend to be more ‘militant’, where the general population is typically more ‘apathetic’.  The question is – or should be: to what extent are the levels of antisemitic prejudice found in the general population the result of the 3 segments’ militancy?  After all, the activism of a small but militant minority can gradually ‘spill over’ or ‘seep into’ the majority – such phenomenon is well-known in social sciences and is familiar also from historical events.  We do not know if this is what occurred here; but surely the authors should have given more thought to this very credible possibility, before placing the ‘responsibility’ squarely on the shoulders of the ‘mainstream’ and practically exonerating the political extremes (and the Muslim community) as ‘too few to matter’.

Making no bones about it!

It is easy to get caught in (or get bored with) numbers and number-crunching.  But what this study (and of all the studies before it) did was merely to provide scientific evidence for something that most British Jews – the well-ensconced, comfortable British Jews – already knew; for something they feel in their not-yet-assimilated Jewish bones: that antisemitism exists – and at worrying levels; that it exists in 21^st century United Kingdom; that it exists in the mainstream and among those that inscribed anti-racism on their flags as a defining value; that it’s everywhere and that it’s growing.

It’s good to have scientific evidence.  But frankly – I don’t need it.  I listen to the scream of alarm coming from those old Jewish bones.  Broken by Inquisition and burned at Auschwitz – they’ve developed delicate nerves.  They’ve learned to identify a certain type of hostility – even when it’s well-hidden, even when it’s reflexive and subliminal.  They tell me all I need to know…