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 21st
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…
- Follow Us on Twitter!
- "Join Us on Facebook!
- RSS
Contact