I had my first article published in the 'Comment is Free' section of The Guardian yesterday. It appears to have created quite a storm; I wish I could get the Jewish community to listen to some of my ideas in the way that wider society seems to have latched on to them!
To be honest, I feel a bit sick from the whole experience. Reading through the comments is a humbling and quite shocking experience. The amount of sarcastic and vitriolic abuse is really disturbing. I deliberately tried not to get involved in the rights or wrongs of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the article; my own view, for what it is worth, is that it is a profoundly complex affair comprised of territorial, political, historical, social, economic and religious components, and anyone claiming that absolute and exclusive right resides with either side simply doesn’t fully understand it.
It is exactly this complexity that calls for context in journalism and politics, and, to my mind, that was sorely lacking in the programme. The pro-Israel lobby wasn’t placed in the context of other lobbies (I have no idea whether the sums of money discussed were large, small or average compared to other lobbies), the highlighted Jewish leaders weren’t located in the context of other Jewish leaders (I would happily have pointed the documentary makers in the direction of wealthy Jews who invest significant sums in Israeli Arab causes for example), and the footage of the conflict itself focused exclusively on Palestinian suffering without any reference to the experiences, feelings, views, or efforts of the Israelis. I regard all of that as shoddy at best.
I wrote about its barely-concealed antisemitic undertones because, as a longstanding student of antisemitism (my BA and MA are in modern Jewish history, and I was very fortunate to study under Professor Robert Wistrich and Professor Sir Martin Gilbert among others), I am highly attuned to it. I don’t believe that all, or even most, criticism of Israel is motivated by antagonism towards Jews, and actually think much of the mainstream British media’s coverage of Israel is reasonably fair. I also believe that it is entirely legitimate for any credible television outlet to investigate British Jewish support for Israel (although, if they are going to do that, they should at least research it properly). But I am quick to sense a classic antisemitic motif not least because I am probably far too familiar with all of them, and I sensed one quite strongly in Dispatches. It was an overarching sense – not so much in the words spoken, but in the documentary style. Blurry images suggesting shady underhand deals; organizational names – like the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies – highlighted on screen in such a way as to suggest a hint of danger, threat or conspiracy; the juxtaposition of shocking images from Gaza and a CFI dinner which, without ever saying it, created an illusion that the lobby groups were essentially raising funds to kill Palestinians.
Perhaps I am too sensitive to it. From what I can figure out about the documentary maker, I don’t think he intended in any way to perpetuate an antisemitic myth. Perhaps those who argue that Jews cry wolf too often are right – certainly, there are occasions when I feel the antisemitism card is played inappropriately. Perhaps one commentator on my article is right when he says that he knew nothing about all these antisemitic myths until Jews started accusing people of perpetuating them! But then again, if a Jew feels threatened in some way on the basis of his/her ethnicity or religion, surely s/he should express that? It’s something of a conundrum. And it’s a conundrum that is irresolvable because ultimately people will write and say what they want.
Anyway, I will certainly think twice before writing about antisemitism in the national press again. On reflection, I’m not sure what, if anything, the article achieved.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Channel 4 Dispatches: Shoddy, Shallow and Shameful
Apparently, according to Channel 4’s Dispatches programme on Monday night, there are some wealthy Jews out there bent on influencing British government policy on Israel. What a shocking finding. I wonder what they will uncover next? Lobbyists trying to influence government health policy perhaps? Pressure groups seeking to change government policy on the war in Iraq? Business leaders trying to alter government thinking on economic policy?
Aside from the shoddy research and the barely-concealed antisemitic undertones (the idea of a shady, morally repugnant 'cabal' of Jews seeking to control the world is one of the classic antisemitic myths), it was this lack of context that was most disturbing about the programme. There are numerous lobbying groups working with government and the media, trying to influence policy and opinion on a wide range of issues. Some of these even try to represent the Palestinian cause. There are also numerous Jewish leaders and philanthropists who support and invest in Palestinian Israeli causes, including the single-largest pro-Israel charity in the UK, and, according to the Jewish Chronicle, the single-most influential philanthropist in the British Jewish community. Jewish leaders differ on how best to support Israel, and the opinions range from unquestioning support to intense criticism. But Channel 4 struggled to include any of this contextual framing in its hour-long documentary, presumably because it might have in some way undermined its highly spurious argument.
But then context is always the problem. There was no effort throughout the programme to contextualize Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. There was no mention of the Israeli government’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the fact that, after that, Hamas used the territory to launch countless randomly-targeted missile attacks on Israeli towns and villages. In its analysis of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, it failed to mention the thousands of missiles Hezbollah had assembled with Iranian and Syrian support on Israel’s northern border, which it used with great effect to terrorize the Israeli population.
Perhaps most importantly, it failed to mention in any detail why some Jewish leaders may feel compelled to support Israel. Leaving aside the politics of the region, the notion that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People, or that Israel is the only nation state in the world in which Judaism is mainstream, Jewish culture is the norm and the Hebrew language is widely-spoken and celebrated, were all ignored. Perhaps, just perhaps, these are the reasons that underpin the support of Jewish leaders and philanthropists.
But much easier to trot out the old antisemitic myth. After all, the public deserves to know what these nasty, rich Jews are up to. And what could possibly be wrong in uncovering the truth? There cannot conceivably be a connection between the way Israel and Jews are presented in the media and antisemitism on the streets of Britain.
Or so Alan Rusbridger would have us believe. In the documentary, he maintained that he found it 'difficult to believe' that any journalistic coverage of events in Israel could result in acts of violence against Jews on the streets of Britain. Well, allow me to present myself as Exhibit A. In April 2002, at the height of the Palestinian intifada, media reports quickly began circulating that a massacre had been committed by the Israel Defence Forces in Jenin in the West Bank. Rumours circulated that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed. The BBC suggested 150. Saeb Erekat, interviewed on CNN, claimed 500. Yasser Abed Rabbo intimated 900. The overarching impression was that the IDF had clearly committed a horrific atrocity.
On the following Saturday morning, I was walking to synagogue, wearing my kippah (skull-cap) in the north London suburb of Finchley. On the way there, I was punched in the face by a young man. It was an entirely unprovoked assault. We were simply crossing paths, when he delivered a sudden, forceful, right hook. Taken aback, my first response was to ask him why he had done it. 'That’s what happens to Jews', he responded, 'when they behave like that'.
That is the only time in my life that I have been a victim of an antisemitic assault. It is, I suppose, possible that it had nothing to do with the events in Jenin at the time, but I find that very difficult to believe. My attacker saw me as a legitimate target directly linked to the so-called 'massacre'.
In the final analysis, it was established that no such massacre took place in Jenin. The United Nations report into the fighting eventually concluded that, in actual fact, 52 Palestinians were killed, at least half of whom were militants. 23 Israeli soldiers were also killed. Of course, any loss of life – on either side of the conflict – is tragic, and serious mistakes have been made by both Palestinian and Israeli leaders over the years. But the way in which the conflict is reported and analyzed has a direct bearing on levels of antisemitism. And, thanks to Channel 4 and Dispatches, we can now assume that those levels will rise yet again.
(This article was also published in the 'Comment is Free' section of The Guardian)
Aside from the shoddy research and the barely-concealed antisemitic undertones (the idea of a shady, morally repugnant 'cabal' of Jews seeking to control the world is one of the classic antisemitic myths), it was this lack of context that was most disturbing about the programme. There are numerous lobbying groups working with government and the media, trying to influence policy and opinion on a wide range of issues. Some of these even try to represent the Palestinian cause. There are also numerous Jewish leaders and philanthropists who support and invest in Palestinian Israeli causes, including the single-largest pro-Israel charity in the UK, and, according to the Jewish Chronicle, the single-most influential philanthropist in the British Jewish community. Jewish leaders differ on how best to support Israel, and the opinions range from unquestioning support to intense criticism. But Channel 4 struggled to include any of this contextual framing in its hour-long documentary, presumably because it might have in some way undermined its highly spurious argument.
But then context is always the problem. There was no effort throughout the programme to contextualize Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. There was no mention of the Israeli government’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the fact that, after that, Hamas used the territory to launch countless randomly-targeted missile attacks on Israeli towns and villages. In its analysis of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, it failed to mention the thousands of missiles Hezbollah had assembled with Iranian and Syrian support on Israel’s northern border, which it used with great effect to terrorize the Israeli population.
Perhaps most importantly, it failed to mention in any detail why some Jewish leaders may feel compelled to support Israel. Leaving aside the politics of the region, the notion that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People, or that Israel is the only nation state in the world in which Judaism is mainstream, Jewish culture is the norm and the Hebrew language is widely-spoken and celebrated, were all ignored. Perhaps, just perhaps, these are the reasons that underpin the support of Jewish leaders and philanthropists.
But much easier to trot out the old antisemitic myth. After all, the public deserves to know what these nasty, rich Jews are up to. And what could possibly be wrong in uncovering the truth? There cannot conceivably be a connection between the way Israel and Jews are presented in the media and antisemitism on the streets of Britain.
Or so Alan Rusbridger would have us believe. In the documentary, he maintained that he found it 'difficult to believe' that any journalistic coverage of events in Israel could result in acts of violence against Jews on the streets of Britain. Well, allow me to present myself as Exhibit A. In April 2002, at the height of the Palestinian intifada, media reports quickly began circulating that a massacre had been committed by the Israel Defence Forces in Jenin in the West Bank. Rumours circulated that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed. The BBC suggested 150. Saeb Erekat, interviewed on CNN, claimed 500. Yasser Abed Rabbo intimated 900. The overarching impression was that the IDF had clearly committed a horrific atrocity.
On the following Saturday morning, I was walking to synagogue, wearing my kippah (skull-cap) in the north London suburb of Finchley. On the way there, I was punched in the face by a young man. It was an entirely unprovoked assault. We were simply crossing paths, when he delivered a sudden, forceful, right hook. Taken aback, my first response was to ask him why he had done it. 'That’s what happens to Jews', he responded, 'when they behave like that'.
That is the only time in my life that I have been a victim of an antisemitic assault. It is, I suppose, possible that it had nothing to do with the events in Jenin at the time, but I find that very difficult to believe. My attacker saw me as a legitimate target directly linked to the so-called 'massacre'.
In the final analysis, it was established that no such massacre took place in Jenin. The United Nations report into the fighting eventually concluded that, in actual fact, 52 Palestinians were killed, at least half of whom were militants. 23 Israeli soldiers were also killed. Of course, any loss of life – on either side of the conflict – is tragic, and serious mistakes have been made by both Palestinian and Israeli leaders over the years. But the way in which the conflict is reported and analyzed has a direct bearing on levels of antisemitism. And, thanks to Channel 4 and Dispatches, we can now assume that those levels will rise yet again.
(This article was also published in the 'Comment is Free' section of The Guardian)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
