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)