Feeling Slightly Queasy

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.