One of the most depressing and dangerous reactions to the current upsurge of Israeli and Palestinian violence in the Middle East has been the alarming rise in anti-Semitic incidents here in the UK.
On 13th May the Jewish Times highlighted a 250 percent increase in reported anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the recent violence.
Incidents include the now notorious video of racist abuse in North London, vile anti-Semitic abuse shouted at a Jewish schoolgirl, altercations outside synagogues and a swathe of anti-Semitic hate on social media, some of which I have witnessed.
Whatever our opinions of the rights and wrongs of the conflict, whatever our view of current policy and actions of the Israeli Government or of Hamas & Hezbollah, we must ensure in our comments that we do not fan the flames of anti-Semitism.
I do not support the Israeli government violent action in Gaza, I support a two state solution to the conflict and the rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland. I also support the right of Israel to exist and prosper.
There are four common anti-Semitic tropes, currently repeatedly appearing in social media posts about the conflict:
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
All of these tropes contravene the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism.
I urge all Liberal to apply the prism of the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism to their pronouncements on the current violence and to call out friends and colleagues if they see anti-Semitic posts.
Sadly anti-Semitism runs deep in our culture, it is less than 80 years since the Holocaust. As a schoolboy in the 1970’s I vividly recall a classmate saying he couldn’t play football with us one Saturday because he had to go with his parents to hand out leaflets in the Town centre.
When I asked why, Leshak said: “Because they are the only ones left.” The rest of his large extended family of Polish Jews had been murdered by the Nazi’s and the National Front (NF) were marching in our town that weekend.
Some of us went with him to help hand out the “Never Again” leaflets. This was my first political act and the beginning of my journey to Liberalism.
* Peter Rainford is a Liberal Democrat member.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
13 Comments
There have been a couple of times, I’ve felt scared.
It’s my decision to be open on my beliefs.
The IHRA “working definition” is part of the problem not the solution.
Stephen Sedley’s dissection of it – https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism – is worth reading.
Anti Semitic comments are alive and well.
It’s more than the disagreement over Israel, it’s much deeper. The Jewish Community is generally defined by certain attributes. These are deep seated, and at times dangerous for those from the Jewish Community.
It’s important to emphasise that one can abhor and condemn anti-semitism, whilst rejecting some of the IHRA definition’s examples.
Peter Beinart’s article in The Guardian earlier this week – https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/may/18/a-jewish-case-for-palestinian-refugee-return – shows fairly clearly the extent to which the state of Israel, whilst demanding recognition of a Jewish right to self-determination, denies that same right to all those citizens, residents and refugees who are not Jewish; and the extent to institutional racism is embedded in Israel’s laws.
It is not anti-semitic to recognise and condemn racism, just because that racism is practiced by a state that identifies itself as Jewish.
It is not anti-semitic to assert that the concept of the state as an ethnic homeland is inherently racist, no matter which ethnic group that may involve, and that endemic institutional racism is the almost inevitable outcome.
And recognising that a state’s origins are racist in nature is a far cry from arguing that that state has no right to exist.
This does in any way excuse or condone attacks on Jewish people or institutions. The concept of collective guilt for the actions of a foreign state is abhorrent.
Neither the IHA nor I are saying it is anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli Government . What they and what most Jews would agree is anti-Semitic is:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
No one suggests that the Polish people do not have the right to self determination or that the Polish or any other state is a racist endeavour
Perhaps we would be wise to listen to the victims of anti- Semitism about what it is, rather than taking issue with an intergovernmental and expert organisation such as the IbHRA which has developed the working definition over many years.
from the lived experience of Jewish people
Here is another example of double standards in the was anti-Semitism is treated. Can you imagine the outcry is Liberals were to dismiss a definition of racism with examples drawn up by BAME people from their lived experience and endorsed by experts in the field and 34 international governments it simply wouldn’t happen.
Helen Duddon is right in her comment on this thread that Anti- Semiyidm is alive and runs deep in our culture.
Sadly it seems that David Baddiel was right to choose as the title, for his excellent exposure of a significant part of the lefts blind spot on anti-Semitism, “Jews don’t count”
A fine piece from Peter Rainford.
We ought listen to people such as Helen Dudden. Those who are jewish know what is antisemitism better than others. The IHRA, contrary to what some perceive to be so, is not. It works as a definition and an explanation of what is acceptable and not.
Sorry to say it, but some really do not see that to think they know better, is very patronising. Yes, some who are jewish might not agree with the Ihra, but most do. It does allow strong criticism of israel. Any who say it does not are wrong, because they are doing the criticism, and nobody is prosecuting or condemning them!
If IHRA did what some think, some would be in prison!
There are dozens of Arab states, one Jewish. Even the worst of the Israeli actions, and the current govt is terrible, do not compare with the injustice as inbuilt, towards minorities in those states. Why are Arabs not judged in the way Jews are? Why , if Saudi Arabia, iraq, etc, dehumanise, are Arabs not targeted? Because there are many, not few. Why are Iraelis so vociferous and staunch? Because they are so few. Why? because of the Holocaust.
No Arab state about the Holocaust. every one condemned the founding of Israel. Why? Because it was done in the wrong and violent way. That was a disaster. But those who are not Israeli and are Jewish ought not be targeted, and are. Liberals, or any, ought to see that as wrong. The definition of antisemitism is a non subject. There is antisemitism and it is evil.
“The definition of antisemitism is a non subject.”
It shouldn’t be.
Iain Mollinson puts it that ‘The IHRA “working definition” is part of the problem not the solution.’
I’m not sure we should go that far but neither should it be beyond scrutiny.
The sections which are most contentious are those which can be interpreted as conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
For example “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” and
“Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
So if we accuse the Israel of practicing Apartheid we are guilty, according to the IHRA, of being antisemitic. The section on ‘double standards’ is nonsense. Nearly all democracies have laws designed to promote the concept of inclusivity and equality for all citizens. We should want the same standards for Israel too. This is obviously a problem for Israel with its history of being the homeland for Jewish people.
@Peter Rainford: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
“Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
“No one suggests that the Polish people do not have the right to self determination or that the Polish or any other state is a racist endeavour.”
Peter, your example, comparing Israel to Poland, is a very useful one.
The current Polish government is of course deeply authoritarian and repressive.
I’m not familiar with the Polish constitution, but if the Polish government were to adopt a constitution or basic law stating that Poland is the homeland of ethnic Poles, that self-determination is the right of the ethnic Polish people, wherever in the world they may live, and that any Jews or Arabs living in Poland do not share that right because they are not ethnic Poles, would you argue that anyone rejecting this assertion was anti-Pole?
Would you argue that any such critics should be denounced by all right-thinking people?
There are no double standards in condemning a behaviour by one state that you would condemn in any another.
As has been said ‘antisimetism’ is an evil cancer..To discriminate against anyone because of colour, race or religion is an abomination..
However, unlike Lorenzo Cherin (20th May ’21 – 1:04pm) I believe that Israel is subjected to far less criticism than Arab states,, Stable states like Iraq and Libya were destroyed, and their inhabitants impoverished, on fabricated evidence of ‘protecting minorities’ whilst the ongoing Israeli government’s systematic removal of Palestinian rights goes unpunished..
Israel does have the ‘right to exist’ but, if she continues with her current policies, the Palestinian people will be denied any state…The Israeli ambassador to the UK was questioned on Ch4 and, from her response to questions, any hope of a Palestinian homeland in the area is a non-starter..
@Peter Rainford: “No one suggests that […] any other state is a racist endeavour ”
To pick a few hopefully uncontroversial examples of “states which are/were racist endeavours” and are regularly labelled as such by more than “no one”:
* The Confederacy in the US Civil War was a state set up specifically to support slavery.
* The various colonial states set up by the various European powers to exploit the native populations of those lands for profit back home … and therefore, the various states such as Britain, France, etc. which set them up.
* South Africa in the Apartheid era.
And that’s without getting into more contested but still regularly-made critiques that Britain as a state is *still* a pretty racist endeavour if you consider e.g. the recent Windrush scandal, or the various refugee detention centres, or the current plans to suppress Traveller communities, or indeed pretty much anything else the Home Office does. Criticising British state racism does not deny the right of the British people to self-determination (though British state racism *does* deny the rights of some people to self-determination, of course).
Plenty of the criticism of Israel’s actions as a state, government, institutions, etc. is coming from people who spend far more time criticising the same or similar behaviour in their own countries. Claiming Israel to be uniquely bad – and Britain to be fine – would of course be antisemitic.
@Peter Rainford coming back to your opening paragraphs you reported “On 13th May the Jewish Times highlighted a 250 percent increase in reported anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the recent violence.” This is indeed horrendous and something we should all be concerned about. The Independent Newspaper has yesterday reported that the figures are even worse
“The Community Security Trust (CST) reported a 500 per cent increase in antisemitic incidents since clashes at the al-Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem.”
and in addition reported
“In the same period, Islamophobia monitoring group Tell Mama recorded a 430 per cent rise in reports of anti-Muslim hatred.”
All these forms of hatred are deplorable and it’s one of the reasons why champions of liberalism are so important to fight against them.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-palestine-conflict-uk-antisemitism-incident-b1850333.html
Peter
I think it is a non issue due to its not being , what its critics say. It is a very wide but clear statement, there is much ability utilising it, to criticise Israel.
Expats
I think I meant to convey that Arabs, abroad, are not vilified for the actions of one arab state as much as Jews are because of israel. There is of course, you and John kelly are correct, anti muslim sentiment, but Islam is a religion, not an ethnic group, Judaism is the correlation of islam, not jews. Antisemitism is not like Islamophobia, as Maajid Nawaz shows often, the words, anti muslim hate, is the same as antisemitism.
The problem is we have one state, of one religion or group. We should have more not less states where jews are a majority, some liberal or progressive, some orthadox. But we have a mix of these in that one, israel