Chatting with an acquaintance the other day about a bunch of rogues known vaguely to both of us, he suddenly described one dubious character as ‘a Jewish lawyer’ .
I’m used to hearing this kind of thing; for example a neighbour once described a prominent musician who’d been harshly critical of his child’s playing as ‘a Russian Jew.’
Not wishing to be either confrontational nor overly sensitive, I let such moments pass without ado. But later, without wishing to emulate Emily Thornberry, and heaven forfend, fling around desperate accusations of misogyny, or in this case antisemitism, I did wonder what made averagely amiable people describe these ‘baddies’ as Jews. They seemed almost to be defining obnoxious characters by their Jewishness. Was this the undercurrent of antisemitism that lurks below the surface of many a middle-class Brit rearing its head, or was it all in my imagination?
I mean, were these unpleasant gentlemen wearing kippot? Did they have side-curls and long black coats? Was there any visible symbol of religiosity that made enough of an impression to explain defining them as a “Jew?”
I’d bet there was nothing of the sort. Just that they knew, by their name, reputation, ‘who’s a Jew detector’ or some other tell-tale sign, that these disagreeable individuals were Jews, and therefore their nastiness, greed and mean-spiritedness would be ‘understood’ in a conspiratorial, just between friends manner as Jew behaviour.
Call me paranoid if you like, but it’s happened so many times over the years that my automatic “make allowances” switch kicks in and the conversation moves on, but it lodges somewhere in the back of my mind, like the build-up of fur in a kettle (limescale if you prefer.) It rankles; sticks in the subconscious craw.
Maybe I was still on high alert when I heard the Sunday Programme. Edward Stourton introduced one of the items as follows:
Edward Stourton:
“Most universities begin the new academic year around this time. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the union of Jewish students are marking the moment by sending round advice on how to combat the activities of the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions movement, which in the words of its website urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law. “
Already Stourton has regurgitated a sanitised, innocent-sounding version of the BDS movement, “action to pressure Israel to comply with international law.” The fact is that most BDS activists wish to see Israel dismantled altogether, or at least not allowed to be a “Jewish state”. “From the river to the sea”. Why don’t they listen?
Then there’s the matter of international law, an undefined faux legal bogeyman to be brandished at Israel’s supporters by the self-righteous.
“We’re Joined by Joel Salmon, the Board of Deputies’ parliamentary officer and Ben Jamal who next month takes up the role of director of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.
Joel Salmon, Why now? What makes you think this is necessary?”
Mr Salmon explains that Jewish students feel intimidated. The interview proceeds. Stourton turns to Ben Jamal:
“Is it your intention to intimidate Jewish students?”
What kind of a question is that? Is the man going to say ‘Yes, we set out just to intimidate Jewish students’? Of course not. He’s not a complete fool. He’s certainly not going to admit that his intention is to intimidate Jewish students as Stourton very well knows. Since he’s obviously going to claim the intention wasn’t to intimidate, does Stourton think that aggressive BDS campaigning is fine? “I’m sorry if our unintentional intimidation intimidated anyone?”
Are they blaming Jewish students for feeling intimidated?
Stourton takes the same line of questioning again when he asks if Jamal endorses the disgraceful scenes at King’s College London. Might he really tell the world that he endorses it? Of course not. Obviously.
To illustrate his theory that Jews are making an unnecessary fuss and crying ‘antisemitism’ without good reason, Jamal cites the checkpoints stunt at the Methodist church, set up in a pale imitation of Lucy Winkett’s Bethlehem Unwrapped fiasco in St James’s Church Piccadilly in 2013. “That’s not antisemitic, is it?”
Ben Jamal:
“my concern is this is an attempt to frame any advocacy of boycott or any criticism of Israel as inherently hostile. Let me give you a current example. We have at the moment a Methodist church in London, an exhibition that is being set up, which is a manifestation of a checkpoint - a checkpoint has been set up in the church in order to illustrate the daily experiences of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank going through checkpoints. It’s being set up because a member of the church spent three months as a human rights monitor. Now in recent days since this was announced we’ve had a catalogue of communication with the church defining this as an antisemitic act.”
Oh, innocent face! As if checkpoints are there for no reason at all, other than to ruin the lives of Palestinians.
All Joel Salmon can summon up in defence of Israel is that the conflict is complex. It seems as if the groundswell of anti-Israel hostility is so overwhelming that in the current climate where reason has been abandoned, it’s almost not worth bothering to embark upon a reasoned argument at all. Waste of time.
I understand that completely.
This relatively insignificant exchange in the backwater of radio 4 early on a Sunday morning reminds me that all matters concerning the Israeli - Palestinian conflict are based on the assumption that Israel is wrong. The general assumption is that Israel is malevolently ‘doing’ things to the passive, helpless and innocent Palestinians.
Everything the BBC deals with is rooted in this assumption, therefore any outrage over antisemitic incidents, be they in the Labour Party, on campus or on the BBC, is solely focused on the unfairness of blaming non-Israeli individuals for the ‘abhorrent actions’ of the Israeli government.
The BBC hierarchy seems to be completely unaware that the Arab/Palestinian version of the conflict - from the history right up to the present - is not an impartial one. Surely to God they must realise that other versions are available. Choosing to base your entire output on the Palestinian ‘narrative’ is not best practice, if impartiality is to be aspired to.
Stourton and his BBC colleagues have cultivated, for appearance’s sake, deceptively benign images that are supposed to exemplify impartiality. Pieces like this perceptive article by Jamie Palmer might prompt Edward Stourton and his colleagues to reflect on and perhaps question their own prejudices, even if the BDS fanatics are beyond redemption.
