There are a number of distinct ways that the idea of antisemitism on the left and in the anti-Zionist movement is denied. One is straightforward. Some argue that there is no antisemitism, that a hostility to Jews is not the same as a hostility to "Zionists" and that the political narratives that emerge from the anti-Zionist movement are not at all problematic.

In this post, I am interested in looking at three other modes of denial:

1) Antisemitism? Sorry I can't hear you

Some deniers of antisemitism put their hands over their ears. They just don't find it interesting. They are interested in racism against "the oppressed" or against "the other" but not against Jews. They think that compared to other racisms, antisemitism is insignificant.

2) Antisemitism? Are you joking?

Some deniers of antisemitism think that it is a joke. They adopt a lighthearted tone at the very suggestion. Don't you know, they ask, that we are anti-racists? It is just funny, that we, who have been involved for our whole political lives in fighting racism are now accused of being soft on racism or unaware of racism.

3) Antisemitism? You are a Zionist and a racist.

Some deniers of antisemitism adopt the first strategy but they augment it with denunciation. Their assumption is that anyone who raises the idea of contemporary antisemitism is doing so sneakily to divert attention from the crimes of the Israeli state. Anyone who talks about contemporary antisemitism is a "Zionist" and therefore an "oppressor".

Beate Zilversmidt of Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace organisation, has adopted the "hands over your ears" strategy.

Beate Zilversmidt (see the comments section here) asks: "Should one ponder about one's Jewish identity and how one now and then feels uneasy with certain expressions of the Palestinian solidarity campaign and of "treacherous" fellow Jews? Or is this perhaps the hour to put aside such finesses and strengthen the grassroots non-violent efforts of putting pressure on the Israeli government."

She adds that "I sincerely believe that these days a Jew who is against such things as cruelty against The Other - to which belong both occupation and racism - has the duty to in the first place fight against such tendencies among his own. Only after that can one do the fight against antisemitism from a strong moral position. This wasn't so obvious in the past when we Jews in no way were related to power. But "nobless oblige." I know that Engage considers itself also against the occupation, but it's pathos and energy seem to be mostly absorbed by the heroic fight against every hint of left-wing antisemitism."

I don't think that fighting antisemitism is about "pondering one's identity" any more than the fight against anti-black racism is about black people pondering their identities or the fight against Islamophobia is about Muslims pondering their identities. There used to be a time when anti-racists opposed all racism - and opposition to racism wasn't thought to be conditional on identity. Also when people did not require a "strong moral position" from which to oppose racism. Why does Beate think that the fight against racism in the UK is to be laughed off as a rather self-indulgent and eccentric little foolishness?

I think that our campaign is about building a labour movement and a liberal and left discourse that is not disabled by antisemitism. Beate argues that the use in the Palestine Solidarity Movement of what she euphamistically refers to as "certain expressions" that make us "feel uneasy", should be ignored in these particularly terrible times for Palestine. They should be ignored, because not to ignore them would hinder the primary goal, which is to fight against the occupation.

Beate's central point seems to be that Jews are not "oppressed" and therefore we ought not to worry about antisemitism. Jews (noblesse oblige - ie using their position of nobility and power, are obliged) to fight for the "other" and not for themselves. Beate is not clear whether non-Jews (who may or may not be "the other") are obliged to fight against antisemitism.

It is in this way that Beate wants to silence talk of antisemitism in the Palestine Solidarity Movement. And the reason? Because she thinks that a Palestine Solidarity Movement free of such distractions will be of more use to the Palestinians. So until Palestine is free, we should shut up about antisemitism.

Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at Trent University in Canada, whose work I first saw because it was recommended by Gush Shalom, thinks that antisemitism is a bit of a laugh. He also thinks that it is insignificant, does not realy exist, and what does exist will disappear when Israel itself ceases to exist. He says the following:

Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee’s last letter.

The progress of Arab antisemitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine antisemitism; it is to trivialize it.

If Arab anti-semitism persists after a peace agreement, we can all get together and cluck about it. But it still won’t do Jews much actual harm.

Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all?

Neumann's modes of denial are both 1) and 2) above. His lightness of tone shows that he thinks the accusation of antisemitism to be a bit of a joke. And his "serious point" seems to be that antisemitism is just not at all worth worrying about. "Don't talk to me about antisemitism, talk to me about ..." is the formulation.

Sue Blackwell adopts a lighthearted whistling-in-the dark tone: "OK chaps, I know you are desperate to pin the 'anti-semitic' label on me but just how low can you sink? Just carry on, you're doing a good job of digging yourselves deeper."

The lightness of tone is a form of denial. "Its just funny that you think I'm careless about antisemitism" it says. I'm not going to relate to what you say: rather, I'm going to laugh (if a bit nervously).

Another example of the light-hearted tone "hands-over-my-ears" response comes today from Deborah Fink, a main organiser of the concert that is to premiere the cantata in memory of Rachel Corrie. She responds to my post about Claire Short. Claire Short was proudly quoted on the "weeping skies" website as arguing that "US backing for Israeli policies... is the major cause of division and violence in the world". Deborah's response is as follows:

Thank you for publicising this cantata on your Web site -much appreciated. As the main organiser of the Nov 1st concert in which it will be performed, I don't have time to 'engage' in a discussion, but must say, that I do find it strange, if not revealing, that David does not specify whose house Rachel was trying to protect. It was a Palestinian doctor - Dr. Samir.

Maybe you'd like to use some other quotes as well, i.e Noam Chomsky, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Miriam Margolyes, all of which are on the blog. It won't be so easy to dismiss these as anti-Semitic! Lots of Jews and Jewish organisations are supporting this, and a couple of Jews, including an Israeli, are performing in the concert.

Hope to see you there! Tickets are available from the Hackney Empire, priced from £10 -£17.50. Tel:(020) 8985 2424. Surplus funds will go to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme.

Deborah, I'm very happy to publicise the concert (and again here). I am very happy that Rachel Corrie's bravery and terrible death underneath an Israeli army bulldozer is being remembered in this solemn and appropriate way.

The thing that I'm not happy about is the fact that you seem not to even have noticed what I had said. I had argued that Claire Short's quotation that you proudly carry on your website was absurd and dangerous. My argument was that Short's claim could only be understood as being part of an effectively antisemitic narrative.

And you seem to admit this with your comment that it won't be so easy to dismiss the others as antisemitic. But you then say that you don't have time to engage (ha ha very funny pun) in discussion. What is funny Deborah? Is it funny that a comment that is "easy to dismiss as antisemitic" is dirtying the website that was set up to the memory of Rachel Corrie? Just a bit of a laugh? Not worth thinking about or discussing? Why don't you just take it off the site, Deborah? Or why not phone up Claire Short and explain to her why her comments are inappropriate. Perhaps Claire Short didn't understand the significance of what she said. Perhaps Claire Short will give you another, more appropriate quote for you to use?

Nick Cohen, in an article about left and liberal antisemitism said the following: "If you challenge liberal orthodoxy, your argument cannot be debated on its merits. You have to be in the pay of global media moguls. You have to be a Jew."

This is the third mode of denial of antisemitism. When you hear the word "antisemitism" look for a Zionist. The very word is often understood as a signal of "Zionist" obfuscation. When someone talks about it, what they are really doing, is defending israel. That is why Nick Cohen's piece was flooded with antisemitic narrative in his comments section. And the main thrust of the criticism was not at all to do with antisemitism. People were trying to drown out his discussion of contemporary antisemitism with loud shouts of "Zionist!".

Disucssion of antisemitism these days, it is widely believed, is nothing but an attempt to defend Israel. Of course, there are some on the Israeli and Jewish right who do devalue the coinage of antisemitism in this way. The worst recent example of this is the settlers resisting their eviction from Gaza who wore the yellow star and claimed to be victims of an antisemitic attack by the Israeli army. But the idea that we on the left ought to accept the Israeli and Jewish right's misuse of the phenomenon of antisemitism is absurd. Some anti-Zionists do accept it.

Engage is in the business of creating and defending a space for the legitimate criticism of Israel. We have to defend that space against Sharon and Netanyahu, who don't want it to exist, and we have to defend that space against some anti-Zionists, who laugh off, or refuse to see, that there is a problem in the Palestine Solidarity Movement of antisemitism. And as long as the Palestine Solidarity Movement smells of antisemitism, it will damage the project to build solidarity and support for Palestinians and Israelis fighting for a free and democratic Palestine.

David Hirsh
Goldsmiths College

UPDATE
Deborah Fink has kindly provided a new illustration for what I argue here. She writes in the "comments" section of the Clare Short piece as follows:

"I think Clare should have used the word 'a' instead of 'the', but to call her comments anti-Semetic is too ridiculous and unoriginal for me to waste my time discussing. I would have thought it was obvious by now that criticising Israel's policies has nothing to do with being against Jews. Anyone who thinks otherwise has sadly fallen for the Israeli government's ploy of trying silence criticism of Israel and scare Jews into emigrating there...."

"So, I decided to bring a new matter into the discussion."

"The issues of house demolition are more serious than the false claims of anti-semitism that you are pontificating about. Quite frankly, I do find this obsession with 'anti-Semitism' self-indulgent, insular, paranoid and time wasting. And there is little point harping on about it if one is not going to look at the main cause of it's increase: Israel's policies - and do something about it. Furthermore, one will not achive justice and peace in the world if all one can think about is one's own pain and insecurity."

"Likewise, instead of putting all this energy into opposing something, (like the boycott!), why not actually put this time and energy into DOING something positive!"

Dov replies to Deborah Fink:

It is a pity that Deborah has chosen to respond in this way. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, a grave error of Jewish political activity has been not knowing whose one's friends are.

At the core of Deborah’s arguments is a contradiction. On the hand, she speaks about the "false claims of anti-semitism", but then, on the other hand, continues by stating that "the main cause of its increase" is "Israel’s politics".

The first point to note is that her argument that there is no antisemitism within the campaign of those seeking justice for Palestine, is of the same cut as those who argue that nothing Israel has ever does, is doing and will do is antisemitic. Not only are both positions counter-factual but each play directly into the hands of their opponents.

The second idea, that Israel is the cause of an increase in antisemitism is also problematic. A classic aspect of all forms of antisemitism and racism has been passing the responsibility for it onto others. It is what I call the "wife beating syndrome" – "I would not have hit her, had the dinner not been cold". In many instances the dinner is cold, but that offers no justification whatsoever for the manner of the response.

Similarly, none of us on the left believe (I hope) that voting for the BNP is a legitimate response to the reality of social deprivation. On the contrary, we believe such a response to be completely illegitimate and, ultimately damaging. We would argue and fight against it unconditionally, whilst at the same time struggling against the very conditions through which such possibilities arise. It is, and never has been a question of either/or. I cannot see why the situation in the Middle East is, or should be any different.

Antisemitism and racism, by their very nature, lie; they are based on an erroneous, malicious and distorted analysis of social and political reality. No one in their right mind believes that poverty is caused by cultural diversity and immigration or that "whites" are suffering at the expense of "non-whites"; likewise, no one of their right mind should believe that the politics of Israel and Palestine are governed by some sort of Jewish or "Zionist" conspiracy (cf Article 22 Hamas Covenant; see also the idea that US policy of the middle east is determined by a few "neocons" acting in the interests of Israel). Not only does antisemitism and racism harm the objects of its hatred, it never, and cannot, provide the liberation and freedom that it pretends to promise.

It is, I believe, that it is because too many involved in the campaign for Palestinian justice refuse, willfully or otherwise, to recognise the presence of antisemitism within it (which is a million miles away from saying that such a campaign is antisemitic of and in itself) that "Engage" was set up. Antisemitism and racism cannot but sully everything it touches – including the cause of Palestinian justice. And, it is in this sense that "Engage" is "doing something positive".

Jon Pike adds:

Deborah,

1. We call Clare's comments anti-semitic because they are. They demonise (not, criticise) Israel. Check out the working definition of anti-semitism used by the European Union in our resources section. But you have effectively conceded this.

2. Have a look at the site before you claim that we think criticism of Israel's policies is anti-semitic. If your claim was true, we'd be accusing ourselves. But it's false.

3. Engage is not a Jewish organisation; some of us are Jewish, some not. The claim that the obsession with 'anti-Semitism' self-indulgent, insular, (and) paranoid is clearly false. We're anti-racists. We're opposed to Israeli racism directed at Palestinians and we're opposed to racism directed at Jews, in Israel and internationally. You choose to close your eyes, or excuse, or belittle some forms of racism. We don't.

4. We have a solid record of 'doing things.' These include the positive, practical steps that you suggest. One of the reasons that the boycott was defeated was that those opposing it - like John Strawson - could speak with more authority than those proposing it because they had records of supporting Palestinian students. I'm pushing, in my union to give concrete and positive support to Palestinian academics and teachers, in the isolated atmosphere in which they work, under the occupation.

5. But the 'Do Something' imprecation is adolescent, either from you or from Jacqueline Rose. Do what? One thing I'd like to do is join and build a serious movement in support of Palestinian statehood. That isn't possible, because too many of the supporters of Palestine in the UK are obsessed with boycotting Israel and are silent, and often worse, about antisemitism. That fatally weakens a movement in support of Palestinian statehood.

I hope the concert goes well.

Jon

Malachi adds:
Fink writes: 'Quite frankly, I do find this obsession with 'anti-Semitism' self-indulgent, insular, paranoid and time wasting. And there is little point harping on about it if one is not going to look at the main cause of it's increase: Israel's policies - and do something about it. Furthermore, one will not achive justice and peace in the world if all one can think about is one's own pain and insecurity.'

And there we have it in a nutshell - its actually a handy summary - this should be broacasted across the anti racist movement and the Jewish community - Fink and friends do not care and are not concerned about the rise in anti-Semitism and to the extent its a problem its the fault of the Jewish state.

Deborah Fink still seems not to have heard a word. She writes:

You have not actually said why you think Short's comments are anti-Semitic. All she has done is made a judgement about Israel's policies, which have nothing to do with whether or not Israel's population is predominently Jewish. Whether or not you agree with what she says is irrelevant.

Yes, you could build a movement in support of Palestinian statehood but I think you are barking up the wrong tree when you state that the boycott movement is an obstacle to this. The obstacle is the continual building and expanding of Settlements. And how are we going to stop that? I suggest, pressure on the Israeli government, one form of which is boycott, of which there are many types.

There are lots of things one can do...like putting on a concert to raise awareness! Thanks for your good wishes.

Eve Garrard Adds:
And further to Linda's excellent point, how is the Chinese occupation of Tibet affected by America's backing of Israel? And how is the killing of Moslems by other Moslems in Sudan affected by America's backing of Israel? And the oppression in Myanmar/Burma? And the brutalities in Zimbabwe? And the horrors going on in North Korea? And if these things, which involve really quite a lot of people, can't readily be traced back to Israel, then just how does Clare Short have a case? And if she doesn't have a case, then just why is she so ready to blame the world's violence on American support for Israel?

UPDATE
Beate Zilversmidt sent the following email to me: Hi David
You ascribe to me the opinion that "a bit of antisemitism just oils the wheels for the moment and helps us along in these particularly terrible times for Palestine". Can you tell me on what this is based? bye, Beate.

I replied as follows: Dear Beate,
I apologise to you Beate. You don't seem to imply (at all) that "a bit of antisemitism just oils the wheels for the moment and helps us along in these particularly terrible times for Palestine."

I have changed this sentence to the following: "Beate argues that the use in the Palestine Solidarity Movement of what she euphamistically refers to as "certain expressions" that make us "feel uneasy", should be ignored in these particularly terrible times for Palestine. They should be ignored, because not to ignore them would hinder the primary goal, which is to fight
against the occupation."

I'm sorry for my sloppiness.
Best Wishes,
David

Beate replied: Thank you David, but I am afriad there was done already damage to my name and to the name of Gush Shalom. To correct that you should not only change the text but also explain on Engage that you were wrong with what was the earlier version published on the site. bye Beate