The "Blame Game" - Why just blaming Muslims or Leftists for the rise in antisemitism is dangerous

A cursory glance at social media posts from pro-Jewish/ Israeli pages will soon reveal how contributors are understating or oversimplifying the root causes of modern day antisemitism. Many blame modern hate against Jews as being the fault of  "the Left", without ever clearly defining who they really mean. For some it refers to those on the hard left (Communists, anarchists etc), while for others it includes liberals, social democrats or those who associate their ideas with the Democratic Party.

But there is another sizable group joining the "Blame Game" and these are those who broadly support the Radical Right and point a grubby racist finger at Muslims, despite evidence showing most hate crime against Jews has led to the arrest of White British or American citizens. This is not to say that some Muslims are not antisemitic, or that a disturbing number of incidents have occurred where some Muslims have used various techniques to threaten or intimidate Jews, but, I would argue they are a minority amongst the larger Islamic population who wish to live peaceably. For those Muslims perpetrating threatening behaviour I would argue our judicial system is capable of inflicting harsh custodial sentencing and I would urge this to be put into action.

In the UK there are currently approximately 4m Muslims accounting for roughly 6.5% of the overall  population. Of these, it is believed about 200,000 could be described as 'radical', though not necessarily criminal. Unquestionably this is entirely unacceptable and no society can, or should accept rule by a minority desiring the implementation of Sharia Law. Indeed, this writer would argue if you do not like the rules of a country the solution is very simple - leave or we should help you. But all this is an entirely different argument and for another time.

In the UK last year there were roughly 4,000 reported hate crimes perpetrated against Jewish people and there are signs this may be on the increase, BUT there is no evidence Muslims are the key perpetrators, suggesting accusations of Muslim created antisemitic violence against Jews is both fallacious and dangerous.

As for arguing the fault lies with the "Left" this is also problematic. In the UK there is sound evidence of antisemitism in the history of the Labour party, the trade union movement, as well as other socialist movements. Indeed, it was Marx he myself, one of the founders of modern socialism who said: "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money". He added, "The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew".

                                             Karl Marx

Now we do know in the last few years the Labour Party in the UK has had a significant problem with internal antisemitism. We also know the far Left have consistently pilloried Israel and pushed many lies to further the 'Palestinian' cause, arguing anti-Zionism is not antisemitism despite this they have  continually pushed a range of anti-Jewish tropes to justify their actions.

It is clear these opinion are not universal across the entire Left. In the UK there are number of sizeable Leftist groups and individuals who work hard to eliminate antisemitism (eg Stop the Hate, Runnymede Trust, Antisemitism Policy Trust), while in the US groups like Combat Against Antisemitism, Shine a Light, and the Philos Project do they part to eradicate hatred.

So while acknowledging there is evidence of Leftist Antisemitism, it would be wrong to argue this is universal, or that all left wing politicians are, by definition antisemitic.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum both the UK and US have long and deep roots in both fascism and Nazism. In the UK early signs were visible with the British Fascisti in the 1920's then, from this grew  the antisemitic British Union of Fascists under the leadership of Oswald Mosley who achieved an active membership of 50,000; statistics that obscure a far larger public support that could have taken the party to government had there not been a war and/or Defence Regulation 18b.

Similarly in the US, the violent and virulently antisemitic Ku Klux Klan attained an estimated 8m members and secured a strong influence within the US government. Admittedly, in both countries the membership of fascist groups declined but, this writer would argue their ideological roots have persisted and are fundamentally embedded in the culture and social mores of both countries.

                           .   Ku Klux Klan parade in Washington D.C., 1926.

Even postwar we can see evidence of active far-right antisemitic engagement in the political system of both nations (in the UK there is an early postwar lineage going back to Mosley's Union Movement moving through to the BNP and NF and more recent Patriotic Alternative, New British Union and Britain First; and similarly in the US we see the far right continuation of antisemitism within large sections of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, as well as countless far right groups present in every state. Add to that a more violent and dangerous type of antisemitic hate group in the terrorist organisation, Atomwaffen.Division).

Quite clearly, we see how postwar fascist or Nazi groups were forced out from the traditional political ingroup to a seemingly unwelcome outgroup - it became no longer politically acceptable to espouse race hate, but let us also never forget that previous members of these far right groups did not lose their sympathy for virulent antisemitism, they simply learned to remain silent, or find a way to sanitise it. Indeed, we have seen how a number of extremist far right politicians sanitised their past by later appearing moderate and mainstream.

The first action these 'hidden' fascists chose was to show how the US and Europe had learned from the Nazis and become civilised continents where hatred of Jews was in the past.

One effect of this pastification of antisemitism is that if people say that there is antisemitism in the air today or that they themselves are victims of antisemitism, they must either be mistaken, over-sensitive, delusionary or worst of all dishonest. Those who complain about antisemitism, or fight against antisemitism, or even wish peacefully to study antisemitism, cannot be right since it is already established that antisemitism no longer exists except on the fringes of right-wing extremism. The secret agenda some people see behind the ‘charge’ of antisemitism is that of defending Israel against its critics. We are told that the charge of antisemitism is abused in order to defend the indefensible. In this way, antisemitism appears as a ploy designed by Zionists to let Israel get away with murder. 

One dodgy presumption behind this argument is that Israel cannot be defended openly, so that its defenders have to resort to underhand tactics.  Another is that criticism of Israel is not ‘as such’ antisemitic or more strongly that no criticism of Israel can under any circumstance ever be antisemitic. A moment’s thought should disabuse us of this prejudice. It’s a bit like saying that no criticism of, say, India or Zimbabwe can ever be racist. If we criticise governments in India and Zimbabwe for being authoritarian or for abusing human rights, there might indeed be nothing racist about such criticism. But if we were to say that Indians and Africans are incapable of ruling themselves, we would be right back at ingrained notions of the superiority of the white race or of European civilisation.  

We must therefore come to the dangerous conclusion these 'hidden modern-day fascists', both left and right, have a vested interest in denying any existence of  antisemitism, for to do so would assume some kind of personal responsibility. When the data showed a rise in violence against Jews they were forced (as we saw being done by Leftist Jew-haters) to obscure their hate agenda by redefining antisemitism and their first port of call to achieve this is always Israel. They do it by arguing anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Put quite simply, the circle is then complete and both Left and Right are united in their hate.

What makes this disturbing in my mind is how elements within "our side" (ie Jews and our supporters) water down, or use sophistry or obfuscation to identify the genuine causes of antisemitism to suit their own political ends - and so,  the "right" blame the "left", or the "left" blame the *right", while, racists can blame it all on Muslims, thus preventing anything being done, so nothing changes, scapegoats keep being found and, as has happened for two thousand Jews continue to live in fear waiting with heads bowed for the next pogrom.

Political comment

If anything has become clear in the last two thousand years it is that an understanding of the 'oldest hate' will not come from a single explanation. Social scientists have worked for many years to do that and without success beyond a final realisation - there are many possible reasons.

When dealing with such a critical issue as the hatred of the Jewish people, there can be nothing more dangerous, more cruel and more heartless than to encourage reductionism. It excuses some of the offenders and people who perpetrate this reductionism protects those who are guilty, ignored or remain unidentified. 

It was Aristotle who said: “Not being of the same tribe is a cause of strife until they “breathe in sync” for just as a state does not develop from an accidental mob, so too it does not come together at an accidental time.”

Transparently antisemitism is one of the biggest 'strifes' society  has ever seen compounded by reductionists refusing to see the big picture and taking a deeply flawed 'blame a single bad guy' approach. In doing so they excuse hatred and harm those who fight to end antisemitism - and to those reductionists both left and right, I can only say one thing - for obscuring, justifying and minimising the hatred of the Jewish people, a plague on all your houses.

And the beat just goes on and on - how Jew-hate on campus goes unabated 50 years on

A BBC documentary has caught a considerable number of students on US campuses still celebrating the 7 October Hamas attacks on innocent civilians and chanting support for what they referred to as “the resistance”, and using the antisemitic comparison that Zionism is the same as Nazism.

The second episode of Speechless, recently broadcast as part of the BBC Storyville series examined how the war has reverberated across American universities, focusing on protests, encampments and, in particular the documentary centred on clashes between pro-Israel and pro-"Palestinian" students.

The documentary demonstrated how, in less than 24 hours of the 7 October attacks, a joint statement by Harvard student groups declared: “We… hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence ... the apartheid regime is the only one to blame.”

Pro-Palestinian protest at Cornell University, as featured in Speechless: Part 2 – The Pendulum, with demonstrators holding anti-Zionism banners and Palestinian flags. Credit: BBC Storyville / Good Soup Productions

In footage from on campus demonstrations, activists were heard chanting: “Glory to the martyrs. Glory to the resistance. We will liberate the land. By any means necessary.”

In further footage in the documentary, one protester, addressed the rabble and asked: “Do you guys remember the photos of the bulldozer breaking through the Nazi border?” before describing 7 October as producing “joyful and powerful images”.

Another "student" tried to defend the use of Nazi imagery associated with the attacks, saying: “We are so horrible for showing a paraglider. What about their jets? Israeli jets have killed thousands and thousands of Palestinians, but that’s okay?”

At one point, the documentary showed how a message was distributed throughout the campus encampment advising students that a documentary crew was on site and telling them to “be wary of what you say” and describing the director as a “Zionist”.

The film later showed how the crew were prevented from accessing the illegal student encampment.

In the documentary a Jewish student who called herself "Maya", described being confronted by other students after she identified herself as a Zionist.

"The term “intifada” is debated within the film, with one student described it as “the breaking off of chains”, while another says the phrase “intifada revolution” constitutes “a genocidal chant”.

The documentary also highlighted the experiences of Jewish students on campus. One student says: “There is a defence of everyone’s rights but Jewish people’s rights,” while another added: “I’ve had much more difficulty being Jewish than I have trans.”

Bienstock, the director of the documentary who is Jewish, reflected on the reaction to 7 October, saying: “Watching 7 October described as ‘exhilarating’ was hard to process”. Indeed, when students at Cornell University learn Bienstock is Jewish, they brand her a Zionist without engaging with her to learn her views. Later, many of them shy away from her altogether. 

Regrettably in some ways, rather than centering on the Jewish experience of campus life, it argues that while antisemitism on campus is a genuine concern, it has become intertwined with wider ideological and political battles over free speech, protest and academic freedom - in effect minimising the Jewish student experience of hate, bullying, direct antisemitism and pro-Pally intimidation.

Political comment

About fifty years ago I returned to university, first as a student then later as an academic member of staff. Prior to my arrival, I would have described myself as largely Jewish in name only - I didn't attend shul and my knowledge of Jewish history and culture was little more than perfunctory, but that was all about to change.

This was the era of the rise of the far right in Britain and while they were never to achieve the success of the British Union of Fascists, they were extremely vocal and becoming increasingly popular. What I experienced in those early days at university stunned me and totally changed my life, because I knew to expect antisemitism from declared fascists, but what I had not expected was the bitterness and hatred of 'supposed' leftists and anti-racists.

At a national level, the National Union of Students (NUS) who were responsible for protecting student affairs at a national and local level had an across the board policy of 'no platform for Zionism', which effectively meant no Jewish student society could discuss issues about Israel of invite Zionist speakers. So when I fist approached my local Union president indicating a desire to set up a local Jewish society I was firmly advised that they thought it a bad idea, but if I chose to proceed, I would have to agree to uphold NUS policy.

Now I apologise to American readers for this somewhat long biographical titbit, but I use it to explain a key and extremely important point - In over 50 years and across the world nothing has changed - the oldest hate still festers in our colleges and universities unabated.

In the US, Students for Justice in Palestine continue to hold a large sway in student politics, including intimidating Jewish students unabated. Polls undertaken during the height of the campus protests showed 8% of the entire national student population had participated with 45% supporting them. In response, and in an attempt to protect our Jewish students a substantial number of law suits were filed in an effort to silence the pro-Palestine bullies but most have failed, arguing speech and slogans at the heart of the controversy are protected by the first amendment. But sadly the courts have failed to see the point. If you are Jewish and you need to walk from point A to point B and that means traversing an area filled with dozens, if not hundreds of students calling for a global Intifada, or the death of every Jew in Israel then you are not safe.

Fifty years ago I was told I would be physically hurt if I set up a Jewish society and it is still the same today.

We have failed to support our Jewish students and we continue to do so today - and more importantly, no-one seems to care. So my question is - what will it take for politicians to realise campus antisemitism is rampant and pretty words and investigative committees are no longer enough.

A case of double standards

With the Jewish State of Israel once again having to defend it's people and it's border, it felt obvious to me that I, as a democrat, should make definitive statement on my position. For that reason, I will deviate slightly from my usual theme to discuss the legitimacy of the Israeli response to the savage attack on the Supernova Music festival and Kibbutz Kvar Aza

Some media outlets are already arguing the Israeli response to Hamas attacks on Sderot and Kfar Aza are disproportionate.. But, let us assume that in response IDF troops had gone into Gaza and entered a Palestinian music festival and butchered 260 young people then taken a further 200 hostage. Let us further assume 40 of those victims were babies and tiny children who had been beheaded and mutilated. Even further,  let us assume that these IDF troops had repeatedly raped some of those women.

With this in mind, would the world propose the notion of proportionality? Of course not.

The simple reality is that Israel has always been expected to have a higher ethical (and more forgiving) standard than its enemies - even when those opponents are unashamed terrorists whose founding rhetoric argued:

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” (source: Hamas Charter, 1987)

Transparently the current conflict is having a devastating effect on innocent civilian life in Gaza and there will be hardly a member of the  worldwide Jewish Community that will not shed a tear for every innocent Palestinian child affected by this war. Since before the formation of the State of Israel there has been a passion for Jews/ Israelis to live alongside the Arab world in peace and harmony. To that end, Israel has repeatedly reached out and offered to give away land so this may happen. However, leaders of the Palestinian people have always refused any chance of peace.

There comes a time when it becomes imperative that we say "enough", a time when we must say "we will no longer accept the unacceptable".

Today, that time has come and the Palestinian people, alongside Hamas, the PIJ and Hezbollah have a simple choice  - they must decide between unconditional surrender of the Palestinian people and the handing over of every terrorist to the Israeli authorities, the unconditional surrender of Hamas and the withdrawal of Hezbollah forces from the Lebanon - Israeli border ... or a continuation of the conflict. 

Nothing less is acceptable - Am Israel chai.

Israel and the Labour Party

As a left-winger in the Labour party I find that whenever the issue of Israel and Palestine are raised I am often at odds with comrades and friends. Each time the subject is raised I find the discussion always veers towards how awful Israel is, or how aggressive the Defense Forces are, or how Zionism equates with racism.

However, there is an alternate, and I would argue more socialistic view.

Let me explain. There can be little or no justification for the current oppression of legitimate Palestinian rights by the Israeli government. Equally, incursions by individual terrorists and members of Hamas into Israeli territory and the use of bombs and rockets against the civilian population is just as unacceptable. As Gandhi stated so eloquently, ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.

One of the arguments raised by the Israeli right is that they are duty bound under Torachic law to defend themselves under the principle of an eye for an eye (ayin tachat ayin). But this totally misses the central tenet of the concept. The Torah argued that if you offend another and damage their eye, so must you harm your own. Thus under this analysis the Netanyahu government should be treating the Jewish settlers in an identical fashion to the way they treat the Palestinian people. This is clearly not happening.

In the 1980s a Marxist political group (Mapam) proposed a peace settlement where Jew and Arab could live together in harmony, sharing the wealth of the country in socialist co-operation. Experiments such as Kibbutz Tuval in the north of Israel thrived and prospered and Palestinians and Jews forget racial/ religious barriers and worked together for mutual benefit.

One of the key factors behind this success was the underlying philosophy of the kibbutz movement, with its strong association with Habonim Dror and the socialist-Zionist movement. However, a further key to its success lay in the fact that the essence of socialist-Zionism and the peace movement in general rests on the belief that the Palestinian people have a legitimate right to their own separate identity.

These values need today to be reinforced again and it is incumbent on every socialist internationally to campaign for every oppressed people, wherever and whoever they may be. The Jewish people have a right to a homeland; of that there can be no debate. Similarly, there is now a critical need for the UN to help establish and support a fully independent Palestinian state. The only guarantee for the future, security and character of both peoples is if internationally we campaign for reconciliation through a peaceful settlement.

Part of the dilemma for the Israeli right lay in the outposts in the Palestinian territories. These illegal outposts and settlements are major obstacles to ending the occupation and promoting an agreement, as well as an element that contradicts the Israeli national interest. The Labour party, through the Socialist International and the United Nations should fight for the evacuation of the outposts and settlements, while providing the settlers with adequate compensation and seeing to their rehabilitation.

In particular, the Labour party should adopt the following principles:

• The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, including the right to establish its own state alongside the State of Israel.
• Israeli settlers in locations which, after the determination of the permanent borders, fall within the Palestinian State will be able to return to Israel and will receive appropriate compensation. It will not be possible to achieve a permanent agreement without evacuating settlements. During the negotiations the two sides will determine those settlements in which Israeli settlers may remain; settlers will be required to recognize and respect Palestinian sovereignty.
• Jerusalem will not be divided. It will be recognized that members of both nations live in the city, and that both have national and religious rights. The area of the city will be redefined and agreed and coordinated municipal frameworks will be established within its borders in order to enable each community to manage its own internal affairs. Two capitals will exist within the municipal area: the capital of Israel in the Jewish areas, and the capital of Palestine in the Arab areas. The status of the holy sites will be determined through negotiations based on maintaining the religious rights and freedom of worship of all religions.
• The permanent settlement will include a comprehensive solution of the problem of the refugees (from 1948) and the dislocated residents (from 1967). The Palestinian State will be entitled to absorb refugees within its borders according to its own considerations. A compensation arrangement for refugees will be agreed upon with international support. After such agreement is reached, the parties will categorically waive any further claims for the return of refugees, restitution of property rights or the right of settlement in the area of the other state.
• Borders will be open to the passage of goods and workers as agreed upon by the two parties and in line with basic socialist principles. Israel will actively support the Palestinian economy and will help recruit international support and investments to promote economic development of the Palestinian State
  

Tacitus