- The Observer,
- Sunday February 24 2002
These problems have not been helped by the recent climate of highly polarised views on the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war on terror summarised by Mr Bush's 'you're either with us or against us' speech. This encourages people to take sides at the expense of balanced debate.
British Jews do not wish to be disloyal. They feel that now is not the time to abandon the nation that, whether they like it or not, is their spiritual home. However, any report which objects to Sharon's brutal treatment of Arabs is viewed as anti-Semitic while reports sympathetic to the Israelis are pounced upon by the liberal élite as pandering to the 'highly influential Jewish lobby'.
Dr Neil Solomons
London N8
Peter Beaumont highlights a process that has gone on since the creation of Israel. Some years ago I wrote about the Jewish massacre of Arabs at Deir Yassin, and my editor received a torrent of abusive mail, organised by a British pro-Israel lobby. Among the letters was one from a reader who (a) was writing to complain about my article and (b) could he be sent a copy of the magazine because he hadn't actually read it.
Karl Sabbagh
Newbold on Stour
Warks
If it is not possible to be absolutely opposed to the current handling of the Palestinian intifada by the government of Israel without being accused of being anti-Semitic then I plead guilty. Of course I am not anti-Semitic but I am anti the shooting of children by soldiers and anti the illegal occupation of another people's land.
David Johnson
Romsey, Hants
Peter Beaumont says it is unreasonable to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism (it is) though he cites no one outside sections of the Israeli press that makes such a claim. He makes the equally unreasonable assertion that to draw attention to the undeniable escalation of anti-Semitism in Europe is 'an attempt to deflect criticism from the actions of the Israeli government', which adds insult to injury.
He dismisses all documentation of this escalation as coming from tainted sources, eg 'the ubiquitous Mr Conrad Black', rather than asking whether the information is accurate. Rational people judge the message without denigrating the messenger. As for anti-Semitism in France: rather than treating it as part of a private quarrel between Mr Sharon and President Chirac, Mr Beaumont and your readers could consult last Tuesday's Le Monde (not owned by Mr Black and no friend of Mr Sharon), which devoted its lead story and two pages to serious coverage of this topic.
If Mr Beaumont really wants to fight anti-Semitism 'wherever it is found', he should start with the currently most dangerous manifestations of it: holocaust denial, tales of ritual murder, and dissemination of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, now commonplace components of public discourse in much of the Middle East.
Peter Pulzer
Gladstone Professor Emeritus of Government
University of Oxford
In asserting that anyone accused of 'new anti-Semitism' is simply anti-Sharon, Peter Beaumont is making the same mistake of which he accuses others. He's right to point out that you don't have to be anti-Semitic to be anti-Sharon or anti-Israel, but seems to suggest that being anti-Sharon or anti-Israel proves you aren't anti-Semitic.
I think the feeling that he hints to on the part of Jews worldwide is the opposite of the problem he presents, of Jews taking anti-Israel sentiment as directed personally against them: that it is becoming legitimate for anyone in the media to express personal anti-Semitic feeling so long as they veil it in anti-Israel commentary. Of course this is a minority, and of course much of the anti-Sharon sentiment is more than valid, but a concerted effort is required on both sides: while the equation of anti-Israel commentary with anti-Semitism must stop, the serious press must clamp down on racists using discussion of Israel as a legitimate forum for expression of their bigotry.
Ben Ross
Sidney Sussex College
Cambridge
Peter Beaumont says 'the fear of being declared an anti-Semite' is 'Europe's last great taboo'. The last taboo is surely honest criticism of Zionism which has depended on anti-Semitism for its existence from the time of Herzl through the Nazi era to the present? Indeed, Zionist leaders courted alliances with anti-Semites, including Hungary's Nazis, to further their expansionist aims. Israel needs more Jews to maintain its character, and it could be argued Sharon's policies provoke anti-Semitism so Jews in Europe migrate to the relative safety of the Zionist State.
Stifling discussion of such issues by the threat of the 'anti-Semite' label is just one way that Zionists have sought to manipulate the media for their own ends, hijacking the faith of Judaism in the process. Zionism is not Judaism, and never will be. Criticism of one can and should be kept entirely separate from the other.
Ibrahim Hewitt
Leicester
While Peter Beaumont talks about attacks being perpetrated by disaffected Islamic youths he omits to point out that the failure to address this disaffection has little to do with either Israel or the Jews. Last year's riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford had nothing to do with either. They did, however, have a lot to do with the disaffection of Islamic youth in this country. While there are many aspects of Israel's policies with which it is difficult to agree, it is not acceptable that 'the unforgivable sin' is the fault of Israel and the Jewish community.
Paul Stock
Oldham
The attack on Rabbi Gigi, like similar racist attacks, should be condemned unreservedly. But for the Israeli government to call in European ambassadors to complain about a rise in anti-Semitism is reminiscent of the chutzpah of a child who, having murdered both his parents, pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan.
Tony Greenstein
Brighton
If the Western press really were to restrict itself to criticism of Israel's policies, as Peter Beaumont claims, there would be no charges of anti-Semitism. However, when no logical explanation can be found for the repeated misrepresentation of events in the Middle East, and the constant demonising of Israel while Palestinian suicide murderers of innocent children are not mentioned, it is not surprising that the suggestion of anti-Semitism is raised.
Naomi Benari
London NW4
The 'new anti-Semitism' is, as Peter Beaumont suggests, a masquerade for the blood-stained old clothes of Israel's Emperor Sharon. The old anti-Semitism of the czars and of Hitler created Zionism, and with it, the state of Israel. European guilt was appeased and the wretched Palestinians pay.
For many centuries, Jewish and Arab Semites lived cheek by jowl in relative harmony. Their quarrel is not an 'ancient hatred'. It dates from the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Because I am Jewish, the Zionists call me a self-hating Jew rather than anti-Semitic. I do fear the growing hatred directed against Jews, but this time it is hateful Jewish conduct that is creating it. The biggest threat to Israel and the Jewish people is the self-destructive Jewish jihad being waged on our fellow Semites and neighbours in Palestine by Sharon and the Israeli Army.
Paul Dennis
London W13
As an analysis of the so-called 'new anti-Semitism', the logic of Peter Beaumont's article is accurate. Unfortunately, it falls short by way of omission. There is still a significant residue of the traditional 'let's blame someone for the poor economy' anti-Semitism and it is clearly not confined to 'disaffected Islamic youths'. The conflation of Israel and Jews provides excellent cover for the re-invigoration of more traditional racists.
That is not in any way a justification for standing down from bashing the Sharon government for its excesses; but it does clarify the two-front war that Jews must constantly wage. On reflection, it is really a three-front war: convincing a hawkish government to confront issues on their merits; convincing other Jews that such activity is not anti-semitic and convincing the world that 'anti-semitism' does remain a real problem just like any other racial scapegoating.
Jim Mervis
Princeton, New Jersey
United States of America
