Written by David ‘Goldie’ Goldsmith
Britain’s tabloid press has, in recent years, been constantly accused of venting bigotry aimed at Jews. But it is surprising to find certain elements in the ‘quality press’ using their medium of communication to ‘Jew-bait’ and criticise Israel in a way that is hurtful and damaging. The media has tried to define the differences between blatant anti-Jewish rhetoric and acceptable disagreement with Israel’s political actions. Yet, for many, Israel and the Jews are intrinsically linked. Within the Diaspora, Israel is seen as the ‘spiritual’ home of the Jewish people. This adds an emotional element to anti-Israel articles and comments within the media, resulting in journalists having to tread a fine line, fearful of being classed as ‘anti-semitic.’ This contentious topic has led some commentators to redefine ‘anti-semitism.’ Exponents of ‘Judeophobia’ see recent anti-Zionist texts as masking ‘a hatred or fear of Jews’ which has infected the British news media. Scholars and writers, such as Winston Pickett and Geoffrey Alderman, argue that anti-semitism has taken on a new form within the media in Britain. It has been suggested that recent articles are merely ‘pure unadulterated anti-Jewish prejudice’, indicative of a ‘new anti-semitism.’
Peter Beaumont, The Observer’s diplomatic editor, rejects the idea of such a ‘new anti-semitism.’ He sees the idea merely as an attempt to deflect criticism away from the actions of an Israeli government by declaring criticism as out of bounds. “Criticise Israel,” he wrote, “and you are an anti-Semite just as surely as if you were throwing a pot of paint at a synagogue in Paris.” This came in response to Geoffrey Alderman’s article in The Jewish Chronicle in which he accused Richard Ingram, a columnist in the Observer, of being prejudiced toward Jews. Mr Ingram is a former editor of the Private Eye, renowned for its decades-long sarcasm and bitterness toward the Jews. He had confessed to not reading letters sent to him in favour of Israel if the writer had a Jewish name. He went on to say that Jews should declare their ethnicity when writing for papers.
Those who refute the claim of anti-semitism in modern life point to the low levels of reported anti-Jewish attacks on the streets of Britain. It is true that legislation largely protects against ‘Nazi-style’ publicly visible symbols of anti-semitism. However, there are those who see Ingram’s brand of prejudice as ‘new’ and different to previous forms due to its position in a quality broadsheet. It represents a distinguishable brand of behaviour toward Jews, termed as ‘Judeophobia.’ It is described as a ‘fear and hatred of Jews,’ and Ingram has been able to channel these views through a respectable medium accessible to all areas of society. It is distinguishable from the old anti-semitism where Jews were openly castigated on the streets. It is an ‘institutional’ process through which “the Jewish community suffers discrimination due to editorial misjudgement, omission, and oversight.” Julie Burchill, a former writer at The Guardian, highlights the hypocrisy surrounding Judeophobia “where the political is personal and the personal pretends to be political,” where the Jew can be both a communist revolutionary and a capitalist pig. Melanie Phillips points to the protean nature of anti-semitism, emerging years after the Holocaust in a respectable new identity- anti-Zionism. But, in the words of one of the greatest exponents of civil rights and Christian-Jewish relations, Martin Luther King, “anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so.”
Judeophobia does not imply that everyone working in left-liberal newspapers is part of this new anti-semitic approach where hostility to Jews is commonplace. It does not even claim to show an anti-Jewish conspiracy at work.
“In the words of one of the greatest exponents of civil rights and Christian-Jewish relations, Martin Luther King, “Anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so.””
It does, however, have hurtful and damaging effects on many Jews. Judeophobia relates to the systematic bias which runs through many of the liberal media outlets like the BBC and the New Statesman whose journalists share the same political agenda. This new form of anti-semitism does not, however, include any criticism of Israel’s defense policies as such. It is not the political argument that hurts the Jews; it is the way in which it is conducted within certain newspapers that strains relations.
Julie Burchill wrote a final article in The Guardian in November 2004 regarding why she was moving to The Times, stating the “quite striking bias against the state of Israel” as the reason for her ‘defection.’ She describes this discrimination against the Jewish State as an inherent racism of sorts- a “shape-shifting virus” all too common amongst the elite of many left-liberal newspapers today. Richard Ingram, in his aforementioned refusal to read letters regarding Israel from people with Jewish names, demonstrates a prime example of ‘Jew-baiting’ by caricaturing Jews as being single-minded on the issue of Israel, sticking together in a Sharon-loving cohesive horde. He fails to differentiate between Jews, some of whom might, for example, have signed up to the British boycott movement against Israel- deeply offending the principles of such politically active people who were categorized as something they clearly were not. Such stereotyping is highly antagonistic to many in the Jewish community.
The Observer is a serial offender in regard to anti-Jewish articles. The case of Tom Paulin, poet, media pundit and english lecturer at Oxford University, provides some hurtful reading. The poem ‘Killed in the Crossfire,’ was published in The Observer months after the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000. It refers to the Israeli army as the ‘Zionist SS’ who gun down ‘little Palestinian boys.’ Paulin has used the phrase ‘dumb goys’ in relation to the public’s failure to see through the real intentions of Israel. The wording is particularly poignant as it refers to Adolf Hitler’s use of the phrase in Mein Kampf. Former Observer journalist Miriam Gross described the poem as “vile, and should never have been published.”
“Anti-semitism in the British media is centred on the rawest point of modern day Jewish history- the Holocaust”
It is apparent that this new form of anti-semitism in the British media is centred on the rawest point of modern day Jewish history- the Holocaust. Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin see the equating of the Final Solution with Israel’s defence policies as going “beyond civil discourse and legitimate criticism.” Such farcical comparisons skirt over the true facts. The homicidal tendencies of the Nazis killed six million of the world’s Jewish population in a matter of years. Since Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in 1967, the number of Palestinian Arabs has increased by 250% to 3.5 million. Turning the victims’ affliction into its most brutal weapon is extremely harmful and offensive. Guardian columnist Jonathon Freedland suggests in ‘A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in the 21st Century Britain,’ that anti-Zionists wondering why such derogatory comments might be deemed anti-semitic to Jews, “should imagine the black reaction if the civil rights movement- or any other vehicle of black liberation- was constantly equated with the white slave traders of old.”
Certain journalists are further undermined through the omissions they make in what they report. The Observer columnist Mary Riddell ran a piece defending the freedom of expression. She cited the example of Mrs Gretta Duisenberg, the wife of the president of the European central bank, who placed a Palestinian flag over her balcony. In return, this caused a furore amongst her Jewish neighbours- a case of an unobtrusive act being taken out of proportion by the ‘Zionists’…or so it seems. However, little was mentioned of Mrs Duisenberg’s claims that the Palestinian plight was due to ‘rich American Jews.’ When asked how many signatures she had collected for her pro-Palestinian petition, she allegedly replied ‘six million’- yet another classic case of Jew-baiting. Such comments are justified as freedom of expression. Indeed, the Press Complaints Commission sees Ingram’s views as acceptable, which itself can be seen as evidence of the institutionalised Judeophobia that exists within the British media. However, the PCC should note the comments of Iganski and Kosmin in the International
According to Iganski and Kosmin, Jew-baiting is acceptable, as long as it passes as opinion
Herald Tribune; “Newspapers can be partisan, as long as distinction is drawn between comment, conjecture and fact.”
Put in simpler terms, Jew-baiting is acceptable, as long as it passes as opinion.
FZY's Blog 