Freedland: A "Good Jew"
In today’s Guardian (4th February 2009), Jonathan Freedland writes about why the liberal left “must not remain silent” in the face of growing attacks on British Jews. The article is in large part honourable and articulate and shows Freedland at his best. Why is the liberal left silent on anti-semitic attacks after Gaza when they weren’t silent about Islamophobia after 9/11 or 7/7? He doesn’t, of course, answer the question (that would lead to very dark and troubling waters) but he does at least raise it. That, in these strange times, is something to be grateful for.
But the last paragraph in Freedland’s article is troubling. Having said that anti-semitism should be denounced tout court, and that distinguishing between Zionists and Jews is dishonourable and belongs to an ancient tradition within anti-semitism of “good” and “bad” Jews, Freedland is then in a terrible hurry to make sure that Guardian readers know that he himself “denounced Operation Cast Lead from the beginning.” Freedland, in other words, is a good Jew from the left’s point of view and he wants us to know that.
He ends, “It is perfectly possible to condemn Israel’s current conduct and to stand firmly against anti-Jewish prejudice. And it’s about time liberals and the left said so.” Having rushed with indecent haste to identify himself as a good Jew (anti-Israel’s attack), Freedland ends with an alliance between Jewish critics of Cast Lead (like himself) and the liberal left. The causes and nature of liberal left anti-semitism have been left uninvestigated and the status of Jewish supporters of Israel’s policy in Gaza has been left to the sidelines. That is not a “perfectly possible” position, it seems. They are to be tolerated and are not to be attacked for their beliefs.
The cracks within the left which have opened up over Gaza (and before that over 9/11 and 7/7) have been carefully, far too carefully, papered over. The nature of growing elements within the the new British left—irrational, hysterical, sentimental, bordering on anti-semitism—has been ignored.
Coming from one of the most articulate and decent critics of Israel this is deeply troubling, at best. What would happen if he didn’t establish his liberal left credentials as critic of Israel? Would he become a “bad Jew”? What would that be like? As he writes, “I shouldn’t have to say that.” So why say it, Jonathan? And what about what he should say—about what has happened to the British left? That has to go unsaid, because that’s the price you have to pay to be the good, nice Jew and stay within the left.
The problem with decent, honourable positions within the British liberal left is that when considerable elements of the left itself behave indecently and dishonourably, you are left trying to paper over the cracks. The next step for Freedland is not to fall back on human rights, but to ask what has happened to the British left—and why?
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
I don’t get this. Who’s papering over what, “far too carefully”? And why should “the British liberal left” – by which I take it you mean the enormous amorphous group of vaguely liberal people who disapprove of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians – spend any time examining “what’s happened to the British left”? There is a disastrous war going on – if there’s any spare time, I’d rather worry about that. Don’t “fall back on human rights”, you say – instead you want us to all do some more Nick Cohenising?
It’s a pity that there are racists among those who oppose Israel – but there are racists in a lot of places, and many virulent Arab-haters in Israel who – strangely enough – share some of your opinions. Does that make you think less of your views? Every time you dismiss decent, honourable opponents of Israel’s current war and blockade of Gaza as anti-semites, or dismiss their views because some anti-semites also share them, you detract a little more from any chance of productive debate. Stop it. It’s a bad habit. Paper it over, at least. Not carefully.
“decent, honourable opponents of Israel’s current war and blockade of Gaza” are anything but honourable.
Israel has become a cause célèbre for the left. If Gaza is blockaded, why does Israel still supply them water and electricity?
If Gaza is blockaded, why doesn’t Egypt open her border and help her Arab brothers?
Sorry, but all this pity for the Palestinians is nothing but crocodile tears and a means of attacking Zionism/Americanism/capitalism.
And where, oh where is the concern of the left for those poor slobs being slaughtered and oppressed in Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe? Protests, flag-burnings, riots in the streets…oh, no. Have to save that all for those dastardly Israelis who are reacting to 8 years of rocket attacks on their border towns and villages…absolutely pathetic. Our progressive friends in Europe would rather ally themselves with the most regressive regimes in the world who persecute women and gays and silence all opposition–makes sense, right?
Freedland’s article is bad. This post is despicable.
Freedland does not, thankfully, say that making a distinction between Jews and Zionists is dishonourable, though he does make the (worrying) distinction that fear of anti-semitic attacks should prevent us making this distinction in public.
Freedland identifies a real phenomenon. The left hasn’t said much about anti-semitism. I believe that’s because there is already a concensus against it. The left, as a rule, likes to stand up for causes it believes are being ignored. Take crime. Lefties don’t protest against crime, because the idea that crime is bad is well established. They protest about offender’s rights or prison reform or police brutality, because they believe these are invisible causes, or ones where the extent of suffering isn’t widely known.
The figures Freedland cites for anti-semitic attacks in the wake of Gaza are saddening. But I find it astonishing that, while puzzling about why the left is silent about it, he doesn’t seem to consider the possibility that the left simply didn’t expect that level of attacks – did anyone? To draw the immediate conclusion – as the article seems to by implication – that it’s because of some sort of bias, if not anti-semitism, seems alarmist at least.
If Freedland ignores the most obvious – and least pernicious – explanation for the phenomenon he identifies, though, this post can’t even be bothered to properly identify the phenomenon at all. What is this “irrational, hysterical, sentimental, bordering on anti-semitism” behaviour in the british left, exactly? Is Herman referring to the attacks Freedland describes? If so, why is a young anti-semitic youth sympathetic to Gaza automatically deemed part of “the left”?
The idea that Freedland is in “an unseemly hurry” to restate his anti-Cast Lead credentials is also false. He makes one brief reference to it in his last paragraph. Of course it’s relevant information. Somebody who supports Israel’s actions is more likely to perceive anti-semitism on behalf of those who oppose them, and many of us who do have become used to tuning out those accusations. So he needs to demonstrate that he’s not looking at the left through the prism of the conflict itself.
Freedland says that it’s possible to condemn Israeli actions and also condemn anti-semitism. The position of the jews suffering attacks doesn’t come into it. The “the status of Jewish supporters of Israel’s policy in Gaza” has not been “left to the sidelines”; Freedland clearly says that no jew, regardless of their views on Gaza, should be attacked. Indeed, he goes further, suggesting that we should shy away from separating the concepts of “jew” and “zionist” to avoid inciting anti-semitism.
I’m utterly, utterly baffled why a serious publication like Prospect would allow a post as muddled and silly as this on its blog.