Jews in Britain: better-informed
The Jewish community in Britain has never been more vibrant. From the recent success of Jewish Book Week, to the growing number of faith schools, to the exploits of the iconoclastic collective, Jewdas (jewdas.org), which puts on events in squats that mix radical Jewish learning and wild klezmer-DJing—all signs point to a flowering of Jewish cultural life.
Yet many of its leaders detect unprecedented levels of anti-semitism in Britain today, and warn that Anglo-Jewry is under threat like never before; indeed, that it must fight for its very existence. Why is this? asks Keith Kahn-Harris in this week’s web exclusive.
Weigh in with your thoughts and comments here.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
I am the author of the article. On re-reading it I realised that I neglected to check the editing thoroughly enough and at some point between me submitting the article and its publication, a small but crucial amendment crept in to the article that changes my argument in a way that I did not intend:
The first sentence on paragraph 3 reads: ‘But this cultural flowering, typically a sign of a self-confident and energetic community, has run in tandem with a vocal, reactionary campaign to convince the public that Britain’s Jews are under threat as never before.’ The word ‘reactionary’ wasn’t added by me and I would never have used the word. To make things clear: I don’t believe that campaigns about anti-Semitism are reactionary.
The rest of the article I stand by
I should begin by declaring an interest: I am Director of Communications at Community Security Trust, and in that capacity I am one of the main Jewish community spokespeople on antisemitism.
Keith Kahn-Harris’s article is superficial. To answer it in summary – yes, of course, culturally things are great. Nobody denies that to my knowledge. However, nobody beyond the Jewish media bothers to report it.
As better as things have become culturally, so the Jewish community has regressed in terms of antisemitic incidents and other harder to define socially and politically isolating negative impacts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is reported in all of the media, Jewish and non-Jewish.
I know what is and isn’t reported from my repeated personal experience. Since Gaza conflict began on Dec27th, I have given scores of interviews to press, radio and TV. In many of these instances (basicallly wherever the interviewer’s time allowed) I stressed that the community shouldn’t be defined by antisemitism, that in many regards things have never been better, and that its precisely for this reason that we want to protect and cherish what we have. In only a handful of cases did my positive comments about the Community not get edited out from the finished product.
The accumulative effect of the media coverage is to give the impression that our community is only notable for antisemitism. This is a very bad thing, but its a bit silly to claim that its all (or even primarily) the fault of Jewish community leaders. Its not – its simply how the media works, and the impression that people then get from it. For example, Jewish Book Week isn’t a story for mainstream media – but daub a swastika on the Book week walls, or mount a boycott protest outside, and it’ll get extensive coverage.
Yes, Jewish culture is great; But, Jewish position re political isolation and vulnerbality is not so great, and keeps on getting worse. This isn’t a case of either one phenomenon or the other – both are true.
The Jewish culture aspect is within the control of the Jewish community – the damaging politics is basically beyond the control of the community. (And when we attempt to identify it, draw attention to it, and generate allies for action against it, we end up with articles like this one form Keith Kahn Harrris!!)
The mechanics of the community mean that many of the staff, activists, attendees and funders for these positive developments are constantly overlapping with the staff, activists, attendees and funders who back organisations that deal with the negatives. So, basing an article on a dichotomy between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ players is a bit over the top and a bit too simplistic.
I’m not sure about the angle on multiculturalism. Personally, I think the motivation is a lot less ivory tower than that, and its far more likely that British Jews simply see everything from Notting Hill carnival and Seinfeld, to Gay Pride and Jackie Mason and quite rightly say that they want a piece of that positive empowerment action.
Furthermore, Jews have always been in the forefront of new media – newspapers, cinema, and now they are using electronic media to good effect, enabling new levels of social, educational and political networking that doesn’t rely upon the traditional deep pockets of a few community big wigs to make happen. Again, this doesn’t have very much to do with multiculturalism per se.
Should Jews demand the same rights as all others in a multicultural society? Yes, of course. Should Jews be in the forefront of ensuring freedoms for all in UK society? Again, of course. But I’m not sure how accurate it is for the article to somehow infer that this isn’t already happening, and its especially wrong to infer that Jewish communal leadership isn’t somehow pulling its weight in that regard. Myself and colleagues from within CST and other communal bodies spend a great deal of time on interfaith and advisory group type work within multicultural Britain ethos framework.
The Chief Rabbi is quoted in the article for having once 3 years ago talked about a tsunami of antisemitism – but what about the zillions of positive statements he’s made about Jewish life, what about his renewal project etc etc. Its simply unfair to characterise him only in this way.
Are there “deep divisions” in Jewish Community about the cause and gravity of antisemitic incidents rise? Well, I haven’t met anyone who disputes the “cause” is Israel-Palestine conflict, but certainly the “gravity” and the meaning we take from it are disputed, but even here its stretching things to say that this is a widespread internal dispute. Basically, those who say its not serious, tend to already be a highly vocal but small minority who are in political dispute with the organised communal structures on everything else anyway.
Finally, the article is constructed in such a way that it blames Jewish “leaders” for the perception of fear. Believe me, this isn’t a top down phenomenon. Sit in my office and deal with the emails and phone calls from the many Jewish people who feel more isolated and vulnerable than they have done in recent memory. Talk to Jewish students and their parents and grandparents. Talk to Jewish kids who are the only Jew in their class at school. Talk to Jewish workers, lawyers, businessmen, cultural players etc etc etc, all of whom talk about an elephant in the room, a chill factor, that simply didn’t exist ten years ago.
Its far too simplistic to blame this on Jewish “leaders” – as if Jewish “leaders” have such an influence on what Jews think! Two Jews, three committees, four opinions: Cherish it, and please don’t make out that the good vs bad dichotomy is anything like as simple and easily scapegoated as this article implies.
Mark
I suggest you read my article more carefully. I am not suggesting that antisemitism is simply stirred up by Jewish leaders. I am not suggesting that there isn’t real fear about antisemitism in the grassroots. I am not suggesting that Jews shouldn’t talk about antisemitism. I am not suggesting that there is a simply division between the ‘good’ Jews who are into Jewish culture and the ‘bad’ Jews who are into antisemitism.
I have repeatedly let you know in the past Mark that I have no quarrel with the CST. It was me who let you know about the article, not to provoke but because I thought you would be interested.
In short this is not intended to be yet another article from a leftist Jew attacking the mainstream community for using antisemitism to attack criticism of Israel. I think there is so much of this sort of thing on the web already that you are predisposed to read my article through the lens of what you have read before.
What I was trying to do in the article was to try and draw attention to and unpack the strangeness of the simultaneity of increased Jewish concern about antisemitism with the vitality of Jewish education and culture. The relationship between the 2 is not simple, but I was arguing that they are both the result of a self-confident Anglo-Jewry that is comfortable with British multiculturalism. In other words, whether or not you agree with Jewish leaders’ campaigns about antisemitism, it is certainly a symptom of something very positive.
This was an upbeat, not a critical article. The upbeat tone is similar to that in your colleague Dave Rich’s article in Haaretz a few months ago that made a similar point – and that I e-mailed him to congratulate him on.
I understand that you and the CST get a lot of flack but trust me when I say that I am not the enemy. Far from being simplistic, I was trying to raise some complex issues for a primarily non-Jewish readership.
I hope this clarifies things.
Keith
Dear Keith,
I’m genuinely sorry if you think I jumped to unfair conclusions.
I read the article and had the overwhelming impression that it was essentially contrasting what jewish leaders say about antisemitism, with all the great things that are happening culturally – almost as if the cultural is despite the leadership.
If I got that wrong, then I do apologise, but upon reading the article again, in my defence can I say that the opening para states “Jewish leaders and institutions now claim that Anglo-Jewry is in unprecedented danger” and when you show the great things re bookweek and limmud, you then follow it up with:
“but this cultural flowering…has run in tandem with with a vocal campaign to convince the public that Britain’s jews are under threat as ever before”.
Anyway, I do sincerely enjoy your work, and I put any diffrences over it down to that best of all Jewish cultural traditions – debate and dispute!!
I know that we’re on the same side in all of this, and I do deeply value your article as a further motivation and aid to helping explain to people that our community is a complex, vibrant place, and that it should not be primarily defined by antisemitism (and, perhaps more so, must not self define by antisemitism).
In friendship and solidarity, Mark.
Mark
I’m pleased that you have taken my response to your post seriously. I have to admit that the responsibility is partially mine if my writing is rather ambiguous. Given the sensitivities about this sort of thing it behoves any writer to be as clear as possible.
We both agree that the community is undergoing a cultural revival. We both agree that there is a real problem with antisemitism. There is a lot we don’t agree on but we can leave that for another time and place!
B’Shalom
Keith
Keith
- if our dialogue helps illustrate all that diversity to those who bother schlepping their way through it: then all the better!
B’Shalom indeed, Mark.
To evaluate the strength of a Jewish community it is not enough to look at only two factors.Cultural activity and degree of anti- Semitism are important but there are many other factors, including demographic ones which should be considered. There is not a word said here for instance at the trend towards polarization between a Haredi Orthodox community and a secular one indifferent to Jewish communal concerns. There is nothing said about the intermarriage rate. And there is no real examination of the kinds of education young Jews are getting. So I do not think we really have much to go on here.
From my own point of view I object to giving equal credence to , as it were pro- Israel people and anti- Israeli Jews. The first are those who care for Jewish communal life, Jewish history, Jewish identity. The second are most ordinarily those ignorant of Jewish tradition and concerned only that they will not be embarassed by their anti- Semitic friends of the Left wrinkling their noses at them.
One more point. Any reader of most of the British media, and certainly any listener of the BBC know well enough that traditional British ‘fairness’ goes by the boards in relating to Israel. Melanie Philips is by the way not some off- the – wall geek as she is made out to be here, but in fact the most cogent and coherent writer on British attitudes towards Israel and the Jewish people.
I appreciate that this is a very complex story and there is plenty I did not talk about. However I had a less than 1000 word limit! One article can’t talk about everything. I am co-writing a book on this very subject at the moment.
http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/jewish-establishment-diversity-and-rebellion/
Sorry Keith but you cannot be allowed to get away with this:
“While figures from the Community Security Trust show there has been a rise in attacks on Jews in Britain in recent years, there are deep divisions within the Jewish community about the causes—and indeed the gravity—of this.”
The figures show much more than a ‘rise in recent years’ Keith – they show a record number, since the start of the Israeli operation in Gaza in December. And there are not ‘deep divisions’ as regards the cause and the gravity. There is a small fringe like Tony Lerman (”Israel bears responsibility for that anti-Jewish hostility”) but the vast majority believes that the rise in antisemitism is due to what Denis MacShane calls the ‘new antisemitism’. See his article in the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5740603.ece
“Jews are again made to feel they are not full citizens of the countries of their birth because they refuse to support the right of Hamas and Hezbollah to use terror attacks against Israeli civilians. The canary in the coal mine seems in danger of its life once again.”
“Jews in Britain have never been more culturally confident or politically diverse. Why, then, are so many of their leaders scared?”
This is Prospect’s tag for this article. It is really misleading. KK-H is not saying that leaders are ’scared’. He is saying that the new-found confidence is impelling leaders to try to get antisemitism taken seriously by politicians and the wider public. Then he isn saying that there are deep divisions as to the cause of the antisemitism.
I don’t agree with his thesis – but your tag lines do not represent it properly.
Jonathan
I take your point that Tony Lerman et al are a small minority. But I don’t think Anglo-Jewry is not quite as united as you think. For one thing I think that anti-semitism campaigners, the ones who are most exercised by the issue, are also a small minority.In any community it is usually a minority who are most engaged and active. I also have a wide range of contacts in the community and have been struck as to the range of views on this and other issues. I have met plenty of Zionist, communally involved Jews who roll their eyes when the CST are mentioned and feel that they are exaggerating the threat – not that they are necessarily right I hasten to add. An example: my son goes to a Jewish primary school and since the start of the year they have beefed up security outside his school and all parents have to take a turn standing outside the school. A couple of weeks ago it was my turn and while I was standing in my fluorescent jacket, a quite senior figure in the community (whose kids go to the same school) turned up and started chatting. He said that he thought the extra security duty was ridiculous. I said that there was a real physical threat and I was happy to go by what the CST suggested. He maintained it was ridiculous. Now I’m not saying he was right and I’m not making claims for how many people like him there are, but I am saying that his viewpoint is not as unusual as you seem to think.
Also, as a sociologist I have to say that we simply have little idea what the views and experiences of antisemitism are in rank and file members of the community. We haven’t had an in-depth social attitudes survey of Anglo-Jewry since 1994. We do know that in the research conducted by myself and Steven Cohen in 2003-4 most communal members, whilst very concerned about anti-semitism and Israel, were still feeling settled and secure in the country.
In general, I think that a lot of these debates are conducted in a vacuum. We have little information as to what is really going on in Anglo-Jewry. We have good statistics on attacks but not the wider picture.
By the way was it really necessary to start your post ‘Sorry Keith but you cannot be allowed to get away with this’. ‘Get away with’ implies some sinister intent. I understand you don’t agree with me, which is fair enough, but why not use more moderate language?
Finally, I think your other post about the tag lines not representing the piece has some truth to it.
This defies logic
How can the correlation between antisemitic incidents and the extent of fear be anything other than positive? With incidents rising to a record high, how could the fear factor possibly lessen? The guy at your son’s school is simply atypical and complacent.
Sorry if you think my language immoderate. I am still seething from reading the Lerman piece. So now he blames Israel for antisemitism, says Jews want there to be antisemitism and ends by hinting at the equivalence of the Warsaw Ghetto with Gaza. Incredible.
Since we’re mentioned in Keith’s excellent article, a quick oar in from us.
Mark Gardner’s intentions may be good, but he might like to spread the message of internal community diversity to his members who consistently suppress dissent and alternative views at the events they police.
But CST are merely the thin end of the wedge, in a network of organisations who refuse to acknowledge that any divergence from a conservative uncritical pro-Israel agenda is a legitimate position for a Jew. As represented by the gentleman above, who labels such divergence as not being “real” Jews.
Have a look here at both the real spectrum of alternative views within the Jewish community and the violent reactions of those who try to suppress us – http://www.jewdas.org/news/hoax_admission.htm
We’re not a lunatic fringe, we’re a growing body of Jewish people refusing to remain silent for fear of top-down condemnation from unelected communal ‘leaders’. We don’t need you, and we don’t want you.
Jonathan
‘How can the correlation between antisemitic incidents and the extent of fear be anything other than positive? With incidents rising to a record high, how could the fear factor possibly lessen?’
I’m not denying that there is a correlation, but I am saying that it is an open question how intense the fear is and how widely it is shared.
To Jewdas
15 supportive emails versus the 17,000 who came to the rally (despite your best intentions). What on earth does that prove?
And no-one is trying to suppress anyone. The views of IJV and their fellow travellers are heard ad nauseam. Just look at Guardian CIF, the Independent, the JC letters page or JustPeace. Tony Lerman’s piece in the Independent on Saturday being the latest example.
If you want to change things then use the democratic tools available to you. Get yourself elected as a Deputy for example. Stop carping from the sidelines like a kosher version of Stadtler and Waldorf. Had you considered the possibility that 95% of British Jewry simply does not agree with you?
As for ‘unelected Community leaders’ you are wrong. All the senior Board positions and ZF positions are elected.
“I’m not denying that there is a correlation, but I am saying that it is an open question how intense the fear is and how widely it is shared.”
So then if antisemitic incidents are at a record it follows that the extent of fearfulness is at a record. The average level of fear is hardly going to fall, is it.
17,000 at the rally?
95% of British Jewry disagrees with us?
Any independent verification of these figures?
Surely, the perpetrators of racially motivated violence are solely responsible for their own actions? Their pretexts and excuses are irrelevant.
That applies to those who attack Jews in the streets nowadays.
Or if, hypothetically, someone decided, based on recent events, to randomly attack Irish people in the UK, because of some perceived connection to Irish republicans in Northern Ireland.
The blame for racially motivated violence lies squarely with the perpetrators of such crimes, whoever the victim is and whatever rationalisations are brought forward.
17000 is the organisers’ estimate. Back to the fountains in Trafalgar Square is 4000 and the Square was full so 17000 is not an unreasonable estimate. And you’re trumpeting 15 supportive emails.
You claim the CST “consistently suppresses dissent” and that there is a “network of organisations who refuse to acknowledge that any divergence from a conservative uncritical pro-Israel agenda is a legitimate position for a Jew”
Those positions are so ludicrous and so plain wrong that 95% is – if anything – an understatement.
Modernity- Keith Kahn-Harris in this article is not blaming the victims; that’s what Lerman is doing, but KKH is saying something different.
Mark- Re parallel discussion at Engage (now closed: you got the last word!) I have to apologise here, as it is Jonathan’s comment and not yours that I had in mind: that “the guy” at Keith’s school is “untypical”. Sorry!
Jonathan- On that point, it is certainly the case that many Jewish people are scared, that there is a correlation between the spikes in incidents and this fear. But it is also the case (as with street crime in the general population, where fear of crime far outweighs actual crime, and particularly among those people statistically least likely to experience it, such as older people, richer people and women) that the fear may well outstrip the actual danger and that the fear is partly fueled by the communal leadership. This does not mean that the communal leadership is acting in bad faith in doing this – and Keith never suggests that there is any bad faith in this regard (again, Lerman does, but Keith is not Lerman). (And Jewdas’ suggestion that the CST are acting in bad faith is rather offensive, when most of what CST does is fairly low key.)
Jonathan/Jewdas- I notice the JC doesn’t give a figure for the London rally, but claims 4000 for Manchester. Jewish Socialist says 4000 for London, contrasting it to 50,000 is 2003, which seems very high. There are about a quarter of a million British Jews, so 17,000 is a lot less than 95%. Whatever, clearly a lot more than 15 people support Jewdas’ position: their club nights at the ICA have been pretty packed, I’m told.
Bob
I do not accept at all that “fear is partly fuelled by the communal leadership”. I have good reasons for saying that.
4000 was the police figure which the BBC printed. It was clearly daft. I think the police estimate was taken a long time before most people arrived.
I am saying 95% did not agree with Judas’ call to cancel the rally. So what if only 17,000 out of 250,000 came! One, it ws bitterly cold; two, people were concerned about security; three, not eveyone lives near London; four, it was short notice and many were committed; five, people have childcare responsibilities on Sundays; six, there were some people who were fooled by Jewdas’ disgraceful hoax … and so on and so on.
“Their club nights at the ICA have been pretty packed, I’m told.” ….
C’mon, that says nothing about attitudes to Jewdas’ political stance! It’s like saying that attendance at Young Conservatives’ dances indicates Conservative voting intentions.
Anyway the 250,000 figure is entirely irrelevant. You are assuming only Jews would have come – but there were a number of people from other faiths (and none) there too.
Yes, all these figures (including 15 e-mails) are irrelevant. Yes, an overwhelming majority of the Jewish community in Britain broadly supports Israel. Yes, there are good reasons to be scared.
But, there are many, many people who broadly support Israel who are very unhappy with the current policies of the Israeli government. One reason Lerman is wrong is that mainstream Jewish community leaders are starting to say as much: Keith’s piece at CiF http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/13/judaism-israelandthepalestinians was right to draw attention to mainstream figures calling for a Gaza ceasefire. The JC’s coverage of Lieberman’s success in the Israeli elections, including fairly widespread condemnation of him from communal leaders, is also significant. This internal criticisms is important, valuable, representative of a significant trend in Anglo-Jewry – and makes a mockery of the Lermanian idea that “speaking out” is stifled.
On fear being stoked by the community: I am not saying all fear is based on communal scare-mongering. But I am saying that communal emphasis on our reasons to be fearful must exacerbate our fears, sometimes beyond rational cause. This is not a criticism of the leadership, least of all of the CST, but has to be factored in to any analysis.
First, all those signatories did was call for a ceasefire around two weeks before it happened. Hardly ‘very unhappy with the policies of the Israeli government’! Second they are hardly ‘mainstream’. Third the condemnation of Lieberman was not ‘widespread’ – all it named was Hochhauser, Wittenberg, Bayfield, Rich, Preston. Others were non-commital or in the case of Kerner and Balcombe said that Lieberman was “portrayed as far more right-wing than he really is”. Fourth, criticism of Lieberman is hardly ‘unhappiness with the policies of the government.’
There is a group of Jews who for their own reasons, seek to downplay antisemitism, blame Israel for it and disassociate themselves from Israel.
I think that is thoroughly distasteful and disloyal.
“There is a group of Jews who for their own reasons:
1. seek to downplay antisemitism,
2. blame Israel for it
3. and disassociate themselves from Israel”
Charge 1 – Not Guilty
Charge 2 – Not Guilty
Charge 3 – Guilty.
But that doesn’t make it disloyal. In fact that makes it even more loyal to Jewish ethics. Sorry if you don’t like that.
We’ll agree to differ. I call it disloyal. “Sorry if you don’t like that”.
Who is this homogeneous 95%? Does this 95% include:
The half-dozen Jewish parents (with gentile partners) who stand at the gates of our children’s secular Hackney school?
Does it include vocal JEWISH communists calling for a boycott of Israel and supporting the German academic and trade-unionist who has been accused of Nazi-level anti-semitism for supporting a boycott of Israeli corporations? Does it include Haredi Jews who regularly walk from Stamford Hill to Trafalgar Square on Shabbat to stand alongside supporters of Palestine (I’ve seen them with my own eyes)and are at loggerheads with their own ‘mainstream’ because they believe the messiah will never come while Israel is constituted a nation state?
Presumably it does include my faith-school educated nephew (aged 11) who has never experienced discomfort or prejudice of any kind directed against him personally who recently asked me: “What should I do if a threatening looking stranger comes up to me in the street and asks me if I’m Jewish?”
Presumably this 95% of all Jews excludes myself raised in the same faith school thirty years ago, revolted by the actions of the Israeli government in Palestine but deeply ambivalent about a boycott. DON’T TAR US ALL WITH THE SAME BRUSH – or is it the case that, with the exception of my terrified nephew, none of us (in spite of being circumsised and bar-mitzvahed) are ‘real’ Jews. SIXTEEN e-mails. And anyway so what if it is 15 against 17,000 or 17 million. Might is not always right.