|
Edited on Wed May-25-05 07:40 AM by Coastie for Truth
http://www.nysun.com/article/14020>
Britain has a Jewish problem. More specifically, Britain has a problem with Jews. Few Britons will admit to that, fewer still would accept the proposition, and many will doubtless be offended by it. But what other explanation is there for a country where barely a week goes by without some form of opprobrium being visited upon Jews? Whether manifested as anti-Zionism or as anti-Americanism or in classic form - exemplified by the louts who shouted hateful slurs at a ceremony on April 10 commemorating Jewish war dead in East London - in the last 12 months Britain has witnessed the full spectrum of anti-Semitism, from brutish insensitivity through to a record number of physical attacks.
Naturally, there is resistance to speaking of smashed Jewish gravestones in the same breath as an academic boycott of Israeli universities. But it is legitimate to do so, because both examples reveal an unhealthy fixation with a miniscule percentage of the British - not to mention global - population and a disproportionate emphasis on supposed Jewish misdeeds. The litany, by now, is a familiar one. Highlights include: London Mayor Ken Livingstone comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard; Lord Ahmed hosting a lecture by a virulent anti-Semite who railed against Jewish media barons; and the resignations of Jewish members of the National Union of Students Executive Committee because of their anger and frustration at unchecked anti-Semitism on campus.
Much of this hostility is camouflaged as criticism of Israel. It is often expressed by eminently reasonable, educated people who would hotly deny the charge of anti-Semitism. For the record, Orla Guerin, the BBC reporter who was recently made a Member of the Order of the British Empire, despite overwhelming evidence of bias in her reporting from Israel, should not be accused of hating Jews. Neither should that charge be made against the actor Alan Rickman, who has brought the story of Rachel Corrie, the American activist killed in Gaza in 2003, to the London stage.
Even so, Britain's liberal milieu has yet to face up to some uncomfortable questions: are Jewish sensitivities about Israel-bashing given the same consideration as, say, Muslim concerns about associations with terrorism? Are Jews being held to a unique standard? Are these negative portrayals and abuse of the facts - particularly the canard that Israel resembles apartheid-era South Africa - fueling dislike, distrust, hatred of the Jews? To the first question, the answer is no; to the second, yes; to the third, absolutely.
<snip><<
Going on, Foxman makes the point that hostility to Jewish national aspirations, and those who identify with those aspirations, runs deep in the UK. He notes that when politicians or academics or celebrities argue not just against Israeli policy, but against Israel's very legitimacy, that increases the feelings of vulnerability among many British Jews.
Going beyond proper questioning policy
to questioning very legitimacy
leads to feelings of vulnerability
is this somehow unusual or unjustified.
Foxman thinks not.
Of course, Brits, like liberals and progressives everywhere conflate Israel (and Zionists and ultimately and illogically and incorrectly all Jews) with (neocons and PNAC and US foreign policy and American Jews) Foxman argues that enmity toward Israel is a natural bedfellow of the anti-Americanism which is now an established feature of British political life. Foxman argues that one would have to be myopic to deny that all the talk of "neoconservative cabals" and "conspiracies" has a distinctly anti-Semitic flavor.
But there is another important factor: While Britain was spared the Holocaust that accompanied Nazi occupation, there is a misguided sense of responsibility for the Palestinians' fate, given Britain's historic role in the Middle East. (I have posted citations to William Engdahl's book "A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" and to Sir Mark Sykes of Sykes-Picot Agreement infamy that I hesitate to refer to them again).
Those in Britain who regard the Palestinian narrative as an unassailable truth will point to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as proof of their country's complicity in the Zionist enterprise, while totally ignoring the Sykes-Picot Agreement as methodically dissected by Engdahl.
The problem with selective history is just that, selective.
1. Foxman correctly asks when was the White Paper of 1939 - which led the British authorities to virtually close Palestine to Jewish immigrants at a time when this escape route was never more needed - last mentioned in public debate?
2. Foxman asks how widely known is it that Britain threatened to intervene on the side of Egypt during Israel's 1948-49 war of independence, when five Arab armies simultaneously attacked the new Jewish state?
Foxman asks, why is there such a willingness to embrace the Palestinian version of events when respected historians of the region - including Benny Morris, whose work is often cited by Palestinian sympathizers - state clearly that there was no Zionist grand plan to drive out the Arab population?
Is it somehow just remotely possible that Israel emerged in spite of, and not because of, the policies adopted by the British Foreign Office in implementing the Sykes-Picot Agreement or the British Mandate authorities in Palestine in implementing the 1939 White Paper.
While Palestinians may blame the British, as well as the Zionists, for their fate, it is indisputable that Britain's actions also cost thousands of Jewish lives. That was the tragic consequence of a policy based on the idea that Jews are different and, therefore, not deserving of their own country. As long as that idea remains in play, Britain's Jewish problem will persist.
And let me draw a crude and coarse and politically incorrect analogy - how long would a member of DU last with posting privileges if that member conflated Rev Martin Luther King Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Charles Rangel or John Conyers with Ward Connerly, or Clarence Thomas, or Condi Rice, or Bush Judicial Nominee Janice Rogers Brown?
Apology - I realize that Foxman was writing about England -- do you think the US body politic is innocent with vanity web sites (sometimes linked to or cited in IP) of Allison Weir, Paul Findley, or Swift Boat Veteran for Truth fellow traveller James Ennes?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
