one easy lesson
Recently there has been a very small storm in a very small teacup about the UCU's boycott of Israeli academics - and also, in Baroque Mansions, an even smaller one about the tiny print at the very bottom of an email about the AGM of MY union, the NUJ - so much for impartiality, boys! - saying that the NUJ supported a boycott of Israel.
This has, following an uprising of NUJ members which alas I had nothing to do with - I've been so out of it - been rescinded. (Thank God, because it was cracked.) There was even a blog! Who knew! It was written by BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones, who in his final post gives an admirable account of just why the boycott idea was so cracked. (If you weren't sure.)
The papers say anti-semitism is on the increase. Anecdotally, anti-semitism is on the increase. Most of my friends on the left are so rabidly anti-Israeli that it makes me very uncomfortable, and I'm not even Jewish (though, as the joke goes, I pass).
Anyway, Dina Rabinovitch has a couple of humdingers of examples on her blog, fresh from the streets of Hendon (where, by the way, she is also on a quest for a really good blow-dry, a project we here at Baroque can only support).
She also has a link to a video of her husband, Anthony Julius, describing the "new anti-semitism" and why we find it hard to recognise, acknowledge properly, or deal with. Of course he says "we" and he means Jews, but I think "we" is everybody. One of the most prominent lawyers in the land, he is no slouch at putting together a position, and this little ten-minute video outlines brilliantly a particular way in which anti-semitism creeps in under the door, as it were. Watch it below and ask yourself a few questions.
By the way, I think the ideas Anthony raises, if applied to the position Muslims find themselves in today, might equally well apply. The truth is that we are in a rationalising age, where all sorts of polemics are being used to give intellectual support to all sorts of irrational prejudices and fears. This speech gives the beginnings of a cogent analysis of part of this tendency.
The speech was made at a meeting in Euston last week, run by Engage. To see the other speakers click here.
7 comments:
"The truth is that we are in a rationalising age, where all sorts of polemics are being used to give intellectual support to all sorts of irrational prejudices and fears."
Too true. Many of us who were active on the left during the 80s and early 90s battled against the intellectually-vacuous rationalisations that underpinned Thatcher's age of selfishness (Ayn Rand, anyone?). We then had a bit of a rest, only to see large sections of the left have a collective brain fart and start supporting what can only be described as fascist positions. And those of us who protest are accused of being "neocons" and "Zionist shills".
Thanks for posting the video. I liked Julius' reference to Jewish antisemites not being self-haters, but rather self-adorers. Steven Rose and Gilad Atzmon spring readily to mind.
For the record, I am another NUJ member who regards the boycott Israel position as "cracked".
Well, that is good.
But I do not think that being anti-Israeli on certain issues is the same as anti-semitism, and it's really rather dangerous to say that it is. Being anti-Britain (re. Iraq for eg), for instance, is not the same as being anti-British-people, is it?
One shouldn't have to condone a country's policies wholesale to demonstrate that you do not hate its people, or indeed the people of other nations around the world who share the same race/religion. That is cracked.
Otherwise, there's a rather obvious example I could mention.
Francis, oh God, I remember that time! Everyone was going on about Ayn bloody Rand, I spent years just rolling my eyes at one yuppie after another.
Dandelion, being anti-a certain issue is not the same as being anti-Israeli! Being anti-the Iraq war is not the same as being anti-British!
And whether you like to admit it or not, Israel is a rather special case. Much of the debate I hear these days is as to whether Israel has any right to exist full stop. Um... that's not the same as being anti-some issue, is it. Couple that to the survey result published this week, saying that over 50% of NON-JEWISH Britons think that Jewish people are 'more loyal to Israel than to Britain' and it all starts getting a bit tangled up.
The beauty of Julius' speech in the video I posted is that he begins an untangling process.
Untangling people's impulses is the only possible way forward to actually doing something about some of Israel's policies. The fact is, feelings are running far too high on both sides, and the danger is to all of us in the world. Therefore it is doubly imperative to address this issue clearly.
My lefty friends marching with super-rightwing mullahs (whose daughters are not allowed on the marches) doesn't really seem the way forward on that one... anyway, everyone knows if you go too far left you end up on the right. It's part of the earth being round.
And not condoning Israel's policies 'wholesale' whilst still not hating its people (good start, that: which people would you 'hate'?) is no foundation for a boycott of Israel's academics - many of whom, it has been pointed out, are themselves specifically against Israel's policies!
Sorry. Your thinking is not clear, your expression is not clear, your use of words is sloppy, and you are at far too much pains to assert that there's no issue here.
What do you even know about it? You have still made no indication of why your opinion on the subject carrieds any weight. Are you Jewish? Do you know many Jewish people? Do you live among Jewish people? Have you read widely on the subject? Are you an academic? I've seen you post on other blogs too, and your opinions are always just that: opinions, unsupported by a single source, fact, insight, personal angle, experience or anything else.
With all due respect (to coin a phrase), Anthony Julius has one of the finest minds in the country; I have the evidence of my own eyes and ears, which is pretty persuasive; and I have no idea who you are, but your arguments don't stack up. So I know who I'm listening to.
With you all the way, Katy. As a long-time NUJ member, I have argued and voted against the boycott Israel position. I am hugely uncomfortable that some people in the union are willing, albeit because of a sincerely held opposition to some Israeli policies, to join hands with fascists.
Matt, read what Rory said on his blog, about the difference beetween the rights & wrongs of the person holding the view and the union holding it. I thought it was really cogent.
"Fascist" is another loaded word, though: I'd be careful with it...
Anyway, the great thing is that the NUJ's support for a boycott is rescinded! (That was like - representation? What representation?)
Yes, he's spot-on, and that's why I was against it. Surely the union should be about enabling individual members to take an individual position.
And you're right, of course, it is a loaded word, but more accurate, I think, than identifying them in terms of a religion they actually seem to have little to do with.
I think I agree with Dandelion, at least as far as she's gone. I don't think that being anti-Israel equates to being anti-Semitic (though being anti-Semitic would probably lead one to also being anti-Israel).
The question of whether Israel should exist ... I can see arguments on both sides of the issue. I'm not going to get into which side I ultimately land on, since that isn't the point ... but I could sincerely debate this issue on both sides, and I don't consider myself remotely anti-Semitic. Do you?
I also would note that "being anti-Israel" - regardless of the parameters the term is referring to - is not the same as agreeing with the University boycott, nor is it in any way denying that anti-Semitism exists, or is increasing.
Am I missing something?
Sis
xxoo
Post a Comment