Dear Reader,
In the recent past, those who chose to cross the line when being deliberately anti-Semitic and racist did so knowing where in the sand it lay. They could have no complaints when those so abused predictably and wholly justifiably responded. Not so today. With today's, "New Anti-Semitism" those lines have been deliberately blurred. The New Anti-Semitism has not been clearly defined. However, Dr Dave Rich's book inadvertently suggests why this is so.
Nowhere in its 252 pages does the author give a precise and unequivocal definition of what the New Anti-Semitism actually is. And nowhere in its 252 pages does he mention the IHRA's working definition of anti-Semitism. The definition that fails the first test of a definition in being indefinite. History's, "Dustbin Definition." The failure of the definition to actually define requires Dr Rich to discuss cases of, "alleged" anti-Semitism. (eg Jackie Walker pp 242/243) The word, "alleged" is crucial to an understanding of the alleged New Anti-Semitism.
Either the, "New Anti-Semitism" is anti-Semitism or it isn't.
It is required to become, "alleged" anti-Semitism because those promoting it have quite deliberately refused to define it in concrete terms. To do so would provide others with the opportunity to challenge it which is something its architects are keen to avoid at all costs. A working definition is apparently far more useful than a definite definition. Otherwise things would be different but regrettably they aren't. Explanations for, and critical analyses of, the key ideas and concepts this book raise are similarly avoided. The state of Israel is apparently not an apartheid-like state but we're not told why.
In this book definitions are in very short supply. It's hard to imagine how you can authoritatively write about, "The Left's Jewish Problem" when the categories your talking about have been deliberately left undefined. However, there are two definitions to be found. One is of Zionism. "For most Jews, this is what Zionism is: the idea that the Jews are a people whose homeland is Israel (wherever they actually live); that the Jewish people have a right to a state; and that Israel's existence is an important part of what it means to be Jewish today." (xvii - from, a 2010 survey by the Institute of Jewish Policy Research)
The title of Dr Rich's book omits any mention of Palestine. That the Palestinians might also have similar hopes and aspirations is a troubling thought and an inconvenience which is simply side-stepped. Instead we're told (without any supporting evidence) that, "Meanwhile, sympathy for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel has become the default position for many on the left: a defining marker of what it means to be progressive." Whether there are those on the left who might also have sympathy for Israelis burdened by the decisions of 70 years ago is simply not countenanced. It doesn't tally with Dr Rich's second definition. That the left are - a collective of pseudo-progressives intent on opposing Israel.
Not only is this book Brit-centric its also left-centric.
Research by the Pew Research Centre in the USA and evidence printed by Haaretz over the years shows a growing divide between Israeli and American Jews. In particular young American Jews who increasingly support the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It is becoming the default position of many liberal-minded people and not just Dr Rich's bête noire - "the left." If you're looking for anti-Semitic reds under the bed you will inevitably find anti-Semitic reds lurking menacingly there. The huge failing of this book is that that is the only place he appears to look.
By page xxvii of the introduction Dr Rich's book has already begun to fall apart at the seams. Here we're told; "This book is not about the Israeli - Palestinian conflict itself" ..."Rather this book is about how people on the British left have tried to make sense of the conflict and the political ideas and campaigns they came up with in response to it."
Trying to explain the Left's response to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in terms of: an undefined anti-Semitism, and without an historical analysis of that conflict and how the rest of the world (and the USA in particular) was reacting to each crisis as it inevitably came, is like attempting an explanation of the Good Friday Agreement without mentioning the Norman Invasion, Strongbow, Cromwell, The Black and Tans, Michael Collins, the Irish Civil War, The Wolfe Tones, The Troubles or the Civil Rights Movement. Undeterred, this appears to be what he was tasked to do.
Perhaps, a more appropriate title for the book would have been, "The Pears/CST's Left Problem: Dave Rich, Palestine And Indefinite Definitions of Anti-Semitism."
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at. www.blogger.com
No comments:
Post a Comment