Why is Israel alone of all offending countries to be boycotted? Perhaps because it's that offending country which also just happens to be Jewish?
By Howard Jacobson
Gather round, everybody. I bear important news. Anti-Semitism no
longer exists! Ring out, ye bells, the longest hatred has ceased to be.
It’s kaput, kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, joined the
bleedin’ choir invisible. It’s a stiff, ladies and gentlemen. An
EX-PREJUDICE!
I first heard the news in a motion passed by the University and
College Union declaring that criticism of Israel can “never” be
anti-Semitic which, if “never” means “never”, is a guarantee that
Jew-hating is over, because ... Well, because it’s impossible to believe
that an active anti-Semite wouldn’t – if only opportunistically – seek
out somewhere to nestle in the manifold pleats of Israel-bashing,
whether in generally diffuse anti-Zionism, or in more specific Boycott
and Divestment Campaigns, Israeli Apartheid Weeks, End the Occupation
movements and the like. Of course, you don’t have to hate Jews to hate
Israel, but tell me that not a single Jew-hater finds the activity
congenial, that criticising Israel can “never” be an expression of
Jew-hating, not even when it takes the form of accusing Israeli soldiers
of harvesting organs, then it follows that there’s no Jew-hating left.
These
tidings would seem to be confirmed by Judge Anthony Snelson who,
investigating a complaint that the Union was institutionally
anti-Semitic, encountered not a trace of any such beast, no suggestion
it had lurked or was lurking, not the faintest rustle of its cerements,
not so much as a frozen shadow on a wall. Indeed, so squeaky-clean was
the union in all its anti-Israel motions and redefinitions of
anti-Semitism to suit itself, that Judge Snelson berated the Jewish
complainants, a) for wasting his time with evidence, b) for
irresponsibly raiding the public purse, and c) for trying to silence
debate, which is, of course, the rightful province of the Boycott and
Divestment movement.
It was this same Judge Snelson, reader, who
ruled in favour of a Muslim woman claiming the cocktail dress she was
expected to wear, while working as a cocktail waitress
in Mayfair, “violated her dignity”. Not for him the cheap shot of
wondering what in that case she was doing working as a cocktail waitress
in a cocktail bar in Mayfair. If she felt she was working in a “hostile
environment”, then she was working in a “hostile environment”, which is
not to be confused with a Jew feeling he is working in a hostile
environment since with the abolition of anti-Semitism there is no such
thing as an environment that’s hostile to a Jew. My point being that
Judge Snelson’s credentials as a man who knows a bigot from a barmcake
are impeccable.
And now, with Stephen Hawking announcing,
by means of an Israeli-made device, that he no longer wants to talk to
the scientists who invented it, or to Israeli scientists who invented or
might invent anything else, or indeed to Israeli historians, critics,
biologists, physicists of any complexion, no matter what their relations
to Palestinian scholars whom he does want to talk to, we are reminded
that the cultural boycott with which he has suddenly decided to throw in
his lot is entirely unJew-related, which is more good news. “Peace”,
that is all Professor Hawking seeks, a word that was left out of his
statement as reproduced on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign website,
presumably on the grounds that everyone already knows that peace is all
the PSC has ever wanted too.
To those who ask why Israel alone of all offending countries is to be boycotted,
the answer comes back loud and clear from boycotters that because they
cannot change the whole world, that is no reason not to try to change
some small part of it, in this case the part where they feel they have
the most chance of success, which also just happens to be the part
that’s Jewish. That this is, in fact, a “back-handed compliment” to
Jews, John MacGabhann, general secretary of the pro-boycott Teachers’
Union of Ireland, made clear when he talked of “expecting more of the
Israeli government, precisely because we would anticipate that Israeli
governments would act in all instances and ways to better uphold the
rights of other”, which implies that he expects less of other
governments, and does not anticipate them to act in all instances and
ways better to uphold the rights of others. And why? He can only mean,
reader, because those other governments are not Jewish.
I’d call
this implicit racism if I were a citizen of those circumambient Muslim
countries that aren’t being boycotted – a tacit assumption that nothing
can ever be done, say, about the persecution of women, the bombing of
minorities, discrimination against Christians, the hanging of adulterers
and homosexuals, and so on, because such things are intrinsic to their
cultures – but at least now that we have got rid of anti-Semitism,
tackling Islamophobia should not be slow to follow.
It’s
heartening, anyway, after so many years of hearing Israel described as
intractable and pitiless, to learn that activists feel it’s worth pushing at Israel’s door
because there is a good chance of its giving way. It’s further proof of
our new abrogation of anti-Semitism that we should now see Israel as a
soft touch, the one country in the world which, despite its
annihilationist ambitions, will feel the pain when actors, musicians,
and secretaries of Irish Teachers’ Unions stop exchanging views with it.
All we need to do now is recognise that those who would isolate Israel,
silence it and maybe even persuade it to accept its own illegitimacy
intend nothing more by it than love.
Can the day be far away when
Israel no longer exists, when the remaining rights-upholding,
peace-loving countries of the region come together in tolerance and
amity, and it won’t even be necessary to speak of anti-Semitism’s demise
because we will have forgotten it ever existed? That’s when Jews will
know they’re finally safe.
Ring out, ye bells!
