By Douglas Murray
Thursday, March 21, 2019
One of the surest signs that somebody does not understand
anti-Semitism is that he talks about defeating it, destroying it, or otherwise
ending it. For many Jews, and anyone else who has had to take note of
anti-Semitism, such inflated claims elicit only a dark laugh. Imagining you
might end anti-Semitism is like saying you might forever postpone the aging
process. An ambition, certainly, but one perpetually condemned to
disappointment.
Yet as though to demonstrate their unfamiliarity with the
whole concept, this is the language that the Left has begun to adopt when it is
forced to tackle this resurgent challenge in its midst. In the United Kingdom
it can be heard since Jeremy Corbyn’s takeover as party leader of Labour.
Corbyn had swum among the most vicious anti-Semites all his campaigning life.
But after his election as leader — as member after member, from the party’s
grassroots to Parliament, got caught in the milieu their leader had lived in —
those who still aspired to moral hygiene attempted to make a stand. Corbyn
joined them. Like the party members, whenever evidence emerged of yet another
anti-Semite in the ranks, he stressed that this demonstrated that
“anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and all other forms of racism” must be defeated
once and for all.
At one moment of especial panic last year, one of
Corbyn’s principal cheerleaders even called for the Labour leader to deliver “a
definitive speech on anti-Semitism.”
Yet of course no definitive speech can be given on
anti-Semitism, any more than a definitive piece can be written about it, for
the same reason that talk of ending anti-Semitism once and for all is so
revealingly ignorant. Anti-Semitism can never be fully explained for the same
reason it cannot ever be fully defeated. Because it is a shape-shifter. It is a
virus that endlessly mutates, taking advantage of environment, locale, host,
events, and more. To survey the number of its ostensible causes is to survey
accusations that themselves encompass everything.
At times in their history, Jews have been hated for their
religion. In other periods they have been hated for their race. In our own time
they are most acceptably attacked for their state. And in the variety of these
moves, as well as their multiplicity, we see the ineradicable origins of this
evil into which the Democratic party has also begun to sink.
In March, I happened to be in Israel. It was a good
vantage point from which to watch Ilhan Omar become the first American
politician in generations to be visibly enjoying her Jew-baiting: a shallow
person demonstrating a deep problem. Her rejoinder on Twitter about American
support for Israel was to write, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” After
another similar innuendo, and another insincere apology, Omar was questioned by
reporters. “I’m pretty sure that was stated in my statement,” she said
repeatedly, as she chewed gum and smirked at what she was getting away with.
***
In our day and age it is no longer acceptable to hate
people openly because of their race. Hating people because of their religion
has also come to be deemed unacceptable and bigoted. So what route in is the
anti-Semite to use to make an acceptably plausible claim against the Jewish
people? The best is to reframe ancient hatreds in the guise of modern-day
political obsessions, as Omar and others of her generation of Democratic
newbies have done. To their way of thinking, Israel is a colonialist, bigoted,
racist state. And one that — to boot — is guilty of the generalized modern
crime of “punching down.” For them, Israel stands out as so obviously evil that
it should most properly be compared to apartheid South Africa. In that vein,
Representative Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) supports BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions)
measures against Israel, measures that were taken against South Africa in its
apartheid era.
Yet here we are, more than seven decades after the
establishment of a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish nation,
and what are Jews found guilty of this time but of not being unrooted? Of having a place. Of being at home. Of not
wandering. Some footage of Jeremy Corbyn recently resurfaced from 2013 in which
during a speech he remarked that some “Zionists” had not imbibed the British
“sense of irony.” In fact almost any Jew can see the irony of the situation the
Jewish people now find themselves in. It is one familiar from thousands of
years of Jewish history: a situation in which they are allowed to make no move
for which they will be applauded, only to make another move and be hated in
another way.
There is a fine example of this in Gregor von Rezzori’s
luridly titled masterpiece Memoirs of an
Anti-Semite (1979). In “Youth,” one of the five stories that make up that
magnificent novel, he details a proud young man’s relationship with an older
Jewish woman. For all the benefits she brings him, this “Black Widow” can never
fully win over her young gentile lover. For she is on one hand to him an
embodiment of a type of Jewish shop owner of the Central European pre-war
stripe, and for this he hates her. Where she goes with him, people know whom he
is with and that she is a Jew. He worries about being seen with her and is
mortified when people he knows from the rest of his life see them at a restaurant.
Yet whenever she attempts to bridge the canyon in any way, to adapt, to
integrate into the world of her proud young gentile, she makes another mistake.
The only thing worse than a Jew who refuses to integrate is a Jew who makes
even the slightest effort to integrate. A Jew who is attempting to integrate
looks “suspicious,” “artificial,” and “unsuitable.” Rezzori’s narrator reveals
that “we saw the so-called assimilated Jew as aping us.” To be Jewish is to be
different. To try to be the same is to be Jewish. It isn’t that the accusations
and hate can come from a couple of directions. The problem is that they can
always come from every direction imaginable.
Europe has been relearning this lesson. Last year one of
the heads of the Jewish community in Berlin warned German Jews not to wear a
kippa or other sign of their faith in public in the major German cities. Of
course it is not as though Germany has had any deficit of anti-Semites. But the
warning struck an icy chord for at least two reasons. The first was surprise
that this situation, of Jews being at risk of attack in public places for being
identifiably Jewish, had come about so swiftly again in Germany. The second was
that everybody knew, though few wanted to say, just what was the cause of this
resurgence in threats to Jews. On this occasion the cause was not the neo-Nazi
movements that still bubble in the subterranean recesses of that country. The
threat came from the fact that Germany has taken in a large number of migrants
from Muslim countries in recent decades and that not all of these people viewed
Jews with the eyes of most post-Holocaust Germans.
Such shifts are enormously painful for a society to
acknowledge. And even in their mildest manifestations, they cause an equal
level of discomfort in modern America. Because like Europeans, Americans are
very familiar with a number of anti-Semitic types. Not just the remaining
anti-Semites of the Klan variety but the anti-Semitism that has lingered in
America — as in Europe — among people who would like to think themselves as (in
a specific sense of the word) rather “smart.” A certain type of country-club
set. People who think that looking down on Jews might make people look up at
them. It is a type. But we know them by now, and know how to avoid them. Unfortunately
this is not the case with the group of people now most permitted to swim in
these waters.
There is naturally something profoundly depressing in the
fact that the first two Muslim women elected to Congress should be two women so
willing to play to the worst crowd of all. But it might have been expected,
because a similarly depressing trend occurred in Britain. When David Cameron
was the Conservative-party leader, he fast-tracked for promotion a British
woman of Pakistani descent who became the first Muslim woman to serve in a
British cabinet. Sayeeda Warsi still sits in the House of Lords but no longer
sits anywhere near cabinet. That is because during the 2014 war between Israel
and Hamas, Warsi believed that the British government should not be remotely
close to supporting Israel. She resigned from her position as a Foreign Office
minister and has used her energies in the years since to — among other things —
urge that British citizens, or dual-passport holders, who serve in the Israel
Defense Forces be treated in the same manner in which Britain would treat those
who went to fight for ISIS.
If Cameron had fast-tracked a reformist Muslim, or one of
the many Muslims who now feature successfully in British political life, this
would not have happened. But the first person in held fast to the most
predictable priorities. Now the pattern repeats itself with the arrival of
Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in the U.S. Congress. If the first Muslim
congresswomen had been not them but a brave Muslim progressive such as Asra
Nomani, an American author and scholar born in India, then the message that
would have been sent to the American public about the diversity of the Muslim
communities and the possibility that the best people would prevail could have
been profound. Instead the American public has had to watch as Omar chooses to
try to use a bully pulpit to attack, defame, and silence a patriotic American
Jew, Elliott Abrams. Did she look like she had the wind in her sails during
that period of questioning? Certainly. Did the online chorus who want to be as
openly anti-Semitic as possible but are looking for examples of how to do it
celebrate? You bet. But to this and her other provocations, America — like
Britain and Europe before her — does not know quite how to respond.
***
The Democrats thought they did. After Omar failed to go
another week without releasing another anti-Semitic meme, Nancy Pelosi and
colleagues seemed ready to denounce anti-Semitism wherever it occurred. But
then the Democrats got caught in the same zugzwang that their European
neighbors had struggled with before. If a Muslim attacks a Jew, what are those
who are neither Muslims nor Jews to say or do? In particular, how might they
condemn the Muslim’s anti-Semitism without appearing to be Islamophobic? In
this situation it becomes impossible to single out anti-Semitism for specific
condemnation. The only way to do it is to condemn, as Corbyn does,
“anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of racism.”
And so when Omar — like Warsi across the pond — chose to
mull on the theme of Jews and dual loyalty, there was some expression of
concern from the Democratic party. But the concern got caught in the moral jam,
and sure enough Pelosi and Co. managed to respond to Omar’s anti-Semitism only
by condemning anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and white supremacy, as though there
were any doubt on the last and any agreed-on meaning for the second. When Steve
King was accused of flirting with white nationalism nobody had any trouble
criticizing that, or felt much need to spread the censure around further or
search for semantic excuses. Pelosi herself was reduced to wittering about
Omar’s perhaps having “a different experience in the use of words” and not
understanding “that some of them are fraught with meaning.” Which is one way to
suggest that a Muslim immigrant such as Omar is not necessarily like other
Americans but may be different in ways that Nancy Pelosi would ordinarily
refuse to explain.
Still, it is possible that Pelosi is right in one way.
Anti-Semitic memes are additionally troubling because people can indeed imbibe
and excrete them without apparently realizing it. On the far right and the far
left these days, you can witness people jabbering about Rothschilds and
financiers and rootless figures and be all but certain that they have no
understanding of the historical or present meaning of what they say. But among
their number will be others who very distinctly do know what fever swamps they
are swimming in. Is Omar ignorant, or clever? Experience so far would suggest
that she is clever. One might even say smart. And a certain portion of the Left
clearly delighted in her remark that “Israel has hypnotized the world” and in
her denunciation of a “push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
Of course both they and she will have get-outs. They will
find “good Jews” to cite. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has already been careful to
meet with the fanatical, minority, and extreme anti-Israeli Jews of Neturei
Karta, a small Haredi sect opposed to any Jewish state until the Messiah
arrives. It’s a cover that her new friend Corbyn has long hidden behind. And
her supporters will continue to find a few people who attack her and Muslims in
the most reprehensible ways imaginable. This will continue to allow them to
claim that anti-Semitism is to be tackled only if the fight against it goes
hand in hand with the right of Omar to say whatever she likes, on a regular
basis, about the deeds of Jews. Though it is unclear how this helps get through
the Chelsea Clinton conundrum. She turned up at a memorial event in New York
for the New Zealand mosque massacre only to be condemned by some of those
present, the condemnation being that she was responsible for the massacre
because she had recently highlighted, mildly, Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism.
And that is why the description of anti-Semitism as a
virus is so accurate. It gets into hosts who aren’t always aware of what they
have let in. It cannot be conquered, for one day it will come from one
direction, the next from another, with the charge sheet changing as swiftly as
the direction of assault. Yet it still has to be fought, of course. For a
society that gets lax about trying to keep the virus down is likely to develop
a full-blown contagion in due course.
No comments:
Post a Comment