There's a Facebook group where Jews are being described as “disgusting little trolls”, “repulsive" and “scumbags” . They were named and shamed for expressing a controversial view on the Gaza conflict. Direct links to their personal and professional social media profiles were posted, encouraging others to get them sacked from their jobs.
The Facebook group has thousands of followers. Was it Momentum? The Alt-Right? No, this was one of our own - a relatively new Jewish communal organisation with a high profile and a loud voice.
The post was about a group of mostly young Jews who took part in a protest about the IDF’s conduct in Gaza. They recited kaddish, the Jewish memorial prayer, for the 62 Palestinians who died in a single day - many of whom were members of Hamas.
“Traitors”. This was the word was used to describe the Kaddish protestors which worried me the most. The implication is that these are Jews who have betrayed the community. The punishment? Excommunication. Many in the Facebook group were calling for the protesters to be removed from communal positions. They "should not be allowed within 100 miles of Jewish children”, said a blogger. Some have been threatened with violence.
Reciting kaddish was provocative. But by using the language of betrayal and contamination, the implication is that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (perhaps ‘kosher’ and ‘non-kosher’) Jews, depending on a political viewpoint. This is the logic that so many in the community were incensed by in relation to the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Disagreement and debate are healthy and fundamentally Jewish. But the accusation of ‘traitor’ and language of ‘contamination’ is a familiar cry of antisemites throughout history. We should be more careful before turning this weapon upon our own.
What are we afraid our children will be contaminated by? If the answer is ‘alternative viewpoints’ then this is precisely what I want my children to be exposed to. Surely the purpose of education is that one day our children will be able to outthink us, so that we can say - as the God does in the Talmudic tale - “my children have defeated me”.
We need a range of opinions. We need it even more on complex and emotional issues. Diverse views should be nurtured, not scorned. Alone, we are flawed and partial. Together, there is no issue so complex that we can’t figure it out. Perhaps even the Israel Palestine conflict.
Most people say they value diverse views. But the same people also say that some viewpoints ‘cross lines’ or fall outside of free speech protections. This is exactly the wrong approach. Because what is sacred and therefore untouchable for one person is fair game for another.
If we shut down certain topics because they offend us, we lose genuine diversity. All difficult conversations involve an element of offence. That’s because it is usually offensive to be proven wrong. So it is natural to elevate our most cherished beliefs to being “sacred” - it’s a way of protecting them and signalling to others what we value most.
The name for a society where people are punished for speaking for defaming that which is sacred is a theocracy. Free speech sometimes means offering up our sacred cows at the alter of reason.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been controversial but the level of personal abuse is new. Social media bring together people with similar viewpoints. This can create echo chambers, where those who hold strong views on an issue surround themselves with others who think the same. Controversial views are reinforced rather than reasoned away or ridiculed.
I have no doubt that the rise in visible antisemitism and conspiracy theories partly because of this.
These echo chambers could have serious implications for Jews. Despite our diversity, we have until now been surprisingly united. That shouldn’t be taken for granted. Unity can rapidly turn to conflict if people feel that their opinion is not represented by mainstream bodies or that they are being personally threatened from within.
How can we stop things spiralling out of control? There is wisdom in the work of Jonathan Haidt, an American psychologist who has written on why people disagree over politics and religion.
First, we should emphasise what we have in common. Focussing on difference makes people more intolerant. The Kaddish controversy is a good example. It has already spurred a plan for a counter-protest by a group saying kaddish for an IDF soldier. The protest is taking place outside a Liberal synagogue. The message is clear. The original protesters were from progressive denominations, here is the Orthodox (read: correct) response. Suddenly a political controversy is splitting us along religious lines too.
The mainstream communal bodies can help. For example, when deciding how to respond to a flare-up in the Middle East, they should emphasise uniting Britain's Jews on an equal footing with defending the IDF and Israel.
This means responding in a way that speaks to as wide as possible a cross-section of the community. If people feel represented, they are less likely to escape to the comfort of echo chambers. To achieve this, the communal bodies will need to listen more carefully and respond more cautiously.
Our leaders should also emphasisee how crucial freedom of speech and civil discourse are during times of emotional upheaval - and stand up to vocal bullies if needed.
Haidt emphasises the importance of social connections across political lines. It’s a lot harder to abuse someone online if you know them or their family. The UK Jewish community is already good at creating spaces like this, for example Limmud. These kind of events, which involve a wide section of the community in a mostly respectful environment, are priceless and should be encouraged and replicated in other spaces such as inter-denominational settings.
I am not suggesting the community should be cleansed of strong opinions, nor that people should suddenly stop reacting to controversial issues. But we should be be wary of the language of betrayal, disgust and personal abuse.
We should build our communal spaces as open platforms for reasoned debate, and try not to support closed loops and echo chambers. We should encourage diverse viewpoints, even when that means being offended. Most of all, we should listen.
