There’s a doubtless apocryphal story told about Sir Oliver Franks, the British Ambassador to the US from 1948 to 1952, who was asked by a Washington radio station what he wanted for Christmas. They’d also asked the French and the Soviet ambassadors who had said, respectively, world peace and freedom from imperialism. Franks said he would like a box of crystallised fruits, please.
I’ve been reminded of this story in the past few days as pundits and politicians have reflected on the Golders Green stabbings – and what can be done to try to put the genie of antisemitism back in the bottle. For the purposes of this column we can leave out responses which revolve around blaming Israel and linking British Jews with the so-called “genocide” in Gaza. But many of the other responses, from people whose motives are decent and who genuinely want to help Jews and tackle antisemitism, strike me as banal and naïve.
There has been much focus on the hate marches which have fuelled the atmosphere of what has recently come to be called “ambient antisemitism”. Chants of “globalise the intifada”, along with other antisemitic slogans and various banners carried by some marchers, act not only as an inspiration to antisemites – for some they act as an instruction. There are other factors behind the surge in antisemitism – what is being taught on campus, for example – but anyone who denies the role of the hate marches is being either wilfully blind or disingenuous. That’s why there have been calls, led by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent adviser on terror legislation, for a "moratorium” on the marches.
Those calls have in turn prompted disagreement from some of those I refer to above who are entirely genuine in wanting to stamp out the antisemitism on the marches. That includes – obviously, given he is a committed and passionate Zionist – Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, who also co-hosts the popular podcast UnHoly – Two Jews on the News.
Freedland wrote on Friday that he is “uneasy about a ban. Part of my objection arises, obviously, from a belief in free speech. It’s also clear from the Palestine Action precedent that it would never work: the marches would still happen, almost certainly bigger than before. But I confess that part of it is a weary knowledge that such a ban would only make life worse for British Jews: we will be blamed for censoring free expression, cast as the shadowy string-pullers who put a gag on everyone else.”
I do not doubt for a moment Freedland’s motives. He wants as much as anyone else to tackle the hate on the marches. But I think he is wrong when it comes to how. The idea that Jews should resist pushing for something that will tackle one of the main drivers of antisemitic incidents, because the very act of pushing for it will feed the conspiracy theories of antisemites about the power of the Jews, concedes defeat from the start. We will not tackle antisemitism if we allow the Jew haters to set the parameters in which we must operate.
Similarly, there is a naivety in Freedland’s actual proposal for tackling the marches. He writes: “The demonstrations would not need to be policed for hate speech if they were genuinely self-policed. Such a move should come naturally. It’s a good bet that every single person on those protests would call themselves a proud anti-racist…And yet organisers have never once approached mainstream Jewish groups, seeking guidance on how they might tackle this problem.” Well of course they haven’t. The marches have been organised by, among other groups, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, whose supporters have repeatedly engaged in antisemitic behaviour. They have no interest in tackling antisemitism; they fuel it.
It may indeed be true that the vast majority of marchers are genuine anti-racists, although I have my doubts. If you turned up at a march and were shocked to discover that, say, ten per cent of your fellow marches were carrying antisemitic banners or chanting antisemitic slogans, would you stay? And if you then came back for the next one, then the one after, and the one after – for two and a half years, in full knowledge of what your fellow marchers were saying and doing – could you really expect to be thought of as being genuinely anti-racist?
Freedland then suggests that, “if the organisers won’t act, perhaps the wider anti-racist movement will.” You think? The wider anti-racist movement is a large part of the problem, having been inculcated with most of the worst tropes and libels about Jews and Israel.
Freedland correctly laments the absence of “those who should be leading that effort…Where are those who are usually so vocal in their opposition to racism, now that one of Britain’s oldest minorities is facing a violent, murderous threat on the streets? Where are the actors and celebrities who ordinarily waste no time in declaring their solidarity with the oppressed, even those many thousands of miles away, now that British Jews are stabbed in London for no reason other than that they are visibly Jewish? The silence of those otherwise so noisy is remarkable – and we Jews hear it loud and clear.” Indeed.
But if you accept that the organisers of the marches are not going to tackle the hatred, and that the wider anti-racist movement is going to either remain silent or is actually with the antisemites, then one of only two things follows. Either nothing is done, and we carry on as now with regular hate marches. Or something is indeed done to tackle the hate – but by an outside body, otherwise known as the police, or the government. It is no use simply wishing that those who call themselves anti-racists behaved as genuine anti-racists.
It would be wonderful if the pro-Palestine lobby realised that it is both morally wrong, and worked against its own interests, to be seen to stir up antisemitism. But there are lots of things that would be wonderful if they happened. One of the realisations of adulthood is that fantasies rarely come true.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.