The lobby that cried wolf

Enjoying an effective presence in the mainstream media, the British left's criticism of Israel has grown dramatically in both intensity and scope since the eruption of the Palestinian Intifada. The pro-Israel lobby's response was predictable: anti-Semitism. In London, Omayma Abdel-Latif reviews the debate
"Go to the heart of the dispute and you are left with two fundamental points. First, the Jewish state is a creation of the Western powers. The aim was, initially and mainly, to install a friendly, relatively stable power in a strategically vital area of the world. Later, the idea of Israel became the Second World War allied powers' version of the final solution to Europe's Jewish 'problem.' Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular naturally wonder why the tragic results of Europe's inability to tolerate a harmless minority should be exported to them. As for the Jewish claim to biblical lands, it makes no more sense to the Arab mind than an Italian claim to establish a Roman state along the length of the A5 would to the British. Indeed, it never made much sense to European minds either, given that they would happily have settled for a Jewish homeland in Uganda or Siberia, if they had thought it practicable." New Statesman Editorial, 18th March, 2002
The offices of Britain's premier left-wing magazine, the New Statesman, on the 7th floor of London's Victoria House, were briefly 'occupied' recently by a group claiming to fight anti- Semitism. Their 'occupation' was triggered by what they claimed to be an anti-Semitic magazine cover, illustrating the star of David at the heart of the Union Jack, and bearing the title, 'Kosher Conspiracy.' Though the protest ended soon, it was only a part of the ongoing confrontation between the magazine and pro-Israeli lobby groups.
Peter Wilby, the New Statesman's editor-in-chief, penned an apology in the following issue, admitting that the illustration used symbols, such as the star of David, and terms, such as 'kosher' and 'conspiracy,' which are potentially loaded with anti-Semitic overtones. But he also added that, "unlike Muslims, the Jews manage to make their case to me and other editors."
The New Statesman incident has, nonetheless, triggered a fresh wave in the debate about the British media's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has also exposed Israel's constant attempts to muzzle press criticism of its repressive policies by levelling charges of anti-Semitism against publications and reporters who dare criticise it or question its claims to the land it occupies. More importantly, however, the incident shed light on the troubled relationship between the pro-Israeli lobby and the British left which has reached boiling point ever since the current Intifada began 18 months ago. According to the editor of the New Statesman, the West Bank's Jewish settlers appear, in the eyes of the British left, much like the French settlers in Algeria. The fragmented crumbs of land ruled by the Palestinian Authority, meanwhile, appear like the Bantustans of South Africa, while Hamas and Hizbullah come across as colonial era liberation movements.
In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, New Statesman editor Peter Wilby explained that Israeli rage against the British media largely stems from the British left's perception of Israel as having radically changed from underdog to oppressor. "The more common view of Israel, now, is of a colonial oppressor which exploits and represses the Palestinians," Wilby said. "Israel was created by the colonial necessity of Western realpolitik. It is now perceived as an aggressive colonial power that has gone beyond its original boundaries and, therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to even question -- as journalists -- its very existence and what it claims to be its right to defend itself," Wilby told the Weekly.
It is precisely this questioning of the legitimacy of Israeli policies which has led the pro-Israeli lobby in Britain to accuse leftist sections in the British media of fuelling the flames of a 'new anti-Semitism'. Wilby, however, rejects this notion outrightly.
"I don't believe it is anti-Semitic to say that Israel should not exist as a state created some fifty years ago out of what other people regard as their land," he said. He pointed out that the debate about a rise in anti-Semitism in Britain is another tactic aimed at bludgeoning the media into bowing to the Israeli version of the events.
But the distinction should be made clear. "Anti-Semitism, in the sense that there is a real threat to Jews in this country or in Europe, is simply not significant. It is totally illegitimate to say that people who criticise or oppose the policies of the Israeli government are anti-Semitic. It would be going too far," he added.
Journalists speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly believe that recent media accounts of the Arab-Israeli conflict reflect a radical shift in the Western public's perception of Israel. Jonathan Freedland, a columnist in The Guardian who has been involved with both Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, agrees with this view. He explains that from 1948 until 1967, the first Zionists were viewed as young, anti-colonialist, national movements fighting a big imperial power. There was this romantic view that the Jews were the oppressed underdogs. "Israel was then considered to be a left-wing project but the shift began after the 1967 war when it was no longer the David but the Goliath of the newly-occupied territories," Freedland told the Weekly. The post-1967 era was a period when big questions began to be asked about the entire Zionist idea.
"People questioned what justification there is for having a Jewish state in this territory at all. From as early as the 1970s, university campuses began witnessing the condemnation of Zionism and, consequently, of Israel," Freedland explains.
This change in the way Israel was perceived among the left was reinforced by a number of developments during the '70s, including the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism. Israeli leaders, such as Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir were hate figures within British left-wing circles during the '70s and '80s.
Wilby shares the view that the second Intifada has brought about the biggest change in the public's perception of Israel in Britain. "In the public mind, in this country, Israel is no longer the victim," he said. As Rosemary Hollis, head of the Middle East Unit at the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, put it to the Weekly, "Israel is only a victim of its paranoia and strategies." Freedland observes that, during the '90s, the years of disaffection between Israel and the British left came to a halt, particularly from 1993 onwards, with the beginning of the Oslo peace process. There were eight years in which the left tuned down 'the Israel issue.' All of this, however, changed with the second Intifada. "Since September 2000, we have witnessed a reversion to the previous position of the British left which is sympathetic towards the Palestinians and antagonistic towards Israel," he said.
Some argue, however, that this strong anti-Israeli current within sections of the British media has not been translated into a force pressuring the British political establishment to acknowledge its historic responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinians, much less consider compensating the uprooted Palestinians. Rashid Khalidi, a history professor at the University of Chicago, referred to what he described as "the conspicuous absence of a British connection in the contemporary rhetoric of the Arab-Israeli conflict," at a recent Oxford university seminar.
"There is hardly a murmur about Britain being solely responsible for the situation in Palestine. British officials act evasively when the issue of needing to declare a historic responsibility is raised," said Khalidi. But members of Britain's so-called chattering classes, nonetheless, admit Britain's culpability towards Palestine. Some even carry this further and draw a parallel between the holocaust and what is happening in Palestine. A prominent professor of refugee studies at Oxford University, who has supervised educational schemes in the West Bank and Gaza, thinks that some of the punitive Israeli measures against the Palestinians are reminiscent of Nazi attitudes towards the Jews.
"Gaza and the West Bank are now big prisons while the restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement resembles the restrictions imposed on the Jews during Nazi time," said the professor, asking that his name be withheld for fear of being banned from visiting Palestine by the Israeli authorities.
These policies, he went on, "aim at the eventual elimination of a people and this is what the Holocaust was all about."
Some British Jews however, including Freedland, flinch at accepting such a parallel. "I think that the Palestinian case is so strong anyway that you don't need to go this extra mile and say it was as bad as the holocaust," Freedland said. But, are the early symptoms there? He agrees. "I believe that there is an industrialised and systematic dehumanisation of the Palestinians, and this is dangerous," he said.
Such concerns have prompted journalists, such as The Guardian's Paul Foot, to urge the British government to cut off economic and military ties with Israel, and some have even suggested imposing sanctions on it. But, according to Freedland, this would be flirting with the impossible for a Labour government that has committed itself to staunch support of Israel. "Blair's New Labour meant, among other things, being pro- Israeli and pro-Zionist. Blair makes a point of being pro- Israel," Freedland added.
But the same argument could be extended and projected to the European Union level. The EU may have not reached a consensus on seeking compensation from Israel for the damage it inflicted upon Palestinian Authority structures, worth up to 12 million pounds sterling (15 million dollars). When asked by the Weekly why the EU would not impose sanctions on Israeli goods manufactured in the settlements, Anthony Gooch, EU trade spokesman, responded by saying, "It was simply out of the question that sanctions could be imposed on Israel since it is given a favourite nation status."
By the same token, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea explained that one of the many targets of NATO's expansion in the Mediterranean region is to clear it of weapons of mass destruction. The scheme, dubbed NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, involves some seven non-Nato countries, including Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. When asked by the Weekly whether this would mean removing Israel's weapons of mass destruction, he answered, "No, it does not mean that Israel's nuclear facilities will be erased or even inspected."
Given such attitudes towards Israel on the official European level, the media has taken over championing the cause of exposing Israel to the Western public mind. The result has been a counter-attack on the media by the pro-Israeli lobby.
Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, joined the chorus when, in writing in The Guardian earlier this month, he warned against what he claimed to be "a dark territory" into which the media has stepped. He claims that the lines have become blurred between what constitutes criticism of Israel and what is the inciting of anti-Semitism.
But, in urging the drawing of a line between the two he posed the question of who has the right to decide exactly where the line should be drawn between what differentiates criticism of Israel from actual anti-Semitism. Responding to Rabbi Sacks' remarks, Wilby stated that "only journalists and editors are entitled to draw the line and I don't think that we should feel inhibited by such statements." But he accepted that the pro-Israeli lobby is very effective in making its case heard to most editors and admitted that some journalists might be inhibited in their work by the fear of opening themselves up to the damaging charge of anti-Semitism.
The stakes are higher for journalists working in newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, both owned by staunch Zionists Robert Murdoch and Conrad Black. "Journalists run a high risk of putting their career in jeopardy if they dare to criticise Israeli policies in those newspapers," Wilby said. He pointed out that the harder task for journalists is not to speak up in defence of the Palestinians but to argue an anti-Israeli case without being labelled anti-Semites. For example, if a journalist calls for the boycott of Israeli goods, he or she might run the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite.
Despite this, some journalists insist they will continue to expose the Israeli aggression. "As long as the occupation continues," says Freedland, "as long as the repression of the Intifada goes on, the left, at least, will continue to support the Palestinians against Israel."
This week's issue of the New Statesman is a case in point. Underlinging that the publication has not bowed to lobby pressure and remains uncowed by charges of anti-Semitism, Wilby published a daring editorial in which he questions Israel's biblical claim over the land of Palestine.
The cover story, on the other hand, questions the mistaken perception of Britons who see Israel as "a Middle Eastern Hampstead, a land of liberal idealists." The liberals, says author John Kampfner are fleeing, to be replaced by Soviet "white trash," because the Israelis have taken to logical extremes their open-door policy for everyone who proclaims himself a Jew. Just about anyone is welcome now.
Recommend this page
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor