The report by the Parliamentary Committee on Antisemitism puts down a most timely marker and sets out some useful benchmarks on the phenomenon which is so disfiguring Britain (although I do not agree with the subjective definition of prejudice that it adopts; this should be judged by objective criteria, of which there is ample evidence). But it left me disappointed, since it goes nowhere near far enough in conveying the scale and implications of what is happening.

Here’s what it says that is useful. It states, first of all, that there is cause for concern over a resurgence of the oldest hatred in Britain:

Until recently, the prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond was that antisemitism had receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society. However, the evidence we received indicates that there has been a reversal of this progress since the year 2000, which has created anxiety and concern within the Jewish community…. It is clear that violence, desecration of property, and intimidation directed towards Jews is
on the rise…

More importantly, it correctly identifies one of the most worrying aspects, that such prejudice has become respectable and accepted:

‘Antisemitic discourse’ is the term we have adopted to describe the widespread change in mood and tone when Jews are discussed, whether in print or broadcast, at universities, or in public or social settings. We are concerned that anti-Jewish themes and remarks are gaining acceptability in some quarters in public and private discourse in Britain and there is a danger that this trend will become more and more mainstream. According to a significant amount of evidence we received, it is this phenomenon that has contributed to an atmosphere where Jews have become more anxious and more vulnerable to abuse and attack than at any other time for a generation or longer.

Noting the alliance between radical Islamists and the far right in the promotion of anti-Jewish hatred, it also rightly observes:

Antisemitism is no longer the sole preserve of the political far right, as it was throughout much of the twentieth century. It now occurs across the political spectrum. The antisemitic stereotypes and themes discussed in the previous chapter are utilised by groups with a variety of political and religious perspectives. Groups and organisations that appear to be ideologically incompatible are uniting in their opposition to the actions of the Israeli government and we were particularly concerned to hear evidence that the language and imagery used to express this opposition has, in some cases, become polluted by antisemitism.

All this is important to state, and to that end the committee has performed a useful service. But here is the problem. Where it comes up against really difficult issues — difficult because they are intensely controversial, go far against the accepted wisdom and, most explosively of all, impute the most iconic prejudice in global history to certain groups of British citizens who are mainstream, wear their social conscience on their sleeve and are maybe even numbered among the friends of the authors — it shies away from fully facing up to them.

Thus, with exception of people like the far right or ‘a minority of Islamist extremists in this country’ (the implication that, by contrast, the large majority of radical Islamists do not incite hatred towards Jews is of course ridiculous: either this is sloppy drafting, and what it meant to say was that radical Islamists were themselves a small minority of Muslims, or else the phrase betrays a lamentable terror about venturing into this minefield; either way, the report seriously underplays the extent and impact of Muslim antisemitism) who are by common consent beyond the pale, the report lets off the hook others who are currently expressing antisemitic views with the implication that they don’t really know what they are doing.

Thus, although a number of witnesses are quoted identifying a specific antisemitism on the left, the report says:

Many on the left are firm in their condemnation of racism and would almost certainly not accept that they were guilty of antisemitic discourse. Ignorance of the history of anti-Jewish prejudice means that some perhaps do not even realise that the language and imagery they have used has resonances of a long tradition of anti-Jewish discourse and stereotypes.

Well, maybe they don’t realise its long pedigree. So what? All that means is that they are historically illiterate as well as prejudiced. They use such language and imagery demonising Jews for the simple reason that it expresses the prejudice they hold towards them. The fact that they sincerely believe that they are ‘anti-racist’ merely reveals that they are humbugs as well as bigots. Such a lamentable gloss on the antisemitism of the left obscures one of the most troubling aspects of the resurgence of this prejudice — that today’s antisemites do indeed march behind the banners of anti-racism and human rights. Unpicking why that should be is a vital task because it gets to the heart of the moral and intellectual sickness in our society. By skating over and sanitising it in this way, the report ducks one of its most important challenges.

It makes a slightly better fist — but only slightly – of the vexed and incendiary question of when anti-Zionism becomes antisemitism. Commendably, it acknowledges that there is a cross-over:

…criticism of Zionism is not in itself antisemitic. However, in some quarters an antisemitic discourse has developed that is in effect antisemitic because it views Zionism itself as a global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history. This definition of Zionism bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept; that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation, born in the late nineteenth century, with a geographical focus limited to Israel. Having re-defined Zionism in this way, traditional antisemitic notions of Jewish conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion are then transferred from Jews (a religious or racial group) on to Zionism (a political movement). This is at the core of the ‘New Antisemitism’ on which so much has been written. Many witnesses described how anti-Zionism has become the ‘lingua franca of antisemitic movements’.

And it concludes:

It is increasingly the case that, because anger over Israel’s policies can provide the pretext, condemnation [of ethnically and religiously motivated hatred] is often too slow and increasingly conditional. Regardless of the expressed motive, Jewish people and Jewish institutions are being targeted

and also that

…

the correlation between conflict in the Middle East and attacks on the Jewish community must be better understood if the problem is to be tackled.

Well, yes; but there are people who agree there is a correlation, but who claim that the way this correlation works is that Israel’s ‘Nazi’ ‘racist’ or ‘apartheid’ behaviour regrettably makes people hate all Jews (as in Stephen Rose’s typically bigoted and venomous remarks on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme (0840) this morning; see here and here for fiskings of Rose’s all-too revealing performance).

In other words, the Jews must be blamed for their own persecution. What the report signally fails to do is nail the lie at the heart of this claim — the Big Lie, in fact, of the way Israel is reported in Britain, which depicts it untruthfully as the regional bully of the Middle East driving events through its own aggression and injustice, whereas the truth of the matter is that it is the historic victim of never-ending genocidal aggression. It is this egregious scapegoating of Israel, the prejudice against the collective Jew, which drives the scapegoating of and prejudice towards the Jews generally. It is the lies told about Israel by people like Stephen Rose (along with his selective Israel boycott which, as the report notes, is ‘anti-Jewish in practice’) and the demonisation of the Jewish state that has followed, that legitimises the lies now being told about the global Jewish conspiracy and other expressions of antisemitic discourse with which Britain’s Jews are currently being bombarded.

The media in Britain bear a heavy responsibility for perpetrating these libels and thus creating hatred of both the Jewish state and the Jews. But again, the report gives the media too a get-out-of-jail-free card; even though it cites grotesqueries like the New Statesman ‘Kosher conspiracy’ cover as examples of antisemitism, it puts such excrescences down to

a decline in awareness of Jewish racial stereotypes and the boundaries of acceptable public discourse.

Well no, actually, this does not imply a decline in awareness of a Jewish racial stereotype so much as a belief in that Jewish racial stereotype. The Statesman ran the image of the Star of David impaling a UK Union flag because it perfectly expressed its view that there might be a Jewish conspiracy against British interests. The media use the iconography of classical antisemitism because it fits their prejudices. The fact that the Jewish state is the principal target merely shows that antisemitism has mutated into a new form to fit the relatively new circumstances of Jewish political power.

Any serious study of today’s antisemitism must ask— although regrettably this report fails to do so — why Israel is singled out for treatment afforded to no other country on earth; why Israel is scapegoated for the crimes of others; why Israel is dwelt upon so obsessively for seeking to defend itself, while countries which deliberately inflict terrible things upon the innocent are scarcely reported; why Israel alone is demonised and delegitimised through systematic lies and libels; why Israel alone is not allowed to defend itself while other in other countries this is taken for granted; why the legitimacy of Israel’s existence alone is called into question while that of artificially created countries like Pakistan are not; why Israel alone is blamed for a refugee problem while everywhere else in the world displaced populations are routinely ignored; why unlike any other country in history Israel alone, as the victim of genocidal warfare of which it was the victor, is expected to defer to its aggressors — which continue to wage war against it — and give them everything they are demanding.

The report does not ask this. It says instead:

We do not believe that the vast majority of discussion surrounding the Israel-Palestinian conflict is inherently antisemitic; rather we are concerned that the currently popular discursive tools need to be deployed with greater responsibility and understanding of the historical resonances that they evoke. A legitimate opinion on the political decisions of the Israeli state may be expressed in an antisemitic manner, even if its author did not intend it to be, if it uses phrases and imagery which tap into antisemitic discourse.

Well no, actually; lies and libels and falsehoods and distortions about Israel are not a ‘legitimate opinion on the political decisions of the Israeli state’. It’s not the manner of expression that is wrong but the expression itself. The imagery is not down to a fit of absent-mindedness about historic resonances. It is used because it perfectly expresses the prejudice in the minds of the writers or speakers.

The Nazis’ infamous excuse was that they were ‘only obeying orders’. Today’s antisemites, it seems, are merely ‘forgetting historical resonances’. In other words, they don’t really know what they are doing, so they can’t be guilty of prejudice. After all, if they’re the ‘anti-racist’ left or the media, they don’t fit the image.

This report has sounded a welcome alarm; but it has put only a timid toe into the sewer.