Howard Jacobson: Let's see the 'criticism' of Israel for what it really is
Emotions have run high over recent events in Gaza. And in this impassioned
and searching essay, our writer argues that just below the surface runs a
vicious strain of ancient prejudice
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Photo:
The language of protesters 'determines the issue
before it can be discussed'
I was once in Melbourne when bush fires were raging 20 or 30 miles north of
the city. Even from that distance you could smell the burning. Fine
fragments of ash, like slivers of charcoal confetti, covered the pavements.
The very air was charred. It has been the same here these past couple of
months with the fighting in Gaza. Only the air has been charred not with
devastation but with hatred. And I don't mean the hatred of the warring
parties for each other. I mean the hatred of Israel expressed in our
streets, on our campuses, in our newspapers, on our radios and televisions,
and now in our theatres.
A discriminatory, over-and-above hatred, inexplicable in its hysteria and
virulence whatever justification is adduced for it; an unreasoning, deranged
and as far as I can see irreversible revulsion that is poisoning everything
we are supposed to believe in here – the free exchange of opinions, the
clear-headedness of thinkers and teachers, the fine tracery of social
interdependence we call community relations, modernity of outlook,
tolerance, truth. You can taste the toxins on your tongue.
But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism. It is, I am
assured, "criticism" of Israel, pure and simple. In the matter of Israel and
the Palestinians this country has been heading towards a dictatorship of the
one-minded for a long time; we seem now to have attained it. Deviate a
fraction of a moral millimetre from the prevailing othodoxy and you are
either not listened to or you are jeered at and abused, your reading of
history trashed, your humanity itself called into question. I don't say that
self-pityingly. As always with dictatorships of the mind, the worst harmed
are not the ones not listened to, but the ones not listening. So leave them
to it, has essentially been my philosophy. A life spent singing anti-Zionist
carols in the company of Ken Livingstone and George Galloway is its own
punishment.
Related articles
More Jacobson Articles
But responses to the fighting in Gaza have been such as to drive even the
most quiescent of English Jews – whether quiescent because we have learnt to
expect nothing else, or because we are desperate to avoid trouble, or
because we have our own frustrations with Israel to deal with – out of our
usual stoical reserve. Some things cannot any longer go unchallenged.
My first challenge is implicit in the phrase "the fighting in Gaza", which
more justly describes the event than the words "Massacre" and "Slaughter"
which anti-Israel demonstrators carry on their placards. This is not a
linguistic ploy on my part to play down the horror of Gaza or to minimise
the loss of life. In an article in this newspaper last week, Robert Fisk
argued that "a Palestinian woman and her child are as worthy of life as a
Jewish woman and her child on the back of a lorry in Auschwitz". I am not
sure who he was arguing with, but it certainly isn't me.
I do not differentiate between the worth of lives and no more wish to harm
or see harmed the hair of a single Palestinian than do those who make cause,
here in safe cosy old easy-come easy-go England, with Hamas. Indeed, given
Hamas's record of violence to its own people – read the latest report from
Amnesty if you doubt it – it's possible I wish to harm the hair of a single
Palestinian less. But that might be rhetoric in which case I apologise for
it.
Rhetoric is precisely what has warped report and analysis these past months,
and in the process made life fraught for most English Jews who, like me, do
not differentiate between the worth of Jewish and Palestinian lives, though
the imputation – loud and clear in a new hate-fuelled little chamber-piece
by Caryl Churchill – is that Jews do. "Massacre" and "Slaughter" are
rhetorical terms. They determine the issue before it can begin to be
discussed. Are you for massacre or are you not? When did you stop
slaughtering your wife?
I watched demonstrators approach members of the public with their petitions.
"Do you want an end to the slaughter in Gaza?" What were those approached
expected to reply? – "No, I want it to continue unabated." If "Massacre"
presumes indiscriminate, "Slaughter" presumes innocence. There is no dodging
the second of those. In Gaza the innocent have suffered unbearably. But it
is in the nature of modern war, where soldiers no longer toss grenades at
one another from their trenches, that the innocent pay.
Live television pictures of civilian fatalities rightly distress and anger
us. Similar pictures of the damage this country did to the innocent of
Berlin would have distressed and angered us no less. The outrage we feel
does credit to our humanity, but says nothing about the justice of a
particular war. Insist that all wars are too cruel ever to be called just,
argue that any discharge of weapons in the vicinity of the innocent is
murderous, and you will meet no resistance from me; but you will have in the
same breath to implicate Hamas who make a virtue of endangering their own
civilian population, and who, as everyone knows but many choose to discount,
have been firing rockets into Israeli towns for years.
The inefficiency of those rockets, landing God knows where and upon God
knows whom, is often cited to minimise the offence. As though murderous
intention can be mitigated by the obsolescence of the weaponry. In fact the
inefficiency only exacerbates the crime. How much more indiscriminate can
you be than to lob unstable rockets into civilian areas and hope for a hit?
Massacre manqué, we might call it – slaughter in all but a good aim. And
this not from some disaffected group we might liken to the IRA, but the
legitimately elected government of Gaza.
If it is a war crime for one government to fire on civilians, it is a war
crime for another. But when a protester joined a demonstration at Sheffield
University recently, calling on both sides to desist, her placard was seized
and trampled underfoot, while the young in their liberation scarves and
embryo compassion looked on and said not one word.
And Israel? Well, speaking on BBC television at the height of the fighting,
Richard Kemp, former commander of British Troops in Afghanistan and a senior
military adviser to the British government, said the following: "I don't
think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army
has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of civilians
than the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) is doing today in Gaza." A judgement I
can no more corroborate than those who think very differently can disprove.
Right or wrong, it was a contribution to the argument from someone who is
more informed on military matters than most of us, but did it make a blind
bit of difference to the tone of popular execration? It did not. When it
comes to Israel we hear no good, see no good, speak no good. We turn our
backsides to what we do not want to know about and bury it in distaste, like
our own ordure. We did it and go on doing it with all official contestation
of the mortality figures provided by Hamas. We do it with Hamas's own
private executions and their policy of deploying human shields. We do it
with the sotto voce admission by the UN that "a clerical error" caused it to
mis-describe the bombing of that UN school which at the time was all the
proof we needed of Israel's savagery. It now turns out that Israel did not
bomb the school at all. But there's no emotional mileage in a correction.
The libel sticks, the retraction goes unnoticed.
But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism. It is
criticism of Israel, pure and simple.
A laughably benign locution, "criticism", for what is in fact – what has in
recent years become – a desire to word a country not just out of the
commonwealth of nations but out of physical existence altogether. Richard
Ingrams daydreams of the time when Israel will no longer be, an after-dinner
sleep which is more than an old man's idle prophesying. It is for him a
consummation devoutly to be wished. This week Bruce Anderson also looked to
such a time, but in his case with profound regret. Israel has missed and
goes on missing chances to be magnanimous, he argued, as no victor has ever
been before. That's a high expectation, but I am in sympathy with it, and it
is an expectation in line with what Israel's greatest writers and peace
campaigners – Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman – have been saying for
years. Though it is interesting that not a one of those believed such
magnanimity included allowing Hamas's rockets to go on
falling unhindered into Israel.
Was not the original withdrawal from Gaza and the dismantling of the rightly
detested settlements a sufficient signal of peaceful intent, and a
sufficient opportunity for it to be reciprocated? Magnanimity is by
definition unilateral, but it takes two for it to be more than a suicidal
gesture. And the question has to be asked whether a Jewish state, however
magnanimous and conciliatory, will ever be accepted in the Middle East.
But my argument is not with the Palestinians or even with Hamas. People in
the thick of it pursue their own agenda as best they can. But what's our
agenda? What do we, in the cosy safety of tolerant old England, think we are
doing when we call the Israelis Nazis and liken Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto?
Do those who blithely make these comparisons know anything whereof they
speak?
In the early 1940s some 100,000 Jews and Romanis died of engineered
starvation and disease in the Warsaw Ghetto, another quarter of a million
were transported to the death camps, and when the Ghetto rose up it was
liquidated, the last 50,000 residents being either shot on the spot or sent
to be murdered more hygienically in Treblinka. Don't mistake me: every
Palestinian killed in Gaza is a Palestinian too many, but there is not the
remotest similarity, either in intention or in deed – even in the most
grossly mis-reported deed – between Gaza and Warsaw.
Given the number of besieged and battered cities there have been in however
many thousands of years of pitiless warfare there is only one explanation
for this invocation of Warsaw before any of those – it is to wound Jews in
their recent and most anguished history and to punish them with their own
grief. Its aim is a sort of retrospective retribution, cancelling out all
debts of guilt and sorrow. It is as though, by a reversal of the usual laws
of cause and effect, Jewish actions of today prove that Jews had it coming
to them yesterday.
Berating Jews with their own history, disinheriting them of pity, as though
pity is negotiable or has a sell-by date, is the latest species of Holocaust
denial, infinitely more subtle than the David Irving version with its
clunking body counts and quibbles over gas-chamber capability and chimney
sizes. Instead of saying the Holocaust didn't happen, the modern
sophisticated denier accepts the event in all its terrible enormity, only to
accuse the Jews of trying to profit from it, either in the form of moral
blackmail or downright territorial theft. According to this thinking, the
Jews have betrayed the Holocaust and become unworthy of it, the true heirs
to their suffering being the Palestinians. Thus, here and there throughout
the world this year, Holocaust day was temporarily annulled or boycotted on
account of Gaza, dead Jews being found guilty of the sins of live ones.
Anti-Semitism? Absolutely not. It is "criticism" of Israel, pure and simple.
A number of variations on the above sophistical nastiness have been
fermenting in the more febrile of our campuses for some time. One
particularly popular version, pseudo-scientific in tone, understands Zionism
as a political form given to a psychological condition – Jews visiting upon
others the traumas suffered by themselves, with Israel figuring as the
torture room in which they do it. This is is pretty well the thesis of Caryl
Churchill's Seven Jewish Children, an audacious 10-minute encapsulation of
Israel's moral collapse – the audacity residing in its ignorance or its
dishonesty – currently playing at the Royal Court. The play is conceived in
the form of a family roundelay, with different voices chiming in with
suggestions as to the best way to bring up, protect, inform, and ultimately
inflame into animality an unseen child in each of the chosen seven
periods of contemporary Jewish history. It begins with the Holocaust, partly
to establish the playwright's sympathetic bona fides ("Tell her not to come
out even if she hears shouting"), partly to explain what has befallen
Palestine, because no sooner are the Jews out of the hell of Hitler's Europe
than they are constructing a parallel hell for Palestinians.
Anyone with scant knowledge of the history of Israeli-Palestinian relations
– that is to say, judging from what they chant, the majority of anti-Israel
demonstrators – would assume from this that Jews descended on the country as
from a clear blue sky; that they had no prior association with the land
other than in religious fantasy and through some scarce remembered
genealogical affiliation: "Tell her it's the land God gave us/... Tell her
her great great great great lots of greats grandad lived there" – the latter
line garnering much knowing laughter in the theatre the night I was there,
by virtue of the predatiousness lurking behind the childlike vagueness.
You cannot of course tell the whole story of anywhere in 10 minutes, but
then why would you want to unless you conceive it to be simple and
one-sided? The staccato form of the piece – every line beginning "Tell her"
or "Don't tell her" – is skilfully contrived to suggest a people not just
forever fraught and frightened but forever covert and deceitful. Nothing is
true. Boasts are denials and denials are boasts. Everything is mediated
through the desire to put the best face, first on fear, then on devious
appropriation, and finally on evil.
That being the case, it is hard to be certain what the playwright knows and
what she doesn't, what she, in her turn, means deliberately to twist or just
unthinkingly helps herself to from the poor box of leftist propaganda. The
overall impression, nonetheless, is of a narrative slavishly in line with
the familiar rhetoric, making little or nothing of the Jews' unbroken
connection with the country going back to the Arab conquest more than a
thousand years before, the piety felt for the land, the respect for its
non-Jewish inhabitants (their rights must "be guarded and honoured
punctiliously," Ben Gurion wrote in 1918), the waves of idealistic
immigration which long predated the post-Holocaust influx with its twisted
psychology, and the hopes of peaceful co-existence, for the tragic dashing
of which Arab countries in their own obduracy and intolerance bear no less
responsibility.
Quite simply, in this wantonly inflammatory piece, the Jews drop in on
somewhere they have no right to be, despise, conquer, and at last revel in
the spilling of Palestinian blood. There is a one-line equivocal mention of
a suicide bomber, and ditto of rockets, both compromised by the "Tell her"
device, otherwise no Arab lifts a finger against a Jew. "Tell her about
Jerusalem," but no one tells her, for example, that the Jewish population of
East Jersusalem was expelled at about the time our survivors turn up, that
it was cleansed from the city and its sacred places desecrated or destroyed.
Only in the crazed brains of Israelis can the motives for any of their
subsequent actions be found.
Thus lie follows lie, omission follows omission, until, in the tenth and
final minute, we have a stage populated by monsters who kill babies by
design – "Tell her we killed the babies by mistake," one says, meaning don't
tell her what we really did – who laugh when they see a dead Palestinian
policeman ("Tell her they're animals... Tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped
them out"), who consider themselves the "chosen people", and who admit to
feeling happy when they see Palestinian "children covered in blood".
Anti-Semitic? No, no. Just criticism of Israel.
Only imagine this as Seven Muslim Children and we know that the Royal Court
would never have had the courage or the foolhardiness to stage it. I say
that with no malice towards Muslims. I do not approve of censorship but I
admire their unwillingness to be traduced. It would seem that we Jews,
however, for all our ingrained brutality – we English Jews at least – are
considered a soft touch. You can say what you like about us, safe in the
knowledge that while we slaughter babies and laugh at murdered policemen
("Tell her we're the iron fist now") we will squeak no louder than a mouse
when we are abused.
Caryl Churchill will argue that her play is about Israelis not Jews, but
once you venture on to "chosen people" territory – feeding all the ancient
prejudice against that miscomprehended phrase – once you repeat in another
form the medieval blood-libel of Jews rejoicing in the murder of little
children, you have crossed over. This is the old stuff. Jew-hating pure and
simple – Jew-hating which the haters don't even recognise in themselves, so
acculturated is it – the Jew-hating which many of us have always suspected
was the only explanation for the disgust that contorts and disfigures faces
when the mere word Israel crops up in conversation. So for that we are
grateful. At last that mystery is solved and that lie finally nailed. No,
you don't have to be an anti-Semite to criticise Israel. It just so happens
that you are.
If one could simply leave them to it one would. It's a hell of its own
making, hating Jews for a living. Only think of the company you must keep.
But these things are catching. Take Michael Billington's somnolent review of
the play in the Guardian. I would imagine that any accusation of
anti-Semitism would horrify Michael Billington. And I certainly don't make
it. But if you wanted an example of how language itself can sleepwalk the
most innocent towards racism, then here it is. "Churchill shows us," he
writes, "how Jewish children are bred to believe in the 'otherness' of
Palestinians..."
It is not just the adopted elision of Israeli children into Jewish children
that is alarming, or the unquestioning acceptance of Caryl Churchill's
offered insider knowledge of Israeli child-rearing, what's most chilling is
that lazy use of the word "bred", so rich in eugenic and bestial
connotations, but inadvertently slipped back into the conversation now, as
truth. Fact: Jews breed children in order to deny Palestinians their
humanity. Watching another play in the same week, Billington complains about
its manipulation of racial stereotypes. He doesn't, you see, even notice the
inconsistency.
And so it happens. Without one's being aware of it, it happens. A gradual
habituation to the language of loathing. Passed from the culpable to the
unwary and back again. And soon, before you know it...
Not here, though. Not in cosy old lazy old easy-come easy-go England.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-let8217s-see-the-8216criticism8217-of-israel-for-what-it-really-is-1624827.html
Emotions have run high over recent events in Gaza. And in this impassioned
and searching essay, our writer argues that just below the surface runs a
vicious strain of ancient prejudice
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Photo:
The language of protesters 'determines the issue
before it can be discussed'
I was once in Melbourne when bush fires were raging 20 or 30 miles north of
the city. Even from that distance you could smell the burning. Fine
fragments of ash, like slivers of charcoal confetti, covered the pavements.
The very air was charred. It has been the same here these past couple of
months with the fighting in Gaza. Only the air has been charred not with
devastation but with hatred. And I don't mean the hatred of the warring
parties for each other. I mean the hatred of Israel expressed in our
streets, on our campuses, in our newspapers, on our radios and televisions,
and now in our theatres.
A discriminatory, over-and-above hatred, inexplicable in its hysteria and
virulence whatever justification is adduced for it; an unreasoning, deranged
and as far as I can see irreversible revulsion that is poisoning everything
we are supposed to believe in here – the free exchange of opinions, the
clear-headedness of thinkers and teachers, the fine tracery of social
interdependence we call community relations, modernity of outlook,
tolerance, truth. You can taste the toxins on your tongue.
But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism. It is, I am
assured, "criticism" of Israel, pure and simple. In the matter of Israel and
the Palestinians this country has been heading towards a dictatorship of the
one-minded for a long time; we seem now to have attained it. Deviate a
fraction of a moral millimetre from the prevailing othodoxy and you are
either not listened to or you are jeered at and abused, your reading of
history trashed, your humanity itself called into question. I don't say that
self-pityingly. As always with dictatorships of the mind, the worst harmed
are not the ones not listened to, but the ones not listening. So leave them
to it, has essentially been my philosophy. A life spent singing anti-Zionist
carols in the company of Ken Livingstone and George Galloway is its own
punishment.
Related articles
More Jacobson Articles
But responses to the fighting in Gaza have been such as to drive even the
most quiescent of English Jews – whether quiescent because we have learnt to
expect nothing else, or because we are desperate to avoid trouble, or
because we have our own frustrations with Israel to deal with – out of our
usual stoical reserve. Some things cannot any longer go unchallenged.
My first challenge is implicit in the phrase "the fighting in Gaza", which
more justly describes the event than the words "Massacre" and "Slaughter"
which anti-Israel demonstrators carry on their placards. This is not a
linguistic ploy on my part to play down the horror of Gaza or to minimise
the loss of life. In an article in this newspaper last week, Robert Fisk
argued that "a Palestinian woman and her child are as worthy of life as a
Jewish woman and her child on the back of a lorry in Auschwitz". I am not
sure who he was arguing with, but it certainly isn't me.
I do not differentiate between the worth of lives and no more wish to harm
or see harmed the hair of a single Palestinian than do those who make cause,
here in safe cosy old easy-come easy-go England, with Hamas. Indeed, given
Hamas's record of violence to its own people – read the latest report from
Amnesty if you doubt it – it's possible I wish to harm the hair of a single
Palestinian less. But that might be rhetoric in which case I apologise for
it.
Rhetoric is precisely what has warped report and analysis these past months,
and in the process made life fraught for most English Jews who, like me, do
not differentiate between the worth of Jewish and Palestinian lives, though
the imputation – loud and clear in a new hate-fuelled little chamber-piece
by Caryl Churchill – is that Jews do. "Massacre" and "Slaughter" are
rhetorical terms. They determine the issue before it can begin to be
discussed. Are you for massacre or are you not? When did you stop
slaughtering your wife?
I watched demonstrators approach members of the public with their petitions.
"Do you want an end to the slaughter in Gaza?" What were those approached
expected to reply? – "No, I want it to continue unabated." If "Massacre"
presumes indiscriminate, "Slaughter" presumes innocence. There is no dodging
the second of those. In Gaza the innocent have suffered unbearably. But it
is in the nature of modern war, where soldiers no longer toss grenades at
one another from their trenches, that the innocent pay.
Live television pictures of civilian fatalities rightly distress and anger
us. Similar pictures of the damage this country did to the innocent of
Berlin would have distressed and angered us no less. The outrage we feel
does credit to our humanity, but says nothing about the justice of a
particular war. Insist that all wars are too cruel ever to be called just,
argue that any discharge of weapons in the vicinity of the innocent is
murderous, and you will meet no resistance from me; but you will have in the
same breath to implicate Hamas who make a virtue of endangering their own
civilian population, and who, as everyone knows but many choose to discount,
have been firing rockets into Israeli towns for years.
The inefficiency of those rockets, landing God knows where and upon God
knows whom, is often cited to minimise the offence. As though murderous
intention can be mitigated by the obsolescence of the weaponry. In fact the
inefficiency only exacerbates the crime. How much more indiscriminate can
you be than to lob unstable rockets into civilian areas and hope for a hit?
Massacre manqué, we might call it – slaughter in all but a good aim. And
this not from some disaffected group we might liken to the IRA, but the
legitimately elected government of Gaza.
If it is a war crime for one government to fire on civilians, it is a war
crime for another. But when a protester joined a demonstration at Sheffield
University recently, calling on both sides to desist, her placard was seized
and trampled underfoot, while the young in their liberation scarves and
embryo compassion looked on and said not one word.
And Israel? Well, speaking on BBC television at the height of the fighting,
Richard Kemp, former commander of British Troops in Afghanistan and a senior
military adviser to the British government, said the following: "I don't
think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army
has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of civilians
than the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) is doing today in Gaza." A judgement I
can no more corroborate than those who think very differently can disprove.
Right or wrong, it was a contribution to the argument from someone who is
more informed on military matters than most of us, but did it make a blind
bit of difference to the tone of popular execration? It did not. When it
comes to Israel we hear no good, see no good, speak no good. We turn our
backsides to what we do not want to know about and bury it in distaste, like
our own ordure. We did it and go on doing it with all official contestation
of the mortality figures provided by Hamas. We do it with Hamas's own
private executions and their policy of deploying human shields. We do it
with the sotto voce admission by the UN that "a clerical error" caused it to
mis-describe the bombing of that UN school which at the time was all the
proof we needed of Israel's savagery. It now turns out that Israel did not
bomb the school at all. But there's no emotional mileage in a correction.
The libel sticks, the retraction goes unnoticed.
But I am not allowed to ascribe any of this to anti-Semitism. It is
criticism of Israel, pure and simple.
A laughably benign locution, "criticism", for what is in fact – what has in
recent years become – a desire to word a country not just out of the
commonwealth of nations but out of physical existence altogether. Richard
Ingrams daydreams of the time when Israel will no longer be, an after-dinner
sleep which is more than an old man's idle prophesying. It is for him a
consummation devoutly to be wished. This week Bruce Anderson also looked to
such a time, but in his case with profound regret. Israel has missed and
goes on missing chances to be magnanimous, he argued, as no victor has ever
been before. That's a high expectation, but I am in sympathy with it, and it
is an expectation in line with what Israel's greatest writers and peace
campaigners – Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman – have been saying for
years. Though it is interesting that not a one of those believed such
magnanimity included allowing Hamas's rockets to go on
falling unhindered into Israel.
Was not the original withdrawal from Gaza and the dismantling of the rightly
detested settlements a sufficient signal of peaceful intent, and a
sufficient opportunity for it to be reciprocated? Magnanimity is by
definition unilateral, but it takes two for it to be more than a suicidal
gesture. And the question has to be asked whether a Jewish state, however
magnanimous and conciliatory, will ever be accepted in the Middle East.
But my argument is not with the Palestinians or even with Hamas. People in
the thick of it pursue their own agenda as best they can. But what's our
agenda? What do we, in the cosy safety of tolerant old England, think we are
doing when we call the Israelis Nazis and liken Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto?
Do those who blithely make these comparisons know anything whereof they
speak?
In the early 1940s some 100,000 Jews and Romanis died of engineered
starvation and disease in the Warsaw Ghetto, another quarter of a million
were transported to the death camps, and when the Ghetto rose up it was
liquidated, the last 50,000 residents being either shot on the spot or sent
to be murdered more hygienically in Treblinka. Don't mistake me: every
Palestinian killed in Gaza is a Palestinian too many, but there is not the
remotest similarity, either in intention or in deed – even in the most
grossly mis-reported deed – between Gaza and Warsaw.
Given the number of besieged and battered cities there have been in however
many thousands of years of pitiless warfare there is only one explanation
for this invocation of Warsaw before any of those – it is to wound Jews in
their recent and most anguished history and to punish them with their own
grief. Its aim is a sort of retrospective retribution, cancelling out all
debts of guilt and sorrow. It is as though, by a reversal of the usual laws
of cause and effect, Jewish actions of today prove that Jews had it coming
to them yesterday.
Berating Jews with their own history, disinheriting them of pity, as though
pity is negotiable or has a sell-by date, is the latest species of Holocaust
denial, infinitely more subtle than the David Irving version with its
clunking body counts and quibbles over gas-chamber capability and chimney
sizes. Instead of saying the Holocaust didn't happen, the modern
sophisticated denier accepts the event in all its terrible enormity, only to
accuse the Jews of trying to profit from it, either in the form of moral
blackmail or downright territorial theft. According to this thinking, the
Jews have betrayed the Holocaust and become unworthy of it, the true heirs
to their suffering being the Palestinians. Thus, here and there throughout
the world this year, Holocaust day was temporarily annulled or boycotted on
account of Gaza, dead Jews being found guilty of the sins of live ones.
Anti-Semitism? Absolutely not. It is "criticism" of Israel, pure and simple.
A number of variations on the above sophistical nastiness have been
fermenting in the more febrile of our campuses for some time. One
particularly popular version, pseudo-scientific in tone, understands Zionism
as a political form given to a psychological condition – Jews visiting upon
others the traumas suffered by themselves, with Israel figuring as the
torture room in which they do it. This is is pretty well the thesis of Caryl
Churchill's Seven Jewish Children, an audacious 10-minute encapsulation of
Israel's moral collapse – the audacity residing in its ignorance or its
dishonesty – currently playing at the Royal Court. The play is conceived in
the form of a family roundelay, with different voices chiming in with
suggestions as to the best way to bring up, protect, inform, and ultimately
inflame into animality an unseen child in each of the chosen seven
periods of contemporary Jewish history. It begins with the Holocaust, partly
to establish the playwright's sympathetic bona fides ("Tell her not to come
out even if she hears shouting"), partly to explain what has befallen
Palestine, because no sooner are the Jews out of the hell of Hitler's Europe
than they are constructing a parallel hell for Palestinians.
Anyone with scant knowledge of the history of Israeli-Palestinian relations
– that is to say, judging from what they chant, the majority of anti-Israel
demonstrators – would assume from this that Jews descended on the country as
from a clear blue sky; that they had no prior association with the land
other than in religious fantasy and through some scarce remembered
genealogical affiliation: "Tell her it's the land God gave us/... Tell her
her great great great great lots of greats grandad lived there" – the latter
line garnering much knowing laughter in the theatre the night I was there,
by virtue of the predatiousness lurking behind the childlike vagueness.
You cannot of course tell the whole story of anywhere in 10 minutes, but
then why would you want to unless you conceive it to be simple and
one-sided? The staccato form of the piece – every line beginning "Tell her"
or "Don't tell her" – is skilfully contrived to suggest a people not just
forever fraught and frightened but forever covert and deceitful. Nothing is
true. Boasts are denials and denials are boasts. Everything is mediated
through the desire to put the best face, first on fear, then on devious
appropriation, and finally on evil.
That being the case, it is hard to be certain what the playwright knows and
what she doesn't, what she, in her turn, means deliberately to twist or just
unthinkingly helps herself to from the poor box of leftist propaganda. The
overall impression, nonetheless, is of a narrative slavishly in line with
the familiar rhetoric, making little or nothing of the Jews' unbroken
connection with the country going back to the Arab conquest more than a
thousand years before, the piety felt for the land, the respect for its
non-Jewish inhabitants (their rights must "be guarded and honoured
punctiliously," Ben Gurion wrote in 1918), the waves of idealistic
immigration which long predated the post-Holocaust influx with its twisted
psychology, and the hopes of peaceful co-existence, for the tragic dashing
of which Arab countries in their own obduracy and intolerance bear no less
responsibility.
Quite simply, in this wantonly inflammatory piece, the Jews drop in on
somewhere they have no right to be, despise, conquer, and at last revel in
the spilling of Palestinian blood. There is a one-line equivocal mention of
a suicide bomber, and ditto of rockets, both compromised by the "Tell her"
device, otherwise no Arab lifts a finger against a Jew. "Tell her about
Jerusalem," but no one tells her, for example, that the Jewish population of
East Jersusalem was expelled at about the time our survivors turn up, that
it was cleansed from the city and its sacred places desecrated or destroyed.
Only in the crazed brains of Israelis can the motives for any of their
subsequent actions be found.
Thus lie follows lie, omission follows omission, until, in the tenth and
final minute, we have a stage populated by monsters who kill babies by
design – "Tell her we killed the babies by mistake," one says, meaning don't
tell her what we really did – who laugh when they see a dead Palestinian
policeman ("Tell her they're animals... Tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped
them out"), who consider themselves the "chosen people", and who admit to
feeling happy when they see Palestinian "children covered in blood".
Anti-Semitic? No, no. Just criticism of Israel.
Only imagine this as Seven Muslim Children and we know that the Royal Court
would never have had the courage or the foolhardiness to stage it. I say
that with no malice towards Muslims. I do not approve of censorship but I
admire their unwillingness to be traduced. It would seem that we Jews,
however, for all our ingrained brutality – we English Jews at least – are
considered a soft touch. You can say what you like about us, safe in the
knowledge that while we slaughter babies and laugh at murdered policemen
("Tell her we're the iron fist now") we will squeak no louder than a mouse
when we are abused.
Caryl Churchill will argue that her play is about Israelis not Jews, but
once you venture on to "chosen people" territory – feeding all the ancient
prejudice against that miscomprehended phrase – once you repeat in another
form the medieval blood-libel of Jews rejoicing in the murder of little
children, you have crossed over. This is the old stuff. Jew-hating pure and
simple – Jew-hating which the haters don't even recognise in themselves, so
acculturated is it – the Jew-hating which many of us have always suspected
was the only explanation for the disgust that contorts and disfigures faces
when the mere word Israel crops up in conversation. So for that we are
grateful. At last that mystery is solved and that lie finally nailed. No,
you don't have to be an anti-Semite to criticise Israel. It just so happens
that you are.
If one could simply leave them to it one would. It's a hell of its own
making, hating Jews for a living. Only think of the company you must keep.
But these things are catching. Take Michael Billington's somnolent review of
the play in the Guardian. I would imagine that any accusation of
anti-Semitism would horrify Michael Billington. And I certainly don't make
it. But if you wanted an example of how language itself can sleepwalk the
most innocent towards racism, then here it is. "Churchill shows us," he
writes, "how Jewish children are bred to believe in the 'otherness' of
Palestinians..."
It is not just the adopted elision of Israeli children into Jewish children
that is alarming, or the unquestioning acceptance of Caryl Churchill's
offered insider knowledge of Israeli child-rearing, what's most chilling is
that lazy use of the word "bred", so rich in eugenic and bestial
connotations, but inadvertently slipped back into the conversation now, as
truth. Fact: Jews breed children in order to deny Palestinians their
humanity. Watching another play in the same week, Billington complains about
its manipulation of racial stereotypes. He doesn't, you see, even notice the
inconsistency.
And so it happens. Without one's being aware of it, it happens. A gradual
habituation to the language of loathing. Passed from the culpable to the
unwary and back again. And soon, before you know it...
Not here, though. Not in cosy old lazy old easy-come easy-go England.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-let8217s-see-the-8216criticism8217-of-israel-for-what-it-really-is-1624827.html
Posts
