No compromise with anti-semitism

The Guardian, 5 May 2003

Tam Dalyell has an honourable record as a parliamentary maverick and forensic critic of military adventures, but his comment on the alleged Jewish influence on US and British war policy should be seen for what it is – an anti-semitic outburst.

Although Dalyell does not appear to have used the wretched phrase “Jewish cabal”, his remarks were redolent with hoary and dangerous mythology. What’s more, they are a disservice to the anti-war movement and the left, which will decisively reject them.

In his interview with Vanity Fair and comments to the Sunday Telegraph, Dalyell ropes together a variety of figures on both sides of the Atlantic and declares not only that they are all “Jewish” (some have never identified themselves as such), but that it is this shared Jewishness that accounts for their hawkish politics. There is a warning implied in his remarks: a religious minority is exercising an undue, malign influence on British and US foreign policies. And that influence is exercised on behalf of a foreign country – the state of Israel.

This is a conspiracy theory with the most unsavoury historical precedents – not least in the grim saga of European anti-semitism. What’s disturbing is that a man can lead such a distinguished public career and still succumb to the “it’s in the blood” pseudo-logic that links genealogy to religion to politics to national loyalties without pausing for breath – or thought.

Dalyell insists that he is merely “being candid” and predicts that he will be punished for this “candour”. But this sounds woefully familiar. It’s no more than a polished specimen of the “people are afraid to say it, but we all now what they’re like” school of racist apologetics. You can find it in the rightwing tabloids and on the phone-ins any day of the week. There’s no bravery in Dalyell’s “candour”, merely muddle-headed bigotry.

His remarks impute to Jewishness itself a hawkish pro-Israeli bias. The reality, of course, is that political opinion among Jews is diverse. It’s said that around a third of the International Solidarity Movement volunteers currently inserting their bodies between Israeli bulldozers and Palestinian homes are Jewish. Large numbers of Jews both here and in the US opposed the invasion of Iraq and oppose the ensuing occupation. Among Jews in the US, a sizeable majority vote for the Democrats. So whatever the Perles and Wolfowitzes represent, it isn’t Jewish opinion as a whole.

The US supports Israel not because of the “Jewish lobby” but because of the strategic priorities of the US corporate elite, not least those arising from the desire to control access to oil. Israel is the biggest recipient of US military aid – but Egypt is the second biggest, and no one speculates that behind these billions of dollars lies an “Egyptian/Arab/Muslim” hand.

The Muslim population of the US is only slightly smaller than the Jewish one and will probably exceed it in the years to come. But however well-organised and even well-funded it may become, its political clout will not exceed that of the so-called “Jewish lobby”, because that lobby is promoting policies consonant with long-term US objectives.

One of the grotesque ironies of the current American political landscape is the unholy alliance between extreme Zionists and neo-Conservatives, many of whom subscribe to a form of Christian fundamentalism that threatens Jews along with other minorities.

The disproportionate numbers of Jews active in both the antiwar and pro-war camps reflects, among other things, Jewish traditions of social activism. In urging the public to see the Jewish influence at work in the war, Dalyell not only smears Jews, but suggests that the sources of war and empire-building are other than they are.

His comments will also play into the hands of those who seek to turn an essentially political conflict into a religious or ethnic one. The defenders of the indefensible who have sought shelter by making accusations of anti-semitism – against the anti-war movement, supporters of the Palestinians and the left in general – will take comfort.

From my experience as an anti-war activist (and, incidentally, a Jew) who’s attended anti-war meetings both in Britain and the US, I know that Dalyell’s comments are exactly not the kind of logic or sentiment that has characterised this remarkable movement. In particular, I’ve found the great majority of Muslim activists highly alert to the question of anti-semitism, keen to engage in dialogue with Jews and well aware that anti-semitism and Islamophobia are drawn from the same template. In contrast, in my brief exposure to the British upper classes I’ve found anti-semitism commonplace and frequently unblushing. I’ve heard Jews both admired and resented – but in any case distrusted – as “a successful race”.

I suspect Dalyell’s comments may reflect that background, but that does not mean the left or the anti-war movement can merely breathe a sigh of relief. We have to sustain a thoughtful vigilance in drawing a rigorous line between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. Failure to do so ignores, as Dalyell has, some of history’s most salient lessons.