RSS
The Myth of British Exceptionalism
JNS.org – That old image of the Jewish family with a packed suitcase at the ready in case they are compelled to suddenly leave their home has returned with a vengeance across Europe.
In France and Germany, home to sizable Jewish communities, the “Should we leave?” debate is raging in earnest. Both of these countries experienced record levels of antisemitic incidents in 2023, most of them occurring after the Hamas pogrom of Oct. 7 in southern Israel. Similar conversations are also being held in the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Belgium and Spain—countries with tiny Jewish communities that are nevertheless enduring a painful rise in antisemitism.
What about Britain, though? It’s a pertinent question insofar as there has always been a “British exceptionalism” with regard to the continent. During World War II, the Nazis failed in their quest to conquer the British Isles, in contrast to the rest of Europe. After the defeat of Hitler, the British supported efforts to transform Europe into an economic and political community that eventually became the European Union, even joining it. Yet Britain was never fully at peace with its identity as a European state, and as is well known, the “Brexit” referendum of 2016 resulted in the country’s full-fledged withdrawal from the European Union.
When it comes to antisemitism, however, Britain is very much part of the European rule, not the exception. Again, that’s important because while the British don’t deny that antisemitism is present in their politics and culture, they don’t believe that it’s as venomous as its German or French variations. “It is generally admitted that antisemitism is on the increase, that it has been greatly exacerbated by the war, and that humane and enlightened people are not immune to it. It does not take violent forms (English people are almost invariably gentle and law-abiding),” wrote George Orwell in an essay, “Antisemitism in Britain,” penned towards the war’s close in April 1945.
At the same time, Orwell conceded that British antisemitism was “ill-natured enough, and in favorable circumstances, it could have political results.” To illustrate this point, he offered a selection of the antisemitic barbs that he had encountered over the previous year. “No, I’ve got no matches for you. I should try the lady down the street. She’s always got matches. One of the Chosen Race, you see,” a grumpy tobacconist informed him. “Well, no one could call me antisemitic, but I do think the way these Jews behave is too absolutely stinking. The way they push their way to the head of queues, and so on. They’re so abominably selfish. I think they’re responsible for a lot of what happens to them,” a “middle-class” woman said. Another woman, described by Orwell as an “intellectual,” refused to look at a book detailing the persecution of Jews in Germany on the grounds that “it will only make me hate them even more,” while a young man—a “near-Communist” in Orwell’s description—confessed that he had never made a secret of his loathing of Jews. “Mind you, I’m not antisemitic, of course,” he added.
I’d wager that were Orwell to tackle the same subject today, he would write a similar essay. The rhetoric he quotes echoes eerily in what we are hearing almost 80 years later, particularly the denial that recycling antisemitic tropes makes one an antisemite, as well as the digs against chosenness—because antisemites have never understood (or don’t want to understand) that Jewish “chosenness” is not about racial or ethnic superiority, but a duty to carry out a specific set of Divine commandments.
Last week, the Community Security Trust (CST), a voluntary security organization serving British Jews, issued its annual report on the state of antisemitism in Britain. The CST has been faithfully issuing these reports since 1984, and over the last few years, it has regularly registered new records for the number of offenses reported. 2023 was the worst year of all; there were a stomach-churning 4,103 incidents reported—an increase of 81% on the previous annual record in 2021, when 2,261 incidents were reported (largely due to that year’s conflict between Israel and Hamas for 11 days in May).
Instructively, the worst month in 2023 was October, in the days immediately following the rapes and other atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists on that black day. Oct. 11 was, in fact, the worst day, with 80 incidents reported. As the CST pointed out, “[T]he speed at which antisemites mobilized in the U.K. on and immediately after Oct. 7 suggests that, initially at least, this increase in anti-Jewish hate was a celebration of the Hamas attack on Israel, rather than anger at Israel’s military response in Gaza.”
Of course, the present situation in the United Kingdom differs from Orwell’s time for two main reasons. Firstly, in 1945, there was no Jewish state, and antisemitism revolved around cruder tropes invoking supposed Jewish rudeness, clannishness, financial power and so forth. (Even so, Britain was also one of the first Western countries to experience antisemitic rioting linked to the Zionist movement and Israel; in 1947, after two British officers in Mandatory Palestine were executed by the Irgun, or “Etzel,” resistance organization, violence targeting Jewish communities broke out across the United Kingdom, thereby establishing the principle that all Jews, everywhere, are to blame for the alleged evils of Zionism.)
Secondly, in 1945 Britain was still largely a white, Christian society. In the interim, it has become far more diverse and is now home to nearly 4 million Muslims who constitute 6.5 percent of the population. Since the late 1980s—when the Iranian regime issued a fatwa calling for the death of the Anglo-Indian author Salman Rushdie, alleged to have slandered Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses—what was once a relatively docile population has become politically animated, with the Palestinian cause pushed front and center.
In the four months that have passed since the Hamas atrocities, with weekly demonstrations in support of Hamas in London and other cities, Muslim voices have been disproportionately loud in the opprobrium being piled not just on Israel, but on those Britons—the country’s Jewish community—most closely associated with the Jewish state. Of course, this doesn’t apply to every Muslim, and many of the worst offenders are non-Muslims on the left. Indeed, the Oct. 7 massacres have enabled the return to politics of a particularly odious individual whom I had forlornly believed had been banished to the garbage can of history; George Galloway, an ally of Hamas and one-time acolyte of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who is standing in the forthcoming parliamentary election in the northern English constituency of Rochdale for an outfit called the “Workers Party of Britain,” whose manifesto combines nationalism and socialism, but which would probably balk at the description “national socialist” in much the same way that some antisemites balk at the description “antisemitic.”
British Jews have weathered a great deal in recent years, especially the five years when the Labour Party, the main opposition, was led by the far-left Parliament member Jeremy Corbyn, who has since been turfed out of the party by his successor Sir Keir Starmer. Having survived that, the belief has spread that they can survive anything. But there’s another question to be asked: Is the effort worth it? Increasingly, and worryingly, growing numbers of British Jews are now answering “no.”
The post The Myth of British Exceptionalism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Change in the Middle East? Don’t Hold Your Breath
One year after Hamas’ October 7 massacre, I noticed a cluster of articles in various sources referring to strategic realignments among some of the players in the Middle East.
For example, Zvika Klein interprets the muted responses from Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia to Israel’s latest bombing of military sites in Iran as indicating that, while each country continues to give lip service to the Palestinian cause, their primary attention has shifted to restraining Iran.
Maria Abi-Habib and Ismaeel Naar come to the opposite conclusion. Noting what appears to be a possible rapprochement between Iran and rival Saudi Arabia, they see a Middle East shift in which Saudi Arabia’s interest in a normalization deal has passed, and Israel’s profile as a regional player is diminished.
An article by Aida Chávez reports that after the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, US Congressional leaders such as Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) discussed wide-ranging Middle East scenarios, including US guarantees of Saudi security along with Saudi and Gulf State help in reconstruction and governance of Gaza.
Meanwhile, Neville Berman reminds us of the success of the Marshall Plan in rebuilding Europe after World War II, suggesting something similar for Gaza — but only after the release of the Israeli hostages and after the people of Gaza reject Hamas and the “pyromaniacal aims of Iran.”
Finally, Fahad Almasri, President of the National Salvation Front in Syria, a group opposed to the Assad government, believes that Israel’s battles with Hezbollah and Iran have won the hearts of a majority of the Lebanese and Syrian people. Almasri argues that an Arab version of NATO, led by Saudi Arabia, would reduce foreign involvement in the area (especially Iran’s) and support peaceful relations with Israel.
While these proposals may be well intentioned, I am skeptical. We have seen this movie before. Previous starring roles, for example, involved Egypt under Nasser and Syria. Who remembers the late United Arab Republic?
In 1958, when John F. Kennedy was a senator, the world was dealing with the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. America was not Israel’s close ally. In fact, the US continued to enforce an embargo on arms sales to Israel. That year Kennedy wrote the following:
Even by the coldest calculations, the removal of Israel would not alter the basic crisis in the area. For, if there is any lesson which the melancholy events of the last two years and more taught us, it is that, though Arab states are generally united in opposition to Israel, their political unities do not rise above this negative position. The basic rivalries within the Arab world, the quarrels over boundaries, the tensions involved in lifting their economies from stagnation, the cross pressures of nationalism — all of these factors would still be there, even if there were no Israel.
What was true 66 years ago is still true today.
The prominent actors in the region are the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, all authoritarian regimes that rank far down on The Economist’s democracy index. Their influence is due to oil and gas revenues. Only 12 percent of the three million people living in Qatar, for example, are Qataris. (The same percentage applies to the UAE.) The vast majority are support workers from abroad. Qatar has been compared to a good airport terminal: pleasantly air-conditioned, lots of shopping, a wide selection of food, and people from around the world.
The Abraham Accords may yet lead to peace between Israel and all her neighbors, and adding Saudi Arabia to the Accords is laudable, but don’t get your hopes up.
Jacob Sivak, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a retired professor, University of Waterloo.
The post Change in the Middle East? Don’t Hold Your Breath first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
NYT’s ‘65 Doctors’ Essay Crumbles as Evidence of Embellished Testimony Mounts
The New York Times recently defended its guest essay, in which 65 medical professionals recounted their experiences working in Gaza.
The essay included graphic accounts suggesting that the IDF deliberately targets civilians, including women and children. It also featured X-ray images that were later scrutinized by medical experts for inconsistencies, casting doubt on their authenticity.
Six days after publication, amid growing questions about the credibility of these accounts and the evidence provided, The New York Times issued a statement asserting that the essay had been “rigorously edited” and standing by the contributors’ credentials. The statement further insisted, “Any implication that its images are fabricated is simply false.”
Despite this defense, more evidence soon surfaced, challenging the essay’s claims.
In The Jurist, two physicians and medical ethicists described allegations that Israeli forces intentionally targeted children’s heads in Gaza as “highly implausible,” citing ballistic evidence, medical imaging analysis, and the realities of combat. They emphasized the ethical imperative for healthcare workers to provide impartial, fact-based accounts in conflict zones.
In addition to concerns about the X-rays, HonestReporting can now reveal inconsistencies in at least one of the accounts given by a doctor featured in the essay.
Dr. Khawaja Ikram, an orthopedic surgeon from Dallas, Texas, describes treating two children, aged three and five, who he alleges were shot in the head by an Israeli sniper as they returned with their father to survey their home in Khan Younis:
However, this is not the first time Ikram has spoken to a media outlet about his experience in Gaza.
In a February interview with NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, more than six months before the New York Times essay, Ikram recounted a strikingly similar story — though with several key differences.
He described treating a man who arrived at the hospital carrying his five-year-old daughter, claiming she had sustained a “single bullet wound to the head.” According to Ikram, the father said, “We thought the troops were pulling back, so we went to check on our home. There were snipers waiting. My five-year-old daughter was shot. She’s my only daughter, please save her.”
The narrative is nearly identical to the one Ikram later gave to The New York Times, but in his earlier account, no mention was made of the additional three-year-old child who was allegedly shot. If his later testimony is accurate, we must ask why this significant detail was omitted in the earlier interview.
Despite The New York Times’ vigorous defense of the essay, mounting evidence continues to discredit both the accounts and the purported evidence within the piece.
It raises serious questions about how thoroughly the Times vetted the doctors involved. Did they even check if these individuals had shared their stories before, and whether there were discrepancies in the details?
As the credibility of the 65 doctors’ essay unravels, The New York Times cannot continue to ignore the cracks.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post NYT’s ‘65 Doctors’ Essay Crumbles as Evidence of Embellished Testimony Mounts first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Actress Ellen Barkin Calls for Nazi Persecution of MSG Owners, Death of Trump Supporters After New York Rally
Actress Ellen Barkin said on Sunday she wants the owners of Madison Square Garden (MSG) to face the same persecution Jews experienced from the Nazis during the Holocaust because the famous New York City venue held a rally for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during which several racist insults were made.
The “Ocean’s Thirteen” actress, whose parents are Russian Jews, also called Trump a “Nazi” and called for the death of those who attended what she called the “Nazi rally” in several posts on X, formerly know as Twitter.
“Madison Square Garden is owned by James Dolan,” Barkin, 70, wrote. “A major supporter of Nazi trump. His accomplice is one Irving Azoff. A Jew. A shonda for the goyim if ever one lived. May they suffer the pain of all who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.” Shonda means disgrace in Yiddish while goyim means non-Jews.
In separate posts on X, the former “Animal Kingdom” star advocated for a boycott of MSG. “Justice would be served if athletes and artists refused to play the Garden,” she wrote.
The actress compared Trump’s Sunday night event to a Nazi rally held in MSG in 1939 and also wrote, “I don’t wish death on anyone … except pedophiles and Nazis. The gangs all here at MSG.”
“I’m thinking biblical,” she added. “May the good earth beneath MSG open its fiery jaws and hurl them all straight into the burning cauldron of the 9 circles. Going down maggots?”
Dolan is the executive chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. (MSG Entertainment). In 2018, MSG and Azoff, a music industry tycoon, signed a joint agreement that led to the formation of The Azoff Company, which helps run the media and music venue in New York City. MSG has previously hosted both the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention. US President Joe Biden held an event in March at Radio City Music Hall, which is owned by the Dolan family.
Dolan, who is reportedly a registered Democrat, is a longtime friend of Trump’s and got married at the latter’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida. During his speech at the rally on Sunday, Trump thanked Dolan, saying: “He’s been incredible. He’s been just incredible. The job they’ve done. The job they’ve done. Thank you.”
During the Trump rally in MSG on Sunday, stand-up comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made racist and offensive comments about Latinos, Jews, and Black people, just a little over a week away from the US presidential election. Hinchcliffe, who hosts the podcast Kill Tony, joked about a Black person in the audience, saying he had “carved watermelons” with the audience member instead of pumpkins for Halloween.
He additionally said during the rally: “I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.” That comment sparked backlash from several Puerto Ricans in the entertainment industry, including singers Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony, Ricky Martin and Bad Bunny, and “The View” co-host Sunny Hostin.
Also while on stage, he said of Latinos: “[They] love making babies. They do. There’s no pulling out. They don’t do that. They come inside. Just like they did to our country.”
Trump campaign adviser Danielle Alvarez said in a statement reported by The Hill that Hinchcliffe’s joke about Puerto Rico “does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.” An MSG Entertainment spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter on Monday: “As a business we are neutral in political matters. We rent to either side. We don’t censor artists, performers, or speakers.”
Hinchcliffe took to social media to defend his joke about Puerto Rico. He responded to a clip on X of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) criticizing his remark, and wrote that his joke was “taken out of context to make it seem racist.”
“These people have no sense of humor,” he said. “I love Puerto Rico and vacation there. I made fun of everyone … watch the whole set. I’m a comedian Tim … might be time to change your tampon.”
The post Actress Ellen Barkin Calls for Nazi Persecution of MSG Owners, Death of Trump Supporters After New York Rally first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login