BBC calls in the Israel-haters to explain anti-semitism

Norm has done a very good job of fisking Professor Steven Rose's contribution to the BBC Today Programme's discussion of the report of the Parliamentary All-Party Enquiry into anti-semitism in Britain.

Poisonous stuff, says Norm. He can't see how any educated man comes to be able to speak as Rose does, blaming Israel and the Jews who support Israel for the existence of anti-semitism.

Personally, I've never had any difficulty in seeing how educated people, even professors, are able to speak as Rose does. It's been something of an old established art form, developed by stellar intellectuals from Voltaire, through a very large proportion of the professoriate of Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany to the equally large number of academics who stand alongside Steven Rose to this day in calling for an academic boycott of all Israeli universities.

No surprise there, then. What is worthy of the note is the way the Today Programme excelled even its already dubious record in framing its presentation of this key Parliamentary report. That was presented this morning through the perspectives and analysis of two ferociously anti-Israel activists who have a track record of blaming Jews for anti-semitism and accusing them of crying anti-semitism as a diversion from criticism of Israel.

The Today Programme's first discussion of the report was presented through a debate between Ian Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader and a member of the Parliamentary All Party Committee, and Inayat Bunglawala, leading member of the Muslim Council of Britain. Inayat Bunglawala has a track record of saying things which indicates that he sees "the Zionist lobby" as a conspiratorial power out to use accusations of anti-semitism as a diversionary tactic.

So that debate shifted away from being an explanation for listeners of what the PAPC report actually had to say about anti-semitism to being a discussion whether the Muslim Council of Britain was right or wrong to refuse to participate in UK Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations.

Then, right at the end of the programme, Professor Steven Rose was presented as the leader in a discussion, not of the report, but of whether Israeli actions are responsible for anti-semitism. Rose was invited to make a lead contribution, which he duly and totally predictably used as a platform to deliver a tirade that anti-semitism is indeed on the increase in Britain today, but that it is caused by Israel. Not just Israel's actions in the Lebanon war, or in the conflict with the Palestinians, but seemingly Israel's very existence, for most of Rose's tirade was a series of claims that Israel is racist, an apartheid state, etc. Professor Shalom Lappin was called on to respond, but I think he made a mistake in buying into the debate on Rose's terms rather than drawing attention to what the Today Programme had done in setting up such a debate in the first place. The usually faultlessly articulate Lappin seemed to me to be driven onto the back foot of stating that, yes, Israeli universities are open to Arabs, Druse, Muslims and Jews.

Where was the discussion of what the report actually had to say?

I find it very difficult to imagine the Today Programme choosing to present any Parliamentary report on Islamophobia and attacks on Muslims by inviting Irshad Manji and Nonie Darwish to lead the commentary.

Let alone having one or other of them argue that Islamic leaders and regimes are responsible for racist attacks on Muslims in Britain.

Comments

[John Brissenden]

I find it very difficult to imagine the existence of a Parliamentary Committee on Islamophobia, much less it publishing a report. Incidentally, had you visited the Committee's website, you would have seen that Iain Duncan Smith was a member of the Inquiry responsible for the report.

[Judy]

Thanks for the info on IDS, John. I've updated the post to include it.

[John Brissenden]

You're welcome. I've only skim-read the report myself, although the recommendations seem sensible. What did you make of it?

[Joanne]

Regarding your reference to Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany:

This reminds me of when I was studying for a masters of international politics...a really long time ago. The professor was an older European man, and I couldn't understand why he grimaced when someone in the class said that student protestors represented the conscience of society. Or words to that effect. It may not have been as overblown as it sounds here.

Eventually, I understood why. The student only had anti-Vietnam, anti-nuclear, or pro-civil rights demonstrations as a point of reference. I later learned, however, that students and professors in pre-Nazi Germany also were also politically active: in favor of the Nazis.

Rather than saying that students (professors, journalists, etc.) are the voice of political conscience, it may be more accurate to say that they're the voice of political fashion. Or tht they're the voice of the Zeitgeist, i.e. spirit of the times. Or the first voices of a new Zeitgeist just emerging.

Now we see demonstrators--students and otherwise--who draw on anti-Semitic AND leftwing themes. Both that professor in student would be rather confused today.

Actually, anti-Semitism and leftism were not always on opposite sides of the barricades. The left in the 19th century was also anti-Semitic. Duhring, Proudhon, Marx, Guesde, for instance. The left only began to stand against the anti-semites during the Dreyfus affair. And that alignment stuck (more or less) until the late 1960s-early 1970s.

[Leslie]

It is a shame an educated, intellectual person can talk so openly and racist. In a discussion on Jewish Connection- JewishConnection.com - someone stated that "intellectual" racists are the worst kind because they have higher status in society and the chance to change things if they choose...verses "Students and activists" who protest all the time and little or no change occurs, at least not quickly.

[Joanne]

Yes, Leslie, I could see that "intellectual" racists could do more harm, especially if they have impressive credentials.

It is my impression that many people do not have the knowledge or self-confidence to evaluate issues on their own, except for issues that affect them directly. So, they'll tend to listen to someone who is articulate and seems authoriative. This goes doubly so for someone on the Left saying things that cross the boundary into anti-Semitism. There are still plenty of people out there who think that, by definition, the Left is anti-racist and can't possibly be anti-Semitic.