The Two Faces of Jonathan Sacks

by Les May

THE first of these passages is taken from the 2015 book ‘Lessons in Leadership’ by Jonathan Sacks.

‘It is not enough to be righteous if that means turning our backs on a society that is guilty of wrongdoing.  We must take a stand.  We must protest.  We must register dissent even if the probability of changing minds is small.  This is because the moral life is the life we share with others.’

In 2016 he wrote:

‘Anti-Semitism is a virus that survives by mutating.  In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion.  In the 19th and 20th centuries they were hated because of their race.  Today they are hated because of their nation state, Israel.  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.’

http://rabbisacks.org/anti-zionism-is-the-new-anti-semitism-rabbi-sacks-writes-for-newsweek/

Demonstration by British Jews

*******

Calling Out Jonathan Sacks

by Les May

IT seems that once again Jonathan Sacks has chosen to attack JeremyCorbyn who he accused of contributing to Jews questioning whether Britain was still a safe place to raise children.  Which raises the question ‘If they do leave Britain where will they go which is a safer place?’
An 85 page report from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research with the title ‘Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel’ by L. Daniel Staetsky says on page 5:

‘… it is worth stressing a fact that runs the risk of being understated in a problem-centred report: levels of antisemitism in Great Britain are among the lowest in the world.’

and on page 64-65:

‘Looking at the political spectrum of British society, the most antisemitic group consists of those who identify as very right-wing. In this group about 14% hold hard-core antisemitic attitudes and 52% hold at least one attitude, compared again to 3.6% and 30% in the general population.  The very left-wing, and, in fact, all political groups located on the left, are no more antisemitic than the general population. This finding may come as a surprise to those who maintain that in today’s political reality, the left is the more serious, or at least, an equally serious source of antisemitism, than the right. Indeed, Jewish victims of antisemitic violence or harassment identify Muslims and the far-left as the chief perpetrators. This perception is not limited to victims of antisemitism. Three academic studies on the topic of left-wing antisemitism have been published over the past two years, 35 clearly indicating that the perception that the left has an issue with antisemitism is quite prevalent in the minds of Jews and scholars of political sociology and history. Is this view misguided or rooted in error? Not quite. It is simply insufficiently precise.

The left tends to see itself, and is commonly regarded, as an anti-racist and egalitarian political group, both in terms of its political goals and its modus operandi. This image tends to impact on people’s expectations of the left or, at the very least, draws attention to how well (or otherwise) it performs in relation to its own proclaimed values. We found that the left (including the far-left) is no less antisemitic than the general population. This is not a trivial finding, as it runs counter to the left’s self-proclaimed ethos. When the expectation is to find less antisemitism than elsewhere, the finding of ‘just the same’ level of antisemitism as elsewhere is likely to be noticed by politically attuned individuals. Simultaneously embarrassing the left and being used as a weapon by it critics, this dissonance becomes the centre of attention and gets accentuated.’ (my emphasis)

So what do you have to do to be classed as having an antisemitic attitude? Not very much it seems. Here is an example of what it takes on pages 63 and 64:

‘However, what Jews are exposed to far more frequently are people who hold, and from time to time may express, views that make Jews feel uncomfortable or offended. A person expressing such a view (e.g. ‘Jews think that they are better than other people’) may hold this view in isolation and may indeed hold a weak version of it, but when it is casually voiced in front of a Jewish individual, it can cause considerable upset and concern.’ (my emphasis)

Taken at its face value this means that one section of the population is demanding the right never to be offended and the right to tell us what we should think about them. This is a demand for exceptionalism.

At the risk of boring the reader by repetition ‘freedom of speech is having the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’. And that means having the right to say things which other people choose to find offensive or feel uncomfortable about. This right is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention. I’m not going to let the likes of Jonathan Sacks take it from me and I hope that Labour party members and supporters think likewise.

Labour needs to stop feeling embarrassed by having the epithet ‘antisemitic’ thrown at it and let people know that what Sacks and his ilk are trying to do is tell us what we should think.

You can find the report from which the above extracts are drawn at:

https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/7/4/JPR.2017.Antisemitism%20in%20contemporary%20Great%20Britain.pdf

It is hardly surprising that our media are full of stories about antisemitism. In 2015 and 2016 alone, at least six surveys of attitudes towards Jews were carried out by polling firms in the UK (including YouGov, Populus, and ICM Unlimited) working on behalf of different academic and advocacy organisations and news outlets. With commendable honesty the report says ‘the polling of antisemitic attitudes is a burgeoning enterprise’.

What makes this report different is that it is difficult to fault the methodology or the presentation of the results. I urge you to download and read it.

******

HUMOUR, IRONY & JONATHAN SACKS

by Brian Bamford

Anti-Zionist Jewish demonstration

IN the NEW STATESMAN last week the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: ‘Jeremy Corbyn is “an anti-Semite” who has “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate”.’

In 2013, in a speech to a meeting convened by the Palestinian Return Centre in 2013, Corbyn spoke about the importance of history and of how necessary it was for people to understand the origins of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

He then praised a speech he had recently heard by Manuel Hassassian Palestinian ambassador at a meeting in parliament, in which the Palestinian ambassador to the UK gave an 'incredibly powerful' account of the history of Palestine.

During the speech Corbyn had said of a group of British 'Zionists' that: 'They clearly have two problems. One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.'

This so insensed Jonathan Sacks that he claimed it was as divisive, as Enoch Powell’s speech in that 'it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien'.

Irony is described in the Oxford Dictionary definition as 'the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.'

When Ludwig Wittgenstein the Jewish philosopher considered the similar claim that humour was lacking in Nazi Germany he wrote in his notebook reflections 'Culture and Value' that:
''Humour is not a mood, but a way of looking at the world.  So, if it's right to say that humour was eradicated in Nazi Germany, that does not mean that people were not in good spirits or anything of that sort, but something much deeper & more important.'  [88e 'Culture & Value']

Probably Jonathan Sachs would find this comparison offensive, but Wittgenstein considered:
'What is it like when people do not have a sense of humour?  They do not react properly to each other.  It is as though there were a custom among certain people to throw someone a ball, which he is supposed to catch & throw back; but certain people might not throw it back, but put it in their pocket instead.'  [95e 'Culture & Value']

In the context of the current dispute in the media, I suppose Wittgenstein would say that some people are not playing the ball. 

*******

Whose Afraid of Jonathan Sacks?

by Les May

CARVED into the wall at Broadcasting House are the words of George Orwell, ‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they so not want to hear’, which makes the juxtaposition of articles in the most recent copy of the Radio Times all the more interesting.

The ‘Pick of the week’ on Radio 4 is ‘Morality in the 21^st Century’ presented by ex-Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.  We are told that his aim is to ‘provoke thought and discussion never to proselytise or preach’ and that ‘Morality is what lifts us above the pursuit of self interest and self esteem’.  And in case you are wondering, yes that’s the same Jonathan Sacks who are few days ago was denouncing Jeremy Corbyn as an antisemite and a racist because he did not like what Corbyn had said.  Or more correctly he did not like his interpretation of what Corbyn had said.  This in turn became his justification for his absurd comparison of Corbyn words with Enoch Powell’s speech.

The other article is by the BBC’s world affairs editor John Simpson.  In it he comments ‘People have allowed themselves to be persuaded that there’s something wrong with being given open and unbiased information from BBC journalists’.  I think that Simpson is over egging the pudding a bit here because all media outlets select what is ‘news’, who they are going to quote or interview, and how much space or air time they are to be given, so reports are never going to be quite so unbiased as he suggests.  But that does not mean it is not worth making the effort.  He goes on to say ‘Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t think any subject is too important to keep our minds closed to it’.  I agree and the fact that someone might be ‘offended’ by some subjects cuts no ice with me.  You are never going to change anyone’s mind unless you can talk to them.

Simon Kelner, who writes ‘think pieces’ for the ‘i’ newspaper, i.e. he’s a columnist not a journalist in the mould of Simpson, wrote last week that Sack’s used his Instagram account to tell the world that he was ‘a religious leader, philosopher, award-winning author and a respected moral voice’.   Clearly Sack’s is not a man over endowed with modesty or self doubt.  Kelner says that he is ‘definably, a Zionist’, which suggests to me that he, Kelner, has not actually spent much time trying to figure out what a Zionist is.  Seeking enlightenment I found that the explanation on Wikipedia runs to some 11,000 words which is 28 A4 pages.   Here is the link, I’ll let you figure it out for yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

In a remarkable bit of inventiveness Kelner writes, ‘Not all Jews are Zionists, but (mostly) all Zionists are Jews, and I, as a liberal-minded British Jew (rather than a Zionist) am offended by Mr Corbyn’s pronouncements’. The flaw in this bit of twisted logic is that one chooses to be a Zionist, you are born a Jew.   To my mind that means that you can criticise a Jew for being a Zionist, but not for being a Jew.   (I would add that I feel uncomfortable using Kelner’s form of wording because in my own speech I prefer to say someone is ‘a Jewish person’ rather than ‘a Jew’, and ‘Jewish people’ rather than ‘the Jews’).

As for Kelner’s complaint that he is ‘offended’ by what Corbyn said, all I can say is ‘So what’?   Since when did Kelner, or indeed anyone else, have a right never to be offended?  No one seems to be too concerned about not offending me in matters just as close to my heart as Sack’s and Kelner’s hobby horse.

(Andrea Dworkin was once quoted in the The Observer as saying ‘All men are Nazis’.  After it was published there was no rush to defend men or censure Dworkin, so I am unlikely to feel I have to avoid making comparisons between some of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians and the behaviour of the Nazis.)

One of the curious things about the claims that Corbyn is presiding over a Labour party riddled with antisemitism is that I have not yet met anyone who has actually witnessed it.  And it’s not just my Labour friends who say this.  A friend who never misses an opportunity to denigrate Labour has made exactly the same point on more than one occasion.   Nor is antisemitic crime running riot in this country. About 15,000 prosecutions for ‘hate crime’ are launched annually.  Annual prosecutions for anti-semitism have yet to top two dozen. In spite of Margaret Hodge’s silly musings no one is being threatened by a new Holocaust.

So I think we can reasonably ask who is behind the repeated complaints against Corbyn.  On the photographic evidence published in the newspapers there seem to be two culprits, the Jewish Chronicle and the Campaign Against Antisemitism.   We also know from the films on the Al Jazeera TV channel which were shown in 2017 that the state of Israel has been interfering in UK politics and has tried to destabilise the Labour party.

Why? That’s easy. Corbyn is unashamedly on the side of the Palestinians.  It is to discredit any charges he makes against the state of Israel by claiming that he is an anti-Semite.  It's to turn Jewish people into victims, and by implication, Israel into a nation of victims.   It's no longer Israel that needs to leave the Occupied Territories; it's Corbyn and the rest of us who need to free ourselves of antisemitism.

I’m sure Corbyn has plenty of advisers and does not need my advice, but I’m going to give it all the same.  Fight these people on the basis of freedom of speech. Put them on the defensive for a change.  Remind people what Orwell said.   Remind them that the first thing the Nazis did was to suppress dissent, so remind people about how many British lives were lost in defence of that liberty. 

************