Oxford Forum on Anti-Semitism: a setback for debate deniers

Reading that there was to be a debate on anti-semitism at the Sunday Times Literary Festival in Oxford, many would think it too good to be true. After all, anti-semitism is a demonising term usually used to terminate debate rather than to provoke an informed exploration of the many issues surrounding Judaism and Zionism. And in a sense it was too good to be true - the "debate" degenerated into a sustained exercise in ad hominem abuse, utterly beyond the control of its hapless chairman, former BBC journalist Martin Bell.

The advertised line-up of speakers was:

- Denis MacShane, Labour MP and former Foreign Office minister, who has recently published a book on anti-semitism and who (though not Jewish himself) is one of the most pro-Zionist politicians in Britain;

- David Aaronovitch, a columnist for the Times and Jewish Chronicle, who was brought up in a Jewish Communist household but has since drifted to the pro-Zionist right;

- Gilad Atzmon, a world-renowned jazz musician who served as a paramedic during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and whose revulsion at the Jewish state's policies led him to examine what he sees as the catastrophic effects of Jewish ideology.

Gilad Atzmon

As the author of a book on the subject, you might have thought Mr MacShane would be keen to discuss anti-semitism at a prestigious literary festival, but he pulled out of the event at the last moment saying that he (a gentile) was unwilling to share a platform with the "antisemitic" Gilad Atzmon (born a Jew).

At the last moment Nick Cohen was recruited as a replacement. Mr Cohen is a columnist for the Observer and writes the 'Ratbiter' column in Private Eye. Like David Aaronovitch he has campaigned against Islam and been outspoken in his support for the war in Iraq. Like Aaronovitch, he has published vituperative attacks on Gilad Atzmon in recent years.

So the intrepid jazzman was going into the shark pool unaccompanied, to face two of the most shamelessly predatory Zionists in British journalism.

In the event Cohen and Aaronovitch were so blatantly hostile to their fellow speaker that no meaningful debate took place. They recited a list of supposedly damning quotations and while patting themselves on the back for being so liberal as to share a platform with Atzmon refused to address the supposed topic of the debate: why has "anti-semitism" apparently increased in recent years (and especially in the months since the Israeli attack on Gaza)? And is the term "anti-semitism" used to halt any exploration of Jewish ideology and the influence of its adherents?

Nick Cohen several times posed the rhetorical question: would the Sunday Times have invited Nick Griffin or David Duke onto a panel to discuss anti-semitism. As Mr Cohen must know, there would be little point inviting Mr Griffin to discuss this topic as he now prefers to use crude cheerleading for Israel to camouflage the "anti-semitic" views which he was once keen to propagate. David Duke is a more interesting case. As the author of a book on Jewish Supremacism Dr Duke would surely have been an ideal person to appear on the panel - which would then have been far better balanced than one which pitted Gilad Atzmon alone against two of his bitterest critics.

Sadly Dr Duke is automatically demonised by the likes of Cohen and Aaronovitch with the epithet "former Klan leader". The truth is that Dr Duke was a leading member of the Klan more than thirty years ago, around the time that Mr Aaronovitch (following in his father's footsteps) was one of the leading activists in the Communist Party of Great Britain. He attempted to rebrand the organisation as a group promoting racial separatism rather than white supremacy, and left when he failed to achieve this. Far from promoting hatred, Dr Duke has advocated "heritage not hate" and had friendly discussions with many black Americans, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. He has been an elected state representative in Louisiana and a respected academic at a university in the Ukraine.

So why shouldn't David Duke have been on the panel? At least he would have addressed the issue rather than insulting his fellow panellists.

When Gilad Atzmon was able to step back from the personal slanging match and address the issues, he made several pertinent points: most importantly that Jewishness is not for him a matter of racial identity, but an ideological worldview which has a pernicious influence, not only in Israel but among influential circles throughout the western world.

Unwilling to engage at all in discussing such matters, a furious David Aaronovitch ranted from the platform at the end of Atzmon's speech, jabbing his finger at a couple of Jewish Londoners on the front row and berating them: "how dare you applaud that speech..."

Cohen had rambled extensively about democracy - as though Israel (a country which expelled four million indigenous Palestinian voters) were democratic; and about Islamist terrorism and threats to peace, as though Israel were not the one rogue country in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction. At least Cohen appeared to be sober at this lunchtime event, unlike his appearance at a debate the previous week where his widely reported state of inebriation was an insult to the audience.

Palestinian journalist Dima Omar has since reported on the Oxford debate, quoting one questioner who pointed out that "democracy" depends on choice, and that where matters involving Israel are concerned even the world's most powerful democracy allows no choice whatever.

The response from some members of the “upper-middle class, educated, white” audience proved that these questions are not an endorsement of conspiracy theories. They are legitimate questions.

One man raised the question of the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington. It was their pressure that led Obama to back down on his decision to appoint Mr. Freeman as an advisor, a man well-known for his criticism of Israel. “In those circumstances,” the man asked, “is a rise in anti-Semitism surprising when democracy is affected by that type of lobbying activity that prevents Obama from being able to appoint Ambassador Freeman?”

We know what Atzmon would’ve said, but neither Aaronovitch nor Cohen answered that question.

Cohen ignored the question completely, while Aaronovitch began his reply by commenting on the person sitting next to the questioner. "As for the question from the gentleman at the back, who is sitting next to the lady who applauded Mr Atzmon and whom I think I recognise..." (One of the many ironies being that Aaronovitch makes such presumptions despite having just published a book critical of conspiracy theories!)

The only substance of his reply was to repeat that there had been "antisemitism" before Israel existed. But Aaronovitch himself proclaims that "antisemitism" has increased since Gaza, and the uncomfortable question remains: is there a rational basis for the anti-Jewish reaction that has increased worldwide in recent months? If so, and accepting Aaronovitch's challenge, was there some rational basis for any of the earlier anti-Jewish reactions that have recurred in various countries down the centuries? Needless to say, Aaronovitch and Cohen were unwilling to engage in any conversation at the end of the meeting, furiously denouncing as "neo-nazis" those who approached them in a perfectly friendly manner.

Whatever their own prejudices and personal interests, the audience at the Sunday Times Literary Festival can have been left in little doubt that pro-Zionist bullies like Aaronovitch and Cohen silence debate by using "antisemitism" as an all-purpose slur. Perhaps a few will now be prepared to ask, on examining every newspaper or broadcast commentary on the Middle East, whether critics of Israel are really purveyors of irrational hatred and superstition - or whether on the contrary such critics are seeking to focus the light of reason on an irrational and hateful ideology at the heart of Zionism.