Anti-Semitism by any name is still anti-Semitism

Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn,
a professor of political science at Kean University in Union

The motion circulated recently by the University and College Union, Britain's largest academic union, calling for the boycott of Israeli academics was greeted with a firestorm of protest by Jewish groups around the world. It was just one more British call for the censure of Israel.

Pro-Israel groups argue that, at best, the criticism is financially based; growth in the British labor market is being fueled by Arab investments. At worst, criticism of the sovereign State of Israel provides a patina of legitimacy for growing anti-Semitism in Britain. Political outrage with the policies of Israel permits these critical voices to mask the existence of their hatred or extreme dislike of Jews.

The UCU's position toward Israel and that of the National Union of Journalists — with 35,000 members, the largest association of British journalists — is clearly couched in the guise of an attack on the country. This stance is repugnant and can easily be construed as anti-Semitic, but it's consistent with the groups' longstanding, left-wing support for the perceived underdog in any conflict, in this case the Palestinians.

What is inconsistent and irrational is the recent position taken by Britain's largest trade union, UNISON, which joined the call. British trade unions have long maintained ties with the Histadrut, Israel's trade union organization, so their adoption of an anti-Israel position that follows similar measures taken by the academic profession and the media association makes no sense whatsoever. It is possible that UNISON's leadership has been high-jacked; union chiefs may well fear that a failure to join in an attack on Israel could create an impact on Arab investments. Thus, the existence of an almost 60-year relationship with Israeli trade unions falls by the wayside.

But the lean toward Palestinian sympathy isn't limited to the unions in Britain. The BBC recently fell all over itself issuing a public apology. What were they sorry for? For making the "foolish" mistake in a recent broadcast in which Jerusalem was referred to as the capital of Israel. The BBC has a long, well-documented history of anti-Semitic views and anti-Israel reporting, as this type of unctuous newscasting suggests, but why so much groveling over what was probably a slip? The most obvious answer is the possibility that pro-Palestinian supporters step right up to pressure even the media giants over perceived minor inadvertent "slips."

Just as we're watching the response to anti-Semitism of the new government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France, it will be interesting to see how the new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his foreign secretary, David Miliband, respond to the growing anti-Israel (read anti-Semitic) groundswell emerging in England. Their response will also enable observers to test whether the new Labor government is going to implement a de-linking of anti-Semitism with anti-Israel politics.

Ultimately, the question really is how leaders are addressing and responding to anti-Semitism on all sides. This in fact may well be the only reason to believe that the current situation is indeed different. On the one hand, it is more than curious that anti-Semitism is being tolerated at any level in England by the British establishment, unless one accepts the fact that the ancient canards about the Jews still remain deeply rooted. While racism, sexism, homophobia, or anti-Muslim attitudes provoke immediate, outspoken public indignation and outcry, there continues to be an attitude of benign neglect toward anti-Semitism.