Last week in England, the Cartoon Jihad was not all the rage. There was time
aplenty to smear Israel. In truth, judging by the surge of anti-Israel
rhetoric, one could almost be misled into thinking that it was not about
Danish cartoons that Muslim mobs were burning European embassies and stoning
European peace-keepers.
First, the Church of England's Synod voted to divest from Israel, proving -
if any further proof were needed - that the Anglican Church has morphed into
the liberal-democrats' party conference assembled in prayer.
Not to be outdone by their spiritual leaders, students hosted anti-Israel
events: at Warwick University there was a debate on the alleged Palestinian
"right of return"; at Oxford there was an "Israel apartheid week"; and at
Cambridge the Student Union debated whether Zionism is the most dangerous
threat to the Jewish people.
With Hamas in power, Iran ranting and going nuclear and the Middle East on
fire on account of 12 cartoons, the Cambridge Student Union could do better
than devote its yearly debate on regional issues to whether Jews have a
right to self-determination. In the event, all it proved was that
intelligence is not a prerequisite for admission into top British
universities.
Needless to say, Jews featured prominently in all these events. Haifa
University's Prof. Ilan Pappe spoke at both Warwick and Oxford, where he was
introduced by his comrade, Prof. Steven Rose of academic boycott fame. Their
UCLA colleague, Gabi Piterberg, offered the opening speech at Oxford (though
he bailed out of the Cambridge debate at the last minute).
BUT IT WAS at Cambridge that the Jews took center stage. After all, the
motion had to do with their identity. Accordingly, the Student Union ensured
that the two opposing teams of debaters included Jews only. Perhaps that is
why Piterberg bailed out: He did not want to be a member of a segregated
panel where Arabs did not have the same right as Jews to discuss and demean
Jewish identity.
In the end, though, what is good for the Jews was determined not by the Jews
themselves - though the fight was fair and the arguments poignant - but by a
vote of the assembled Union. This time it was a close call, with those
defending Zionism losing by only four votes.
The Ayes won narrowly, 125-121, but the Jews would have lost anyway. In the
minds of the liberal elites of tomorrow's Europe, Jews can never determine
their own identity. Only others can, those who know better than the Jewish
people what's good for them.
And though nearly half the Jewish people live in Israel and the other half
overwhelmingly gives Israel a central place in their own Jewish identity,
liberal intellectuals know better: We, the enlightened liberal elite, will
dictate the conditions for a Jewish identity the world can tolerate. And
when we do that, we can always find a token Jew to endorse this view.
Pitching Jews against Jews is not a novelty, and in the latest Israel
hate-fests it appears to be the most popular show in town. The Cambridge
event was a repetition of last year's Intelligence Squared debate that saw
Melanie Phillips, Rafi Israeli and Shlomo Ben-Ami face Avi Shlaim,
Jacqueline Rose and Amira Hass.
THIS TIME, the speakers were Ned Temko of The Observer, Daniel Shek of BICOM
and London barrister Jeremy Brier defending Zionism against Oxford don Brian
Klug, former Israeli journalist Daphna Baram and Richard Cooper, a
representative for Jews for Justice for the Palestinians. Their arguments
were as predictable as their victory: Klug decried the conflation of Judaism
and Zionism, arguing that in the modern world there is no place for
nationalism.
No place that is, except in most places, where nationalism is still proving
a vital force for collective identity and political mobilization.
Baram pushed that line further by explaining that Israel's Jewish character
means Israeli society is racist - the implication being that Israel must
turn itself into "a state of all its citizens" and embrace multiculturalism.
Given the ubiquitous nature of multiculturalism in the Arab world and the
promise it holds for peaceful coexistence among religions and ethnic groups,
one can excuse Baram for having permanently relocated to London.
But it was Cooper who, having compared Israel to apartheid South Africa,
offered the best insight into the meaning of the debate. He complained about
how the Jewish community marginalizes him on account of his political
activism.
In the end, these self-flagellating Jews crave acceptance and recognition.
Their views are moot inside the Jewish world, since they have, by and large,
lost the argument against the Jewish mainstream and its commitment to
Israel. Having been rejected by their fellow Jews, they put their venom to
the service of Israel's enemies as a way of regaining a place in the sun.
Is it any wonder that they can win a debate about Jewish identity only when
Israel's enemies define the terms of engagement, and have last say on the
outcome?
The writer teaches Israel Studies at Oxford University. His book Israel's
Electoral Reform will appear later this year.
