Notebook
years of experience have taught me that one should never venture an opinion, favourable or unfavourable on events con- cerned in any way with Israel or the Jews,' writes Mr A. J. P. Taylor in the current edi- tion of the London Review of Books. `Any attempt at a detached view opens the way for letters, telegrams, personal expostula- tions and, above all telephone calls — what the late Sir Lewis Namier called "the terror by telephone" . . . The only safe course is never, never, never to have an opinion about the Middle East. This is the course I Propose to follow'. For anyone in pursuit °f a quiet life, it is, obviously the sensible course. But how difficult it is to stick to it! Israel invades the Lebanon, a massacre takes place in Beirut. These are bloody events on which it seems cowardly not to at- tempt judgment. But any judgment which attaches blame to Israel — and in the case °I' the massacre, it is impossible to ex- onerate Israel completely — will be regard- edby many Jews with suspicion. Each phrase will be 'carefully picked over and tested for signs of anti-semitism. Does it ap- pear to gloat over Israel's loss of moral credit? Does it rejoice in the splits which the Massacre has opened up in Israel and in
orld Jewry? The commentator free from the disease of anti-semitism, as unable to prove his immunity as are others to prove his
infectiOn, is tempted to ignore such tedious considerations. He doesn't like in- nocent people being massacred; he wants to condemn those whom he holds responsible; and he doesn't see why, in a free and civilis- ' Country, he shouldn't do so in ringing, sill tones. If people are going to be ,11Y enough to misinterpret his motives, tn at is their business. Furthermore, he is right. But he still doesn't feel completely easy. There is, after all, such a thing as anti- sertutism, and very dangerous it can be. There are, undoubtedly, people ready to ex- ploit such tragedies as the Beirut massacre Sorder to arouse hostility to the Jews.
ould he not at least consider the possibili- ty .that he might, however innocently, be
an aid and comfort to such people? The 11swer, I think, is that he should not; u,,,oless there is evidence of a situation so in- Ilanarnatory that even honest judgments on wIeMote events could directly threaten the distinction of Jews in Britain. There must be a uristinction between the understandable aears of an historically persecuted people .,nd the situation in which they actually find i'llernselves. What is that situation in Britain Y? Last Sunday the Mail reported that culiciren in Jewish schools throughout the beiuntrY were being instructed in how to ,_`ruave if their classrooms were attacked by rolists. Not only that, but their parents were being trained to operate vigilante patrols. Even if this sounds a rather panicky way of setting about things, it is no doubt sensible that, after recent terrorist attacks on Jewish institutions in places like Paris, Brussels and Vienna, precautions should be taken by Jewish schools here. But Arab ter- rorism is a separate matter. It can strike anywhere at any time and has nothing to do with the climate of opinion in the country where it happens. It tends, in fact, to weaken rather than strengthen anti-semitic feeling. The more relevant question is whether we are now witnessing in Britain a revival of indigenous anti-semitism. How can one tell? But my feeling is that we are not, at least not in any very serious form. I take some comfort from a symposium call- ed Anti-semitism Today which is being published next week by the Institute of Jewish Affairs. It is international in its scope, for it contains the views of eminent Jews and non-Jews throughout the world. While it offers a wide range of different opinions on the subject, the general impres- sion it conveys to me is that anti-semitism — while it continues to exist and express itself in new forms — is no more serious a phenomenon today than it has been at any other time since the war. Among contribu- tions from Britain are ones by Max Beloff, Conor Cruise O'Brien, and the country's Chief Rabbi, Sir Immanuel Jakobovits. Dr O'Brien says: 'I do not think one can pro- perly speak of an anti-semitic revival. What I do see signs of is a lowering of the inhibi- tions against manifestations of anti- semitism.' But he adds: 'I believe that anti- semitism as an actual force is weaker than it has ever been — and that what we are now witnessing is not its revival but a weakening of the Hitler-created taboo against its ex- pression.' Lord Beloff believes that 'there has so far been a balance in Israel's impact upon the attitude of Gentiles towards Jews. By destroying unfavourable stereotypes of the Jew, Israel has undoubtedly improved the status of Jews elsewhere as well as giv- ing them new reasons for self-respect. But the Jewish claim on Gentile sympathy must
always rest upon being able to maintain that Jews stand for values which are themselves universal, that they claim no more than human beings have the right to everywhere.' Lord Beloff, therefore, criticises Israeli leaders for giving 'the im- pression that in some way the sufferings of Arab woman and children were less signifi- cant than the sufferings inflicted upon Jews, that some different yardstick is justified whether by the danger to Israel or the recollections of the Holocaust.' I agree. Most conforting of all to us confused Gen- tile commentators is the Chief Rabbi. He was very sensible during the Lebanon war, warning British Jews at the time: `By charg- ing people with anti-semitism you help to breed anti-semitism. You give aid and com- fort to the real anti-semites and their movements, and you alienate true friends.' He agrees that anti-semitic prejudice is still `widely rampant'. But he concludes: 'The common tendancy of Israelis, and indeed many other Jews, to ascribe all travails to anti-semitism, understandable as it is, is therefore in the interests of neither Israel not the Diaspora. For the Diaspora, the charge is self-fulfilling; for Israel it is self- defeating. Without faith in the capacity of both Jews and Israel to generate friendship and respect among the nations, the pro- spects for an amelioration of the Jewish condition would be bleak indeed.' He is quite right. He has removed a little burden of anxiety from people like myself. We will therefore go on bashing Israel whenever we feel Israel deserves it. And we will rely on the capacity of Jews in this country to go on generating friendship and respect, as indeed most of them do.
l Vino's wine bar has been in existence L (though not always in Fleet Street) since 1879. But it was only 37 years ago that it in- troduced a rule forbidding women to stand and be served drinks at the bar. If one is to believe the Times (and it sounds an unlikely story), this rule was made 'when men returned from the war and found the bar full of women journalists'. This week, however, three Appeal Court judges decid- ed that such a restriction on women was in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act. They agreed that, by being obliged to sit at tables and have their drinks brought to them, women were being denied 'flexibility of choice of companion'. Whether women should be allowed too much flexibility of choice in this area is something about which many men would have doubts. But I agree with the judges. I have never seen the point of making it obligatory for men to buy women drinks and not the other way round. Women, furthermore, have never been a nuisance at El Vino's. The people who ought to be excluded are the lawyers pompous, boring mysogynists to a man. They — not the women nor the journalists — are the people who make me reluctant to go in there.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
