Sir: I would like to comment on Mr Hyam Maccoby's
and Mr Jacob Gewirtz's letters (Spectator, 13 and 20 March), which attack Patrick Marnham for his article: 'is Israel racist ?'
Mr Hyam Maccoby states that `Mr Marnham makes the routine disclaimer of anti-semitism, yet his charges against Juda- ism have been part of the stock of anti- semitic arguments from the Talmud baiting of the Middle Ages to the Nazi propaganda.' One should nbte that strictly speaking Mr Marnham made no such charges against Judaism whatsoever. What he did was faithfully to quote Professor Israel Shahak on the matter. The only charge that could possibly be made against Mr Marnham Is that he is misleading his readership by pre- senting Professor Shahak's statements as credible. Such a charge is, in my opinion, completely groundless. Professor Shahak is a scholar of Jewish tradition in his own right, and his knowledge and excellence in the study of the Talmud and the Ha/akha scholarship would meet the most stringent requirements. I myself am not at all surprised that strains in Jewish tradition could be utilised for the purpose of anti-semitic and Nazi propaganda, since unfortunately I have too often seen such racist strains of Jewish tradition and scholarship utilised in Zionist propaganda. For instance in a publication sponsored by a committee of the World Zionist Organisation, an article entitled 'Holy War and War of Convenience' (Or ha-Mizrah, January 1971), by Rabbi Yehuda Gershoni states: . . Accordingly the Arabs who seek to destroy Israel and throw them into the sea are in the category of Amalek, and are thus included in the Holy War of exterminating Amalek; and they are also included in the category of a Holy War against an enemy who has attacked us. Therefore even the priests, who did not receive a share in the
land of Israel, and thus are not included in the commandment of conquest of the land, are still included in the commandment of exterminating Amalek and of fighting against an enemy who has attacked us ...'
Racist strains abound in all monotheistic religious traditions, in Judaism, as well as in Christianity and Islam. I would have pre- ferred to see Mr Maccoby condemn racism (anti-semitic as well as Jewish and Zionist) universally, and come forward with the unequivocal demand for a radical reforma- tion of Judaism, rather than witness him attempt to avoid the issue by implying that since racist strains in Jewish tradition have been utilised in anti-semitic propaganda, this would ipso facto mean that Judaism does not uphold racist traditions.
Mr Jacob Gewirtz charges Patrick Main- ham with 'accusing the Jews, prime victims of Nazi tyranny, of having collaborated with the Nazis in their own destruction'. Both Dr Hannah Arendt (Eichmann in Jerusalem, Faber and Faber, London 1963) and Ben Hecht (Perfidy, Juliam Messner Inc. New York, 1961) fully support the con- clusion that, indeed, Jews, and especially Zionists, did in fact collaborate with the Nazi administration in specific ways, and not always for honourable ends.
Furthermore there is the Liberal Zionist Uri Harari: `It is of course not customary to talk about it in public, but many of us felt a tiny bit of joy when we read newspaper reports of the swastika epidemic in Europe in 1960; or about the pro-Nazi movement in Argen- tina . . . Together with all the anger, shock and humiliation, these phenomena form a Part of our world outlook, because Zionism said, and is still saying, that this is the way things are. That this is what has to be as long as Jews live among Gentiles . . . (Yediot Aharonot, 9 February 1969) And Dr Gevaryahu, in a report on the situation of the European Jewish corn- munities : `Anti-semitism has a certain role to play in Preserving Jews and Jewishness . . . Anti- semitism is similar to the Jewish way of making a living: to be too wealthy or too Poor is unhealthy for the existence of Juda- ism. The same holds true for anti-semitism: too much or too little is not welcome, but in
reasonable amounts it is . . (Yediot Aharonot, 29 May 1964).
Every single statement made by Mr Gewirtz in his letter can be exposed in a similar manner to be either a lie, or a gross inaccuracy or plain and unforgivable mani- festation of ignorance, hardly befitting a person who commits himself to write not only in the name of the Board of Deputies of the British Jews, but also in the name of all Jews regardless of the degree of their Commitment to Zionism'.
(Or) Uri Davis Lecturer in Peace Studies, School of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, Yorks
Previous page
