Peres Spoke The Unspeakable--Or He Told It True

Israeli president Shimon Peres initiated a diplomatic and political controversy in an interview with a Jewish website. He made very specific reference to the long standing pro-Arab tilt in British foreign policy--and in the larger life of the UK. Then he went further, too far in the estimate of many in Britain, when he characterized the public as being anti-Semitic.

Not too many who are familiar with British policy during the years of the Mandate would dispute Peres' assertion of a pro-Arab tilt. Whitehall was quite pro-Arab; it was even filled with people who were antisemitic in a genteel sort of way. British diplomats in a manner identical with the British elite of the day were not boorishly antisemitic, but nonetheless did, as Peres noted "hated the Jews rather more than was necessary."

At the same time, in the late 1940s, before the full horrors of the Nazi genocide had become widely known and assimilated, the British attitude was not dissimilar from the views held by many, perhaps most, Americans. Both were a comfortable sort of antisemitism, the sort which took a measure of pride in being able to look down on Jews as different, lacking a certain polish, a bit of upmarket politesse, as being, "you know, not quite like us."

The British view of Jews, the condescension, the relative admiration of the presumably romantic Arabs, persisted long after the days the "gentlemen's agreements" vanished from all respectable circles in the US. In some semi-mystical way, the educational system of the UK, the interlocking web of public schools and old line universities, continued to implant the romantic view of the Arabs which had emerged a century and more earlier from the pens of the first British travelers and explorers in the region.

The attitudes and perceptions which might have been marginally justified regarding the "noble lords of the desert" in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire soldiered on in a completely inappropriate way in the years after World War II. Peres was absolutely correct, even understated, in his description of HMG attitudes and behaviors from 1947 on through the Fifties and Sixties. Save when it met the needs of the British government as in the days of the Suez crisis and subsequent British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, London was quite willing to favor Arab states at the expense of Israel.

Arguably, the attitude at the center of the British "establishment" continued decade in and decade out right on to the present day. It is difficult to the point of near impossibility to find a good example of the British acting in a way which favors Israeli interests at the expense of Arabs. It is an equally arguable proposition that the tilting toward Arabs specifically and Muslims more generally has not only increased in recent years but has done so with the support of the majority of the British electorate--or their well timed indifference.

This dynamic raises the question of at what point does reputable criticism of Israeli policy become the more general proposition of "anti-Zionism," and, more centrally, when does it merit elevation to the status of antisemitism? It is both easy and attractive for the government of Israel and its supporters at home and abroad to claim that any criticism of Israeli policy is either motivated by antisemitism or equivalent to antisemitism.

Of course, such a broad gauge approach to any who dissent from Israeli policy is both unjustifiable and cowardly. So also is the counter of hiding ones antisemitism behind the cloak of being an honest critic.

Peres' statement is a challenge to all. He has slapped the face not only of the UK but all in the West to properly distinguish between the criticism and opposition to which Israel like any sovereign state is legitimately heir to and antisemitism in disguise. There have been (and are) any number of public figures in the UK who have hidden profound antisemitism behind the far more respectable appearances of anti-Zionism or the totally unobjectionable stance of criticism.

The same may be written of public figures, of politicians, pundits, public intellectuals, academics and so on throughout the West who have painted over their antisemitism with the varnish of anti-Zionism or the lacquer of legitimate criticism. It is not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to the UK.

The howls of protest, the screams of outrage which have greeted Peres' remarks in the UK constitute an inappropriate response. A far more positive response, one which would have benefited both the UK and Israel, would have been one which examined the degree to which Peres expressed views which are both well based and accurate.

Of course that would be an impossible response no matter how beneficial might have been the outcome. This sort of creative, forward looking answer to a (possibly) sound critique is as unthinkable as would have been a balanced appraisal by David Cameron as to just why life in the Gaza Strip was life in a "prison camp" for the vast majority of the population.

Mr Peres has offered an apology--or at least an explanation--for his remark. He has denied calling the British antisemitic regardless of what the record of his remarks shows to have been the case. This automatic rush to the politician's default position of apology is regrettable.

It would have been better for Israel, for the UK, and the West generally had Mr Peres stood by his original remarks, perhaps even amplifying on them. The challenge he inadvertently presented to us throughout the West deserves better of the man who made it. We deserve, for our own better interests, to meet the challenge by properly separating criticism of Israel from both anti-Zionism and its most evil parent, anti-Semitism.