Anti-Zionism and antisemitism reconsidered

David Sacks has invited me to work up one of my recent posts, leaning on the Roth novel "The plot against America", into an article for the periodical Jewish Affairs. I enclose below a draft of the article for input - critical and otherwise. It goes over old ground of motivation and explanation for the unbalanced treatment of Israel in much of the Western media, but I hope it clarifies some points and maybe introduces a better understanding of the phenomenon. A couple more references will be added in due course and this draft will be posted on the site http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/.

kind regards
Mike Berger


I have occupied a fair amount of print space over the past few years examining the treatment of Israel in much of the Western media and, by extension, the role of prejudice (antisemitism and irrational anti-Zionism)1 in the kind of coverage Israel receives. In essence, I, along with many other commentators, have argued that the media coverage of Israel is seriously prejudiced and distorted and this continues in the face of rational argument and fact. The historical roots of antisemitism run deep but it is clear that its modern manifestation is the result both of deliberate propaganda as a component of a conscious strategy of stigmatization and delegitimisation and as the expression of more random forces within the global – especially Western - left.

These developments have forced Jews, both within and outside Israel, who would regard themselves as progressive, espousing universalist and humanist values, to confront their own relationship with Israel. Most see no deep contradiction between their support for Israel and their broad ideological commitments, and their disquiet with some aspects of Israeli policy and society does not necessitate a reorientation of their priorities. In fact, many find that their moral and political values impel them to support Israel especially strongly in view of the manifestly unjust barrage of criticism it attracts and the retrograde and frankly fascist practices of the regimes and political groupings which confront Israel both in the Middle East and elsewhere. However, a significant and vociferous section of Jewry have taken up openly antagonistic positions vis-à-vis Israel.

In this article I look at some issues around identity, social dynamics and prejudice in determining attitudes towards Israel. This is predicated on the view that political choice is a multi-dimensional process determined by both universal and personal psychological operations, by ideological (political) orientation, by intellectual disposition and by situational and interactional factors operating at the material, cultural, political and social levels2. These are all mutually interactive. Although such an analysis can slip easily into a rigidly determinist paradigm, I take the view that all individuals have freedom of choice and, along with Isaiah Berlin, that such freedom is extended by knowledge and self-reflection.3

It is widely recognised that identity, whether to an ethnic or religious group or with an ideological belief or some other collective ideal, plays an important role in determining political attitudes and choice – “Political identity emerges from a dynamic interplay between the psychological make-up of individuals, their embeddedness in particular political and social structures and institutions, and the major political experiences of their lives, which together influence their political ideologies and roles.”4 Identity may be fluid and multiple or more limited and fixed. I can think of no better way of conveying the essence of identity, than through an abbreviated quote from Philip Roth’s extraordinary novel, “The plot against America”: “Their being Jews issued from being themselves…” “It was… as fundamental as having arteries and veins…” “(They) needed no profession of faith or doctrinal creed…”.5 He was referring to ordinary middle class Jews, mainly immigrants or the children of immigrants from the ghettoes of Eastern Europe, living in the Jewish suburbs in mid-twentieth century USA. The quote captures the essence of deep identity in which the personal and the collective are indistinguishable and inseparable. This subjectivity is given more substance in neurocognitive studies which show that personal and social identity are processed in the same parts of the brain.

The quote is embedded in Roth’s fictionalised, but eerily plausible, account of the USA being stealthily led into pro-Nazi and insidiously antisemitic policies at the outbreak of World War 2 from which it was rescued only by the mysterious disappearance of Lindbergh, its shadowy and iconic President. What makes it relevant to our time and theme is how closely Western anti-Zionism mirrors the dynamics of the antisemitism of the mid-twentieth century as depicted by Roth.

A leitmotif throughout the novel is the question: where does paranoia, fear and parochialism end and true antisemitism begin? Do the bland, seemingly innocuous and apparently reasonable criticisms of Jewish cultural difference, exclusivity and failure to assimilate more thoroughly into the predominantly white, Protestant host population disguise a deeper and more sinister threat or are they to be taken at their face value, as some more “enlightened” members of the Jewish community would have their compatriots believe? In essence, according to the “enlightened” argument, the Jewish community should not be immune to rational criticism and serious self-reflection. To claim that such negative comment disguises antisemitic prejudice and evil intentions is precisely the reason why Jews are disliked by their host populations: using self-serving victimhood as camouflage, Jews license themselves to remain an exclusive, self-seeking community free to manipulate the good intentions and tolerance of their non-Jewish neighbours for their own ends.

The resemblance of this line of argument to the debate around Israel is striking. Robert Fine characterises the currently fashionable Western discourse as follows, “…the accusation of antisemitism (by Israel’s defenders) is now used to trash anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government. …(As a consequence) - The struggle against antisemitism, once seen as central to the construction of a new Europe after the war, is increasingly disavowed since the charge of antisemitism merely serves to deflect or devalue criticism of Israeli occupation, Israeli human rights abuses, Israeli racism toward Arabs, and Israeli military force in Lebanon and Gaza.”6

Fine goes on to demonstrate the hollowness of this argument and, while Roth’s answer is more indirect, it is also unequivocal. The ordinary Jew, reacting with horror, confusion and indignation to Lindbergh’s plausibly rational and ambiguous pronouncements, is right on the money. Ordinary Jews were largely accurate in their perception that the Jewish community was being singled out and stigmatised, and correctly perceived such criticism would encourage antisemitism in the general population. More sinisterly, their suspicion of a larger agenda was probably correct.

Thus, according to Roth, the Jews were not the only ones who understood the coded messages behind the plausible words; antisemites within the American population took full advantage of the licence afforded by the new discourse to take out their prejudices on their fellow citizens. The DNA of racial stereotyping and exclusion from moral concern is universal and any individual (whether predator or prey) is alert to cues of ostracism and exclusion. It is important to note that Roth does not descend into a simplistic Manichean universe of innocent Jews surrounded by evil predatory foes. On the contrary, he invests his characters with the full gamut of human good and evil irrespective of their religious and ethnic affiliations.

Roth’s fictional narrative is acutely relevant to the issue of Israel. Just like the flawed Jews of America, Israel is imperfect despite its enormous successes. Corruption, especially within its political domain, is too frequent for comfort. Racism is prevalent amongst some sections of the population. Social and economic inequality has increased and education policy and funding, on which the future of Israel rests, is far from optimal. Fundamentalist religion exerts an unhealthy influence on Israel’s political and civil life and Israel needs to find ways of living more humanely and harmoniously with its unassimilated and often fractious minority populations. Above all, Israel hasn’t been able to disengage from its role as an occupying power, however reluctant and indirect, over an alien hostile population with all the consequences on its own social and moral fabric.

None of this should occasion any surprise given the history of Israel and the region in which it is embedded and the multiple antagonistic agendas it has to deal with, both within and outside its borders. Some of these are solvable by Israel alone and others depend on the cooperation of others. None are easy and some are utterly intractable.

But none of Israel’s failures, imperfections and transgressions can objectively explain the flood of obsessive and unbalanced criticism levelled at it. David Hirsh in his speech to the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism - Jerusalem, 25 Feb 08 – puts it this way, “Jews are involved in a real conflict in the Middle East ...When Jews are involved in conflicts there is a danger that the ways people think about those conflicts get mystified in the language of antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is not a reasonable response to the actual situation; it is a response to a narrative of the actual situation which has become mystified by antisemitism....Real human rights abuses are mystified as being genocidal like Nazism; institutional racism is mystified as being worse than apartheid; the occupation is mystified as being unique and as being a manifestation of a Zionist essence; Jewish power is mystified as an ‘Israel lobby’ capable of perverting the policy of the only super power on the planet against its own interest....contemporary antisemitism is not explicitly or obviously antisemitic. ... Antisemitism of this sort is not explicit, is not obvious, and is not self-aware. It is necessary to analyze and interpret a text to know whether it is antisemitic.”7

The problem is that antisemitism can be used in two related but distinct ways. One refers to objectively irrational and selective criticism of - or behaviour towards - Jews as a whole or a significant and core sector of Jewish society, Israel for example. The other usage refers to the emotion, conscious or unconscious, of outgroup hostility towards Jews or Israel/Israelis specifically. It is widely assumed that the former implies the latter, but need that be the case? Is it possible that a dominantly biased discourse (perhaps itself derived from conventionally antisemitic sources) compounded by simple ignorance, other ideological loyalties, identification with the perceived underdog, conformity impulses or more serious situational pressures, can produce an objectively biased (antisemitic) belief and action pattern while free of conventional antisemitic prejudice? And is this important? Does it really matter, in practical terms, whether biased behaviour is caused by faulty information processing and situational factors or by internal disposition?

In my view the short answer is that one cannot easily generalise about the sources of irrational anti-Zionism in individual cases and, secondly, it probably doesn’t much matter. Given the multi-dimensional processes whereby political choices are made, the individual pathway can vary from one individual to another. In some cases the mechanism may be obvious: some are clearly motivated by old-fashioned antisemitism revealed by the virulent tone and abusive content. This can infect Jews and non-Jews alike and are marked by the significant presence of the following cues: fixity of belief and resistance to contrary evidence, obsessiveness, a low trigger threshold to expression of hostility, excessively emotive language and choice of metaphor, stereotyping and essentialising, a tendency to select, exaggerate and misrepresent and, of course, unambiguous statements of hatred and threats of destruction. All these gradations are apparent in considerable portions of the Western media and on the Internet.

In other cases the cause may include a mix, in varying proportions, of “detribalisation”, ideological commitment, social pressures, personal ambition, idealistic identification with the perceived underdog, a contrarian streak or resistance to change, a search for relevance and meaning – or indeed simple arrogance and vanity. In Roth’s novel the character of Rabbi Bengelsdorf, Lindbergh’s tame Jewish apologist, is depicted in unflattering terms as ambitious, vain, arrogant and detached from the run-of-the-mill Jew. As summarised in Laura Miller’s excellent short review8 of the novel “Bengelsdorf is a marvelous creation, part object lesson in the perils of collaboration and part meticulous parody of self-important men everywhere…”.

While of great interest to various academic disciplines, the individual motivations underlying objectively irrational anti-Zionism is, arguably, of less importance than its prevalence (and hence potential for social spread) and its political and military impact. It must be remembered that the diplomatic and media campaigns are partly driven by a deliberate strategy to use “public opinion” as an offensive weapon to undermine, psychologically, economically and diplomatically, the capacity of Israel to resist. The provocations of Hamas and its approach to its military action are components of this strategic agenda. A prime example on the diplomatic-public opinion front is the Goldstone Report which, on a host of objective criteria, is a plainly prejudicial and politicized document intended to stigmatise Israel.

At the same time, it would be perverse to believe that the flood of anti-Zionist comment pervading much of the Western media does not result in secondary antisemitism of the conventional variety. It would imply a compartmentalization of rational thought and emotion for which no evidence exists and which is contradicted by the very content and volume of the critical comment, by the mass meetings and inflammatory placards and slogans, by the spike in antisemitic acts in many Western countries and by the abusive and clearly antisemitic tone of large number of contributions to Internet threads. This occurs despite still significant normative prohibitions on the public expression of antisemitism in the classical sense in most Western countries. The reality is captured in the following quote “It has often been asserted by left authors (for example, Noam Chomsky) that the link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a tenuous one. Chomsky asserts that the linkage is a device used by Zionists to squash dissent. Yet the linkage would not be possible—or at least would be much more difficult—if there was no past or current demonstration of anti-Semitism among Israel’s opponents. Simply stated, while it is absolutely true that all anti-Zionists are not Jew hating bigots, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic in intent.”4 And, I would add, as an outcome.

As shown in numerous studies, pervasive social prejudice is internalised by the exposed population and by the targets (specifically here, Jews and Israelis) themselves. The overt response to such an assault on self-image varies between individuals and according to situational factors. Not surprisingly, it has driven many Jews into an ultra-nationalist stance in which Israel figures as a paragon of virtue in a sea of evil and hostility. Many others have been impelled into a more moderate, but equally obdurate, resistance to the programme of stigmatisation and delegitimisation. At the very least, few Jews for whom the Zionist project represents something positive and admirable, are eager to add their tuppence worth of criticism to the malevolent chorus and thus keep their counsel when otherwise they may have been willing to publicly chastise their brethren.

But for a significant minority, for whom Rabbi Bengelsdorf of Roth’s novel stands as a partial representative, the ideological assault on Israel has had a different effect. Psychological and sociological research - and simple observation - attest to the fact that the individual may resist such stereotyping - or may succumb. In the latter case we expect, and see, a spectrum of graduated responses ranging from disengagement to the role of actively hostile internal critic. Underlying some of the critical comment directed at Israel from within idealistic segments of Jewry, especially the younger generation, is the inappropriate intrusion of middle class guilt, historically naïve and unrealistic ideals and decontextualised analysis into the historically and politically fraught territory of the Middle East. In extreme cases, we encounter Jews who strenuously compete with the most bitter antisemites in the unrestrained expression of hostility towards Zionism and Israel.

For the majority of individuals, especially in democratic cultures, identity is fluid and multidimensional. It is thus possible to be simultaneously adamantly supportive of Israel while subscribing, perhaps more in hope than expectation, to the universalistic ideal of a community of peoples. Defenders of Israel need not descend into the traps of stereotyping and essentialising their opponents and should not close the doors to understanding, dialogue and incremental improvement. The common ground of universal global membership can be kept available for reconciliation and compromise when, and if, the context warrents it. Every situation requires balance between the stark (sometimes subtle) imperatives of reality and the ideal. Our ability to adroitly navigate these treacherous waters may the be key to the survival of Israel as a democratic, Jewish state for all its peoples and even to a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict.

Mike Berger


1. I use the words antisemitism and anti-Zionism in this article in different ways. Anti-Zionism is hostility towards Israel that goes beyond criticism of one or more specific acts, social features or policy decisions, but is a systematic and encompassing critique of the country and Israeli society. In some instances, this may arise from a variably rational view which sees the Zionist project as misguided or even partaking of colonial and imperialist characteristics. At some ill-defined point such anti-Zionism passes over into what I term, in places, “irrational anti-Zionism” in which Zionism is essentialised as an evil movement fascist in spirit and intent and comparable to other widely condemned movements like apartheid or Naziism. Antisemitism, as pointed out in this article may have, at least, two meanings. One is the conventional antisemitism expressed by significant sectors of Christian Europe and much of the Muslim world in which Jews as a people are depicted as inherently evil, treacherous, devious, cruel, cowardly, greedy and aesthetically repugnant. Clearly the intensity and virulence of such feelings vary. Antisemitism may also be applied to the excessive and selective criticism of Jews or prominent aspects of of the Jewish world, eg. Israel, which is relatively unaccompanied by pan-Jewish prejudice but derives from other sources, like ideology, conformity, ignorance and so forth. Much antisemitism, both conventional and unconventional, is expressed in the form of anti-Zionism, especially irrational anti-Zionism – but the two terms are not identical in meaning. Nevertheless, irrational anti-Zionism, irrespective of its origins, can be defined as objectively antisemitic even where its motivation does not arise from conventional antisemitic prejudice.

2. See for example: The new synthesis in moral psychology. Jonathan Haidt, et al.Science 316, 998 (2007); Collective psychological processes in anti-semitism. Avner Falk Jewish Political Studies Review 18:1-2 (Spring 2006); Spontaneous Inferences, Implicit Impressions, and Implicit Theories. James S. Uleman, S. Adil Saribay, and Celia M. Gonzalez In Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 59: 329-360 (2008); Political Psychology: Situations, Individuals, and Cases, by David P. Houghton. Publ. Routledge, December 2008, (ISBN: 978-0-415-99013-4).

3. From hope and fear set free. Isaiah Berlin in The Proper Study of Mankind: an anthology of essays. Eds. Henry Hardy and Roger Hausheer, Publ. Farar, Straus and Giroux, NY, 2000.

4. Leaving the Radical Left: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and Jewish Response (Part Three, Draft 1). From the New Centrist Blog at http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/leaving-the-radical-left-anti-zionism-anti-semitism-and-jewish-response-part-three-draft-1/

5. The plot against Ameica: a novel. Philip Roth, Publ. Vintage Intnl. Sept 2005

6. Re-membering the Holocaust. Robert Fine at http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/robert-fines-talk-to-the-ucu-meeting-legacy-of-hope-anti-semitism-the-holocaust-and-resistance-yesterday-and-today/ .

7. Speech at Global Forum for Combating Anti-semitism, Jerusalem 8 Feb 2008. David Hirsh see ENGAGE http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/printarticle.php?id=1683.

8. Review of “The plot against America: a novel” (Philip Roth) by Laura Miller, 8 Oct 2004 at http://www.powells.com/review/2004_10_08.html.

Roth, Hirsh and Antisemitism

I have not posted to this blog since June last year. I'm not entirely sure it serves a purpose but producing the occasional bulletin for distribution at least helps me clarify my own thoughts. So my newsletter has been coming out at rather irregular intervals without actually being posted to this blog. From here on I will make a point of ensuring that the blog is updated whenever I actually get around to putting pen to paper.


In the meantime it accumulated a few comments - 6 from David Zinn who is so incorrigibly abusive and compulsively one-track that I will no longer bother with him. There is enough abysmal trash on the Internet without adding more garbage.

There was a comment from Steven Robins which I will try to add here and address. If it does not appear it is because I cannot access it any longer. My apologies for that, but the post below actually addresses some of his issues - albeit indirectly.

I will continue to publish comments - supportive, analytical or critical - where I deem them to have merit. I will also either answer them personally or publish worthwhile responses from others.


Roth, Hirsh and Antisemitism

Those at the top of the celebrity food chain are painfully exposed to the fickleness of public opinion; Tiger Woods and Blair come to mind but the list is a long one. From hero to zero is not really a danger to those of us at the bottom of the celebrity ladder, but even we know that we get undeserved bouquets and brickbats at times. This is probably the reason Kipling called “success” and “failure” the two imposters.



Speaking from a personal perspective, the task of countering the persistent and insidious anti-Israel media bias, can lead to errors of fact, emphasis and judgement. Besides the failure of the media to provide a balanced treatment of the multi-faceted and convoluted conflicts which flourish within the Middle East hothouse, one needs to deal with more-or-less orchestrated campaigns from activists who for various reasons (psychological and ideological) and are committed to unending propaganda warfare against the state of Israel. Truly reliable facts are difficult to come by, space is immensely limited and the level of debate is generally polarised and abysmally low. Fatigue, the pressures of time and simple irritation compound the problem.



Thus I hope to occasionally use this newsletter/blog to bring to your attention some of the better articles and books pertaining to Israel or to Jewry more broadly and to raise issues which are neither suitable nor possible to deal with properly in the popular press.



It is important to frame this within the context of an Israel engaged in an existential war against those who like to destroy it altogether. Some of our co-religionists, who have arrogated to themselves the mantle of universal ethical spokespersons, would like to you to believe this assertion is paranoia or simply a device to silence criticism. It is neither. There is more than sufficient evidence ranging from the actual statements of those who make their ambitions quite plain all the way through to actions whose only consequence is in fact the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. The fact that in narrow military terms Israel is considerably stronger than her enemies, does not make their intentions any less sinister. Nor is the military battlefield the only arena in which this conflict is being fought. As important are the arenas of demography, geostrategic resources and public opinion – to mention only some. In all of these Israel’s enemies are equal or superior with extremely important implications for Israel’s’ security, and indeed for the security of global Jewry.



Nor does the fact that Israel is engaged in an existential struggle absolve it from criticism. But it does make it imperative that those who claim to support it take great care not to become the handmaidens of Israel’s enemies – a topic I have discussed previously and do not wish to revisit here.



The first theme of this issue is the question of anti-semitism arising, strangely enough, out of a novel, which many of you may have already read, and I have belatedly got around to finishing. I’m referring to Philip Roth’s “The plot against America”. I came away overwhelmed by its extraordinarily ambitious scope – a combination of an acutely observed socio-political treatise on an adolescent and still raw America, a polemic, a scrupulous and partly autobiographical examination of character, all embedded in an imaginative and complex narrative rich in incident and unexpected twists. Despite its polemical undertone at no stage did this undermine the honesty with which Roth parades his vast cast of Jewish and non-Jewish characters before us; nor does he rub our noses in the lessons to be drawn from them but allows the reader to form his own conclusions.



A leitmotif throughout the novel is the question: where does paranoia, fear and parochialism end and true anti-semitism begin? Do the bland, seemingly innocuous and apparently reasonable criticisms of Jewish cultural difference, exclusivity and failure to assimilate more thoroughly into the predominantly white, Protestant host population disguise a deeper and more sinister threat or are they to be taken at their face value, as some more “enlightened” members of the Jewish community would have their compatriots believe?



While Roth’s answer is indirect, it is also unequivocal. The ordinary Jew, reacting with horror, confusion and indignation to Lindbergh’s plausible and ambiguous pronouncements, is right on the money. In some way the ability to detect and decipher the true meaning lies within the Jewish psychological DNA, honed by centuries of uncertainty and oppression. Such gut recognition can be blocked by excessive education laced with ambition, vanity and arrogance, represented by the oleaginous and politically adroit, Rabbi Bengelsdorf - whose career of pandering and sycophancy comes to a satisfyingly nasty end by the end of the book.



Nor are the Jews the only ones who understand the code. The anti-semites and opportunists within the American population also understand the new licence to take out their prejudices on their fellow Jews. But Roth does not descend into a simplistic Manichean universe of innocent Jews surrounded by evil predatory foes. On the contrary, he invests his characters with the full gamut of human good and evil irrespective of their religious ethnic affiliations, none of which undermines the central insight: that anti-semitism can come cunningly disguised, perhaps especially to the anti-semite himself. This does not mitigate its profoundly sinister origins in the darker reaches of the human psyche or the dangers it holds for Jew and non-Jew alike.



Of course, this analysis is acutely relevant to the issue of Israel. Just like the Jews of America, Israel is an imperfect society despite its enormous successes. Corruption is rife especially within its political space. Racism is prevalent amongst some sections of the population. Social and economic inequality is becoming worse and education, on which the future of Israel rests, is far from optimal. Fundamentalist religion exerts an unhealthily excessive influence on Israel’s political and civil life and Israel needs to deal more humanely and effectively with its minority populations. Above all, Israel hasn’t solved the problem of ruling, however distantly and indirectly, over an alien hostile population with all the consequences on its own social and moral fabric.



None of this should occasion any surprise given Israel’s history, the neighbourhood in which it is embedded and the multiple antagonistic agendas it has to deal with, both within and outside its borders. Some of these are solvable by Israel alone and others depend on the cooperation of others. None are easy and some are utterly intractable.



But none of Israel’s failures, imperfections and transgressions remotely justify the obsessive and unbalanced criticism leveled at it. These, like the anti-semitism of Lindbergh’s America, reflect the psychological twists and political agendas of Israel’s critics rather than an objective view of Israel itself. The carefully calibrated and disguised criticisms of some of its more sophisticated enemies are clearly and correctly understood both by the ordinary Jew and by those who wish Israel harm as threats. Only those blinded by some combination of denialism, internalised and unexamined anti-semitism, free-floating guilt, vanity, ignorance or simple ambition and greed can believe otherwise.



Some of this is put extremely well by David Hirsh in his speech to the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism - Jerusalem, 25 Feb 08, and I quote extensively from it below..



“Jews are involved in a real conflict in the Middle East where not all the rights and wrongs are on one side, where neither nation has always acted wisely and where in the absence of peace, things can only get worse.

When Jews are involved in conflicts there is a danger that the ways people think about those conflicts get mystified in the language of antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is not a reasonable response to the actual situation; it is a response to a
narrative of the actual situation which has become mystified by antisemitism.

Real human rights abuses are mystified as being genocidal like Nazism; institutional racism is mystified as being worse than apartheid; the occupation is mystified as being unique and as being a manifestation of a Zionist essence; Jewish power is mystified as an ‘Israel lobby’ capable of perverting the policy of the only super power on the planet against its own interest.

In Britain we have dealt a fairly heavy blow, for the moment, to the boycotters. In my view the main manifestation of antisemitism in the near future is going to be conspiracy theory.

The kind of antisemitism which really worries me is the kind which is difficult to spot. Governments can imprison those who commit racist assaults and they can ban hate-speech. But we cannot shut down the Guardian newspaper or my
trade union or the Green Party.

Why not? Because contemporary antisemitism is not explicitly or obviously antisemitic.

We can respond that according to the EUMC working definition this or that piece in the Guardian is in fact antisemitic, irrespective of what people think. But the counter-response will be “of course, you wrote it”.

I am not against bringing legal or bureaucratic power to bear against antisemitism when that is possible – interestingly the boycott in my own union was ended with the help of a combination of the two. But we have to lead with a political fight, by making and winning arguments.

We should not base our strategy on the assumption that the powerful in the world - or in America - will be prepared to oppose antisemitism. We should not act as though the "lobby" rhetoric was true. It isn’t. Moshe Postone tells us that antisemitism can appear to be anti-hegemonic. But we shouldn’t act as though antisemitism was in fact anti-hegemonic.

We don’t aim to change the mind of Ilan Pappe or Saumas Milne but we do aim to change the mind of those who may be influenced by them. Yesterday John Mann said that the boycotters are afraid of us. And I think they are. They’re not afraid of being denounced as wild-eyed leftists or as antisemites or as self-haters. They love that.

But they are afraid of coming up against people who have a chance of influencing their own followers or of sewing (sic)doubt amongst those who they aim to influence. This is a difficult job. ...

The contemporary way of doing antisemitic conspiracy theory was given a stamp of professorial legitimacy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in 2006. They created a vocabulary which one could use to express conspiracy theory and which did not seem to be antisemtic.

Conspiracy theory is nearly always, today, articulated using the Livingstone Formulation, which claims that Jews play the antisemitism card in bad faith in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israeli human rights abuses. In this way, anyone who raises a worry about contemporary antisemitism already stands accused of doing so maliciously; and they stand accused of doing so as part of a common plan with others. Livingstone’s formulation also denies the distinction between criticism and demonization.

Thursday’s Guardian had the rhetoric and the images of antisemitic conspiracy theory running through it, from the front page to the inside pages, to the leader. Antisemitism of this sort is not explicit, is not obvious, and is not self-aware. It is necessary to analyze and interpret a text to know whether it is antisemitic.”



I will leave this theme here. The message is to all of us is that it is not necessary to believe Israel is perfect or wholly right to support or defend it. It is not necessary to believe or claim others are intrinsically evil or that they have no legitimacy in order to oppose them. The story of Israel and the Palestinians contains hurts suffered and wrongs committed by both sides. But until the Palestinians can free themselves from the narrative of endless victimhood, the ideologies and anti-semitism of the Western left and the Muslim world, the medieval visions of Jihadi Islamism and the corrupt gangsters ruling over them, their ability to find creative solutions to their existential problems will remain stillborn.



Israel, hopefully, will continue to avoid that trap as they have managed so far at least partially. They have a recent history of heroic achievement to provide them with the confidence to get beyond their own fears and prejudices and fulfill their destiny.



I would be interested in other people’s perceptions of the issues discussed in this post.



Mike Berger

Political Pornography Updated

I have written here before about anti-Zionist propaganda. A recent article by Johann Hari, an award-winning, celebrity journalist for the Independent in the UK, goes beyond propaganda to pornography (click here for article). This piece caters for the obsessive anti-Zionist anti-Semitism which has become a feature of the so-called progressive press.

Despite denials, this campaign - which closely resembles the vicious European anti-Semitism of the pre-Nazi era - caters for the semi-psychotic addicted crazies which infect every strata of society and need only some form of legitimation to give expression to their fantasies. The following quote from comments in response to the article(one example amongst many on the 'net) gives some idea of the thought processes underlying these obsessions:

“The next Anti-Christ will be jew..... Take a LOOK at a youtube video called The Esoteric Agenda....a real eye opener Explains how these jew bastards like Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans etc. need to rule the planet by famine and disease....”

Hari knows about this trend. Previously he wrote

“And, yes, the debate about Israel is being infected with anti-Semitism. I passionately support the creation of a Palestinian state…But why the constant rhetorical inflation of Israel's crimes to put them on a par with Nazi Germany?” He went on to say, “more people died in one afternoon in Bergen-Belsen than have been killed in twenty years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.” He could equally have said “or killed in one night’s British bombing of German cities”.

But that did not stop Hari from writing his latest vicious piece of pornography. We must answer this campaign of defamation but we must also seek ways of carrying the fight to our enemies. I was told that Hari's article has been or is going to be published in The Star. I am unable to locate it on the Internet and have not been sent a hard copy, but was asked by Bev Goldman, Media Team leader for the SAJBOD, to write an op-ed piece in response.

Despite this uncertainty, I drafted a reply published below in full. It may yet appear in The Star, but you have it here in unexpurgated and unedited form. (Has Hari's original piece been blocked by objections to its publication of the Internet??)

I will be away for 3 weeks so don't expect anything from me for the next month. All the best and lets keep the responses coming.

Political Pornography

Everyone knows it is easier to throw mud than to wipe it off, and Johann Hari in the Star (…) comes armed with something much more smelly than mud. He builds his article, to use his words, around Jewish filth being flung at a “cowering Palestinian population”.

Now Mr Hari is himself a shit-thrower of considerable note; he is the 2008 winner of the Orwell Prize for Journalism amongst other awards. His descriptions are thus suitably vivid: “long stinking rivers of waste” and “…one of them burst drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste”. Being a celebrity journalist, apparently excuses Hari from the boring stuff like verifying the accuracy of his claims or contextualising them.

It seems almost petty to ask whether the Intifada launched in 2000, when Palestinian economic and population growth were at a peak and Arafat had been offered 95% of the West Bank and the opportunity to build a Palestinian state, may have dented the rehabilitation of the sewerage system in the West Bank and Gaza. Or whether the sewer pipes are blocked because they are used for Quassam rockets or because Hamas is targeting the Israel-Gaza crossings to prevent material getting through so as to increase political pressure on Israel.

Perhaps Hari could have mentioned that significant Israeli-Palestinian cooperation is on-going to address the complex, emotive and longterm issues around water and waste as evidenced by a recent publication entitled “Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel-Palestinian Water Issues From Conflict to Cooperation” edited by Hillel Shuval and Hassan Dweik.

But none of this is pertinent to Hari’s true mission which is not to critique Israel’s attitude towards Palestinian welfare but to delegitimise the Israeli state. Excrement is really just the hors d’oevres.

Using Ilan Pappe as his historical witness, Hari quotes Ben Gurion as saying “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war”. (Ben Gurion was that dumb?) This was accomplished by Plan Dalit. “In 1948, before the Arab armies invaded,…some 800 000 people were ethnically cleansed and Israel was built on the ruins”.

All this, along with the “cowering Palestinians” is simply propaganda. The cowering Palestinians, aided by Iran and Syria, have launched thousands of rockets and mortars at southern Israel, have murdered and kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians and openly declare their intention to “liberate” the whole of Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean with the help of arms smuggled through Egypt.

Pappe, Hari’s source and apparent inspiration and a member of the Israeli Communist Party before emigrating in 2007, regards facts as irrelevant. A few direct quotes provides the flavour: “My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous”. “Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are?”

So it is hardly surprising that the “facts” used by Hari to support his case against Israel are nothing but fiction. The quote attributed to Ben Gurion has been dismissed by genuine historians (that is, those who believe that facts matter) as “pure invention”. Similarly, rather than Jews driving out helpless Palestinians, local Arab attacks starting in 1947 killed over 1000 Jews by March 1948 before the invasion of six Arab armies.

Now Hari is more than a crusading celebrity journalist: for instance he obtained a double first at Cambridge. So when he compares Israel in the Middle East with 30 million Kurds taking over most of Britain, he knows its bullshit. In case some of our readers have to be be told why, here goes:

Because Jews became a nation for the first time in “Palestine” about 3000 years ago and have had a presence there ever since. Because a pitiful couple of hundred thousand not 30 million Jews “invaded” the Middle East, many the remnants of slaughtered European communities. Because there was no Palestinian state for the Jews to invade, only a relatively minor province of the huge and failing Ottoman Empire occupied by about 30 000 Jews and 600 000 Arabs, many scattered as impoverished tenant farmers subject to the depredations of Bedouin raiders, plus a much smaller Arab middle and wealthy class. Jerusalem was already mainly Jewish. And, finally, because Israel does not occupy most of Arab land but less than one five hundredth. Palestinian Arabs share ethnicity, history, language and religion with around 300 million near neighbours.

It is easy enough to discredit Hari’s accusations since he hardly gets a single fact right. But that doesn’t get to the root of the issue. After all, no-one is claiming that Israel is a country of saints or that its creation was a kind of immaculate conception. For yardsticks of comparison just look at the history of the USA, Mexico, Britain, and so on down the list.

In reality Hari’s article goes beyond ordinary propaganda, it is anti-Zionist pornography; the kosher version of Holocaust denial. It arises from and caters to obsessive anti-Zionist, anti-Semitism, the bastard offspring of pre-Nazi anti-Semitism which has been resurrected globally by a sytematic media campaign over decades.

I exaggerate? Well here’s one comment following on Hari’s original article in the UK Independent from Laurie Smith: “The next Anti-Christ will be jew..... Take a LOOK at a youtube video called The Esoteric Agenda....a real eye opener Explains how these jew bastards like Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans etc. need to rule the planet by famine and disease....” There are many more like that in the crevices of the Internet.

Hari knows of this psychotic underworld. In 2006 he wrote “And, yes, the debate about Israel is being infected with anti-Semitism. I passionately support the creation of a Palestinian state…But why the constant rhetorical inflation of Israel's crimes to put them on a par with Nazi Germany?” He went on to say, “more people died in one afternoon in Bergen-Belsen than have been killed in twenty years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.” He could equally have said “or killed in one night’s British bombing of German cities”.

We have laws against gross sexual pornography in our media. Perhaps we need to apply some of the same standards to political pornography. It seems a much greater threat to a sane and decent society than the former kind.

Mike Berger

Mud and the Media

A casual reader opening the Cape Times today (28 May) will find a prominent letter entitled “Israel must reach out” by Mr Jazbhay in which he dissociates himself from any celebration of Israel’s 60^th anniversary.

As far as I know, Mr Jazbhay has not been invited to join in these celebrations, nor has the Cape Times associated itself with Israel’s remarkable accomplishments. Thus, a casual reader may wonder why Jazbhay felt impelled to write such a letter or, indeed, why the Cape Times consented to publish it.

The reader will find in Jazbhay’s letter the usual litany of complaints against Israel: brutality, expropriation, “the wall”, discrimination against Israeli Arabs and so on and on. Needless to say there is no mention of the on-going terrorist incursions against Israel with resultant deaths and injuries, the rocket attacks, the inflammatory behaviour of many (by no means all) Israeli Arabs who demand the full rights of Israeli citizens while undermining Israel abroad and at home or, indeed, the circumstances which led to the expensive and politically costly construction of the security barrier in the first place.

In fact, the reader would be astonished by any attempt at a contextualised or informative letter since this would be contrary to the objective of the game which, as even the most casual reader understands, is to throw as much mud as possible at Israel in the reasonable belief that some of it will stick.

A slightly less casual reader will have noticed by now some clear patterns within the South African media. Firstly, an obsessive concern with a highly complex conflict far outside South Africa’s domain of interest. Secondly, the gross preponderance of anti-Israel comment, images, reportage and analysis generally without even token attempts at “balance” or contextualisation. Thirdly, the reader will have noted that such exchanges invariably start with some anti-Israel piece followed by (in the interests of fairness of course) responses from those like me attempting to wipe some of the sticky stuff off.

What the ordinary reader will not know (but may guess) is the most of the “accusations” are endlessly recycled half-truths, distortions or outright lies. What the ordinary reader will not know is who and what is driving this campaign of nasty anti-Semitism or political propaganda under the guise of moral indignation. But, once again, it is not too difficult to surmise.

But in reply to Jazbhay and his ilk, Israel’s behaviour and accomplishments are one of the remarkable stories of the modern age and I and thousands of Jews and non-Jews celebrate its 60th anniversary with unmitigated pride. I challenge the Cape Times and the rest of the South African media to tell the true story.

Mike Berger

Exchange with M & G

I have decided to post an exchange of correspondence in full (despite its substantial length) between myself and the Chief Editor of the M & G, Ferial Haffajee, and Drew Forrest, a Senior Editor.

I have done so almost unedited so as to convey the full flavour of the exchange and so as not to bias it in any way. Also I will refrain from comment at this point, so that you the reader can form your own opinions.

The original Pilger article can be found here and my letter in response here.

To put the exchange in context (especially in view of some of Drew Forrest's comments), I conducted a small piece of retrospective research on the M & G record of publication on matters broadly pertaining to the Middle East, Israel, Jews and Islam. This is based on a 2 month retrospective survey using the SA Monitoring Service set up by the SA Zionist Federation. The Service is entirely impartial and the selection has nothing to do with the Zionist Federation.

The results out of 10 hits are:

Pro-Israel: 1 letter (mine).
Anti-Israel (West): 4 full-length articles (with photographic image in one) and 2 letters.
Anti-Islamist: 1 brief news report concerning a fatwa out of Saudi Arabia.
Irrelevant or neutral: 2.

Exchange of Correspondence (start at top and read down)

I note that my reply to Pilger's propaganda piece in the previous M & G was not published. On the assumption that the M & G intends publishing responses in the next issue, I have resubmitted an edited version below of the original - sent in haste.

I still retain somewhere the idealistic vision of journalism as a means of enlightenment and, though we often differ, I believe that the M & G shares that somewhat anachronistic notion - though I fail to see how publishing Mr Pilger contributes to that ideal. Forgive me if I say bluntly that in the matter of Israel and the Palestinians, the M & G is seriously on the wrong side of truth, history and morality.

On the assumption that you haven't entirely closed your mind on this matter, I suggest you give me the opportunity to submit an article entitled the "The moral stance and Israel in the Middle East". I look forward to your reply.

Mike Berger

Dear Ferial, Drew

First, I note that you published my response to Pilger in full. While that is to the credit of the M & G, I won't offer thanks since the right to have alternate views expressed (and, in turn, challenged) is the obligation of any newspaper which lays claim to good journalism. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the M & G lived up to its ideals.

At the same time, despite your obvious reluctance (determination?) to engage me in any sort of dialogue, I one again reiterate my request to be accorded space in your newspaper to set out in meaningful context some of the moral issues involved in the "Middle East conflict". So far you have ignored this "offer", along with any attempt on my part to establish some sort of civil contact, by refusing to answer any of my e-mail or telephonic messages.

Nothing I have said or done justifies such an attitude. It can only be attributed to a certain arrogance of power, of the kind you rightly castigate in Government or other powerful corporate entities. Or it reflects a fear to engage in debate on this issue, which implies some deep insecurity on your part regarding the validity of the one-sided position you have adopted vis-a-vis Zionism and Israel. Or, possibly, you are trapped in contractual/ideological obligations to the UK Guardian. Or you have me labelled in some way which precludes you from meaningful engagement.

Whatever the explanation or mix of explanations, your position does not rebound to the credit of the M & G (or yourselves to be frank) and excludes the chance of adding to your paper's significance and relevance in the South African and global context.

So, once again I extend this open-ended offer to engage in a more constructive dialogue and debate. You must be aware that in this age of electronic communication you cannot close off voices you don't approve of. Possibly you may wish to visit my blog, SOLAR PLEXUS (URL - http://froggyfarm.blogstop.com/), and receive the brief Newsletter relating to the blog? If so, let me know.

I am keeping this correspondence confidential, but reserve the right to publish it together with any response of your own, should I feel that the situation warrants it. I would prefer not to do so or to do so with your approval.

regards
Mike Berger

Dear Mike

May I respond as follows:

1. In good faith, we published your right to reply as a letter. We run our newspaper as a forum and always encourage a diversity of views.
2. We are not arrogant, merely flooded. Our letters and personal cues receives hundreds of emails a day and scores of article contributions too.
3. We are not soliciting columns at the moment, but welcome your letters and other contributions on our standard publishing practice. Please bear in mind that we can publish only a small minority of contributions pitched every week.

I don't mean to be rude, but point out herewith that my week is revving up from today and so I will not be able to enter into a discussion about this.

Warm regards,
Peace
Ferial Haffajee
Editor M & G

Dear Mike,

I'm afraid I was a good deal more irritated by your letter than the editor, so am responding separately.

*Neither we nor any other newspaper has any "obligation" to carry readers' contributions, and it is a misconception that there is a universal "right to reply" there is no such thing. Whether and how fully we publish letters is entirely at our discretion. You might have some moral claim if Pilger's article had attacked you personally, but in fact it was about the actions of the Israeli state. Why should you have a "right of reply" to an article critical of Israel, as if your reputation had been impugned?

*Why should the M&G, a South African newspaper, need a regular columnist on Israel/Palestine? Is there a single newspaper in the country with a regular column on any foreign country? The paper's comment section is overwhelmingly about South Africa, and our small world section uses no regular columnists of any kind.

*If for some strange reason we wanted a columnist on Israel/Palestine, why would we use you anyway? What is your special interest or expertise? If we wanted a regular columnist to give the Israeli perspective, we'd at least use someone who is plugged in to what is going on in the Middle East, like the Israeli ambassador (who has occasionally written for us). In contrast
with your writing on scientific matters, I personally find your views on Israel/Palestine stale and predictable in fact, the same stock arguments one has heard trotted out a thousand times by South African Zionists. It's all knee-jerk defensive stuff, with no evidence of any attempt to rethink the situation or wrestle with the complexities. The underlying attitude n your letter "We'll just go on whacking them until they leave us alone" doesn't take things very far forward, it seems to me.

*We are not "trapped" into any contractual obligations to The Guardian in fact, they have shown extraordinary generosity by giving us lifting rights on their excellent world coverage. We share their perspective on Israel, which is pretty much the world consensus outside Israel and the US. Like other readers, you can write us a letter if you feel strongly about something published in the M&G and we will run it if we think it deserves publication. That is exactly what happened last week, and in that context I find it difficult to understand your complaint.

Regards,
Drew

PS The idiom is "redound to the credit" not "rebound to the credit".

Dear Drew

Don't worry about irritation; it is something to be transcended. While I'll be equally frank and address your comments explicitly, I will try not to answer you in the same contemptuous tone in the hope that you will free yourself sufficiently from your preconceptions both regarding Israel-Palestine and myself personally to actually take some note of what I have to say.

• I don't know about "obligations" but if the M & G wishes to be something more than a propaganda rag then it will certainly publish what I (and others with views which run counter to your own) have to say.
• Pilger's article attacked a country with which I and other Jews (in the vast majority) feel a strong sense of identification. Both psychologically and morally we have every right to reply. Possibly if you really had some better idea of Jewish-Zionist history (or were capable of feeling any empathy with that history) you would not have written as you have. It may mean more to you if I pointed out that if someone had traduced your family, you would feel obligated, and would be entitled, to respond. Is that so hard to understand?
• Who said anything about a "regular columnist"? Nevertheless, regular columnist or not, the M & G regularily publishes anti-Israel and anti-Zionst material (I am being euphemistic in my choice of words here), which amounts to the same thing. So get off your high horse; you're on shaky ground.
• Why would you chose me? Well possibly because I was twice published in the M & G Bedside book during the few years when the editor (who differed from me politically) was prepared to publish my work. Because the enlightened Jewish community (and some non-Jews who have taken the time and effort to contact me) regard my writings highly. Because those who are genuine certified experts believe that I have something pertinant to say and say it well. Because I have taken the time and effort to acquaint myself with the issues, take care with facts and the different point of views and because I am open to rational debate. I could go on but modesty supervenes. Nevertheless, I would be happy to supply you with some references and a CV should you truly be interested.
• You comment 'The underlying attitude n (sic) your letter "We'll just go on whacking them until they leave us alone" doesn't take things very far forward, it seems to me.' What letter are you referring to? The Pilger one? I have few hundred words to address his mishmash of lies and distortions:, what do you expect? A historical treatise? A "solution" perhaps? I set out to debunk his nonsense which I did effectively - which no doubt offended you, hence the insults. That is also why I have requested a bit more space in which the topic could be dealt with in a way that does at least a modicum of justice to its "complexities", as you so rightly term them.
• Another of your comments: "We'll (referring to, Israel) keep on whacking them till they leave us alone". No. We'll keep on whacking them (and trying to talk to them and supplying them with the necessities and more) till they stop trying to destroy us. I don't know what fairy stories you tell yourself Drew, but the Jews can't afford them. When people say they want to exterminate us, we've learnt to believe them. When they act as though they wish to destroy us, we certainly believe them. The Jews can't afford stupidity; we're not big and strong enough - though some Jews haven't got the message. But then they mostly don't really want to be Jews.
• I'm glad to hear that you're not "trapped" in any contractual obligations to the Guardian; you merely share their prejudices. But contrary to your belief that the rest of the world also shares them, you should read a recent Pew global survey on attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians. It would surprise, and doubtless disappoint, you that the incessant stream of anti-Israel "comment" (how about that euphemism?) has yielded such poor returns - except in the enlightened countries of Western Europe so well known for their fairness and tolerance. And, of course, in the despotisms of the Middle East.
• I was not "complaining", just challenging. Possibly you're not accustomed to that?
• The idiom is "redound to the credit" not "rebound to the credit". Wow. Thanks. (Actually, entre nous, I know that.)

In ending let me say that your letter disappoints me. It reeks of prejudice and reflects the sad quality of understanding and thought that underpins so called "enlightened" anti-Zionism. We are sort of inured to the anger and intemperance of zealots (we have them too), but it is when I encounter the shallowness and rage which underlies the anti-Zionism of educated and supposedly "progressive" people that I truly fear for the human condition. We can't learn from that, and what one ultimately desires is for a debate in which the possibility of genuine understanding and personal growth is latent. That cannot be said for your response. I hope that you will take a moment to consider.

I won't comment on Ferial's reply here. Whether it is "sincere" or simply "diplomatic" and "strategic", I have no way of knowing. But, more gently perhaps, it also closes the door. It is to be regretted.

Mike Berger

Dear Mike

I was plain sincere and if you read my response as closing the door rather than pointing out the realities of limited space and still inviting your voice but not at the same rate as you would perhaps like, you are wrong.

Peace
Ferial Haffajee
Editor, Mail&Guardian

Dear Ferial

I felt that I had been a trifle churlish in my response to your gentle letter and this gives me the opportunity to correct that. I am reassured to know that you are sincere and I naturally accept that the pressures on your space and time are enormous. So I will take your message to indicate that the door is not firmly shut and will test (bearing in mind your realities) the extent to which it is open.

with kind regards

Mike

Propaganda, Ideology and Reality

In reality there is no "reality". All views of the world, especially our political views, are constructed through our early socialisation and on-going experiences, sifted through our individual minds.

Propaganda is the deliberate attempt to steer that process in a particular direction. When propaganda is infused with an ideology (that is, a systematic world-view whether religious or secular - like communism, liberalism, conservatism) that tendency is amplified and reinforced.

Even without deliberate propaganda and ideology, social forces and individual psychology tend to maintain a consistent set of beliefs and perceptions in individuals and groups. That is probably to the good, up to a point, since a wildly fluctuating set of perceptions is hardly an effective way to confront the challenges of the world.

But, in the ideal modern democratic state, the individual is (or can be) exposed to new information and different views which allow that person to alter his or her positions in the light of these new experiences. In fact this is one of the fundamental reasons why democracies are generally so much more effective (in both war and peace) than despotisms. The ability to adjust one's view of the world to take into account changing or hitherto novel information is probably a necessary precondition of personal and collective growth.

Propaganda, especially when linked to ideology, is an attempt to prevent such growth and reorientation. In an open and free society such efforts can usually be effectively combated. Where social and political factors limit choice, the re-orientation process is curtailed and constrained.

These general ideas are especially relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab-Muslim conflict. Israel has been so effective largely because of her democratic institutions, imperfect though they are. For those living outside the focal point of the conflict, our views are shaped by the information which comes to us indirectly through the media, through friends, acquaintances and through the occasional visit. Where the media is one-sided, especially through the deliberate use of propaganda, the perceptions of the ordinary person is is distorted.

This is happening in South Africa where both the Independent group and the Mail & Guardian have taken on the role of pro-Palestinian propagandists. Whether this is cynical and conscious or simply the consequence of closed minds and prejudice, the outcome is to limit and distort the perceptions of South Africans fed a steady diet of one-sided information and analysis.

The Pilger article in the M & G of 14 March 2008 is a prime example of outright and extremely cynical propaganda. My letter in response (reproduced below) has been sent to the M & G but remains to be published as of this writing. Besides this, the general tenor of discourse in the post-Apartheid South Africa tends towards a facile comparison of Israel-Palestine with apartheid and anti-colonialism in general. This fallacy has been widely critiqued and exposed (see previous post on this blog referring to the Kadalie, Bertelsmann article "Franchising Apartheid" on Z-word), but one doubts that these contrarian voices are reaching many of the opinion makers, never mind the general population. Besides crusading media and biased public discourse, there clearly exist Muslim groups and their non-Muslim supporters actively disseminating anti-Israel and anti-Zionist propaganda.

This blog is one response to this onslaught. We live in a free though imperfect society and we have the tools to counter these distortions and outright lies. Despite the existence of "media teams", staffed by committed and able people (many of them volunteers), the response of the major communal Jewish organisations is still inadequate. The offending newspapers and media are reluctant to publish views which oppose their own perspectives, or do so in such a way that their impact is minimised.

Rather than pollute the public space with more propaganda from the other (pro-Zionist) side, we need to bring higher quality information and analysis to the attention of the wider, interested community. This requires due space and prominence in the conventional media and the use of unofficial channels. I would like to see the SAJBD and the SAZF take up this challenge more seriously and creatively. Our cause will not be advanced by talking to ourselves.

Letter sent to Mail and Guardian:

So, according to John Pilger, 6.5 million Jews on a tiny piece of semi-desert set amongst 300 million hostile Arab-Muslims is the 4^th largest military power in the world (M & G, 14 March). I suppose it all depends on how one defines military power, but Pilger in full propaganda mode couldn’t be bothered with such niceties.

Nevertheless, taking Pilger at face value and that, according to him, "(Israel) used satellite-guided American aircraft and missiles against a population of largely children, most of them malnourished", it is amazing that the Israeli Defence Force only managed to kill 120 Gazans over the course of a week - most of them militants. As we know a single decent car bomb in Baghdad or a crowded Pakistani street market can accomplish that.

Such paltry results implies either extraordinary levels of Israeli incompetence, which makes their standing as any sort of military power absurd or, as Pilger is well aware, it reflects extraordinary skill and a determination to minimise civilian casualties despite every attempt by Hamas to provide a respectable body count for people like himself to exploit.

Contrary to Pilger’s idiotic suggestion that Israel has an interest in the destruction of Gazan society and the creation of more violent militants on its borders, as any sane person knows Israel wants nothing more than to be left alone. For this reason it withdrew fully from Gaza in the hope that the Gazan population would create a viable and peaceful state.

The plain fact is that Israel is constantly goaded and threatened by suicide bombers, rockets and mortars directed indiscriminately at its civilian population by Hamas, Hezbollah and the other terror groups flourishing in that region. Simply stated Israel is at war with people, with significant support in the West as well as locally, who have never accepted the presence of a Jewish state in the Middle East and who are dedicated to its destruction by any means possible - preferably by violence. This is openly stated, and Pilger's role is to contribute to the propaganda arm of this war. This situation also suits some of the states in the region who play the dangerous but profitable game of keeping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the boil in pursuit of their own regional and global ambitions and to mollify their own restive populations reared on a toxic diet of anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.

But Israel will persist, despite its enemies and despite the fears, doubts and imperfections of its own people, partly because decent people everywhere will eventually turn against the purveyors of hatred and death.

Mike Berger