The two that I noticed recently were from Norman Geras, writing for the Israel lobby group BICOM in their online magazine, Fathom and Toby Young in his Telegraph blog.
A second form of the Israel alibi for antisemitism is the plea that antisemitism should not be ascribed to anyone without evidence of active hatred of Jews on their part; without, that is to say, some clear sign of anti-Semitic intent. A well-known case of this second form arose with Caryl Churchill’s play ‘Seven Jewish Children’, following upon Israel’s invasion of Gaza in 2008-9. This play puts into Jewish mouths the view that Palestinians are ‘animals’ and that ‘they want their children killed to make people sorry for them’; but that there is no need to feel sorry for them; that we – the Jews – are the chosen people and that it is our safety and our children that matter; in sum, that ‘I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out’. I will not insist here on how this echoes the blood libel; it is enough that Churchill ascribes to the Jews, seeing themselves as chosen, murderous racist attitudes bordering on the genocidal. On the face of it, one would think, this is a clear candidate for anti-Semitic discourse.And here's Young:
Described by Howard Jacobson as "a hate-filled little chamber piece", this play makes a direct analogy between the systematic and deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of Jewish children by the Nazis and the accidental death of Palestinian children at the hands of the Israeli Defence Force. "Tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her," says one of the Israeli characters.Both Geras and Young are referring to words spoken by one Jewish parent out of a total of fourteen. Understand? There are seven Jewish children, ergo, fourteen Jewish parents or seven Jewish mothers with partners who may or may not be Jewish given matrilinear descent. Apart from the fact that the words spoken by one Jewish parent out of anything from 7 to 14 do not amount to antisemitic imagery, there are another 6 to 13 parents who don't say anything that could be construed even by hasbaristas as being antisemitic.
So here's the play as performed by Jennie Stoller from the Guardian website:
And here's the script from the Guardian with some dos and don'ts tacked onto the end:
I remember when the play first came out. Various zionists made much of the fact that it was called "Jewish" children, not "Israeli" or "zionist" children. But most of the children weren't Israeli and, arguably, none were zionist, they were children after all. Then they focused on the "bloodthirstiness" of one of the parents but he (or she) wasn't bloodthirsty, just angry and aggressive. I think it was Jonathan Freedland, it may as well have been him, who said that the play portrayed Jewish parents as lying to their children. But there was a war on, what were they supposed to say? And if the parents only told the truth to their children, wouldn't the same hasbaristas claim that the play showed Jewish parents being utterly insensitive to the feelings of their children?
The fact is there is nothing antisemitic about the play, 7 Jewish Children, but we are now in year 5 of zionists claiming that there is.
PS - I found the Toby Young blog via an interesting tweet exchange regarding Gerald Scarfe's Sunday Times cartoon:
Young's response was a complete dodge. The post he links to doesn't even mention the Scarfe cartoon.
Toby Young, aka, @toadmeister, describes himself as a Maverick Tory and a Classical Liberal. His own website is called No Sacred Cows. No further comment required.