Who's Anthony Lerman?

Well I don't really know who he is but he seems to have some prominence as the Executive Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and Engage gave him a real slagging recently on account of a little blurb of his on antisemitism in the Observer. I posted on that last thing on Sunday. Anyway, Mr Lerman feels that he has been misrepresented by Dr Hirsh. Dr Hirsh misrepresent someone over antisemitism and anti-zionism? What a surprise! So here he is in full on the Engage site and the Observer has updated its little piece to post the full thing that he actually wrote. It'll become clear when you see the Engage post by the man himself. So this is something you can find on Engage, in the Observer and the Just Peace list. Check it and you'll see Oh, and now here:

Dear David Hirsh, I can see that you’re not interested in facts but just in case there are people who go to your website, and even contribute comments, who are dedicated to balanced analysis and a search for the truth, I’m pasting below the full version of what I was commissioned by Ned Temko to write for the 3 September issue of the Observer. I was asked for 350 words about antisemitism, without knowing what will be in the Parliamentary Report and without knowing what Ned Temko planned to write in his linking piece. When I saw the Observer on Sunday morning, that was the first I knew that only a tiny fraction of my piece (which follows) had been used:

‘Antisemitism today is a serious problem: both for Jews and for society as a whole. Some think it went away after the Holocaust. It did not. Although it did diminish in recent decades, in the last few years it has intensified. And there is clear evidence, stretching back more than 20 years, that increases in the number of anti-Jewish manifestations are linked to periods of heightened tension and armed conflict involving Israelis and Arabs.

‘These factors, and the high degree to which debate about antisemitism is influenced by ideological and political considerations, make the need for clear, objective, analytical thinking of paramount importance. For without clarity and accuracy, we cannot form sound policy.

‘This is especially so in connection with the vexed question of whether anti-Zionism or singling out Israel for extreme criticism is antisemitic. Certainly, much of the perceived rise in antisemitism is made up of this form of discourse. But while very many Jews feel a deep attachment to Israel, it is the opposite of clear thinking to assume that all expressions of anti-Zionism are simply a cloak for or a form of antisemitism. It drains the word antisemitism of any useful value for it confuses a strongly held political view with an undifferentiated ideologically-based prejudice against a whole people.

‘Experience teaches us that we must avoid being dismissive and underestimating the problem. But equally we must avoid exaggeration. Sometimes we have a tendency to see ourselves as eternal victims in a world that is forever hostile to Jews. And the false perception that nobody cares feeds the sense that Jews dwell alone and fuels fears that encourage Jews to turn inward. This is not conducive to the kind of cool, detached level-headedness with which we need to tackle the problem. And it makes it hard to acknowledge the fundamental point that Jews must work with other minority groups, human rights bodies, ngos and parliamentarians to fight antisemitism as an integral part of the fight against other racisms and Islamophobia.

‘It is not easy to be dispassionate about something as morally reprehensible as antisemitism, but in order to devise effective action it must be done.’

As for your gloss on the brief quote in Sunday’s paper—which you will see is made up of bits chopped from the above and altered—for your sake, the less said the better. But again, for those who are genuinely interested in facts, one remark: You might like to think that ‘Nobody seriously assumes [“that all expressions of anti-Zionism are simply a cloak for, or a form of, anti-semitism”]’, but you are wrong. For example, Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the US, certainly the most influential—around the world and not just in the US—of the major American Jewish organizations dealing with antisemitism, said in a speech at the meeting of the ADL’s National Executive Committee in Palm Beach, Florida, on 8 February 2002: ‘anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, period’.

And by the way, the piece I was commissioned to write for the Observer is now up on their website in full.

I must say I'm surprised that Dr Hirsh says that no one says that anti-zionism is antisemitism. I just googled the expression, "anti-zionism is anti-semitism" (note the quotes) and 18,200 sites appeared. This is the top site (at the time of writing anyway). Just plain silly, eh?