Monday, September 15, 2003
Norman Geras points to this Observer piece by Geoffrey Wheatcroft defending the paper against charges of anti-Semitism.
Geras quotes Wheatcroft:
Whatever else is said about Israel, it quite obviously is not a nation like all others, or these very controversies would not be taking place… they come close to confirming that old foreboding that a Jewish state would compromise the position of western Jews in their own countries...
And comments:
Indeed, for one of the hallmarks of anti-Semitism is that one treats the Jews differently, or holds them to standards one does not expect of others.
Further, Wheatcroft seems to fall back on the "it's our right to offend" defense, and indeed it is.
An intemperate and vulgar press is always better than a licensed or self-censored press. The American journalist Michael Kinsley, a Jewish liberal, has said how much he admires the London papers (even Ingrams's Private Eye, with what Kosmin and Iganski call its long history 'of sarcasm and vitriol vis-a-vis the Jews') by comparison with journalism in the US, 'paralysed by gentility'...
I certainly am against any sort of government oversight or sanction against disagreeable speech, but we're talking here about personal responsibility and a recognition of wrong-doing - the sanction being a separate issue. The Observer is facing the charge however, not the sentence.
Wheatcroft's defense begs the question: If "an intemperate and vulgar press is always better than a licensed or self-censored press" where are the equivalent gadfly writers focussing on other minority groups? Would The Observer publish David Duke as a regular commentator for the sake of having a spicy press and a diverse set of British press editorial opinion?
No answer is necessary. The Observer is not interested in diversity of editorial opinion or it wouldn't view itself as a leftist bastion. Clearly, "Duking" the Jews is acceptable to The Observer's editors. Would it be acceptable against any other group, or nationality?
Wheatcroft provides a measure of explanation:
Indeed, The Observer is simply reflecting the overall trend of anti-Semitism on the Left generally, but of course, this merely provides explanation, not excuse.
Later:
This is a question answered time and again. Criticism of Israel is one thing. Going beyond that to criticism of Jews generally, as The Observer's Richard Ingrams has done, is quite another. Further, an obsessive focus on Israel coupled with a seeming blindness and/or double-standard with regard to similar actions of other nations begs another question: Wherefore the difference? Critics of The Oberver understand what the difference is, even if The Observer itself does not.
Wheatcroft concludes:
But who's fault is this? Certainly the responsibility falls upon the bigot, not his object. The question is: What is The Observer's responsibility? What should its editors do? Who and what should they publish? It should not be questioned whether they've the right to their opinion. The question is, does The Observer wish to be known as a rag that defends and lends voice to base racists and thus BE a racist rag or not? The choice and responsibility are theirs alone.
So far we have their answer, and they're sticking to it.
