A new report released today appears to directly challenge the British Jewish community’s dominant approach to fighting antisemitism.
Published by race equality thinktank the Runnymede Trust, Facing antisemitism shows that ”mainstream” Jewish organisations—those who represent the majority of the British Jewish population, albeit with a substantial minority opposed to them—have concentrated their anti-antisemitism strategy on developing alliances with the state and other powerful bodies. Groups such as the Board of Deputies and the Community Security Trust have nurtured close relationships with the police, government and other authorities. That appears to have reaped considerable dividends, not just in practical terms, such as funding for security for synagogues, but also in terms of influencing policy and putting antisemitism high up the national media and policy agenda.
Authors David Feldman, Ben Gidley and Brendan McGeever (from the Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, where I am an honorary fellow) refer to this dominant strategic goal as a “vertical” alliance. In such an alliance, Jews work with sources of power—the state, police, law and other powerful bodies—to identify and fight antisemitism.
But for Feldman et al, this strategy of building vertical alliances, while undeniably “successful” in some respects, has fed a “hierarchy” of racisms. Jews are often feted by those in power as a “model minority”, as some scholars have termed it—a patriotic, integrated and well-behaved reproach to other, more troublesome, ethnic groups. Indeed, politicians on the right who are sceptical of multiculturalism, or even outright racist about Muslims and other minorities, may loudly proclaim their opposition to antisemitism as a way of indemnifying themselves from accusations of racism. As the new report suggests, the result has been to weaken anti-racist solidarity by turning minorities against each other. This ultimately doesn’t make Jews safer.
Jewish organisations and leaders certainly need to be more aware of the limitations of the kind of anti-racism that seeks such alliances with power. As I myself have argued, the “selectiveness” of contemporary racism and anti-racism doesn’t just worsen divisions between minorities, it also divides Jews from each other. Our supposed friends draw the so-called good Jews closer and reject the “bad” ones.
It isn’t just the powerful who indulge in this selectivity; it happens across the political spectrum. On the left, those who define themselves as lifelong anti-racists may not merely be blind to the presence of antisemitism in radical movements—they can be just as susceptible as the right to playing favourites.
And so it is that the authors of this report will, in the coming days, be alternately love-bombed and hate-bombed by a kaleidoscopic selection of self-defined allies of the Jewish people and their various pet Jews. They won’t be able to do much about the hate-bombing. I hope, however, that they will push back when it comes to those on the left who will inevitably hug the authors close in order to sneer at others in the Jewish community who might not agree with them.
The report argues that there needs to be a new approach to antisemitism, which concentrates on building “horizontal” alliances between racialised minorities. This argument is also made by the author and journalist Rachel Shabi, who is speaking at the launch of the report. Shabi’s recent book Off-White both critiques antisemitism on the left and sketches out ways in which anti-racist alliances can be rebuilt—despite the apparent divisions between Jews, Muslims and others.
Feldman and his colleagues are right to point out how the politics of antisemitism is causing deep fissures between minorities that otherwise share common experiences of racism. But I think that the report is limited, both in its understanding of alliance-making in the Jewish community and in gravely underestimating the challenges to building a truly broad anti-racist coalition.
It is not that the community outside the Jewish radical left has simply abandoned horizontal alliance. Even within mainstream Jewish organisations, relationships with other communities continue, often quietly. Sometimes, such ties date back to a time when Zionists were more welcome on the anti-racist left. In addition, such alliances co-exist alongside strong relationships with power. The Community Security Trust, for example, is both deeply connected with government and the police and has also quietly advised other communities in developing security infrastructure, sometimes facilitating other minorities’ attempts to build similar alliances with power.
The authors of the report also don’t consider how Jews outside the left are building new kinds of alliances. Vigils and demonstrations against antisemitism and in support of Israel increasingly feature Hindu, Iranian and Christian contingents. Right-leaning organisations such as the Campaign Against Antisemitism have sought to build on these potential links.
It is not impossible, then, to foresee a near future in which competing anti-racist blocs will emerge, featuring competing sets of horizontal alliances. Jews will likely be at the centre of these blocs, given our outspoken political diversity. And politicians on the left, right and centre will have great fun playing different blocs against each other.
I am sure that when the report’s authors speak of anti-racist alliances, they are not advocating that Jews pick and choose the minorities they are happy to stand alongside. Nonetheless, such ties need to be taken seriously, particularly since de facto left-wing anti-racist movements have often been much more open to some minorities than others. And it would be a mistake to dismiss the new kinds of alliances between minorities as self-interested, cynical and not really anti-racist at all. It’s not as though leftist anti-racist coalitions are always coalitions comprising those with the purest motivations. Yes, the Jews who fought with their allies at Cable Street were often driven by radical ideologies. They were also fighting to make their everyday lives less awful. When minorities fight racism they are also, understandably, motivated by self-interest.
Jews and members of other minorities do not all perceive their self-interest in the same way. As such, different kinds of alliances will inevitably appeal to different kinds of Jews and others. I am not sure whether the authors of the Runnymede Trust report quite grasp how challenging it is to build a truly broad anti-racist coalition. It either requires a common perception of interests or the suspension of some self-interest for the greater good. Certainly, Jews have a long history of refusing privilege and identifying with the wretched of the earth, regardless of their own circumstances. But it’s a tough ask to expect most Jews to do so.
And, in any case, there are some interests that cannot be reconciled or wished away. The chasm between majority Jewish support for Zionism and majority Muslim suspicion of it is not simply a distraction from some other kind of common interest. It is very real.
I agree with the authors that the focus on forging alliances with power against antisemitism has grave limitations, both for the fight against anti-Jewish prejudice and the wider struggle against racism. I also agree that we should try to build the widest anti-racist coalition possible. But such a movement can only be built if participants temporarily put their own conflicts aside to deal with one kind of enemy. That requires cynicism and a strong stomach. In our fractious age, where authenticity is prized above all things, that’s a tall order.
So, yes, the fight against antisemitism requires alliances between minorities, but these will be all the stronger the more modest the aspirations. That’s not a very inspiring prospect, but it is a realistic one.
Dr Keith Kahn-Harris is, amongst other things, an Honorary Research Fellow at the Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, to which the authors of the Runnymede Report are also affiliated. Dr Kahn-Harris played no part in researching or writing the report and the authors did not see his response to the report before publication.
