There are 26 “I”s in Julie Burchill’s paean to her own philosemitism. This does not include those found within quotations. These are, according to my rough count, spread over 30 sentences. Almost every one of them, in other words, is partly or entirely devoted to herself. Much as she adores the Jews they will, it seems, remain secondary among her affections.
Ms Burchill claims she was moved to philosemitism because of the “centuries of genocidal cruelty on the part of non-Jews towards Jews”. A writer who describes Ireland, whose people have been devastated over hundreds of years by foreign aggressors, as a “preposterous place” defined by “Hitler-licking, altarboy-molesting [and] abortion-banning” is not, I would say, well-placed for taking a stand against ethnic hatred. Even disregarding this hypocrisy, however, there is something unpleasant about Burchill’s rhapsodies. Here is a morsel for you to taste…
To put myself on the opposing side to a man who said, as Atzmon did, “I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act” is yet another reason to throw in my lot with you lot…Like many a philosemite from Ruth the Moabitess to Liz Taylor, I chose my side long ago, and I will never change. You’re stuck with me now.
Who is the “you lot” of which she speaks? Burchill writes that her affection for the Jews is rooted in “their religion, their language and their ancient country”. Are English secular Jews spared her adoration, then? In an older column, though, one finds her claiming that “the Jews…are hated for their very modernity, mobility, lust for life and love of knowledge”. Which Jews are these? A lot of religious Jews are not very modern at all and would, in fact, be quite offended if you were to tell them otherwise. It seems that “the Jews” of Burchill’s affection are at least partly of her imagination.
I have no desire to join the commentators who appear allergic to the notion of ethnic commonalities. One can speak meaningfully of features associated with different peoples, and in both admiring or critical terms. This, however, is no excuse for making unreasonable value judgements and drawing bogus generalisations. This is obviously true when people take bigoted stances against men and woman on the basis of their ethnicities but it seems no less correct when people wildly celebrate them. Disparate individuals and communities are still being lumbered with expectations that many of them are not going to fulfil. Whether these prejudices cast them in a good or bad light it can’t be less than irritating.
Yet my concern is not merely for the objects of Burchill’s favour. It is for the truth. Unconditional love might be less dangerous than implacable hatred but it has the same potential for obscurantism. Both obscure one’s view of different aspects of reality. Burchill takes evident pride in her eccentric bias and it ensures that her analyses are destined to be partial. I would not, of course, expect scrupulous truthseeking from this source regardless of her biases but the fact that it’s uncontroversial for a commentator to proudly declare themself to be so sectarian is bleak.
Philosemitism is not the same thing as anti-semitism but they are often suggestive of the same unreasonable ethnophilic tendencies and, thus, produce ignorance towards different ends but in a similar manner. Jewish people may welcome this cheerleading if they like but I’m not sure anyone’s life needs such a tiresome distraction.
November 13, 2012 at 7:18 am
It’s a strange piece. Quite embarrassing to read somehow. I don’t see why being against antisemitism, as articulated by Atzmon (whom she quotes), has to be attended with so much baggage really. I quite often post on the topic myself but I find her slant on things uncongenial. She says “I choose only to see the good side of you” as though any ethnicity had, in a meaningful way, a good and bad side – fitting in with your point about philosemitism and antisemitism being intertwined. Still, I suppose being slightly weirdly philosemitic is better than the alternative!
November 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Burchill: ‘You’re stuck with me now.’
Haven’t the Jews suffered enough already?
November 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Sarah -
Yes, it’s somewhat reminiscent of a teenager’s enthusiasm for young Mr. Bieber…
redpesto -
Hah!
November 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Can anyone imagine reading an entire book of this ill-thought-through, self-obsessed nonsense, let alone contributing to a fund to help it get written?
It does seem really fucking weird to decide to ‘support’ all Jews (except, of course, any Jews who dare question the actions of the Israeli government) because you don’t like Gilad Atzmon.
I suppose being slightly weirdly philosemitic is better than the alternative!
i’m not so sure – it certainly adds about as much to the public debate on religion and on Israel/Palestine as antisemitism, ie nothing.
As my review on Aaro watch shows, I thought ‘The Finkler Question (which JB cites) is a horrendously bad book, but it’s nonetheless true that its ‘moral’ is that philosemitism and antisemitism are two sides of the same essentializing coin. Kudos to Julie for totally missing that fairly obvious point.
November 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Sarah says that “being slightly weirdly philosemitic is better than the alternative” but I can’t tell the difference.
And I’m pretty sure that a certain website familiar to her would have a field day with any other gentile who said;
certain sad Jews (the type prodded with such vicious glee in Howard Jacobson’s The Finkler Question) have internalised the loathing that has been poured on them for centuries, and are liable to react to philosemites with confusion and spite. Such people are both sinister and silly but entirely unimportant in the face of ancient and continuing Jewish achievement, civilisation and success.
Because we’re certainly playing with some ‘classic anti-semitic tropes’ there, aren’t we? Or can’t you be anti-semitic toward sinister, self-hating Jews who happen to be anti-Zionist?
What say you Sarah, as a fellow philosemite?
November 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I don’t know why Sarah AB is philosemitic, unless it’s by dint of being associated with a certain website. I’d prefer arguments about that certain website being conducted elsewhere, not because I feel protective of it but because I foresee nothing but flame.
Witchsmeller Pursuivant is correct, however, that this passage is a nasty one. Self-hating Jews doubtless exist but Burchill’s implication is that if you refuse to embrace her admiration – and, presumably, defend Israel to the hilt – you must have some kind of trauma. Those poor dears, she seems to say, should let Aunt Burchill set ‘em straight.
I never read The Finkler Question. I’m prejudiced, I know, but when I want a chuckle I don’t think to reflect on Israel/Palestine or the British literary classes. They subjects more suited to intense depression.
November 14, 2012 at 12:32 am
I don’t know why Sarah AB is philosemitic, unless it’s by dint of being associated with a certain website.
No, I assumed it from her numerous comments across the blogosphere;
“I quite liked the sound of all the anti-zionist related satire in the novel but after reading the first chapter… I didn’t feel tempted to go any further.” (On The Finkler Question – HP Arts)
“… I’m not Jewish – I am just concerned about antisemitism, particularly (or that sparked my initial interest) when it’s associated with something I’m a member of like the UCU or (until recently) Amnesty. I’m pretty anti-anti-zionist – tend to get into fights with the anti-zionists on other blogs.” (@ bobfrombrockley’s)
And her peculiar finger-wagging at Alice Walker here:
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/alice-walkers-latest-bds-move/
could certainly be described as “slightly weirdly philosemitic.”
Finally, in the spirit of guilt-by-association as employed by her colleagues, I would also note her commentary at Oy Va Goy, the website of the risible Chas Newkey-Burden, a collaborator of Julie Burchill and also a self-proclaimed philosemite. (Chas and Julie co-authored Not In My Name, dedicating it to Ariel Sharon and Bibi).
However, if Sarah is prepared to deny being philosemitic, I’m quite prepared to accept that in good faith and retract my insinuations. Although she does appear to have an unhealthy obsession with Israel.
November 14, 2012 at 7:05 am
It seems meaningless to express an opinion about whether I am ‘slightly weirdly philosemitic’ because that comes down to people’s opinion. I think it is possible that the fact that both antisemitism and philosemitism have a place in British culture contributed to the fact that I picked up on the UCU thing and continued to find it interesting/important. I do not identify in myself any tendency to view individuals differently – better, worse, or simply differently – because they are Jewish. I was asked if I wanted to write something for Engage so I looked out for a topic I could discuss there. I very occasionally comment on Oy Va Goy – he is about the only other person in my timeline who watches the X Factor for one thing!
I find it interesting that expressing a concern about antisemitism should be glossed as something slightly queasy – philosemitism. I hang out at Loonwatch too – maybe that’s unwholesome too.
I only get into fights with antizionists who start them. For example, I have a correspondent from the blogosphere who is an anti-zionist, in that she believes in a one state solution, and we have discussed that politely but focused more on the things we have in common. She doesn’t happen to be Jewish, but it would make no difference to me if she was. I do not, I think, ever use the term self-hating, and I think ‘kapo’ is particularly bad – I have deleted people using that term. Well, I have deleted their comments, I mean!
November 14, 2012 at 11:45 am
I’m more than happy for people to oppose antisemitism – I can’t see who wouldn’t be – and I consider it a pretty strong impulse to do so, though I guess the ways one does that and their suitability are in the eye of the beholder.
However that’s very different from philosemitism, especially as Burchill and Newkey-Burden (who I find totally repellent) conceive it, which seems to spring more from political persuasions – hating self-identifying left-wingers, and instinctively siding with their apparent ‘enemies’ – than anything else.
It seems very difficult to square being philosemitic with openly praising Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu, and hating on anyone who questions Israeli govt policy, for instance.
Attendant to this is the problem of antiZionism – personally I’d identify as a Zionist, but being an antiZionist does not entail antisemitism at all, ideologically speaking – it might do in practice, but not always, and then we get into the horrors of the ‘self-hating Jew’, something burchill is apparently happy to throw about without much tohught.
November 15, 2012 at 3:03 am
“The world of left-wing antisemitism is indeed such a parallel universe of pretzel logic and inverted values that even a mild-mannered, scrupulously fair, middle-of-the-roader like myself can be tarred with the Zionist-thug brush just for venturing the opinion — in a teeny-tiny, pleasantly rural-type voice — that Israel is not the worst country in the entire world when it comes to human rights.”
Sarah AB or Julie Burchill?
Before checking the link, Sarah’s friend Mira Vogel* writes
“X doesn’t need a lecture on antisemitism from today’s trade unionists.”
*Sarah Annes Brown: “So, to conclude, the only people who have actively encouraged me to rethink my decision to leave the UCU have been David and Mira.”[https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/kkh/#comment-1915]
November 15, 2012 at 4:47 am
Organic – yes, there’s a range of ways of being non-zionist – and reasons for being so. I don’t go out of my way to pick quarrels about this issue I don’t think – for example, I have found myself wondering whether Steve Hynd (who comments here sometimes) would describe himself as anti-zionist, whether he supports a single state solution, but haven’t pursued it with him. If having an ‘unhealthy obsession with Israel’ can be invoked in order to diagnose antisemitism (based on hostility) as well as philosemiitism (based on approval or simply opposition to hostility) then I think I a glance at Ben White’s internet presence might be in order – and provide a contrast with both myself and Steve Hynd who are interested in several topics.
November 15, 2012 at 9:05 am
you see, there are paradoxes in the single-state solution. Despite the claims of the Israeli govt and its critics, it’s pretty much the ‘solution’ which Israel is pursuing with the rampant expansion of settlements – a single state with Israeli-only roads, but still. I can’t see much of a way round it in future – Israel needs fresh water access and the only way it’s going to maintain that is by not giving up West Bank settlements. ergo single state – a state whose makeup and laws will be pretty much indefensible.
If having an ‘unhealthy obsession with Israel’ can be invoked in order to diagnose antisemitism (based on hostility) as well as philosemiitism (based on approval or simply opposition to hostility) then I think I a glance at Ben White’s internet presence might be in order
I really don’t understand this obsession from Harry’s Place regulars about Ben White. I don’t particularly care about the bloke, but writer in having one overriding interest shocker. I have a pretty ‘unhealthy’ interest in the topic of the majority of my academic research and i’m sure you do too sarah; I think this ‘unhealthy’ thing should be avoided at all costs, largely because it’s again in the eye of the beholder.
Funny that we should be having this discussion at the beginning of another pointless Israeli war on Gaza. well, not quite pointless – elections are coming up after all.
November 15, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I’m not sure the scale of someone’s coverage an issue can be evidence of whether their interest is “healthy” or not. (With the possible exceptions of fascist regalia and certains trends within Japanese cartoons.) It is the nature of the coverage that matters.
Chas Newkey Burden is completely hilarious. He has written biographies of so many people that I’m beginning to feel left out. They appear at next to distance from their rise to fame, as well. His Michael Jackson book even came out at no distance from his death. I was tempted to suggest that he authored it and then killed him.
November 15, 2012 at 10:19 pm
organic – I don’t think your point – about the other kind of ‘one-state solution’ is entirely unreasonable, though I think (and hope) it is exaggerated. And I was only mapping the logic of the accusations against me onto Ben White!
November 18, 2012 at 9:29 am
My comment about an “unhealthy obsession with Israel” was a nod to the fact that it’s always used against critics of Israel. e.g. “Why are you complaining about Israel’s violations of human rights but not about those of Saudi Arabia / North Korea / Iran etc. Perhaps you’re just an anti-Semite.”
These comments always elide the fact that Israel is a UK ally, receiving Parliamentary support despite its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. If the UK government gave material support to other human rights abusers apart from Israel and the USA I’d like to think I’d oppose that too.
January 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm
[...] it is a virtue. I think you can guess what prompted this. Julie Burchill is a narcissistic bigot, largely famed for crude abuse and unreadable bluster about the most inane of subjects. She is [...]