‘Perfidious Albion’

How Britain treats its Jews

By Keith Kahn-Harris

Published March 03, 2010, issue of March 12, 2010.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England
By Anthony Julius
Oxford University Press, 864 pages, $45

A monumental study of English antisemitism proves an astonishing and controversial achievement.

If nothing else, “Trials of the Diaspora” is an extraordinary testament to the brilliance of its author. That Anthony Julius, a top London lawyer renowned for serving both Princess Diana during her divorce proceedings and Deborah Lipstadt in her libel trial with David Irving, managed to complete a book as extensive and well researched as this alongside his “day job” is nothing short of astounding. Julius’s legal work has always gone alongside a career as a serious scholar of literature and art, and his 1995 book on T S Eliot’s antisemitism caused quite a stir on publication.

I offer this admiration of Julius’s manifest intellect and energy not just as an aside, but also because it is part of the background to the book. In the introduction, he recalls an article in the Daily Telegraph at the time of the princess’s divorce that contrasted him with the highborn and discrete lawyers acting for Prince Charles. The article characterised Julius as “… a Jewish intellectual and Labour supporter, and less likely to feel restrained by considerations of fair play.” There can be no better example of a certain kind of genteel English antisemitism: Julius’s energy, his intellect and his commitment to his clients are posed as the antithesis of an Englishness defined by restraint, discretion and the need to never try too hard.

Yet even if Julius would seem to encapsulate everything the English antisemite despises, he is too good a scholar to turn “Trials of the Diaspora” into a hatchet job. The book does not treat England as a country fundamentally “bad for the Jews,” with a virulent antisemitism at its core. He does argue, though, that English antisemitism is distinctive and even pioneering in terms of the global history of Jew hatred.

Part of this distinctiveness lies in the contrast between its early severity and its modern restraint. The history of medieval Jewry is an unhappy one, even by the lamentable standards of the time. British Jews were treated as little more than a resource to be milked by the crown and the nobility, subject to repeated blood libels and massacres. Indeed, England offered the first recorded allegation of Jewish ritual murder of a Christian child, that of the later-to-be-canonized Saint William of Norwich in 1144.

Edward I’s expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 resulted not in English antisemitism’s end, but in its transformation into a new and innovative kind, what Julius calls “literary antisemitism.” Despite the lack of official Jewish presence in England until the mid-17th century, “the Jew” was an ubiquitous part of the English literary imagination. More than simply the repetition of old myths of blood libel and greed, literary antisemitism was capable of producing extraordinary creations, such as “The Merchant of Venice” and Marlowe’s “The Jew of Malta.” Julius shows how such works are simultaneously penetrating in their understanding of antisemitism and also how they are antisemitic themselves, even if other works of literary antisemitism are little more than abusive doggerel.

Literary antisemitism survived the growth of the English Jewish population from the 17th century, informing such works as “Oliver Twist,” but the presence of “real” Jews also generated a distinctively modern English antisemitism. Again avoiding hyperbole, Julius shows the ubiquity of recent English antisemitism while appreciating its “mildness” when compared with continental variants. Jews may have pervasively been seen as “un-English,” pushy, greedy and mendacious,” but English antisemitism was “disorganised” and “non-programmatic.” Compared with its European cousins, English antisemtism rarely produced systematic intellectual formulations, English antisemitic violence was rare and English antisemitic political parties have always been marginal. If Julius had concluded his history in the immediate postwar period, I have no doubt that his book would be nearly universally acclaimed. The last quarter of the book, however, deals with anti-Zionist antisemitism, a topic so controversial that it guarantees “Trials of the Diaspora” will be fiercely and bitterly debated.

Although Julius rejects the term “new antisemitism,” he is a vociferous proponent of the argument that post-1967, opposition to Israel has all too frequently crossed the line into antisemitism. The substantial evidence that he gathers is often damning: blood libel tropes, Jews smeared as Nazis, accusations of excessive conspiratorial Jewish power, Islamic fundamentalist assaults on English Jews and, through it all, the treatment of Israel, the Jewish state, as a kind of unique evil in the world. Julius points out vehemently, but rarely in a vitriolic or polemical fashion, that left-wing groups and the intelligentsia are at best far too tolerant and at worst directly implicated in this most recent form of English antisemitism.

Julius’s argument is a strong one in the sense that venerable antisemitic tropes

have infected discourse on Israel. To my mind, though, he overreaches considerably in his treatment of anti-Zionism. Although he never comes out and says it directly, for Julius, anti-Zionism is always a form of antisemitism. There is no doubt that anti-Zionism often provides a very convenient cover for antisemitism (Julius notes how even neo-Nazi groups now usually claim to be against Zionism rather than Jews).

Further, I would agree that opposition to Zionism in the name of Palestinian nationalism by those who are otherwise defenders of “national liberation” movements is at the very least one-sided. But is the belief that the Israel-Palestine conflict requires a non-nationalist solution necessarily antisemitic? It may be naive or unworkable, but does it have to involve a fundamental antipathy to Jews? After all, Zionism is a political ideology, and as such it should be open to question in the way all political ideologies should be.

It is highly likely that Julius will be accused by some of using accusations of antisemitism to silence critics of Israel. This is unfair in that Julius is highly critical of many Israeli actions, and argues that Palestinian resistance to Israel can constitute a “rational enmity.” His point is that the discourse of Palestinians and the critics of Israel and Zionism all too frequently utilize antisemitic tropes. Still, Julius’s argument would have been more robust had he conceded that pro-Israel discourses can be equally venomous and that accusations of antisemitism are not always made in a thoughtful way.

“Trials of the Diaspora” would also have been a stronger book if Julius had paid more attention to other forms of English racism. Although he does not argue that antisemitism is any worse than other forms of racism, the absence of any serious consideration of the wider context of prejudice against minorities in England suggests that he sees antisemitism as entirely distinct. In some ways, this is reasonable — there is no obvious analogue to contemporary anti-Zionist antisemitism — but a comparison with, for example, historical anti-Catholic, or contemporary Islamophobic prejudice would have been valuable.

There is a tendency on the part of Israelis and Americans concerned about antisemitism to see English Jews as a beleaguered group needing Israel and American Jewry to “save” them. Anthony Julius has demonstrated both that English Jews can fight their own battles and that bleak portrayals of English antisemitism can and should be rejected in favor of a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding. “Trials of the Diaspora” has its weaknesses, but it is an important work of considerable scholarship that deserves to be read carefully and widely.

Keith Kahn-Harris is a London-based sociologist and co-author of the forthcoming “Turbulent Times: The British Jewish Community Today” (Continuum). He is the convenor and editor of the project New Jewish Thought (www.newjewishthought.org).


Read an excerpt from ‘Trials of the Diaspora’


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • "I’ve never bought illegal drugs, but I imagine a small-time drug deal to feel a bit like buying hummus underground in Brooklyn."
  • We try to show things that get less exposed to the public here. We don’t look to document things that are nice or that people would like. We don’t try to show this place as a beautiful place.”
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.