By questioning the
allegiances of Jews serving on the Chilcot inquiry, Sir Oliver Miles continues
a long tradition of prejudice.
His loyalty questioned: Benjamin
Disraeli (1804-81), Conservative prime minister and novelist. (Engraving from a
photograph, ca 1878.) Photograph: Hulton Archive/John Jabez Edwin Mayall/Getty
In November 2009, Sir Oliver Miles, a
distinguished retired diplomat with years of service in the Middle East, wrote an
article in the Independent lamenting that two Jews had been appointed to
the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. He triggered a spat that threatens the
integrity of the inquiry and exposes the tenacity of prejudice in sections of
British society.
Sir Miles didn't much approve of the
other members, either. But he singled out the choice of Sir Lawrence Freedman
and Sir Martin Gilbert. The fact that they were Jews, and that Gilbert was also
well known as a champion of Israel, would provide "handy ammunition"
for attacks on the committee's work, especially in the Arab media. Sir Miles
was ticked off by the Times a few days
later and there the matter might have rested. However, Sir Martin has now
reignited the affair by suggesting that the attacks smack of antisemitism.
Unaccountably he vented his ire in an interview on a rightwing
Zionist online radio station serving Israeli settlers.
Sir Martin's retort actually fuels the
row and may even overshadow the interrogation of Tony Blair. At another level,
the controversy throws into doubt the vaunted multiculturalism of modern
Britain and lays bare a stubborn vein of intolerance that has blighted the
treatment of immigrants and minorities for centuries.
In a confrontation on BBC Newsnight last night,
Denis MacShane MP accused Sir Oliver of resurrecting prejudices about the Jews
that were more typical of the 1930s. He protested that it was unacceptable to
make religion a criteria for determining whether a person was fit for public
office, no matter what the task. In fact, discrimination against the Jews
persisted a lot longer than that. In his history of MI5, Christopher Andrews
regretted that the security services refused to employ Jews long into the
postwar era. But the spooks were only continuing a tradition that went back to
the 19th century and a furore that eerily prefigures the one we are currently
witnessing.
In 1876, an uprising of Bulgarian
Christians against Ottoman rule provoked a murderous response from the Muslim
Turkish authorities. William Gladstone, former prime minister and grand old man
of the Liberal Party, was so enraged by the massacres of Christians that he
published a pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East. In it,
he lambasted the then prime minister Benjamin Disraeli for abandoning the
victims in preference for a pro-Turkish policy. Even though it had long been
British policy to support the Ottoman Empire, Gladstone ascribed Disraeli's
stance to the fact that he was born a Jew and therefore sympathised with the
Ottomans who had treated their Jews fairly – unlike the new Christian states in
the Balkans.
Writing to a Jewish correspondent who
questioned this response, Gladstone explained: "I have always had occasion
to admire the conduct of the English Jews in the discharge of their civil
duties; but I deeply deplore the manner in which, what I may call Judaic
sympathies, beyond as well as within the circle of professed Judaism, are now
acting on the question of the East; while I am aware that as regards the Jews
themselves, there may be much to account for it."
Gladstone's peculiar reference to those
"beyond" the community of observant Jews was a swipe at Disraeli who
had been baptised into the Anglican communion aged 12. He believed that
Disraeli was perversely motivated by some residual racial loyalty. Gladstone had
more respect for Jews affiliated to their community, but they fared little
better. Their dual loyalty was simply more obvious and explicable.
Within a short time, Gladstone's tirade
was being echoed by eminent intellectuals, including Professor AE Freeman, also
a stalwart of the Liberal party, and Goldwin Smith, professor of history at
Oxford. In addition to claiming that money-grubbing Jews exploited Christian
guilt over past oppression (such as the Inquisition) and controlled the press,
Smith declaimed that Jews could not be loyal citizens because "their only
country is their race; which is one with their religion".
While he would no doubt dismiss the
comparison, 134 years later this is exactly what Sir Miles is banging on about.
Either he thinks it is a problem that Jews are serving on the Iraq inquiry
because they have a dual loyalty or he thinks that less enlightened folk than
him in the Arab world might draw this conclusion. The first possibility is
dismaying but the alternative is no cause for relief. His response to the
existence of bigotry is not to pour scorn on prejudice and defend the integrity
of public servants who happen to be Jewish, but to appease it.
This suspicion of Jews is ingrained in
certain quarters of Britain's ruling class but it is not only the Jews who
should be concerned. Muslims, Hindus, Roman Catholics and members of every
minority should pay attention to the implications. If the religious affiliation
or origin of members of the Iraq inquiry is relevant because it may be used
against the inquiry or taken to explain its shortcomings, what of other
departments of state and government agencies?
Are Muslims to be barred from the
Ministry of Defence or Home Office lest a terrorist outrage be perpetrated by a
Muslim? After all, someone might say: this is what happens if you put Muslims
in charge of our security. Are immigrants or the children of immigrants to be
banned from working in the immigration services? It would indeed be
embarrassing if there was a mishap in the controls and the minister responsible
was, heaven forbid of "immigrant stock". What would the BNP say? And
surely we can't trust Northern Ireland in the hands of a Roman Catholic, in
case something goes wrong. Or a Protestant for that matter.
You can see where this argument is leading.
Of course, Sir Miles and those who think like him may object that it is only
this inquiry and these Jews that present the problem. But then you can see
where that argument leads, too.
Anti-Semitism 