Openly Jewish

Last week, the English-speaking world watched in horror a short video clip of a Jewish man in central London being kept away from a pro-Palestinian protest march. It was filmed on Saturday 13th April. A British policeman addresses Gideon Falter, a smartly dressed man wearing a suit and small yarmulke, warning him:

You are quite openly Jewish, this is a pro-Palestinian march, I’m not accusing you of anything, but I’m worried about the reaction to your presence.

These words are naturally horrifying to hear. It is no surprise, given the great suffering of Gazan civilians during Israel’s armed response to brutal and unjustifiable Hamas attack of October 7th, that tensions at such protests are high. Peaceful, law-abiding protest is a fundamental civic freedom in Western society. But it is utterly intolerable that anybody – let alone a British subject – should be unsafe on the streets of London because they look “quite openly Jewish.”

Jewish organizations have warned that pro-Palestinian marches in London have featured anti-Semitic chants and slogans since October. Signs have been reported with the slogan, “Welcome to Gaza, twinned with Auschwitz.” Marchers have screamed the so-called Khaybar Chant: Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud! Jaish Muhammad soufa yaʿoud!(“Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return”). The chant refers to Muhammad’s slaughter of purportedly treacherous Jewish allies at the Battle of Khaybar. It is an implicit threat of Islamist violence against Jews – notably, it is not restricted to Israeli “occupiers.” Nor does it claim to represent any supposedly secular or inclusive Palestinian future. For Islamists, this is the subtext of “From the River to the Sea.”

 

The real shock of the April 13th video, though, is not the perceived threat of Islamist anti-Semitic violence. That we are used to. Instead, it is that a British police officer, an agent of the state, seems to suggest that being “quite openly Jewish” is unacceptable on the streets of a major Western city.

Subscribe now

It is important not to be sensationalist here. The police officer, though his choice of words is highly dubious, was clearly motivated more by concern for Falter’s personal safety than by any personal or official anti-Semitism. There is no serious suggestion that the officer is himself a dangerous bigot.

Secondly, a much longer video has since emerged. Mr. Falter was certainly attempting to access the pro-Palestinian protest, with companions of his own. At one point he confronts the police officer, saying, “The Metropolitan police says these marches are completely safe for Jews, there is no problem whatsoever.” Falter seems keen to test this hypothesis. This is presumably in connection with his work as chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We might consider this brave, or imprudent, or needlessly provocative. It might even be all three.

None of this excuses what happened. It seems to be a pretty clear implicit admission that a significant proportion of the protestors might be violent anti-Semites.

Again, let’s be clear: peaceful protest is legal. Lots of the protestors will have perfectly legitimate concerns about civilian casualties in Gaza. A few of them would no doubt also march for Ukraine, or deplore the use of violence by thuggish, murderous regimes from Beijing to Baku.

But, apparently, not all of them. Clearly the London Metropolitan Police are aware that there is a real presence in these protests of an anti-Semitic, Islamist element. The kind who from time-to-time chant Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud!

How can these weekly protests be allowed to continue, at least in their current form, if this is the case? If another weekly political protest came with the serious threat of racist or religious violence, would it be allowed to continue? It seems hard to believe that any large-scale march which came with a regular risk of white supremacist chanting or violence would long be tolerated on the streets of Britain’s capital.

Restoring Public Spaces:

Western societies need to realize – need to remember what we all once knew – that peace, order, and lawful freedoms all need to be actively and publicly maintained. This maintenance needs to come from the state, from civil society, and from all citizens as free individuals. We can no longer afford that tired old liberal myth of a neutral public space.

We cannot pretend that there is no difference between peaceful protests and those which come with a threat of Islamist violence. We cannot pretend that there is no difference between different conceptions of the good, of the just society, of human dignity.

We cannot be blind to the way that some Islamist groups – Hamas and Al-Quds supporters among them – have a pretty good grasp of how to wield power in the public square. They know how to exert pressure on agents of the state, and how to project political strength on the streets. This isn’t a naive phenomenon.

 

Islamism is a world where the minaret towers over all. It’s the burka’s flowing tendrils blanketing women like an invasive vine in a once-flourishing garden. It’s the gathering in the square that proclaims “this is our space now.” It’s the adhan blasted loudly at the Christian or Jewish – or secular! – part of town. Until, one day, there are no non-Muslim parts of town left. The Christians of Istanbul and the Jews of Baghdad found this out the hard way. I pray the monied agnostics of Mayfair and Chelsea never do.

Share

And they may not have to! That is, perhaps the British state can learn to differentiate between legitimate protests (however misguided), and marches that proclaim conquest.

The West needs to recover and to actively, publicly promote some basic ideas about our shared public peace. About the common allegiances and responsibilities of citizens. The public square can certainly be tolerant of a great range of political and religious groups, but it can’t be neutral. Attempted public neutrality is a vacuum that less-than-benevolent groups are always ready to fill.

In a free and democratic society, the day-to-day politics of domestic government, foreign activities, finance, etc., must constantly be debated. This is right and just. But at the same time, Western democracies must demand – in the public square – loyalty not to wispy, vague ideas of procedural neutrality and skin-deep inclusivity. Instead, we need to be a lot better at articulating the importance of public peace, the legitimate authority of our states, mutual fraternity with our fellow citizens, respect for the law, and the dignity of all human beings.

This isn’t a big ask, and it isn’t bigotedly intolerant. A country can be sure of itself and of its fundamental requirements, and still accept newcomers or visitors. Bluntly, people should normally be free to protest against a government’s foreign policy, or to stand in solidarity with those they think are oppressed overseas. But the political deal needs to be clearer, and straightforwardly articulated: the rejection of intimidation, violence, anti-Semitic extremism, and the pursuit of power by unconstitutional means. It’s the difference between having a law-abiding, European-style social democratic party in a country’s parliament, and tolerating organized political violence or state espionage by Communist groups. Western states sometimes benefit from the former, but must have the self-assurance to stamp out the latter.

If we don’t get better at doing this, our public square will be more and more vulnerable to hostile takeover. The present moment is a canary in the coal mine. If we don’t get better at doing this, we risk seeing more of our fellow citizens grimly warned of the dangers of being “openly Jewish.”