Le célèbre journaliste David Aaronovitch ose parler de l'antisémitisme dont il est la cible

David Aaronivitch: "So all the things said about Jews when they were “stateless” is now said about them — about us, about me — in relation to Israel. Only now you say “Zionist” not “Jew”. But you apply it in exactly the same way. Divided loyalties, unwonted use of money and influence (beyond that exerted by any other group, natch)."  Ca rappelle ce qu'a écrit  le Prix Nobel de littérature hongrois Imre Kertész: "L'Europe baisse le pouce en ce qui concerne les juifs. Le discours antisémite des nouveaux assassins: «Critiquer Israël n'est pas de l'antisémitisme»." (Berlin, 5 juillet 2002) 

Le blog Harry's Place s'intéresse à un article de David Aaronovitch [photo], l'un des meilleurs et plus connus chroniqueurs britanniques, paru dans le Times, intitulé Même sans Israël les Juifs seraient des cibles. David Aaronovitch y réagit au tweet d'un certain Ian Millard l'accusant d'appartenir à "la clique du lobby juif". Aaronovitch reçoit presque quotidiennement un tel message. Rares sont les journalistes juifs qui ont cette franchise. C'est la première fois qu'un grand journaliste ose le dire dans un  grand journal.  Il y a une terrible gêne à avouer qu'on est soi-même la cible de gens qui pensent que vous appartenez à une clique et à un lobby malfaisant, tout sorti des Protocoles des Sages de Sion.  Un tel article tout comme le remarquable documentaire de la BBC réalisé par l'historien David Schama, dans lequel il s'avoue fièrement sioniste,  évoque la haine anti-juive au cours des siècles en Europe, et pas seulement celle des nazis, et l'Amérique, grande terre d'accueil des Juifs qui ne les a jamais exterminés et persécutés - seraient impensables en France. Il conclut son article: "Quant à moi, je n'ai jamais été sioniste. Ni engagé envers Israël. Mais je peux vous dire ceci. Chaque fois que je reçois un de ces commentaires, ou de un ces courriels, ou un  de ces tweets ou que j'entends ce genre d'insinuations, je me mets à penser, et pourquoi pas, David, pourquoi pas? Pourquoi ne pas porter la kippa que tant de gens voudraient te faire porter?"

Lucy Lips @ Harry's Place: Aaronovitch and Mo Ansar (Voir également: Exposing La the Pseudo Moderation de Mo Ansar démasquée par Amjad Khan).

Harry's Place a obtenu la permission de citer certains passages de l'article (payant).  Après avoir évoqué l'antisémitisme ordinaire, en particulier en relation à Israël, David Aaronovitch ajoute:

Oh goodness! Most of these people would be indignant to be told that their observations are in no way different from those of Mr Millard with his Jewish lobby clique. Since it is demonstrably the case that I have argued for intervention in, say, Kosovo and Sierra Leone — where even the most inventive Jew-finder would be hard-pressed to discern an Israeli interest, the accusation has little to do with reality. If I did not have an exotic surname (given that I am irreligious) I don’t think the suggestion I have an unstated loyalty to the Jewish state rather than to the British would ever have been made. Yet it is made. Again and again and again. The Times comment editor, Tim Montgomerie, asked me two questions when I told him about this piece yesterday. The first was if I thought this kind of thing was getting worse. All I could say is that I am far more aware of it now than I was, say, 20 years ago. Some of this is clearly down to social media making it far easier for people to communicate with me and me with them.

Ensuite il aborde sur la méfiance envers les Juifs, qui date de bien avant 1948, et qui est basée sur l'idée de la double loyauté et comment cette hostilité a donné naissance au Sionisme:  

An Austrian Jewish journalist called Theodore Herzl, attending the show trial in Paris of the framed Captain Alfred Dreyfus, concluded that the Jews were not safe in non-Jewish countries. Herzl is widely regarded as the founder of Zionism. And when it came to most of the countries of Europe, by 1945 his deepest misgivings were discovered to have been hopelessly optimistic.

So all the things said about Jews when they were “stateless” is now said about them — about us, about me — in relation to Israel. Only now you say “Zionist” not “Jew”. But you apply it in exactly the same way. Divided loyalties, unwonted use of money and influence (beyond that exerted by any other group, natch).

There was an extraordinary moment in Schama’s fourth programme when, sitting in an old synagogue he told the viewers: “I am a Zionist.” Straight out. Just like that. I thought that for many of today’s viewers he might as well have said he was a drinking buddy of Jimmy Savile’s. So many out there these days are anti-Zionist and thus anti-Schama.

As for me, I have never been a Zionist. Nor committed to Israel. But I can tell you this. Every time I get one of those comments, or those e-mails, or those tweets or hear those insinuations, I begin to think, why not, David, why not? Why not wear the cap that so many are so keen to fit you out with?