To think this was antisemitic and I should have said something?

[Koelaid]

NC in case outing. A colleague at work started a conversation about media coverage of Israel / Palestine after seeing an article in the paper.

He said that in his view media coverage is quite biased towards Israel and what did I think. I didn’t particularly want to have the conversation, tricky subject, not quite right for work etc. so I just said that while I didn’t agree with some of the Israeli government’s actions, I didn’t feel like I knew enough about the reality of the situation on the ground to know if the reporting of xx event was biased in favour of Israel or not. But that I did think the amount of coverage the conflict got was disproportionate compared to things like Kashmir or South Sudan, which were fairly similar in nature but got much less media time, and that there was something a bit strange in the big focus on Israel / Palestine and how invested people that were neither Israelis not Palestinians or had relatives there got in it, vs other conflicts.

He replied and said that he supposed that I was right (about other conflicts not getting attention) and then said that he supposed the conflict got so much pro Israel coverage because the majority of the senior people that worked at the BBC were Jewish.

I was a bit shocked / frozen that he’d said this in such a nonchalant way and mumbled something vague in response like, I’m not sure that’s the case. But it’s stuck with me since and I wish I’d said something a bit stronger. I mentioned it to a couple of people (not at work) afterwards. One was quite shocked and thought it was really AS and the other was like, what are you on about that’s a valid point to make.

Im not Jewish btw, not that it matters.

Views?

Yep it was thoroughly anti-Semitic of him.

Report it to HR and let them decide what to do

Well it is the well-worn AS trope that somehow Jewish people are in charge of the media and the narrative and twist it to their own ends. It would have been interesting to challenge why he thinks that, but it's not always easy to catch the moment when someone comes out with something like that.

Yes, definitely anti-Semitic. How do they know that most people at the BBC are Jewish, and why would that automatically mean they would have one particular perspective on matters?

Like saying that lots of black people work for an organisation and therefore they will all think in a certain way - totally unacceptable.

Yep, culture pigeon

is this a satire?

Yes his second comment was antisemitic, his first comments were ok.

For what it's worth the coverage and position of the west/media is different towards Israel / Palestine than other conflicts, the reasoning is very complex though, no related to the religious beliefs of senior bbc executives!

We (as in Western Europe) have been interfering with the politics of the holy lands since BC - starting with the Romans. It's a long lived situation and as I say complex!!

100% anti semitic. Also v depressing.

Now the question is what are you going to do about it?

NC too, as this could be quite revealing!

Yes, that was anti-semitic!

And I'm saying this as someone who is, generally, considered "pro-Palestinian" (though I don't like the term, I'm generally opposed to nationalism - I will gladly accept "anti-occupation" and "anti-colonialism").

There is an important and, in my opinion, quite clear border between "criticism of Israel" or even "opposition to it" and blatant "anti-semitism". And every hint of "because Jews" crosses it. By several miles!

Do the State(!!!) of Israel and some of its institutional backers engage in deliberate propaganda? Sure they do - as, for that matter, do Palestinians and their own backers! And the British government. And probably the Association of Pro Swedish Academics, too, if such a thing should happen to exist.

Personally, I won't stand for even a hint of "the Jews" or anything that implies "sinister forces at play [insert dogwhistle here]". I've started fights with people and ended friendships over this.

I am, first and foremost, a leftist and thus include anti-racism (including opposition to anti-semitism) in what I consider my core value system. And, despite my views on specific subjects, I won't stand with you and won't fight by your side if you do not. (I'm also, personally, gender critical but refuse to ally with right-wingers and social conservatives on the subject of gender - for similar reasons!)

So, yes, OP, that was definitely anti-semitic and you should speak up!

You mention the "religious beliefs" of BBC execs. Just to clarify: we (or rather people who involve themselves in these debates) are not talking about religion here, but race. Or "Jewishness" as opposed to Judaism. Antisemitism is racism.

Palestinians are also Semitic, surely? It's not really a question of antiSemitism, as of anti/pro Zionism.

Palestinians are also Semitic, surely?

While that is, technically, true it's also, I'm afraid to say, a bit of a trope that's (a bit too often) used in the "some of my best friends are ..." way.

Zionism is a nationalistic movement, whose roots align pretty well with a lot of other, similar movements that sprung up around the same time. It's perfectly alright to not agree with it. Personally, I find the entire notion of nation states rather questionable.

But let's not pretend there isn't a much older, much more poisonous deep seated history of anti-semitism in Europe. Because there is. And it dates back to long before anyone really conceived of the modern concept of a "nation".

If anything, I would be open to the argument that European anti-semitism and its horrendous consequences (including long before the 20th century!) are to blame for the flaming disaster that is I/P.

I'm sorry but wanging on about BBC execs being Jewish has everything to do with antisemitism and literally nothing to do with Zionism.

True. I got misled by an old argument about pro Palestinians being antisemitic.

Totally antisemitic. Jews and power is such a well-worn rope.

I do get your point to some extent, but there are plenty of conflicts that Western Europe had a big historical hand in, or have other past ties with that get marginal coverage and don’t seem to be the political football / marker of political alignment that Israel Palestine is here.

For example we (Western Europe, in particular France, Britain and Portugal) have been interfering in the Indian subcontinent for a long time. Britain literally created the state of Kashmir and handed it over to an ally in 1846, then just before partition we sent soldiers in to assist the Maharaja and in the end majority Muslim J&K mostly ended up in India. There have been two wars since then, and the Indian army still keeps a huge presence in J&K, in what lots of Kashmiris consider to be an occupation. The dynamics are very similar to I & P.

The UK is also home to a much larger expat population of Pakistanis and Indians, than it is of Israelis and Palestinians.

So arguably the situation in Kashmir should get as much coverage in the UK as Israel Palestine does. But it gets virtually none and most people would probably struggle to point to it on a map.

That's not entirely wrong, OP, but also ...

1. I think there's a certain amount of "whataboutism" involved in your thinking there. There is just no such obligation as "being aware of and caring about any and all comparable situations equally". Different example: it's perfectly possible for someone to be an ardent climate activist but regard feminism as a pretty "yeah, I suppose ..." topic without affording it much personal investment. That doesn't make your views on climate any more or less valid.

1. Your argument neglects the "Holy Land" aspect entirely! Like it or not, even for non-religious so-called "Westerners" the "Holy Land" does have a special significance in that it is intimately tied up with much of our own cultural and philosophical origins in ways that the China-Tibet situation ... just isn't.

That said, you are not wrong, of course, on the subject of "but 'we' are pretty deeply involved in the origins of quite a few current conflicts". The British Empire does have quite a lot to answer for in that respect.

Well I do happen to think that if your reasons for being very invested in a particular conflict are more to do with it being a unfair, or unfairly reported or unjust and not to do with some sort of personal link, then it is odd if you’re not also aware of or somewhat interested by very similar conflicts. I&P and Kashmir are very similar. So I do think if you’re fascinated by one, but not by the other but have no ties to either that is a bit disingenuous.

I don’t think the climate change v feminism example is quite right. There is a lot of difference between those issues and what causes them and how relatively severe and impactful they are on people in various places in the world. A better example would be someone who is really into the environment caring deeply about emissions reduction but not about biodiversity loss.

I think if you care about the environment, you should care at least somewhat about both. Similarly if you care about complicated, racial and religious conflicts that the Brits has a lot of involvement in creating, you should probably be aware of both P&I and Kashmir.

Very very anti semitic

Bless. Is here care in the community? You’d have to be quite um… “interesting” to believe that the Jews simultaneously “control the media” whilst being pro-Palestine! 😂

I’m not that sure I get the Holy Land point. I don’t think that many non religious westerners feel especially culturally tied to the fate of the holy land, regardless of the fact that a lot of the Abrahamic religions originated there and some of our ethics and values are based on the tenants of those religions. But I could be wrong.

Roman / Latin / Greek culture was arguably just as influential on the current language, politics, civic institutions, design of our buildings and cities, ways of eating, manners etc. as was whatever came out of the holy land, but I don’t see lots of Brits taking a huge interest in contemporary Italian or Greek politics as a result.

Once you mention Jews as a single entity controlling anything then definitely anti-Semitic. Framing opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestinians then the state is fair game.

Definitely anti-Semitic. I reported an anti-Semitic comment at a job. That person left pretty soon after, he must’ve got a roasting.