I can understand a certain animosity against someone who calls himself or herself a philo-Semitist – how can they know what it is like to be a Jew?
Nevertheless to imply there must be an ulterior motive (read: mystical, phantasy-full and implicit, sexual) behind her fascination is to take the defence of one’s owns position, a step too far.
The language used by both Freeman and especially Self would indicate not only personal animosity, but also an insecurity. Quite the opposite of the arrogant correctness of the position they wish to communicate.
One of the beauties of the Jewish tradition is the difference of opinion and the art and skill of resolving these differences. Usually these differences reach an equilibrium based upon an agreed premise. This premise is: there is only one G-d and his Laws are sacred.
However, we are not in the religious world here. We are in the secular, incestuous (all three have a joint past – if only with the Guardian “newspaper”) sphere of journalism and profiling themselves.
What particularly saddens me is that someone like Birchill is castigated in this vile manner in at least three articles, yet the real enemies of the Jew (secular or religious and philo-Semitist) are allowed, unmentioned, to propagate their propaganda incessantly throughout the media – especially the Guardian.
I wonder if Martin Luther King criticised the white men and women who marched with him against racial prejudice, because they were not black. Or that their ideas about the role of black people may have been distorted by mysticism and phantasy.
His mind was clear about who the enemy is. He marched hand in hand with any white who shared his aim to put a stop to this bigotry.
Will Self and Hadley Freeman, should you not best devote all your journalistic efforts against active and insidious anti-Semitism? The real enemy.
Or is this bigotry not as important (or as non-PC) as Julie Birchill’s attraction to Jewish culture?