The worrying thing about David Baddiel's book isn't the content (myopic nonsense) - it's the promotion of it as THE definitive account of modern antisemitism.
An account totally focused on "progressives" - with scant mention of the Radical Right - is a grotesque misdirection.
Baddiel can write a solipsistic screed about Twitter beefs if he wants. His book makes no attempt to be a general overview of the threat faced by Jews. That's not his project.
Yet it's treated by the media circus as if it is the ultimate account of antisemitism.
If you took Jews Don't Count seriously, you'd think the main source of antisemitism today is lefty-liberals.
That antisemitism springs from a lack of recognition of Jews as non-White.
That antisemitism is just a lack of sympatic twitter campaigns.
Baddiel is not the first (or last) celebrity to think himself a philosopher.
It's just suprising how he's being indulged by people who ought to know better - now including Channel 4.
Why?
The short answer:
His central argument ultimately exonerates apathy while delegitimating progressive activism.
Baddiel's main charge (anti-racism is hypocritical because it doesnt include Jews) just doesn't apply to the people who do fuck all
Unsuprisely, this line is popular!
An example from his book
He doesnt think it is antisemitic to cast a non-Jew as a Jew in a play.
He just thinks it is antisemitic to object to a cis actor playing a trans character IF you dont object to non-Jews playing Jews.
People who dont care about either are given a pass.
If you want THE definitive analysis of #JewsDontCount 👇👇👇
The Jewdas Beth Din has convened to suggest books for you all. Here's what the Geoffries recommend, in no particular order...
- Das Kapital,
- ABCs of Anarchism by Berkman,
- African Anarchism by Sam Mbah and I. E. Igariwey,
- Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
- Black Marxism by Cedric Robinson,
- The Making of the English Working Class by E. P. Thompson
- Standing Again at Sinai by Judith Plaskow
- How Jews Became White Folks by Karen Brodkin
We all know no-one should profit from antisemitic hate speech right? Well, tell that to the @JewishChron.
In their media pack they advertise that they've run (at least) one event with Nigel Farage as a speaker. The JC is using their connection with an antisemite to make money.
Important bits first. The media pack has a 2020 calendar so it is probably just over a year old. Which means, all of our examples below bar one had been published when they tried to make money from an event with Nigel Farage. They knew what he had said and didn’t care.
You want one example? Here you go. The JC knew and even called him out on it. So why does their press pack, probably made just months after this and made to get people to advertise with them, show off their link to him?
"Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" is the first line on Wikipedia!
Nothing "inadvertent" about it.
Why are you making excuses for the mainstreaming of Nazi ideas in the Tory Party?
Once again, the @JewishChron and @LMHarpin fail to apply the most basic journalistic standards.
Nonsense about Cultural Marxism is murdering Jews and yet our community press don't feel the need to fact-check obvious spin from the party of government.
The 2002 Rome Statute of the ICC defines the Crime of Apartheid in clear and succinct language.
Anyone wanting to accuse (or defend) Israel of it would benefit from giving it a quick read.
(cn: crimes against humanity, violence, sexual violence)
[1/9]
The 'crime of apartheid' means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination...
[2/9]
...by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
Worth noting that "one apartheid policy" is a vague framing.
Apartheid, as defined by the 2002 Rome Statute, is "policies and practices", "inhumane acts" [note the plural] "committed for the purpose of establishing... domination by one racial group" [a system-wide definition]
Here is a neat little article explaining the difference + a helpful infographic!
She is getting beef from the Jewish Chronicle for saying something so obviously true: Israel is an Apartheid State
"Israel is an Apartheid State" is not antisemitic for several obvious reasons: (1) it doesn't express hostility towards Jews at all (2) it is clearly true (3) it isn't about Jews at all (4) lots of Jews say it all the time