Read on Twitter
Got a few things to say about David Baddiel's characterisation of my views in his new book, but before I get into it I'd like to ask people don't @ him about it.
Not because any of what I've got to say is a secret, but because I don't want it to turn into a big hostile thing.
Not because any of what I've got to say is a secret, but because I don't want it to turn into a big hostile thing.
I'm saying this because a number of reviews that I've seen of his book have picked up on a quotation he's taken from this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/ihra-antisemitism-labour-palestine
On the left is the quotation as it appears in the book. And on the right is the quotation in its context in the article.
On the left is the quotation as it appears in the book. And on the right is the quotation in its context in the article.
I messaged David this weekend saying that I think he substantially misrepresents my point.
The context makes clear that I'm not talking about Jewish people being well-off, I'm arguing the nature of other racisms mean that an IHRA-style definition isn't suitable for other groups.
The context makes clear that I'm not talking about Jewish people being well-off, I'm arguing the nature of other racisms mean that an IHRA-style definition isn't suitable for other groups.
I said to him that it's impossible to argue that I think racism "all comes down to money" because the very next sentence says has other racisms have "greater proximity to shaping policy, particularly related to immigration, integration and criminal justice".
i.e. not money.
i.e. not money.
And lastly, I said that the characterisation of me as believing "in the existence of a privileged bubble for Jews" (see left pic) isn't evidenced by what I've actually said. Indeed, in the same article he quoted from, I wrote what you can see in the right pic.
We didn't come to an agreement about whether what David wrote was a substantive misrepresentation of my point. But even though we didn't agree on much, he was unfailingly thoughtful and courteous throughout our exchanged messages.
What David agreed was to change the quote in subsequent print-runs and the digital edition of the book, to include the second sentence about how structural racism shapes policy. And also to include a new footnote to contextualise what I've said about the threat of antisemitism.
I think it's as good a resolution as is realistically possible when two people fundamentally don't agree on what's happened. I know there are people saying I should go down a legal route, but in all honesty that's just not appealing to me right now, for various reasons.
At some point I'll be able to share what those reasons are. Just not now.
I want this thread to be a counterweight to how I'm presented in the current edition of the book that's circulating, and the reviews of it which mention me.
It would be good if subsequent reviewers could, as David intends to do, take into account the proper context of the quote.
It would be good if subsequent reviewers could, as David intends to do, take into account the proper context of the quote.
The nature of a compromise is that no one's 100% happy with the outcome. But, on balance, I'm happier that there's been an outcome of some kind, without resorting to a process which would cause both David and I an awful lot of stress and pain.