David Hirsh (2010) ‘Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitism‘ Transversal 1/2010, Graz, Austria
The Livingstone Formulation, ‘playing the antisemitism card’ and contesting the boundaries of antiracist discourse
To download the whole paper as a pdf file, click here
Author: David Hirsh is a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is co-convenor of the European Sociological Network on Racism and Antisemitism. He has published on crimes against humanity, international humanitarian law and antisemitism. He is the founding editor of the Engage journal and website and has written on the Guardian’s Comment is Free.
This paper, publised in Transversal, the journal of the Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Graz, describes how the Livingstone Formulation operates as a way of de-legitmizing questions about contemporary antisemitism by means of ad hominem attack. It is possible to relate seriously and rationally to charges of antisemitism but it is interesting how often people refuse to take the charges seriously and instead resort to this counter-accusation of malicious ‘Zionist’ intent. This mirrors the operation against which the Livingstone Formulation originally sets itself – which is the raising of the issue of antisemitism maliciously in order to de-legitimise criticism of Israeli human rights abuses.
The paper describes and analyses more than twenty documented examples of the Livingstone Formulation from public discourse.
This paper is concerned with a rhetorical formulation which is sometimes deployed in response to an accusation of antisemitism, particularly when it relates to discourse which is of the form of criticism of Israel. This formulation is a defensive response which deploys a counter-accusation that the person raising the issue of antisemitism is doing so in bad faith and dishonestly. I have called it The Livingstone Formulation. It is defined by the presence of two elements. Firstly the conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel with what are alleged to be demonizing, exclusionary or antisemitic discourses or actions; secondly, the presence of the counteraccusation that the raisers of the issue of antisemitism do so with dishonest intent, in order to de-legitimize criticism of Israel. The allegation is that the accuser chooses to ‘play the antisemitism card’ rather than to relate seriously to, or to refute, the criticisms of Israel. While the issue of antisemitism is certainly sometimes raised in an unjustified way, and may even be raised in bad faith, the Livingstone Formulation may appear as a response to any discussion of contemporary antisemitism.
This paper is not concerned directly with those who are accused of employing antisemitic discourse and who respond in a measured and rational way to such accusations in a good faith effort to relate to the concern, and to refute it. Rather it is concerned with modes of refusal to engage with the issue of antisemitism. Those who argue that certain kinds of arguments, tropes, analogies and ideas are antisemitic are trying to have them recognized as being outside of the boundaries of legitimate antiracist discourse. The Livingstone Formulation as a response tries to have the raising itself of the issue of antisemitism recognized as being outside of the boundaries of legitimate discourse. In this paper I describe and analyse a number of examples of the formulation which come from a number of profoundly different sources, including antiracist, openly antisemitic, antizionist, and mainstream ones.
I focus on the accusations and the counter accusations of malicious intent which are made in public debates around the issues of the Israel-Palestine conflict and antisemitism. It is widely accepted in the sociological literature on racism, and also in the practice of antiracist movements, that racism is often unintended and that social actors who are involved are often unconscious of the racism with which they are perhaps complicit or of which they are unconscious ‘carriers’. Antiracists are generally comfortable with the concepts of institutional, structural and discursive racism and they are comfortable with the idea that discourses, structures and institutions can be racist in effect, objectively, even in the absence of any subjective racist intent on the part of social actors. Yet a common response to the raising of the issue of antisemitism in relation to discourses concerning criticism of Israel is that if there is no antisemitic intent then there can be no antisemitism. Antisemitism is implicitly, then, often defined differently from other racisms as requiring an element of intent.
One thing that follows from this is that the raising of the issue of antisemitism is often conflated with the accusation of antisemitic intent. So the raising of the issue of antisemitism is often claimed to be an ad hominem attack, an accusation of antisemitic intent on the part of the ‘critic of Israel’. Yet while there is fierce resistance to the possibility of unintended antisemitism, those who employ the Livingstone Formulation accuse those who raise the issue of antisemitism of doing so with malicious intent and of knowing that their concerns are not justified, and of doing so for instrumental reasons.
It seems to follow that the use of the Livingstone Formulation is intended to make sure that the raising of the issue of antisemitism, when related to ‘criticism of Israel’ remains or becomes a commonsense indicator of ‘Zionist’ bad faith and a faux pas in polite antiracist company. A commonsense bundling of positions leads to a binary opposition in which either you remain within the bounds of rational and antiracist discourse, and so you are on the left, and a supporter of the Palestinians against Israeli human rights abuses, or, on the other hand, you are thought of as being on the right, a supporter of Israel against the Palestinians, and a person who instrumentalizes the issue of antisemitism. To raise the issue of antisemitism is to put yourself in the wrong camp. Having already indicated the complexities relating to accusations of intent, it is necessary to examine carefully to what extent this charge of intent may be justified.
In the 1990s Gillian Rose identified a phenomenon which she called ‘Holocaust piety’. It was common, she argued, to be unsympathetic to attempts to analyse the Holocaust using the normal tools of understanding, of social
science and of historiography. Instead, people tended to think about the Holocaust as a radically unique event which was in some sense outside of human history or ‘ineffable’ and so unreachable by social theory and by various forms of artistic and scholarly representation. One of the consequences of Holocaust piety has been the construction of antisemitism itself as being an unimaginably huge and threatening phenomenon, beyond all other ordinary, worldly, threats and phenomena. A by-product of this is that the charge itself of antisemitism is in danger of being thought of as a nuclear bomb, a weapon, so terrible that it destroys not only its target but also the whole field of battle, the whole discursive space in which discussion proceeds. If to raise the issue of antisemitism is to unleash a nuclear bomb, then the issue is unraisable, as nuclear weapons are unusable. Under the conditions of Holocaust piety, it becomes difficult to relate in a measured and serious way to the issue of antisemitism. Either antisemitism is thought of as something radically different from ordinary ‘normal’ racism and then there is a temptation to be less vigilant against those other racisms than one is against antisemitism. Or the discussion of antisemitism is thought of as a weapon instead of an analytic or political question, which may be deployed to destroy ‘critics of Israel’ but which cannot be a serious question in itself. The weapon, instrumentally used, also destroys the very possibility of rational debate and analysis. The standard response to piety is blasphemy. The cartoon of Anna Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, President Ahmadinejad’s exhibition of Holocaust denial and normalization in Tehran and the increasingly common phenomenon of characterising Israeli Jews as the new Nazis are examples of Holocaust blasphemy.
To download the whole paper as a pdf file, click here
NB some more examples of the Livingstone Formulation and some interesting discussion in the comments box here
NB an article about the Livingstone Formulation from z-word is here
NB there was discussion of the Livingstone Formulation in Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Cosmopolitan Reflections
October 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm
nice work David, well done
October 5, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Ace article!
October 5, 2010 at 10:55 pm
[…] will not want to let this article by David Hirsh escape them. In due course I hope to write something of similar length, if […]
October 5, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Well done, mate.
October 6, 2010 at 12:23 am
Excellent article.
One question though,
“Under the conditions of Holocaust piety, it becomes difficult to relate in a measured and serious way to the issue of antisemitism. Either antisemitism is thought of as something radically different from ordinary ‘normal’ racism and then there is a temptation to be less vigilant against those other racisms than one is against antisemitism. Or the discussion of antisemitism is thought of as a weapon instead of an analytic or political question, which may be deployed to destroy ‘critics of Israel’ but which cannot be a serious question in itself. The weapon, instrumentally used, also destroys the very possibility of rational debate and analysis. The standard response to piety is blasphemy.”
Or, Holocaust Piety means that anything less than the mass murder of Jews by a political regime is simply not recognised as antisemitism. It is as if the Holocaust has blotted out all memory and knowledge of non-genocidal forms of antisemitism or, rather, has sucked all those other forms into it, so nothing appears to remain outside it.
A type of thinking that leads to the idea of No Holocaust = no antisemitism.
October 6, 2010 at 12:28 am
I enjoyed this article very much — I have a much clearer grasp of the concept now, and I envisage sending the pdf to a number of people I know. A most convincing exposition.
The discussion here http://bit.ly/9lIyrF on the “Gurvitz-Goldman Doctrine” is fascinating. If anything, I think this is perhaps an even thornier issue and could do with some very clear thinking. I say this with feeling, as I have to confess I’ve been confused about it in the past (and not so recent past — and I’m not alone either — see Tony Klug’s article in Tikkun
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/may2010klug )
October 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
I notice that Tony Klug, like Gurvitz, is (again?) blaming the victims. Thus, his Tikkun article is headlined “Are Israeli Policies Entrenching Anti-Semitism Worldwide?
by Tony Klug”, and his answer appears to be, essentially, yes. So the diaspora should rethink its “habitual” (his word) reflexive support for Israel. As a result of which, he asserts, the problem of antisemitism will, at the very least, diminish.
Just as the likes of Anthony Lerman keeps asserting too. I have suggested to the editors of Engage that they consider a new category of articles, that of “blaming the victims”. As I’ve long said, this social phenomenon is well known among social scientists, even if there are social scientists who appear unable to recognise it when it sits up and bites them on the nose.
October 6, 2010 at 1:34 pm
It’s a while since I’ve read TK’s article, but looking at the headline Brian G has quoted, I’m struck by the word ‘entrenching’. Not e.g. ‘causing’ or ‘creating’. The Oxford Concise includes notions of establishing firmly, also “in a defensible position”, “not easily modified”. That is, something (antisemitism) has to be already there for Israel (allegedly) to affix it. I ought to read Klug’s piece again bearing this distinction in mind.
There’s a difference between trying to say for example that Israel makes people behave in effectively antisemitic ways when they had never previously done so; and saying e.g. that Israeli policies make already antisemitic people even more antisemitic (grants them feelings of justification, vindication &c).
October 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Brian R., what I take Klug (like Gurvitz and Lerman, among others) as saying is not so much that it’s _Israel’s_ fault that antisemitism exists, but rather that if only Jews in the diaspora would stop being so pro-Israel, so _Zionist_, then antisemitism against them would, at least, diminish. So (Gurvitz opossibly apart) neither Klug nor Lerman are demanding that Israel cease to be (i.e., a one-state solution), but that we “out here” stop being so supportive of Israel.
What in Klug’s article have I missed?
October 6, 2010 at 5:46 pm
BG (if I may) — I don’t think you’ve missed anything — what I obviously need to do is read the piece again!
cheers
BR
October 7, 2010 at 11:37 am
David thanks for your article. I am just analysing the text of an Austrian pastor and superintendent of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church, who is using the Livingstone Formula. He states that some Christians and Jews see the theological election as a licence for not having to justify the actions. He is also of the opinion, that Jews can’t be judged by the same measure as others because they feel themselves elected.
October 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Karl
Is there a link to that? – I would be interested (and can read German)
Thanks
James
October 7, 2010 at 6:26 pm
James,
http://www.akc.at/Artikel.html
There is also a reply written by a Lutheran theologian but not yet published. As soon as this is done I’ll put it here.
October 8, 2010 at 6:41 am
James
Ulrich Sahm, journalist and Lutheran theologian gave Thomas Hennefeld the answer he deserved for using the Livingstone Formula + accusing the Jews not to give Lebensraum to non-Jews + pretending to be elected, therefore to be judged more severely than others.
http://www.juedische.at/TCgi/_v2/TCgi.cgi?target=home&Param_Kat=3&Param_RB=27&Param_Red=13339
October 8, 2010 at 12:29 pm
thanks Karl
October 8, 2010 at 3:31 pm
A google translation (uncorrected) here
http://bit.ly/bQ4K6y
October 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm
It’s all clear now. Thank you.
October 9, 2010 at 1:39 am
[…] a comment » As demonstrated by David Hirsh’s recent paper, bad campaigning about Israel diverts energy and attention away from positive campaigning on behalf […]
October 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm
[…] The Livingstone Formulation and the issue surrounding it deserves more scrutiny. Here it is as a PDF, Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitism. […]
October 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
[…] See David Hirsh’s response to Neve Gordon here and his analysis of the two opposite positions taken by Neve Gordon here. See Also his paper on the struggle over the boundaries of legitimate discourse here. […]
November 5, 2010 at 6:01 pm
[…] Art Maulkorb zu versehen. Mit dieser Vorgehensweise, die der britische Soziologe David Hirsh in mehreren Essays kritisch gewürdigt hat, wird von nicht geringen Teilen der Linken jegliche Kritik am […]
June 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
[…] Hirsh (2010) ‘Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitis…‘ Transversal 1/2010, Graz, […]
August 18, 2011 at 5:03 pm
[…] The Livingstone Formulation at greater length. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailStumbleUponDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment » […]
March 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm
[…] More on the Livingstone Formulation. […]
August 31, 2012 at 10:56 am
[…] line at the remorseless recourse to accusations of malicious violence, what David Hirsch calls “The Livingstone Formulation”; many draw the line at apartheid; most at accusations of being as bad as, or worse than the […]
February 18, 2013 at 10:54 pm
[…] motion. There was no way I wanted her for my MP. Perhaps we might talk later of the so-called “Livingstone Formulation” (a term coined by David Hirsh, founding editor of the website Engage, formed to fight the […]
March 14, 2013 at 3:09 pm
[…] It happens very often, that a person who raises the issue of antisemitism is accused of doing so in bad faith, dishonestly, as part of a secret and common ‘sub-text’ or de-legitimizing Israel. See The Livingstone Formulation. […]
March 15, 2013 at 12:05 am
[…] It happens very often, that a person who raises the issue of antisemitism is accused of doing so in bad faith, dishonestly, as part of a secret ‘sub-text’ of de-legitimizing Israel. See The Livingstone Formulation. […]
April 4, 2013 at 3:33 am
[…] Fraser said that the key mode of intimidation in the UCU was a constant allegation of bad faith – the allegation that Jews who say they feel antisemitism are actually lying for Israel. The Tribunal replied that the Jews who say they feel antisemitism are actually lying for Israel – they are dressing up a political end as a problem of racist exclusion. In other words, the Tribunal answers that the accusation of bad faith made against Jews who say that they experienced antisemitism is appropriate. The Tribunal employed The Livingstone Formulation. […]
May 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm
[…] You accuse Jews of cynically misusing the charge of antisemitism to “stifle” debate about the Jewish […]
June 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm
[…] – senior lecturer in law at Sheffield Hallam University – discusses Holocaust Inversion and the Livingstone Formulation, using the statements made by David Ward MP earlier this year as one of her […]
July 17, 2013 at 3:55 pm
[…] The Livingstone Formulation […]
July 7, 2014 at 6:00 pm
[…] The Livingstone Formulation, the response to an accusation of antisemitism which declares that the accuser speaks in bad faith, makes debate impossible. If you say that somebody who raises the issue of antisemitism is just a liar then there is no discussion which can bring us towards agreement. It silences Jewish fears and portrays them as disgraceful tactics. […]
August 19, 2015 at 9:33 am
[…] Livingstone Formulation is the accusation by antisemites that Jews are ‘playing the antisemitism card’ and contesting […]
August 27, 2015 at 6:35 am
[…] on the actions of Israel or mutter about the ‘Jewish lobby’. And Jones succinctly describes the Livingstone formulalation, the way in which those concerned about antisemitism are accused of acting in bad […]
November 6, 2015 at 8:44 pm
[…] Struggles over the boundaries of political discourse are often important sites of political contestation. On the contemporary left, people and ideas are more and more being bundled over the boundaries of legitimate discourse by discursive force rather than rational debate and persuasion. This is not done for good reason, but in order to avoid having to give reasons. It is not the outcome of debate which positions some kinds of politics outside the community of the good; rather the act of positioning prejudges debate itself. In the absence of reasons and discussion, the process of defining people as not belonging takes more fixed and essentialist forms. That’s why, although there are good reasons to worry about antisemitism on the contemporary left, those reasons are not heard. They are silenced by the shared assumption that anyone wanting to give such reasons is really speaking in bad faith in order to collude with the oppression of the Palestinians. The totalitarians of old defined the enemies of the good in fixed categories. They were not people who said this or that; they were people who were this or that. It is the retreat from the politics of persuasion and discussion and its replacement with something more menacing that is the focus of this paper. (For more on struggles over the boundaries of political discourse and antisemitism, see Hirsh 2010). […]
November 9, 2015 at 11:02 am
[…] Struggles over the boundaries of political discourse are often important sites of political contestation. On the contemporary left, people and ideas are more and more being bundled over the boundaries of legitimate discourse by discursive force rather than rational debate and persuasion. This is not done for good reason, but in order to avoid having to give reasons. It is not the outcome of debate which positions some kinds of politics outside the community of the good; rather the act of positioning prejudges debate itself. In the absence of reasons and discussion, the process of defining people as not belonging takes more fixed and essentialist forms. That’s why, although there are good reasons to worry about antisemitism on the contemporary left, those reasons are not heard. They are silenced by the shared assumption that anyone wanting to give such reasons is really speaking in bad faith in order to collude with the oppression of the Palestinians. The totalitarians of old defined the enemies of the good in fixed categories. They were not people who said this or that; they were people who were this or that. It is the retreat from the politics of persuasion and discussion and its replacement with something more menacing that is the focus of this paper. (For more on struggles over the boundaries of political discourse and antisemitism, see Hirsh 2010). […]
November 19, 2015 at 9:50 am
[…] pioneered the ad hominem response to political criticism with the “Livingstone Formulation“ – in which anybody who raises the issue of antisemitism is accused of doing so in bad […]
March 21, 2016 at 1:34 pm
[…] as the Livingstone Formulation, the purpose of that claim was described by the person who named it, David Hirsch, as […]
April 4, 2016 at 12:04 am
It all boils down to only someone who is Jewish should be allowed a place in any discussion about the Jewish state’s position on the Palestinian (?) issue.
May 1, 2016 at 1:14 pm
[…] Readers are not informed who wrote that backgrounder – which, ironically, opens with promotion of the Livingstone Formulation. […]
May 10, 2016 at 2:25 pm
[…] used merely to attack Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and to silence all criticism of Israel (aka the Livingstone formulation). Both John Rose and Ali then went on to explicitly call for the demise of […]
August 15, 2016 at 3:39 pm
[…] Livingstone formulation. When the claims of antisemitism have nothing to do with Israel/Palestine, insert this into the conversation and claim you are being attacked because of your views on it. (For more on this technique, see https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/david-hirsh-the-livingstone-formulation) […]
October 27, 2016 at 11:20 am
[…] question there. The Livingstone formation working a treat there, she inverted the issue, saying antisemitic accusations are made in […]
November 6, 2016 at 1:54 pm
[…] Later on in the discussion, Jacobson refers to the Livingstone Formulation. […]
March 27, 2018 at 2:09 pm
[…] Finally, the insert presents readers with a dose of the Livingstone Formulation: […]