JOURNALfor the STUDYof ANTISEMITISM

2011] THE NEW INCIVILITY 287
Patterson writes: “There is much for the world to atone for, starting with the
countless UN resolutions against the Jewish state . . . [for] while Mecca
signifies the truth of Islam, Jerusalem signifies the holiness of humanity—
that is what makes it God’s dwelling place . . . Jerusalem is not only the
capital of Israel, it is the centre of the world . . . hence humanity’s need for
Israel.” Maynard counters with “readers hardly need assistance in evaluating
these passages and the motivations behind them.” In the new uncivility,
you can dismiss Jews as being too subjective.
Too Jewish to be objective about Israel was the theme of Margaret
Thatcher’s former press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham. Ingham said that, as
editor of The Private Eye, he would never read a letter to the editor about
Israel written by someone with a “Jewish sounding name,” because he
knew it would be biased. It should then follow that all Christian and Muslim
letters are unbiased purveyors of the political truth.
In the new incivility, it is better to be critical of Israel and minimize
antisemitism while justifying jihad. Like it not, the new incivility is here
and is working hard to convince you that it is politically unfettered in
speaking the truth to Jewish power. Reasonable people may ask what in the
world this has to do in saying a book is academically sound—as is David
Patterson’s latest work—and they would be right.
*Steven K. Baum is the co-editor of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism.